Must be all the meticulousness cleaning it goes through since that is the only way an AR is reliable right? Big Grin

-------------------------

"I don't need an edge. I fought in two wars...hell I killed people and I'm not saying I didn't enjoy it!" -Red Foreman

Bullshit, according to USAF SF policy in my unit, every weapon regardless of whether it has been fired or not will receive a thorough cleaning Monthly!
40,000rnds would make the heads of my incompetent CoC explode Big Grin

I just may have to tell them about this & see what happens
It was actually anticlimatic. I wonder how long it will go without keyholing or other major failures. I generally shoot a bunch then sale or trade and get another. I'm going to have to rethink my process as I won't wear many out with that lifespan.

ASK THE CHIEF

Pat,

One day it would be nice - or maybe not - to clean filthy and gauge that bad boy...I would be curious to see throat erosion numbers and upper receiver wear.

Regardless, the thing is still going....on the other hand, maybe you shouldn't clean it.....maybe it won't work well after cleaning Wink

Boltgun
I had this conversation AGAIN with a couple of Soldiers on Friday. They brought up spotlessly cleaning M4 barrels (barrels in general, but the conversation turned specifically to carbine barrels), to which I replied "Why? Mine's got close to 1800 rounds without cleaning now, and it shoots the same size groups as it did when the barrel was brand new. I don't even bother to clean the action that early." They couldn't believe it. I then mentioned Filthy 14, and that really blew their minds. I don't know if they believe me-I suspect they don't, but whatever-but I may have shifted their pair-a-dig-em.

Those of us who know must save those that don't from those that think they do.

"If you count 'three', mister, you'll never hear the man count 'ten'".-John Wayne as Sean Thornton in The Quiet Man

My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.-Exodus 22:24

at some point, chamber/throat/bore erosion and carbon build up/fouling balance out....and everything stays perfectly in spec. Big Grin

____________________________ Face-shooting cavity creeps since 2006 F$%# YOOOOU DORPHIN AND WHAAAAAALE!!!!!

quote:
I had this conversation AGAIN with a couple of Soldiers on Friday. They brought up spotlessly cleaning M4 barrels (barrels in general, but the conversation turned specifically to carbine barrels), to which I replied "Why? Mine's got close to 1800 rounds without cleaning now, and it shoots the same size groups as it did when the barrel was brand new. I don't even bother to clean the action that early." They couldn't believe it. I then mentioned Filthy 14, and that really blew their minds. I don't know if they believe me-I suspect they don't, but whatever-but I may have shifted their pair-a-dig-em.


Strong the Army brain washing is.
We're gonna kill these guys. Then we're gonna eat some Goddamn sandwiches.
What I'd love to know is why we can do the things we're doing today to weapons like the Filthy 14, and yet... The historical record shows that the initial weapons fielded in Vietnam were not able to meet these standards of reliability.

Is it all down to the chrome plating of the chamber and bore? Or, is the tropical climate in Vietnam that much worse than here in the US?

If nothing else, I'd like to know why we see such a huge difference between the two periods, and which changes are specifically responsible for the improvements--If only so we know what to watch out for the next time we try fielding something like the M16.
quote:
Originally posted by thekirk:
What I'd love to know is why we can do the things we're doing today to weapons like the Filthy 14, and yet... The historical record shows that the initial weapons fielded in Vietnam were not able to meet these standards of reliability.

Is it all down to the chrome plating of the chamber and bore? Or, is the tropical climate in Vietnam that much worse than here in the US?

If nothing else, I'd like to know why we see such a huge difference between the two periods, and which changes are specifically responsible for the improvements--If only so we know what to watch out for the next time we try fielding something like the M16.


Nam aint got nothing on Boone County in high summer Big Grin 99 degress, 100% humidity, and tornados, did I mention the tornados??

You can't polish a turd, but sometimes a turd is all you have.

quote:
Originally posted by thekirk:
What I'd love to know is why we can do the things we're doing today to weapons like the Filthy 14, and yet... The historical record shows that the initial weapons fielded in Vietnam were not able to meet these standards of reliability.

Is it all down to the chrome plating of the chamber and bore? Or, is the tropical climate in Vietnam that much worse than here in the US?


The chrome plating allows for corrosion resistance.

IIRC, they were sent without cleaning kits at the beginning.....I would draw that lube would be part of those cleaning kits...no lube no worky.

the other part too, IIRC, is that there was a powder change in the beginning also. The powder was not function friendly....please correct me if I am wrong.

Add no corrosion protection in the chamber, little to no lube required (although they likely had it for the heavier guns) and the powder issue and there is a recipe for problems.

now there have been changes since then, but enough to warrant a monumental chamge in reliability? I doubt it.
Boltgun
quote:
The historical record shows that the initial weapons fielded in Vietnam were not able to meet these standards of reliability.


Let's not forget manufacturing is 30 years more advanced now too. As are lubricants, ammunition etc. The design hasn't changed much, but it is no where near the same rifle.
I just viewed y'alls PDF. My Regular Army gut tells me there's no way this can be true.

______________________________

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -H.L. Mencken

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Haji:
to which I replied "Why? Mine's got close to 1800 rounds without cleaning now, and it shoots the same size groups as it did when the barrel was brand new. [/QUOTE

Haji,
I don't disagree with your response nor the need for excessive cleaning. My carbines now get cleaned every 1500-3000 rounds whether they need them or not...or some times much longer cause I have gotten pretty lazy about it.

However, I think the biggest issue with group size is that M855 is only spec'd to 6 MOA. Thus, you'd have to have a pretty worn out barrel to see a difference.

There are three major elements to the accuracy equation:

1 - Shooter
2 - Rifle (with or without Optic)
3 - Ammo

Bottomline is that these are carbines and 5.56 is a 200M or less terminal ballistic round. However, in theory and military spec it is 500M point and 800 area cartridge out of an M16 rifle. As Marines we prided ourselves on being able to hit a 19" wide x 40" tall black "Bravo" (E Silhoutte) target on a large 6'x6' white background with 10 rounds at 500 yards. However, the target didn't move for 15 minutes. For some reason the enemy rarely co-operates so well on the battlefield.

S/F

"Your moral obligation to your Marines is to train them accomplish the mission, fight, win, survive, and come home alive. All other activities are secondary."

quote:
Originally posted by thekirk:
What I'd love to know is why we can do the things we're doing today to weapons like the Filthy 14, and yet... The historical record shows that the initial weapons fielded in Vietnam were not able to meet these standards of reliability.

Is it all down to the chrome plating of the chamber and bore? Or, is the tropical climate in Vietnam that much worse than here in the US?

If nothing else, I'd like to know why we see such a huge difference between the two periods, and which changes are specifically responsible for the improvements--If only so we know what to watch out for the next time we try fielding something like the M16.


Robert Strange McNamara is dead and can't force the military to use the wrong powder, would be real high on the list.

__________________________
"...maybe we spend more time concerned about the final resting place of whatever bullet we happen to have loaded in our magazines Right Fucking Now..." Pat Rogers

 

Joined: 12/2/05 1:21 AM                     Fairbanks, AK

The story that I read sometime ago, told that Olin or whoever remanufactured the powder from old powder. The result was excessive sodium carbonate content in the powder which clogged up gas tubes.


quote:
Originally posted by hunchbackGrowler:
quote:
I had this conversation AGAIN with a couple of Soldiers on Friday. They brought up spotlessly cleaning M4 barrels (barrels in general, but the conversation turned specifically to carbine barrels), to which I replied "Why? Mine's got close to 1800 rounds without cleaning now, and it shoots the same size groups as it did when the barrel was brand new. I don't even bother to clean the action that early." They couldn't believe it. I then mentioned Filthy 14, and that really blew their minds. I don't know if they believe me-I suspect they don't, but whatever-but I may have shifted their pair-a-dig-em.


Strong the Army brain washing is.
Related to the brain washing is the belief that CLP actually does all three of those jobs well. There are certainly worse things to use, but using a better lube-SLIP 2000-would help immensely. There are a lot of angles to the uphill battle.

Those of us who know must save those that don't from those that think they do.

"If you count 'three', mister, you'll never hear the man count 'ten'".-John Wayne as Sean Thornton in The Quiet Man

My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives will become widows and your children fatherless.-Exodus 22:24

quote:
Originally posted by thekirk:
What I'd love to know is why we can do the things we're doing today to weapons like the Filthy 14, and yet... The historical record shows that the initial weapons fielded in Vietnam were not able to meet these standards of reliability.

Is it all down to the chrome plating of the chamber and bore? Or, is the tropical climate in Vietnam that much worse than here in the US?

If nothing else, I'd like to know why we see such a huge difference between the two periods, and which changes are specifically responsible for the improvements--If only so we know what to watch out for the next time we try fielding something like the M16.


Could it be that the "historical record" is somewhat overblown?

A former co-worker of mine was a Paratrooper in the 173d Abn, in 1967/8. I asked him about the reliability of his M16, he told me they had no problems with them, but, they kept them wet with lube. He described days, where they flew from one firefight to another, I doubt he had time to spotlessly clean his weapon.
He also told me they killed so many with the 5.56 they needed bulldozers to bury all the bodies.( I know I always repeat that, but fuck if it isnt funny.)

Somewhere around here, I read a survey conducted by the Army, of Marines, during VN. Theres is more then one complaint about the M14, and a wish for M16's.

Surely some manufacturing techniques and features have changed, but mostly, I think it's some people understand the need for proper lubrication, now, more then they did in the past.

Bob

----------------------------

"Good landing, good fight, and good luck" James M. Gavin 09Jul43

 "they say if it works, it's a good tactic...I say anything can work once" 

Just read the Filthy 14 article. My visceral soldier response had me reaching for a cleaning kit the whole time i was reading it. I dont think the rifle i cobbled together could put up the same performance.... (GI Bill doesnt always allow for factory built)

I didnt notice anyone mention gas rings. I just did a quick re-cap to make sure im not spouting stupid here. From the article it said that the bolt was replaced at 16k rounds. So was this the only time the gas rings were replaced?

The only reason im asking is after about 3k rounds I had to replace my rings.... Maybe its just my po' boy rig.

Essayons!

Hoppes can't stand filthy 14! Pat you're hammering an industry giant 10K rounds at a time with this project....
"I lost 20 pounds...How? I drank bear piss and took up fencing. How the fuck you think, son? I exercised." ShitMyDadSays
quote:
Originally posted by R.Moran:
quote:
Originally posted by thekirk:
What I'd love to know is why we can do the things we're doing today to weapons like the Filthy 14, and yet... The historical record shows that the initial weapons fielded in Vietnam were not able to meet these standards of reliability.

Is it all down to the chrome plating of the chamber and bore? Or, is the tropical climate in Vietnam that much worse than here in the US?

If nothing else, I'd like to know why we see such a huge difference between the two periods, and which changes are specifically responsible for the improvements--If only so we know what to watch out for the next time we try fielding something like the M16.


Could it be that the "historical record" is somewhat overblown?

A former co-worker of mine was a Paratrooper in the 173d Abn, in 1967/8. I asked him about the reliability of his M16, he told me they had no problems with them, but, they kept them wet with lube. He described days, where they flew from one firefight to another, I doubt he had time to spotlessly clean his weapon.
He also told me they killed so many with the 5.56 they needed bulldozers to bury all the bodies.( I know I always repeat that, but fuck if it isnt funny.)

Somewhere around here, I read a survey conducted by the Army, of Marines, during VN. Theres is more then one complaint about the M14, and a wish for M16's.

Surely some manufacturing techniques and features have changed, but mostly, I think it's some people understand the need for proper lubrication, now, more then they did in the past.

Bob


To some extent, the historical record may be overblown, but there are way too many guys who were there in the pertinent period who reported issues. The recently published The Gun , by C.J. Chivers recaps a lot of the history, with eye-witness reports. Colt had to send over factory reps, who found problems all over the place with the guns.

The fielding, and non-development of the M16, is a tragicomic farce. We only have that weapon as a standard issue item because of a series of piss-poor choices made by the Ordnance guys dating back to the period after WWII. Since they chose to field the M16 as an interim "off-the-shelf" item to fill the gap between the M14 and the SPIW, a lot of the development that should have been done pre-fielding wound up being done once the weapon got to the troops. The early days of issue were a complete nightmare.

I have heard first-hand reports of this, too. One of my old bosses was a fire-team leader in the era when they were first fielding the M16, and he told me how they'd been issued the things right out of the packing boxes, took them out to the zero range, and then right into the war. He had pictures he'd taken of jammed weapons they'd found after firefights, whose owners were dead next to them, with the things broken-down, and improvised cleaning rods stuffed down the barrels trying to get out the stuck cartridge cases. On his second tour, a couple of years later, with the M16A1, he said he'd never had a jam, the entire time that he was in theater.

At the time, I was an impressionable young private, and I wanted to know what it was that made the difference. He attributed it to keeping the weapon clean, having better cleaning kits, and was a complete fiend for making us keep the weapons immaculate. His influence is where I got my habit of what is now considered "over-cleaning".

Which is why I'm looking at stuff like the "Filthy 14", and wondering whether or not the guys that influenced me were ascribing the improvements in performance to the wrong thing...
Pat, FWIW, that's an almost direct quote of what he'd always tell us, every time the issue came up. It may not be the right terminology, but that's the way he phrased it.

I wonder if some of the "keep it clean and dry" mania didn't come from guys like that, who mis-diagnosed what was going on with their weapons, and then passed on what they learned to an entire generation of the Army. The way they used to do things, cleanliness was the sole path to salvation and survival.

Now, I'm not so sure. Did I spend a big chunk of my military career making people miserable in a misguided attempt to enforce unrealistic and useless cleaning standards?

I'm embarrassed to say that I probably did.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
Copyright Lightfighter Tactical Forum 2002-2019
×
×
×
×
×