A few words on jammed weapons re: 507th and other unfortunates

[criticalmass]

I was reading the Jessica Lynch threads and noticed quite a few comments about the jammed rifles. Various theories were put forth, such as not cleaning the guns properly or often enough, or some such piddle.

There is another factor that you may not be aware of, but I think it's an important one. There is a lubricant, CLP, that was probably issued to these troops. It's notorious for attracting the fine sand found in the Persian Gulf region, causing jammed weapons. More savvy members of our armed forces stationed over there buy a different lubricant, Militec, with their own money because it works much better in that region.

Soldiers for the Truth posted Small Arms and Individual Equipment Lessons Learned back in June (use control+F to find CLP), as well as Wrong Lubricant, Jammed Weapons, Dead Soldiers.

Fascinating discussion on CLP vs. Militec here--read the whole thing.

A Scripps Howard report: Slippery lubricant rules create conflict for Army

Can we quit blaming the victims now and start hollering at the Pentagon about this?

[Superfly]

1. I started out using

Break Free (CLP) and then switched to Militec. Besides being an outstanding company is the realm of customer service, they have a top-notch product. I now swear by Militec.

(If you write them, they usually send out free 4 oz samples of Militec)

Brian

[HootieMcBoob]

3. I never heard of Militec

all the time I was a reservist we always used CLP to clearn our M16s and I have to tell you those things jammed a lot. Of course we were just reservists and I'm pretty sure the rifles that were issued to us were the oldest around. In fact I was originally issued a VietNam era M16-A1 it was the mid-90s before I got an M16-A2.

I can imagine the difficulty of keeping an M16 clean in those conditions with such fine sand blowing around everywhere. It must be hell. And if there's something that's better and keeps the rifles from jamming so much why the hell are they not issuing that to the soldiers?

[gratuitous]

4. Why use one and not the other?

I have no idea, but I'd suspect that the first place to check would be campaign contributions by the respective manufacturers of CLP and Militec. If CLP's manufacturer has given tens of thousands to Lil George's overflowing campaign coffers and Militec has given only thousands, your answer may be in view.

[OldSoldier]

13. CLP came out in the Reagan era

And at the time, we all thought it was the answer to our prayers.

Before Break-Free came out, we had Rifle Bore Cleaner, which didn't work, and Lubricant, Small Arms, which worked only marginally better. But now there's this New Stuff! Yeah! CLP cleans, lubricates and protects!

In truth, it does three things poorly. There is Teflon in CLP. To get it into your weapon, you have to shake the hell out of the bottle. Most guys don't do this and it shows. It cleans very badly and it only protects if you keep the Teflon in suspension. And when you're done, there's still oil on the weapon.

My favorite products are Hoppe's Number 9 to clean and Dri-Slide to lubricate, plus WD-40, carb cleaner and a Safety-Kleen tank if you can get them.

[Superfly]

5. There are a few reasons why an M-16 jams so easily

with CLP.

1) It's gas operated. That means some of the recoil gas (which has a lot of soot and crud in it) is cycled back to operate the bolt. All that crud builds up most ricky-tic.

2) GI ammunition uses powders that are, IMO, one small step above black powder. They burn DIRTY. All that crud builds up in the chamber, on the bolt face, and in the bolt.

3) The M-16 s a complicated weapon. It has a turning bolt with 9 locking lugs that are made to tight tolerances. A little bit of crud from #1 and #2 above will have an immediate effect of the weapon properly locking after each round.

4) CLP attracts dirt and "gums up" easily. The combination of a dusty environment and all the above factors will cause an M-16 to cease functioning very quickly.

B

[northzax]

2. just one more reason

that the AK-47 is the weapon of choice for insurgents and general assholes everywhere, easy to use, easy to fix, low maintenance. And here we go overengineering everything again.

[Superfly]

6. The M-16 is a very fine weapon

if you take care of it. The AK is produced in bulk by a number of countries and can be purchased by grass-roots terrorists for a hundred buck a pop, brand new.

Now, the M-16 cost the US government $586 a piece.

[solinvictus]

8. Kalashnikov

China's Norinco complex ships em by the thousand for less than $100 American each to Africa.

[northzax]

9. right

the M-16 is superb. under ideal conditions and ideal care. But for the average warlord/terrorist/poorly equipped band of insurgents, the AK is much more efficient.

Yes, they aren't as accurate. Yes, the ammunition isn't as good.

BUT, the best weapon is the one that works, and the AK-47 works reliably under most conditions, requiring less maintenance. And, of course, it's a lot cheaper. Because it's simpler.

Now, think about it. There's a firefight outside your front door. You have a choice between a perfectly maintained m-16 and a perfectly maintained ak-47 to defend your life. you pick the 16, right? no question.

now imagine you are in the desert, everything is dusty, dirty, sandy. You have to pick one of the two weapons, lying on the dirt floor, covered in sand (in a desert, EVERYTHING is covered in sand) which do you pick? do you take your chances with the '16? knowing that, if it works, it's a better weapon, or the '47, which is more likely to actually shoot something?

[Superfly]

10. No, I pick the shotgun

since I am kind of a shotgun afficianado.

[MessiahRp]

16. LOL

I use the pulse rifle from Aliens... that thing has a grenade launcher on the back!

Okay couldn't resist. :)

Rp

[northzax]

31. well sure, if it's a SPAS-15

no much better for clearing a room.

[Bandit]

20. I'll take the hundred dollar AK any day before the six hundred dollar M-16

When I was in the service (decades ago) I chose to use as my personal weapon an AK-47 instead of the standard issue M-16. I happen to have been fortunate enough to have a choice. I never regretted that choice. Regular Army never was given that opportunity. I loved my AK

[solinvictus]

7. M16 system

Stoner's design for the AR-15 was imperfect and overly complicated. As stated before, you have to clean the damn thing at every resting point. I had a 5 digit serial M16A1 in basic and had zero trouble with it, but I kept the thing spotless. The M16 tolerances are too close, meaning that there is little space between moving parts for any of the crud and residue that inevitably will happen during combat use. The things are ammo sensitive as well.
As a contrast, I owned a Chinese Kalashnikov clone that would take any abuse given it. I threw it into the shallow mud of a pond, retreived it, knocked the dirt out of the barrel and fired a 30 round magazine without a single stoppage. I've heard that the US may be adopting the Heckler & Koch G36. I really can not understand this love of the .223 round anyway as it's stopping power, range, and penetration are all lacking.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

15. well

stopping power, range, and penetration are all lacking

That all depends on what you mean.

Stopping-power:

The .223fmj (either the m193, or the m855) has just as much as the vaunted 7.62nato within 150-200 meters. The problem with 'stopping power' occurs after 200 meters, or when using shorter barrel lengths. Using a 14.5 inch barrel (the M4) the range is reduced to 75-100 meters, and using a 10-11 inch barrel (the 'CAR') that range is reduced to less than 50 meters.

Range-

The Army decided back in the 50's-60's that since something like 95% of all 'firefights' occur at less than 300 meters, and 75%, or something like that, at under 200 meters, that range, and round effectiveness over 200 meters, is not such an important thing. The idea is that anything over 300 meters is to be killed by Mortar, Arty, or Air.

Penetration-

The 62gr SS-109 bullet loaded to meet M855 standards actually has better 'hard' penetration than the 7.62Nato (non-armor piercing).

And one big factor in the 'lowly' .223's favor is weapon and ammunition weight. If the infantryman has the choice to carry either weapon "a" and 200 rounds, or weapon "b" and 300-400 rounds, and still be carring the same weight, the choice is nearly always weapon b if they are have nearly the same effectiveness at 'infantry distances'.

[Noordam]

21. I got stuck with an M-14 in Nam and did not like it

Too heavy, I would have loved to carry an M-16 and twice the amno.

[Bandit]

24. You must be a Marine

It was my experience while in the Nam that most Marines got old hand me downs on everything including rifles. I almost felt sorry for you guys but not quite, you more than likely chose your own poison, although a few were actually drafted into the Marines most enlisted.

[Silverhair]

11. Why do we still have that piece of junk M-16?

It is not designed for realistic use on a battlefield. The M-1 & M-14 were extremely reliable under all conditions, because the original design was for soldiers in battle. Ruger's Mini-14, with a couple of minor adaptations is an extremely rugged simple design that uses the 5.56 ammo.

I haven't kept up on the latest AK variants, but I think there is one in 5.56 that uses the basic AK design.

The AK is accurate enough for most battlefield conditions. It is extremely rare for a soldier in combat to be able to make a firing range style shot at 300 meters anyway.

The idea of using 5.56 ammo vs 7.72 is simple. The soldier can carry more rounds of ammo - about three times the number of shots.

The Pentagon needs to get our soldiers good equipment.

[Superfly]

12. If you think the M-16 is complicated, check out

what the DOD guys are thinking about next! The OICW....check it out over at fas.org

[Silverhair]

17. Wow. I have to admit, it looks great if it can be reliable.

BIG IF!!!!!!

[Superfly]

19. It'll be perfect for the

Playstation II generation, that's for sure.

[DrWeird]

30. Well, if it's the playstation II generation we're talking about

this one will pick the P90.

[solinvictus]

14. 5.56 Kalashnikov

The Poles have one: http://hem.passagen.se/dadkri/Tantal.htm
The Tantal is a superior variant of the Kalashnikov. Myself, owning to military experience, prefer the .308 and do not understand the obsession with the .223 as a combat round. The .308 has more than triple the effective range of the .223 and is far more accurate. I'd favor a return to the M14, which soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have begged for as we are scrapping our last reserves of the weapon.

[madddog]

18. The M16

If any of you folks would care to head over to the Isreali Special Forces Website, they give a very good reason why they carry the M16, and/or newer variants. It makes for an interesting read, but they do address the reliability issue.

Almost all of the M16's reliability issues result from early use in Vietnam, and MacNamara's insistence that the rifles not have chrome lined barrels to cut costs. In retrospect, most folks agree that was pretty bad decision, given the heat and humidity found in the jungles of SE Asia. The other was the powder in the original bullet was really dirty, and the combination of rust/corrosion and fouling from dirty powder (exacerbated by the humidity). Within a couple of years, both these areas were addressed, and the rifle became very reliable if maintained correctly.

The debate still rages whether the 5.56 round is powerful enough. I'd probably prefer 7.62 from a static location, but you can't beat being able to carry a boatload more 5.56 if you have to move out. As for accuracy, one trip to Camp Perry over the last couple of years will tell you all you need to know.

The AK-74 (current Russian issue) uses a 5.45x39 round...supposedly, even the Russkies were intrigued by the smaller, lighter rounds we were using in Vietnam, and came up with their own version. The bullet itself is a hair smaller, but a good bit longer, and is supposed to produce some rather significant wounds.

Now, I've heard of some complaints from the guys in Afghanistan that the 5.56 won't do what they need it to at 300 to 400 yards, but that's not a problem in Iraq.

BTW, I use Militec now...a buddy gave me a big bottle...but I still use CLP as well. Of course, the environment at the Izaak Walton League out in Centreville is a lot easier to deal with..but I'm happy to report no jams lately hehe.

[northzax]

26. and there is a great difference

between what special forces can get away with, and what your average grunt can do.

[newyawker99]

33. Hi madddog!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Noordam]

22. I was the one that started the questioning on the Jessica

thread after hearing on 60 minutes that three soldiers M-16 jammed.

Sounds like the Army has played cheap in many areas and we are playing for it now.

$79,000,000 that sounds like a lot but not really. If the newer M-16s are $566 then to upgrade all soldiers in Iraq with them is $79 Million. Not Billion. Not the cost of ONE F-16 plane.........

[funkyflathead]

23. Bad M9 magazines too

I hear the 15 round military only magazines made by Checkmate for the M9 Beretta are junk and tend to jam.

Even the 10 round civilian Beretta USA mags are coveted by GIs despite holding 5 rounds LESS.

[Superfly]

25. The M9 is a whole nuther story...

The military M9 is a piece of freaking shit. Besides firing the underpowered 9mm, it's heavy, cumbersome, and not made to the same tolerances as you Beretta 92FS (civilian model).

The Army should have gone with the Sig 228 in .40 S&W

[funkyflathead]

27. They adopted it in the mid 1980's and most of NATO uses the 9MM Para

I agree it's a lousy gun. They should've went to an upgraded 1911 .45.

I hear the special forces carry .45 ACPs.

The 124 grain FMJ might be good out of subguns but not a pistol.

Remeber though many women can't handle more than a 9mm accurately.

[Superfly]

28. That's why I suggest the .40 S&W

Percieved recoil of the 9mm, and similar paower of the .45

You other comment on women brings something else to mind. The grip on the M-9 is far too large for most women. Shit, it's nearly too big for me and I'm 6'3" and have some paws.

[funkyflathead]

29. Isn't that why they issue the Sig 228 9mm to some folks?

Am I wrong in thinking that??

I will say this your pistol should be only used to fight your way to your rifle (m-16, ect)

[neuvocat]

32. M16's are toys.

Oil or not, if there's any sand in them whatsoever, they will not fire. That's due to a lot of marketeering to influence the pentagon to buy them. AK 47's can practically be dragged in mud and when they're loaded up afterwards, whatever mud was in them is mostly discharged (I don't know if was designed that way but I doubt it).