Had an argument with a friend on running an M4 dry in dusty conditions.

AR/M4 AR General Discussion
1

Course he pulled, “I was in Afghanistan and you were not,” and they had to run the weapon dry to keep it from jamming.

Reading here, and listening to other reputable instructors and persons, I know this is wrong, yet I have been searching for reputable sources to prove him wrong and i can’t seem to find one except EAGs Filthy Fourteen. Don’t run an AR/M4/M16 dry.

His argument is that the lube attracts dust and causes build up that leads the weapon to jam, hence, running it dry.

I know this seems like a pissing match between internet commandos, but I also see this as a training decency, a myth, and bad equipment (CLP for one).

My google-fu sucks so where sources I can sue cite for this argument?

ETA: I know there is a member here from AZ that ran his LMT hard and had pics with the dust in the receiver.

2

Better idea: Both of you go shooting, you lube your blaster and he runs his dry. First one to malf has to buy the other guy ammo. :cool:

3

Not sure who’s right. I can see both sides, and certainly, when you’re in SHTF conditions, you do what works, no matter what the manual says. And our members of the armed services are 2nd to none at innovation - improvising and overcoming obstacles.

And I will say, that the book that came with my Noveske upper says recent Army tests have proven that wet is better in dusty sandy conditions, counter to the conventional wisdom that says dirt will stick in lube. They also say you may have to relube every 350-500 rounds in sandy or dusty conditions.

… and my popcorn is ready, so I’ll just sit back, enjoy it, and watch the show.

4

This issue came up when I attended an AR armorer school several years ago when the instructor told us that AR rifles and carbines like to run wet. One of the other people who attended the course told us he ran his M4 with generous amounts of lubricant when he was deployed to Iraq with the U.S. Army. He advised that when he was first deployed he tried running his carbine dry and had a lot of malfunctions, then started to apply a lot of lubricant on the advice of a Marine. His observation was that the M4 was more reliable if he lubricated it frequently and generously.

I would like to hear replies from people deployed to dusty/sandy areas with first hand knowledge as well.

5

No Joke. Sometimes the best way to learn something is try experience it for yourself. try dry, try wet, find out for yourself. What works in Afghanistan might not work at home.

6

That would be great if he wasn’t Canadian…:rolleyes:

ETA: I did find this PDF from Armalight.

http://www.armalite.com/images/Tech%20Notes/Tech%20Note%2062%20Lubrication%20of%20Firearms%20100726%20Rev%201.pdf

7

Bummer. Buddy of mine is the same way, can’t tell him anything since he served. Tried telling me the gunk on his brand new XDm (that he dropped $900 cuz it was a steal!) was lube. Funny how it choked non-stop until he wised up.

8

i was also in afghanistan and ran my m4 wet… with synthetic motor oil none the less and no problems. sure it attracted dust but never gave me any issues when someone shot a recoiless rifle at me

9

Never been to Afghanistan but in the powdered red clay of Ft Sill, OK I can tell you the that fine powdered clay stuck to lube and made for a jam fest. Even then though, didn’t run it completely dry. Maybe a drop or 2 at most of lube on the BCG was the way to go.

10

Been to AFG and Iraq, along with a whole host of other dusty/sandy/muddy places all over the globe.
When it comes down to it, a decently maintained M4 can run for about 200-300 rounds without lubrication, so it is likely that he never actually shot enough to know that what he was doing was not the best thing to do.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

11

I have seen the following article before but I’m not a subscriber so I can’t access the full Army Times article anymore: http://www.armytimes.com/article/20070715/NEWS/707150313/Heavy-lubrication-shown-to-improve-M16-M4-effectiveness

But I found a copy of the article archived in this thread: https://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-6443.html

Heavy lubrication shown to improve M16, M4 effectiveness

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Jul 16, 2007 17:34:05 EDT

Army weapons officials might have found a way to improve the M16 family’s performance in the desert.

“Dust chamber” tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., last year show that M16 rifles and M4 carbines perform dramatically better when the weapon’s bolt assembly is heavily lubricated.

During each phase of the two-part “system assessment” at Army Test and Evaluation Command, testers fired 60,000 rounds through 10 weapon samples of each model.

Treated with light lubrication, new M16A4s and M4s, performed poorly in the extreme dust and sand conditions of the test, according to a January report from ATEC.

But when testers applied a heavy coat of lubrication to the weapons, the test results showed a “significant improvement.”

Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in each phase, the M4 stoppage-rate dropped from 9,836 with light lubrication to 678 with heavy lubrication.

The M16A4 stoppage-rate dropped from 2,124 with light lubrication to 507 with heavy lubrication, results show.

For years, Army weapons officials have preached to soldiers to virtues of applying a light coat of lubrication during weapons maintenance.

But the test results reinforce a recent change in weapons maintenance guidance Army units are practicing in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Col. Carl Lipsit, project manager for Soldier Weapons.

At the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., the Army will conduct a similar dust-chamber test in August, pitting the M4 against the Heckler and Koch 416, the H&K XM8 and FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle.

All of the participating weapons will be treated with a heavy coat of lubrication during the test, Lipsit said.

12

buddies of mine that served in both iraq and afghan both told me to run the ar wet. so thats how i run mine.

13

I was referring to you, not him.

14

I was a SAW gunner for 2 deployments and learned pretty fast that I needed to keep my M249 heavily lubricated. By the time I was issued an M4 on my 3rd trip I knew better than to run it dry. Long story short - in 3 deployments I never had issues from using too much lube. The only lube-related issues I encountered were from not using enough.

15

Here lies your answer OP.

16

Thanks, gang. Maybe this should be a sticky for quick reference to keep this myth from spreading.

17

Having spent many years in both countries and dealt with a wide variety of weapons (as well as my personal stuff here) in the U.S I can honestly say that running it wet had never resulted in a problem. On the other hand running it dry has…

18

Wet “oiled” keeps the carbon and dirt wet and soft so it gets pushed away. I learned that in the late 1970s when running surplus ammo from the Philipinnes. It would carbon up the chamber so what to do when you are at the range. Hose it down with oil. I also use oil on my 10/22 and 22/45 . When they start to gunk up ,oil it and the gunk gets pushed aside.

19

That myth of running it dry or lightly lubed is from the Vietnam era, and in most cases, for storing in an arms room after cleaning. I cannot believe that myth is still being put forth to this day. Even the M-16/M-4 operator’s manual I have dated 1986 recommends a generous coat of lube on the BCG, which means that the primary trainers and troops are not reading the Effin manual. It seems despite what common sense and the manual dictates, this institutionalized BS will never die.

20

IG and F2S are you SME’s for this question.

I have been a rifleman with an M4 and also a 249, 240, M2 and MK19 gunner and I can tell you none of these weapons like to run dry, at all. The MK19 is the worst when it comes to being dry; if it isn’t wetter than a virgin on her wedding night, it is going to give you problems.