M4A1 Questions

[B. Lahey]

Yep, ain't that the damndest thing? Goes against all the previous wisdom, but it's apparently good to apply a little extra lube to M4s in dusty conditions. Lots of people have been talking about this test, and the reports from the field that came afterward that seem to confirm it.

Best I could come up with on short notice (there's lots more discussion out there, do a google search):

The dust test exposed the weapons to the same extreme dust and sand conditions that Army weapons officials subjected the M4 and M16 to during a “systems assessment” at Aberdeen last year and again this summer. The results of the second round of ATEC tests showed that the performance of the M4s dramatically improved when testers increased the amount of lubrication used.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/1...sttest_071217/

And yeah, I know armytimes has a grudge against the M4, but they seem to have reported on this test correctly. They said pretty much the same thing as everyone else who covered it.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What Al said. What you describe is typically a feed issue. Also you can load HK mags to 30, they are designed to be longer than USGI mags for just that reason.

I personally have little experience with the HK mags; but I know guys who shoot a LOT. They report the HK mags start out great but have short lifespans in heavy use. Turns out the stainless steel bends, dents and splits much like aluminium and the extra weight of the steel mags makes up for the extra structural strength.

[450NE]

Okay. I see what your source is.

Does NOT mean I agree. Aside from any possible agenda that the people doing the test may have had, the test just doesn't make sense.

They tested the guns heavily lubricated and overly lubricated. Where's their test on a dry gun?????

Take two pieces of glass ... glass is smoother than any part on that gun. Spray your favorite lubricant on one piece. Now dump sand on both pieces. Pick them up. Which one has sand sticking to it?

The whole tube system has been an issue since the gun was developed. I'll grant you that. And I was on the ground when the first 16's with FA's showed up. I know it's not a perfect gun.

But if you take reasonable care with it, it will sure do the job.

I can't get over the fact that they didn't test the gun dry. And when I say dry, I mean wiped off so that sand DIDN'T stick to it.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

45One, the Army did three lubrication tests that year alone in dust conditions and every single one replicated the results from the earlier 2001 Crane Dust Tests that compared wet lubes to dry lubes for desert use.

The Crane test summary is basically this: The wet lubes won every time because while they do attract more gunk initially, the presence of the wet lube allows the gunk to migrate to non-critical areas of the firearm. Dry lubes do not attract as much gunk; but once that gunk gets between the chambers and locking lugs (and that happens quick in blowing, fine, sand), it doesn't allow it to move as much.

The Crane test also tested a bone dry M16 as well. It malfunctioned about six times more frequently than the CLP M16 (although it still beat four of the other tested lubricants). I've posted a quick summary of the results of the Crane test as lubetest7.jpg and the chart showing malfunctions as lubetest22.jpg.

The key to reliable AR15/M16/M4 operation is:

1. Good lubrication. ARs can be run wet and dirty; but not dry and dirty. Key areas for lubrication (where you should see a visible sheen of oil) are every part of the bolt but the bolt face and face of the locking lugs, cam pin, and the rails of the bolt carrier.

2. Good magazines. I know USGI and PMags work, so I don't bother trying anything else.

3. Good ammunition. I've never had any stoppage with Black Hills. Beyond that, the ammo that has been most successful has been brass-cased, military type ammo such as Guatemalan 55gr, Federal XM193, Federal AE223, Winchester Q3131A, etc.

[B. Lahey]

I don't blame you at all for being sceptical, I didn't buy it either at first. But now it's not just a test result, those results have been duplicated in the field. It's no longer theory, it's just a weird fact that nobody could have predicted before it was tried.

Your thought experiments are valid for a lot of other arms, heck it's been the standard wisdom pretty much forever, but with the M4 in dust it's the opposite.

Like I said, it's the damndest thing. I don't expect you to take my word for it, go on and dig around some more. It's the way it has shaken out.

[450NE]

No ... heck ... I guess, it's okay if that's what they say.

It's really funny and I'm not making this up. I went to the gun show today. I haven't been in a while. Down at the end of one row was some guy selling some kind of dry lube. He was demonstrating how superior it was to wet lubes for this exact reason we are discussing.

You guys are specifically talking about the M4. My question would be is there something different about the M4 as opposed to other M16's that I don't know about? I'm not talking about FA's or slab sided vs A3's. I mean something that would explain why the M4? Or is it all the M16's?

I have a young friend who just got back from Iraq. He's a Recon Marine and a Mustang on top of that. We've talked about a lot of fun things he got to play with but we haven't really discussed the M4 much. I am going to email him and ask him what he and his buds thought about it. I'll report back.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I mean something that would explain why the M4? Or is it all the M16's?

The better wet than dry results are for all M16-family of weapons, though I think only the M4 and M16A2/A4 have been tested officially.

[B. Lahey]

Pmags are the fancy new plastic AR magazines made by Magpul. I haven't shot mine much yet, but they seem to live up to the hype. Tougher than aluminum mags, lighter (and possibly tougher) than steel mags.

They were hard to find for a minute there, but they seem to have kicked up production and they are starting to show up for sale again.

[Firepower!]

I am taking out my M4 tomorrow. I am going to shoot about ten or so mags. Clean it good and lubafiy it heavily and store. Its not my to go weapon since its very expensive here. My to go weapon remains AKSU74.

[Firepower!]

[450NE]

You want to know how you know you are getting old? You forget where a thread is that you want to write to !

Since I was on this thread and since I was the only guy left who thinks that too much oil is bad I decided to look around.

I have a friend who just got back from the sandbox. He's a Marine. He's been active the last fourteen years. He's done two tours in Iraq and is headed for Afghanistan soon. He's a Mustang. He came up through the ranks and is now a firebreathing Captain who keeps his men squared away. He's been a Recon Marine. Hell, he's done it all and continues to. If I could be younger I'd be trying to be him.

Anyway, without giving away anything about why I was asking, I asked him about the M4 and what he thought about it. This is what he had to say:

"When I enlisted and up until the beginning of the war we were using the standard M16A2. Right when the war began the USMC started buying the M16A4 which we still use. It has a 20in barrel and the rail system around the barrel. Since the war has been going on we've been using more and more of the M4. It's a good carbine for what it is made for. The government version is still 3 round burst and has a 14.5in barrel. The civilian version has to have a 16in barrel and no auto features. I have one myself. The Class 3 ones that you can get as a civilian are pretty expensive, but good buys and some are even investments.
"For days sights we use the Trijicon ACOG, but I use an Elcan Spectre on my own rifle. Its the new sight that the Army SF and many USMC Recon units are switching to. As for the night, we don't have a dedicated sight yet, but there gong to field one sometime this summer. Thermals are great, but if the ambient temperature is high (Desert) then they don't help so much. In the mountains, snow and cold weather they are probably great

"We use burst, but very very rarely. It is discouraged, unless you are first through a door or something like that. It is very hard to hit anything further than 10-20yds unless you practice with it. The way the trigger is set up, when you flip to burst and pull the trigger it fires 3 rounds at a very high rate of fire and then resets to fire another burst. You wont get stuck with a trigger set to just fire one round accidentally.

"Also, FN Herstal makes all of our M16A4s, M249 and M240 machine guns. Colt only has the M4 contract left and their M4s are generally lower quality than the M16A4s. The trigger on the M4 is horrible compared to the M16A4.

"The guns do ok in the desert, you just have to keep them clear and use very light lube. Too much and it will gunk up really bad. The M16 family of weapons isnt really too bad to be honest. I bought an LWRC upper and like it quite a bit. It is a piston driven type like the HK416. Ive had to send it back to LWRC for some quality control issues, but when it works, it works. THe HK gun is also really good and they've done some great bolt carrier and trigger improvements to allow for safe and reliable full auto fire."

[Firepower!]

I dont know why your friend thinks that the government model is still 3 round burst..... That was M4, which was replaced with a full auto version, M4A1 Carbine.

And I have it so there is no arguing that. That said, I assume that if your friend does not know the current model ho can he comment on something more complex with respect to maintainance.

[450NE]

And that's why I hate calling tech support....

I'd give anything for you two to meet and discuss it.

All of a sudden you know everything about the weapon when your earlier questions show otherwise.

It might interest you to know that I just bought a brand new M16A2 that is marked burst but is factory full auto. Now, how in the world did that happen?

Hint ... it wasn't an accident.