Best oil for AR15 lubricant

[BlownF150]

Quote:
Times have changed. It has been proven over 10 years in Iraq/Afghanistan that the AR platform guns run much better dripping wet in oil.


Actually they have not. The Army published a recommendation on using extra lubrication for extremely dusty environments based on testing and only at the extremes did those tests demonstrate that running the M16's and the M4's wet improved reliability of the BCG cycling. As with all things there is a compromise and with running an AR dripping wet you introduce lubricant into the chamber which has proven to cause bolt thrust forces to more than double. That's basically were the "reliability" comes in but that also means the bolt and related parts are subject to increased wear and possibility of failure. Running an AR "wet" is not a sound practice and decades of research back that up.

 

[bsmithwins]

Originally Posted By: BlownF150
Quote:
Times have changed. It has been proven over 10 years in Iraq/Afghanistan that the AR platform guns run much better dripping wet in oil.


Actually they have not. The Army published a recommendation on using extra lubrication for extremely dusty environments based on testing and only at the extremes did those tests demonstrate that running the M16's and the M4's wet improved reliability of the BCG cycling. As with all things there is a compromise and with running an AR dripping wet you introduce lubricant into the chamber which has proven to cause bolt thrust forces to more than double. That's basically were the "reliability" comes in but that also means the bolt and related parts are subject to increased wear and possibility of failure. Running an AR "wet" is not a sound practice and decades of research back that up.


I've yet to see an AR that had so much lube in it that it wouldn't cycle.

I have seen multiple ARs that were too dry to cycle.

BSW

 

[BlownF150]

I've seen AR's with broken bolts and galled cam pins with less than 1000 rounds through them because the owner believe the AR needs to be wet to run. I've also seen AR's run thousands of rounds with nothing more than a few drops of CLP and I've personally run more than a dozen full 30-rd mags as fast as I could dump them in a bone dry M16A2 that had just spent all day on the qualification range. Majority of stoppages are mag related and 90% of the rest are due to fatigued or out-of-spec extractor and action springs. M4's are particularly sensitive to both. Pouring oil on the BCG only masks the underlying problem and is the quick resort of the lazy and poorly educated on this topic. Unfortunately many of them are still in training battalions and passing on bad info because they never understood the proper context.

http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-...-m4-unreliable/

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: BlownF150
I've seen AR's with broken bolts and galled cam pins with less than 1000 rounds through them because the owner believe the AR needs to be wet to run. I've also seen AR's run thousands of rounds with nothing more than a few drops of CLP and I've personally run more than a dozen full 30-rd mags as fast as I could dump them in a bone dry M16A2 that had just spent all day on the qualification range. Majority of stoppages are mag related and 90% of the rest are due to fatigued or out-of-spec extractor and action springs. M4's are particularly sensitive to both. Pouring oil on the BCG only masks the underlying problem and is the quick resort of the lazy and poorly educated on this topic. Unfortunately many of them are still in training battalions and passing on bad info because they never understood the proper context.

http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-...-m4-unreliable/


How often should you replace the springs?

 

[BlownF150]

There's no round count really, one of those things you have check as part of routine maintenance. For carbines the action spring spec's between 10-1/16" and 11-1/4", rifles are 11-3/4" to 13-1/2". It's a very wide tolerance so you really have to measure what you have if the rifle or parts are new, write them down, and keep track every 1000 rounds or so. When you start having cycling issues like failure-to-feeds or failure to lock in full battery then it's time to replace the action spring if no other issues are present and you are properly cleaning and lubing. Never try to stretch them either, even the quality springs are cheap compared to what could happen if the spring failed. Extractor springs generally last the life of the bolt, several thousand rounds. I use the stronger 5-coil "gold" extractor springs with the black insert and O-ring in my carbine and the same spring and insert but minus the O-ring in my full length rifle setup. One thing you have to keep in mind are solvents that can attack those rubber inserts and O-rings, they'll soften and you'll start having extraction issues. That's mainly why I stick to good old CLP and I don't use bore solvents anywhere but the bore. Bore solvents are another issue with AR's, some will attack the aluminum of the receiver if left too long or used too often. I use Montana products which are very tough on copper and are safe to use around the aluminum receiver.

 

[jkasch]

I'm sure some of you have seen this, but in case you haven't:

Larry Vickers YouTube

 

[BlownF150]

Larry Vickers is a great guy but he's no engineer. The Army published research that directly contradicts his claims and what he demonstrated is incredibly dangerous and foolish. Look up ARL-TR-5377 published by Aberdeen Proving Grounds on the effects of (excessive) lubrication on bolt face forces. I'm sure some internet SME will support Vickers but I'd love to see them explain how spiking an AR's bolt to over 6000 lbf is a good idea.

 

[Astro14]

I did look it up. All I could find was the data showing additional case loading due to chamber lubrication in the M-240.

Do you have a more specific link relating to the AR-15?

Thanks.

 

[billt460]

Over lubrication will not hurt an AR-15 rifle. In fact it is far more desirable than under lubrication. If you talk with anyone who has experience like Vickers, Paul Howe, or James Yeager, and countless others, they will all tell you they see far more stoppages due to lack of lubrication, then they do from too much. And these people see hundreds of students and rifles, all firing hundreds of thousands of rounds every month.

Lube in the chamber does not last in an AR-15 anyway. If you doubt that run an oily patch through your bore and chamber before a range session. Check the bore and chamber after as little as 5 rounds. They will be dry as a bone. The issues you are talking about are a carry over from the 40's and 50's at Camp Perry, when competitors were dipping the noses of their bullets in Moly Grease. Then chambering and firing them. After just a few rounds the chambers became coated with Moly Grease. There were a few rifles that suffered from sheared bolt lugs, which caused injury to the shooters. Soon after Camp Perry banned the use of moly grease on ammunition.

That is hardly what we are dealing with here. As Vickers demonstrated, over lubrication doesn't harm anything or anyone concerning the AR-15 rifle platform.

 

[BlownF150]

Quote:
I did look it up. All I could find was the data showing additional case loading due to chamber lubrication in the M-240.

Do you have a more specific link relating to the AR-15?

Thanks.



No, no you didn't. Because if you did you would have noticed it stated the M249 and noticed the test setup on the bolt. Also the abstract at the beginning mentioned the M16. Twice. Can't get anymore specific than that but it only matters if you really read the info.

 

[BlownF150]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Over lubrication will not hurt an AR-15 rifle.


Which contradicts DoD testing under controlled conditions that was initiated due to failures of over lubed M249's. The results of which was the basis of a safety bulletin published by USATECS telling soldiers NOT to do exactly what you recommend.

Quote:
In fact it is far more desirable than under lubrication. If you talk with anyone who has experience like Vickers, Paul Howe, or James Yeager, and countless others, they will all tell you they see far more stoppages due to lack of lubrication, then they do from too much. And these people see hundreds of students and rifles, all firing hundreds of thousands of rounds every month.


They can talk all they want. I've been in 17+ years and have not only the experience but an incredible amount of published research that I can guarantee you none of those have even looked at. I also put up a link by a very highly trained and respected shooter that seems to think just the opposite of Vickers, Howe, and Yeager.

Quote:
Lube in the chamber does not last in an AR-15 anyway.


Yes it does, particularly highly refined and additized gun oils.

Quote:
The issues you are talking about are a carry over from the 40's and 50's at Camp Perry, when competitors were dipping the noses of their bullets in Moly Grease. Then chambering and firing them. After just a few rounds the chambers became coated with Moly Grease. There were a few rifles that suffered from sheared bolt lugs, which caused injury to the shooters. Soon after Camp Perry banned the use of moly grease on ammunition.


The issues I talk about come from a 2010 bulletin and research paper. There is also earlier research that is detailed in the early development and adoption stages of the M16. Mr. Stoner really knew what he wrought.

Quote:
That is hardly what we are dealing with here. As Vickers demonstrated, over lubrication doesn't harm anything or anyone concerning the AR-15 rifle platform.


Mr. Vickers didn't have pressure transducers rigged into his rifle to let him know he was hammering his bolt with twice the force it was designed to deal with. Much smarter people at ARDEC did and they figured out what Vickers was demonstrating is pretty stupid.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: BlownF150
They can talk all they want.


That's just it. They don't just "talk". They train thousands of people every year. And each student fires well over 1,000 rounds of ammunition in their courses of fire. They themselves have been in combat in multiple countries. How many people have you trained? Add it all up and they experience more in a week, than you will reading for 17 or whatever years.

It's called real world experience, and it trumps the written word every time. These men have zero reason to lie, and or hand out false information. Their reputations are on the line. They make their living training people with AR-15 platform rifles. Sure, you can dismiss what they say. After all it's still a free country the last time I looked. But I'll take the word of a guy in the field who shoots more in a week, and witnesses more failures, than most people on this forum shoot or see in a year.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: BlownF150
Originally Posted By: billt460
Over lubrication will not hurt an AR-15 rifle.


Which contradicts DoD testing under controlled conditions that was initiated due to failures of over lubed M249's.


And this would be the same DOD that rushed the M-16 into service in the early 60's without Chrome plated chambers, or a forward assist, because they said "it didn't need them"? Lots of graves in Arlington because of that bone headed move.

 

[BlownF150]

Originally Posted By: billt460

They can talk all they want.


Quote:
They don't just "talk". They train thousands of people every year. And each student fires well over 1,000 rounds of ammunition in their courses of fire. They themselves have been in combat in multiple countries. How many people have you trained? Add it all up and they experience more in a week, than you will reading for 17 or whatever years.


Considering I run the ranges for my brigade I'd assume I see quite a few hundred per year at least. Don't make assumptions, you will embarrass yourself.

Quote:
It's called real world experience, and it trumps the written word every time. These men have zero reason to lie, and or hand out false information. Their reputations are on the line. They make their living training people with AR-15 platform rifles. Sure, you can dismiss what they say. After all it's still a free country the last time I looked. But I'll take the word of a guy in the field who shoots more in a week, and witnesses more failures, than most people on this forum shoot or see in a year.


[censored]. Vickers has a show to run and he's in it to make money. Same with the others and for all their experience doesn't mean they are infallible or give the best advice 100% of the time. They make mistakes and over lubing the AR is one of them. Sorry but facts trump everything and you don't have them.

 

[BlownF150]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: BlownF150

Over lubrication will not hurt an AR-15 rifle.


Which contradicts DoD testing under controlled conditions that was initiated due to failures of over lubed M249's.


Quote:
And this would be the same DOD that rushed the M-16 into service in the early 60's without Chrome plated chambers, or a forward assist, because they said "it didn't need them"? Lots of graves in Arlington because of that bone headed move.


DoD actually rushed to fix this issue and as for the M16, well you certainly don't know your history. Typical but at least I'm here to properly educate you. Chrome lining the bores and chambers was actually NOT the issue but a change in the propellant type. In the years leading up to the adoption of the M16 there were numerous configurations tested along with propellant types. Chromed bores, chromed BCG's (yes, the Army actually did try hard chroming the entire BCG and discovered a flaw in the practice), several different propellants all tested for hundreds of thousands of rounds to evaluate durability. The actual problem wasn't that the Army made an arbitrary choice to switch propellants as much as the fact that DuPont couldn't supply the originally chosen propellant in the quantities needed and still have it pass quality checks. So the Army made a choice to use what was available but if it had stuck with what DuPont was delivering the exact same problems would have occurred anyway with even worse performance. The properly formulated propellant actually showed that chrome lining wasn't necessary, it burned clean enough and still provided the necessary gas volume to reliably cycle. You should spend more time on reading and less time choking down whatever you see on TV...

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: BlownF150
They make mistakes and over lubing the AR is one of them. Sorry but facts trump everything and you don't have them.


Nor do you have the experience. And as was proven to you, radically over lubing the AR-15 did nothing except make a mess. The fact you "run a range" means nothing. So do a couple of retired old farts at the range near me. They wouldn't know which end of the magazine to put in a AR-15.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: BlownF150
Chrome lining the bores and chambers was actually NOT the issue but a change in the propellant type.


Not having Chrome plated chambers WAS the issue. If it wasn't they wouldn't have done it. Today's AR-15's most all come with Chrome plated chambers, with the exception of the non combat, Stainless barreled Varmint / Target models. It doesn't matter what type of propellant you run in them because of it. If the original weapons had the chambers Chrome plated like they were supposed to, the Ball propellant would not have been an issue. No more than it is today. But don't worry, as you've proven, common sense isn't always so common.

 

[dwcopple]

I use PAO engine oil on mine. GC 0w30 or Mobil 0W20

 

[bubbatime]

Blown and Bilt are obviously both on opposite sides of a spectrum here.

Blown, what is your issue with lubrication? If you lube an AR generously with lube, it is less likely to jam. The design is such that it is practically impossible to over lube the AR as it will throw off any excess lube that it doesn't need. No one is saying the Vickers lube way is the way of the future. He was just proving a point. If any excess lube puts pressure on the bolt, it will QUICKLY dissipate as the excess lube is thrown off the bolt.

Military bolts are subjected to a high pressure test round (one shot of M197) of 70000 PSI (+ or - 3500 PSI) I highly doubt that any excess lube comes anywhere close to the pressure of firing a M197 round. And even if it did, the pressures would drop substantially after only 2-3 rounds as the lube gets thrown out of the bolt/carrier.

Not to mention that the M16/M4 bolts have a lifespan of about 5K to 8K rounds on average and are replaced during weapon maintenance.

 

[BlownF150]

Originally Posted By: billt460

Nor do you have the experience. And as was proven to you, radically over lubing the AR-15 did nothing except make a mess. The fact you "run a range" means nothing. So do a couple of retired old farts at the range near me. They wouldn't know which end of the magazine to put in a AR-15.


What the [censored] makes you think you know anything about my experience? Pretty sure it trumps yours by a few orders of magnitude alone.


Originally Posted By: billt460
Not having Chrome plated chambers WAS the issue. If it wasn't they wouldn't have done it. Today's AR-15's most all come with Chrome plated chambers, with the exception of the non combat, Stainless barreled Varmint / Target models. It doesn't matter what type of propellant you run in them because of it. If the original weapons had the chambers Chrome plated like they were supposed to, the Ball propellant would not have been an issue. No more than it is today. But don't worry, as you've proven, common sense isn't always so common.



Wrong. It was the choice of propellant first and foremost and having chrome lined chambers would NOT have mitigated the issue. Your half-cocked understanding of the AR is becoming extremely obvious. AR's come with plenty on non-chrome lined, non-stainless steel barrels too. Some of the best barrels from Kreiger and other custom shops. They know that chrome lining isn't paramount for reliability and is only marginal for increasing durability. Something a civilian shooter shouldn't even worry about but they do because they don't know better. All I've proven is that you are incredibly ignorant and content to remain so.