Gun Cleaning

[45Dave]

thanks twice barrel

Hey Twice barrel, thanks for the great link, a very informative and interesting article. What the heck happened to your finger on page 20? looks line one heck of a hammer hit.

 

[JohnKSa]

I know what I've seen and have provided you something to read more authoritative.

The reading material is from 1927. Up until that time there was absolutely NO non-corrosive ammunition in the United States so the material in the article relating to firing residue has NO relevance to modern non-corrosive ammunition.

It is authoritative but any part of it concerning residue left from ammunition being fired is completely irrelevant to discussing modern ammunition.

If you notice, however, the article does point out on page 8 that steel does not corrode even after 2 weeks at 100% humidity if it is protected by oil.

Do your own research.

You make claims, you provide the proof--assuming you want to be taken seriously. Trying to shift the burden of proof to someone else is poor form and in any sort of polite debate it is considered to be a logical fallacy.

The bottom line is that you can't make wild claims like: "Any residue is corrosive...even oil." without providing proof if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Winterhawk56]

TB, based on what you are saying and profess, predicated on a pre WWII article when corrosive primers were standard use does not make since. Guess I missed the point of your article!

If you believe this, we should not blue our guns, nickel plate or otherwise finish the surfaces much less clean them with oil to include the barrels. You have not stated your case and to go farther I invite you to look up metal/steel and aluminum make up. What causes metals to break down which include carbon steel and stainless steel corrosion/oxidation.

Please keep in mind it make no difference what grade steel you are using IE A500, 505, A325, A425, barrel grade, structural grade, torque metal/prestressed metal or basic carbon it WILL corrode!

When we build a steel structure and I provide my PE stamp one of the requirements is corrosion protection. If you like I will provide numerous book references with individuals much smarted than I and I dare say You also! Clearly stating metal will break down when caustic materials are introduced. Oil was NOT LISTED as corrosive! it is listed as an inhibiter! Hmm go figure!

That being said, guns are made of different grades of steel (metal) and they are all subject to breaking down and or oxidation. If you apply heat and nitrocellulose or extruded cotton base powders you will have a reaction! PERIOD! That reaction is corrosion if left in place, I can assure you if you do not clean the caustic off the metal and provide an inhibitor (OIL) it will break down. Under a microscope it appears to be flakes.

You may barrow some of my engineering books if you like or contact the University of Alabama, University of Southern California, University of California at Santa Barbara or MIT. I will be happy to give you the metallurgy departments to further discuss your statements and or the engineering department!

One last item you are missing, the capabilities of OIL, its an inhibiter! Even coating with oil will not stop the breakdown (but will slow the process more so than without) unless you periodically clean the gun and use that old inhibitor! OIL or synthetic, if you like silicone (careful with the type), WD-40, even grease!

Do you believe everything you read? I don;t and tend to be a show me person! Your article is antiquated, outdated and has no merit. Science changes and we as human hopefully learn from the knowledge!

Ralph

 

[L_Killkenny]

Many of my guns are stainless so that does dictate some of my cleaning proceedures. I rarely clean my hunting guns. Only when they have been exposed to moisture. On my blued guns I've had more issues with exterior rust than anything. I tend to keep them oiled down well but only run patches down the barrel occasionally.

But to answer your question: If you go to the range and your gun stays dry it won't hurt it to not clean it. If it's blued you may want to wipe it down and squirt a small amout of lube down the barrel. Detailed cleaning is a couple times a year or every 1000 rounds or so.

LK

 

[twice barrel]

Gents,

You're hopeless. I'm not here to sell you on maintaining your guns. The point of the link was that this is a... very old discussion... Oil can trap moisture other than from a "wet" gun... Firing residues may produce corrosives or a residue that enhances corrosion subsequently... and that the US Military did not develop cleaning regimines haphazardly.

But yall seem only interested in some sort of currently publicized authoritative findings to prove the obvious to you. If you need that find your own. And telling newbies cleaning your guns isn't necessary anymore because their ammo uses non-corrosive primers or smokeless powder is horsepucky.

TB

 

[JohnKSa]

Oil can trap moisture other than from a "wet" gun... Firing residues may produce corrosives or a residue that enhances corrosion subsequently... and that the US Military did not develop cleaning regimines haphazardly.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that repeating something makes it true. The cleaning regimes you're referring to were developed when corrosive ammunition was being used--that's a completely different story than modern non-corrosive ammunition.

And telling newbies cleaning your guns isn't necessary anymore because their ammo uses non-corrosive primers or smokeless powder is horsepucky.

First of all, smokeless powder does not imply that the ammunition is non-corrosive. Smokeless powder was in use for decades before non-corrosive primers became available. I think you need to research this topic a little because you're speaking very authoritatively but at the same time you're demonstrating by what you say that perhaps you could use a bit more information. Equating smokeless powder with non-corrosive ammunition is a major gaffe.

Second, no one is suggesting that there's no benefit to cleaning firearms but there is ample evidence that cleaning after firing with non-corrosive ammunition is not absolutely required in order to prevent corrosion in most cases. I have one centerfire rifle that hasn't had the bore cleaned since the last time I fired it a few years ago and it is showing absolutely no corrosion. That's in an area where humidity is generally quite high.

In addition, I typically don't clean my rimfires until accuracy begins to fall off or I get function problems due to fouling buildup. Depending on how much I shoot (and what kind of ammunition I use) that can take years. I am having zero corrosion problems with my rimfires. In other words, I have evidence that what you are claiming is "horsepucky" (to use your term) and you have provided no evidence to support your assertions. Again, if you want to be taken seriously you need to provide something verifiable to support your claims.

The idea that cleaning after firing is necessary to prevent corrosion is only accurate in harsh environments or when corrosive ammunition is used. Modern non-corrosive ammunition does not require it.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

TB:

Auto engines are continually (internally) exposed to the very things you say cause failures in a weapon: fire/explosions, oil, water, dirt, etc. Many engines continue to run without regular oil changes. And, about the only time a car's engine is truly cleaned (flushed) is when a service manager cons an unsuspecting owner into spending money on an engine flush that's really not needed in the first place.

If what you say is true with guns, why isn't it true with car engines? I can't remember the last time I heard of a car engine seizing or failing due to corrosion or rust.

As for your earlier response: "I don't need to provide you anything. Do your own research."

Don't need to? Or can't?

 

[twice barrel]

Walt & John,

As stated before, I'm telling you what I've seen myself. Why on earth you now expect me to find an authoritative paper to "prove" my point to you or anyone else is beyond me.

And ridiculing WWII training as now obsolete is foolhardy. The WWI era paper I did locate demonstrated a very thoughtful reasearch by the US Army on the very subject. Do you think what was learned only applies to ammo of that vintage? Jus how sure are you of the components used in every major ammo manufactured today? The chemical compounds are still much the same, the chemical reactions and by-product much the same. I don't know if dust or spiderwebs are corrosive in and of themselves or not but just check out a piece of old farm equipment or an old auto neglected in a barn sometime. Why is it the areas covered in dust tend to be more corroded than those that aren't?

I believe you should encourage people to follow sound practices and not lazy neglectful ones. Dang sure not going to wait until I experience poor performance to service my equipment. Stay up with it and perhaps you won't experience the poor performance which for some reason seems to happen when you least need it to.

Regards,

TB

 

[Big Bill]

In Basic Training I was taught to clean my weapon every night after using it. In a life or death situation having a clean weapon can be the difference between life and death. I still believe it is THAT important!

(BTW. I was trained just as the army was switching from the m14 to the m16 and the soldiers coming back from Nam had some horror stories about the importance of keeping the m16 in clean operating order.)

Besides, when you inspect and clean your weapon often, you become very familiar and proficient with it.

 

[oldman1946]

Cleaning after use

I find it best to clean after use and also after being exposed to the elements. My sidearms cost too much money to have one deveop problems weeks after being exposed to wet conditions from rain or even going for a swim while on my side (it has happened).

Moreso than cleaning, I want to make sure the moving parts (slide, rails, trigger spring, etc) are well lubricated. A friend sustained a serious gunshot wound when his duty weapon was not properly serviced for several months. He needed it and it was gummed up from old oil residue. While it could have been worse, he now wipes it down and lubricates it routinely, even if he does not fully clean it.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

(BTW. I was trained just as the army was switching from the m14 to the m16 and the soldiers coming back from Nam had some horror stories about the importance of keeping the m16 in clean operating order.)

But the horror stories had NOTHING to do with corrosion -- which has been the topic of this discussion. And TB -- nobody is discounting anything about WWII training. Read what we wrote, and don't misrepresent our statements.

We're just noting that Corrosion isn't the issue today that it was in WWII. You're the one making false claims about the danger of corrosion.

I served during the Vietnam era, too, and know that the M-16s were notorious for malfunctioning at that time -- problems that were later worked out -- but made less bad by frequent cleaning. But, please note: it was the environment and NOT the ammo (or corrosion) that caused the problems with those guns. They had similar problems when they started playing in the sandboxes (Iraq, Afghanistan), too... Again, it wasn't corrosion causing the problems. Your claims about corrosion remain unproven and unsubstantiated.

 

[JohnKSa]

And ridiculing WWII training as now obsolete is foolhardy.

The part that relates to corrosive ammunition IS obsolete. I'm not ridiculing anything I'm merely pointing out an incontrovertible fact. Non-corrosive ammunition is non-corrosive. It doesn't require the same maintenance as corrosive ammunition does--not in terms of the specific process used nor in terms of the level of care required.

The WWI era paper I did locate demonstrated a very thoughtful reasearch by the US Army on the very subject. Do you think what was learned only applies to ammo of that vintage?

As far as corrosion from firing residues, yes, that's exactly correct. It only applies to corrosive ammo.

Jus how sure are you of the components used in every major ammo manufactured today? The chemical compounds are still much the same, the chemical reactions and by-product much the same.

Can manufacturers lie? Sure they can--there have been instances of manufacturers selling corrosive ammunition marked as non-corrosive. I have never heard of that being an issue with domestic ammunition but I have heard of some issues with imported ammunition of lower quality. If you aren't buying good quality ammunition then either test the ammunition to see if it's corrosive or simply clean the gun as if it is corrosive.

As far as the chemical compounds and reactions go, yes, they are much the same but they differ in one very important way. They no longer produce corrosive/hygroscopic byproducts. That is precisely why they are called non-corrosive.

I believe you should encourage people to follow sound practices and not lazy neglectful ones.

Now that's another story entirely. I recommend that people clean centerfire guns after firing them. That's what I encourage but that doesn't mean I'm going to lie to them and tell them that if they don't their guns will automatically start corroding.

...the soldiers coming back from Nam had some horror stories about the importance of keeping the m16 in clean operating order.

That's a completely different problem. If you use a weapon in a hostile environment or if you use it heavily then you'd better maintain it assiduously. Just because the ammunition isn't corrosive doesn't mean the gun is protected from other negative effects in the environment or that you won't have function issues if you allow fouling to build up unchecked.