AR Sponsor
Posted: 12/11/2004 1:12:18 PM EDT
|
It occurred to me that after I drive my truck, even on a long trip, that I don’t tear down the engine, clean and lube it’s internals, and reassemble it. All I do is change the oil and filter once in a while. Instead of using static lubricant my vehicle motor uses recirculating lubricant which carries the icky ka-ka generated by combustion off to a filter and returns to the moving parts as reasonably clean lubricant. Consequently I don’t have to manually remove the ka-ka and re-lube. I can change the lube, and ditch the ka-ka along with the filter, at my convenience. My question is: Why not the same thing for full and semi automatic guns; particularly AR/M-16 systems which are prone to (to put the matter indelicately) shit where they sleep? I would assume that the principal argument would be that a recirculating lube system would add unacceptable weight and complexity to the weapon. I’m not at all certain that this is necessarily true. Would the added weight be a material issue with a crew-served weapon; particularly as there may be real opportunity here to leave the (non-bore) cleaning gear back at camp? As to the complexity objection (which I believe is really a reliability issue): Is expecting a lube system on a gun to go maybe 50,000 cycles before failing unreasonable in light of expecting a motor to go, hell, I don’t know maybe 39.7 bazillion cycles before failing? I find further question with the weight/complexity issues when I watch the Speed Channel and see what some of those genius engineers do with motorcycles. They have come up with some way cool ways to store and move lubricants and coolants while drastically reducing the number of parts and extra stuff hanging on the main chassis. Furthermore, does not the prospect of using some recoil energy to pump lubricant not also offer some buffering possibilities and therefore the opportunity to lighten up some of the reciprocating mass? Hang on a minute while I get my Nomex coveralls on. OK, I’m ready. I await the explanation from you engineering types that my ex-wife is right and that I’m too much of a stupid asshole to be operating internal combustion-powered mechanical devices. SD |
|
The bolt and carrier are constantly exposed to the exterior environment and I can't think of a way to keep from having to replenish the lube constantly. It may be possible to do this in the trigger / sear /hammer area and it would be relatively easy to install a pump actuated by the cycling of the mechanism. I think if anything I would just stick to an open system that self lubricates with very minute amounts during the operation of the weapon. This could be done with a gravity-feed type system and without having to add very many parts at all. Instead of adding valves and pumps one could simply modify parts that already are a part of the rifle to act as such, by adding some grooves and metered orifices during the machining operations. This still wouldn't keep you from having to periodicaly clean your rifle. The leftover residue from propellant combustion is way too much to be able to avoid this. I do agee with the K.I.S.S. ethic. |
|
Engines, by definition, power the devices that circulate the lubricant. Guns have no engines. Guns are not sealed. Guns must be carried long distances and held up for long periods of time. Even in an ongoing firefight, it isn't that hard to grab a small plastic bottle of CLP and give your bolt carrier a quick squirt. Compare the cost of that plastic bottle vs the cost of designing, building, and maintaining a lubrication system on the rifle. While I'm sure such a system would be *possible* to make as a proof-of-concept, it is certainly not practical, or it would already exist and be in common use. -Troy |
What kind of truck do you drive? A pickup or a commercial truck like a Freightliner? Most diesel engines have bypass filters (toilet paper rolls) and can run on the same synthetic engine oil for a high number of miles and never require frequent changes. The toilet paper rolls just need changing. On a standard automobile, you can install a bypass filter along with a normal filter and get about 20k-25k miles from 5-6qt of Amsoil (I'm not selling it, just relaying the info). Used oil analysis shows that this is indeed possible on most gasoline engines. I just run Mobil 1 and change it every 3k miles to 9k miles. |
|
and held up for long periods of time Troy; I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Weight: As I mentioned before we currently use heavy buffer assemblies and bolt carriers that are heavier than they structurally need to be in order to decrease wear on the mechanism and to keep cyclic rates within the sane range. Would not using some of that recoil energy to pump lubricant provide a buffering effect which would in turn allow lighter reciprocating components? The fact that a gun is not a closed system: Now that is a real damned problem. One I hadn't thought of... I fully appreciate that I'm advocating an increase in complexity but, am I wrong in believing that this would be a far smaller leap in complexity than the leap from Mauser to M-16? Again, what got me going here was looking at what the motorcycle geniuses are doing to move liquids around. They keep making stuff that is lighter, more effecient, and LESS complex that what preceeded. Damn, it's fun to speculate when you're not the guy who has to make it actually work.  SD |
| A recirculating lubrication system..if a weapon is dependant on a system like this and it would be required to make it function what would happen in say arctic environments when less lube is beetr or the desert where less is better.The system would have to be sealed wich is impossible unless technology is perfected like caseless ammo so nothing gets exjected wich would be impossible in a sealed system..I agree not practical or reliable enough although its an inovative idea it falls short in many places.Also the lubricant would have to be able to function in all temperature extremes..if you had to drain the system for different extremes this would make things less practical as well.The more complicated the system the more likely to go wrong with that system. |
is back!
AR Sponsor