I have experimented with just a light coat of oil, enough to be considered lubricated and ready to fire. I have also tried running it very wet.

I have noticed that running it "wet", with a significant amount of oil tends to cycle better. But with one cautionary detail to be considered, more carbon fouling/lead build up.

A light coat runs good too, less build up, but not as smooth as running it wet.

I run the bolt/rail assembly very wet. After each shooting session, I detail strip the said assembly. Having applied a good amount of M-Pro7 gun oil LPX prior to the shooting session, the bolt cleans up quite easily by wiping it down with a paper towel and a tooth pick to get into the rail channels.

__________________
-Andy

Don't know . . . 'cause it runs fine with just a drop of CLP on each rail . . . and is not nearly as messy.

__________________
Ralph T
NRA Benefactor Member

Seems like you answered your own question. I run all my guns wet. I was told once by a very good gunsmith that the only oil wasted on a gun is what drips off the end of your elbow. Don

__________________
"Don't worry be happy"

I just wondering if anyone has had any issues with running too wet and causing to much build up from all the oil causing malfunctions.

Leading occurs in the barrel. You're saying that you are getting increased leading because you have a high quantity of oil in the receiver?

__________________
Stu

i think he just means **** in the reciever not leading... my rails are polished so a very light coat is more than enough.. to much oil just leave a stick place for trash to build up but these guns are easy to clean so put as much or as little as you want and dont worry about it.. i think you guys get way to excited when it comes time to clean your gun ... strip it hose it down with wd40 and blow it out with an air hose put a couple drops of oil back in it and wipe it down... its not that criticle if it takes more than 5 min for you to clean your m&p you may need to get some help... cause you may have issues you need to work out

__________________
07/SOT2
NRA Instructor

LOL, I better go get help. Just kidding. But yes, I do mean **** in the receiver. Not lead.

Belt, do you use WD40 for all of your guns? How long have you been doing this for? Just curious as I am always trying to find ways to make things more efficient. I have been using various gun solvents which are sometimes expensive and they all seem to do the same thing.

I use Break Free normally, and I run the gun fairly wet.

Mine runs great.

On rimfires ive been doing this for years.. Rimfires dont burn as hot as centerfires so carbon is usually not that big of a problem. But grit and grim is a huge problem with these guns and wd-40 is a cheap cleaner/lube so using it to lossen the grit and grim is a cheap way of doing this that wont hurt anything like some of the gun scrubes will.. you can use a old tooth brush or what ever to help those areas that have been packed like th bolt face and breech... but the air hose will remove 95% of it... then relube with clp or whatever you like and enjoy... guns are a hobby its not right to make it unenjoyable by having to spend the rest of the weekend cleaning it

__________________
07/SOT2
NRA Instructor

I second that

Thanks, guys, I had that question as well. Looks like I'm going to run my M&P 15/22 in the middle, semi-wet. True, not so bad with hot gases but more so with grit and powder flakes. After a good cleaning I have been using for years now, Tetra Gun Lube, it is great stuff and I run all my 5.56, 45 cal., 9mm and 40mm and they run clean and error free.

Just lightly oiled for me. My buddy's was fully lubed and it seemed to attract more gunk from the notoriously dirty .22lr round.

...and there's nothing wrong with having a beer and leisurely cleaning your guns, even if it takes more than five minutes.

__________________
This...is my BOOMSTICK

All my AR run wet.

Minimal to no oil, however i ran mine hard in a rain storm last summer and it didnt mind being drenched in water. :P

I've been shooting mine, about 1,500 rounds so far without lubing or cleaning. Shoots fine.
My Ruger 10/22 was purchased in 1973 and only cleaned and lubed twice.
Probably about 10,000 to 15,000 rounds over the years and still a tack driver.
Thats the beauty of 22 rimfires.

i also tend to run my rimfires on the dry side. remmy dry lube (wax) like the 22 rounds goes on most internals. every now an then ill use a little oil on the recoil springs.

i ran my 15/22 wet one time, and had a ton of malfunctions.

I like just a little bit of oil on the rails the bolt rides in.

People talk junk about W-D 40.
A little History:
Fascinating Facts You Never Learned in School
In 1953, a fledgling company called Rocket Chemical Company and its staff of three set out to create a line of rust-prevention solvents and degreasers for use in the aerospace industry, in a small lab in San Diego, California.

It took them 40 attempts to get the water displacing formula worked out. But they must have been really good, because the original secret formula for WD-40®—which stands for Water Displacement perfected on the 40th try—is still in use today.

Convair, an aerospace contractor, first used WD-40 to protect the outer skin of the Atlas Missile from rust and corrosion. The product actually worked so well that several employees snuck some WD-40 cans out of the plant to use at home.
A few years following WD-40's first industrial use, Rocket Chemical Company founder Norm Larsen experimented with putting WD-40 into aerosol cans, reasoning that consumers might find a use for the product at home as some of the employees had. The product made its first appearance on store shelves in San Diego in 1958.

In 1960 the company nearly doubled in size, growing to seven people, who sold an average of 45 cases per day from the trunk of their cars to hardware and sporting goods stores in the San Diego area.

In 1961 the first full truckload order for WD-40 was filled when employees came in on a Saturday to produce additional concentrate to meet the disaster needs of the victims of Hurricane Carla along the U.S. Gulf coast. WD-40 was used to recondition flood and rain damaged vehicles and equipment.

In 1969 the company was renamed after its only product,
WD-40 Company, Inc.

In 1973, WD-40 Company, Inc., went public and was listed Over-The-Counter. The stock price increased by 61% on the first day of listing.

Since that time, WD-40 has grown by leaps and bounds, and is now virtually a household name, used in numerous consumer and industrial markets such as automotive, manufacturing, sporting goods, aviation, hardware and home improvement, construction, and farming.

In 1993, WD-40 was found to be in 4 out of 5 American households (it seems everyone has a can or two) and was used by 81 percent of professionals at work. Sales had grown to more than one million cans each week.

OVER THE YEARS...

The most interesting piece of WD-40's history is the uses for the product, now numbering in the thousands. Over the years, thousands of WD-40 users have written testimonial letters to the company sharing their often unique, if sometimes just plain weird, uses for the product—many of which are shared in other parts of this Web site.

The uses include everything from silencing squeaky hinges and removing road tar from automobiles to protecting tools from rust and removing adhesive labels. But they get a lot crazier than that. Some of the more interesting stories include the bus driver in Asia who used WD-40 to remove a python snake, which had coiled itself around the undercarriage of his bus, or when police officers used WD-40 to remove a naked burglar trapped in an air conditioning vent.

Think those are crazy? Check out the Official List of 2,000+ Uses here, and more Myths, Legends & Fun Facts.

The most interesting piece of WD-40's history is the uses for the product, now numbering in the thousands. Over the years, thousands of WD-40 users have written testimonial letters to the company sharing their often unique, if sometimes just plain weird, uses for the product—many of which are shared in other parts of this Web site.

WD-40 Facts & Myths | WD-40 Ingredients

I use W-D 40 mainly as a cleaner. I also use 3in1 oil. 3-IN-ONE Oil Corrosion Protection | Stop Rust, Lubricate & Protect where needed. I have also found that Slick 50 works good where heat is the problem.
I am sure there are better products out there.

But being older I just use what I know works.

Guy22

wd 40 will start your lawnmower (starting fluid)

__________________
N2GUNS

I was told by an old gunsmith not to use WD40 on a gun
because it will evevtually gum up the action. Because of
that I have never used it on a firearm. I have used it on
tools and such as a rust prevenative, and I find that it
does not prevent rust for long. Plain oil seems much better.

Dead eye 22- Kind of proves my point. "I was told by an old gunsmith not to use WD40 on a gun because it will evevtually gum up the action."

What proof did he provide??? Was it the old part? Or the gunsmith creds? Or both?

I make my living with tools. I have used WD40 to clean and protect them from rust for 35 years. I have no rusted tools.
So the question is(not prevent rust for long)how long is long?
Not sure what "Plain oil" is???
Looked at wally world today did not see any can saying plain oil.

I'm just reporting my own experince. Not what someone told me.

Sorry not trying too bust your chops!!! I will use what I know works. Please use what you want !!!

Case in point. I brought home a new pistol last night. It came in a plastic hard case. It had four adhesive labels on it. Two from the maker, one from the importer, and one from the shop. Sprayed all four with WD40 last night and wiped clean this morning. Not a trace.

Why did I use WD40??? Because I knew it would remove these labels, with no damage. How did I know? I had done it before!

I am sure there are better products out there. For a cleaner for WD40 price, I have not found any. I use Rem oil, CLP, Hoppes, etc. for Lube on guns.

Don't beleive everything some so called expert says. Often their can be a hidden agenda, usually something they sell as better.

I read this today about .22lr ammo. Kind of the same thing.
Tactical22.net - Tactical 22lr Rimfire Reference

The double strike firing pin has (unfortunately for you) been around for awhile. Many .22LR SMG's over the years have incorporated a version by having twin fixed firing pins precisely for the reasons you described, enhanced reliability of ignition. And you are correct in assuming that if one area of a .22 rim lacks enough priming compound to detonate, the other side is probably fine...something I suspect most .22 shooters have discovered over the years by taking misfired rounds out and reinserting them to the pin strikes a different location on the rim - BANG, so clearly a double pin system would indeed double the probability of ignition and the incidence of misfire with the .22LR would cease to be a topic of such hot debate.

The simplest reason .22's don't normally have twin pins is...well, simplicity - and manufacturing cost. Since the average consumer (and unfortunately the average manufacturer) views the .22LR as a recreational cartridge, little interest has been displayed in addressing those aspects of the cartridge design, or "system" design that would lead to .22LR ammunition on par with modern center-fire ammo for ignition reliability. There is also consumer resistance and reductionist example: one major way to improve the .22LR would be to make it like the .22 Magnum with the case larger in diameter than the bullet, and have the bullet properly seated IN the case rather than "crimped on" - a design that goes all the way back to the very first .41, .38, and .44 rimfire conversions in post-Civil War cap-and ball revolvers.

Placing the bullet inside the case would result in greater cartridge integrity and less propensity to be damaged by mechanical handling in feed systems. Such a change in case-to-bullet would mean the classic .22LR as it has existed since 1857 would be at an end, which would of course impact the cost of all "modern" ammo just as it has with newer designs such as the .22 Magnum and .17 caliber series.

Double firing pins would improve reliable ignition, but this would add to the cost of ever-more-expensive firearms, yet I suspect better QC during manufacturing would effectively eliminate misfires. Bear in mind that if the average consumer "expects" his ammo to fail, there is little incentive for the maker to work diligently to improve the product.

Also, what proper, double-blind studies have been done to validate the current state of .22LR reliability? In the modern age of anyone with a computer and a gun becoming an "expert" and making sweeping - if erroneous proclamations based on a minimal experience with a limited sample size, and this of course does nothing to help matters. For every HONEST review there are many dishonest versions put up by individuals with a particular agenda and personal bias. Say some goob doesn't think we should buy imported ammo....he will consistently blast Aguila ammo, while heaping sweeping praises on say, CCI. If ONE reviewer claims a particular round failed excessively (his perception) in a certain brand gun, yet another shoots the same ammo in the same brand gun with 100% reliability, CLEARY there is a problem with authenticity. I see a great many "reviewers" who see themselves as upholding some "standard" by blasting one brand while supporting another, and whether they actually USED the blasted brand is irrelevant - to them. We see this in the modern world of auto reviews...people will deliver a "review" of a brand new model they have NEVER driven simply to get in their kicks so to speak!

Then comes "reviewer bias expectation," or the tendency for people to support the claims of those they perceive as having greater knowledge or standing as part of the normal human desire to "belong" to a unique group. These people, upon seeing a negative - or positive review by "an expert" will be drawn to tailor their own experience in accordance so as to be seen as "in the know" just like the presumed expert.

The problem is, when it comes to firearms and ballistics, most arm-chair experts, aren't, and TREMENDOUS bias exists due to the entirely unscientific manner of reporting going on in the world today...and I didn't even mention PROFESSIONAL bias such as that exhibited by so-called "icons" of firearms lore who glom on to an idea, however archaic, and use their perceived standing in the shooting world to push and push the notion to the point where it becomes "reality." I am reminded of one such iconic "expert" who, a few decades back proposed the notion of some ridiculously outdated, bolt-action short rifle, chambered for what HE considered the only VALID cartridge, to be a "Scout Sniper" rifle....damned if it didn't start showing up in the real world...didn't matter that for the intended performance envelope a modern semi-auto, utilizing a much smaller (but less manly) cartridge could hit as well at ANY range, and do so faster, longer, with less shooter fatigue....by God the GURU had spoken.

Same notion goes for the .45 ACP....40 years ago MOST of the world realized the .45 ACP was pretty lame....big, slow, round bullet traveling SLOW. Back then Magnum revolvers were the heady, elixir of the "in-the-know" self-identified "shootist." Then came the "first explosion" in firearms information technology...the proliferation of magazines and other publications devoted to the subject. That also began the careers of the "icons," who of course brought their BIAS to the subject which was taken as "gospel" by most. Regardless of facts - regardless of actual shootings, many factors induced the shift from the revolver to the semi-auto for police use and self-defense....not the least being a perfectly valid engineering, and ballistic reason to toss the double-action revolver, however THIS was not the reason put forward, nor is it the reason in common knowledge today...it was all about the "mythology of stopping power" which is just that - mythology. A hit to the central nervous system with a .22LR, or even a pellet will drop a 300 pound, drug-crazed man just as fast as will a hit from a .460 Weatherby Magnum. A hit NEAR the central nervous system has the same chance of absolutely meaninglessness to the person shot, regardless of whether it be from a .30'06 or .22LR, yet shooting mythology simply cannot accept this level of uncertainty.

The FBI, probably one of the most highly recognized police agencies when it comes to SCIENTIFIC approach, doffed the 9mm for the "10mm" after a shootout in which the FBI guys, employing ZERO tactics, but fully in belief of their own superiority, attempted to apprehend two bank robbers...the problem was, one of the bank robbers had a Mini-14 rifle. In the resulting shoot-out, all the FBI guys were severely wounded and two killed. The single bank robber with the Mini-14 took no less than 14 hits without going down, during which time he delivered withering rifle fire...mind you the FBI guys were employing exotic tactics like trying to "charge him" while holding a ballistic vest in front....a vest meant to be worn, but not, yet then foolishly thought to be used as an on-the-fly shield. A vest NEVER made to be "proof against rifle fire," yet the person holding clearly lacked any grasp of that fact.

AFTER the shootout, the FBI saved the 10mm from the scrap-bin of history by adopting it as their new standard...but not the REAL 10mm, the "attenuated" 10mm which was really the ballistic equivalent of the....45 ACP! So they dumped the "ballistically inferior" 9mm which, by the way has virtually equal kinetic energy to the ..45 ACP and replaced it with the 10mm "light" which became the basis of the immediately introduced .40 S&W with .45 ACP ballistics. So today we end up with three primary auto pistol cartridges that in terms of actual WOUND ballistics are indistinguishable, and in terms of actual field shooting - identical, YET let that not be the end of it because too many people are making money from promoting one or the other.

I'd be interested to know just how many "gun experts" have actually seen handgun wounds in both an ER and surgery. I'd be interested to know how many "gun experts" have SEEN people hit by .45's WALK into the hospital little worse for the experience, versus the number hit by .22LR's fired from home-made "zip guns" carried in by Ambulance. Unfortunately there is a great deal of "lore" surrounding particular calibers with little....LITTLE scientific support.

All this tangential filler serves to explain why the .22LR will never be "improved" from the standpoint of science, nor would such an improvement guarantee commercial success from the stand point of consumers - ESPECIALLY "gun people?"

My OWN experience working in trauma for 30 years caused me to realize I could carry a flipping .22 mini-revolver and be just as well-prepared for a street encounter as if I were packing my 1911....and, like MOST I at some level of thought within my "reptilian brain" I simply cannot escape the notion that the bigger caliber is better despite career experience that so clearly indicates otherwise. During the Reagan attempted assassination, four people were hit by .22 rounds fired from a SHORT barrel....all four went down and not ONE jumped back up and "laughed it off" with a lot of stupid posturing about how anemic the .22LR is, yet THAT video "evidence" of the efficacy of the .22LR fired from a snub-nose revolver is patently ignored by crowd that simply cannot "believe."

It's kind of like the "faked" moon landings....the LRO specifically photographed the landing sites complete with highly visible HUMAN tracks, yet the "conspiracy" that we never landed on the moon still abounds and NOBODY can interdict it because to those who ascribe to it, any EVIDENCE to support the landing is fake, and any notion to discredit it is taken as fact. The same people believe there is a "face on mars" looking our way, but PHOTOGRAPHS of the lunar lander sitting there on the moon are FAKE...same mentality in the "gun world."

The .22LR is an ideal "social cartridge" quite because it is cheap, low recoil, and will solve just as many of life's problems as will a 9mm or .45 ACP - but where is the FUN in that reality?

My hope is that with the recent proliferation of .22LR "tactical" weapons, the ammo makers AND the weapons designers will end up in a defacto competition to force the improvement of both the cartridge and the guns that fire it from a profit motive aspect. The emergence of the "goober consumer" who can jump online and post ANY sort of outrageous claim on ANY forum can in fact serve to enhance product improvement as gun and ammo makers scramble to not see their name posted "in the negative" too often....we shall see.

Guy22

Guy 22- Dude,

WD40 sucks for guns. Fact. Why did you just type a doctoral dissertation meltdown thread? Are you mad bro?

Guy22;
As far as not knowing what "just oil" is (I thought it would be
self evident), it is that stuff that is pumped out of the ground
and distilled to produce products known as 3in one oil, and
various gun oils of approximately 3-5 weight. In my personal
experence, these light oils do prevent rust longer than does
WD40. Maby you have experenced different results, if so fine.
I would hope we ( meaning all of us that frequent this fourm)
could have civil discourse and express various opinions and
experiences with out being condemed for doing so.
Hay, it's oil and WD40 we are talking about- it's not the end
of the world. Why so much anger? I would think anger would
be better dirrected to the current inhabitants of the White House
rather than on your fellow enthusisast. To put it another way -
don't sweat the small stuff.

I've probably used WD-40 for everything imaginable (almost...LOL). Never for my guns except for exterior protection against the elements when it's raining. I might have to give it a go on the internals. Love it and it smells so good! On a side note and not one that I've seen addressed............what will excess oil do to a bullet? I think I have my own answer, but here's my findings. I just recently acquired a Marlin 883 bolt action handed down to me from my Grandfather. I love this little .22WMR! I guess I forgot to run the boresnake down the tube fed magazine when I cleaned and lubed everything and the next time I pulled it out of the safe, the first couple of rounds in the tube fed magazine were really wet with Remoil and had discolored significantly. The next morning I went out to sight in the new scope and I made sure these wet rounds were the first to be fired. Both fired perfectly. Now we're talking about a couple of rounds being soaked in remoil for a couple of days in a tube fed gun and I don't know how one would come across this in the 15-22 other than a round in a wet chamber during storage, but can over oiling effect ammunition? Yes, I do store one or two guns with a round chambered in a house without children and under lock and key. No flames please!

I used to be a law enforcement officer. We were told by
our firearms instructor of an incident where an officer was
killed because his revolver failed to fire even though he
pulled the triger all six times( they could tell this by the
primer strikes). The unfired rounds were taken to the
lab to determine why the rounds failed to fire. The results -
WD40 (I am not making this up) was found to have creaped
into the primers and deadened them. The officer was in the habbit
of wiping down his gun with WD40 and the bullets as well.
Oil would have a long way to go to get to the primer on a rimfire,
but I suspect it would eventually make it to the powder and kill it,
especially on rounds where the bullet can be turned by hand.

WD40 and other penetrants do, in fact, have that ability. In fact, some ammo / component manufacturers will tell you that to 'kill' old primers you wish to remove and replace in, say, primed brass you can spray them heavily with WD40 and wait a day or two. The officer in that incident did not simply 'wipe down' his loaded revolver, but instead opened it up and sprayed WD40 directly on the loaded cylinder...case heads, primers and all, and not once but repeatedly IIRC.

I have never found WD40 to be of much use as a lube since it leaves only a very thin coat of the lube...try it on a squeaky hinge if you want a demonstration...in a day or two it will start to squeak again. It is great for certain things, but I use Slip2000EWL today and have fouind it far better than RemOil and such...your mileage may vary.

__________________
Run Fast, Bite Hard!

here are a couple of interesting reads...

The Box O' Truth #39 - Oil Vs. Primers - Page 1

GunTech : Gun Cleaning Clinic: Knowing the Limits of Rust Preventatives - World's Largest Supplier of Firearm Accessories, Gun Parts and Gunsmithing Tools - BROWNELLS

http://www.6mmbr.com/corrosiontest.html

I think your lab is full of it. It's been proven time and time again that WD-40 cannot get into ammo unless the round(s) are severely damaged. Box 'O Truth proved it conclusively and before they did it, a friend and I blew the myth out of the water by soaking various rounds in a bath of WD-40 for 48 hours with no ill effects. Dumb us, we didn't document it and publish the results.

The only way WD-40 will destroy primers is if you remove the projectile and propellent and squirt it into the flash hole, or decap the primer and spray it. Squirting WD-40 on the primer from the outside will have no effect.

I use a 60% Moly paste on the moving parts. It embeds itself and is a high pressure lube. On every gun I own that I've used this on runs flawlessly, doesn't gum up, and shows no sign of wear.
I'm also trying out the SLP EWL. It's slippery. I think the biggest issue is to weigh the advantages of whatever you choose to lube your guns, lubricity and retention of said lube to such negatives as the lube attracting dirt and crud and breaking down under hard use.
You can buy WD-40 by the gallon and if what I've been told is true, it doesn't have any smell to it. It is a good product and it works on helping my arthritic joints move easier.
And the saga continues.......

Hobie

__________________
Laissez les bons temps roulez!

Lots of interesting stuff going on here, but I'm wondering about the climate making a difference. Oil will work differently at different temperatures. So maybe the up north guys like to run a bit dry and keep the oil from being thick. And the warmer climates need more oil to hold off the humidy.

I like synthetic oil, and not much of it. I got mine in May and have over 4,000 rounds thru it. Very few problems as long as I don't use Remington ammo. I don't clean it everytime that I use it, I wait until it really gets dirty. A great rifle, my favorite. I bought 10-25 round magazines and I can shoot a good bit without reloading!