...if...cleaning takes more than 10 to 15 minutes...

[JohnKSa]

...you are wasting your time on nonsense.

Complete quote about carbines:

If you are carrying a gun for real, you need to look at it every 5,000 rounds or so. But if your cleaning takes more than 10 to 15 minutes, you are wasting your time on nonsense.​

Pat Rogers. Sept. 2016 SWAT Magazine, The Best Of Pat Rogers Column, "Filthy 14, Bravo Company Carbine goes 31,165 Rounds"

The context of the article is a Bravo Company AR-15 carbine that was used extensively. The gun was kept properly lubricated but received no other maintenance.

• At 6,450 rounds a malfunction was encountered and the bolt was wiped down.
• At approximately 13,000 rounds it had several failures to extract and the extractor spring was replaced.
• At approximately 24,500 rounds it had several failures to extract and the extractor and extractor spring were replaced.
• At approximately 29,000 rounds the gun was cleaned and inspected.
• At approximately 30,000 rounds the gun had several failures to extract and the extractor spring was replaced.

The gun has never had a bore brush put down the barrel. The chamber has never been cleaned with a chamber brush. The barrel has had two patches put through it.

It still shot 2" groups at 50 yards at the time the article was written.

Mr. Rogers pointed out that the BCM carbines are very good quality and his previous experience was part of why the experiment was run.

He attributes the performance of this AR-15 carbine to: a good design, the quality of the BCM product and the use of Slip 2000 EWL.

 

[FrankenMauser]

Two inch groups at 50 yards is the standard?

Won't cut it in my house. ...Especially for a cartridge like .223/5.56.

If you're a centerfire rifle, not an antique, and break 2 MoA, you're on the 'naughty' list and need attention (or a for sale sign).

Defensive weapon, or not, that just isn't good enough for a rifle.

 

[rkbanet]

As far as accuracy goes the above weapon does have over 30k rounds through it. From a purely functional standpoint one can never spend more than say 10 minutes cleaning any weapon and still maintain reliability. Most of what we clean is purely cosmetic anyway. Wipedown the major ooerating parts, bolt, bolt carrier etc, a couple of patches down the bore and a few drops of lube here and there and an AR 15 with run indefinitely. To clean a pistol... wipe down the rails and feed ramp, a couple of patches down the bore and 2 drops of lube on each rail is all that NEEDS to be done. I am personally anal retentive and detail strip my weapons every time I clean them, because I like them to be spotless. But when I take a pistol class that involves say 1000+ rounds to be fired I clean the pistol each day as above spending literally 5 minutes doing it and have never had an issue.

 

[DMK]

I spend a lot of time cleaning my guns after a shooting session. However, since I have lot of guns, I might not touch that particular gun again for 5 years or more. I also live in a humid environment (rain forest actually).

I don't like leaving powder residue in the nooks and crannies that might attract moisture.

 

[FrankenMauser]

To clean a pistol... wipe down the rails and feed ramp, a couple of patches down the bore and 2 drops of lube on each rail is all that NEEDS to be done.

So, even if there's heavy copper or lead fouling, just lube it up and keep on trucking?...

 

[5whiskey]

I disagree that, because one article writer managed to keep a rifle functioning for 30k rounds without a detail clean, I am wasting my time on silliness.

As DMK said, its just as much about corrosion protection as anything. I usually don't go 5 years without pulling any firearm I own out, but it could be a year or two. Since powder residue attracts moisture, I prefer to keep them clean. I do find that 95% of the residue can be removed in 30 minutes or so. Spending 2 hours ensuring that a gun will pass a white glove inspection is not needed IMO. But I use to be that anal... Now I just don't have time.

Two inch groups at 50 yards is the standard?

Won't cut it in my house. ...Especially for a cartridge like .223/5.56.

That's actually not terrible for a barrel with that many rounds through it. I'm like you though, I would have to replace it as that would irk me.

 

[Dufus]

None of mine firearms are put up without a check with the bore scope to verify the cleaning process. If it takes an hour or an over night soak, so be it.

 

[JohnKSa]

I thought it was an interesting perspective from someone who has a LOT of experience shooting and cleaning firearms.

I admit to cleaning more often than every 5000 rounds and spending more time than 10-15 minutes to clean each time, but I clean that carefully/frequently because I want to, not because I believe that the gun needs to be perfectly clean to function properly.

In both of the 1000 round reliability pistol matches I participated in, the average number of malfunctions per stage dropped as the match progressed. The guns apparently became slightly more reliable as they got dirtier. I don't know how long that trend would continue since the matches ended at 1000 rounds--obviously at some point it's going to reverse--but it was interesting.

I just thought that others might find it useful/interesting to see the late Mr. Rogers' perspective and experience.

Two inch groups at 50 yards is the standard?

Nope, there was no claim that it was the standard. The information was provided without any comment other than observing that it still shot better than most of the people who were shooting it. The context suggests it was being shot mostly offhand.

That said, 4MOA after a 30K+ round count isn't really all that bad for a rifle. The article did mention that the rifle was due for retirement after another 4-5K rounds.

I disagree that, because one article writer managed to keep a rifle functioning for 30k rounds without a detail clean, I am wasting my time on silliness.

1. The gun was used at a training facility where Mr. Rogers' was an instructor. The "14" in the title refers to the carbine's rack number at the facility.

2. The implication of the article was that this wasn't really performed as a torture test so much as it was intended to be documentation of observations made from watching other BCM carbines run with similar treatment.

3. The author of the article was a well-known trainer, not just an "article writer".

 

[FrankenMauser]

Thanks for sharing.
(I don't read SWAT. ...Even though they do keep this forum alive. )

I just can't get behind never cleaning a bore, and ignoring carbon fouling (especially in an AR).

I do understand that this was a 'commercial' application, and a 'work gun', but I can't do that to my personal firearms - even the nasty $280 AR that was put together from left over parts.

 

[5whiskey]

3. The author of the article was a well-known trainer, not just an "article writer".

I'm aware of the article and who Pat Rogers is. The original article on "The Filthy 14" has been around quite some time, and is not news. I have much respect for Mr. Rogers, and many others in the industry. I respectfully disagree with him in this matter, however. I have seen rifles carried "for real," and used, that took longer than 10 minutes to get all of the sand out of the chamber so the BCG could go into battery without assist.

I understand the premise of the article (to show that an M4 is much more reliable than it's made out to be), but I disagree with the final conclusion (treat it like an AK).

 

[Chris_B]

I wouldn't clean his rifle either. I didn't buy it and he wants it dirty. Suits me.

 

[JWT]

For me cleaning takes whatever time is required to get the gun as clean as I desire. If less than 10-15 minutes fine. If more, equally fine.

 

[JohnKSa]

I'm aware of the article and who Pat Rogers is.

Well then you probably already realized that suggesting he was just an "article writer" was somewhat less than fully accurate. The implication that the opinions expressed in the article were based on experience with a single rifle rather than on a lifetime of experience working with firearms/rifles also probably gave the wrong impression.

 

[rkbanet]

So, even if there's heavy copper or lead fouling, just lube it up and keep on trucking?...

I only shoot jacketed ammo and have never noticed an issue with copper or lead fouling.

 

[44 AMP]

While it would be foolish to dispute the conditions actually obtained, I think that there is room to dispute the conclusions drawn from them.

At approximately 13,000 rounds it had several failures to extract and the extractor spring was replaced.
At approximately 24,500 rounds it had several failures to extract and the extractor and extractor spring were replaced.
At approximately 29,000 rounds the gun was cleaned and inspected.
At approximately 30,000 rounds the gun had several failures to extract and the extractor spring was replaced.

So, 29,000 rounds no cleaning, and the gun was still running (though parts had been replaced more than once). Interesting data, but what does it actually mean??

Somehow, I don't get that it means you are wasting time cleaning if cleaning takes more than 10 minutes. I simply don't see a connection.

Oh, I get it, that guns don't have to be spotlessly clean in order to work, and keep working. But beyond that, I think individual factors come into play and don't see how they validate any kind of "no more than 10 minutes" rule.

Also, keep in mind the metric for "success" in this case was that the rifle kept shooting, and literally, nothing else. Quite a different matter from the benchrest shooter who cleans the bore after 20 rounds, to preserve his maximum accuracy potential. Quite different.

I do remember that after firing only a few hundred rounds from an M16, it took considerably more than 10 minutes to clean it, to the satisfaction of the arms room Sgt.

I wonder if the inspection at 29,000 rnds included a bore erosion gauge...??

 

[Gunplummer]

I probably worry less about the barrel than the rest of the gun, unless I shot corrosive ammo through it. I am a believer that the first shot after cleaning a barrel will be off. When we camp out to hunt, we camp out. A couple days of cold, damp weather can get the rust going pretty fast on a gun, especially with the constant handling. I have bought military guns that had green bores (Literally) from all the copper in them, but none were ever going to be target guns anyway.
Some of the posts I was at had the repair section in the arms room. Everybody pulled the all night guard on a rotating basis. I spent the night cleaning rifles for other people with an inspection coming up-$20 a rifle.

 

[JohnKSa]

Somehow, I don't get that it means you are wasting time cleaning if cleaning takes more than 10 minutes. I simply don't see a connection.

I think his point was that if you can run a gun for nearly 30K rounds by keeping up with lubrication but without cleaning, then if you're spending more than a few minutes cleaning, you're wasting time. Because you don't really need to clean it at all to keep it running.

I guess he could have said no more than 5 minutes and that would have been a justifiable conclusion as well given that his experience suggests no cleaning at all (other than perhaps wiping down the bolt) is enough time spent cleaning.

I wonder if the inspection at 29,000 rnds included a bore erosion gauge...??

I seriously doubt it. They tested accuracy and since it was still acceptable by their standards and the gun was due for retirement in another 4K to 5K rounds they called it good.

Quite a different matter from the benchrest shooter who cleans the bore after 20 rounds, to preserve his maximum accuracy potential. Quite different.

Indeed. The context was specific. A carbine used for carbine type things. I think it woudl be a mistake to assume that the conclusions apply to pistols or to precision rifles.

 

[rob-c]

if one is that lazy that they cant take 15 minutes to clean a gun. well........

 

[44 AMP]

I think the implied message is that one does not need the military's fanaticism about cleaning to keep one's gun running.

I also think that going to the extreme of "more than 10 min is a waste of time" kind of obscures the message.

I don't know anyone who uses firearms, (and who cares about them in any degree) who doesn't clean more than they absolutely need to.

I've got my Grandfather's Ithaca, bought new (and made to his order) in 1909. I can state with absolute certainty that no one has seen the inside of that gun's action since the day it left the factory. Flawless function to this day.

Now, I admit its not a heavy use gun like the AR, just using it as one example of how it isn't always necessary to clean the action.

I've got another gun that I found would run on a certain light load, (starting with a completely clean pistol) but after about a box would begin to malfunction with that borderline load. This is the other end of the spectrum, where if not squeaky clean, it doesn't work right.

How much (how thoroughly) and how often you clean depends on what you want to accomplish. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude when it comes to cleaning can work for a lifetime, or more, depending on circumstances, and every set of circumstances is different.

And the other side of the coin, if the gun does fail, and it's because you didn't clean it (clean, not lube, lube is a different matter) then who do you have to blame for the consequences? Only yourself.

Yes, if it doesn't work because you didn't lube it right, its your fault too. I'm just making the distinction between cleaning and lubing here because they did in the report about the AR in the OP.

 

[jersurf101]

This has the hallmarks of a case study, not a conclusive data set. Just because one individual had these results it may or may not be good for all. Personally I am a clean freak on my firearms and I own have too many and it drives me nuts sometimes. There is a middle ground I'm sure.