The November 2006 Joint Warfighting and Readiness IG report D-2007-010 has serious flaws in it when talking about lubrication of weapons. The intent of this response is to point out these flaws.

Problem 1, Page 9 of document (p 14 in ADOBE) is that some of this report is based off of SWAT 6-03 findings and recommendations. SWAT 6-03 may be found at http://militec.com/swat.pdf SWAT 6-03 is the severely edited and TACOM sponsored answer (31 July 2003) authored by COL Mike Smith to discredit the 15 May 2003 OIF PEO Soldiers Lessoned Learned by LTC Jim Smith found at http://militec.com/OperationIraqiFreedom.pdf.

Problem 2. Page 11 of document (p 16 in ADOBE) under Recommendations, recommends for the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology to follow up on the findings of SWAT 6-03. SWAT 6-03 is where COL Mike Smith states "The best lubricant of all was determined to be solider elbow grease" vs. the original statement in OIF PEO Soldiers Lessons Learned that states "Lubricant: Soldiers provided consistent comments that CLP was not a good choice for weapon's maintenance in this environment. The sand is a fine talcum powder here. The CLP attracted the sand to the weapon. Soldiers considered a product called Militec to be a much better solution for lubricating individual and crew-served weapons." Stark contrast.

This contrast is key. A “wet” lubricant like CLP and a “dry” lubricant like Militec-1 are completely different and “soldier elbow grease” will not change those lubricating properties.

• CLP is applied “wet” and remains “wet” on the weapon. It is this wetting that prevents metal to metal friction.

• MILITEC-1 is applied “wet” to the weapon and when heated, bonds to the metal and provides constant lubrication even though it feels dry to the touch.

• CLP represents 1960’s technology and MILITEC-1 represents “state of the art” 21st century technology.

• Since CLP is a “wet” lubricant, it will always attract sand and dirt, especially in a desert environment. This sand and dirt attraction to wetness will act like a dust magnet on convoys causing weapons to jam when needed most.

• Since MILITEC-1 is a dry lubricant, it will not attract sand and dirt. Weapons work right the first time, every time, and will not jam in combat.

Note: While Militec takes issue with SWAT 6-03’s findings on elbow grease being the best lubricant and not MILITEC-1, SWAT 6-03 glaringly points out inconsistencies in the RDECOM/ TACOM/ ARDEC opposition of MILITEC-1.

Problem 3. Page 18 of the document (p 23 in ADOBE), Appendix F, Small Arms Center, “top 10 issue areas,” point 6 Cleaning. "A little Cleaner, Lubricant, Preservative does wonders, not MILTEC."

Four issues with this statement.

Issue 1. A little CLP does wonders. This contradicts the Small Arm Centers own advice on repeated occasions. The Small Arms Center at Balad is the same center that recommended in the Stars and Stripes on March 28, 2006 that "the best way to protect weapons is to "over-lube" them.”[1]

A Stars and Stripes reader, who was an armorer in Iraq, responded that a "wet" weapon in a sandy environment will attract sand like a dust magnet as such on April the 4th and on April the 12th, the Small Arms Center replied, "The facts are that the Army has conducted a study of lubrication of weapons in a desert environment. The fact is that various weapons were tested with minimal-, moderate- and heavy-lubricated weapons. The facts are that the minimal lubrication had the highest amount of failure and jamming, while the heavy lubricated weapon had the least amount of failure."[2] Note: This actually contradicts advice given in TBs (Technical Bulletins) and GTAs (Government Training Aids) issued in Oct 2005 (See attachment, MILITEC-1, CLP inconsistencies, 9 Feb 07) to address the sand issue with “light” lubrication, no lubrication, and 4x daily cleanings.

Issue 2. If going to take a pot shot at the competition, at least spell the name correctly. The name is MILITEC as in MILI - TEC.

Issue 3. Why take a shot at MILITEC-1? Obviously, CLP is not working well, but why take a pot shot at MILITEC-1? No other place in this IG report to you find a producer name. This sounds again like a pattern of misconduct.

Issue 4. SWAT 6-03, states “No one type of lubricant stood-out as the best in OIF. A wide variety was used to include: CLP, Graphite, Motor Oil, Strike Hold, LSAT, Gun Wipes, and Mil Tech… When soldiers conducted daily operator level and applied a light coat of lubricant (regardless of type) to the weapon, the weapon functioned reliably.”

SWAT 6-03 even states that MILITEC-1 works, yet the Support Arms Center states, “

A little Cleaner, Lubricant, Preservative does wonders, not MILTEC." Which one is it?

Problem 4, Page 18 of the document (p 23 in ADOBE), Appendix F, Small Arms Center, “top 10 issue areas,” point 2 Lubricating. "Use of the correct approved lubricant or the use of un-approved lubricants and not using sufficient amounts or used too sparingly."

Four issues with this statement.

Issue 1. The Small Arms Center at Balad recommends to “over-lube” in the Stars and Stripes articles and here they say lubricating problems happen by not using “sufficient amounts.” If you “over-lube,” by definition you are putting on more than is directed and common sense says if you "over-lube" a weapon with a "wet" lubricant in a desert environment, it will attract sand and dirt like a dust magnet. Soldiers recognized this and in SWAT 6-03, it states, “Every soldier described cleaning the weapon, applying lubrication, removing the excess lubricant and periodically brushing off the dust.”

Issue 2. “Use of un-approved lubricants” causes problems. SWAT 6-03 states, “No one type of lubricant stood-out as the best in OIF. A wide variety was used to include: CLP, Graphite, Motor Oil, Strike Hold, LSAT, Gun Wipes, and Mil Tech. But no matter the lubricant, the common denominator was periodic maintenance.” SWAT says the lubricant doesn’t matter, Balad says it does. SWAT states MILITEC-1 works.

Note: From June 1995 until May 2006, MILITEC-1’s NSNs were for “weapons grade and machine shop applications.”[3]

Issue 3. Use of lubricant “too sparingly.” What does this mean? Since the Small Arms Center recommends to “over lube,” does “too sparingly” mean using a light coat of oil as the TB and GTAs state?

Issue 4. SWAT 6-03 states “When soldiers conducted daily operator level and applied a light coat of lubricant (regardless of type) to the weapon, the weapon functioned reliably.” Again, The Small Arms Center and Balad contradict one another.

Issue 5. SWAT 6-03 states, “The M203 GL was most affected by the desert environment. Sand and dirt migrated into the trigger housing and clogged or jammed the safety. This issue is compounded by excessive lubrication. Fine powdery sand easily entered this area and could not be prevented without placing the weapon in a hermetically sealed bag.” Notice, “excessive lubrication” compounded the problem, yet the Small Arms Center is on record for stating to “over-lube” weapons.

As it has been noted, there are issues with this IG reports finding. We have looked at the issues within the IG report, however, what is even more disturbing is what is not in the report and which has briefly been touched on in Problem 2 and that is the difference between “wet” lubrication and “dry” lubrication in a desert environment.

If the difference was just “elbow grease,” the point would be academic and mute. The problem is not academic, however, but fundamental. A “wet” lubricant is the wrong standard. A wet lubricant in a desert environment will always attract sand and dirt, therefore, the solution is to set the “dry” lubrication mark as the standard. RDECOM/ TACOM/ ARDEC hold fast to the outdated “wet” standard.

MILITEC-1 has set the “dry” lubrication standard plus it is combat proven, NON-HAZMAT (unlike CLP), user-friendly (takes half the time to clean as CLP), and it works right the first time, every time. See attached report, Apples and Oranges , MILITEC-1 vs. CLP, IG Report, for facts and Soldier feedback.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Samuel Harder, Small Arms Center, Balad Iraq who “repairs between 400 and 500 weapons a month, about 75 percent of which have not had enough lubricant applied to them. The best way to prevent weapons from gumming is to “over-lube” them…A dry weapon will attract dust and when you fire it, it will gum up,” Stars and Stripes, March 28, 2006 http://militec.com/StarsStripes3_28.pdf

[2] Bill Jenson, Weapon System Manager, Small Arms Center , Balad , Iraq . Stars and Stripes, April 12, 2006 http://militec.com/StarsStripes4_12.pdf

[3] The complete (4) Stars and Stripes articles located here