This will basically be a “part 1″ of a more longer lasting test period. Cleaning solvent is one of those things it takes a long time and a lot of different things to really evaluate to my satisfaction.  I wanted to talk about  it and my first thoughts on it as sort of a kick off. As the weeks go buy I will post updates on the stuff and my opinion of it.

I got this cleaner a few weeks ago from a gentleman looking for writers and bloggers to send free samples to for testing. It was being pretty heavily talked about on said page, and obviously was meant to be the new better mouse trap for cleaning.  I gave me address and a few days later got the sample.  I had read plenty of stuff about how safe it was for mother earth and you can even drink it and not get sick, but I did not see anything about what it may or may not work best at, or what it was intended to be.  I fired off an email and asked what exactly was it supposed to be used for .   the response was ..”it will remove all fouling & residue (Brass, Carbon, Copper, Dirt, Grease, Lead, etc.), it’s also PH Neutral which means it’s safe on your firearm’s wood and / or polymers.” The ad on Amazon had this to says.”Removes ALL Fouling, PH Neutral, Non-Corrosive, Safe on all Plastics and Polymers, Does not Freeze, Non-Flammable, Non-Water Based, Virtually Odorless, Low Toxicity, Low Vapor Pressure, Non-Carcinogenic, No Components or Characteristics of Hazardous Waste as per EPA, Not Regulated by the OSHA Z-list.“

I have some pretty high standard for gun cleaning products and if you read my earlier posts on how to clean precision and match barrels, you know I am hard to please. I have never seen a cleaner that did more than one or two things and did it well.  Actually I never seen a 2in 1 or 3 in 1 cleaner good at any of the 2 or 3 things it is supposed to do.  But I do keep an open mind because I have faith in technology and I have seen better and better solvents come along over the past twenty years.

So, after looking around on the details of the cleaner and what I could find so far, because it is so new, I went and got my carbine. This gun never gets cleaned, just  oiled. the gun is FDE anodized inside and out and the upper was coated black on the inside from carbon. The bolt and carrier had also only been oiled.  I got them out and got my cleaning tools ready not knowing how much elbow grease it would take to work with this stuff.  when you brush your teeth you use the tooth paste and a brush. and no matter how good gun solvents are, they almost always need a little extra help.

I sprayed the cleaner inside the upper and let it set for a few minutes,. Upon the stuff hitting the inside I notice immediately black sludge start to run out. Very few things have done this that was not under a high pressure or  brake parts cleaner.  After 5 minutes of so I wiped it out with a rag. and above is what it looked like.  No brass brushes. Not pip cleaner or any of that. I did use a tooth brush but only to help flick some goop out of the crevices, not because I had to really work at it.   Very nice so far, but, I have found that FDE anodized ARs seem to clean up easier for some reason, It may be in my mind. but it does seem so. So, I went to the BCG.

I sprayed it with the odorless stuff and again, the black water ran off.

I let it set, then just used a red shop rag to wipe it off. No brush.

It did not get all of it out of the inside, but it went a long way toward getting it all.

Cleaned up the bolt as well. But here is the first sign of weakness. It will not remove the hardened carbon on the boats tail and better than the mediocre stuff like Hoppes. Even with the addition of a brush it did not really do much better.  In fact Slip2000 carbon cleaner works faster when trying to remove the hardened stuff.

It is really good at removing the loose sludge that does not need as much work. But it is held up on the hard stuff. I have not cleaned a bore yet to see if it remove copper and lead as claimed, but I wanted to see how it did on carbon first.

A few things to think about first.  Good weapon lube will keep carbon and grit and sand etc,. sort of suspended in the lube. It will not let it stick so to speak. The lube will keep the gun wet and lubricated while keeping the grit and fouling from causing problems.  Obviously this helps a great deal with cleaning, Since it is a lot easier to wipe away lube with fouling in it than it is to scrape it off the metal. Dirty lube might look and seem bad., but it is still doing an important job. A good lube will suspend the fouling and particles and let you wipe it off and re lube so you can get buy a long time until you do a real serious cleaning. That is one of the reasons I rarely clean a fighting gun like I would a match bolt gun. A good lube lets you do that.  I use Slip2000EWL and it excels at this. It does not burn off fast, it stays in place and it is not harmful to your body. It is really super stuff and it is the ONLY lube I use if I have a choice.  So in the case with this cleaner. I think the Slip2000 made the job a lot easier.  That is not a rag on the Breathrough at all.  It needs to be thought of as a system.  If the Slip suspends the crud and the Breakthrough just sprays on and the fouling runs off with no work, I call that pretty good.

But, that is probably not what the makers want to hear or have in mind.  For sure the idea is Breakthrough military grade cleaner is suppose to be super easy to use regardless of the oil used on the weapon.  Alas, that is not how the world works. So I will be be trying it out with cleaning guns with different lubricants and no lube to see if it makes a difference good or bad.   So far, when used to clean guns oiled with Slip2000 it shows some real promise. I would not stop using the SLIP line of cleaners and replace them with this stuff yet, but we will see.

Above is another picture of the carrier simply sprayed and wiped off.  As you can tell, the cleaner leaves no film behind. It is not CLP and does not leave behind any protective film.

I will continue testing it out to see if it is snake oil or worth its price. I can not recommend it yet.  I am not sold on it as of yet but I am curious. The military grade claims is not something I pay any attention to and I advise you to ignore it as well since it really does not matter much in my opinion. I use a lot of cleaners that do not boat military grade properties and nothing else out there beats them.  I am sure that is hype made to cash in on the same people who buy stuff because maybe a NAVY SEAL uses it.   A few more weeks and I will give my final verdict.

If you want to try it out, or read marketing claims yourself,you can get it here and if you enter promo code Looserounds, you can get 10% off.

http://www.mountsplus.com/AR-15_Accessories/AR-15_Scope_Mounts/breakthrough_solvents.html

Below is a very interesting read from the FBI Training Division, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA. from a few months ago. This was a PDF file that was sent to me by a coworker. I want to emphasis this is not mine and I did not create it/the content. I simply copied the text and placed it in this format, here on Loose Rounds, so it was easier to see.  It is an executive summary of justification for law enforcement agencies on 9mm for duty carry. If you have followed us here, you know I have been talking about numerous agencies switching back to 9mm over the last few years, as well as the FBI testing for their switch. Great strides in bullet technology have been made in the past decade and 9mm is on the top of its game. With a select few rounds in 9mm, that have been tested for duty carry, 9mm is fast becoming one of the best options for duty carry. This goes into some detailed history of testing, common caliber myths and justification for 9mm use over other calibers. The picture below has absolutely nothing to do with the content below. It is  a very old picture that most are familiar with. I put it in to give others a frame of reference, on the type of rounds being discussed below.  Enjoy!

Update 11/9/2015: Link to FBI 9mm Justification FOIA: 2015/11/09 FBI-9mm-Justification-FOIA

Duncan.

“May 6, 2014

FBI Training Division: FBI Academy, Quantico, VA

Executive Summary of Justification for Law Enforcement Partners

• Caliber debates have existed in law enforcement for decades
• Most of what is “common knowledge” with ammunition and its effects on the human target are rooted in myth and folklore
• Projectiles are what ultimately wound our adversaries and the projectile needs to be the basis for the discussion on what “caliber” is best
• In all the major law enforcement calibers there exist projectiles which have a high likelihood of failing LEO’s in a shooting incident and there are projectiles which have a high ting incident likelihood of succeeding for LEO’s in a shooting incident
• Handgun stopping power is simply a myth
• The single most important factor in effectively wounding a human target is to have penetration to a scientifically valid depth (FBI uses 12” – 18”)
• LEO’s miss between 70 – 80 percent of the shots fired during a shooting incident
• Contemporary projectiles (since 2007) have dramatically increased the terminal effectiveness of many premium line law enforcement projectiles (emphasis on the 9mm Luger offerings)
• 9mm Luger now offers select projectiles which are, under identical testing conditions, I outperforming most of the premium line .40 S&W and .45 Auto projectiles tested by the FBI
• 9mm Luger offers higher magazine capacities, less recoil, lower cost (both in ammunition and wear on the weapons) and higher functional reliability rates (in FBI weapons)
• The majority of FBI shooters are both FASTER in shot strings fired and more ACCURATE with shooting a 9mm Luger vs shooting a .40 S&W (similar sized weapons)
• There is little to no noticeable difference in the wound tracks between premium line law Auto enforcement projectiles from 9mm Luger through the .45 Auto
• Given contemporary bullet construction, LEO’s can field (with proper bullet selection) 9mm Lugers with all of the terminal performance potential of any other law enforcement pistol caliber with none of the disadvantages present with the “larger” calibers

Justification for Law Enforcement Partners

Rarely in law enforcement does a topic stir a more passionate debate than the choice of handgun caliber made by a law enforcement organization. Many voice their opinions by repeating the old adage “bigger is better” while others have “heard of this one time” where a smaller caliber failed and a larger caliber “would have performed much better.” Some even subscribe to the belief that a caliber exists which will provide a “one shot stop.” It has been stated, “Decisions on ammunition selection are particularly difficult because many of the pertinent issues related to handguns and ammunition are firmly rooted in myth and folklore.” This still holds as true today as it did when originally stated 20 years ago.

Caliber, when considered alone, brings about a unique set of factors to consider such as magazine capacity for a given weapon size, ammunition availability, felt recoil, weight and cost. What is rarely discussed, but most relevant to the caliber debate is what projectile is being considered for use and its terminal performance potential.

One should never debate on a gun make or caliber alone. The projectile is what wounds and ultimately this is where the debate/discussion should focus. In each of the three most common law enforcement handgun calibers (9mm Luger, .40 Smith & Wesson and .45 AUTO) there are projectiles which have a high likelihood of failing law enforcement officers and in each of these three calibers there are projectiles which have a high likelihood of succeeding for law enforcement officers during a shooting incident. The choice of a service projectile must undergo intense scrutiny and scientific evaluation in order to select the best available option.

Understanding Handgun Caliber Terminal Ballistic Realities

Many so‐called “studies” have been performed and many analyses of statistical data have been undertaken regarding this issue. Studies simply involving shooting deaths are irrelevant since the goal of law enforcement is to stop a threat during a deadly force encounter as quickly as possible. Whether or not death occurs is of no consequence as long as the threat of death or serious injury to law enforcement personnel and innocent third parties is eliminated.

“The concept of immediate incapacitation is the only goal of any law enforcement shooting and is the underlying rationale for decisions regarding weapons, ammunition, calibers and training.”¹

Studies of “stopping power” are irrelevant because no one has ever been able to define how much power, force, or kinetic energy, in and of itself, is required to effectively stop a violent and determined adversary quickly, and even the largest of handgun calibers are not capable of delivering such force. Handgun stopping power is simply a myth. Studies of so‐called “one shot stops” being used as a tool to define the effectiveness of one handgun cartridge, as opposed to another, are irrelevant due to the inability to account for psychological influences and due to the lack of reporting specific shot placement. In short, extensive studies have been done over the years to “prove” a certain cartridge is better than another by using grossly flawed methodology and or bias as a precursor to manipulating statistics. In order to have a meaningful understanding of handgun terminal ballistics, one must only deal with facts that are not in dispute within the medical community, i.e. medical realities, and those which are also generally accepted within law enforcement, i.e. tactical realities.

Medical Realities

Shots to the Central Nervous System (CNS) at the level of the cervical spine (neck) or above, are the only means to reliably cause immediate incapacitation. In this case, any of the calibers commonly used in law enforcement, regardless of expansion, would suffice for obvious reasons. Other than shots to the CNS, the most reliable means for affecting rapid incapacitation is by placing shots to large vital organs thus causing rapid blood loss. Simply stated, shot placement is the most critical component to achieving either method of incapacitation.

Wounding factors between rifle and handgun projectiles differ greatly due to the dramatic differences in velocity, which will be discussed in more detail herein. The wounding factors, in order of importance, are as follows:

A. Penetration:

A projectile must penetrate deeply enough into the body to reach the large vital organs, namely heart, lungs, aorta, vena cava and to a lesser extent liver and spleen, in order to cause rapid blood loss. It has long been established by expert medical professionals, experienced in evaluating gunshot wounds, that this equates to a range of penetration of 12‐18 inches, depending on the size of the individual and the angle of the bullet path (e.g., through arm, shoulder, etc.). With modern properly designed, expanding handgun bullets, this objective is realized, albeit more consistently with some law enforcement projectiles than others. 1 Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness: Firearms Training Unit, Ballistic Research Facility, 1989.

B. Permanent Cavity:

The extent to which a projectile expands determines the diameter of the permanent cavity which, simply put, is that tissue which is in direct contact with the projectile and is therefore destroyed. Coupled with the distance of the path of the projectile (penetration), the total permanent cavity is realized. Due to the elastic nature of most human tissue and the low velocity of handgun projectiles relative to rifle projectiles, it has long been established by medical professionals, experienced in evaluating gunshot wounds, that the damage along a wound path visible at autopsy or during surgery cannot be distinguished between the common handgun calibers used in law enforcement. That is to say an operating room surgeon or Medical Examiner cannot distinguish the difference between wounds caused by .35 to .45 caliber projectiles.

C. Temporary Cavity:

The temporary cavity is caused by tissue being stretched away from the permanent cavity. If the temporary cavity is produced rapidly enough in elastic tissues, the tensile strength of the tissue can be exceeded resulting in tearing of the tissue. This effect is seen with very high velocity projectiles such as in rifle calibers, but is not seen with handgun calibers. For the temporary cavity of most handgun projectiles to have an effect on wounding, the velocity of the projectile needs to exceed roughly 2,000 fps. At the lower velocities of handgun rounds, the temporary cavity is not produced with sufficient velocity to have any wounding effect; therefore any difference in temporary cavity noted between handgun calibers is irrelevant. “In order to cause significant injuries to a structure, a pistol bullet must strike that structure directly.”^2 2 DiMaio, V.J.M.: Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, New York, NY, 1987, page 42.

D. Fragmentation:

Fragmentation can be defined as “projectile pieces or secondary fragments of bone which are impelled outward from the permanent cavity and may sever muscle tissues, blood vessels, etc., apart from the permanent cavity”³. Fragmentation does not reliably occur in soft tissue handgun wounds due to the low velocities of handgun bullets. When fragmentation does occur, fragments are usually found within one centimeter (.39”) of the permanent cavity.⁴ Due to the fact that most modern premium law enforcement ammunition now commonly uses bonded projectiles (copper jacket bonded to lead core), the likelihood of fragmentation is very low. For these reasons, wounding effects secondary to any handgun caliber bullet fragmentation are considered inconsequential. ³ Fackler, M.L., Malinowski, J.A.: “The Wound Profile: A Visual Method for Quantifying Gunshot Wound Components”, Journal of Trauma 25: 522‐529, 1958. ⁴ Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness: Firearms Training Unit, Ballistic Research Facility, 1989.

Psychology

Any discussion of stopping armed adversaries with a handgun has to include the psychological state of the adversary. Psychological factors are probably the most important relative to achieving rapid incapacitation from a gunshot wound to the torso.⁵ First and foremost, the psychological effects of being shot can never be counted on to stop an individual from continuing conscious voluntary action. Those who do stop commonly do so because they decide to, not because they have to. The effects of pain are often delayed due to survival patterns secondary to “fight or flight” reactions within the body, drug/alcohol influences and in the case of extreme anger or aggression, pain can simply be ignored. Those subjects who decide to stop immediately after being shot in the torso do so commonly because they know they have been shot and are afraid of injury or death, regardless of caliber, velocity, or bullet design. It should also be noted that psychological factors can be a leading cause of incapacitation failures and as such, proper shot placement, adequate penetration, and multiple shots on target cannot be over emphasized. ⁵ Ibid.

Tactical Realities

Shot placement is paramount and law enforcement officers on average strike an adversary with only 20 – 30 percent of the shots fired during a shooting incident. Given the reality that shot placement is paramount (and difficult to achieve given the myriad of variables present in a deadly force encounter) in obtaining effective incapacitation, the caliber used must maximize the likelihood of hitting vital organs. Typical law enforcement shootings result in only one or two solid torso hits on the adversary. This requires that any projectile which strikes the torso has as high a probability as possible of penetrating deeply enough to disrupt a vital organ.

The Ballistic Research Facility has conducted a test which compares similar sized Glock pistols in both .40 S&W and 9mm calibers, to determine if more accurate and faster hits are achievable with one versus the other. To date, the majority of the study participants have shot more quickly and more accurately with 9mm caliber Glock pistols. The 9mm provides struggling shooters the best chance of success while improving the speed and accuracy of the most skilled shooters.

CONCLUSION

While some law enforcement agencies have transitioned to larger calibers from the 9mm Luger in recent years, they do so at the expense of reduced magazine capacity, more felt recoil, and given adequate projectile selection, no discernible increase in terminal performance.

Other law enforcement organizations seem to be making the move back to 9mm Luger taking advantage of the new technologies which are being applied to 9mm Luger projectiles. These organizations are providing their armed personnel the best chance of surviving a deadly force encounter since they can expect faster and more accurate shot strings, higher magazine capacities (similar sized weapons) and all of the terminal performance which can be expected from any law enforcement caliber projectile.

Given the above realities and the fact that numerous ammunition manufacturers now make 9mm Luger service ammunition with outstanding premium line law enforcement projectiles, the move to 9mm Luger can now be viewed as a decided advantage for our armed law enforcement personnel.”

If you want to know more about FBI test protocols for duty ammo, the premium line law enforcement projectiles the FBI is talking about and what rounds to select for self defence, here is a related article: looserounds.com duty/defense-carry-ammunition-selection

On the AR15.com forums there is some discussion about the Canadian version of the M16 family of weapons.  A poster by the name of RebelRouser posted this info in a thread about the C7 rifle.

Hi Steve
I apologize for not answering sooner. I‘m afraid I have been avoiding the alligators chewing on my ankles to take care of the ones feeding higher up.
To answer your questions as presented:
The effective range published does not have much to do with the barrel but is an infantry doctrine distance to do with the whole system including the man, sights, weapon ammunition and expected employment. So when you see effective range, it is almost always a subjective assessment of the system capability derived by the user instructor (CTC) and rifle requirements office (DLR), usually before the weapon is even bought. In the case of the C7 it included iron sights and was extended (I think) when the C79 sight and the C7A1 came along. The reference to the rifles origins (M16A1E1) is in reference to the sight option first chosen by the CF. The heavy front profile, 1 turn in 7inch barrel is definitely M16A2. As is the cartridge deflector, handguards and many other changes.

Now lets talk barrels:
The C7 barrel is not the same as any M16 barrel except for the exterior profile which is M16A2. The Material is to a formula developed here in Diemaco (under Gov‘t contract) so that the entire bore and chamber configuration can be integrally formed in one operation on a rotary hammer forge. This process produces a barrel that is much stronger than the US M16A2 barrel. The bore dimensions were developed to fire C77 ammunition, (Chamber, bullet lead, diameters) the bore has dimensional reduction as the bullet moves forward (squeeze) to increase life and accuracy. The bore is plated with harder chrome than the M16. This allows greater wear life (2 to 3 times M16) and lets us machine C9 barrels from the same barrel blank. The SFW was recently tested and purchased by the UK special forces and won in competition against the Swiss SIG series rifles and the H&K G36 rifle. This barrel is now in use by the Special Forces in five countries and the US Navy Seals have expressed interest in putting them in the M4 Carbines that they have.
We have just completed a C8 Carbine upgrade program for Canada which is a new barrel with an improved chamber and stronger extractor spring assembly and a weaker ejector spring. These are the same internal configuration as our very successful SFW barrel.

Differences:
The C7 rifle and C8 Carbine is made under license with a Tech Data Package provided by Colt to the Canadian Gov‘t. Diemaco reviewed the design and made about 150 changes to the drawing package before Canadian production.  These are to numerous to mention her but include things like materials and processes as well as a different barrel configuration and manufacturing processes.

The improved handguard we designed here after CWO John Ginn kept beating the Colt version off the weapon on the parade square. You probably can‘t tell from the outside but if the you take the handguard off, you will notice two types. The improved version has two large ribs under the heat shield and three interlocking ribs on either edge as well as different material. These were introduced late in the program so they had to be interchangable and be a good match with the old handguard.

Another change you may notice is the small diameter front sight post that we developed when soldiers complained that the US large square one actually obscured the target at ranges of 300 and greater.

I hope this helps you with the discussion and thank you for your interest in the C7.

Ian Anderson
ILS Supervisor
Product Engineering Dept.
Diemaco a division of Heroux- Devtek

Please note: Any opinions expressed or implied in this email are personal are not necessarily those of Heroux Devtek or Diemaco