FIREClean responds to Vuurwapenblog/Crisco claims

[Ws6]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Ws6
Well [censored]. You own more SLIP than I do, lol!


It was my lube of choice before I discovered Weapon Shield. It's not that a lot of this stuff is "bad", it isn't. It's just there are others that are better. I've probably got 25 different types of oils and greases lying around, left over from 45 years of "experimenting" with this or that oil or grease. While none of them are what I would term to be unsatisfactory, many are better than others.


What I find most interesting is how poor weapon shield fares in wear tests that fit the .mil TDP for their CLP (ASTM D4172), given all of the hype about its EP. SLIP 2000 EWL destroyed it.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted By: billt460
I just checked it. It's been in there since early last night. My freezer is set at -4F. The stuff runs like molasses. Very slow. Which is pretty much what I expected. For you living in the Midwest, a test like this would have value, using firearms in the Winter months and all.

For me just the opposite is true. It gets really hot in the Summer, (115F+). This assembly lube really stays put. But again, after using the Weapon Shield Oil and Lithium Grease, I don't use it much anymore, if at all. All this kind of stuff is fun to play with.


That should be fine for all but the harshest of conditions, and then arctic weapon maintenance per the military FM should be followed, which is entirely its own animal.

 

[Kamele0N]

Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en

Muzzleloader season is in the coldest month of hunting..... December. Plus cops on traffic duty are sometimes out there for hours in sub-freezing temps.

Get it now?


Wild wild west @its best

Are you playing on banjos too?

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Ws6
What I find most interesting is how poor weapon shield fares in wear tests that fit the .mil TDP for their CLP (ASTM D4172)........


The military could over complicate mailing a letter. This shows me everything I need to know. The only thing Slip 2000 "destroyed", was the metal it was supposed to protect. Which is why I now have so much of it, (and Lucas), laying around.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Ws6
What I find most interesting is how poor weapon shield fares in wear tests that fit the .mil TDP for their CLP (ASTM D4172)........


The military could over complicate mailing a letter. This shows me everything I need to know. The only thing Slip 2000 "destroyed", was the metal it was supposed to protect. Which is why I now have so much of it, (and Lucas), laying around.



The military chose the wear tests that they best felt held applicability toward protecting weapons.

This is validated by G96 out-performing FP-10 during actual testing on actual identical weapons in identical tests, regarding slide to frame wear on metal pistols.

I submit that this is more applicable than what George Fennell is doing in that video, for the task at hand.

 

[billt460]

That same military also issues CLP. And we all know how "good" it is.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted By: billt460
That same military also issues CLP. And we all know how "good" it is.


CLP was chosen because it does all things adequately. Commercial "CLP" products typically skimp in one area or another. For example, the cold temp cSt might be unacceptable for the .mil, or some other such minutia. However, the wear tests the .mil set up, WeaponShield did poorer than many other products on. That was my point. For an EP lube...[censored]?

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Ws6
CLP was chosen because it does all things adequately. Commercial "CLP" products typically skimp in one area or another. For example, the cold temp cSt might be unacceptable for the .mil, or some other such minutia. However, the wear tests the .mil set up, WeaponShield did poorer than many other products on.


Then use salad oil..... Or, like you have been.... Nothing.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Ws6
CLP was chosen because it does all things adequately. Commercial "CLP" products typically skimp in one area or another. For example, the cold temp cSt might be unacceptable for the .mil, or some other such minutia. However, the wear tests the .mil set up, WeaponShield did poorer than many other products on.


Then use salad oil..... Or, like you have been.... Nothing.


For a guy who has never tried anything but weaponshield, you sure are pushy, lol

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Ws6
For a guy who has never tried anything but weaponshield........


Yeah, right. "I've never tried anything else".

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Ws6
For a guy who has never tried anything but weaponshield........


Yeah, right. "I've never tried anything else".


Nope. You go on and on about WS.

 

[bubbatime]

I have Weaponshield. I like its performance. It stays put and doesn't evaporate, providing lube longer after many others have burned off. That's the good. The bad, I recently found out, is that it is LOADED with chlorine compounds.

And since Chlorine compounds/esters have no business on a firearm, I have removed Weaponshield from all of my guns and stored the rest of the bottle with my rather large stash of other unused gun lubes. Slip 2000 EWL is again getting a bunch of use in my household.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: bubbatime
.........I have removed Weaponshield from all of my guns and stored the rest of the bottle with my rather large stash of other unused gun lubes.


Keep it next to the Fireclean, (salad oil)!

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: Ws6

What I find most interesting is how poor weapon shield fares in wear tests that fit the .mil TDP for their CLP (ASTM D4172), given all of the hype about its EP. SLIP 2000 EWL destroyed it.


Quote:
11.1.1
Repeatability
—The difference between successive
results obtained by the same operator with the same apparatus
under constant operating conditions on identical test material
would, in the long run, in the normal and correct operation of
the test method, exceed the following value only in one case in
twenty:
Repeatability

0.12 mm scar diameter difference
(1)
11.1.2
Reproducibility
—The difference between two single
and independent results obtained by different operators work-
ing in different laboratories on identical test material would, in
the long run, exceed the following value only in one case in
twenty:
Reproducibility

0.28 mm scar diameter difference

http://file.yizimg.com/175706/2012062821134493.pdf

CLP used to out perform LP in such tests. Theory was that the light solvent would carry the lubricant into the working area better.

Without knowing exactly how these tests were conducted, and how many runs, it's really hard to look at ASTM D4172 test and declare a "winner". And yes, this applies to what Mr. Fennel is doing on Youtube.

How many people actually wear out their guns? Very few. The prime job of a firearm lubricant should be to keep the weapon clean. Dissolving or suspending debris as it is made is most important to me. Weapon Shield is the best I have seen for this, as well as easy cleaning after the fact.

This doesn't mean there aren't other good products out there.

 

[Tempest]

This is interesting:
http://www.vuurwapenblog.com/general-opi...ke-theres-liar/

And more smoke = a cleaner gun???

 

[bubbatime]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
The prime job of a firearm lubricant should be to keep the weapon clean. Dissolving or suspending debris as it is made is most important to me.


Hmm, I would think the PRIMARY JOB of a lubricant, is to, well, LUBRICATE. Dissolving carbon and keeping a weapon clean would be less important than lubricating.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The prime job of a firearm lubricant should be to keep the weapon clean. Dissolving or suspending debris as it is made is most important to me.


Hmm, I would think the PRIMARY JOB of a lubricant, is to, well, LUBRICATE. Dissolving carbon and keeping a weapon clean would be less important than lubricating.


Touché!

Should have said that lubricating a firearm is far easier than keeping it clean as the weapon is generating dirt.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Tempest

How many people actually wear out their guns? Very few.

For sure.

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
How many people actually wear out their guns? Very few.

This is why I don't understand all the hand wringing over gun lube. My father and his father used a simple gun oil and never had any problems. They didn't have any special snake oil for their guns, and they always worked. I use Hoppe's oil and I've also never had a problem.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted By: bubbatime
I have Weaponshield. I like its performance. It stays put and doesn't evaporate, providing lube longer after many others have burned off. That's the good. The bad, I recently found out, is that it is LOADED with chlorine compounds.

And since Chlorine compounds/esters have no business on a firearm, I have removed Weaponshield from all of my guns and stored the rest of the bottle with my rather large stash of other unused gun lubes. Slip 2000 EWL is again getting a bunch of use in my household.


I spoke with Mr. Fennell about this, and from what I understand, the chlorine compounds are neutralized in the solution. For sure they have NOT led to corrosion in very humid environments I've exposed WS to. While I wish he had used a different EP, what he did use was EXTREMELY long-chain molecules, which are VERY stable. If you look at the chlorinated compounds that they are banning, they are all short to medium chain. Fennell is a bright tribologist, and he made a product that uses existing items used in a forward thinking way, so to speak. You should not have corrosion or hydrogen embrittlement issues with WS.