Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Not strictly scientific, but not a bad effort with some useful information:
Gun Lube Evaluations
Tom NJ
I've seen several of these type of "evaluations" of "gun oils".
But what I have never seen is destructive testing where identical weapons are run into the ground, with nothing different but the lubricant applied to them, to see which one protects the weapon better. Yes, such tests are very expensive and time consuming to undertake. But they would go a long way to settling, "which lube is the best", with actual longevity being the result. Not how easily they clean up afterward, or how good they smell.
Some time ago when Pat Rogers was hawking rifles for BCM, they had a "test" of sorts, regarding a BCM M-4 carbine they called the "Filthy 14", or some such. They shot some 31,000 rounds out of a BCM M-4 rife, in some half baked attempt to show how much "better" it was. The problem is there was zero evidence any other M-4 wouldn't have performed in much the same fashion. Because the BCM gun was the only one tested.
Around this same time you had Larry Vickers selling guns for Daniel Defense. He conducted a "test" to show just how tough D.D. guns were, by tossing one out of a flying helicopter. Again, why didn't they toss out a few Bushmasters and Colt's along with it? Because they all would have survived just like the D.D. gun did.
My point is most all of these "tests", or "evaluations" are nothing more than a lot of slick salesmanship. It's the same with a lot of these lubrication "tests". The only one I've found to date that is reasonably convincing, are the Weapon Shield tests performed by George Fennel on the Falex machine. And the only reason I say that is because they are direct comparison wear tests, comparing lube to lube in the same identical fashion, that induces a very high wear condition.
Sure you can pick it apart. And some could bring up some good points as to why. With that said, I don't see any other "gun oil" companies conducting any tests that would pull me away from the Weapon Shield products as of yet. When I do, I may then change to something else. I've been shooting and lubricating guns for the last 45+ years. While no lube I've used could be considered "bad",
when I have seen direct evidence that one is better than the other from a direct lubrication or wear standpoint, I'll switch. That is what brought me to Weapon Shield in the first place. And I've gone through a lot of lubes over the decades. That in itself doesn't mean I won't find a better one down the road. Time will tell.
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2008/ps-sp/PS63-2-1997-1E.pdf
This is a controlled test using identical weapons doing exactly what you asked for, except no "run it until failure" occurred because...absurd amount of time.
The ONLY M4 I am aware of which has been deadlined due to wear...actual WEAR had around half a million rounds through it. Yes, it went through multiple barrels and bolts and springs in that time, but eventually the upper wore to the point where the BCG no-longer aligned with the barrel extension and malfunctions occurred.
I believe that you will find even running a weapon with spit or [censored] on it, it won't wear out for a VERY VERY VERY long time, and tens of thousands of dollars in ammo.
What this means to me, is that ease of cleaning and rust/environmental protection are #1 and #2, in whatever order you prefer.
You will also note that FP10, which Fennell has tested on the Falex machine to "bury the needle" just like Weaponshield...did NOT fare the best in wear prevention testing...hmmmm? Could it be that some of the EP ad-packs that people are so excited over are NOT what necessarily preserves the absolute tolerances of a firearm?
Again...hence why I care about different things than some others on here, regarding firearm lubricants. I want it to stay running, stay wet, and stay easy to clean! EP, and all that jazz comes later. WAY later. Which is why I loved Fireclean. I don't give a [censored] what it's made of, it flat worked better than anything I have ever used before or since. Problem was, it gummed up over time. That led to me replacing it with SLIP 2000 EWL.
Speaking of SLIP 2000...
Here is testing from the Aberdeen proving grounds on that product:
https://www.slip2000.com/downloads/AberdeenTest.pdf
There you have it. Exactly what you asked for. Verbatim. Sealed and delivered.
You worship Weaponshield, but no empirical data I have been able to uncover shows it to be a superior product to others on the market. It is good, for sure! but the Canadian wear evaluation including FP-10 should clear up any misconceptions you have that ad-pack and EP is the end-all, be-all, on a firearm. It just ain't so.
Testing by the military has indeed found a correlation between broken M4 bolts, and lubrication. Also indicative, is corrosion. Corrosion of the surface of the bolt (any portion of the lug weakens it). Soldiers running bolts "dry" in the desert because of moon-dust, and the weapons undergoing a radical temp. shift from day/night in the desert could lead to said corrosion rather easily. Bolt breakage went down with the use of FF rails (less stress on the bolt if the handguard is torqued by the shooter, as this can lead to barrel and thus barrel extension deflection and un-even lug contact), and keeping things wet.
