4wd
$50 site donor 2026
Return of Jumper !
OCI With Militec-1
- Thread starter RobbS
- Start date
I really appreciate your interest in the product. I respect your thoughts and opinions.
I've worked with this stuff for many years with success
No notible failure of any kind.
After reading your thoughts here, I have second thoughts using it again inside an engine. I've been using it on the Focus since new. The power steering pump is original and working well with 2oz MILITEC1 inside. The engine is smooth as can be, doesn't burn oil, and is strong.
Thanks for the information you provided. I wish I had all the answers,but I don't. Just stories of fun times when MILITEC1 freed up a seized motor or gave life to condemned motors.
Thanks again. To each, their own.
How many threads are you going to start on this, or mention on other threads?
In other words, no evidence except your testimonial. Just like the tens if not hundreds of other questionable additives with useless testimonials.
Ummm, this would be the last. Yes.
Chlorinated compound of some sort. Been known for a long time. As Glenda stated, forms "thick" films on the metal surface just as Phos and Sulfur do in gear oils, only with lower "activation" temperatures. All comes down to how well the Cl is buffered and scavenged.
It "conditions" the metal by flattening the asperities on the surface as they come into contact with each other and rolling them into the film. This is an EP additive and best used in boundary conditions.
Some products are better than others. Weapon Shield was out for a long time and rust or corrosion didn't seem to be an issue. Including my own personal use. Sure made guns run well.
Militec1 doesn't have a great rep. in the gun world.
It "conditions" the metal by flattening the asperities on the surface as they come into contact with each other and rolling them into the film. This is an EP additive and best used in boundary conditions.
Some products are better than others. Weapon Shield was out for a long time and rust or corrosion didn't seem to be an issue. Including my own personal use. Sure made guns run well.
Militec1 doesn't have a great rep. in the gun world.
dnewton3
Staff member
Here's a summarization of RobbS's points: (from this thread, and others where he also pushes this product)
- the owner of the company came to a place where RobbS worked. They added Militec-1 to a "massive air compressor" sump and then checked the amp draw. The amp draw was lower, and so it was concluded it must be beneficial
- the marketing info from Militec-1 claims there are no chlorinated paraffins; RobbS also claims the same
- RobbS claims that this product has "freed up a seized motor", etc
- RobbS claims the Navy has used this product in submarines, etc
OTOH ...
- the Militec-1 SDS is woefully absent of any decent info, and only mentions a "proprietary synthetic industrial lubricant"
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA501425.pdf
- This document expressly explains in incredible detail the various multiple failures of Militec-1 in nearly every single test sequence applied.
- multiple times the product was tested by the various applicable military investigative labs and in fact does contain chlorinated compounds (chlorine is not limited to paraffins, and so their claim, while possibly true, does not assure one that chlorine isn't present in other forms, and the various Naval tests clearly state the product is chlorinated)
- while it is true that a "jeep" was run "farther and longer" while using this product, this test result is very misleading. According to the linked document, that test was run with no oil in the jeep. They treated a jeep engine with the product, and then drained the oil and compared that to a jeep with normal oil having been drained. Meaning that there was no oil pressure whatsoever in the engines. Admittedly, the Militec-1 may provide some benefit in this one circumstance, but that condition is VERY RARE, and has little if any practical application in the real world (page 9)
- Militec-1 failed several of the corrosion tests, per the linked document (page 8)
- amp draw on a large compressor is a way to measure friction, but that test does not IN ANY WAY address other concerns such as mechanical and chemical degradation of bearings, etc. Many things can run well while actively being destroyed. This "test" run on the massive compressor does not in any way assure that damage is absent; it ONLY speaks to friction reduction and not metal component degradation.
It seems apparent to me that RobbS is using anecdotal results, often applied in conditions which are not practical in real world conditions, and telling half-truths about military results.
- the owner of the company came to a place where RobbS worked. They added Militec-1 to a "massive air compressor" sump and then checked the amp draw. The amp draw was lower, and so it was concluded it must be beneficial
- the marketing info from Militec-1 claims there are no chlorinated paraffins; RobbS also claims the same
- RobbS claims that this product has "freed up a seized motor", etc
- RobbS claims the Navy has used this product in submarines, etc
OTOH ...
- the Militec-1 SDS is woefully absent of any decent info, and only mentions a "proprietary synthetic industrial lubricant"
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA501425.pdf
- This document expressly explains in incredible detail the various multiple failures of Militec-1 in nearly every single test sequence applied.
- multiple times the product was tested by the various applicable military investigative labs and in fact does contain chlorinated compounds (chlorine is not limited to paraffins, and so their claim, while possibly true, does not assure one that chlorine isn't present in other forms, and the various Naval tests clearly state the product is chlorinated)
- while it is true that a "jeep" was run "farther and longer" while using this product, this test result is very misleading. According to the linked document, that test was run with no oil in the jeep. They treated a jeep engine with the product, and then drained the oil and compared that to a jeep with normal oil having been drained. Meaning that there was no oil pressure whatsoever in the engines. Admittedly, the Militec-1 may provide some benefit in this one circumstance, but that condition is VERY RARE, and has little if any practical application in the real world (page 9)
- Militec-1 failed several of the corrosion tests, per the linked document (page 8)
- amp draw on a large compressor is a way to measure friction, but that test does not IN ANY WAY address other concerns such as mechanical and chemical degradation of bearings, etc. Many things can run well while actively being destroyed. This "test" run on the massive compressor does not in any way assure that damage is absent; it ONLY speaks to friction reduction and not metal component degradation.
It seems apparent to me that RobbS is using anecdotal results, often applied in conditions which are not practical in real world conditions, and telling half-truths about military results.
So if it didn't pass 9 of the 11 tests and evaluations that means it failed doesn't it? What not say so? As in use the word failed instead of didn't pass. I'd pass.
When he said that the military DID use it, I immediately thought to myself: "if it's so great why don't they still use it?"
This was tested by the military. It was rejected because it contained chlorine. It did extend engine life in some Jeeps in testing by the USMC, but didn't meet the requirements of the specifications.
After failing as an engine oil additive, they started selling the "same stuff in the bottle," as I was told when I called and asked them, as a gun lube. Claims of 3 or 4 times the rust prevention of CLP, and no longer needing to use a CLP or solvent to clean. The heat and pressure of firing was supposed to impregnate it into the metal. Or if firing soon wasn't an option heat could be used, which led people to thinking you baked it into the parts. And every informal (there weren't any proper controlled tests I knkw of) showed that this didn't prevent rust and often had more rust than.most oils. Much was jist putting it on clean steel bars amd leaving outside, or spraying with salt water.
I'll see if I still have the GAO statement about it failing the military testing.
After failing as an engine oil additive, they started selling the "same stuff in the bottle," as I was told when I called and asked them, as a gun lube. Claims of 3 or 4 times the rust prevention of CLP, and no longer needing to use a CLP or solvent to clean. The heat and pressure of firing was supposed to impregnate it into the metal. Or if firing soon wasn't an option heat could be used, which led people to thinking you baked it into the parts. And every informal (there weren't any proper controlled tests I knkw of) showed that this didn't prevent rust and often had more rust than.most oils. Much was jist putting it on clean steel bars amd leaving outside, or spraying with salt water.
I'll see if I still have the GAO statement about it failing the military testing.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2020
- Messages
- 64
gao-09-735r.pdf https://share.google/C3jLpJyivImawnjNz
It works too good for the military so they cut it loose! I need to use that line on my wife!So basically, there were two promising tests and from here the DLA assigned an NSN for a small timespan in part because of a push to use commercial off-the-shelf products despite not meeting the specs. The NSN was cancelled for use in military, but not civilian. From here it seems that Militec kept using this as one of the reasons to say it's used and approved by the miltary.
Just for archives sake, this PDF is also on archive.org in case the links expire some day: https://web.archive.org/web/20210609062347/https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-735r.pdf
Just for archives sake, this PDF is also on archive.org in case the links expire some day: https://web.archive.org/web/20210609062347/https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-735r.pdf
RobbS , you should have known how this would go . If you have used this product for many years and you think it has shown some benefits then by all means have at it . Trying to debate this bunch never ends well . 
Funny because the report also mentionsRobbS , you should have known how this would go . If you have used this product for many years and you think it has shown some benefits then by all means have at it . Trying to debate this bunch never ends well .
"Second, Militec, Inc., officials expressed their view that our report does not amply convey the magnitude of customer testimonials in improving the efficacy of their product, noting that they have received tens of thousands of unsolicited laudatory testimonial e-mails from customers, and noting anecdotal commendations from veterans whom they have met. We have reviewed many e-mailed testimonials that Militec, Inc., officials shared with us, and we note them in our report. However, irrespective of their number, these testimonials are not relevant to the testing and evaluation or assigning and canceling of national stock numbers for MILITEC-1, the review of which constituted our objectives."
Testimonials are among the most useless things on the planet. They are often employed by marketers since they are all they have in the absence of any real data.
But, but, but... there was that time I drove some vehicle for 300,000 miles and never had an oil related failure. Must have been the Militec-1.
Second time around reading. This part makes me sick to my stomach and I'm not even a vet:
The company owners know the product is inferior and they are trying to force this down the militaries throat, despite failing the tests. ESPECIALLY for gun lubrication in war. Possibility someone could have died as a result of blind faith in this product.
The company owners know the product is inferior and they are trying to force this down the militaries throat, despite failing the tests. ESPECIALLY for gun lubrication in war. Possibility someone could have died as a result of blind faith in this product.
This is a paper written by the formulator of Weapon Shield on how their process works. Not endorsing the accuracy, nor have any affiliation with the company.
https://weaponshield.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ABF-Technology-White-Paper.pdf
https://weaponshield.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/ABF-Technology-White-Paper.pdf