OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: billt460
What I have said is it is the only product I've seen tested in a simple, fast, understandable, high wear test, that the average person can take 5 minutes of their time to watch, and come away with some indication it will better prevent wear.
The falex test, which in no way correlates to what happens in a gun, just like it in no way correlates to what happens in a car engine, does not indicate it will better prevent wear due to that fact. It's like the 4-ball test, which, not surprisingly, isn't a valid engine oil test, but IS a valid gear oil and grease test. But it gets used, like the falex machine, to pimp a particular product to the folks that don't know better and assume that the performance correlates to better wear protection. If it was a valid screening test for a finished lubricant, it would be used as such rather than the much more expensive real-world engine tests that ARE employed to test engine oil.
Unfortunately there are no "standards" to evaluate gun oil; no "manufacturer certifications and approvals". It would be nice if there was a Porsche A40-style approval for gun oils that evaluated their performance in rifles under the same controlled conditions to set a level of performance in the areas folks are concerned about. However, there isn't.
In the absence of an official and relevant testing metric, utilizing a procedure that has absolutely nothing in common with the application in question does not make a case for a particular product. It tells you how well that product performs in the unrelated procedure, nothing more. There is no correlation between the two. As has oft been pointed out, Pert Plus and Head and Shoulders (as well as Bleach) do very well in these types of tests but they are obviously not products you want to be putting on your rifle or in your engine.
What I have said is it is the only product I've seen tested in a simple, fast, understandable, high wear test, that the average person can take 5 minutes of their time to watch, and come away with some indication it will better prevent wear.
The falex test, which in no way correlates to what happens in a gun, just like it in no way correlates to what happens in a car engine, does not indicate it will better prevent wear due to that fact. It's like the 4-ball test, which, not surprisingly, isn't a valid engine oil test, but IS a valid gear oil and grease test. But it gets used, like the falex machine, to pimp a particular product to the folks that don't know better and assume that the performance correlates to better wear protection. If it was a valid screening test for a finished lubricant, it would be used as such rather than the much more expensive real-world engine tests that ARE employed to test engine oil.
Unfortunately there are no "standards" to evaluate gun oil; no "manufacturer certifications and approvals". It would be nice if there was a Porsche A40-style approval for gun oils that evaluated their performance in rifles under the same controlled conditions to set a level of performance in the areas folks are concerned about. However, there isn't.
In the absence of an official and relevant testing metric, utilizing a procedure that has absolutely nothing in common with the application in question does not make a case for a particular product. It tells you how well that product performs in the unrelated procedure, nothing more. There is no correlation between the two. As has oft been pointed out, Pert Plus and Head and Shoulders (as well as Bleach) do very well in these types of tests but they are obviously not products you want to be putting on your rifle or in your engine.
