View Full Version : AR15 lubricant question
Which lubricant would be a better choice for the BCG on an AR15: oil or grease?
this question is gonna lead to a lot of opinions, most of them unsubstantiated.
some guys like grease because it doesnt "blow off"
most guys like oil, or eve CLP, because it's fluid and can splash around during cycling.
i personally think the inside of the upper receiver should be as wet as you can stand it (oil oozing out every hole), which calls for oil.
Right now I've got about 4k rounds down the tube of my main two carbines. I've been running Mobil 1 synthetic motor oil exclusively. I don't remember the weight, but its on the heavy end. I was turned on to Mobil 1 by a 1911 smith that was using it on the tightly-fitting race guns he both built and ran in competition. I decided to try it in my ARs and it works wonderfully thus far without any failures in my Colt or my CMMG franken-gun.
ETA: its also cheap and a quart will last you damn near forever.
I have been using Slip 2000 EWL and love it. Many high volume shooters like and recommend it as well, it is a "synthetic liquid lubricant, formulated with out the use of mineral oil or petroleum distillates." So no bad smell and it cleans, lubricates and protects all in one. I like it so much that I am now using it on all my firearms. The EWL is also good about staying where it is put, does not disappear on my stored guns.
Is Slip 2000 better than FP10? I've got both.
JiMfraRED1911
08-27-09, 14:43
Whatever is on hand generally wets my guns. Usually Slip, 10-8, TW-25B or M-1. Flip a coin, really.
Slip 2000 EWL and WeaponShield CLP have been great for my rifles.
I still don't know which one is better between the two but personally I have seen less carbon build up from WS CLP.
I am curious to see if the heavier weight Slip 2000 EWL offerings have any advantage over the standard EWL or WS CLP.
I am also curious as to why WS CLP is not more widely offered at this point. I can find Slip 2k at local shops but have never seen WS CLP at any. They are both non-toxic which is a big plus to me over breakfree.
I use Weapon Shield also(BEST CLP on the market IMHO) I also use the Weapon Shield grease with oil put on top of it on the cam pin and on the 5 areas of the carrier.
CLP evaporates way too fast.
Mr.Goodtimes
08-27-09, 15:19
I use either mobile 1 15w50 or Lucas Gun Oil. It honestly just depends on which one is closer, they both work real well. ive herd great things about other lubes, but these are what i have on hand and they work really well. im not much of a grease guy. i run the above oils in both my Beretta 92FS and my AR, both guns have run flawlessly.
I've also used really heavy weight mobil 1 gear oil before and that worked great as well, the stuff just smells like shit. It stays put extremely well, though, because of how thick it is.
CLP evaporates way too fast.
if reapplied often and a lot, however, it helps the gun "self-clean" quite a bit.
thats the problem with picking a loob- oils dont burn off and loob really well, but don't cut carbon and really aren't that great as a preservative, CLP burns off too quick and doesn't lubricate that well, but it cuts carbon and keeps the mix thin inside a dirty action.
that's why you need BKB Brand LP! {sooper hot chick walks out with a bottle of re-branded transmission fluid}
The original Lubricant, Semi-fluid, Automatic Weapons (LSA) was and is a great bargain, keeps the weapon running, and both lubricates and generally stays where you put it.
It doesn't run or get blown off like a liquid lube and is fairly persistent like a grease.
Which lubricant would be a better choice for the BCG on an AR15: oil or grease?
My take on lube; I prefer oil over grease, and use Break-Free LP for the lubrication of my bolt and carrier.
My personal finding has been this; Oil as a lubrication, keeps firing residue in suspension and remains fluid. Grease on the other hand, being thick to begin with, only gets thicker as it loads up with firing residue. I tried Tetra grease and this was my personal finding.
If re-lubing is needed during firing, using oil allows you to simply dribble lube through the carrier gas vent holes and down into the bolt pocket between the bolt and carrier. With grease, if re-lubing is needed during firing, you must first disassemble, wipe clean, then reapply the fresh grease.
Mr.Goodtimes
08-27-09, 19:11
With grease, if re-lubing is needed during firing, you must first disassemble, wipe clean, then reapply the fresh grease.
this is why i stopped using grease on my handguns. i got sick of having to clean all that grease out of my gun every time i cleaned it.
this is why i stopped using grease on my handguns. i got sick of having to clean all that grease out of my gun every time i cleaned it.
I still use the Tetra Grease on pistol slide rails, like those on my 1911A1, and XD9 for example. :)
that's why you need BKB Brand LP! {sooper hot chick walks out with a bottle of re-branded transmission fluid}
Hahahaha! :D
bamboolongbow
08-27-09, 20:28
Slip 2000 EWL is the stuff.
Check out Bravo Co.
I have been using Mobil 10w30, as I got a few gallons for free. I have about 600rds with it so far and it seems to keep the bcsg well lubed ,
I use slip 2000 on my shotguns (870 express and mossberg 590) and it works great...the grease you have wipe out every time your clean the parts is messy....:D:D
thetallengineer
08-27-09, 22:40
The squeeze bottle I use to apply oil (Mobil 1 15w-50) usually drips after use, so one day I started letting it drip into the small jar of Rig grease that I have on my gun bench. Well after many uses of the bottle it has allowed a fair amount of the Mobil 1 to build up in the jar so I just mix it up and use that mixture as my lube for Glocks, 1911s, and AR15s. I've been using that blend for some time now and have been very pleased with the results, it keeps my firearms well lubricated, especially on hot summer days in Texas.
I wouldn't get too caught up on finding the perfect lubricant. For the most part, it is more important to keep the gun properly lube rather than worry about the differences in brands. I usually recommend people use Mobil 1 15w-50 as it is available at any auto part store, walmart, etc. $5 for a quart that will last a very long time and help break the habit of being "stingy" when applying lube, especially on ARs.
Mr.Goodtimes
08-28-09, 08:37
I still use the Tetra Grease on pistol slide rails, like those on my 1911A1, and XD9 for example. :)
im thinking about trying out some tw25 grease for my beretta, ive herd its great stuff. the only grease ive used in the past on my guns was high temp bearing grease, and while it worked great, a lot of dirt and brass powder and unburnt powder seemed to get caught up in it and make this nasty lookin goo.
$5 for a quart that will last a very long time and help break the habit of being "stingy" when applying lube, especially on ARs.
VERY good point.
im thinking about trying out some tw25 grease for my beretta, ive herd its great stuff. the only grease ive used in the past on my guns was high temp bearing grease, and while it worked great, a lot of dirt and brass powder and unburnt powder seemed to get caught up in it and make this nasty lookin goo.
I have a sample of TW25 I’ve been meaning to try out on my pistol slides. I always forget though that I have it! :confused:
Hey All, Just thought I'd share this. When I went through my Patrol Rifle Instructor Course, the lead instructor gave us a recipe for some lube he had from some of our boys over in Iraq while he was intructing out there.
Not sure what to call it, but he calls it "Bug Juice". This stuff repels dirt and dust like you wouldn't believe. My first thought was "Yeah Right". During the class while cleaning everything up, I put some on the bolt and carrier of my AR. During various drills and firing from the prone position without a shooting mat ...I have to say this stuff works. When I broke down my AR, there wasn't a speck of dust on the carrier or bolt. The rest of the rifle was covered in dust. Don't know how or why, but this stuff repels dust, dirt, and sand. Anyway, here ya go:
9oz Hoppe's #9
1qt STP Motor Oil Treatment
1qt Automatic Transmission Fluid (no specific brand)
1qt Mobile 1 10w30 Synthetic Oil
Of course mix up well. It makes about 1 gallon. When lubing, ya don't need a whole bunch. A small bottle of this stuff will go a long way. Take Good Care All and Be Safe Always.
-RAVENEDGE-
I got this from Navy Crane
20% VVL
40% Synthetic 2 stroke motorbike oil.
40% Avaition Hydraulic Fluid.
Slick as all and makes cleaning a breeze.
Dan Jones
Heavy Metal
08-30-09, 14:20
What is VVL?
What is VVL?
http://www.qclubricants.com/milspecs.htm
Heavy Metal
08-30-09, 14:57
http://www.qclubricants.com/milspecs.htm
I am not seeing it.
im thinking about trying out some tw25 grease for my beretta, ive herd its great stuff. the only grease ive used in the past on my guns was high temp bearing grease, and while it worked great, a lot of dirt and brass powder and unburnt powder seemed to get caught up in it and make this nasty lookin goo.
I have used TW-25B for years with very good success on my pistols. I recently started using "Slide-Glide" on my pistols and so far I think that I like it better, still testing. But on my AR I use Slip2000 EWL oil and grease. It stays put a lot better than CLP and I do not have to lube as often during sessions. Pat Rogers recommends Slip2000 EWL highly and with his experience and the rounds that he sees go down range in a year that is good enough for me.
MarshallDodge
08-30-09, 15:43
WeaponShield CLP and Super-Lube Synthetic Grease (http://www.super-lube.com/greases-ez-44.htm)
I personally believe that too much of anything can be just as bad as not enough. I use the grease on any "heavy" stress areas like the slide rails on a pistol or the bolt carrier group on a rifle. Using a Q-tip, I apply just enough to create a wet shine on the contact surfaces, any more than that and it will only collect crud in my experience.
I put a light film of WeaponShield on smaller parts such as firing pins, springs, recoil guides, etc.
I use grease for certain applications. And when I do, I use Brian Enos' Slide Glyde. I've found it to be absolutely amazing. Two weights available. Basically a winter and summer version.
I've been using 5W20 Mobil 1 since that's what I use in my vehicle. I figure if it can stand the engine temps, revs, and keeps my engine clean as well as being synthetic it should work well in my weapons too.
sdacbob- I'm currently using FP10. And I'm very satisfied. But when I run out, which will be soon. I'm going to go with Mobile1.
Thomas M-4
08-30-09, 17:27
I am not seeing it.
I think he is talking about VV-L-820
Lubricating Oil, General Purpose, (light)
About 1/4 the way down the page.
RogerinTPA
08-30-09, 17:52
I like and have ran Slip EWL during classes. I'm currently using Royal Purple Synthetic 20W-50 and Militec-1 (2/3,1/3 mix) for the couple of months with great effect. The BCG stays wet longer, almost as long as EWL. I have tried Mobil-1/Militec-1 mix, but it doesn't last as long as Royal Purple, so I use that mix on handguns. Either one is cheaper, and comes in a larger quantity, than conventional gun lube.
Blankwaffe
08-30-09, 18:29
In my opinion the AR does not need a grease and works best if a liquid lubricant is used.I say that for two reasons based on personal experience:
1.First of all an oil is easier to apply and to replenish without disassembly of the weapon while in use or otherwise.
2.Oil keeps the fouling in suspension as it has the ability to penetrate and displace without caking,which also aids in cleaning and overall performance of the AR.
My AR lubricant preference is:
1.Weapon Shield CLP
2.Mil-comm MC2500 oil
3.Break Free LP
4.Break Free CLP
For a pistol grease:
1.Weapon Shield Grease
2.TW25B grease
All in that order of preference.
I keep my AR's moving parts wet with a sheen of Weapon Shield CLP and have seen no lubricant or wear related issues.
The only pistol parts that I use the Weapon Shield Grease on is high friction areas such as the pistol rails,locking lug/blocks,barrel/hood,trigger bar and hammer face.Otherwise everything else gets a bath in Weapon Shield CLP.
I have to say that the Weapon Shield CLP and Weapon Shield Grease are the best performing gun lubricants Ive used to date...so I highly recommend them to anyone without hesitation.FWTW
HTH
Littlelebowski
08-30-09, 18:49
Grease is nothing more than oil with a thickener added such as chalk or soap. It does not "float" away the contaminants such as carbon and brass shaving like oil does. Ask yourself which you'd prefer in the internals of an direct impingement operated weapon like the AR.
I use WeaponShield.
I think he is talking about VV-L-820
Lubricating Oil, General Purpose, (light)
About 1/4 the way down the page.
That is it. It can be anything with the same properties. All it does is keep everything in suspension. NWS Crane developed it due to issues the Seals were having when they came out of the water with the MK11. They have also changed the formula several times but the results are the same. VVL is not required but I use a spray lube that I got from Car Quest.
Dan
Failure2Stop
08-30-09, 19:05
I am a fairly recent convert to Weapons Shield.
I first got some from gotm4 about a year ago.
I have never been all that faithful to any lubricant, so I used a few others at the same time, to include CLP, Slip 200, and Slip EWL (I tend to use free stuff). I noticed that the WS seemed to stick around for a while.
Recently I pushed about 800 rounds through a new build over two days with nothing but WS on it. I only lubed once.
-Note- I have what has been called a "meticulous" lube process which I adhere to with religious precision.
The WS stayed visibly wet the entire time, the weapon functioned smoothly and failure free. To be clear, given the quality of the individual parts the thing should work flawlessly for 500 rounds with no lube at all, but still. . .
At the end of the day, as long as the moving parts are wet, you are fine. I have used everything from "I can't believe it's not butter" to Vagisil. They all work as long as it's wet. Parallels between this phenominon and your love life are not nearly as amusing as some seem to think.
I too am a recent convert to Weapons Shield. It has stuck around on my weapon better than any of the lubes that I have tried, and I have not had a single stoppage on any of my weapons that I have used it on.
In my opinion the AR does not need a grease and works best if a liquid lubricant is used.I say that for two reasons based on personal experience:
1.First of all an oil is easier to apply and to replenish without disassembly of the weapon while in use or otherwise.
2.Oil keeps the fouling in suspension as it has the ability to penetrate and displace without caking,which also aids in cleaning and overall performance of the AR.
......... :)
I picked up some WeaponShield CLP when I saw my M&P came with some cheap garbage. It seems to be working well though it hasn't stood the test of time yet.
Anybody use this stuff on a handgun? It seemed to have the same texture as Hoppes #9 so i gave it a shot through a short training course and it held up fine. And it smells like Big Red!
Littlelebowski
08-30-09, 20:10
Works fine on my 1911 and Glock 19.
For applying any kind of bulk oil. I use syringes. I ordered some from an industrial supplier. The syringe body are regular 12cc hospital type. Good size for most gun apps. But the needles come in a variety of sizes that allow precise application of the lube. And they don't have points on them. Cheap.
Heavy Metal
08-30-09, 21:06
I think he is talking about VV-L-820
Lubricating Oil, General Purpose, (light)
About 1/4 the way down the page.
Gotcha! Thanks.
I have been using the small tube of gunners lube that La Rue sent me with a order. Anyone know where I can get a large tube of that stuff?
Blankwaffe
08-30-09, 22:51
I picked up some WeaponShield CLP when I saw my M&P came with some cheap garbage. It seems to be working well though it hasn't stood the test of time yet.
Anybody use this stuff on a handgun? It seemed to have the same texture as Hoppes #9 so i gave it a shot through a short training course and it held up fine. And it smells like Big Red!
Ive used the Weapon Shield CLP on just about everything I can get my grubby hands on from muskets to modern auto loaders.
Been using it every since George Fennell fired up his new company(Steel Shield Tech) and reformulated product somewhere around 2006 I believe.
Long story short,Ive run the Weapon Shield CLP on pistols for 500+ rounds and had absolutely no complaints.
That said Ive always been a "greaser" when it comes to handguns,particularly aluminum framed weapons like my SIG's and Beretta's.
For several years I used TW25B on my pistols and continued to do so until this year when the Weapon Shield Grease was finally introduced.
So I use Weapon Shield Grease on the load bearing surfaces of my handguns,particularly for heavy range work,and Weapon Shield CLP everywhere else.More "habit" and "feel good" than anything else but thats what I do.
HTH
M1 Garand Wheel bearing grease + Militec Oil.
I use both, as I have had oil drying up on me before on a hot day after a course of fire which went through 10 mags. Just my personal experience.
I've got Gunner's Lube, Miltech, Slip2000 and Mobile1. I haven't seen any appreciable difference using any of them. I used the Mobile1 for my last "big" carbine class (EAG).
I recently started experimenting with Gunzilla. So far so good with that as well. It actually seems to require smaller quanities than some of the other lubes. It doesn't seem to burn off easily and clean up is a snap.
I wouldn't get too caught up on finding the perfect lubricant. For the most part, it is more important to keep the gun properly lube rather than worry about the differences in brands.
That's probably the best advice on this thread.
I currently use FP10 (the old version of what is now WeaponShield) and Mobil 1 5W-40, and keep some Breakfree CLP around if I think I need more corrosion protection. I about flip a coin between the Mobil 1 and the FP10 for general purpose lube on most guns. Mobil 1 seems to be thicker and cling better to the parts, FP10 seems to keep things cleaner.
Unless you're in extreme cold, I really doubt it makes much difference (within reason) what you use as long as its applied sufficiently and frequently.
BufordTJustice
08-31-09, 13:44
I have been using Militec-1 oil and Grease and have been very pleased. I get them cheaply from a local shop, so I use them exclusively for now. I'm not what you would call brand loyal; I'm performance loyal. If there is something that works better than Militec-1 and its reasonably priced, I'm loyal to THAT. However, Militec has served superbly on my Remington 700, SIG P228, and AKM clone. The heat application procedure really does work. Once you get it on the gun and heat it up...it really doesn't come off...even after scrubbing with Hoppe's # 9. I have wanted to try Slip 2000 EWL and SteelShield EPA oil. Slide Glide is on my short list for greases-to-try. Also, Castrol has a new synthetic engine oil called Castrol EDGE. It claims to have 8X the wear protection of Mobil-1 EP. I might run and grab a quart of that stuff in 10w-30 or 15w-50 and give it a try. I keep thinking that if an engine oil can serve well as a lubricant on a gun, it is like alchemy. The same (or better performance) for WAY less than traditional gun lubes. However, I stick with Militec-1 for operational use until I have REALLY tested any new lube. 6000 rounds through my SIG with two Failures-to-Fire due to hard S&B primers (both rounds would not detonate in a brand new P226, G17, or a slightly used HK P2000; I consider it a failure of the ammo). I'm not just gonna slap any ole gun lube on my baby.
I have a question to all those who like one oil over another. I read it all the time that folks prefer one lube and generally claim it "works" better. how can you tell if one is slipperier or protects better than another? what is your criteria?
I have a question to all those who like one oil over another. I read it all the time that folks prefer one lube and generally claim it "works" better. how can you tell if one is slipperier or protects better than another? what is your criteria?
I used BF CLP for everything. Then one day I saw a bottle of BF LP. Having never seen the LP before, I did some reading on BF’s web site and purchased a bottle.
After using the LP on my bolts and carriers, I noticed a reduction in the amount of carbon build-up on the bolt tail, and the LP, minus the solvents found in CLP, stayed wet longer and is significantly thicker than CLP.
This experience changed the way I lube. I now use LP on the bolt and carrier, and bottled CLP on the remainder of the weapon.
I’ve also noticed that bottled CLP, seems to be thicker than the aerosol CLP most commonly used. There are actually two separate MSDS’s for the liquid CLP and aerosol CLP, and the aerosol CLP appears to contain more solvents. I imagine this is required with the aerosol CLP to get it to properly dispense from the spray nozzle.
I now use the aerosol CLP solely for cleaning, and the liquid CLP for lubing.
ETA: MSDS's
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Metroliner/BFaerosol.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Metroliner/BFliquid.jpg
I have a question to all those who like one oil over another. I read it all the time that folks prefer one lube and generally claim it "works" better. how can you tell if one is slipperier or protects better than another? what is your criteria?
This is also what I would like to know.
Blankwaffe
09-01-09, 01:21
This is also what I would like to know.
Well,Im gun crazy and a gun oil freak.
So I initially start with a MSDS which is basically vague and limited in information as most of the folks formulating the products consider formulas proprietary.So the information given is generally chemical groups which could go in several directions at the same time.
Sart running down chemical groups and performance characteristics of the said ingredients in the MSDS.
Call the manufacturer and try and get as much detailed information as possible such as ASTM documents and specific chemicals used,theory etc....some are very open,most not so much.
Do internet research from that point from actual sources chemical manufacturers and not just the formulators.
Take that information and go to the library to do further research into tribology,chemistry and physics.
Then I try to consult with professionals such as Mechanical Engineers(have two in the family,one of which is in weapons design)and Lubrication Engineers(have two very good contacts) to get as many "opinions" as possible.Most of which is very frustrating for an uneducated redneck.
In the end I just buy a quantity of the lubes that interests me and do seat of the pants live fire tests with moderate to high round counts until one lube jumps out at me.Then repeat.
Overall basically a long term test in which I make note of wear,corrosion resistance and the ability of the lubricant to remain on the parts without early evaporation,thickening etc. under friction and the related heat,fouling attachment and so on.There is also the "feels good" aspect which can be misleading,so it has to be worked out as well.
Then also have to consider the actual quality and finish of the weapons and the components which has a great amount to add to the overall result of the lubricants performance.
So basically I have absolutely no life,and know just enough about what I looking for to be dangerous.In the end it comes down to personal preference.But I like what I like when Im done.
I have a question to all those who like one oil over another. I read it all the time that folks prefer one lube and generally claim it "works" better. how can you tell if one is slipperier or protects better than another? what is your criteria?
Well, there are standards for that sort of thing, and simply looking them up will tell you all about a particular lubricant.
That isn't everything, though. Some assemblies abrade in different ways, and different strengths are required. Flat tappet engines require a different kind of oil than other engines, and so on. Just because it works well in one thing, doesn't mean it will work well in another.
That said, someone on another forum I used to frequent performed a simple test.
He put a steel rod in a lathe, spinning at a high RPM, and used a weight and jig to drive another steel rod into the spinning rod, after applying set amounts of the various lubricants. A stopwatch was used to measure how long the rods lasted before running dry and galling each other.
Surprisingly enough, the time differences were quite pronounced. Even more surprising, Remoil beat everything by a long shot. It was a landslide victory. I mean, Remoil? Of all things to win, with all these fancy lubricants out there?
You have to understand, though, that lubrication isn't all about being slippery, especially at high stress levels and temperatures. It is about sheer strength, film strength, viscosity stability, and more. All these things can be measured. Moreover, the military specified a standard for CLP for a reason.
Now, you either meet or exceed that standard, or you aren't used on an M-16. Even the military has other lubricants available, though. Now, that doesn't mean CLP is always the best. A piston weapon will have some unique requirements, so will a weapon used exclusively in incredibly dusty conditions, or under cold weather conditions.
CLP is designed to provide increased protection when used very often, and in large amounts in certain areas. Used infrequently or sparingly, and it won't provide the same benefits.
There are other lubricants that do this as well, CLP isn't the only option. But CLP has a property that other oils may not have. By the standard it is a solid lubricant in solution with a liquid lubricant. They know that weapon heats up, so they planned ahead. Those solids are supposed to build up within the surface of the metal over time, and they appear to do just that.
Lubrication is a science. It's not about what feels good, or what worked for someone's granddaddy. Likewise, every firearm will have different needs. Sure, you can generalize between them, but there are tiny little drawbacks that add up over time.
Like cars, frequent lubrication is more important than what type of lube you use. Also like cars, however, the type of lube becomes important if you plan to keep it for more than 150,000 miles.
These are the times posted by the person that did the above test. You will note that Remoil performed so much better than the rest that it is well out of any reasonable error margin possible. The performer of this experiment ended up going with the outers over the Remoil, because he prefers the grease for his purposes.
Remington DriLube Spray= 2.37 sec.
Militec-1 oil applied 3x, heated, and wiped off each time = 3.48 sec. **
Dry, run with no lube = 3.97 sec.
Militec-1 oil applied wet and left wet, over 3x treated surface = 5.73 sec. **
Red Lithium automotive grease = 8.68 sec. *
Pro-Gold gun grease = 10.37 sec.
Militec-1 grease applied over 3x treated surface = 10.52 sec. ***
GI issue CLP = 12.62 sec.
RCBS case sizing lube (STP?) = 13.20 sec.
30w motor oil = 15.93 sec.
Lubriplate (M1 Garand) grease = 25.12 sec.
Vasaline = 1 min. 31.38 sec.
Outers Gunslick Graphite grease = 2 min. 52.93 sec.
RemOil w/Teflon gun oil/bottle = 3 min 6.99 sec.
This test was far more scientific than the "tests" performed by most people that serve up opinions on the matter, and yet still it fails to address the main concerns of lubrication. Even so, it is a good showing of results that you might not expect, if you don't know much about lubrication.
Later, he tested the corrosion inhibiting properties of some popular lubricants, with equally unexpected results, though I do not recall just what those results were. He also cleaned up the results above with further testing, with no appreciable new data as a result.
Regardless, this is a simple illustration of how things don't behave as you might expect them to in all situations. Here, one might expect grease to come out on top, and indeed, with an acceptable error margin, we can suggest that the Outers grease tied with the Remoil. That presents a problem, however, because as we can see, Outers was the only gel that performed anywhere near as well as Remoil.
Again, it only serves to illustrate that what most people think they know isn't all that valid. Remoil doesn't really FEEL that good. But, in some situations, it is obviously a better choice. Like, for example, if you want to drive one metal rod into a spinning metal rod. :D
That methodology is very similar to the Timken Method orTimken OK Load Test. ASTM specification D-2509.
Timken marketed this machine from the mid thirties through the late sixties or early seventies. It was originally thought that this test identified the film strength of greases, it is now generally accepted only as an indicator of extreme pressure additive presence.
There are quite a lot of these tests and data available, just a few when it comes to greases:
Penetration - ASTM D 217 (25°C [77°F], 0.1 mm) worked 60 strokes
Dropping point, °F[°C] - ASTM D2265
High temperature life, hours - ASTM D 3527
Oxidation stability, psi - ASTM D 942 (100 hr/300 hr)
Water washout, percent - ASTM D 1264
Rust and corrosion - ASTM D 1743
Oil separation, percent loss - ASTM D 1742 (24 hours, 25°C [77°F] )
Leakage, g lost - ASTM D 4290
Four ball wear test, mm scar - ASTM D 2266
Fretting wear, mg - ASTM D 4170
Four ball EP, kgf - ASTM D 2596
It is difficult to find much info on gun lubes, engine oil information is far more plentiful. The kicker is this, without knowing what the Rifle/Pistol etc design parameter limits are I find it difficult to spec a lubricant even knowing it's specific performance capability.
If I knew what the actual operating temperatures and loading characteristics of the parts in a M-4 were I might be able to help.
Blankwaffe
09-01-09, 15:52
Like most everyone else I know I dont have a lab or experience to do detailed tests such and load wear index and scar or any of the other tests that are performed.But some manufacturers have documented ASTM testing that covers those questions...that is unless you dont trust the folks.
Overall the gun lube stuff can be taken to extremes.I spent four years of my life diggin around about gun oils and I have to say I feel dumber for it.Not mention the amount of money spent on a cabinet full of stuff I'll never use.
What it comes down to is find something you like.Do some research into the product to make sure it will not cause small children to die if sprayed in the house and that it will not eat your weapons over the long term.Take the selected product out and shoot the weapon until your heart is content to see if it does actually work well as a lube.In the end if the selected gun oil "floats your boat"then thats what you should use.
As some others have said,its less important in what you use than the fact that you actually use something.
Otherwise you do have to feel confident in the products used,so the "feels good" is somewhat important.
I personally think weapons lubes have come a long way in the last 30 years and I truely appreciate the effort.I remember back in the late 70's and early 80's when there were very few weapons specific gun lubes readily available.I personally used Hoppe's,LSA,3in1 and WD-40 for several years and had very few issues.
So to end my ramble...just spray something on the weapon and make a moderate attempt to keep the weapon clean and lubed from time to time and shoot the thing.The rest is basic in personal preference.
I totally agree, one of the first things I learned about machines, "wrong oil is better than no oil."
RogerinTPA
09-14-09, 16:32
These are the times posted by the person that did the above test. You will note that Remoil performed so much better than the rest that it is well out of any reasonable error margin possible. The performer of this experiment ended up going with the outers over the Remoil, because he prefers the grease for his purposes.
Remington DriLube Spray= 2.37 sec.
Militec-1 oil applied 3x, heated, and wiped off each time = 3.48 sec. **
Dry, run with no lube = 3.97 sec.
Militec-1 oil applied wet and left wet, over 3x treated surface = 5.73 sec. **
Red Lithium automotive grease = 8.68 sec. *
Pro-Gold gun grease = 10.37 sec.
Militec-1 grease applied over 3x treated surface = 10.52 sec. ***
GI issue CLP = 12.62 sec.
RCBS case sizing lube (STP?) = 13.20 sec.
30w motor oil = 15.93 sec.
Lubriplate (M1 Garand) grease = 25.12 sec.
Vasaline = 1 min. 31.38 sec.
Outers Gunslick Graphite grease = 2 min. 52.93 sec.
RemOil w/Teflon gun oil/bottle = 3 min 6.99 sec.
This test was far more scientific than the "tests" performed by most people that serve up opinions on the matter, and yet still it fails to address the main concerns of lubrication. Even so, it is a good showing of results that you might not expect, if you don't know much about lubrication.
Later, he tested the corrosion inhibiting properties of some popular lubricants, with equally unexpected results, though I do not recall just what those results were. He also cleaned up the results above with further testing, with no appreciable new data as a result.
Regardless, this is a simple illustration of how things don't behave as you might expect them to in all situations. Here, one might expect grease to come out on top, and indeed, with an acceptable error margin, we can suggest that the Outers grease tied with the Remoil. That presents a problem, however, because as we can see, Outers was the only gel that performed anywhere near as well as Remoil.
Again, it only serves to illustrate that what most people think they know isn't all that valid. Remoil doesn't really FEEL that good. But, in some situations, it is obviously a better choice. Like, for example, if you want to drive one metal rod into a spinning metal rod. :D
I may have missed it, but what does the time durations, next to the individual lube represent?
You stated "He" conducted this test. Who is "He" and do you have a link where you got the above info?
Thanks
I may have missed it, but what does the time durations, next to the individual lube represent?
You stated "He" conducted this test. Who is "He" and do you have a link where you got the above info?
Thanks
The time durations were the length of time between the two pieces of metal making contact, and damage resulting from that contact, indicated by noise, visual damage, stuttering, and the like.
That's what he said, anyway. I copied that from a site that wasn't the original site it was posted on. It was just another copy and paste. If I recall correctly, I originally saw this test on the Kel Tec owner's group forum. That was the place that it originated, I think. I may have even participated in the thread a bit.
Just peruse google a bit, and you should be able to find it, I think. I haven't been to that forum in a while, on principal. I may have even been banned. It's a great resource, with some good people, but it's over-managed for my tastes.
That wasn't exactly a perfectly scientific test. It would have been a better test if he had used an IR thermometer as well, and took an average over several sets of data. He used what he had and did what he could.
Still, it's a heck of a lot more scientific than "my daddy used it, and I think it feels good in the gun", or, "I've been using it for 10 years, and it ain't bothered me a bit".
I think it is a great effort on one man's part to go out and test a few claims, even if he didn't exactly touch on just why some of the better lubricants might have failed the test. If more people took this initiative, there wouldn't be so much nonsense out there.
I have a question to all those who like one oil over another. I read it all the time that folks prefer one lube and generally claim it "works" better. how can you tell if one is slipperier or protects better than another? what is your criteria?
I personally think that worrying about that kind of stuff is obsessing over a lot of minutia that doesn't really matter. While I'm glad there are basement-dwellers somewhere on the internet to perform all these various tests, I ultimately don't care.
My preferred lube and cleaning products are Slip2000, and I prefer the EWL for lube. I just got back from a carbine class this weekend, and on the night before TD1 I went to lube my BCG and found that I had forgotten all of my cleaning supplies. Fortunately I had a bottle of something or other in my armorer's bag that stays in the truck, and a few patches, so I used that and the hotel room sink to clean off the BCG after disasembly and hosed the whole thing down again with the lube. Ran Wolf for thee days with no other cleaning besides a squirt of the lube through the ejection port at lunch each day.
Would I have been happier cleaning it with my 725 and lubing it with the EWL? Yes. Do I think they are better products? Yes. Did the gun run just fine with the mystery lube? Yes it did.
I've used about any oil avalibly, M-2 cal 50 manual (old) recomended motor oil as 4th or 5th, in the 80-90s we would use oe 30 wt and atf on it.. I've used whats handy many times. ATF cleans good though. CLP issued, old and new versions.
I'm a fan of oil the crap out of it. when I broke in my issue M-4 prior to deploying with it Dec 07 I shot it the crap out of it dry and wet depending on the ammo fired
ball farily dry at first and then wet as oil dripping out all over broke in to one smooth trigger action, better than most in the unit. shot well over 5 k in ammo in it. then in country clean and oil daily. had a hell of time keeping Dumb Asses from just using WD-40 to lube M-2s, 240s, 249s and M-4s it will work for few rnds then dry up in sand box. oil and wash out crap, 5 trips in the box. in 91 the gunners would wash out the 25mm Bushmasters with Motor Oil and ATF then shoot them.
I personally think that worrying about that kind of stuff is obsessing over a lot of minutia that doesn't really matter. While I'm glad there are basement-dwellers somewhere on the internet to perform all these various tests, I ultimately don't care.
My preferred lube and cleaning products are Slip2000, and I prefer the EWL for lube. I just got back from a carbine class this weekend, and on the night before TD1 I went to lube my BCG and found that I had forgotten all of my cleaning supplies. Fortunately I had a bottle of something or other in my armorer's bag that stays in the truck, and a few patches, so I used that and the hotel room sink to clean off the BCG after disasembly and hosed the whole thing down again with the lube. Ran Wolf for thee days with no other cleaning besides a squirt of the lube through the ejection port at lunch each day.
Would I have been happier cleaning it with my 725 and lubing it with the EWL? Yes. Do I think they are better products? Yes. Did the gun run just fine with the mystery lube? Yes it did.
This is all true.
Much like an automobile, any lubricant will work temporarily. Many will work for a long period of time.
Still, lubrication is a science. There are a lot of factors at play. In the AR itself, here are some of the issues lubricants have to deal with:
1: Excessive heat
2: High strength shearing forces with lower strength compression forces
3: High strength shearing forces with high strength compression forces
4: High pressure gas exhausted into the system
5: Long duration function, in which lubricant is ejected from the system, and in which the system provides progressively more difficult conditions of operation.
6: Repeated introduction of foreign matter into the system
7: Long term exposure to temperatures varying over a scale greater than 180 degrees Fahrenheit.
As you can see, for certainty of very long term function, a fairly specific lubricant is required. In fact, in order to handle the 180 degree temperature swing experienced in normal soldiering around the globe, some times other lubricants are required.
It has to flow, but it also has to stay in place. It has to handle incredible amounts of heat, but it also has to handle zub-zero temperatures. It has to deal with high pressure gas trying to blow it all over creation. It's got to manage to hold a film when jammed and twisted by bits of metal at almost unfathomable pressures, and it likewise has to hold a film between reciprocating assemblies and their housings. It's also got to be able to evacuate contaminants without means of filtering, and encapsulate them with a film. It has to be suitable for use in an open system...
Those last bits are the real kicker. Up until that point, a very good synthetic motor oil could handle some of the temperature ranges effectively. Something effective in certain engines, like my Rover V8, would be effective for such a system without the temperature issues. 5W40 European Spec, by Amsoil, is a pretty close approximation to the actual lubrication requirements.
There is more to consider than lubrication, however. You don't have an oil filter, and motor oil is designed to work with an oil filter. Likewise, while motor oil does have to handle a variance of temperatures, at more pedestrian extremes, it falls short, and must be provided in different formulations due to a drastic change in viscosity over it's acceptable range. With this change in viscosity comes a likewise drastic change in it's lubricating properties. There is a lot more to it than this, but I could go on for hours with theory, wheres an actual lubrication engineer could go on for hours with figures and practice. I know, I've experienced it. :)
It is interesting stuff.
Still, there is one simple consideration to be made. An AR-15 is made up of many parts that are incredibly easy to replace when they are worn out of specification. That's why you can get away with pretty much anything. Parts are cheap and easy to replace.
Proper lubrication will help ensure that these parts last as long as they can. Some people care. Some people do not. The system itself can function with very little lubrication, and even when worn severely, can function within acceptable tolerances.
The more you stretch the specifications, though, the more likely you are to experience undesirable effects during operation.
Does it matter? That depends on how much you care, and what philosophies you hold to in relation to weapon maintenance.
I look at my ready weapons as things I will only need in an absolute worst case scenario, when the chips are down, the issue was sudden and unexpected, and things are as horrible as they can get. I spare no toil or expense in keeping them in tip top condition for that very reason.
The crap I have to plink and play around at the range with, however, is maintained in a more traditional fashion. I will never rely on it for anything other than entertainment.
Likewise, my main vehicle receives only the best in maintenance and care, as I rely on it under difficult conditions at times, and I plan to keep it as long as I keep myself. My other cars, which come and go, are simply maintained per the manufacturer's recommendations for the expected service life of the vehicle.
There is only one right way to do things, but sometimes, the right way just doesn't matter enough to be bothered with.
It is interesting stuff.
This is clearly a matter of opinion. :p
Discussions of lubrication in ARs are some of the most god-awful boring shit I've ever read. and I am convinced that the discussion is typically at least 75% emotion, hysteria, voodoo, and dogma and maybe 25% science at best. Not to mention that, like most discussions, maybe 2% are actually qualified to have an educated opinion on the subject.
There is only one right way to do things, but sometimes, the right way just doesn't matter enough to be bothered with.
Uhm, no. There is no magic lube that is right for every condition, doesnt matter if it gun lube, motor oil, grease, or any other lube. Anything that claims to be the best for every condition is most likely sold on infomercials by the slapchop guy.
The best lube will be made for the specific conditions, not a huge variation or they are sacrificing preformance for the variations.
RogerinTPA
09-15-09, 09:29
The time durations were the length of time between the two pieces of metal making contact, and damage resulting from that contact, indicated by noise, visual damage, stuttering, and the like.
That's what he said, anyway. I copied that from a site that wasn't the original site it was posted on. It was just another copy and paste. If I recall correctly, I originally saw this test on the Kel Tec owner's group forum. That was the place that it originated, I think. I may have even participated in the thread a bit.
Just peruse google a bit, and you should be able to find it, I think. I haven't been to that forum in a while, on principal. I may have even been banned. It's a great resource, with some good people, but it's over-managed for my tastes.
That wasn't exactly a perfectly scientific test. It would have been a better test if he had used an IR thermometer as well, and took an average over several sets of data. He used what he had and did what he could.
Still, it's a heck of a lot more scientific than "my daddy used it, and I think it feels good in the gun", or, "I've been using it for 10 years, and it ain't bothered me a bit".
I think it is a great effort on one man's part to go out and test a few claims, even if he didn't exactly touch on just why some of the better lubricants might have failed the test. If more people took this initiative, there wouldn't be so much nonsense out there.
You stated "He" conducted this test. Who is "He" and do you have a link where you got the above info?
So the answer is, "I don't know", and "No.":rolleyes:
Do us all a favor. The next time you post a test like this, I'd appreciate the person/author of the test and a link since your post of the above statistics and test are piece meal. FYI, without context, and reading the entire report,this test is dubious at best and I'm not about to waste my time looking for additional info for something YOU posted. ;)
How many rounds should I go between oiling? And where should I put the oil? Photos would help. Thanks.
There is a thread about cleaning you may want to take a look at. It is stickied. Oil it when it starts to get dry.
:D I don't know it all, I've only been carried one off and on for the last 20 years or so. my first issued one was a GM M16A1 that was older than me. I remember shooting over 30 30 rnd. mags with just CLP. my first personally owned one is a Oly Arms shorty 11.5 Barrel that I've abused the crap out of over the years.. It will be 21 in Dec 09. back at Ft. Lewis in the 80s I'd go to the range with 20-30 mag loaded and shoot for hours stopping ever few 100 rnds. spray some CLP or LSA in and shoot again. then to clean spray down with carb cleaner or brake parts cleaner... darn sure wish I knew how much the cost of ARs was going up then, I'd bought one every month I was there. Over All use a good Oil made for guns as a first choice.. and try not to mix Gun Oils LSA, CLP, ECT.. don't mix well I've read in Mil. manuals but lube in good.The ones I've got Setting on gun safe for use by me now.. "Otis Ultra Lube Rem Oil, Gun Slick Ultra Lube, Royco CLP.
Old USSR Soldier Trick Lube for AK "Canned Tuna oil" I'll pass on that one myself :rolleyes: It maybe one of the myths though.
We recently switched to Dulites Kwik Seal. Seems to be working really well. Anyone have any experience with it?
Carne Frio
09-15-09, 16:19
This is clearly a matter of opinion. :p
Discussions of lubrication in ARs are some of the most god-awful boring shit I've ever read. and I am convinced that the discussion is typically at least 75% emotion, hysteria, voodoo, and dogma and maybe 25% science at best. Not to mention that, like most discussions, maybe 2% are actually qualified to have an educated opinion on the subject.
This could be less boring and smell good, too !
http://www.baconsaltblog.com/2009/04/our-newest-product.html
Anyone tried this stuff, yet ?:D
Uhm, no. There is no magic lube that is right for every condition, doesnt matter if it gun lube, motor oil, grease, or any other lube. Anything that claims to be the best for every condition is most likely sold on infomercials by the slapchop guy.
The best lube will be made for the specific conditions, not a huge variation or they are sacrificing preformance for the variations.
I don't recall suggesting otherwise.
So the answer is, "I don't know", and "No.":rolleyes:
Do us all a favor. The next time you post a test like this, I'd appreciate the person/author of the test and a link since your post of the above statistics and test are piece meal. FYI, without context, and reading the entire report,this test is dubious at best and I'm not about to waste my time looking for additional info for something YOU posted. ;)
Geez, you guys are wound tight around here.
As I said, posting that, ambiguous as it may be, is still much better than most of the lubrication nonsense most people don't seem to have a problem with. If I tell you his screen name is mightymonkey342, will that manage to make it all OK?
It's a point of data, that's all. I didn't even present it as authoritative in any way. It is a point of discussion, meant to help people begin to wonder why an unsuspected lubricant might do very well on one specific test, while another lubricant, which would plainly be superior in another situation might not do so well on that test.
Likewise, if you consider it a waste of time to research your position in order to debunk my claim, all you can do is stomp your foot and say no. That's about all.
You smell like someone who just plain doesn't like something I've said, so you are trying to debunk every one of my "claims" by making my initial point look foolish.
Well, I didn't claim anything. Someone else did, and I used his work to make a point. Big deal. You don't like it? Look it up. You don't want to look it up? Quit complaining. The other things I've said here work perfectly well without that stupid test.
I posted what the person posted in his own thread. Ok, so I can't remember the guy's name. It doesn't matter. The test isn't good enough to be used as an actual yardstick in the comparison of lubricants, it's there to show you that some things behave in manners other than can be reasonably expected, if you don't know what to look for.
If we take every claim on this site that is less substantiated than my recount of that test, and we delete them all, this entire website would be nothing more than a bunch of for-sale ads and a couple of torque values.
So, don't come at me as if I have rocked the boat. You can't fool me with that crap. That test exists, and what I said about it is 100 percent accurate. You don't need anything else, as anything I post about it short of a set of published findings in a scientific journal is nothing more than hearsay.
I'm not on trial here, and I'm not your personal argument assistant, here to bring you all the citations you need to come to a decision. There isn't even anything to argue about, unless you wish to claim that this guy never posted those results on any forum, and that I have just fabricated the entire thing.
Is that what you claim? Because if it isn't, there is no point claiming anything contrary to my position, because I plainly did not advise putting much faith in the results without serious consideration.
So, are you calling me a liar or not? Because, that's what it's down to, here.
This is clearly a matter of opinion. :p
Discussions of lubrication in ARs are some of the most god-awful boring shit I've ever read. and I am convinced that the discussion is typically at least 75% emotion, hysteria, voodoo, and dogma and maybe 25% science at best. Not to mention that, like most discussions, maybe 2% are actually qualified to have an educated opinion on the subject.
Well, while we may disagree on whether or not it is interesting, I agree completely with the rest of your post. The posts after yours here are a sampling of why you don't see more real theory posted on the subject.
Someone always gets his nose tweaked, even when no disagreeable claims are made.
RogerinTPA
09-15-09, 21:12
Geez, you guys are wound tight around here.
As I said, posting that, ambiguous as it may be, is still much better than most of the lubrication nonsense most people don't seem to have a problem with. If I tell you his screen name is mightymonkey342, will that manage to make it all OK?
It's a point of data, that's all. I didn't even present it as authoritative in any way. It is a point of discussion, meant to help people begin to wonder why an unsuspected lubricant might do very well on one specific test, while another lubricant, which would plainly be superior in another situation might not do so well on that test.
[QUOTE]Likewise, if you consider it a waste of time to research your position in order to debunk my claim, all you can do is stomp your foot and say no. That's about all.
I wouldn't know where to look since I requested a link and an author and you failed to provide one.;)
You smell like someone who just plain doesn't like something I've said, so you are trying to debunk every one of my "claims" by making my initial point look foolish.
All we care about is if you are posting someone else's data, print the entire data and a link to that reference as per the M4C mission statement. You made yourself look foolish by posting anonymous and incomplete data. Even after I requested the info, you still failed to come up with a link. People post links and discussions from other forums all the time here. Is this guy a spook or something? Why the hesitation?
Well, I didn't claim anything. Someone else did, and I used his work to make a point. Big deal. You don't like it? Look it up. You don't want to look it up? Quit complaining. The other things I've said here work perfectly well without that stupid test.
What would I have Googled for since there was no title or name of the study posted in your pasted data?
I posted what the person posted in his own thread. Ok, so I can't remember the guy's name. It doesn't matter. The test isn't good enough to be used as an actual yardstick in the comparison of lubricants, it's there to show you that some things behave in manners other than can be reasonably expected, if you don't know what to look for.
How about posting a link so we can read the entire study, instead of the incoherent data you posted? Your "paste" has a lot of holes in it and I would have appreciated reading the entire study, and the original author's credentials,but since it had no title on it or link....starting to be a reoccurring theme eh?
If we take every claim on this site that is less substantiated than my recount of that test, and we delete them all, this entire website would be nothing more than a bunch of for-sale ads and a couple of torque values.
So, don't come at me as if I have rocked the boat. You can't fool me with that crap. That test exists, and what I said about it is 100 percent accurate. You don't need anything else, as anything I post about it short of a set of published findings in a scientific journal is nothing more than hearsay.
Sorry bubba, that doesn't cut it around here. That part in blue comes off as a tad hysterical, so if I upset you, be more complete next time. Just because you believe something is true, doesn't validate they're claim or make us all jump off the same cliff you chose to. Next time please post a copy of the entire study, with a link.
I'm not on trial here, and I'm not your personal argument assistant, here to bring you all the citations you need to come to a decision. There isn't even anything to argue about, unless you wish to claim that this guy never posted those results on any forum, and that I have just fabricated the entire thing.
Not trying to get into a pissing contest, but when you post data that is incomplete, many of us have a problem with it. Notably, the conditions of the test, was it a weapon the lube was tested on or simply two pieces of metal rubbed together? At what revolution or speed, was the metal tested? Basement test or field test?, etc... Get it???
Note, don't bother answering these questions now, since it should have been covered in your initial post.
Is that what you claim? Because if it isn't, there is no point claiming anything contrary to my position, because I plainly did not advise putting much faith in the results without serious consideration.
So, are you calling me a liar or not? Because, that's what it's down to, here.
Not calling you a liar at all and don't take it so personal, after all, you didn't do the study right? I'm claiming your post/paste, is very incomplete or not thorough. Maybe it's your copy and paste skills...If you are going to post stuff like that, then defended it, even if you didn't write it, and can't provide a link when asked several times, and get all butt hurt about it, then that speaks to your credibility. IF I were to call you anything, it would be the PC term of "Not being thorough".;)
FWIW, although the info in that study did peak my interest, most folks, including myself, are going to continue to use what we feel is best for our use.
[QUOTE=kennith13;454122]Geez, you guys are wound tight around here.
As I said, posting that, ambiguous as it may be, is still much better than most of the lubrication nonsense most people don't seem to have a problem with. If I tell you his screen name is mightymonkey342, will that manage to make it all OK?
It's a point of data, that's all. I didn't even present it as authoritative in any way. It is a point of discussion, meant to help people begin to wonder why an unsuspected lubricant might do very well on one specific test, while another lubricant, which would plainly be superior in another situation might not do so well on that test.
I wouldn't know where to look since I requested a link and an author and you failed to provide one.;)
All we care about is if you are posting someone else's data, print the entire data and a link to that reference as per the M4C mission statement. You made yourself look foolish by posting anonymous and incomplete data. Even after I requested the info, you still failed to come up with a link. People post links and discussions from other forums all the time here. Is this guy a spook or something? Why the hesitation?
What would I have Googled for since there was no title or name of the study posted in your pasted data?
How about posting a link so we can read the entire study, instead of the incoherent data you posted? Your "paste" has a lot of holes in it and I would have appreciated reading the entire study, and the original author's credentials,but since it had no title on it or link....starting to be a reoccurring theme eh?
Sorry bubba, that doesn't cut it around here. That part in blue comes off as a tad hysterical, so if I upset you, be more complete next time. Just because you believe something is true, doesn't validate they're claim or make us all jump off the same cliff you chose to. Next time please post a copy of the entire study, with a link.
Not trying to get into a pissing contest, but when you post data that is incomplete, many of us have a problem with it. Notably, the conditions of the test, was it a weapon the lube was tested on or simply two pieces of metal rubbed together? At what revolution or speed, was the metal tested? Basement test or field test?, etc... Get it???
Note, don't bother answering these questions now, since it should have been covered in your initial post.
Not calling you a liar at all and don't take it so personal, after all, you didn't do the study right? I'm claiming your post/paste, is very incomplete or not thorough. Maybe it's your copy and paste skills...If you are going to post stuff like that, then defended it, even if you didn't write it, and can't provide a link when asked several times, and get all butt hurt about it, then that speaks to your credibility. IF I were to call you anything, it would be the PC term of "Not being thorough".;)
FWIW, although the info in that study did peak my interest, most folks, including myself, are going to continue to use what we feel is best for our use.
That's all I could find of it. Unless I can manage to dig up the thread somewhere, that's all I'm going to get. I'm sick as a dog right now, and I just plain don't feel like it. I copied that from a thread where someone copied it from someone else who copied it.
I told you, I'm pretty sure it came from the KTOG forum. A search there might turn it up. You can find it if you want without knowing the name. All you have to do is search for variations on "gun oil comparison/experiment".
I'm only using it to show that lubricants can perform differently under a variety of conditions. You refer to this as if this was some in depth study. I told you, it was just some guy testing things as best he could. He did not present it as anything more, and neither did I.
You want to find it?
http://www.ktog.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
Have fun. Their search function makes the one on this site look like the cat's ass. I'm almost positive that the original post and conversation occurred there.
I never said I believe his results. I know he did the test, that's a fact. I know I saw his results, that as well is a fact. I know that, given the test itself, the results are in concert with my expectations of the lubricants in that particular scenario. It does make sense, that's all.
I didn't jump off any cliff. I included the results of his little test in my post to show that sometimes things don't happen as you might expect.
And bugger you for telling me not to answer your questions. Some of the questions you pose in that little diatribe have been plainly answered in my posts. If you can't read, it's not my fault. Pay attention next time.
I told you that he was lowering a metal rod with a set weight, via a jig, into a spinning metal rod mounted in a lathe. I said that in my post. I even said that the test wasn't that valid in practice. It doesn't address many actual lubrication concerns... I said that as well.
Read what I say next time. There is nothing detrimental to my credibility in this thread. I don't know where the darned study is on the site. I copied what someone else copied from it, because that was all I could find. I was plainly clear about the fact that it was not to be looked upon as properly scientific or law. I was plainly clear about just why I included it.
And, for the record, if I provided you a link and an author, you wouldn't bloody need to search for anything, would you now?
Make some sense, man.
You are accusing me of many things, all of which I have proved false well before your accusations took place. The reason I am repeating myself is simple.
Everything you are asking has been handled already, you just never read the damned posts.
[QUOTE=rharris2163;454209]
That's all I could find of it. Unless I can manage to dig up the thread somewhere, that's all I'm going to get. I'm sick as a dog right now, and I just plain don't feel like it. I copied that from a thread where someone copied it from someone else who copied it.
I told you, I'm pretty sure it came from the KTOG forum. A search there might turn it up. You can find it if you want without knowing the name. All you have to do is search for variations on "gun oil comparison/experiment".
I'm only using it to show that lubricants can perform differently under a variety of conditions. You refer to this as if this was some in depth study. I told you, it was just some guy testing things as best he could. He did not present it as anything more, and neither did I.
You want to find it?
http://www.ktog.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl
Have fun. Their search function makes the one on this site look like the cat's ass. I'm almost positive that the original post and conversation occurred there.
I never said I believe his results. I know he did the test, that's a fact. I know I saw his results, that as well is a fact. I know that, given the test itself, the results are in concert with my expectations of the lubricants in that particular scenario. It does make sense, that's all.
I didn't jump off any cliff. I included the results of his little test in my post to show that sometimes things don't happen as you might expect.
And bugger you for telling me not to answer your questions. Some of the questions you pose in that little diatribe have been plainly answered in my posts. If you can't read, it's not my fault. Pay attention next time.
I told you that he was lowering a metal rod with a set weight, via a jig, into a spinning metal rod mounted in a lathe. I said that in my post. I even said that the test wasn't that valid in practice. It doesn't address many actual lubrication concerns... I said that as well.
Read what I say next time. There is nothing detrimental to my credibility in this thread. I don't know where the darned study is on the site. I copied what someone else copied from it, because that was all I could find. I was plainly clear about the fact that it was not to be looked upon as properly scientific or law. I was plainly clear about just why I included it.
And, for the record, if I provided you a link and an author, you wouldn't bloody need to search for anything, would you now?
Make some sense, man.
You are accusing me of many things, all of which I have proved false well before your accusations took place. The reason I am repeating myself is simple.
Everything you are asking has been handled already, you just never read the damned posts.
dude, when you find yourself in a hole... stop digging...
Failure2Stop
09-16-09, 15:16
Guys- Expressing opinon and dissent are fine, but keep it civil and free of personal attacks.
Gun lubrication is a really stupid thing to get your knickers in a twist about.
Before posting take two deep breaths and ask yourself how it will benefit the community.
Please.
[QUOTE=kennith13;454278]
dude, when you find yourself in a hole... stop digging...
I don't know what you guys are on about. I'm not in a hole. I have maid it plainly clear that we are in agreement. My first post illustrates that fact.
I can't imagine what the fuss is supposed to be about. I haven't said one controversial thing in this entire thread, so far as lubrication is concerned.
Guys- Expressing opinon and dissent are fine, but keep it civil and free of personal attacks.
Gun lubrication is a really stupid thing to get your knickers in a twist about.
Before posting take two deep breaths and ask yourself how it will benefit the community.
Please.
I don't have my knickers twisted at all. I'm simply responding logically to what is presented. If they are arguing this point, it means they haven't read the actual posts, are incapable of understanding them, or just want to argue. That's all. I'm just illustrating that.
How does it benefit the community?
Good information has been added to the thread. A nice example of a concept was posted, and I picked that concept apart in order to provide insight into some of what lubrication is all about. It will be of great benefit to the community to have actual discussion about the realities of lubrication within a thread.
Some people either just don't want to hear it, or don't want to read it. That's not my fault. I haven't done anything even remotely suspect here. If someone needs to be policed, it isn't me.
I don't have my knickers twisted at all. I'm simply responding logically to what is presented. If they are arguing this point, it means they haven't read the actual posts, are incapable of understanding them, or just want to argue. That's all. I'm just illustrating that.
How does it benefit the community?
Good information has been added to the thread. A nice example of a concept was posted, and I picked that concept apart in order to provide insight into some of what lubrication is all about. It will be of great benefit to the community to have actual discussion about the realities of lubrication within a thread.
Some people either just don't want to hear it, or don't want to read it. That's not my fault. I haven't done anything even remotely suspect here. If someone needs to be policed, it isn't me.
Nice martyrdom there.
What rharris is referring to is the standards of this site. In the rules (http://m4carbine.net/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item) you will find:
In order to maintain a site that is an effective database of good information, it is best to post information that you have first hand knowledge of. If you are repeating information that you have been told or have read from another poster, it is best to disclose that in the opening of the post.
what this has come to mean for most long-time-posters is that you either post something you yourself have first-hand knowledge of, or you post a link to where you got the information, or you post who you are quoting. It's how we maintain standards here and don't just go around posting something that we heard from our brother's mother's cousin's uncle. This is not barfcom, and it is most certainly not KTOG. It's more like writing a thesis for graduate school where you are expected to either discover information yourself or provide a reference to the source you are quoting.
This is the time when you either will cease being a thorn, or you'll run all around the site finding places where others didn't follow this unwritten rule and you'll whine about why it's being unfairly applied to you, or you'll nut up, get over it, stop throwing yourself on the cross, and be done. Typically those that choose the former don't last long, either of their own choice or someone else's.
Failure2Stop
09-16-09, 16:57
This is the opportunity for everybody to get back on the topic of lubricants for AR15s.
This is the opportunity for everybody to get back on the topic of lubricants for AR15s. Didn't see this post.
http://www.ktog.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1119987390/4
Looks like someone found it. It was sent to me via PM. So, there you have it, everyone. Argument over.
I've tried a fair share of lubricants for pistols and rifles. Here is the short list. Some I have bought and some that I got as samples
Breakfree
Hoppes 9 Oil
Militec 9
Another oil that is very similar to Militec 9. Can't remember the name.
RemOil
Outters Oil
MilComm Oil
MotorOil
Benelli Light Oil
Kroil <----this stuff an excellent penetrating oil for cleaning goooooo left behind from your .22LR
Rigg Stainless Grease
FP10
WeaponShield CLP
LithiGrease
Slip 2000 EWL
For my alloy and combat tupperware pistol I use Rigg Grease on the rails and float a little oil on top.
For the AR, I use WeaponShield and Slip EWL. In a pinch, I'll spit, piss or blow my nose on the gun to get it running.
BillCutting
09-17-09, 22:46
I had some laying around, alot in fact, so I have been using Royal Purple 75w90 gear oil. If its as good as there other products Im sure it works great. A little thicker than motor oil but not as thick as grease, a good compromise I think.
Sorry for digging up this old thread, but I've got a question regarding lubrication on piston guns. I own a Benelli M4, and wondered if it would make sense to use grease, f.e. brownells action lube, on the trigger group, and CLP on the bolt carrier? Would you lube a piston gun differently?
Sorry for digging up this old thread, but I've got a question regarding lubrication on piston guns. I own a Benelli M4, and wondered if it would make sense to use grease, f.e. brownells action lube, on the trigger group, and CLP on the bolt carrier? Would you lube a piston gun differently?
You generally want to run the gas piston bone dry, otherwise it will coke up. Check your owner's manual though. Italian shotguns may require different treatment ;)
Also, grease and cold weather do not mix. In weather like we're having now across most of the country, you'd probably be better off with a squirt of diesel or kerosene.
Yep, them pistons themselves no lube at all.
I was more thinking of bolt carrier/trigger group etc.
What's the opinion nowadays regarding Weapon Shield vs Slip2000 EWL?
Most things I read about Weapon Shield were from 2009, when they were fairly new.
fivefivesix
12-14-10, 12:33
i use too use mobil 1 but i bought tw25b the grease and oil and it lubed alot better than motor oil. i could feel a difference in the action.
millitec and slip2000ewl are also great.
i use a mix of tw25b grease on the bolt and the tw25b oil on the fcg parts
Yep, them pistons themselves no lube at all.
I was more thinking of bolt carrier/trigger group etc.
What's the opinion nowadays regarding Weapon Shield vs Slip2000 EWL?
Most things I read about Weapon Shield were from 2009, when they were fairly new.
I don't know other than I got one of the 1 oz. oilers that they were giving away as a promotion and used it on a new P226. after 1000 rds, you could barely tell any scuffing on the barrel which was amazing to me. it was also amazing to a buddy, so much so, that he ordered a whole basket of their products and won't use anything else now...
that said, I'm really starting to like the "system" like SLIP has with a separate cleaner and lube/preserver - something that's designed to work together... as it is now, I hose off the gunk with the cheap cans of Breakfree spray that I get at Walmart and then lube with WS but I wonder if maybe these are not compatible and if traces of Breakfree actually degrades the WS.
I'll probably transition over to SLIP products as my supply runs out...
Before you get too happy with the grease this winter, go lock your gun out in an unheated shed overnight and see how well it cycles full of frozen grease.
Don't get me wrong folks; I'm a huge fan of grease when the weather's warm. It's just really REALLY bitter cold right now and even stuff like EWL and Militec can turn into cement in cold weather.
Before you get too happy with the grease this winter, go lock your gun out in an unheated shed overnight and see how well it cycles full of frozen grease.
Don't get me wrong folks; I'm a huge fan of grease when the weather's warm. It's just really REALLY bitter cold right now and even stuff like EWL and Militec can turn into cement in cold weather.
what do you suggest?
Heavy Metal
12-14-10, 16:49
TW25B is NOT a true grease and temp does not affect it like one.
what do you suggest?
Anything less viscous. Plain old CLP or 3-in-1 oil, even kerosene if it's really bitter cold.
More importantly, figure out how your weapon performs in subzero temperature. Get it good and cold with your lube of choice and evaluate its performance for yourself. If it still runs fine, no worries!
TW25B is NOT a true grease and temp does not affect it like one.
Can you provide more of an explanation? I'm not sure I understand.
Heavy Metal
12-14-10, 19:36
It is a fluropolymer paste in a oil suspension. A true grease is entirely different.
If you want to know more about true grease, you can google up a 100 sites that describe what it is.
Slip 2000 EWL is the stuff.
Check out Bravo Co.
Yup. Have had the best results with this stuff so far.
Yup. Have had the best results with this stuff so far.
so riddle me this, Batman - what's the difference between the SLiP 2000 lubricant and SLiP EWL?
It is a fluropolymer paste in a oil suspension. A true grease is entirely different.
If you want to know more about true grease, you can google up a 100 sites that describe what it is.
Sounds like Krytox. It's expensive but is excellent at low temperatures. Only drawbacks on a firearm I can think of would be (1) the cost and (2) it outgasses toxic fumes at high temperature.
Would you say that both WS and the EWL are suitable for medium to long term storage?
Right now I'm kind of torn between WS and EWL.
If I go the EWL way, would you suggest the 725 cleaner or the carbon killer? I don't quite get the difference between them.
Dirtyboy333
12-15-10, 02:53
At the end of the day, as long as the moving parts are wet, you are fine. I have used everything from "I can't believe it's not butter" to Vagisil. They all work as long as it's wet. Parallels between this phenominon and your love life are not nearly as amusing as some seem to think.
hahaha thats sum funny shit......Well if thats the case then i'm gonna have to try out sum of these new scented sex lubes on my AR so ican enjoy the sweet cherry smell while letting off some rounds.;)
Well I have come to like tw25b as of late. Recently used it during some outdoor shooting on a relatively already dirty carbine and after about 1000 rounds had zero malfunctions. No re-lubing done during the shooting.
Not a big deal right, unless you consider the shooting was done in -40 degrees Celsius where grease is supposed to gum up and cause malfunctions. I have noticed this does not happen with tw25b, after all it is synthetic grease that is quite thin to begin with. I had other kit malfunctions due to the extreme cold but nothing from my carbine.
My take on AR carbine lubing is tw25b to start then a synthetic oil once shooting and it starts to look dry. As has been said multiple times on this and other AR carbine forums dirty is fine as long as it is wet.
Carbine was a colt canada swf 16 inch barrel, mid length di gas system.
My rifles are stored vertically in the safe, as I suspect many others are...I am a big fan of Slip 2000EWL, but I found that after several weeks in storage, most of the lube was living in the buffer tube...I've gone to using the Slip 2000 grease for storage, and applying the EWL prior to firing... I keep a small bottle of EWL in the grip, probably enough to re- lube several times. Cleaning is a bit more time consuming with the grease, but applying the oil cuts it pretty well... just my 2 cents...:)
Break Free LP generously on the bolt lugs, bolt body, gas rings, cam pin.
Break Free CLP lightly on the firing pin.
Break Free CLP lightly everywhere else.
The bottled CLP, not the aerosol spray can.
LP is more-or-less CLP without the Cleaning solvent. It goes on a bit thicker and stays in place much better, yet cleans up as easily as CLP when dirty.
GeorgiaBoy
01-21-12, 17:16
A little bit of a thread resurrection?
....and for a bloody lube thread, of all things....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.