CLP wars

[CPM]

I pay about $10 for a 4 ounce bottle of gun oil. If I were spending (and shooting) thousands of dollars per year on ammunition, I would be more concerned with exposure rather than saving $20.

Exposure to lead and and gas, bro. Not the .25oz of oil I put on the BCG.

[Failure2Stop]

Military CLP has to adhere to MIL-PRF 63460:
http://everyspec.com/MIL-PRF/MIL-PRF...-63460F_55745/

It is a demanding test protocol with extremely few products able to pass all aspects.
"CLP" per the MIL-PRF is leaps and bounds ahead of the old-school Break-Free CLP that many of us remember from our time in the military.
The old BF stuff hasn't been compliant with the revisions and updates to the MIL-PRF since the mid-90s, people in the logistics chains of most commands simply don't know because it's been available on GSA since Christ was a Corporal.
The funny thing is that now Break-Free has a most current rev available, compliant with MIL-PRF 63460F (where most are 63460E), which is pretty decent.
https://safariland.com/products/clp-...ervative-15337

Because of where I work and who our primary customers are, I only use MIL-PRF compliant CLPs. I personally shoot nearly 100,000 rounds every year through 5.56, 7.62, and 6.5 rifles and machineguns, and I have no issues at all with current MIL-PRF CLPs.

This isn't to say that there aren't other good products out there, or specific application/needs products. I'm not selling any of them. The point is that a lot of folks are talking from a position of insufficient information to really provide useful and truthful current data and testing.

[1168]

U win

No, Jack does; see below. I merely disputed your obviously unresearched claims.

Military CLP has to adhere to MIL-PRF 63460:
http://everyspec.com/MIL-PRF/MIL-PRF...-63460F_55745/

It is a demanding test protocol with extremely few products able to pass all aspects.
"CLP" per the MIL-PRF is leaps and bounds ahead of the old-school Break-Free CLP that many of us remember from our time in the military.
The old BF stuff hasn't been compliant with the revisions and updates to the MIL-PRF since the mid-90s, people in the logistics chains of most commands simply don't know because it's been available on GSA since Christ was a Corporal.
The funny thing is that now Break-Free has a most current rev available, compliant with MIL-PRF 63460F (where most are 63460E), which is pretty decent.
https://safariland.com/products/clp-...ervative-15337

Because of where I work and who our primary customers are, I only use MIL-PRF compliant CLPs. I personally shoot nearly 100,000 rounds every year through 5.56, 7.62, and 6.5 rifles and machineguns, and I have no issues at all with current MIL-PRF CLPs.

This isn't to say that there aren't other good products out there, or specific application/needs products. I'm not selling any of them. The point is that a lot of folks are talking from a position of insufficient information to really provide useful and truthful current data and testing.

Thanks. You’re one of the last true experts posting on this forum. I appreciate the insight. Commercial KAC PDW, please. Any ideas on the original topic G96 meeting .mil standards?

[CPM]

No, Jack does; see below. I merely disputed your obviously unresearched claims.


Thanks. You’re one of the last true experts posting on this forum. I appreciate the insight. Commercial KAC PDW, please. Any ideas on the original topic G96 meeting .mil standards?

Right, right, right....

I know this forum is a incestuous breeding ground of verbally fellating the subject matter experts’ info without actually reading or deciphering it, and I know you batt bois aren’t exactly known for your intellectual superiority, but let me know when you decipher the below, trust the same branch that let you breathe battery acid from burn pits for 6-15 months at a time, and exactly how much the perceived toxicity of the weapons lube you use matters. I’ll wait for your passive aggressive response that doesn’t address any of the questions I asked. I’ll be furiously scraping the carbon of the back of my bolts in the meantime, because stuff like that matters.

6.4 Toxicity clearance. Department of the Army (DA) regulations AR 40-5, Preventive Medicine, AR-70-1, Acquisition Policy, and DA Pamphlet 70-3, Acquisition Procedures, require that all new chemicals and materials being added to the Army supply system have a Toxicity Clearance. This involves a toxicological evaluation of materials to assure the safety of their use. The toxicological evaluation includes a thorough review of all data included on the CLP’s Safety Data Sheet, as well as that which is included in the complete product formulation disclosure (see 6.3.2).

[1168]

Right, right, right....

I know this forum is a incestuous breeding ground of verbally fellating the subject matter experts’ info without actually reading or deciphering it, and I know you batt bois aren’t exactly known for your intellectual superiority, but let me know when you decipher the below, trust the same branch that let you breathe battery acid from burn pits for 6-15 months at a time, and exactly how much the perceived toxicity of the weapons lube you use matters. I’ll wait for your passive aggressive response that doesn’t address any of the questions I asked. I’ll be furiously scraping the carbon of the back of my bolts in the meantime, because stuff like that matters.

6.4 Toxicity clearance. Department of the Army (DA) regulations AR 40-5, Preventive Medicine, AR-70-1, Acquisition Policy, and DA Pamphlet 70-3, Acquisition Procedures, require that all new chemicals and materials being added to the Army supply system have a Toxicity Clearance. This involves a toxicological evaluation of materials to assure the safety of their use. The toxicological evaluation includes a thorough review of all data included on the CLP’s Safety Data Sheet, as well as that which is included in the complete product formulation disclosure (see 6.3.2).

You’ve not addressed that I itemized and debunked every phrase below.

No manufacturers are thinking about that. When you shoot tens of thousands of suppressed rounds a year that’s the least of your concerns. Y’all keep buying those four ounce bottles for $20.

[CPM]

You’ve not addressed that I itemized and debunked every phrase below.

Lol. Ok. Over generalizations like that are rarely accurate. Here’s an accurate statement. Some manufacturers are attempting to adhere to a vague Army requirement that somewhat addresses possible health concerns regarding the use of weapons lubrication. None of them are performing any biological testing or verification of adherence to the vague standard, as it is where it should be- at the very bottom of the priority list because it simply doesn’t matter at all.

This is like two people without COVID yelling at each other regarding masks. Neither one of us has any proof regarding any of these things. Also, you didn’t debunk anything, you rested your laurels on Jack’s post without actually reading any of the documentation. You also didn’t address any of my statement.

Aren’t you supposedly an NCO in Batt? Go lead your troops. If I had an NCO in my “SOF” unit that was spending this much time debating nonsense on the internet they’d be back in the airplane gang tomorrow.

[1168]

Lol. Ok. Over generalizations like that are rarely accurate. Here’s an accurate statement. Some manufacturers are attempting to adhere to a vague Army requirement that somewhat addresses possible health concerns regarding the use of weapons lubrication. None of them are performing any biological testing or verification of adherence to the vague standard, as it is where it should be- at the very bottom of the priority list because it simply doesn’t matter at all.

Have a nice day; thank you for your time.

[CPM]

Have a nice day; thank you for your time.

U win.

[jpmuscle]

Odd how Jack L. and 1168 are legit SMEs on small arms.

The rest of us are appreciative of the knowledge they’re putting out for consumption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CPM]

Odd how Jack L. and 1168 are legit SMEs on small arms.

The rest of us are appreciative of the knowledge they’re putting out for consumption.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cool! Waiting for Euro.

Euro, in advance, you also win. No need to poke your head in with some weird NOD’s flex, talk about what car you drive, how awesome the Corps was, how hard you train in inclement weather, how unhappy you are at work, what the best appendix VP9 holster is for bird dog shorts, or how great Florida(America’s disgusting sweaty nutsack) is. We’ve heard it all. I know, you and JP need to virtual 69 each other when you post, but please, there’s no need. In the meantime I’m going to quickly change my screen name to 11B20B4 and flex on all of the stripes on my right sleeve.

No one else on this site knows anything about anything if they haven’t been “vetted” by the site. This place has drifted into a group chat with like ten individuals blowing each other and four manufacturers while touting how terrible a forward grip is on a rifle, how awesome appendix carry is, and how anything other than a Glock 19 is unnecessary, unless it’s a Staccatto, of course.

It’s incredible how high-speed everyone is on the internet is or as a civilian. I’ve never met anyone online that wasn’t SOF or “attached to an infantry unit” and I’ve never met a cook in person.