One of my best friends I grew up with is now a Navy SEAL! I just got the chance to catch up on things with him as we have not seen each other for a few years. We got to talking guns and weapons and I asked him what the teams(Seals) are using as far as gun oils go these days. He said Break Free CLP exclusivily! He said it just performs at a level most gun oils won't touch. That says a lot given the Seals know their stuff!!!!
Straight from a SEAL's mouth!
- Thread starter Chris B.
- Start date
- Status
ask em what they use for motor oil and outboard oil. id be interested, thanks.
A former special ops guy (green beret I think) runs a gun store in my area, and that's the only type of lube he sells.
My understanding of the switch to CLP some years ago was that the military was interested in a product that would both clean and lubricate. This would allow them to inventory only one item instead of different products for bore cleaning and lubrication.
CLP fit the bill but from what I've seen it's is an adequate lubricant if used often enough and a marginal to unusable bore cleaner. There are plenty of reports of soldiers requesting specialized products be sent to them from home...
CLP fit the bill but from what I've seen it's is an adequate lubricant if used often enough and a marginal to unusable bore cleaner. There are plenty of reports of soldiers requesting specialized products be sent to them from home...
Never have liked break-free very much. Remeber to shake well before use.
I've been a Marine for 24 years, and it's been CLP for as long as I can remember. On the other hand, there has always been some degree of frustration with CLP, as it's not very aggressive in removing tough deposits (probably as a result of being a compromise, two-function product). Every year or so I hear about some bone head who decides to try to save himself some time, and goes for the can of carburetor cleaner, and then gets court-martialed when he ends up with an M-16 that looks like a nickel-plated model (until it starts rusting...).
I've always sort of accepted CLP as being an OK, but not optimum product.
EDIT: Oh yeah, even after all these years, I'm still not sure what the Army uses, but I'd guess it's probably CLP too, since we tear many pages from the Army book when it comes to individual weapons.
EDIT: Oh yeah, even after all these years, I'm still not sure what the Army uses, but I'd guess it's probably CLP too, since we tear many pages from the Army book when it comes to individual weapons.
i think the army uses it. i know the air force uses it. we are now using it on certain parts of aircraft engines. it works great as a chain lube too!
The Army used CLP for small arms maintenance from 1986-93 when I was in.
Realistic training and good maintenance will count for more than poor training, poor maintenance, and a higher tech lube. 'Good maintenance' means ALWAYS checking your weapon to make sure that it's clean, cleaning your weapon before doing anything else after using it, and using the proper maintenance. Not to badmouth any MOS, my dad was a baker in the Air Force, but I shuddered at seeing some cooks getting ready for their annual qualification on the range. They'd open the bolt on their M16s, squirt a whole bunch of LSA in the action, and work the action a few times, with lube oozing out everywhere. When we tried to suggest some improvements in their rifle maintenance we'd greeted by the typical profanity, typical meaning that's how everyone expressed themselves :^)
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:.../book1/BP%201016.doc+marines+desert+clp&hl=en
4) Hot, dry climates (Desert)
a) The weapon must have continuous cleaning to remove dirt buildup in this type of climate.
b) It may be necessary to keep the weapon free of lubrication. If any lubrication is used, it should be used very sparingly. Apply CLP sparingly on weapon, if at all. It should be applied to the internal working faces and functional parts only.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=377
Re: Weapons Lube Issued by Army May be Costing Lives in Iraq. WABC 7 News Story. (Score: 1)
by Obiwan on Thursday, November 20 @ 16:13:18 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
So...is MilTec sponsoring this site now????
Here is what Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane (listed as a "satisfied customer" by Militec) has to say about Militec and specifically its use in a dust environment - note that Militec hosts the report themselves.
Corrosion Protection
"4. The Militec product's ability to prevent corrosion on "gun steel" was evaluated. Test pieces were coated with lubricant and heated at 160 degrees F prior to being placed in the salt fog chamber in accordance with ASTM B117. Two different tests were conducted:
a) A bolt assembly from an M-16 rifle was disassembled and the phosphated parts, including the bolt, the bolt carrier, the cam pin, and the chrome-plated firing pin were treated with Militec and placed in the salt fog cabinet.
@5 hours: rust spots evident on firing pin
@26 hours: rust spots evident on bolt carrier
@101 hours: rust occured from about 30-50% over significant areas of test pieces
b) A bolt carrier from an M-16 rifle was stripped of its phosphate coating by grit blasting and treated with Militec and placed in the salt fog cabinet. After 17 hours the bolt carrier was severely rusted (>90% of significant area)."
Dust Environment Lubricant Test (Militec is Brand E)
"Dust tests with exposure times of one hour, three hours, six hours, seven hours and eight hours were conducted with military and commercially available lubricants applied to M16A1 rifles. CLP provided the best overall performance with one stoppage in five dust tests. VV-L-800 finished second with three stoppages in five dust tests. Other top finishers were Brand D with three stoppages in four dusts tests, Brand C with seven stoppages in five dust tests and Brand E (Militec) with eight stoppages in five dust tests. The three top finishers were liquid lubricants. Although it appeared that more dust accumulated on the exposed exterior surfaces of bolt carriers with liquid lubricants than on bolt carriers with dry film lubricants, the liquid lubricants had more success overcoming friction caused by dust intrusion.
3.1.5 CLP QPL-63460-13
Test Sequence #1: MRBS=NA, all 90 rounds fired successfully
Test Sequence #2: MRBS=60/1=60
The lubricant used in this test was CLP liquid. In test sequence #1, rifle #4783144 did not have any malfunctions in the one-hour, three-hour, and six-hour tests. In test sequence #2, rifle #4813100 fired without any malfunctions in the seven-hour test, but recorded one malfunction in the eight-hour test.
3.1.6 Brand E (Militec)
Test Sequence #1: MRBS=90/3=30
Test Sequence #2: MRBS=60/5=12
In test sequence #1, rifle #4785227 fired without any malfunctions in the one-hour test; but did have one malfunction in the three-hour test and two malfunctions in the six-hour test. In test sequence #2, rifle #5449207 fired without any malfunctions in the seven-hour test, but had five malfunctions in the eight-hour test.
3.1.14 Unlubricated rifle
Test Sequence #1: MRBS=NA, was not tested
Test Sequence #2: MRBS=30/6=5
An unlubricated rifle was placed in test sequence #2 seven-hour test as a baseline to compare to the lubricated rifles. Rifle #4831774 had six malfunctions.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:.../book1/BP%201016.doc+marines+desert+clp&hl=en
4) Hot, dry climates (Desert)
a) The weapon must have continuous cleaning to remove dirt buildup in this type of climate.
b) It may be necessary to keep the weapon free of lubrication. If any lubrication is used, it should be used very sparingly. Apply CLP sparingly on weapon, if at all. It should be applied to the internal working faces and functional parts only.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=377
Re: Weapons Lube Issued by Army May be Costing Lives in Iraq. WABC 7 News Story. (Score: 1)
by Obiwan on Thursday, November 20 @ 16:13:18 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
So...is MilTec sponsoring this site now????
Here is what Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane (listed as a "satisfied customer" by Militec) has to say about Militec and specifically its use in a dust environment - note that Militec hosts the report themselves.
Corrosion Protection
"4. The Militec product's ability to prevent corrosion on "gun steel" was evaluated. Test pieces were coated with lubricant and heated at 160 degrees F prior to being placed in the salt fog chamber in accordance with ASTM B117. Two different tests were conducted:
a) A bolt assembly from an M-16 rifle was disassembled and the phosphated parts, including the bolt, the bolt carrier, the cam pin, and the chrome-plated firing pin were treated with Militec and placed in the salt fog cabinet.
@5 hours: rust spots evident on firing pin
@26 hours: rust spots evident on bolt carrier
@101 hours: rust occured from about 30-50% over significant areas of test pieces
b) A bolt carrier from an M-16 rifle was stripped of its phosphate coating by grit blasting and treated with Militec and placed in the salt fog cabinet. After 17 hours the bolt carrier was severely rusted (>90% of significant area)."
Dust Environment Lubricant Test (Militec is Brand E)
"Dust tests with exposure times of one hour, three hours, six hours, seven hours and eight hours were conducted with military and commercially available lubricants applied to M16A1 rifles. CLP provided the best overall performance with one stoppage in five dust tests. VV-L-800 finished second with three stoppages in five dust tests. Other top finishers were Brand D with three stoppages in four dusts tests, Brand C with seven stoppages in five dust tests and Brand E (Militec) with eight stoppages in five dust tests. The three top finishers were liquid lubricants. Although it appeared that more dust accumulated on the exposed exterior surfaces of bolt carriers with liquid lubricants than on bolt carriers with dry film lubricants, the liquid lubricants had more success overcoming friction caused by dust intrusion.
3.1.5 CLP QPL-63460-13
Test Sequence #1: MRBS=NA, all 90 rounds fired successfully
Test Sequence #2: MRBS=60/1=60
The lubricant used in this test was CLP liquid. In test sequence #1, rifle #4783144 did not have any malfunctions in the one-hour, three-hour, and six-hour tests. In test sequence #2, rifle #4813100 fired without any malfunctions in the seven-hour test, but recorded one malfunction in the eight-hour test.
3.1.6 Brand E (Militec)
Test Sequence #1: MRBS=90/3=30
Test Sequence #2: MRBS=60/5=12
In test sequence #1, rifle #4785227 fired without any malfunctions in the one-hour test; but did have one malfunction in the three-hour test and two malfunctions in the six-hour test. In test sequence #2, rifle #5449207 fired without any malfunctions in the seven-hour test, but had five malfunctions in the eight-hour test.
3.1.14 Unlubricated rifle
Test Sequence #1: MRBS=NA, was not tested
Test Sequence #2: MRBS=30/6=5
An unlubricated rifle was placed in test sequence #2 seven-hour test as a baseline to compare to the lubricated rifles. Rifle #4831774 had six malfunctions.
Sounds like standard test procedures outlined by MIL-L-63460D. I was reading through the spec and it did not show tests among various brands, it just had the actual specs for the "ideal" CLP.
Looks like I won't be using militec-1, I can't even find it in local stores anyhow.
Looks like I won't be using militec-1, I can't even find it in local stores anyhow.
From a facts based perspective, if you see "meets/exceeds MIL-L-63460" on the back of the bottle, you know that at one point this formula/product met or exceeded Performance standard MIL-L-63460... as for which revision, that you may have to ask the manufacturer (There's A-D, D is the current, they're working on E).
I do not see Militec-1 as one of the competitive bidders that meet MIL-L-63460 so that suggests to me (and Crane's test report confirms) Militec-1 failed one or more portions of the test and therefore does not qualify to be in the qualified products list (most likely corrosion, as everyone said).
In retrospect, I think the issue with M16/M4 jams in the desert is over-lubing, and this is bad in the desert because oil/liquid will attract dirt/dust.
My dad said soldiers ran into this problem with M1s, M14s, etc... they just use too much oil and its easy to think "more oil is good". Just my 2 cents.
[ June 30, 2004, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: metroplex ]
I do not see Militec-1 as one of the competitive bidders that meet MIL-L-63460 so that suggests to me (and Crane's test report confirms) Militec-1 failed one or more portions of the test and therefore does not qualify to be in the qualified products list (most likely corrosion, as everyone said).
In retrospect, I think the issue with M16/M4 jams in the desert is over-lubing, and this is bad in the desert because oil/liquid will attract dirt/dust.
My dad said soldiers ran into this problem with M1s, M14s, etc... they just use too much oil and its easy to think "more oil is good". Just my 2 cents.
[ June 30, 2004, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: metroplex ]
this is one of the current CLPs being used:
FYI, MIL-PRF-63460D Amendment 6 is the latest spec.
It reads to me just like Break Free CLP, but the military hasn't been using "Break Free" for some time, they're using 2 other brands of CLP.
It's $250 for 6 gallons.
*************************************
Product #: L634605C26
Product Name: ROYCO 634 MIL-PRF-63460DAM6 6 X 1 GALLON CASE
Description: CLEANER, LUBRICANT, AND PRESERVATIVE FOR WEAPONS AND WEAPONS SYSTEMS
ROYCO 634 is a highly penetrating, mobile liquid lubricant which combines three essential functions in a single product; cleaning, lubrication, and preservation of handheld weapons, and weapons systems of both large and small caliber. ROYCO 634 may also be considered for many industrial applications as well.
CLEANING: ROYCO 634 provides additives which in addition to their ability to penetrate between metal surfaces, aid in the effective removal of built up dirt, corrosion particles and firing residues which can be abrasive to both recoil and gas operated mechanisms.
PRESERVATION: After cleaning, a thin-film layer of preservative forms immediately on the surfaces which not only displaces water but provides a corrosion resistant barrier against rust and dirt.
LUBRICATION: ROYCO 634 incorporates advanced technology additives to enhance film strength and antiwear properties - thereby reducing friction between moving parts and minimizing wear and the buildup of wear-related debris.
USES: ROYCO 634 is formulated to meet the complete requirements of cleaning, lubricating, and preserving both small and large caliber weapons in virtually all climate conditions from -65oF to +150oF. In addition, ROYCO 634 contains no ozone depleting compounds and meets California Clean Air Act VOC requirements. ROYCO 634 is not limited only to ordnance use, in fact, it has been proven effective in a wide variety of applications including automotive, aviation, marine, and general plant maintenance of industrial equipment.
SPECIFICATION: ROYCO 634 is qualified to and meets all requirements of MILSPEC: MIL-PRF- 63460D Amd 6.
PACKAGING: ROYCO 634 is available in 1 gallon bottles as well as 5 gallon pails and 55 gallon drums. Other packages may be available on special request.
TYPICAL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
PROPERTY/ TYPICAL RESULT
1) Viscosity, cSt
- @ 40oC (104oF) / 9.64
- @ -53.8oC (-65oF) / 3630
2) Pour Point, (oF) / -75
3) Flash Point, COC, oC (oF) / 100 (212)
4) Shell 4-Ball Wear, mm2 / 0.40
- 40 kg, 1200 RPM, 75oC, 1 hr.
5) Specific Gravity, 60 deg F / 0.87
6) Falex Load Carrying Capacity / PASS
- 750 lb. Jaw Load
7) Firing Residue Removal, % / 85
- (WC-844 Propellant)
8) Salt Spray Corrosion Resistance / PASS
9) Humidity Cabinet Rust Resistance / PASS
- 120oF, 100% rel. humidity, 900 hrs.
10) Water Displacement and Stability / PASS
11) Metal Corrosion Test, wt change mg/cm2
- 130oF, 168 hrs.
- Zinc / +0.00
- Aluminum / +0.02
- Brass / +0.07
- Steel / +0.03
- Copper / +0.01
- Magnesium / +0.01
- Cadmium / +0.02
12) Low Temperature Residue and Fluidity / PASS
13) Reactivity with Chem Agent Detector
-M8 Detector / PASS
-M9 Detector / PASS
********************************************
I found several other products that met Delta Amd 6, and they all had similar item descriptions. I think its safe to say they'd be about the same as Break Free CLP if they all met the same standard.
[ June 30, 2004, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: metroplex ]
FYI, MIL-PRF-63460D Amendment 6 is the latest spec.
It reads to me just like Break Free CLP, but the military hasn't been using "Break Free" for some time, they're using 2 other brands of CLP.
It's $250 for 6 gallons.
*************************************
Product #: L634605C26
Product Name: ROYCO 634 MIL-PRF-63460DAM6 6 X 1 GALLON CASE
Description: CLEANER, LUBRICANT, AND PRESERVATIVE FOR WEAPONS AND WEAPONS SYSTEMS
ROYCO 634 is a highly penetrating, mobile liquid lubricant which combines three essential functions in a single product; cleaning, lubrication, and preservation of handheld weapons, and weapons systems of both large and small caliber. ROYCO 634 may also be considered for many industrial applications as well.
CLEANING: ROYCO 634 provides additives which in addition to their ability to penetrate between metal surfaces, aid in the effective removal of built up dirt, corrosion particles and firing residues which can be abrasive to both recoil and gas operated mechanisms.
PRESERVATION: After cleaning, a thin-film layer of preservative forms immediately on the surfaces which not only displaces water but provides a corrosion resistant barrier against rust and dirt.
LUBRICATION: ROYCO 634 incorporates advanced technology additives to enhance film strength and antiwear properties - thereby reducing friction between moving parts and minimizing wear and the buildup of wear-related debris.
USES: ROYCO 634 is formulated to meet the complete requirements of cleaning, lubricating, and preserving both small and large caliber weapons in virtually all climate conditions from -65oF to +150oF. In addition, ROYCO 634 contains no ozone depleting compounds and meets California Clean Air Act VOC requirements. ROYCO 634 is not limited only to ordnance use, in fact, it has been proven effective in a wide variety of applications including automotive, aviation, marine, and general plant maintenance of industrial equipment.
SPECIFICATION: ROYCO 634 is qualified to and meets all requirements of MILSPEC: MIL-PRF- 63460D Amd 6.
PACKAGING: ROYCO 634 is available in 1 gallon bottles as well as 5 gallon pails and 55 gallon drums. Other packages may be available on special request.
TYPICAL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
PROPERTY/ TYPICAL RESULT
1) Viscosity, cSt
- @ 40oC (104oF) / 9.64
- @ -53.8oC (-65oF) / 3630
2) Pour Point, (oF) / -75
3) Flash Point, COC, oC (oF) / 100 (212)
4) Shell 4-Ball Wear, mm2 / 0.40
- 40 kg, 1200 RPM, 75oC, 1 hr.
5) Specific Gravity, 60 deg F / 0.87
6) Falex Load Carrying Capacity / PASS
- 750 lb. Jaw Load
7) Firing Residue Removal, % / 85
- (WC-844 Propellant)
8) Salt Spray Corrosion Resistance / PASS
9) Humidity Cabinet Rust Resistance / PASS
- 120oF, 100% rel. humidity, 900 hrs.
10) Water Displacement and Stability / PASS
11) Metal Corrosion Test, wt change mg/cm2
- 130oF, 168 hrs.
- Zinc / +0.00
- Aluminum / +0.02
- Brass / +0.07
- Steel / +0.03
- Copper / +0.01
- Magnesium / +0.01
- Cadmium / +0.02
12) Low Temperature Residue and Fluidity / PASS
13) Reactivity with Chem Agent Detector
-M8 Detector / PASS
-M9 Detector / PASS
********************************************
I found several other products that met Delta Amd 6, and they all had similar item descriptions. I think its safe to say they'd be about the same as Break Free CLP if they all met the same standard.
[ June 30, 2004, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: metroplex ]
The only exception is Pantheon Chemical's M-Pro 7's Military Grade CLP.
They tout that they surpassed MIL-L-63460 and can operate from -55 to 800F, but I cannot find any evidence that they did surpass the spec.
Someone posted unofficial corrosion tests showing Break Free CLP and Eezox being the 2 best at protecting from corrosion, with Eezox outlasting Break Free. Upon further research, their site touts the claim that they run it through more stringent corrosion tests than the MIL-spec calls for, but there's zero mention of passing the other parts of the spec (like lubrication, cleaning, etc...)
They tout that they surpassed MIL-L-63460 and can operate from -55 to 800F, but I cannot find any evidence that they did surpass the spec.
Someone posted unofficial corrosion tests showing Break Free CLP and Eezox being the 2 best at protecting from corrosion, with Eezox outlasting Break Free. Upon further research, their site touts the claim that they run it through more stringent corrosion tests than the MIL-spec calls for, but there's zero mention of passing the other parts of the spec (like lubrication, cleaning, etc...)
Metroplex's comments on improper maintenance is what I also I tried to highlight with the first article that I referenced, where a desert environment requires an almost dry weapon. Units that don't train with their weapons in a variety of environments will be at risk for such problems, and it's the responsibility of the officers and NCOs to insure that the recommended procedures are being followed in an effort to mitigate such risk. I think that it's also important to continually test equipment, procedures, and assumptions, but it needs to be done in a controlled fashion to insure that the maximum information can be obtained from the effort. The second article that I referenced is a good example of the confusion on what works and what doesn't, as the Crane results were posted in the middle of a thread complaining about CLP. With no other information I'd be inclined to rely upon the Crane results over a manufacturer's claims, and even over a number of first hand accounts of problems as it's not clear if the CLP or improper maintenance was at fault. The Crane results appear to confirm 'straight from a SEAL's mouth'.
It's obviously an important topic as lives are literally at stake, so it's worth thrashing until we can find out 'what's really going on'.
It's obviously an important topic as lives are literally at stake, so it's worth thrashing until we can find out 'what's really going on'.
- Status
