Originally Posted By: 90crvtec
Check out Militec 1 corrosion tests. That's another chloro paraffin lube that does not do well in environments exposed to moisture.
http://www.6mmbr.com/corrosiontest.html
Militec uses short chain parrafins. Also, when I tested it vs. Weaponshield, WS slaughtered it, so I know that WS is better, there, at least in my tests.
Based on the premise of the original post, my question would be: What have you seen that shows that WeaponShield is superior at preventing wear?
Weaponshield has a "legit" ad-pack, which is to say, it's not some mystery substance, and its ad pack is known for being very good EP. Also, it is an evolution of FP10, which a myriad of objective data exists for, so my opinion is part deduction, and part fact (ad pack). however...how does it compare to other products? I am not sure. I'm just saying that it LOOKS good on paper.
A falex test does not translate to any situation that we can duplicate with a firearm. It seems like the premise of wear prevention is based solely on a test environment in which no firearm can achieve? I'd be trying to show how WeaponShield actually does prevent firearm wear better than Brand X.
I think that the bolt-lugs are the only place on an M4 platform that will show real wear, and it will come in the form if microscopic cracking at the rear root of the bolt lugs where they attach to the body of the bolt. I think X-ray or magnaflux of several bolts run hard for 2000 rounds on a suppressed SBR using different CLP's might indeed arrive at a difference, if one worth noting exists. (the cracks begin to form microscopically pretty early in that environment). Anyway, that's my proposed way of determining it. However, I sold all my short-barrel guns and don't have access to the x-ray stuff or a magnaflux, although I do have a bolt I could send off if anyone does.
I think you'll find a lot of anecdotal responses. Most people try to validate what they use by convincing others that it is a superior product. It's not like we can do a UOA on our firearms and check the wear metal count. All we'll get is some stuff like "ever since I switched to SuperHAL 9000 gun oil the wear on the barrel hood seems to be much less...and it smells delicious!"
The one thing that bothers me with most of the chloro parrafin based lubes is that they also have an automotive arm that sells the same engine additives with "metal treatments" and similar marketing. This is all stuff that has been thoroughly debunked already on this site and many others. Why would we buy a bottle of the same stuff and put it on a firearm? We've been down this road before. If it makes someone sleep better at night to use it, go for it. Is there a tangible benefit outside of ego driven justification? I'm doubtful to say the least.
Militec's automotive site:
http://www.militec.com/automotive1_old5.html
Muscle Products (FP10), this is George Fennell's old company:
http://usalubrications.com/mpc-automotive.html
I think EP in motors has been de-bunked because what does EP do in a motor? I mean, where is that hard metal/metal contact in a modern engine happening?
I was happily using Fireclean, even though it has no real "ad pack" to it, because it made cleaning my suppressed guns super fast/easy.
I was warned by Mr. Fennell that it would polymerize and gunk the [censored] out of my guns. I did not listen. Because it worked so [censored] well, I figured that it was just industry mud-slinging to say it would do that...but guess what it did? This is a picture of my Dad's rifle that I bought him for Christmas 2013/2014, and what it looked like Christmas a few months ago, after being in his safe. It was cleaned when new with alcohol, and FIREClean was applied...safety selector detent positions weren't palpable, and the upper was literally glued to the lower. Needless to say, I stopped using FIREClean. but I will say, there is truth in some advertising...my guns ran GREAT and cleaned up very easy using fireclean, whether it's a bunch of veggie oil, or not.
So, the next course I took, I used MPRO7 LPX. It worked decent, but the weapon was a nightmare to clean (Of course, 1500 rounds suppressed will do that...).
My impression of Weapon Shield is that it was backed with solid science and engineering. No?