Weapon Shield YouTube Tests

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
562
Location
Michigan
These comparisons (always on the same test rig) show Weapon Shield beating the snot out of every competitor.

For example: YouTube Weapon Shield

Does these tests have any validity or is it just bovine droppings in real-life firearm use?
 
Originally Posted By: FastGame
The video is total [censored]....dish soap will beat the oils in that so called test.


So then we should drain our bottles of Slip 2000 and refill them with "dish soap"? Would you recommend Dawn?
 
Quote:
4.9 out of 5.0 on average from 46 reviews on Midway's website from actual users. Imagine how much they could have saved if they just bought dish soap.


I'm sure it's pretty good stuff, I just wonder how valid the test setup is.

In another video, he claims FireClean is just vegetable oil with a little Pam added. That would have to be some kind of all-time product markup?
crazy2.gif
 
Most all gun lubrication products are heavily marked up. They have to be because they're basically a low volume, specialty product. I've seen that type of test before. It's used quite frequently to test lubricants. Weapon Shield has my interest. I've got a small sample of it somewhere. I'll have to dig it up and try it.
 
I'm reminded of the AMSOIL setup showing this "one armed bandit" pressure test. Is this really an accurate representation of the forces encountered? It's not in an engine. This test was removed from the API certification criteria. Makes me wonder if something similar is going on here. Contrary to what Billt460 said, using dish soap isn't what FastGame was suggesting. He's saying the test is invalid, it's so invalid that tons of stuff can pass this test. Dandruff shampoo will also pass this test - it has lots of zinc. I have such suspicion about this test criteria, I'm not not convinced it's a worthwhile test for the application. It may in fact be the best product, but I don't see how this test can be used to make that determination.
 
Originally Posted By: tinmanSC
I'm reminded of the AMSOIL setup showing this "one armed bandit" pressure test. Is this really an accurate representation of the forces encountered? It's not in an engine. This test was removed from the API certification criteria. Makes me wonder if something similar is going on here. Contrary to what Billt460 said, using dish soap isn't what FastGame was suggesting. He's saying the test is invalid, it's so invalid that tons of stuff can pass this test. Dandruff shampoo will also pass this test - it has lots of zinc. I have such suspicion about this test criteria, I'm not not convinced it's a worthwhile test for the application. It may in fact be the best product, but I don't see how this test can be used to make that determination.


Yep tinmanSC has it right...and the test I've seen it was "Dandruff shampoo" (Head&Shoulders I think) that won the test.

and

No I wasn't suggesting dish soap on guns unless it's blackpowder.
 
Originally Posted By: tinmanSC
He's saying the test is invalid, it's so invalid that tons of stuff can pass this test.


I would be more concerned about what "stuff" couldn't pass it.
 
Originally Posted By: tinmanSC
Is this really an accurate representation of the forces encountered?.......... It may in fact be the best product, but I don't see how this test can be used to make that determination.


First your asking, then answering. If you think this test is invalid, then what test should be used?
 
FYI: head and shoulders will far outperform any of those lubes in that test.

The test has been determined time and time again to be basically worthless.

So worthless that any product that uses it for marketing is immediately suspect.
 
Last edited:
The inventor has been in the lube business for years. He knows very well what characteristics a lube needs to pass these tests.

With that being said, he knows how to pass the tests, so it would be VERY easy for him to manipulate the test. He can make a special batch up just for the test with the super special ingredient that prevents the machine bearing from galling.

I do like Weapon Shield, and do find it to be a good product, but I am highly skeptical of the validity of his test.

I'd be more interested in what an independent lab can do, with lubes bought randomly off store shelves.
 
Originally Posted By: Rand
FYI: head and shoulders will far outperform any of those lubes in that test.

The test has been determined time and time again to be basically worthless.

So worthless that any product that uses it for marketing is immediately suspect.


This times 1000. These "test" are just gimmicky marketing that you see at flee-markets. Nothing more, nothing less. They are completely invalid in my mind.
 
Originally Posted By: jkasch
In another video, he claims FireClean is just vegetable oil with a little Pam added.


I wouldn't doubt it. FireClean is a joke, just like Frog Lube. Two way over priced, way over hyped, "lubes" that fall short on actual lubricating.

FireClean was the worst lube I've tested in a sample size of about 15 lubes.
 
George Fennel is a good guy and Weaponshield is one of the better CLP's out there. I do not think he is fudging the test or the results at all. I have had conversation with him in the past and he really seems like a stand up guy.

Other lubricant companies including plews edelmann and others have used this type of test to show the performance of their products.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rou4sa9MEzg

While I don't know how reliable or conclusive this type of test is, I do think it is better than nothing at all and certainly worth a watch. In the ultra lube video I posted above, syncolon super lube did better than most of the other products he tested. My own testing of super lube found it was a better lubricant than most so the test ultra lube conducted, did agree with my findings. Again, not totally conclusive but it does seem to confirm that there is at least some validity to this type of testing.

For the record, In my non-scientific testing, ultra lube was an amazing lubricant, as the video was trying to show but it had other major flaws (gummed up and got really sticky over time) that would stop me from using it, especially on guns.

Take these types of videos for what they are worth and what you paid for them. There is no reason bash anyone who tries their hand at proving their product works. These "falex" type of tests out there may not be independant, 3rd party, double blind, yada yada yada, scientific tests but hey, they are something and certainly not worth being pooed on. If you don't like/trust this type of stuff, just say so politely or keep quiet.
 
Originally Posted By: AMC
George Fennel is a good guy and Weaponshield is one of the better CLP's out there. I do not think he is fudging the test or the results at all. I have had conversation with him in the past and he really seems like a stand up guy................... Take these types of videos for what they are worth and what you paid for them. There is no reason bash anyone who tries their hand at proving their product works. These "falex" type of tests out there may not be independant, 3rd party, double blind, yada yada yada, scientific tests but hey, they are something and certainly not worth being pooed on. If you don't like/trust this type of stuff, just say so politely or keep quiet.


I agree. The test is far more than you get with most all of these other over priced, firearm snake oil lubricants like "Frog Lube", or even "Slip 2000 EWL". About all they'll provide you with is some bought and paid for "operator" who recommends it, and say's it's good, because, "it's all he uses, or you need".

About the only thing I would like to see, is a constant application of the product as it's being tested. A sort of continuous drip if you will. At least that way one can be assured there is a steady flow of the lubricant to the contact point. Also, if they put a prescribed amount of weight on the part for a certain specific length of time, then measured the amount of wear. Not keep applying pressure until the unit stops.

Then you would have a more applicable representation of the lubricant's ability to resist wear over time. It would require a longer test, with more to clean up after each product was examined. But the results would show more of a "real world" type of result the user could more easily relate to. And again I would point out the fact, I would be far more concerned about which FIREARM LUBRICANTS FAILED, than I would be about what household products or shampoo's you have zero intention of putting on your firearms PASSED.

Here is yet another lubrication test performed by Bell Performance Lubricants utilizing a similar method of testing, along with a few others.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqM8wdaHBaQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jez_qiEOD_w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_okkAH4LqB8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq3kwxaQBUQ
 
Here is Amsoil trying to discredit the test with shampoo. It's not very convincing. First off, while the machine holds the lubricant in a trough to keep the wheel constantly coated, he does nothing equally between each of the products. He keeps varying the pressure and amount of time he tests each product to purposefully achieve the results he wants. You can do that with most any test.

Notice also how the guy never cleans the trough out. He just dumps one product out, and pours another in. By the time they got around to "testing" the shampoo, he had a mixture of a half a dozen products in the thing.

Also, he never moves the bearing material into a fresh position like the Weapon Shield test did. Or stone off the built up material from the wheel. This is a classic example of, "Garbage In = Garbage Out". He did nothing equally, so how can you possibly derive anything from, or compare ANY of the "results" he obtained? As far as I'm concerned the Amsoil salesman in a lab coat did more to purposefully discredit the test, than the Weapon Shield method of testing did. At least he tried to obtain an equal procedure between the products he tested. Judge for yourself. The biggest problem I see with the use of this machine, is HOW it is used. Not any problem with the machine itself, or how it tests for wear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7ayhPVVYY
 
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Originally Posted By: jkasch
In another video, he claims FireClean is just vegetable oil with a little Pam added.


I wouldn't doubt it. FireClean is a joke, just like Frog Lube. Two way over priced, way over hyped, "lubes" that fall short on actual lubricating.

FireClean was the worst lube I've tested in a sample size of about 15 lubes.


Well, the bottle says to discard after one year (goes bad) and in another YouTube video it had burn-off characteristics identical to Crisco. Only $9.00 an oz. last time I looked.
 
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
The inventor has been in the lube business for years. He knows very well what characteristics a lube needs to pass these tests.


Yes he does. George Fennel invented FP-10.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top