Weapon Shield

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ws6

Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Messages
6,125
Location
South Central US
Has anyone come up with anything that does a better job preventing wear than Weapon Shield? Also, I understand Weapon Shield contains chlorinated parrafins. Specifically, ultra long chains of polyolefins. From what I understand, these are stable and cannot cause corrosion, or cancer, and the EPA has deemed them environmentally safe, as well, while moving to ban SCCP's and medium chain CP's. Thoughts?
 
Yes....any decent grease in NLGI 0/1 is up to the job...especially greases with calcium sulphonate thickener....

Plus it is much cheaper that way then if you buy that fancy-dancy unicorn **** lubes
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Kamele0N
Yes....any decent grease in NLGI 0/1 is up to the job...especially greases with calcium sulphonate thickener....

Plus it is much cheaper that way then if you buy that fancy-dancy unicorn **** lubes
smile.gif



I strongly prefer an oil for my application. Firearm may dictate choice, there.
 
Originally Posted By: Ws6
Has anyone come up with anything that does a better job preventing wear than Weapon Shield? Thoughts?


No, and I've tried pretty much everything. Weapon Shield Oil and grease is all I now use. If I can ever find anything that prevents wear better, I'll use it. My guess is I'll be waiting a long time.
 
Chlorinated (paraffins?) would not be anti-corrosive in the presence of h0h. This junk was in many of the snake engine oils of the 80s and 90s. Cold weapon brought into a warm, humid room = water condensate all over the machine.
 
Who is to say any gun oil (they are over-priced) will do better than the cheapest oil on the market?

I use a 50/50 mixture of ATF and Gear lube and say it is better than any gun oil on the planet. Prove me wrong.
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Chlorinated (paraffins?) would not be anti-corrosive in the presence of h0h. This junk was in many of the snake engine oils of the 80s and 90s. Cold weapon brought into a warm, humid room = water condensate all over the machine.


I don't know how one would expect condensation not to happen? I'm confused as to what you are getting at. Chemistry was not my strong point.
 
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

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?

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 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
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Who is to say any gun oil (they are over-priced) will do better than the cheapest oil on the market?

I use a 50/50 mixture of ATF and Gear lube and say it is better than any gun oil on the planet. Prove me wrong.


+1 I use G96 synthetic oil but 40 years ago I just used 3 in 1 oil for years. None of my guns ever rusted or melted...
21.gif


I have 3 quarts of 75w90 and some T-IV I don't need....I am going to mix some and see what happens.
 
Last edited:
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.
hph...amp;oe=56BF536B



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?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ws6
My impression of Weapon Shield is that it was backed with solid science and engineering. No?


Yes. I think of all of the "gun oils" out there, Weapon Shield performs the best. Especially in prevention of wear. That has been proven in numerous high wear tests against other competitive products. Including all the top sellers like Mil-Tech and Fraud Lube. As far as rust protection, I can say pretty much the same. I haven't had a gun rust in over 45 years. But then again I don't have salt water spray systems installed in my gun safes.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460

Yes. I think of all of the "gun oils" out there, Weapon Shield performs the best. Especially in prevention of wear. That has been proven in numerous high wear tests against other competitive products. Including all the top sellers like Mil-Tech and Fraud Lube. As far as rust protection, I can say pretty much the same. I haven't had a gun rust in over 45 years. But then again I don't have salt water spray systems installed in my gun safes.

References?

Exactly:
Originally Posted By: 90crvtec

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?

I am afraid we will have a long wait
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 90crvtec
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?


That should keep you busy for a while. Now, before you start whining about the Falex machine, "one armed bandit's", "rigged tests", "Chlorinated Paraffin", and all the rest of the nonsense. Show us one single test of a "gun oil" currently on the market that beats it under the exact same conditions. And when you do, be sure to include where to purchase it. Because I'll be the first guy there when the store opens.
 
So is chlorinated parrafin regarding very long chains a bad thing? Could it become "unstable" somehow and act like Militec-1?
 
Originally Posted By: Ws6
So is chlorinated parrafin regarding very long chains a bad thing? Could it become "unstable" somehow and act like Militec-1?

I'll repost this from the Ballistol thread back from a few days ago. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=302916

Read what MolaKule has to say. He has some excellent points in that thread that are still every bit as applicable today.

I'm sure that WeaponShield is having some kind of reaction with the metal that allows it to perform well in the falex test. What they won't tell you (and maybe can't tell you) is how this has any long term effect on metal. The falex machine uses a bearing and race that are designed to be destroyed. It's basically testing to destruction, kind of like running an engine without oil to see how long it can go before seizing up. That's not a realistic condition for a firearm lubricant, and in the mean time, we have hardened steels that need to keep their strength to ensure reliability (DI ARs specifically come to mind here with HPT/MPI'd bolts).

Does WeaponShield have an additive in it that allows it to ace a falex test? Obviously it does. Does that additive have anything practical in regards to firearm protection.....that is the question. A lot of folks see the implied falex test and they make the leap thinking "if it does well on that test, it must be great for my gun!" If you won't believe that test in regards to engine oil, what makes that oil any more useful on a firearm?

Firearms are mostly low temperature applications with precision fit metal parts that are designed to wear against each other, the force multiplication happening on that falex machine is extreme. Bearing journals in engines are soft whereas any quality firearm has surfaces that are matched to be relatively compatible with each other, the idea of rapid wear in a firearm is totally different from that of an engine (which is what all of these Choloro Paraffins start as, engine additives). Even George Fennell admits in the tests that the wear scar on the WeaponShield bearing is mostly due to the extreme pressure placed on the surface because of the extreme amount of leverage used to conduct the test, effectively "denting" the metal as he would say. Frankly, this kind of scenario is much more likely to show up in an engine than a firearm, think of the oil in a bearing journal as a piston hits the bottom of its stroke while the engine is at redline. WAY more pressure and heat in there than Joe Average's AR dumping a mag or three. And you wouldn't put that stuff in your engine, would you?

For more interesting reading, check out Vuurwapenblog's analysis of Froglube and team: http://www.vuurwapenblog.com/general-opi...atory-analysis/

And also FireClean, it's canola oil. If you think FireClean makes gun cleanup a snap, go to walmart, buy canola oil, profit: http://www.vuurwapenblog.com/general-opi...and-canola-oil/
 
Originally Posted By: 90crvtec
Originally Posted By: Ws6
So is chlorinated parrafin regarding very long chains a bad thing? Could it become "unstable" somehow and act like Militec-1?

I'll repost this from the Ballistol thread back from a few days ago. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=302916

Read what MolaKule has to say. He has some excellent points in that thread that are still every bit as applicable today.

I'm sure that WeaponShield is having some kind of reaction with the metal that allows it to perform well in the falex test. What they won't tell you (and maybe can't tell you) is how this has any long term effect on metal. The falex machine uses a bearing and race that are designed to be destroyed. It's basically testing to destruction, kind of like running an engine without oil to see how long it can go before seizing up. That's not a realistic condition for a firearm lubricant, and in the mean time, we have hardened steels that need to keep their strength to ensure reliability (DI ARs specifically come to mind here with HPT/MPI'd bolts).

Does WeaponShield have an additive in it that allows it to ace a falex test? Obviously it does. Does that additive have anything practical in regards to firearm protection.....that is the question. A lot of folks see the implied falex test and they make the leap thinking "if it does well on that test, it must be great for my gun!" If you won't believe that test in regards to engine oil, what makes that oil any more useful on a firearm?

Firearms are mostly low temperature applications with precision fit metal parts that are designed to wear against each other, the force multiplication happening on that falex machine is extreme. Bearing journals in engines are soft whereas any quality firearm has surfaces that are matched to be relatively compatible with each other, the idea of rapid wear in a firearm is totally different from that of an engine (which is what all of these Choloro Paraffins start as, engine additives). Even George Fennell admits in the tests that the wear scar on the WeaponShield bearing is mostly due to the extreme pressure placed on the surface because of the extreme amount of leverage used to conduct the test, effectively "denting" the metal as he would say. Frankly, this kind of scenario is much more likely to show up in an engine than a firearm, think of the oil in a bearing journal as a piston hits the bottom of its stroke while the engine is at redline. WAY more pressure and heat in there than Joe Average's AR dumping a mag or three. And you wouldn't put that stuff in your engine, would you?

For more interesting reading, check out Vuurwapenblog's analysis of Froglube and team: http://www.vuurwapenblog.com/general-opi...atory-analysis/

And also FireClean, it's canola oil. If you think FireClean makes gun cleanup a snap, go to walmart, buy canola oil, profit: http://www.vuurwapenblog.com/general-opi...and-canola-oil/


You're making way too much out of this. Look, don't make a simple test complicated. It's not. The Falex machine induces a very high accelerated wear condition. It's designed to do this. Of course no gun would wear parts like that. No manufactured machine would. That's not the point. That said, it's nice to see Weapon Shield provide that level of protection. Especially when every other "gun lube" tested did not provide anywhere near that same level of protection. Lubricants tested on it score comparatively. Of all the "gun lubes" tested Weapon Shield scores the best. So why wouldn't I use it based on that?
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
So why wouldn't I use it based on that?

Did you read any of MolaKule's posts in that thread? It's obvious that the falex test can be easily "passed" using chloro paraffin additives, lube companies have been doing this for decades. Post #302914 is pure gold.

The question should be: Why would I use an additive that doesn't demonstrably show a benefit on a firearm and has been associated with metal fatigue/corrosion?

I would use Weapon Shield tomorrow if I was planning on putting the barrel of my AR in a falex machine. The falex test is a distraction. It's there to make you think that the benefits imbued from that test will directly correlate to your chosen use case for the lubricant. If you think about it, that's one heck of a leap.

Actually, if I was going to put the barrel of my AR in a falex machine tomorrow, I'd use Head & Shoulders Tactical Gun Grease 9000: https://youtu.be/Ne7ayhPVVYY?t=4m45s

Given the results of the test, why wouldn't you use that?
 
Originally Posted By: 90crvtec
Why would I use an additive that doesn't demonstrably show a benefit on a firearm and has been associated with metal fatigue/corrosion?


Show me ANY evidence what so ever, of a firearm having or showing either "metal fatigue", and or "corrosion", from using Weapon Shield. Just one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top