Weapon Shield

[90crvtec]

First off, I don't want you to think this is a "hey, I'm going to pick on billt460 thread." You've obviously made your choice and you feel very strongly about it, that's your prerogative through and through. I'm not trying to change your mind. You replied first to one of my posts in this thread and used a very defensive tone, as if you were directly under attack, and linked to a bunch of falex tests, which you've now backed off from. Then you cite some favorable online reviews of the same product, which you now state that you don't think are relevant but somehow still qualify the product as "good"....because after all, those reviewers would have found a problem by now if there was one. And now we have this:

Originally Posted By: billt460
Some time ago I purchased 3 cases of .30-06 ammunition from the CMP. This was the "Greek Ammo" that the CMP was selling, because it was loaded to M1 Garand specifications. (Mid range powder burn rate). The price was very good on this ammunition at the time, ($381.00 for 3, 440 round cases delivered Fed Ex to my door). Or just under .29 cents a round. I couldn't buy new .30-06 brass for that price.


Originally Posted By: billt460
I direct tested Weapon Shield at the range in a comparative test on bolt lugs. What I though was ammo that was loaded too hot, turned out to be nothing more than inferior lubrication. Hard bolt lift without, easy bolt lift with. Period, end of story.


You cherry picked a scenario where you had 3 completely reliable bolt guns, the only variable was the ammunition. You bought dodgy ammunition that made all three bolts difficult to cycle after firing. You drizzled some new oil on there and voila! It's a miracle! OMG someone alert the press! Keep in mind you also state that all 3 of these rifles worked great with hand loads and various factory loaded ammunition bought at retail. How does this possibly show that Weapon Shield is superior? It reads like Weapon Shield should only be used on firearms running cheap, foreign sourced milsurp ammunition loaded "hot."

I also find this humorous because the OP is clearly looking for a lube that can be run hard in an AR, perhaps even an SBR'd/suppressed gun (these are notorious for shearing bolt lugs). These guns run in temperatures that will never be seen by a bolt action hunting rifle. High temperatures are the catalyst of chloro paraffin additives, they create the "wear protection" through a surface reaction of the additive as it decomposes. If you read any of the posts by the actual tribologists on this forum, they caution against this very scenario, and they correctly state that the manufacturers of these additives will not provide meaningful data to back up their claims of "superior wear protection."

I'm not telling you to stop using Weapon Shield. As you've already stated, you've convinced yourself it's the best. That's great, keep on truckin'. What I'm driving at is that your basis of "proof", which we now know to be 3 bolt action guns with surplus ammunition, is hardly a salient point that can be applied to any other situation. It's no different than the falex test. Carry on and best of luck, our conversation seems to just be going in circles and at this point I don't care to spend any more time on it.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Kamele0N
You would solve that "difficult bolt lift" with special malossi cvt grease....wich is basically lithium grease loaded with PTFE Or with bar oil mixed with LM MoS2 Or....with any grease/oil loaded with AW stuff...that will reduce friction on your bolt...and is not too tacky!


You don't know that. That is your opinion. Mobil 1 20W-50 = Hard bolt lift. Mobil 1 Synthetic Grease = Hard bolt lift. Slip 2000 EWL = Hard bolt lift. Both Weapon Shield products = Bolt lift achieved with one finger. That is not opinion. That is FACT.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: 90crvtec
First off, I don't want you to think this is a "hey, I'm going to pick on billt460 thread.".................

You bought dodgy ammunition that made all three bolts difficult to cycle after firing. You drizzled some new oil on there and voila! It's a miracle! OMG someone alert the press!


If you pride yourself in being a smart a$$ jag off, then just be one. There is no shame. But don't shovel $h!t, then turn around and try and sell it as roses.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Ws6,

If I may say so, that bolt carrier group and lower look bone dry, and lacking ANY lubrication. Naturally it's going to be difficult to clean. AR-15 rifles will always run better, and be easier to clean, if they're run wet with lubrication. Especially from a clean up standpoint. I ALWAYS keep the upper, lower, and the bolt carrier group wet with lubricant. I think the issues you are having are from a lack of lubricant, rather than using the wrong one. If you follow this, I doubt your problems with difficult cleaning will continue..... Regardless of what lube you choose to use.






The weapon started out correctly lubricated. What you see is the product of 3 days of shooting suppressed. I was curious how it would hold up/where it would choke. It never did. Regarding ease of cleaning, even shooting 100 rounds I can tell a difference between products. I can clean my entire rifle, minus bolt tail, with a paper towel when using FIREClean. With Weaponshield I can do the same, but it requires more scrubbing. With MPRO7 LPX, I have to break out a brush to clean the inside walls of the upper where the BCG rides.

Objectively, having used many products, FIREClean is still the best product for having an easy/quick to clean rifle. That said, its other drawbacks keep me from using it. However, I am sitting here looking at a bottle of it. I have 20/10 vision, and I have looked at the bottle fro a full 360*F. I failed to notice a expiration date. A quick call to Mr. Sugg resulted in the information that they stopped with the exp. date around 2013, thus indicating that the bottle that Mr. Fennell had in his video was well over a year old at time of filming, ironically. I also have Fireclean from well over a year ago, and those bottles are also free of such warning, corroborating what they told me.

My sole issue with FIREClean was its failure to NOT expire, however, so really, what's on the bottle in print is just semantics. It gummed up just as Mr. Fennell claimed it would.

My issue is slightly different from sticking bolt lugs on a bolt gun, however. My issue is needing something that will handle a bunch of suppressed gunfire. Most of the fouling comes from backwash down the bore in suppressed firearms, and this creates extremely "dirty" conditions. I need something that when loaded with carbon does not gum up or become gritty. So far, FIREClean takes the cake there. Sadly, like I said, it is not without drawbacks. My next experiment will be with SLIP EWL. Pat Rogers has said it works great for him, has a ton of guns with high round counts on it over the last half decade so I know it won't gum up, etc., and it is non-toxic. The Weaponshield is good. Very good. But it still seems to do about average when loaded up with carbon. That's my only reason for looking elsewhere, also.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Kamele0N
You would solve that "difficult bolt lift" with special malossi cvt grease....wich is basically lithium grease loaded with PTFE Or with bar oil mixed with LM MoS2 Or....with any grease/oil loaded with AW stuff...that will reduce friction on your bolt...and is not too tacky!


You don't know that. That is your opinion. Mobil 1 20W-50 = Hard bolt lift. Mobil 1 Synthetic Grease = Hard bolt lift. Slip 2000 EWL = Hard bolt lift. Both Weapon Shield products = Bolt lift achieved with one finger. That is not opinion. That is FACT.


What causes bolt lift to be difficult? Is it the impingement of the lugs on the recesses, or is it the impingement of the spent and obdurated casing on the chamber walls? In my experience with the M4 platform, as well as other bolt guns, it is a function of the interaction of the casing, and not the bolt lugs, when 1 single shot is involved. If one wishes to argue otherwise, then what you are stating is that there is a dimensional change between the lugs and their recesses on each shot. This is the only way 2 parts could become impinged when there is not a tapered surface involved, which, I do not believe any lug recesses into a tapered surface, but if your rifle's lugs DO, then when you are saying is that the weaponshield prevents them from advancing as far into the tapered/pressfit situation.

In short, I do not see how you can claim that the lugs are the issue. I am not arguing that the WS solved your problem, as I do not wish to call someone a liar who I have never met, when I have never seen or observed their sitation. No, I am simply saying that I think the cause/effect is being potentially attributed to a different system than it is actually relating to.

*My father had similar issues when I was a child. He failed to re-size his .223 casings fully, instead just re-sizing the necks. He ended up with a locked up Colt, and a locked up Tikka.

 

[90crvtec]

Originally Posted By: Ws6
In short, I do not see how you can claim that the lugs are the issue. I am not arguing that the WS solved your problem, as I do not wish to call someone a liar who I have never met, when I have never seen or observed their sitation. No, I am simply saying that I think the cause/effect is being potentially attributed to a different system than it is actually relating to.

I'm glad someone else is also seeing through that story.

This has also been my point with the falex tests. The cause/effect from that system is entirely different than how it relates to firearms use. Unfortunately that doesn't stop some guys from trying to see a miracle where there isn't one.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Ws6
What causes bolt lift to be difficult? Is it the impingement of the lugs on the recesses, or is it the impingement of the spent and obdurated casing on the chamber walls? In my experience with the M4 platform, as well as other bolt guns, it is a function of the interaction of the casing, and not the bolt lugs, when 1 single shot is involved. If one wishes to argue otherwise, then what you are stating is that there is a dimensional change between the lugs and their recesses on each shot. This is the only way 2 parts could become impinged when there is not a tapered surface involved, which, I do not believe any lug recesses into a tapered surface, but if your rifle's lugs DO, then when you are saying is that the weaponshield prevents them from advancing as far into the tapered/pressfit situation.

In short, I do not see how you can claim that the lugs are the issue. I am not arguing that the WS solved your problem, as I do not wish to call someone a liar who I have never met, when I have never seen or observed their sitation. No, I am simply saying that I think the cause/effect is being potentially attributed to a different system than it is actually relating to.

*My father had similar issues when I was a child. He failed to re-size his .223 casings fully, instead just re-sizing the necks. He ended up with a locked up Colt, and a locked up Tikka.


Good God can you make something out of nothing. Weapon Shield simply solved an issue that other lubricants would not and did not. That's it. Why do you have to over analyze everything? What difference does it make what caused the condition? The Weapon Shield solved it. End of problem. End of story. Jesus! You could over complicate a cup of coffee.

 

[Al]

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Ws6
What causes bolt lift to be difficult? Is it the impingement of the lugs on the recesses, or is it the impingement of the spent and obdurated casing on the chamber walls? In my experience with the M4 platform, as well as other bolt guns, it is a function of the interaction of the casing, and not the bolt lugs, when 1 single shot is involved. If one wishes to argue otherwise, then what you are stating is that there is a dimensional change between the lugs and their recesses on each shot. This is the only way 2 parts could become impinged when there is not a tapered surface involved, which, I do not believe any lug recesses into a tapered surface, but if your rifle's lugs DO, then when you are saying is that the weaponshield prevents them from advancing as far into the tapered/pressfit situation.

In short, I do not see how you can claim that the lugs are the issue. I am not arguing that the WS solved your problem, as I do not wish to call someone a liar who I have never met, when I have never seen or observed their sitation. No, I am simply saying that I think the cause/effect is being potentially attributed to a different system than it is actually relating to.

*My father had similar issues when I was a child. He failed to re-size his .223 casings fully, instead just re-sizing the necks. He ended up with a locked up Colt, and a locked up Tikka.


Good God can you make something out of nothing. Weapon Shield simply solved an issue that other lubricants would not and did not. That's it. Why do you have to over analyze everything? What difference does it make what caused the condition? The Weapon Shield solved it. End of problem. End of story. Jesus! You could over complicate a cup of coffee.


1000 years ago, the sun god and rain god allowed crops at their whim. Today, we know differently. However...the results are the same. The difference? We understand these systems better and now know a few days in advance to cover the plants from a freeze. Sometimes understanding is its own reward, while other times it does allow for a better outcome.

 

[90crvtec]

Originally Posted By: Ws6
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?

Ws6, my google-fu has made me most curious. I almost didn't want to post this but, this all seems like too much coincidence so I figured I'd just ask. Hopefully Al already has the popcorn ready from the previous posts today. Whatever the case may be, I'm sure billt stands at the ready to call both of us even more names.

Full disclosure, I've been a long time reader/lurker on ar15.com and m4carbine.net. As you can see by my post count here, I lurk and read WAY more than I post.

I found this thread on ar15.com: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_7/688275_Frog_Lube_is_the_Same_as_Roller_Coaster_TrackLube.html

A member there with the username "12_gauge" mentioned that they originally broke the news about Frog Lube years ago on another site and that they were berated for exposing Frog Lube as roller coaster track lube. On a hunch I thought this other site might be m4carbine.net and did more google-fu.

Here's a thread from back in 2011 on m4carbine.net by a user "WS6" that seems to break the news about Frog Lube being roller coaster track lube: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?93495-FrogLube-behind-the-scenes-at-a-glance
Sure enough, that guy catches a lot of heat back then, even the admins on that site are getting fired up about Frog Lube.

Is the M4carbine.net "WS6" and the ar15.com "12_gauge" the same person? Is that you? I've actually followed the corrosion tests by the user "12_gauge" on ar15.com and found them quite interesting. This was before this thread ever started here on BITOG. The internet can be a small place. Just trying to see if any of these lines on the map intersect.

On ar15.com, user "12_gauge" has conducted a few corrosion tests with Weapon Shield and it didn't seem to fare too well: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_7/687269_...Lucas_CLP_.html

That corrosion test also includes Lucas CLP, which you were asking about a few days ago here at BITOG. Am I crazy or what?

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted By: 90crvtec
Originally Posted By: Ws6
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?

Ws6, my google-fu has made me most curious. I almost didn't want to post this but, this all seems like too much coincidence so I figured I'd just ask. Hopefully Al already has the popcorn ready from the previous posts today. Whatever the case may be, I'm sure billt stands at the ready to call both of us even more names.

Full disclosure, I've been a long time reader/lurker on ar15.com and m4carbine.net. As you can see by my post count here, I lurk and read WAY more than I post.

I found this thread on ar15.com: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_7/688275_Frog_Lube_is_the_Same_as_Roller_Coaster_TrackLube.html

A member there with the username "12_gauge" mentioned that they originally broke the news about Frog Lube years ago on another site and that they were berated for exposing Frog Lube as roller coaster track lube. On a hunch I thought this other site might be m4carbine.net and did more google-fu.

Here's a thread from back in 2011 on m4carbine.net by a user "WS6" that seems to break the news about Frog Lube being roller coaster track lube: http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?93495-FrogLube-behind-the-scenes-at-a-glance
Sure enough, that guy catches a lot of heat back then, even the admins on that site are getting fired up about Frog Lube.

Is the M4carbine.net "WS6" and the ar15.com "12_gauge" the same person? Is that you? I've actually followed the corrosion tests by the user "12_gauge" on ar15.com and found them quite interesting. This was before this thread ever started here on BITOG. The internet can be a small place. Just trying to see if any of these lines on the map intersect.

On ar15.com, user "12_gauge" has conducted a few corrosion tests with Weapon Shield and it didn't seem to fare too well: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_7/687269_...Lucas_CLP_.html

That corrosion test also includes Lucas CLP, which you were asking about a few days ago here at BITOG. Am I crazy or what?

I also go by "Unobtanium". My corrosion test of lucas is ongoing. I don't switch up usernames tk be deceptive, but simply as the mood strikes or they are taken on other forums. Yes, I dug rather deep down the froglube,, seal 1, Scott lee, and Trillium rabbit hole. Noone liked it. But now...lol

Fireclean took me longer to discard by far. The gumming was not apparent at all until over a year went by, and it honestly does meet their other claims, except suppressor baffles. I never got it to keep them clean on my .22

 

[90crvtec]

Originally Posted By: Ws6
I also go by "Unobtanium". My corrosion test of lucas is ongoing. I don't switch up usernames tk be deceptive, but simply as the mood strikes or they are taken on other forums. Yes, I dug rather deep down the froglube,, seal 1, Scott lee, and Trillium rabbit hole. Noone liked it. But now...lol

Fireclean took me longer to discard by far. The gumming was not apparent at all until over a year went by, and it honestly does meet their other claims, except suppressor baffles. I never got it to keep them clean on my .22

No worries. I also change up usernames if they are taken or if I want something different. And I do say, excellent work on the Frog Lube stuff. WAY ahead of its time.

Also, I'm glad I'm not crazy.

The Frog Lube and Fireclean discoveries lead me to ask, would you still attempt to use them if you knew back then that they were relabeled products that were never created for firearms use? It kind of proves the point that a firearm will run on just about anything, doesn't it?

I completely understand that an SBR'd suppressed AR has a ridiculous amount of fouling re-introduced back in to the chamber/bolt while firing. But that comes with the territory, I'm not sure there's a lubricant in existence that will a) resist fouling accumulation and b) continue to stay on the bolt surface and not flash off. It just seems like too much to ask, especially if we're talking about 1500 rounds fired over a 3 day period. And frankly if there was such a lubricant, I doubt anyone has employed it for firearms use...it's probably some aerospace grease or something cool that NASA needs to lubricate support arms on a satellite or something.

Even Vuurwapenblog mentioned that during their AR stress tests they were able to re-animate one with a few drops of oil. I believe at the time, that oil was FP10. However, I would contend that literally ANYTHING liquid would have re-animated an AR with 2700 rounds through it. Even tap water would be enough to free up the bolt and get things kicking again.

And as you know, the AR runs pretty well in a completely dry state. It isn't the best for component longevity but, it can do it and be reliable.

What do you think you can find in a lubricant based on your very stringent requirements? I'm not sure any lube can hold up. Do you have experience with Weapon Shield in the same 1500 round suppressed gun? Does it also flash off or does it seem to hang on?

In your own tests Weapon Shield doesn't seem to do that well for corrosion prevention. I have seen similar issues with FP10 and corrosion tests. However in your case corrosion prevention doesn't seem to be the top priority, it's more about being a lubricant with staying power under extreme conditions. Weapon Shield seems to be marketed under the premise that even if it is completely removed from the surface, it's "special" additive pack will continue to keep things functioning. They also try to demonstrate this on their falex tests.

However, you had 1500 trouble free rounds in an AR that was previously lubed with MPro LPX. How would one verify that Weapon Shield would be any better? I'm asking this not to be facetious but because I'm genuinely stumped at how we could arrive at the answer based on your use case.

 

[Ws6]

Several things...first, the rifle was a midlength 16.1".

Now, a lot of fouling on the m4 when suppressed comes from the bore. Many thing it's the DI system, but a suppressed .22 pistol shows that it's backwash down the bore, as will a slow motion video. The back of the bolt and inside of the carrier is the only thing gunked by the action gas really.

So what is occurring? Well, when you shoot suppressed, you are sending more gas through the gas tube. This is because a suppressor retards exhaust of gas from the end of the barrel, which leads to the backwash down the bore, and "overgassing" of the carrier. The result is that the bolt unlocks and the weapon cycles sooner than optimal. This results in the casing uncorking the barrel and allowing more backwash into the chamber. So the first solution to address my requirements is to slow unlocking and cycling. I did this by using the Vltor A5 system and a Sprinco green spring, along with the 5.2oz a5 buffer. This creates additional inertia for the system to overcome to begin unlocking.

Now, this is my test platform. I change the rifle up constantly. Springs, bcgs, whatever. I play with tons of configurations.

On the rifle I am having built that will be the culmination of all I have learned, I'm going with a smaller gas port, as well. It will be the smallest in the industry on a 14.5 middy. It still runs great with .223 pressure though.

So...smaller gas port...heavier buffer...longer recoil system. This will result in less overgassing, and retard the unlocking process. This will physically prevent some of the fouling. I have also gone to "mini" suppressors due to less back pressure and weight and length. They are also quieter at the ear than fullsize cans due to less ejection port noise due to the above factors.

The above mitigates some of the fouling existence in the action.

Now...to mitigate what does occur...I tested various bcgs, and finally arrived at using qpq treated bcgs. I like them because qpq has a lower coefficient of friction on steel than non qpq steel on steel. When the lube is dried and gone, the qpq carrier and bolts bearing surfaces slide easier and with less wear. This is especially important on the locking lugs and bareel extension. To thay end, rangerproof (company) has qpq 9310 bolts with well over 30k rounds on them. In fact...scour the internet...you literally cannot find a broken 9310 qpq treated bolt that did not have a known defect such as a bad heat treat run. I proved the friction in the real world with my 1500 plus round count test. That gun had no lube, as you can see, and yet it would still run wolf .223 unsuppressed, reliably. The bearing surfaces were constantly being wiped clean of carbon during cycling, and the lower coefficient of friction with qpq helped. Further, the ID of qpq carriers is very smooth vs. most chrome lined carriers I have seen. This slows gas ring wear significantly, especially with high round counts and poor lubrication. This all is the first way I ha e dealt with what fouling occurs, in spite of the gas system and action modification/specifications.

The second way of dealing with fouling is a good clp. Currently, Picatinny Arsenal is experimenting with durable solid lubricants. I think that is very similar to my like for QPQ'ed bcgs, although their DSLs are not that, and I don't believe it's public what they are using, so I'll decline to discuss it further. NP3 is a decent civilian substitute, though, however...I prefer qpq. Treatments over plating for this application, imo.

Anyway...back to lubrication...the massive advantage that fireclean offered was extremely high film strength and in a way, polymerization. If applied very light, it would form a chemical sheath around the part that did darn well at rejecting fouling. If applied heavy, it would suspend and break the fouling down. Conventional products I have tried tend to suspend the carbon in a slurry mixture.the weapon will feel gritty and "slow" as the mixture takes on more and more carbon. This is why froglube, and fireclean had such popularity. They actually mitigated a lot of that. KAC'S .mil divisions demo guns are all lubed with fireclean because it does so well at this. Demo guns can't be choking or the intended audience will not be impressed...and they don't care that the gun is smoking hot and hasn't had lube or cleaning in a thousand rounds. They just want to hose a target with it and it darn well better work!

This brings us full circle back to wear prevention...while mitigating carbon fouling effects on weapon kinematics...you also want a product that is reducing fatigue and friction on the bolt lugs. Then, for someone like me who will hunt and train in the rain...corrosion becomes an issue, too...

I spoke with Pat Rogers about slip 2000 ewl, as he is a huge fan. However it performs the task, it seems to provide plenty of part longevity and corrosion prevention in the field. I bought some to evaluate other aspects as above.


*why not use adjustable gas systems? I have. Noveske switch block to be exact. They can carbon and copper foul in place, and even when they dont, they create an organic failure potential when the user does not select the correct port position to match the suppressor status of the weapon.

**why do I shoot suppressed? Because my hearing sucks and ear protection still does not block conductive hearing trauma, or trauma through the nasal and oral cavities associated with explosions like gunfire. I'm preserving what I've got! It's also much more pleasant inside a vehicle as concussion does not turn glass into a hurricane that you get all over yourself, etc. when you mitigate it with a suppressor.

***why don't I use a piston gun? I have yet to find one that is oight, ergonomic, and as reliable as the stoner system when executed correctly. Further, this will not mitigate backwash fouling, and piston systems do not suppress as well as stoner systems. The hk416s for example are why AAC redesigned the m4 2000.it was cycling them much too violently and they were breaking. This is why those early cans were designated 416sd.

 

[90crvtec]

Great post, I actually understood all of that too. I also understand that suppressed means a lot of gas/fouling coming back through the barrel, not just through the gas system.

I think maybe I mis-read your original post here. You asked us if we knew of anything with better wear prevention than Weapon Shield. I took that to mean that you were saying "I use Weapon Shield now, and it's the best I can find."

I'm still trying to understand if you are most satisfied with Weapon Shield out of all the lubricants you've tested so far? Or are you merely asking if we had any other ideas in regards to other products that claim to prevent wear in extreme situations, similar to how Weapon Shield advertises their lubricants?

I take it you've tried grease(s) before and were not satisfied?

Do you think it would be easier to just settle on a lubricant, any lubricant really, and just re-apply it in the field? Is that just not a possibility based on your environment? Or is this more of a quest to see if that grail product really is out there? If it was me, I'd just have a needle oiler full of Brand X that I could apply as needed.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted By: 90crvtec
Great post, I actually understood all of that too. I also understand that suppressed means a lot of gas/fouling coming back through the barrel, not just through the gas system.

I think maybe I mis-read your original post here. You asked us if we knew of anything with better wear prevention than Weapon Shield. I took that to mean that you were saying "I use Weapon Shield now, and it's the best I can find."

I'm still trying to understand if you are most satisfied with Weapon Shield out of all the lubricants you've tested so far? Or are you merely asking if we had any other ideas in regards to other products that claim to prevent wear in extreme situations, similar to how Weapon Shield advertises their lubricants?

I take it you've tried grease(s) before and were not satisfied?

Do you think it would be easier to just settle on a lubricant, any lubricant really, and just re-apply it in the field? Is that just not a possibility based on your environment? Or is this more of a quest to see if that grail product really is out there? If it was me, I'd just have a needle oiler full of Brand X that I could apply as needed.

Of all the products I have used, fireclean performed the best if the storage matrice is left out. Noticeably. I'm just looking for the grail...because why not?

Also, regarding wear, here is how the original Fp10 compares to g96, 3rd party


http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2008/ps-sp/PS63-2-1997-1E.pdf
This calls into question the value of the falex machine for replicating firearm operating systems.


I tried rig+P on a colt rifle. It was sluggish. Tw25b was okay, but again, seemed to trap and suspend grit and become more and more sluggish. Fireclean actually seemed to liquify the grit and not just keep shuffling it around.

Weaponshield is okay. The only way it stands out to me is because of the intellectual appeal of its alleged anti wear performance. And the cinnamon!

 

[Ws6]

Anti wear and ep stand out to me because of the forces of bolt thrust and axial camming on the m4 bolt, specifically as relates to the rear edge of the base of the recoil lugs, a known stress and failure point. Increased lubricity between the barrel extension and bolt lugs should reduce or mitigate this, thus a good EP lube like weaponshield is of interest, as is a qpq bolt, etc.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Ws6
Anyway...back to lubrication...the massive advantage that fireclean offered was extremely high film strength and in a way, polymerization. If applied very light, it would form a chemical sheath around the part that did darn well at rejecting fouling. If applied heavy, it would suspend and break the fouling down.


"Massive advantage".... Wow! All that, and just imagine you can cook your French Fries in it as well! Pretty amazing stuff, I must say! And tell us, when the planets are all in proper perpendicular alignment, would the molecular suspension increase without causing excessive deviation from true magnetic north? If so, then approximately how long would you have to wait until the fryer cooled down before retrieving your next sample?

Do you self inflate with that much total bull$h!t, or do you require a pump? Good God, no wonder you change user names often. I sure as he!! wouldn't want to be linked to that much total bull$h!t either! I'll let you go, so you both can continue your little circle jerk. I'm just wondering.... Who is the pivot man?

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Ws6
Anyway...back to lubrication...the massive advantage that fireclean offered was extremely high film strength and in a way, polymerization. If applied very light, it would form a chemical sheath around the part that did darn well at rejecting fouling. If applied heavy, it would suspend and break the fouling down.


"Massive advantage".... Wow! All that, and just imagine you can cook your French Fries in it as well! Pretty amazing stuff, I must say! And tell us, when the planets are all in proper perpendicular alignment, would the molecular suspension increase without causing excessive deviation from true magnetic north? If so, then approximately how long would you have to wait until the fryer cooled down before retrieving your next sample?

Do you self inflate with that much total bull$h!t, or do you require a pump? Good God, no wonder you change user names often. I sure as he!! wouldn't want to be linked to that much total bull$h!t either! I'll let you go, so you both can continue your little circle jerk. I'm just wondering.... Who is the pivot man?




A professional and informative post, indeed...

That said, it works very well as I stated, at reducing the impact of carbon fouling to a system like a suppressed m4. Cleaning the weapon is also vastly easier.

A little antecdote, if you will...


I ran out of cooking spray a month ago. I had some crisco rapeseed oil, and some crisco vegetable oil. I just subbed that for the cooking spray. NOTHING I did kept the eggs from sticking to my ceramic coated pan using either veg. Or rapeseed oil. I used scour pads to make sure all egg was off the pan first. I then rubbed the oil on light, thick, wiped it off, whatever. Tried higher heat. Lower heat. It simply sucked compared to the cooking spray that I use (great value Walmart brand olive oil spray).

So while fireclean is vegetable oils, by their own patent admission, I do not feel that this means it must perform like crisco or whatever product.

It does, however, polymerize like George says, which is why I dumped it. But before it does, thus far it is the best performing clp I've used. It just sucks hard on the preservation part...

Want to test my above? Try it. Cook some eggs with some different cooking oils and sprays. I've used some that are good, and some always leave egg stuck all over the pan.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Ws6
So while fireclean is vegetable oils, by their own patent admission, I do not feel that this means it must perform like crisco or whatever product. Want to test my above? Try it. Cook some eggs with some different cooking oils and sprays. I've used some that are good, and some always leave egg stuck all over the pan.


This is going from stupid, to totally insane. Are you actually serious? Read your first sentence I underscored. The stuff is vegetable oil.... By their own admission. But you think that means it will perform like something else it isn't??? You're not even making sense! THE STUFF IS CANOLA OIL for God's sake! This is a firearms forum.... Not the Food Channel. Common sense has long left this thread. Only to be replaced with silly, senseless bull$h!t. The only thing dumber than using vegetable oil on a firearm, is paying 20 times what it costs sitting on a grocery store shelf, so you can have 2 ounces of it labeled something else... P.T. Barnum was absolutely correct. Guys like you walking around prove it every day.... I think it is definitely time for you to change your "user name" again. "Organic failure potential".... Jesus!

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Ws6
So while fireclean is vegetable oils, by their own patent admission, I do not feel that this means it must perform like crisco or whatever product. Want to test my above? Try it. Cook some eggs with some different cooking oils and sprays. I've used some that are good, and some always leave egg stuck all over the pan.


This is going from stupid, to totally insane. Are you actually serious? Read your first sentence I underscored. The stuff is vegetable oil.... By their own admission. But you think that means it will perform like something else it isn't??? You're not even making sense! THE STUFF IS CANOLA OIL for God's sake! This is a firearms forum.... Not the Food Channel. Common sense has long left this thread. Only to be replaced with silly, senseless bull$h!t. The only thing dumber than using vegetable oil on a firearm, is paying 20 times what it costs sitting on a grocery store shelf, so you can have 2 ounces of it labeled something else... P.T. Barnum was absolutely correct. Guys like you walking around prove it every day.... I think it is definitely time for you to change your "user name" again. "Organic failure potential".... Jesus!


...after your spiel about weaponshield and your bolt guns and not caring about scientific method, eschewing it for "I just know it works"...I can't tell if your above post is satire, or not.

I believe, by your logic, any group 3 with an ep add pack will do anything weaponshield will, no? I mean...

*canola lil is rapeseed oil, while vegetable oil is soy oil. Different properties...you're using terms interchangeably and like the meme says...I don't think yiu know what that word means. If you're going to be insulting, at least know what you're talking about more than just "in general".

Anyway, excuse me while I stoop to your level...


Fireclean did as I said, and that's all I care about. Jesus. You could over complicate a cup of coffee

Ps. Ballistol seems successful...as are many organics used for black powder...is fireclean Ballistol is canola oil is rapeseed oil is coconut oil? Maybe in your dictionary...