You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How good of a gun lubricant is FP-10?
- Thread starter Mystic
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Royco is the other clp that meets that mil-spec.
http://www.lanclube.com/aviation_pdfs/Royco_634.pdf
http://www.lanclube.com/aviation_pdfs/Royco_634.pdf
Being issued a NSN means soldiers can buy it through the system. Otherwise it doesn't mean jack.
FP-10 failed my corrosion test (salt water bathe) whereas ATF and CLP passed w/ flying colors.
Are they claiming they meet 63460D? They could very well meet 63460 (the original) but not A, B, C, D, or the new upcoming E. Just because it says it meets all the 63460 tests does NOT by any way mean it meets/exceeds the 63460D spec (which is the latest as of right now).
AFAIK only BreakFree CLP meets the 63460D spec. The Rev E spec has not been released.
Does this make any sense?
No petroleum distillates? All Natural? Sounds like a lot of baloney to me. All natural, to me, sounds like it will break down at a lower temperature much faster.
They claimed Militec-1 was non-toxic but the MSDS shows that when burned, it will release HCl gas.
I just know CLP isn't a very good cleaner, but it has worked very well if used properly. I.e. if you squirt a sh*tload into your M16 in the desert, expect it to jam. Don't blame the rifle or the lube, blame the person who squirted all that lube into the rifle. The media has blown this out of proportion.
[ August 25, 2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: metroplex ]
FP-10 failed my corrosion test (salt water bathe) whereas ATF and CLP passed w/ flying colors.
Are they claiming they meet 63460D? They could very well meet 63460 (the original) but not A, B, C, D, or the new upcoming E. Just because it says it meets all the 63460 tests does NOT by any way mean it meets/exceeds the 63460D spec (which is the latest as of right now).
AFAIK only BreakFree CLP meets the 63460D spec. The Rev E spec has not been released.
Does this make any sense?
Tests can be skewed to show only good results.quote:
So it is a better lube then Break Free and does not contain any petrollum distilats or PTFE. It is non-toxic and all natral.
No petroleum distillates? All Natural? Sounds like a lot of baloney to me. All natural, to me, sounds like it will break down at a lower temperature much faster.
They claimed Militec-1 was non-toxic but the MSDS shows that when burned, it will release HCl gas.
I just know CLP isn't a very good cleaner, but it has worked very well if used properly. I.e. if you squirt a sh*tload into your M16 in the desert, expect it to jam. Don't blame the rifle or the lube, blame the person who squirted all that lube into the rifle. The media has blown this out of proportion.
[ August 25, 2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: metroplex ]
Yes Royco is the same as Break Free CLP. I forgot about that, it's also got a NSN and meets the 63460D spec. I do believe there are only a few others but they're all the same as the Break Free CLP.
Militec-1, FP-10, and any other product doesn't meet the latest 63460D spec. They may claim it's Mil-Spec but it's most likely a much older and obsolete 63460 revision.
FWIW I personally know of many people that use CLP in their semi-auto rifles and experience zero problems/malfunctions as a result of using CLP. If you read how some of the soldiers use the CLP, you'd realize WHY their rifles malfunction! (I.e. for basic marksmanship, they have a bowl of CLP for the recruits to soak their bolts in just prior to shooting. Care to take a guess at what would happen?)
[ August 26, 2004, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: metroplex ]
Militec-1, FP-10, and any other product doesn't meet the latest 63460D spec. They may claim it's Mil-Spec but it's most likely a much older and obsolete 63460 revision.
FWIW I personally know of many people that use CLP in their semi-auto rifles and experience zero problems/malfunctions as a result of using CLP. If you read how some of the soldiers use the CLP, you'd realize WHY their rifles malfunction! (I.e. for basic marksmanship, they have a bowl of CLP for the recruits to soak their bolts in just prior to shooting. Care to take a guess at what would happen?)
[ August 26, 2004, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: metroplex ]
Just a little clarification about who is qualified under the current military specification MIL-PRF-63460D. The latest listing for those products that are qualified is dated June 17, 2004 and it lists seven (7) products. They are CLP-NC (manufactured by Break-Free Inc), SENT-CLP (manufactured by Sentinel Canada), ROYCO-634 (manufactured by Anderol Inc), and four other products that are either a rebrand or reblend of the above three that were mentioned. These are ARPOLUBE 63460, AEROSHELL Fluid 634, PRO CLP, and CLP 22.
And all of them are basically slapped with a label "CLP" when issued to the military. Only Breakfree CLP contains PTFE.
Only a few are mainstream issued CLPs (purchased in large quantities for the soldiers).
None of them are FP-10, Militec-1, etc... I did the research months ago for products qualified under the current spec, I just don't have the documentation with me.
Only a few are mainstream issued CLPs (purchased in large quantities for the soldiers).
None of them are FP-10, Militec-1, etc... I did the research months ago for products qualified under the current spec, I just don't have the documentation with me.
The reason that all the qualified products are identified with the designation CLP is because that is the miltary symbol for MIL-PRF-63460 products. All specification petroleum products are given military symbol designations, e.g., engine oils are OE/HDO, brake fluid is BFS, etc.
About one of the qualified products containing PTFE, the specification itself is a performance type specification as opposed to a detailed specification where the specific ingredients are called out. The only limitation given in MIL-PRF-63460 is that it shall not contain any graphite or powdered metals. All the formulator has to do is to make sure that his formulation (with or without PTFE) meets all the performance requirements such as the Falex wear life test, firing residue removal, corrosion protection, water displacement, etc.
What I posted previously was the latest listing that has been issued showing the different manufacturers or distributors.
About one of the qualified products containing PTFE, the specification itself is a performance type specification as opposed to a detailed specification where the specific ingredients are called out. The only limitation given in MIL-PRF-63460 is that it shall not contain any graphite or powdered metals. All the formulator has to do is to make sure that his formulation (with or without PTFE) meets all the performance requirements such as the Falex wear life test, firing residue removal, corrosion protection, water displacement, etc.
What I posted previously was the latest listing that has been issued showing the different manufacturers or distributors.
If you don't like Break Free CLP, there's a very good chance you won't like the other products that qualified under 63460D. In the meantime, there's a lot of anecdotal "raving" about how Navy SEALs, Secret Service, etc... use Product XYZ.
If you read the actual spec - it's very dated. They're still using an M-60 as part of the test (which is being phased out by the M-240) and no, they're not firing full auto with a full belt of ammo....
Just because a product is in a QPL does not mean it's issued to soldiers. AFAIK only two of the products in the QPL are issued. One is BreakFree CLP (contains PTFE).
A lot of people do not like PTFE in the bore of their rifles...
My philosophy is that lubrication of the bore is not necessary. After the first round is fired, most of whatever was in the bore is either evacuated or has been burnt up. I prefer to use a protectant in the bore (Dex-3/Merc ATF) to prevent rusting.
The other parts of the rifle get the full lubricant treatment (either CLP w/ PTFE or another product). I haven't had much problems with a PTFE based product when you use it for a lubricant on the charging handle rail, FCG, etc... It makes cleaning easier the next time around.
************************
Back to the topic...
I have a sample of FP-10 and frankly it wasn't too good of a rust preventative. In my salt water bath test, the nail almost completely rusted out on the surface. The nails treated with ATF and BreakFree CLP did not have a speck of rust on them. RemOil wasn't too bad, but it was still covered with light rusting. Militec-1's rust protection was non-existent as well (one reason why it probably failed 63460D qualification).
[ August 31, 2004, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: metroplex ]
If you read the actual spec - it's very dated. They're still using an M-60 as part of the test (which is being phased out by the M-240) and no, they're not firing full auto with a full belt of ammo....
Just because a product is in a QPL does not mean it's issued to soldiers. AFAIK only two of the products in the QPL are issued. One is BreakFree CLP (contains PTFE).
A lot of people do not like PTFE in the bore of their rifles...
My philosophy is that lubrication of the bore is not necessary. After the first round is fired, most of whatever was in the bore is either evacuated or has been burnt up. I prefer to use a protectant in the bore (Dex-3/Merc ATF) to prevent rusting.
The other parts of the rifle get the full lubricant treatment (either CLP w/ PTFE or another product). I haven't had much problems with a PTFE based product when you use it for a lubricant on the charging handle rail, FCG, etc... It makes cleaning easier the next time around.
************************
Back to the topic...
I have a sample of FP-10 and frankly it wasn't too good of a rust preventative. In my salt water bath test, the nail almost completely rusted out on the surface. The nails treated with ATF and BreakFree CLP did not have a speck of rust on them. RemOil wasn't too bad, but it was still covered with light rusting. Militec-1's rust protection was non-existent as well (one reason why it probably failed 63460D qualification).
[ August 31, 2004, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: metroplex ]
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 87
- Views
- 5K