Ballistol

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Toros
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Toros
Checkered grips are not raw or unfinished. They are stained and coated.


Then why do you need anything on them?


You don't. But if you get some Ballistol on them it helps not harms them.


I'm not seeing how oil of any type or kind is going to "help" checkering. Coated or otherwise. The sole purpose of checkering on a pistol, rifle, or shotgun is to improve the gripping surface of the pistol grip or the forend, and make it less slippery. Oil will only serve to make that surface more slick and difficult to hold on to. And as far as "protection", if it's sealed and coated as you said, it doesn't require any protection, least of all oil. I'm not understanding what you're trying to positively achieve with any of this lubrication of checkering?

 

[AMC]

Originally Posted By: Pablo

As for Ballistol, I am REALLY tempted to buy a THIRD can and do an AR bolt soak test. Sorta has become my subjective standard - nothing scientific. Soak a filthy AR bolt for 60 minutes, see how loose the crud is.


I really am not looking to fight with you but your "bolt soak test" seems like a very strange test method to gather your data. I don't think I have ever cleaned anything firearm realted by letting it soak for a period of time. I might apply a product, wait a few minutes and then start brushing or wiping but even that is unnceccisary. Of course a toxic, high solvent, product like Hoppes is going clean better than Ballistol. That is not really proving anything. If you were to do a soak test, you would have to test Ballistol against similar products, such as the few other non toxic CLP's out there.

A more realistic test would be to start with 3 similar, cleaned, un-lubed AR's, fire a set amount of the same ammo (say a 100 rounds) then break the rifles down and clean each one with your test products. See which product seems to cut the fouling and which ones require more or less scrubbing than the others.

The other simple little cleaning test you can do is the soda can cleaning test. Flip a canned beverage over and on the bottom you will find a date / lot number code. Those numbers are a carbon based ink and will be removed with carbon cutting products. To do the test, flip the cans over, add a specified amount of your product to the can, 10 drops or so, then swirl the product around all over the ink. The better carbon cutting products will start to dissolve the ink almost immediately. The only non toxic cleaner I have ever tried that passed this test was Mpro7 Gun cleaner. In fairness, I haven't tried many other non toxic gun cleaners. CLP's almost never pass this test. I can tell you now that Mpro7 LPX, Ballistol, Break free CLP and Eezox all fail that test. This test also works for other products like fuel system cleaners and what not. Here is a video showing the type of test I am talking about.

Watch this video at 2:32 till the end, they conduct the test I am talking about with fuel additives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3AlTY7m22o

 

[Toros]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Toros
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Toros
Checkered grips are not raw or unfinished. They are stained and coated.


Then why do you need anything on them?


You don't. But if you get some Ballistol on them it helps not harms them.


I'm not seeing how oil of any type or kind is going to "help" checkering. Coated or otherwise. The sole purpose of checkering on a pistol, rifle, or shotgun is to improve the gripping surface of the pistol grip or the forend, and make it less slippery. Oil will only serve to make that surface more slick and difficult to hold on to. And as far as "protection", if it's sealed and coated as you said, it doesn't require any protection, least of all oil. I'm not understanding what you're trying to positively achieve with any of this lubrication of checkering?


Wood coated or otherwise needs to be "lubed". It's good for it as it nourishes the grain and protects it.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Toros
Wood coated or otherwise needs to be "lubed". It's good for it as it nourishes the grain and protects it.


And just how does it accomplish that when the wood, (checkering), itself is sealed and coated with a product that prevents anything from reaching it, or soaking into it? Just as you described in your earlier post.

Originally Posted By: Toros
Checkered grips are not raw or unfinished. They are stained and coated.

 

[Shannow]

LOLing...

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: AMC

I really am not looking to fight with you but your "bolt soak test" seems like a very strange test method to gather your data.


As I stated, I'm not gathering data, not scientific, just anecdotal observations pretty much like everyone else.

Originally Posted By: AMC
I don't think I have ever cleaned anything firearm realted by letting it soak for a period of time. I might apply a product, wait a few minutes and then start brushing or wiping but even that is unnceccisary. Of course a toxic, high solvent, product like Hoppes is going clean better than Ballistol. That is not really proving anything. If you were to do a soak test, you would have to test Ballistol against similar products, such as the few other non toxic CLP's out there.


Sometimes soaking actuator pistons (AK for example), or any parts directly impinged by the hottest gasses is the only way to clean them short of metal on metal scraping, which is something I avoid. Sometimes I get basket case guns and parts need to be soaked. I don't see what the issue is here. I have Breakthrough non toxic and some other cleaners that I do use for light regular cleaning of hand guns.

Originally Posted By: AMC
A more realistic test would be to start with 3 similar, cleaned, un-lubed AR's, fire a set amount of the same ammo (say a 100 rounds) then break the rifles down and clean each one with your test products. See which product seems to cut the fouling and which ones require more or less scrubbing than the others.


100 rounds won't make any hard crud. Anything should clean that. But I suppose someone doing a test could build three fairly identical rifles (same port sizes, gas tube length, etc). But I am not going to set anything like that up.

Originally Posted By: AMC
The other simple little cleaning test you can do is the soda can cleaning test. Flip a canned beverage over and on the bottom you will find a date / lot number code. Those numbers are a carbon based ink and will be removed with carbon cutting products. To do the test, flip the cans over, add a specified amount of your product to the can, 10 drops or so, then swirl the product around all over the ink. The better carbon cutting products will start to dissolve the ink almost immediately. The only non toxic cleaner I have ever tried that passed this test was Mpro7 Gun cleaner. In fairness, I haven't tried many other non toxic gun cleaners. CLP's almost never pass this test. I can tell you now that Mpro7 LPX, Ballistol, Break free CLP and Eezox all fail that test. This test also works for other products like fuel system cleaners and what not. Here is a video showing the type of test I am talking about.

Watch this video at 2:32 till the end, they conduct the test I am talking about with fuel additives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3AlTY7m22o


Silly video. Straight up. I really don't think removal of a polymerized food grade ink of unknown origin has a ton of relevancy here. I suppose if one were to perform such a test it would be best to buy a case of soda all marked at the same time from the same manufacturer. Certainly not a can from 3 years ago or whatever. At the end you would have, perhaps, a judgement on how a group of cleaners attacked the ink on that batch of cans. But not knowing what that ink is, yes carbon, at the elemental level, but again polymerized food grade ink is not the same as hard carbon deposits.

 

[Toros]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Toros
Wood coated or otherwise needs to be "lubed". It's good for it as it nourishes the grain and protects it.


And just how does it accomplish that when the wood, (checkering), itself is sealed and coated with a product that prevents anything from reaching it, or soaking into it? Just as you described in your earlier post.

Originally Posted By: Toros
Checkered grips are not raw or unfinished. They are stained and coated.


It nourishes the sealant or polyurethane....everyone knows that.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Toros
It nourishes the sealant or polyurethane....everyone knows that.


So..... Now you're saying it's not the grain of the wood that needs "nourishing"... But rather the Polyurethane that covers it. This is quickly going down the same drain pipe as your whole, "Less ammunition is better", argument.

 

[kschachn]

The whole idea of "nourishing" anything dead (wood, hair, fingernails, etc.) is just downright rock ignorant, it only exists in marketing write-ups and TV commercials.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
The whole idea of "nourishing" anything dead (wood, hair, fingernails, etc.) is just downright rock ignorant, it only exists in marketing write-ups and TV commercials.


He's just managed to paint himself into a corner like he's done in the past. And now he is struggling to find a way out. As you can tell, it isn't working.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
The whole idea of "nourishing" anything dead (wood, hair, fingernails, etc.) is just downright rock ignorant, it only exists in marketing write-ups and TV commercials.


+1

As a lifelong woodworker, I was surprised to read that wood finish (or wood fibers) needed "nourishing". The only folks who "know" that are those who are either in marketing or believe marketing.

I've got pieces of furniture that have survived centuries without "nourishing".

If you really want to protect a wood finish, use Renaissance Wax. The wax protects the finish. Developed by museum conservators- This wax is great for the protection of a variety of antiques.

Guns included, of course.

But I wouldn't apply wax to the grip of a gun I was intending to use...

 

[Astro14]

And I still plan to use Ballistol to wipe down my wife's garden tools, and my Gransfors-Bruks axes, knowing that it won't hurt the wood or the leather sheath.

 

[AMC]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
And I still plan to use Ballistol to wipe down my wife's garden tools, and my Gransfors-Bruks axes, knowing that it won't hurt the wood or the leather sheath.


I use Ballistol to wipe down wood and leather also and it works almost as good as dedicated products for that purpose.

I think the previous debate about "nourishing" wood came down to just incorrect wording. You don't need to "nourish" leather or wood. You should try to keep it moisturized however. If your wood has a coat of sealant that is intact then keeping the wood moist is not necessary. If there is no sealant; then mineral oil (Ballistol), Boiled linseed oil or one of the dedicated wood oils (not to be confused with oil based wood stain/finish) is not a bad idea to keep the wood from drying out and cracking/splintering. You could still argue it isn't 100% necessary but lots of things in life are not 100% necessary.

 

[billt460]

I won't argue with the fact Ballistol, (Mineral Oil), is a good product for wood and leather preservation. My sole point is as far as a firearms lubricant, and or rust preventative, there are much better products that have come along in the last century that will do the job better.

 

[Toros]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Toros
It nourishes the sealant or polyurethane....everyone knows that.


So..... Now you're saying it's not the grain of the wood that needs "nourishing"... But rather the Polyurethane that covers it. This is quickly going down the same drain pipe as your whole, "Less ammunition is better", argument.


Never stated less ammunition is better. What I stated was that those civilians with carry permits that carry multiple magazines and even goofier, backup guns are living in a fantasy world dreaming of the big firefight that will never happen. If I recall, your rather silly argument was that civilians need to carry as much as cops. Wannabees might want to, but reality is that cops are duty bound to look for and respond to crime so obviously they carry several magazines...some also carry extra cuffs on their duty rig. You think civilians should carry those too? You know, just in case you come up against two of the FBIs most wanted?

I was leading you on about Ballistol and wood because you responded as I knew you would. ..the kind of guy who always has to get the last word in despite being confidently wrong. But hey, thanks!

 

[Toros]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: kschachn
The whole idea of "nourishing" anything dead (wood, hair, fingernails, etc.) is just downright rock ignorant, it only exists in marketing write-ups and TV commercials.


+1

As a lifelong woodworker, I was surprised to read that wood finish (or wood fibers) needed "nourishing". The only folks who "know" that are those who are either in marketing or believe marketing.

I've got pieces of furniture that have survived centuries without "nourishing".

If you really want to protect a wood finish, use Renaissance Wax. The wax protects the finish. Developed by museum conservators- This wax is great for the protection of a variety of antiques.

Guns included, of course.

But I wouldn't apply wax to the grip of a gun I was intending to use...


I do use Renaissance Wax on the metal of guns that sit stored for longer periods. It's an outstanding product.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Toros
..... I was leading you on about Ballistol and wood........


Sure you were. You're too late to the lifeboat. Your ship already sunk.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: kschachn
The whole idea of "nourishing" anything dead (wood, hair, fingernails, etc.) is just downright rock ignorant, it only exists in marketing write-ups and TV commercials.


+1

As a lifelong woodworker, I was surprised to read that wood finish (or wood fibers) needed "nourishing". The only folks who "know" that are those who are either in marketing or believe marketing.

I've got pieces of furniture that have survived centuries without "nourishing".

If you really want to protect a wood finish, use Renaissance Wax. The wax protects the finish. Developed by museum conservators- This wax is great for the protection of a variety of antiques.

Guns included, of course.

But I wouldn't apply wax to the grip of a gun I was intending to use...


My position with ballistol isn't necessarily to even wipe wood with it, but incidental contact with wood and hands is fine. That said, coating wood with ballistol, or other similar stuff like linseed oil and mineral spirits mix, does indeed absorb into the wood.

Nourishing is a poor word choice. Its the same when they say hair conditioner nourishes your hair, when really it just binds a polymer to it.

An oil absorbs interstitially or via pores into the wood when unsealed. Not necessarily deep, but enough.

 

[gman2304]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Toros
It nourishes the sealant or polyurethane....everyone knows that.


So..... Now you're saying it's not the grain of the wood that needs "nourishing"... But rather the Polyurethane that covers it. This is quickly going down the same drain pipe as your whole, "Less ammunition is better", argument.
. Toros, I got your “tongue in cheek” reply though some here didn’t!

 

[Robenstein]

The one thing I don't like about Ballistol when it comes to wood is that it never cures like a boiled linseed oil or tung oil will.

If people are using it for wood on purpose, it would just be cheaper to get butchers block oil or regular pharmacy mineral oil.