Its settled. The blue Lucas extreme is 2 cycle oil, as pictured above. Thanks for the picture.
Lucas Extreme Gun Oil is legit! Almost as legit as
- Thread starter SKVenture
- Start date
- Status
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Its settled. The blue Lucas extreme is 2 cycle oil, as pictured above. Thanks for the picture.
Bubba
The front of that two-cycle plastic jug pictured (the oil itself)... is not blue. It's darn-near black.
Its settled. The blue Lucas extreme is 2 cycle oil, as pictured above. Thanks for the picture.
Bubba
The front of that two-cycle plastic jug pictured (the oil itself)... is not blue. It's darn-near black.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Its settled. The blue Lucas extreme is 2 cycle oil, as pictured above. Thanks for the picture.
If I had to bet, I'd bet you were right.
Its settled. The blue Lucas extreme is 2 cycle oil, as pictured above. Thanks for the picture.
If I had to bet, I'd bet you were right.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
IMO that logic is like thinking that a 99c SA quart of oil is the same as $4 PYB, because the NMR matches. The cost may be somewhat in base stocks, but a lot is actually in blended additives.
Do you honestly want to compare this over priced garbage to an established oil companies products? Who has billions of dollars in assets, and has has been around for decades? And that requires it's products to be tested to meet or exceed car manufacturers specifications? That's ridiculous.
...
All I'm saying is with a product like "Fireclean" there is so much similarity with it to a common cooking oil, it actually becomes a complete joke in trying to defend it's very existence as something that is actually worthwhile to lubricate a firearm with..... Especially when you factor in it's idiotic, rip off pricing.
Im saying that the analytical procedures may not give the appropriate information to make an assessment.
What if you found out that your $24.99/16 oz Weapon Shield was the same proton NMR result as API SA oil off the shelf at Wal Mart?
Similarly, what if someone found a way to stabilize crisco to never go rancid or gummy in over 25 years, but proton NMR couldnt pick it up since it is only looking at bond stretches in specific situations?
Point is, the analytical technique may be suspect to show the big picture, and so the assessments may all be flawed. Your point is still opinion that it is "garbage" and doesnt work, and that there is zero difference between it and anything else. Just like someone could do NMR on SA vs PYB and get approximately the same result... Because its not seeing what else is there. Its your opinion that the crisco repackager is fly by night and making garbage without basis of whats actually in there.
But my reason for catching onto that specific product is merely that a potentially incomplete analysis has spurred an opinion. I dont particularly care - Ill never use the stuff regardless of if it is crisco or the worlds finest synthetic stock with ground diamonds from the crown jewels. You may be 100% right. But its NOT, IMO due to the analysis that Ive seen.
I probably would never use any of the Lucas stuff either. But the point still stands, as I said from the start - without looking at the functional additization, through appropriate techniques, we are subjectively making assumptions based upon feel and color, which is about as uninformed as it gets.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
IMO that logic is like thinking that a 99c SA quart of oil is the same as $4 PYB, because the NMR matches. The cost may be somewhat in base stocks, but a lot is actually in blended additives.
Do you honestly want to compare this over priced garbage to an established oil companies products? Who has billions of dollars in assets, and has has been around for decades? And that requires it's products to be tested to meet or exceed car manufacturers specifications? That's ridiculous.
...
All I'm saying is with a product like "Fireclean" there is so much similarity with it to a common cooking oil, it actually becomes a complete joke in trying to defend it's very existence as something that is actually worthwhile to lubricate a firearm with..... Especially when you factor in it's idiotic, rip off pricing.
Im saying that the analytical procedures may not give the appropriate information to make an assessment.
What if you found out that your $24.99/16 oz Weapon Shield was the same proton NMR result as API SA oil off the shelf at Wal Mart?
Similarly, what if someone found a way to stabilize crisco to never go rancid or gummy in over 25 years, but proton NMR couldnt pick it up since it is only looking at bond stretches in specific situations?
Point is, the analytical technique may be suspect to show the big picture, and so the assessments may all be flawed. Your point is still opinion that it is "garbage" and doesnt work, and that there is zero difference between it and anything else. Just like someone could do NMR on SA vs PYB and get approximately the same result... Because its not seeing what else is there. Its your opinion that the crisco repackager is fly by night and making garbage without basis of whats actually in there.
But my reason for catching onto that specific product is merely that a potentially incomplete analysis has spurred an opinion. I dont particularly care - Ill never use the stuff regardless of if it is crisco or the worlds finest synthetic stock with ground diamonds from the crown jewels. You may be 100% right. But its NOT, IMO due to the analysis that Ive seen.
I probably would never use any of the Lucas stuff either. But the point still stands, as I said from the start - without looking at the functional additization, through appropriate techniques, we are subjectively making assumptions based upon feel and color, which is about as uninformed as it gets.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But the point still stands, as I said from the start - without looking at the functional additization, through appropriate techniques, we are subjectively making assumptions based upon feel and color, which is about as uninformed as it gets.
Well, look at it this way. At least it passes the taste test. (4:20).
But the point still stands, as I said from the start - without looking at the functional additization, through appropriate techniques, we are subjectively making assumptions based upon feel and color, which is about as uninformed as it gets.
Well, look at it this way. At least it passes the taste test. (4:20).
JHZR2
Staff member
LOL
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But the point still stands, as I said from the start - without looking at the functional additization, through appropriate techniques, we are subjectively making assumptions based upon feel and color, which is about as uninformed as it gets.
Well, look at it this way. At least it passes the taste test. (4:20).
Speaking of taste test, the lawsuit they filed left a bad taste in EVERYONE'S mouth. I wonder how that turns out for them, ultimately...
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
But the point still stands, as I said from the start - without looking at the functional additization, through appropriate techniques, we are subjectively making assumptions based upon feel and color, which is about as uninformed as it gets.
Well, look at it this way. At least it passes the taste test. (4:20).
Speaking of taste test, the lawsuit they filed left a bad taste in EVERYONE'S mouth. I wonder how that turns out for them, ultimately...
- Status
Similar threads
