Mobile 1 and STP oil additives

[Magnumite]

Funny, I have seen articles about doing this. Toothpaste is a mild abrasive.

I know two individuals who do it regularly on guns they lap. It does work. I generally stick with the rouges and fine polishing compounds...finishing with auto paint polishing compounds on some guns.

 

[YouWillShootYourEyeOutKid]

did yall try pissin on it?

 

[John from MD]

did yall try pissin on it?

Naaaw, you got it all wrong. That's for Black Powder guns.

 

[JohnnyE]

My point is, oil is long chain hydrocarbons of a given range of number of carbon atoms. Oil.

The additives do various things for various uses. In most cases, they will not cause any harm in other applications. But their are exceptions.

But the challenge is still out there come up with ANY data about how gun oils are formulated differently than motor oils. And why.

I have a couple of friends who retired as vice presidents of oil industry majors. They both talked about the millions of dollars their labs spend developing lubricants. They use very disciplined R&D protocols to do their work creating their products, and verify the effectiveness of their products by tracking what happens over time. I am curious how much time/money/effort gun lube folks devote to their R&D efforts, and validating their results using statistically significant sample sizes. Most appear to me to be kitchen chemists.

 

[alucard0822]

My point is, oil is long chain hydrocarbons of a given range of number of carbon atoms. Oil.

The additives do various things for various uses. In most cases, they will not cause any harm in other applications. But their are exceptions.

But the challenge is still out there come up with ANY data about how gun oils are formulated differently than motor oils. And why.

Everyone knows of at least one gun lube product that is formulated differently than motor oil

fireclean chemical analysis

Can also tell quite a bit of difference from SDS and TDS sheets. They may not tell the whole story, but at least a few properties.
https://lucasoil.com/pdf/TDS_extreme-gun-oil.pdf
https://lucasoil.com/pdf/TDS_ED-CLP.pdf
https://lucasoil.com/pdf/TDS_SAE-0W-20-MO.pdf
https://lucasoil.com/pdf/TDS_SAE-5W-20-MO-reg.pdf

 

[Casey39r]

I have a couple of friends who retired as vice presidents of oil industry majors. They both talked about the millions of dollars their labs spend developing lubricants. They use very disciplined R&D protocols to do their work creating their products, and verify the effectiveness of their products by tracking what happens over time. I am curious how much time/money/effort gun lube folks devote to their R&D efforts, and validating their results using statistically significant sample sizes? Most appear to me to be kitchen chemists.

In my 20+ years in The US Army (active duty), I've seem a lot of small arms components end up in the scrap metal bins due to wear using CLP. Just because it's Mil Specs does not mean it's a good product. For those of you who ever served in the Military knows the they buy from the cheapest bidder, for example, the Army just bought a new problematic Sig P320 service pistol and once again the cheapest bidder wins with a cheap product.

 

[Blaster229]

In my 20+ years in The US Army (active duty), I've seem a lot of small arms components end up in the scrap metal bins due to wear using CLP.

How do you know it was because of CLP? What product did you use to compare to the CLP using the same firearm and firing same amount of rounds? Certainly you did that because you want the best lube for when you went into combat.

 

[StantonCree]

Lube Schmube my duty gun see's lube once a year and has more dust bunnies than a BlackBart archived post.

 

[babalou]

hahahaha

Lube Schmube my duty gun see's lube once a year and has more dust bunnies than a BlackBart archived post.

That!!! sir, is mighty funny. lolol

 

[Blaster229]

Lube Schmube my duty gun see's lube once a year and has more dust bunnies than a BlackBart archived post.

Well, it only sees 60 rounds once a year also LOL

 

[StantonCree]

Well, it only sees 60 rounds once a year also LOL

104 and thank very much!!!!

 

[Casey39r]

How do you know it was because of CLP? What product did you use to compare to the CLP using the same firearm and firing same amount of rounds? Certainly you did that because you want the best lube for when you went into combat.

CLP is all that was issued to us, however, a lot of Soldiers used GAA recommended by 45B/45K. As I mentioned before, a light coat of GAA is best for metal on metal friction.

 

[Blaster229]

CLP is all that was issued to us, however, a lot of Soldiers used GAA recommended by 45B/45K. As I mentioned before, a light coat of GAA is best for metal on metal friction.

You do realize that lube does not eliminate wear. Shooting A LOT is the cause of wear. SO my question is, which causes more wear on those parts, bad lube or heavy use?

How many more rounds can a "better lube" extend past the ineffectiveness of a bad lube causing the same wear?

So wear point is X

Say using a good lube allows 5k rounds until X

A "bad" lube would allow how many rounds to X, if not 5k like the good lube?

You cannot tell me that a bad lube will get to X at say 1k rounds (just an indiscriminate number) and a good lube will get to X at say 5k rounds.

No one has proven how much better in actual use oil is better than a gun lube.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

It's too early to math. Mathing is not a morning sport.

 

[JohnnyE]

In my 20+ years in The US Army (active duty), I've seem a lot of small arms components end up in the scrap metal bins due to wear using CLP. Just because it's Mil Specs does not mean it's a good product. For those of you who ever served in the Military knows the they buy from the cheapest bidder, for example, the Army just bought a new problematic Sig P320 service pistol and once again the cheapest bidder wins with a cheap product.

That's the funny thing a about spec, whether it's a military spec, or an auto OEM spec, or whomever's spec it is. It depends on what goal(s) the spec is designed to achieve.

The spec for a lube that has the lowest friction, (to minimize parasitic/friction losses), will be different from the spec for a lube that minimizes wear of the moving parts. Strangely enough, you seldom achieve both characteristics from the same lube formulation. If you also want a lube to have cleaning and preservative functions, you inevitably compromise the friction and wear reduction characteristics. You can't be all things to all people. Like the old adage says: everyone wants something good, fast and cheap. You can have any two out of the three.

When I clean, I use a dedicated cleaner. Once the dirt is gone, I have a choice. If it is a nice blued firearm that I seldom shoot, I'll use Eezox in order to bias in favor of its strength as a preservative. If it's an AK, stainless or frequently used arm like an AR, I'll go with Mobil 1, because the lube characteristics are the most important or desirable.

IIRC, CLP was spec'ed by the DOD to provide a one-bottle solution (answer) for the need to clean, lube and protect. Education level of soldiers, convenience, supply chain and other factors were considerations for the DOD that are not my concerns. I don't need a jack of all trades, master of none product that fits in one bottle. I have the luxury and ability to select specific products that excel at each individual function.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

That's the funny thing a about spec, whether it's a military spec, or an auto OEM spec, or whomever's spec it is. It depends on what goal(s) the spec is designed to achieve.

The spec for a lube that has the lowest friction, (to minimize parasitic/friction losses), will be different from the spec for a lube that minimizes wear of the moving parts. Strangely enough, you seldom achieve both characteristics from the same lube formulation. If you also want a lube to have cleaning and preservative functions, you inevitably compromise the friction and wear reduction characteristics. You can't be all things to all people. Like the old adage says: everyone wants something good, fast and cheap. You can have any two out of the three.

When I clean, I use a dedicated cleaner. Once the dirt is gone, I have a choice. If it is a nice blued firearm that I seldom shoot, I'll use Eezox in order to bias in favor of its strength as a preservative. If it's an AK, stainless or frequently used arm like an AR, I'll go with Mobil 1, because the lube characteristics are the most important or desirable.

IIRC, CLP was spec'ed by the DOD to provide a one-bottle solution (answer) for the need to clean, lube and protect. Education level of soldiers, convenience, supply chain and other factors were considerations for the DOD that are not my concerns. I don't need a jack of all trades, master of none product that fits in one bottle. I have the luxury and ability to select specific products that excel at each individual function.

This is the single most concise but useful reply in this whole damned thread.

 

[Casey39r]

You do realize that lube does not eliminate wear. Shooting A LOT is the cause of wear. SO my question is, which causes more wear on those parts, bad lube or heavy use?

How many more rounds can a "better lube" extend past the ineffectiveness of a bad lube causing the same wear?

So wear point is X

Say using a good lube allows 5k rounds until X

A "bad" lube would allow how many rounds to X, if not 5k like the good lube?

You cannot tell me that a bad lube will get to X at say 1k rounds (just an indiscriminate number) and a good lube will get to X at say 5k rounds.

No one has proven how much better in actual use oil is better than a gun lube.

I'm not trying to convince you to change the lube that you have grown up using. I am just sharing my own personal experience from the Military and what I use now. I think you are doing a great job maintaining your weapons. Also my Honda used Mobil 1 and ran for 400K miles, changing oil every 10K miles.

 

[clandestine]

This is the single most concise but useful reply in this whole damned thread.

I tried.

 

[outrider58]

Again, saying the US government knows best? Has no one learned the fallacy in this from the many examples out there?

 

[Magnumite]

JohnnyE, nice post. Omitting impact loadings, etc., could you elaborate on this since friction causes wear:

“The spec for a lube that has the lowest friction, (to minimize parasitic/friction losses), will be different from the spec for a lube that minimizes wear of the moving parts.”