Mobile 1 and STP oil additives

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • TargetGrade

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 13, 2017
    2,970
    Pensultucky
    Actually, sounds like it might be just fine for a firearm. I don't think firearms are all that demanding. I haven't managed to wear one out yet.

    It wasn't bad but CLP was better. :thumbsup: Worked well in a sand blind because the aerosol pressure washed the sand out.
     

    Casey39r

    Active Member
    BANNED!!!
    Mar 27, 2018
    121
    Maryland
    Agreed! All I ever used was CLP (BreakFree) in the military. Every rifle I was issued had a small bottle of the stuff in the stock. I use it today, zero malfunctions when applied and I don't see the need to run the risk to void a warranty. If is was a survival situation, I would more than likely use a motor oil. But I see no need to do it now.

    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09735r.pdf
     

    Boxcab

    MSI EM
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 22, 2007
    7,851
    AA County
    Ufff... :brows:


    Is there an Executive Summary of that document?
    .

    From Page 2,

    Results in Brief
    From 1988 to 2006, the military services tested and evaluated MILITEC-1 11 times for various uses, including as a small arms cleaner, lubricant, and preservative; a metal conditioner; a general purpose lubricant; or a lubricant additive. Although the product passed early tests as a lubricant additive in the late 1980s, it did not pass 9 of the 11 tests and evaluations. These tests ranged from a limited demonstration of performance characteristics to a comprehensive assessment of the product with regard to military specifications. The product has not passed any tests and evaluations for a small arms cleaner, lubricant, and preservative, metal conditioner, or a general purpose lubricant. In 1988 and 1989, MILITEC-1 passed Marine Corps and Navy tests and evaluations as a lubricant additive, but it did not pass a subsequent test and evaluation as a lubricant additive in 1994. Militec, Inc., continues to market its product for use as a small arms lubricant to DOD, and asserts that DOD’s current product specification is flawed. The Army disagrees that its military specification is flawed and has extended to Militec, Inc., the opportunity either to demonstrate how its product has been modified to conform to the current military specification for a small arms lubricant or indicate why the specification should be modified, according to DOD officials. However, Militec, Inc., has not done so.
    DLA did not follow applicable DOD procedures when it assigned NSNs for MILITEC-1 in 1993 and again in 1995 in that it did not first obtain approval from the military services as required by DLA procedures, according to agency officials. However, the agency did follow applicable procedures when it subsequently canceled or blocked NSNs in 1995, 2003, and 2007, according to DLA officials and our review of available documentation. DOD officials told us that their procedures require DLA to obtain approval from the military services prior to assigning NSNs, to ensure that a product meets military specifications. The services did not approve the assignment of NSNs for MILITEC-1 in the 1990s, yet because of the department’s push toward the use of commercial off-the-shelf items, the product was assigned NSNs by DLA in 1993 and did get into the supply system. Soon after, however, in 1994 DLA initiated action to cancel the NSNs because of a lack of service support. In that respect, DLA did correctly follow applicable procedures on the occasions when it either canceled the product—that is, removed it from the federal supply system—or halted its purchase throughout the 1990s and continuing to 2007, according to DLA officials.



    .
     

    DivingDriver

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 14, 2016
    1,514
    Nanjemoy MD
    Meh! Metal against metal, mobile 1 red grease. Parts flopping around in contact but no real stress mobile 1 motor oil. I have been using synthetic oil since the the seventies. Started out with using it on my personal vehicles then migrated to my business vehicles (tractor trailers w/refrigerated units. My wife's car has 260,000 k on it and if you look at the top half of the engine it's like it came out of the dealers show room floor. Had a Toyota with over 180k when I had to change the head gasket, you could see the factory honing marks on the cylinder walls. My Toyota tundra oil changes are recommended at every 10k. Have a 1988 sea Ray boat and have used synthetic oil in it since I've gotten it and still runs with great oil pressure and uses no oil . More concerned about the block rusting out on it. My guns... Synthetic all the way.
     

    JohnnyE

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 18, 2013
    9,396
    MoCo
    Meh! Metal against metal, mobile 1 red grease. Parts flopping around in contact but no real stress mobile 1 motor oil. I have been using synthetic oil since the the seventies. Started out with using it on my personal vehicles then migrated to my business vehicles (tractor trailers w/refrigerated units. My wife's car has 260,000 k on it and if you look at the top half of the engine it's like it came out of the dealers show room floor. Had a Toyota with over 180k when I had to change the head gasket, you could see the factory honing marks on the cylinder walls. My Toyota tundra oil changes are recommended at every 10k. Have a 1988 sea Ray boat and have used synthetic oil in it since I've gotten it and still runs with great oil pressure and uses no oil . More concerned about the block rusting out on it. My guns... Synthetic all the way.

    Amen on the synthetics! I've been pulling oil samples out of hard-run boats for years and sending them to labs to have them analyzed. Syn typically reduces wear components by 90% compared to dino oil, and that is with greatly extended change intervals...sometimes up to four times the number of hours between changes.

    I've torn down engines lubed with syn and found only a fraction of the wear in the cylinder bores compared to dino lubed engines. I have used nothing but syn, in every application, for years, right down to my lawnmower, snow blower, generators, guns, motors, everything.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,702
    Messages
    7,249,004
    Members
    33,310
    Latest member
    Skarface

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom