ShotGunWorld Shotguns

It is currently Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:17 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Image



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 219 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 11:25 am 
Field Grade

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 12:43 pm
Posts: 72
Well I must say that it is great effort on scientific basis Mr. Diyguy , you presented many useful information .

Actually, we don't have these fancy products in my country, I only use the basic WD-40 and Mobil-1 which is available, wish you had had them included in your comparison with other dedicated gun products.

Have a nice day & Best Regards.




Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 5:27 am 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Update on the two outdoors corrosion boards. Hornady One shot has finally failed on Board #2 Leaving Frog Lube and WD 40 spam but the Hornady product is still going strong on board #1.

Image

Image

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 10:06 am 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 8:17 am
Posts: 2650
Location: Piedmont North Carolina
I have been unable to locate any of the WD40 spam anti-corrosion product. Lowes, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, and Auto Zone in our area carry other spam products but not the one tested. I would appreciate any comments on where I can purchase some. Thanks.

_________________
"I'll take mine in Caroline" - Havilah Babcock


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 1:23 pm 
Limited Edition

Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:24 pm
Posts: 321
Location: CO
oldbirdhntr...
here's a link to the WD-40 spam web site that list retailers.
http://www.spam.com/shop?shop=ltci

And if you don't mind buying via the web, Amazon has it.
http://www.amazon.com/spam/dp/B0083V8KIW/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1400523177&sr=8-13&keywords=wd40

_________________
jp


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 8:48 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 8:17 am
Posts: 2650
Location: Piedmont North Carolina
jpwheels wrote:
oldbirdhntr...
here's a link to the WD-40 spam web site that list retailers.
http://www.spam.com/shop?shop=ltci

And if you don't mind buying via the web, Amazon has it.
http://www.amazon.com/spam/dp/B0083V8KIW/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1400523177&sr=8-13&keywords=wd40


Thanks very much for the links. It's interesting that the retailers around here sell the rust penetrating, white grease, silicone and a couple other spam products but not the anti-corrosion product that should be in at least as high demand as the others.

_________________
"I'll take mine in Caroline" - Havilah Babcock


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 10:53 pm 
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:49 am
Posts: 457
diyguy wrote:
Update on the two outdoors corrosion boards. Hornady One shot has finally failed on Board #2 Leaving Frog Lube and WD 40 spam but the Hornady product is still going strong on board #1.

Image

Image


Hello DIYGUY,
I was wondering why do you think Hornady One Shot failed on board 2 and not on board 1. I read somewhere thru the thread that there may have been some handling issues for the One Shot product, do you attribute the failure to either handling or maybe by accident failing to spray the whole plate thus giving only part of the plate that was sprayed corrosion protection. Am curious. Thanks for any input. My thinking is if both boards underwent the same testing and one sample is showing failure and the other plate is still going strong, it would make me question the amount of product added to the plates as well as if the plate was completely sprayed which may have not been done and was just an oversight.
Happy Hunting,
Pasquale


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 11:13 pm 
Tournament Grade

Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:54 pm
Posts: 257
Location: Alabama USA
An interesting experiment. I would like to try the WD-40 spam and Frog Lube. The WD-40 product is especially attractive considering the low price. Low priced, easily available and effective equals winning product.

One thing I have wondered, and it would be very difficult to include such a premise in a direct comparison of products, is how effective the product would remain after a large amount of handling. Preventing corrosion on a statically placed and unhandled piece of metal is desirable performance, but it would be great to see what would remain the most protective for the longest period on surfaces that are in continuous usage.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 2:21 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:31 pm
Posts: 694
Location: Ye Olde England
Thank you for doing the test and posting the results.

Andrew.

_________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes.

Sporting Shotgun Performance: http://www.shotgun-insight.com/books.html
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 6:54 am 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
PasqualeF wrote:
Hello DIYGUY,
I was wondering why do you think Hornady One Shot failed on board 2 and not on board 1. I read somewhere thru the thread that there may have been some handling issues for the One Shot product, do you attribute the failure to either handling or maybe by accident failing to spray the whole plate thus giving only part of the plate that was sprayed corrosion protection. Am curious. Thanks for any input. My thinking is if both boards underwent the same testing and one sample is showing failure and the other plate is still going strong, it would make me question the amount of product added to the plates as well as if the plate was completely sprayed which may have not been done and was just an oversight.
Happy Hunting,
Pasquale


I could speculate but thats all it would be. It the reason I am running multiple corrosion boards when all other reviews seemed to only run one board and call it good enough. Board one was treated with salt water and board 2 was only rain water. That alone might contribute to the diff in results.

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 6:59 am 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Filnez wrote:
An interesting experiment. I would like to try the WD-40 spam and Frog Lube. The WD-40 product is especially attractive considering the low price. Low priced, easily available and effective equals winning product.

One thing I have wondered, and it would be very difficult to include such a premise in a direct comparison of products, is how effective the product would remain after a large amount of handling. Preventing corrosion on a statically placed and unhandled piece of metal is desirable performance, but it would be great to see what would remain the most protective for the longest period on surfaces that are in continuous usage.


I share your concerns for durability but struggled for how to design a credible means to abrade all the treated samples to wear off the application of product. I am in the process of designing an experiment, process and device to do further lubricity evaluations. The first evaluation was for the coefficient of “static” friction but fear it was lacking so Im working on evaluating “dynamic” friction forces. The long holiday weekend should provide me with time to get this going.

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 9:47 am 
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:20 am
Posts: 350
Location: East TN
Neither the original WD-40 or spam are meant to be primary lubricants. The original is a mild penetrating solvent (cleaner) and moisture displacer. The spam is a long term corrosion inhibitor.

_________________
"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 10:11 am 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
This I (and I contend everybody) knows. It was communicated that way earlier. WD 40 spam does not make claims as it it being a lubricant.

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2014 6:10 am 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Ive completed the device I assembled and plan to use to measure dynamic friction forces. There are some refinements I need to make but I think the concept is pretty straight forward.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Here is a video of the dynamic coefficient of friction device in action. Its clear I need to work on the consistency of the smoothness of the big saw blade. You can hear and see the variations in smoothness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ll66unVgMo

In the coming days I will evaluate the friction reducing properties of the products I have previously evaluated for lubricity and corrosion resistance.

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2014 11:32 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*

Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:55 pm
Posts: 820
Location: AL
birdshooter wrote:
Man... I'm simply blown away that Eezox is showing rust on that last picture. Everything I've read about it and seen from other tests has it as one of the best. :?


Same here. I use Eezox on my duck hunting gun which has a lot of deep scratches and has been exposed to a lot of water. Since using Eezox I've had no further issues with very minor surface rust. (I have used Breakfree CLP to clean, Benelli oil for lube; Eezox as a surface rust prevention)

My only concern with the FrogLube was mentioned by another poster with the freezing temps, but to be honest we never hunt under 15-20 degrees F and that only very very seldom.

Thanks diyguy for this great post with lots of information for us to consider!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Fri May 23, 2014 8:38 pm 
Tournament Grade

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:56 am
Posts: 290
Awesome test! I wish fireclean had been in it. In all my testing it's come out tops. I've played mainly with Rand CLP and froglube.

My only other complaint is the drag and friction test. I bet astroglide would do well the way you're doing it. You are testing mainly low velocity and low pressure wear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2014 8:04 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:46 pm
Posts: 9169
Location: Richmond, VA
M4FAN wrote:
... the drag and friction test. I bet astroglide would do well ...
I can vouch for the fact that it works well on older guns.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
My book on Beretta 391 Disassembly is no longer available.
My pen name is Irish, pronounced SHAY-mus oh-KOSH-eh-deh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2014 9:19 am 
Diamond Grade

Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:04 pm
Posts: 1818
Location: Warrior, Ala
I think some nylon washers on either side of the dowel at the pivot point would maintain consistency through out the testing. Also, an old fishing trick, the string on the weight should be loose. This allows the objects movement to not be impeded by the tightness of the line. If you feel this is not an issue, at least center the line on the eye ring, another fishing tip. Great set up. It seems the saw blade may have some run out, although very little. I am looking forward to your results.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2014 10:51 am 
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:49 am
Posts: 457
DIYGUY,
Your ingenuity amazes me. Can't wait for the results.
Happy Shooting,
Pasquale


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Sat May 24, 2014 11:54 am 
Crown Grade

Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:19 pm
Posts: 6114
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Quote:
DIYGUY,
Your ingenuity amazes me. Can't wait for the results.
Happy Shooting,
Pasquale
I second the motion, and wish to add my high regard for anyone involved in extended corrosion testing. At one time I earned a living doing just that, both in the lab and outdoors; short of studying the thickness distribution of barrel plated parts it's the single most mind numbing exercise known to homo industrialis; in fact my admiration is tending to slide over to "There's something wrong with this bloke" :)

We had a raft in Brixham harbour to study marine atmospheres and that was the only bright point; there are some very good wee pubs in Brixham and lots of pretty girls in the holiday season! Without something like that I'd fear for DIYGUY's sanity :wink:

Anyway, well done.

Eug

_________________
For my part, I mind my belly very studiously, and very carefully; for I look upon it, that he who does not mind his belly, will hardly mind anything else." Doctor Johnson quoted by Boswell.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2014 12:35 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Rather than posting the day of the failure on the thumbprint portion of the indoor plates I have waited to lump the recent failures into a single post. Here they are. Again this is only in the thumb print area of the plate.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

As for the outdoor boards. Board #2 has now had every product show corrosion at 29 days. Board #1 is at 30 days with the same remaining products still fighting off corrosion.

Image



_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 219 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Registered users: 47MolineRTU, Barmaleykin, Bcr308, Bing [Bot], birdhunter39, Bsswampranch, Bull Nutria, Byron Whitlock, CapHillSkt, casonet, cbradford, chaininsomniac, clays99, David Spear, DavySprocket, Denver1911, DesertMuleDeer, df, double20, dubob, ebcjr, Fasttalker27, faust2, Flor1, fullgallon, Garbi, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Grackle, Hal4son, hargroderauto, jbc247, Jeepwm69, JJPinOhio, John H, Keperkey, Lacyb, Lerxst101, Lu 45, nnewuser, outdoorbum, oyeme, pcolapaddler, PKW-Indiana, raymond525, Riflemeister, Rudolph31, Saltydog055, Skeet_Man, skeetsit, SoCalshot, Stk218, SuperXOne, SWPAMike, sydney21292, Tidefanatic, TWISTER7795, TXSpinone, UnderBeforeOver12, Upland Quest, Vette Jockey2, Wchadw, Wheelspin, Win50, Woodsie131


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group    - DMCA Notice