ShotGunWorld Shotguns

It is currently Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:22 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Image



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 219 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 4:18 pm 
Presentation Grade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:18 pm
Posts: 972
Location: the Peoples Republic of California
Ulysses wrote:
DIYGUY,
Quote:
NOTE** I recognize this evaluation may have deficiencies. My lubrication evaluation was conducted at 70 degrees F so it is unknown if the results would be the same if evaluated at 0 or 120 degrees F. Also I am not evaluating longevity. I cycled each product 8 times to arrive at an average force and understand that a product that performed well during 8 cycles may fail long term where a product that performed slightly worse may in fact have better long term lubrication. With that said, equity was my first priority. Every product and action was conducted the same way to ensure each product was getting a fair evaluation.


I thought a lot last night about the quoted part above that I bolded. I realize that this evaluating process is extremely time consuming and I don't mean to criticize. However, I would like to draw attention to your words above as a means of cautioning others from jumping to conclusions which may not be valid.

For example, if they concluded that the product that performed best (or near the top) on the lubrication evaluation would be better than most, if not all, products that performed a little worse, that might not be a valid conclusion. The reason it may not be valid is because of what you said above.

Eight cycles at a fairly slow pace may not be at all typical of a person who is going to fire his Slammer Whammer Jammamatic 100 to 200 times with dirty shells on a hot day with no cleanings in between.

Also, as you mentioned, it takes a considerably higher force to overcome static friction between two surfaces (which you evaluated) than it does dynamic friction (which you did not evaluate). Therefore, while your lubrication evaluation was informative, I would caution others to not view it as the final word on the subject of firearms lubrication with regard to actual firearm usage. It's quite possible that some product which finished far down the list may hold up better under the adverse conditions and repeated firings encountered in typical target shotgunning usage.



I tried Frog-lube on my 1911. I stuck it in the freezer for 3 hours @ -5F. When I took it out, I couldn't move the slide. It felt like it was welded to the lower. I even tried a small rubber mallet and couldn't budge the slide. It took about 20 minutes of room temperature to warm up enough to move the slide.

I didn't apply it (F-L) exactly like the directions say: I wiped most of it off, but I could still see a little wetness. I have a problem with spending a lot of money on a product only to completely wipe it off after applying it. The same can be said for Tetra. I tried that also, but ended up throwing more than half the bottle in the trash.

I also tried the freezer test with axle grease and motor oil on the 1911. Axle grease slowed the slide a little. Motor oil wasn't noticeably effected by the cold temperatures.



.




Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 4:40 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Smelly Benelli wrote:
I didn't apply it (F-L) exactly like the directions say:


That is why you had poor results. That is not the fault of the product.

Smelly Benelli wrote:
I wiped most of it off, but I could still see a little wetness.


That is why you had poor results. That is not the fault of the product.

Smelly Benelli wrote:
I have a problem with spending a lot of money on a product only to completely wipe it off after applying it.


For the best results this is something you are going to have to overcome. Unless you are using a solvent like acetone to actually remove it, you are not going to completly wipe it away. I used to think like you and thought I had to see the product on the metal for it to work. Use the product as its intended for the best results. The same is true for all the brands. As I posted, I removed the products to the level I thought I had removed too much and that is when the maximum levels of lubricity were realised.

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 6:13 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 3:37 pm
Posts: 19474
DIYGUY,

I noticed that on your lubricity graphs there were no units of force given for the force (vertical axis) required to overcome the static friction for each of the samples evaluated. How did you determine this force? Was it the weight of the water added to the bucket? Could you tell us what value/weight each horizontal line in the graph represents?

_________________
Please post For Sale items in the proper Classified section.

Semi-Auto Classifieds is ONLY for Complete Semi-Auto shotguns.
Over/Under Classifieds is ONLY for Complete O/U shotguns.
Items other than a complete shotgun go in OTHER Classifieds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 7:40 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
That was by design. I figured the data was unimportant and people would simply get wound around the axle about the values when what I was doing was making a simple comparison to the base value of dry steel to dry steel. (call that unit of measure “one” if you like). Its like specific gravity values of liquids. They are all based on the value of water as being 1. If I told you the dry steel to dry steel value was 50 Grams or 200 grams of 88.312 grams, the chart would have the same meaning since its being presented as a simple bar graph and all the products were less than dry steel to dry steel. Because I used grams as the unit, the values would be of little value to the bulk of the readers unless they searched on a conversion. All my work (in my real job) is done using the metric system which has the ability to confound the bulk of the population.

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 7:41 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Ive received a number of messages asking what the 3 top performing products look like when dispensed. I will answer that here.

Frog Lube (in this variety) is a Green and runny product. It needs to be spread around and wiped off gun parts.

Image

WD 40 spam is a spray that is thick. It reminds me of a non-stick cooking spray. It needs to be spread around and wiped off (or it could be left on in excess depending on the application)

Image

One shot comes out of the can clear and quickly disappears. By the time I sprayed it on this plate while holding it over the trash can, set it down, started the camera and took the pic it was already dried (Hence the term Dry lube)


Image

Also, there seems to be a misunderstanding that the WD 40 spam that did well in this evaluation is standard WD 40. It is not. It is a completely different product that your regular WD 40.

Likewise, The Hornady One shot gun cleaner and dry lube is not the Hornady One shot case lube that reloaders use. (at least from a marketing and packaging standpoint. I cant speak to the contents.) The two may be the same and I would have no way of knowing but they have diff names, uses and packaging.

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 8:20 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 3:37 pm
Posts: 19474
diyguy wrote:
That was by design. I figured the data was unimportant and people would simply get wound around the axle about the values when what I was doing was making a simple comparison to the base value of dry steel to dry steel. (call that unit of measure “one” if you like). Its like specific gravity values of liquids. They are all based on the value of water as being 1. If I told you the dry steel to dry steel value was 50 Grams or 200 grams of 88.312 grams, the chart would have the same meaning since its being presented as a simple bar graph and all the products were less than dry steel to dry steel. Because I used grams as the unit, the values would be of little value to the bulk of the readers unless they searched on a conversion. All my work (in my real job) is done using the metric system which has the ability to confound the bulk of the population.


OK, so let's say that the units of force aren't important here. What I'm trying to get at is the relative force required to overcome the static friction for one product versus another product.

I don't like to "assume" things, so unless it's specifically stated, I don't like to assume that if one bar is twice the length/height of another bar, that it took twice the force to overcome the static friction. That MIGHT be true, but then again it might not be. Sometimes graphs are not to scale and sometimes differences in value are magnified to illustrate a point. So could you help us out here on this issue?

_________________
Please post For Sale items in the proper Classified section.

Semi-Auto Classifieds is ONLY for Complete Semi-Auto shotguns.
Over/Under Classifieds is ONLY for Complete O/U shotguns.
Items other than a complete shotgun go in OTHER Classifieds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 8:28 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Ulysses wrote:
diyguy wrote:
That was by design. I figured the data was unimportant and people would simply get wound around the axle about the values when what I was doing was making a simple comparison to the base value of dry steel to dry steel. (call that unit of measure “one” if you like). Its like specific gravity values of liquids. They are all based on the value of water as being 1. If I told you the dry steel to dry steel value was 50 Grams or 200 grams of 88.312 grams, the chart would have the same meaning since its being presented as a simple bar graph and all the products were less than dry steel to dry steel. Because I used grams as the unit, the values would be of little value to the bulk of the readers unless they searched on a conversion. All my work (in my real job) is done using the metric system which has the ability to confound the bulk of the population.


OK, so let's say that the units of force aren't important here. What I'm trying to get at is the relative force required to overcome the static friction for one product versus another product.

I don't like to "assume" things, so unless it's specifically stated, I don't like to assume that if one bar is twice the length/height of another bar, that it took twice the force to overcome the static friction. That MIGHT be true, but then again it might not be. Sometimes graphs are not to scale and sometimes differences in value are magnified to illustrate a point. So could you help us out here on this issue?



The graph is to scale. A bar half as tall as the dry steel to dry steel value means it took half the force to overcome static friction. In the case of Frog Lube in the first run, it was zero (or less) since the weight of the empty vessel moved the weighted sled. This caused me to raise the sled to an incline and added mass to the sled so that I had a value greater than zero. There is no trickery of any kind in that graph. It’s a true depiction of the relationship of dry steel to dry steel. Rather than prolong any sort of back and forth, the dry steel to dry steel in the first evaluation was roughly 100 grams of mass to move the sled. If you are not metricated then convert using 0.03527396195 .

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 8:44 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:14 am
Posts: 297
Location: Southern NJ
As you likely know, I've been looking forward to your evaluation and I am very pleased with your results- there was far more separation in the products than I expected!

One thing I'd like to see if you continued your evaluations is the effect of these products on wood. I don't plan to soak a butt stock in any of this stuff, but I always get my cleaner on my wood components, and I'd be interested to see if there are any negative results.

Thanks again, I'll be sending this to my friends and referencing it for my future clp needs!

_________________
-LeverHead


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 9:03 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Rather than wood I suggest you mean the finish on the wood. Some of the products outright declare that they want you to use the product on wood and finishes and leather and rubber and plastic as some sort of overall rejuvenator of anything it touches. I am suspect of such claim if they (in the same breath) label the product a gun cleaning solvent for lead, copper, plastic, etc. Other products made no mention and still other stated not to get their product on anything but metal.

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 9:16 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 3:37 pm
Posts: 19474
diyguy wrote:
The graph is to scale. A bar half as tall as the dry steel to dry steel value means it took half the force to overcome static friction. In the case of Frog Lube in the first run, it was zero (or less) since the weight of the empty vessel moved the weighted sled. This caused me to raise the sled to an incline and added mass to the sled so that I had a value greater than zero. There is no trickery of any kind in that graph. It’s a true depiction of the relationship of dry steel to dry steel. Rather than prolong any sort of back and forth, the dry steel to dry steel in the first evaluation was roughly 100 grams of mass to move the sled. If you are not metricated then convert using 0.03527396195 .


Oh, so you didn't include the weight/mass of the empty container in figuring the force required to overcome friction? That would tend to magnify relative differences in the results.

OK, I think I'll stop with the questions. The closer I look at the data and procedures, the more questions I have, but I can sense that these questions aren't being well received, so there is little point in my continuing to try to clarify things that most people probably don't care about anyway.

Thanks again for the results of your evaluation.

_________________
Please post For Sale items in the proper Classified section.

Semi-Auto Classifieds is ONLY for Complete Semi-Auto shotguns.
Over/Under Classifieds is ONLY for Complete O/U shotguns.
Items other than a complete shotgun go in OTHER Classifieds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 9:23 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:14 am
Posts: 297
Location: Southern NJ
diyguy wrote:
Rather than wood I suggest you mean the finish on the wood.


More specifically wood finished with BLO or tru oil.

_________________
-LeverHead


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 9:27 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Ulysses wrote:
I can sense that these questions aren't being well received, so there is little point in my continuing to try to clarify things that most people probably don't care about anyway.

Thanks again for the results of your evaluation.


No worries. I tried to make it as low tech as possible. Too many numbers and equations tend to make folks eyes glaze over which is why the graph was as featureless as it was to fend of overload or analysis paralysis where people dont even bother to try to figure out what they are seeing because there is just too much to take in. Looking at ones favorite product and seeing that it equates to about half of what dry steel to dry steel represents was about a detailed as I hoped to convey.

Analytical types such as yourself will feel robbed by such a lack of data as you perhaps want to work thing back in your head where others saw the chart and thought to themselves, “huh, I thought my favorite product would have done better than that and then never given the graph a send thought.

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 12:22 am 
Presentation Grade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:18 pm
Posts: 972
Location: the Peoples Republic of California
diyguy wrote:

Analytical types such as yourself will feel robbed by such a lack of data as you perhaps want to work thing back in your head where others saw the chart and thought to themselves, “huh, I thought my favorite product would have done better than that and then never given the graph a send thought.



Image


I have used Boeshield T9. It is waxy. I have a hard time believing that Pennzoil Synthetic motor oil had more static friction than T9 or silicone grease.

I ran some kinetic friction tests a while back on aluminum plates. I found that vegetable cooking oil had lower friction than the gun oils I tests. I also found that after letting the plates sit for 9 months with oil, the lubricity of gun oils disappeared and friction increased. I found that after 15 months of sitting, the vegetable oil started to go bad and thickened up causing more friction. It was just a personal test. I am sure the heat of the gun would have made the vegetable oil oxidize much sooner and turn gummy.



.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 1:12 am 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:20 pm
Posts: 3232
Location: Las Vegas, NV
This should be a sticky.

Looks like my clenzoil is sort of middle of the road. Think I will stick with it on the outside of the gun for now. Never had any problem with rust.

Think I will try the one shot for using inside the gun like in the action and when a spray is needed like on a trigger group. I only strip the gun that far every once in a while so chemicals are less concern.


Last edited by stockranger on Wed May 07, 2014 2:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 1:36 am 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:20 pm
Posts: 3232
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Here is the MSDS for one shot.

http://www.hornady.com/assets/files/msd ... erosol.pdf

I am guessing a large part of being toxic is the n hexane. Here is the N hexane msds

http://www.fishersci.com/ecomm/servlet/ ... reId=10652

Notice all the bad stuff in one shot matches the hexane msds. Such as reproductive harm, and CNS depression.

That personally does not worry me very much. Almost all solvents are toxic. Use it outdoors or well ventilated place. Wear gloves.

Seems like dry lube will really be the smart way to go inside of the action. Hexane is a strong solvent and I imagine it makes it a decent cleaner.

I contacted clenzoil for the msds. Don't like how u have to request it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 4:58 am 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:46 pm
Posts: 8691
Location: New York
Outstanding test. The time it took you to do this was amazing.
I been using Hornady One shot on my autoloaders for years and like how well it works.
As much a people knock WD-40 it keeps coming to the top of the list.
Again thanks for a job well done. {hs#

_________________
NRA Life Member


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 5:23 am 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Kraiza wrote:
Outstanding test. The time it took you to do this was amazing.
I been using Hornady One shot on my autoloaders for years and like how well it works.
As much a people knock WD-40 it keeps coming to the top of the list.
Again thanks for a job well done. {hs#


This is not the WD 40 you are thinking of. This is a new WD 40 with a formulation for corrosion. WD 40 now comes in a variety of recipes for dedicated uses. The regular WD 40 did poorly in the corrion evaluation but the WD 40 spam is still keeping rust off the sample plates.

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 10:03 am 
Presentation Grade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:18 pm
Posts: 972
Location: the Peoples Republic of California
diyguy wrote:
Kraiza wrote:
Outstanding test. The time it took you to do this was amazing.
I been using Hornady One shot on my autoloaders for years and like how well it works.
As much a people knock WD-40 it keeps coming to the top of the list.
Again thanks for a job well done. {hs#


This is not the WD 40 you are thinking of. This is a new WD 40 with a formulation for corrosion. WD 40 now comes in a variety of recipes for dedicated uses. The regular WD 40 did poorly in the corrosion evaluation but the WD 40 spam is still keeping rust off the sample plates.




It is one item in their new product line called WD-40 spam.

http://www.spam.com/products


.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 11:46 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 3:37 pm
Posts: 19474
diyguy wrote:
Kraiza wrote:
Outstanding test. The time it took you to do this was amazing.
I been using Hornady One shot on my autoloaders for years and like how well it works.
As much a people knock WD-40 it keeps coming to the top of the list.
Again thanks for a job well done. {hs#


This is not the WD 40 you are thinking of. This is a new WD 40 with a formulation for corrosion. WD 40 now comes in a variety of recipes for dedicated uses. The regular WD 40 did poorly in the corrion evaluation but the WD 40 spam is still keeping rust off the sample plates.


That is an interesting result considering that in an evaluation that Brownell's conducted several years ago using some of the same products that you used, the regular WD-40 was probably the BEST rust protectant. :shock: :shock:

I'm pretty sure that you've seen this (link below) before, and I wonder how you might explain the apparently very different results???

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/lid=1070 ... ventatives

_________________
Please post For Sale items in the proper Classified section.

Semi-Auto Classifieds is ONLY for Complete Semi-Auto shotguns.
Over/Under Classifieds is ONLY for Complete O/U shotguns.
Items other than a complete shotgun go in OTHER Classifieds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 12:22 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Ulysses wrote:
That is an interesting result considering that in an evaluation that Brownell's conducted several years ago using some of the same products that you used, the regular WD-40 was probably the BEST rust protectant. :shock: :shock:

I'm pretty sure that you've seen this (link below) before, and I wonder how you might explain the apparently very different results???

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/lid=1070 ... ventatives


Im not seeing the difference. His “Test” was only 72 hours long on a single sample set. Look at my evaluation and you will see on board #1, WD 40 was still protecting the metal at 72 Hours. Had I stopped short as he did we would have arrived at the same results. I however am conducting 3 separate evaluations. On my sample Board #2, WD 40 failed within 24 hours. Another difference I spot is that his plates laid flat (allowing puddling) while mine were erect. I also did not stop at 72 hours (in fact my evaluation is still ongoing). Perhaps the main difference is that he was conducting a test and I was only conducting an evaluation.



_________________
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Registered users: 1redvette, 47MolineRTU, albanygun, amboy49, Bing [Bot], birdshot8'S, Bladeswitcher, Blockcaver, Btkukow, DavidRamey, Dek, DesertMuleDeer, doowit, dubob, ellenbr, Fitasc2, Flyn'dutchman, gdkodiak, goldentrout_one, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Greywolf0078, jbc247, jed1894, JoM, kenhwind, ks114, Lacyb, Mark Pfeifer, mb94, moonjeong, NailNinja, ohio mike, oldshotty, oneounceload, oyeme, PdxK80, Rack-N-Roy, riflegunbuilder, Rob02655, Rockett0, Rooster booster, Rudolph31, RudyN, shootandfish2, Skipper7, soupsandwich, Stk218, SuperXOne, Tal/IL, Tennessee Cattleman, Theresal, Woodpuppy, ysr_racer, zxcvbnm


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