ShotGunWorld Shotguns

It is currently Tue Jan 19, 2021 11:05 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, 7 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 1:37 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:20 pm
Posts: 3232
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Clenzoil sent their msds. Its not too bad. Acute severe exposure can cause liver and organ damage. I imagine that means if you drink it or take a bath in it. I have no idea why you have to request it.




Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 1:52 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 3:37 pm
Posts: 19474
diyguy wrote:
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.


OK, I'm beginning think that the results, whether you want to call them a test or an evaluation, are highly dependent on what the testing criteria are. How long is the test? How many cycles? What are the test conditions? Was the sample laid flat or upright? Was the bucket weighed or was its weight ignored? And on and on. The more I get into it, the more it seems that almost any result could be obtained if only we select the proper time, conditions, test medium, and other arbitrary criteria.

So I think what it all boils down to is what is important to the individual gun owner under ACTUAL conditions involving their own guns. What happens to some test plates under contrived conditions which in all likelihood don't simulate the conditions that their guns are exposed to may not be at all relevant. Just my opinion.

_________________
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 1:59 pm 
Limited Edition

Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:49 pm
Posts: 329
Ulysses wrote:
diyguy wrote:
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.


OK, I'm beginning think that the results, whether you want to call them a test or an evaluation, are highly dependent on what the testing criteria are. How long is the test? How many cycles? What are the test conditions? Was the sample laid flat or upright? Was the bucket weighed or was its weight ignored? And on and on. The more I get into it, the more it seems that almost any result could be obtained if only we select the proper time, conditions, test medium, and other arbitrary criteria.

So I think what it all boils down to is what is important to the individual gun owner under ACTUAL conditions involving their own guns. What happens to some test plates under contrived conditions which in all likelihood don't simulate the conditions that their guns are exposed to may not be at all relevant. Just my opinion.


I think that it is all good information. If you compare apples to apples you get a good representation of real world performance.

But if you think you have a better way to do it, you go right ahead and get it going. Be sure and report your results back to us. Thank you!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 2:13 pm 
Diamond Grade
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:40 pm
Posts: 1217
Location: Iowa
Thanks for doing these evaluations. I've wanted to do something similar, but just don't have a good place to do it. (upstairs downtown apartment) Yes conditions, and duration of a test effect there outcome. If somebody wants to replicate them in Miami, Death Valley, and Fairbanks we may get different results in each location. (think tire testing) I don't care if the bucket wasn't weighed, if they same bucket was used for each test it is still a valid comparison. A 'TARE' weight can be entered or a scale zeroed to compensate for a container used to hold something (I do it daily to scrap product at work). If you don't like something with this 'test' pony up the cash and time and do another round yourself. I'm quite happy to look at these results, and maybe try some new product down the line and see if I like them over what I am using now. Again, thank you for for the time doing this for us all.

_________________
“Wisdom comes from experience. Experience is often a result of lack of wisdom.”
― Terry Pratchett


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 2:50 pm 
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:20 am
Posts: 350
Location: East TN
Studies run in controlled environments are meant to speed up the results of elements on test models. Although the OP can't say he simulated five years of storage in Miami, Death Valley or Hawaii , it's easy to understand the methods are pertinent to the objective, at least in the corrosion prevention segment. That is to evaluate fairly the relative effectiveness of the products being subjected to the same elements in the study.

As Oneounceload said: Lubes for lubrication, cleaners for cleaning and corrosion inhibitors for corrosion protection...or words to that effect.

_________________
"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: Wed May 07, 2014 3:49 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Ulysses wrote:
OK, I'm beginning think that the results, whether you want to call them a test or an evaluation, are highly dependent on what the testing criteria are. How long is the test? How many cycles? What are the test conditions? Was the sample laid flat or upright? Was the bucket weighed or was its weight ignored? And on and on. .


You are correct. That is why I went into such great detail to explain the criteria and provide copious pictures and videos and graphs so there would be no doubt as to what was being done and how.

Ulysses wrote:
The more I get into it, the more it seems that almost any result could be obtained if only we select the proper time, conditions, test medium, and other arbitrary criteria.


Here you are incorrect. The results are what they are unbiased and uninfluenced because all samples were treated with equity. I could not force a product to behave in a certain way. I could not force a product to less slippery or to rust faster.

Stay tuned to the end of this message for an incredible offer.

Ulysses wrote:
So I think what it all boils down to is what is important to the individual gun owner under ACTUAL conditions involving their own guns.


Yes but since its impractical to issue a bunch of guys these 46 products and tell them they have years to evaluate them and report back is a logistical nightmare.

Ulysses wrote:
What happens to some test plates under contrived conditions which in all likelihood don't simulate the conditions that their guns are exposed to may not be at all relevant. Just my opinion.


Contrived?? They are the criteria I set up. And Im running 3 different evaluations (heretofore all others evaluations have run single sample sets and called it good.) Were their methods and criteria not “contrived”? Every sample in all three evaluations were treated with complete equity because I cared to find out the results. I did this so I could determine what is the best product for my gear. I already had old standby products I have been using (Hopes’s #9, Strike Hold and Barricade) those products did not make it to the finals in this evaluation. I could not make them perform better than they did.

Now to the incredible offer I spoke of earlier. Here is the box containing all the products evaluated. I will send all of them to you so that you may conduct a test or evaluation of your own and I will do so under 3 conditions.

1. You generate a set of criteria and methods by which you will evaluate each product that demonstrates real world “actual” conditions that are not “contrived” and that treats all products with equity and you publish in advance that info for review to this community.


2. You video and photograph the design of experiments and publish your findings to this community on par with what I provided.

3. You send me a security deposit in the amount of $512 (US dollars) that I will hold and return to you upon receipt of the products back to my address to cover what I spend securing the products.

Image

I can think of no better way to gather additional data on these 46 products than to have another evaluation done by yet another reviewer using different methodology and criteria that better represents real world applications.

We can exchange mailing addresses via PM

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 4:12 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:20 pm
Posts: 3232
Location: Las Vegas, NV
I am a science major and your experiment was pretty decent. I mean u could of got more anal such as measuring exactly 1 ML with a pipet and apply it to plates with some sort of standardized applicator etc. However, I don't think that is needed here. The simulated conditions were also decent. I mean it would of been ideal to make the salinity of the solution the same as the ocean for those who hunt salt water marshes but it still gives some useful data. This is an internet forum and it is just gun oil. This is not a scientific journal and a medical study.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 6:05 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

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

I used a bad choice of words in my post above when I said "contrived" conditions. I probably should have said "arbitrary" or something like that. I wasn't trying to imply that you had an agenda to promote one product over another or were trying to influence the results. I was simply trying to say that the outcomes of any test or evaluation will depend to a large extent on how the tests are set up and what conditions are used to simulate actual field conditions.

Thanks for your generous offer to send all those products to me to perform my own tests, but I'll politely decline. :D Your evaluations have been informative and I always welcome unbiased data, but I reserve the right to decide for myself to what extent the data is relevant to my uses for the products and I invite others to do the same.

Actually, I have been conducting tests of lubricity and corrosion of several of the products you evaluated and have been doing it for the past 40 years or so, but I have no numerical data to share with anyone. My tests didn't involve weights or pulleys or salt baths, but instead consisted of actual field conditions that are applicable to how I use and treat a gun. I'm not criticizing laboratory type tests, but simply saying that designing a test or evaluation to simulate actual field conditions is difficult and time consuming at best. It's also likely to be different for each individual's usage.

So, once again, thanks for the data. I'll add that to what I already know and continue my own evaluation of products as the opportunity and need arises. {hs#

_________________
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 7:00 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Oh well, I thought I would offer. I agree with lab tests and explained where I found them lacking and how I made my evaluation an outdoors one with components such as UV rays, rain, wind blown debris and any contaminants we encounter in the field. Short of cycling rounds through the plates It was about as "real world" as one can get while being equitable to each product and being able to expidite the results for the first two evaluations. I two have been conducting personal evaluations of firearms products in the field for 40 years but one cant evaluate this many products while hunting in a lifetime and hope to compare the results fairly. I did what I could. I only hoped the data would be of vaule to others as it has been to me. Its changed my mind on a few things.

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 7:34 pm 
Crown Grade

Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 2931
Location: Kansas, Land of Oz
I appreciate the effort, time, and money that went into this project.
I only wish there was a way you could have simply/cheaply evaluated the lubricity of each gun oil beyond static friction (sticktion). Sticktion is a tiny part of the lubrication story, and undoubtedly the least important part.
You seem like a very resourceful guy. Perhaps you could rig a rudimentary "4-Ball" wear test, or something similar? I'm much more concerned with how much wear my gun oil prevents than how easy it makes it to "get the parts moving".

Maybe another evaluation, for another day? :D

Thanks again for releasing your results for the benefit of the rest of us. {hs#


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 9:11 pm 
Limited Edition

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 328
Excellent set of experiments!!

Thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 9:25 pm 
Limited Edition

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 328
Ulysses wrote:

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.



No it wouldn't. That weight of the bucket is just a constant offset to all forces

Delta_force=

(water_weight1 + bucket_weight) - (water_weight2 + bucket_weight) =

water_weight1-water_weight2


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 9:38 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Correct, the bucket was the same in every evaluation for every product. so its cancelled out. It was just part of the "mass" required to move the sled. Bucket + water = mass to move sled. That mass (bucket with water in it was weighed and represented a mass required to move the sled) Subtracting the mass of the bucket every time would have been a wasted effort and not changed the force graph one bit.

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 10:00 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 3:37 pm
Posts: 19474
Now it appears that you DID weigh the bucket along with the water each time. That is the way it should be done. I thought that several posts back you referred to the weight required to move the sled with Frog Lube as Zero or less since only the empty bucket was needed to move the sled. From that statement, I concluded that you did NOT weigh the bucket, and when I mentioned that very thing, you did not correct me.

Yes, it does make a difference when we are comparing RELATIVE forces needed to move the sled. For example, if we weighed the bucket and the water on two different products and came up with a value of 100 grams on one of them and 200 grams on the other one, we could correctly say that it took TWICE as much force to overcome the static friction.

Now let's look at what we would have had if we had not included the weight of the bucket each time. Let's assume that the bucket weighed 50 grams. OK, so we subtract 50 grams from each value and we get new values of 50 grams for one product and 150 grams for the other product. That is a RELATIVE difference of THREE to ONE, not TWO to One as we had before by including the weight of the bucket.

Sorry to be such a stickler on this, but if some people don't understand these simple mathematic things, then it's no wonder they don't understand conclusions or results drawn from mathematic numbers.

_________________
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: Thu May 08, 2014 12:21 am 
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:49 am
Posts: 457
Diyguy,

No questions from me. Your info was awsome and anyone can pick anything apart always finding something else you could have done, or didn't do. Picking apart the terminology or language used. Sounds like you were under indictment and being cross examined by a U.S. Prosecuter in some of these posts. Kudos to you for being professional not only in your evaluating process, but the explanation of why you did what you did and under the conditions you took advantage of ie: Weather. I must say while hunting I have found myself out in the elements you described with my shotgun in hand. Your testing was done with competence and gave each product an even chance to perform. If it didn't perform it wasn't because of you rigging the test to make the outcome in favor of a product you want to promote. If it didn't perform well it was because the product lacked the properties to provide the protection it advertises. Good job for undertaking the task in such a short period of time and for sharing your findings with us. Again great job and thank you so much for your effort.
Happy Shooting,
Pasquale


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2014 6:19 am 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Thanks Pasq, I hoped to make the methods and process abundantly clear to every reader while not getting bogged down into the minutia. Its why I included copious pictures and videos so as to remove any uncertainty.

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2014 7:01 am 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:43 am
Posts: 232
Upon completion of this evaluation I sent emails to several of the manufacturers of the products used. Thus far (4 days after sending the emails) I have received only one reply and it came from the founders of Frog Lube. Here is that reply.

“Ron,

We are stunned by the exhaustive and comprehensive approach of your testing. And we are quite flattered at the result. You have done something no one else has done.

We do our testing in primarily in operating firearms, but we have done some technical tests such as the corrosion and lubricity testing and have seen the same results.

May we use this link to share with our customers on line and in our facebook page? We have lots of fans (and a few competitors) who would appreciate seeing this.

Also, we very much appreciate your 'objectivity' and your public claims. This strengthens the validity of your results.

Thanks again for sharing this profound work with us.

Larry Lasky & Stacy Lasky
FrogLube Founders “

----

I replied to them with the following:

“Feel free to share or distribute the info as you see fit. Prior to this evaluation I had never used Frog Lube (or many of the products I evaluated) so I was curious and ended up doing this evaluation. My search for lube and corrosion solution was not entirely firearms centric as I am more of an archer and bowhunter so I would like to make this request. Archery and Bowhunting are very large markets with direct overlap to firearms owners. The same holds true for the rapidly increasing crossbow and crossbowhunting market. All of these user groups require lubrication and corrosion solutions.

The main difference for the bowhunting and crossbow hunting market is the scent/smell of products we use due to how close bowhunters and perhaps crossbow hunters have to get to prey to make a successful shot. The minty smell of Frog Lube may keep this user group from using your product. Would it be possible to remove the minty scent and create a scent free version? Breaking into the archery/bowhunting and crossbow hunting market would create another demographic purchasing your product. Please consider it. You would certainly have me as a customer for more than just firearms usage.

Ron”

_________________
Love your guns, spend time with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2014 7:46 am 
Limited Edition

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 328
Ulysses wrote:
Now it appears that you DID weigh the bucket along with the water each time. That is the way it should be done. I thought that several posts back you referred to the weight required to move the sled with Frog Lube as Zero or less since only the empty bucket was needed to move the sled. From that statement, I concluded that you did NOT weigh the bucket, and when I mentioned that very thing, you did not correct me.

Yes, it does make a difference when we are comparing RELATIVE forces needed to move the sled. For example, if we weighed the bucket and the water on two different products and came up with a value of 100 grams on one of them and 200 grams on the other one, we could correctly say that it took TWICE as much force to overcome the static friction.

Now let's look at what we would have had if we had not included the weight of the bucket each time. Let's assume that the bucket weighed 50 grams. OK, so we subtract 50 grams from each value and we get new values of 50 grams for one product and 150 grams for the other product. That is a RELATIVE difference of THREE to ONE, not TWO to One as we had before by including the weight of the bucket.

Sorry to be such a stickler on this, but if some people don't understand these simple mathematic things, then it's no wonder they don't understand conclusions or results drawn from mathematic numbers.


Yes, you are correct if looking at RATIOS of forces, but that graph is NOT representing ratios, it's plotting additional force from baseline required to move the sled--the baseline (i.e. where the Y-axis starts) is the weight of the bucket.

It's the exact same as if you are plotting heights of three people--say 3', 5' and 6'. You could have bars that have heights of 3, 5 and 6. Or you could put each person on a 20' ladder (i.e. a different baseline) and have bars of 23, 25 and 26.

The ladder, and the bucket, just add a constant offset. But yes, on the first graph, the ratio of the 6' guy to the 3' would be 2, but on the second graph with the ladder added, the ratio would be 26/23 = 1.13


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2014 7:35 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 5:14 am
Posts: 297
Location: Southern NJ
That's awesome, Ron! That has to give you some sort of satisfaction- and satisfaction for the frog lube folks I imagine.

I hope you don't view my earlier comment regarding the effects on wood as a criticism- you've been getting more than your fair share of that!

_________________
-LeverHead


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Results of gun care product evaluation
PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2014 7:46 pm 
Crown Grade

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:57 pm
Posts: 2540
Location: Calif, long beach
Hell Im still getting past the fact WD-40 is bad for our guns, thanks DIY great stuff. Now come on tell the truth, you had some fun doing it right?
Mike




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, 7 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Registered users: 1redvette, 47MolineRTU, albanygun, Bing [Bot], birdshot8'S, Bladeswitcher, Btkukow, bullseye-69, dannyd93140, David Spear, DavidRamey, Dealman, Dek, DesertMuleDeer, desmobob, df, drawdc, ellenbr, EricB, Fitasc2, Flyn'dutchman, fullgallon, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Greywolf0078, Hollywood22, jbc247, JJK, JoM, Kimokk, kolar55, Lacyb, llc, Mark Pfeifer, McFarmer, misterdom, Moffett, NailNinja, noweil, ohio mike, oldshotty, oneounceload, oyeme, Pullandmark, pump1t, Quacklw81, Rack-N-Roy, riflegunbuilder, Rooster booster, Rudolph31, Skipper7, soupsandwich, SuperXOne, Tal/IL, TandT, Tennessee Cattleman, Terrapin, Upland Quest, wboonn, Woodpuppy, woodsltc, 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