Froglube...changing my opinion.

AR Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Froglube...changing my opinion. (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 2/1/2012 7:27:17 AM EDT

Originally when I discovered the stuff, I said "Okay, I'll try it"...

Well, I subjected it to my normal salt-water rust tests. It did mediocre. The mechanism seems physical and not chemical, regarding how it prevents rust. Meh, okay, plenty of lubes do only so-so in that test when I conduct it.

So I put some on a knife-blade I had that had some rust on it.
Yeah, it didn't do a darn thing to remove it beyond what WD-40 or anything else would have done.

Then I applied it to my AR-15 and went shooting. Wow. I really could clean it up with a paper-towel (blue shop type). I was impressed with that. Much less carbon on the bolt-tail than with Weaponshield CLP.

So then I hung a few sanded down nails in my shower and Froglubed one, and put BF CLP on the other, and left one bare. The BF CLP one is doing the best, but the Froglube will prevent rust provided you wipe the water off and don't leave it beaded on the surface in large beads until it evaporates. Again, barrier is mechanical, not chemical, from what I am seeing. Considering this goes on your BCG, it's really not that important, imo. Plenty of people report that it does prevent rust on their CCW pieces as well as bare barrel steel on some Kimbers that had issues, so I decided it's "good enough" there.

Well, how does it do preventing wear? These are pictures of an AR-15 with 350 rounds through it, Froglube used since new:

Nothing really special here one way or the other. It does make cleaning faster/easier, though!

Anyway, this last test I personally performed, and it has changed my mind about this stuff. I don't know what kind of plants Mr. Laskey is using, but they are badass.
Pay special attention to those pennies...
Froglube vs. LaRue MG Lube vs. Weaponshield CLP

Posted: 2/1/2012 7:41:47 AM EDT

[#1]

TW25B is just as easy to clean but no grease is easy to clean up or reapply.

Froglube's main selling point is that it is endorsed by a SEAL and is nontoxic.

Posted: 2/1/2012 8:09:32 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
TW25B is just as easy to clean but no grease is easy to clean up or reapply.

Froglube's main selling point is that it is endorsed by a SEAL and is nontoxic.

I have used TW25B, it's good stuff.

Posted: 2/4/2012 4:03:20 PM EDT

[#3]

I'm new to Froglube and ar's. When Froglubing the BCG should you leave it wet or wipe it clean and use the bolt that way?

Posted: 2/5/2012 2:50:11 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
I'm new to Froglube and ar's. When Froglubing the BCG should you leave it wet or wipe it clean and use the bolt that way?

Thin palpable film imo.

Posted: 2/9/2012 10:04:15 AM EDT

[#5]

Or...you could just use EWL and call it done.

People need to realize that Froglube was designed to replace vaseline...as in wal-mart grade vaseline that was being used in areas where weapons were exposed to surf that would wash liquid lubes off the weapon. If you aren't in the surf...the benifits of frog lube don't outweigh the negatives.

Posted: 2/9/2012 4:48:58 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Or...you could just use EWL and call it done.

People need to realize that Froglube was designed to replace vaseline...as in wal-mart grade vaseline that was being used in areas where weapons were exposed to surf that would wash liquid lubes off the weapon. If you aren't in the surf...the benifits of frog lube don't outweigh the negatives.

but but but... Navy Seals uses it...

Posted: 2/9/2012 8:41:08 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Or...you could just use EWL and call it done.

People need to realize that Froglube was designed to replace vaseline...as in wal-mart grade vaseline that was being used in areas where weapons were exposed to surf that would wash liquid lubes off the weapon. If you aren't in the surf...the benifits of frog lube don't outweigh the negatives.

So far I have not discovered a negative of any sort.

I have discovered that cleaning my weapon indoors isn't nauseating. It cleans up faster and easier than with any other lubricant I have tried. It can sit in storage for a couple of months without any degredation, evaporation, or running of the lube, when it gets in my face/when my suppressor arrives and I shoot suppressed, it will be food grade and not ptfe vapor or petroleum based. It runs reliably for hundreds of rounds without relubing with minimal carbon build up.

Works for me. Why not just use what works––in this case––froglube–– and call it done?

I don't care who uses it, but several local sf guys I know did use and like it a lot in the sandbox. Several others on tos have put it to good use and like it, too, if that sort of thing matters to you. Chris Costa says it keeps guns slick and running. I figure he has broad experience with such things from all the classes.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:43:01 AM EDT

[#8]

My views on gun cleaning have evolved a lot lately. Outside of precision rifles, I rarely obsess about removing every spec of carbon. I am a big fan of running guns wet. My mags are always clean...

Lately, I dislike anything that is going to give me cancer. I have a new baby and it gets old to have to scrub down after working on a gun before I can pick up the baby. I have transitioned more to TMJ bullets, lead free primers, and cleaners that are water based. The nice thing about Slip is that it meets all of these requirement perfectly. You can clean/degrease with Carbon killer, finish with 725, and then lube with EWL. The carb cleaner is an awesome cleaner and EWL works like a champ. I have run it on belt fed machineguns without an issue.

I have frog lube and I have tried it on my SIg. It works. It is a pain to apply correctly and it doesn't play well with other lubes...that is a pain for me since I might want to lube it up at the range, etc. Frog lube stinks...it smells like candy cigaretts. I don't see it as a cleaner but I am sure you could clean with pretty much anything if you scrub hard enough. I don't see the paste type formula as a good lube for flowing debris out of contact areas.

At the end of the day, any lube will generally work. I have seen guys lube guns with chapstick and the guns ran.

Use whatever floats your boat.

Posted: 2/10/2012 3:01:46 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
My views on gun cleaning have evolved a lot lately. Outside of precision rifles, I rarely obsess about removing every spec of carbon. I am a big fan of running guns wet. My mags are always clean...

Lately, I dislike anything that is going to give me cancer. I have a new baby and it gets old to have to scrub down after working on a gun before I can pick up the baby. I have transitioned more to TMJ bullets, lead free primers, and cleaners that are water based. The nice thing about Slip is that it meets all of these requirement perfectly. You can clean/degrease with Carbon killer, finish with 725, and then lube with EWL. The carb cleaner is an awesome cleaner and EWL works like a champ. I have run it on belt fed machineguns without an issue.

I have frog lube and I have tried it on my SIg. It works. It is a pain to apply correctly and it doesn't play well with other lubes...that is a pain for me since I might want to lube it up at the range, etc. Frog lube stinks...it smells like candy cigaretts. I don't see it as a cleaner but I am sure you could clean with pretty much anything if you scrub hard enough. I don't see the paste type formula as a good lube for flowing debris out of contact areas.

At the end of the day, any lube will generally work. I have seen guys lube guns with chapstick and the guns ran.

Use whatever floats your boat.

Froglube has been excellent as a cleaner for me. As to stinking, well, I think it smells like gum, but that's a personal thing. All I know about flowing debris/paste is there are now a slew of guys who have put 1500+ rounds through their guns using Froglube during carbine courses without having to re-lube and they don't have any problems. The paste turns liquid when it gets heated up in the slightest. I have not had any problems with it. After a couple hundred rounds through my Noveske, it would STILL cycle in the "suppressed" setting WITHOUT the suppressor using XM193. Barely, and not with MK318 or other 5.56 pressure rounds, but still, it was obviously far from binding up.

Posted: 2/10/2012 7:01:51 PM EDT

[#10]

I'm looking at getting some as a means of getting my wife to be more willing to clean guns. She hates the smell and fumes of petroleum based cleaners. Has anyone here successfully used Frog Lube as a significant other friendly solution?

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:47:48 PM EDT

[#11]

Just got astm d4172 4-ball wear results back. Average final was 0.5766mm scar.

Posted: 2/10/2012 8:50:09 PM EDT

[#12]

After 350 rounds how slick is the BCG when cycling it by hand?

After 200 rounds and 300 rounds of .22 my BCG felt gritty with CLP, when I switched to Slip 2000 EWL it was a thicker slippier stuff and my BCG stays buttery smooth after hundreds of rounds.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:10:03 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
After 350 rounds how slick is the BCG when cycling it by hand?

After 200 rounds and 300 rounds of .22 my BCG felt gritty with CLP, when I switched to Slip 2000 EWL it was a thicker slippier stuff and my BCG stays buttery smooth after hundreds of rounds.

After about 250 rounds I couldn't tell much difference. My 14.5 noveske middy would still cycle xm193, barely, while on the suppressor setting. It would eject Mk318 and xm556fbit3, but not pick up the next round. I was very suprised it would run anything in the suppressed setting, though! Slick enough, apparently.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:12:16 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Just got astm d4172 4-ball wear results back. Average final was 0.5766mm scar.

For 98% + of all the people who read it here, that info means nothing ...

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:14:49 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Just got astm d4172 4-ball wear results back. Average final was 0.5766mm scar.

That info means basically nothing, to 98% + of all the people who read it here ...

I understand, I typed it for the 2%ers.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:24:34 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Just got astm d4172 4-ball wear results back. Average final was 0.5766mm scar.

That info means basically nothing, to 98% + of all the people who read it here ...

I understand, I typed it for the 2%ers.

Great idea, since there are so many tribologists who are participating in the thread.

Posted: 2/10/2012 9:40:18 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Just got astm d4172 4-ball wear results back. Average final was 0.5766mm scar.

That info means basically nothing, to 98% + of all the people who read it here ...

I understand, I typed it for the 2%ers.

Great idea, since there are so many tribologists who are participating in the thread.

Would you prefer I withheld information for the sake of offending those who will not benefit, at cost to those who might? Do you understand the data?

Posted: 2/11/2012 4:45:20 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
I understand, I typed it for the 2%ers.

Aahhhh, I get it now.
I think we have a member from Portugal, so can you re-post it in Portuguese?

Please. (I had to, it rhymes.)

Posted: 2/11/2012 5:26:54 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I understand, I typed it for the 2%ers.

Aahhhh, I get it now.
I think we have a member from Portugal, so can you re-post it in Portuguese?

Please. (I had to, it rhymes.)

I guess it's my fault for forgetting that the site I am on isn't very technically oriented as a rule. Apologies.

It wurks gud and I lik it and it dusnt wear gunz out as fast as brakefree CLP.

Better?

Posted: 2/11/2012 8:00:53 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Just got astm d4172 4-ball wear results back. Average final was 0.5766mm scar.

That info means basically nothing, to 98% + of all the people who read it here ...

I understand, I typed it for the 2%ers.

Great idea, since there are so many tribologists who are participating in the thread.

Would you prefer I withheld information for the sake of offending those who will not benefit, at cost to those who might? Do you understand the data?

Actually, I was being generous with the 98% figure, it's probably closer to 99% who have no idea what those numbers mean.

But since you seem to be intent on speaking to 1% of the people - who aren't even here - maybe you could also convey your point by using the Chinese language to describe things. You know, for the random few people who will actually understand what's written, but who aren't reading it and are nowhere to be found in this thread.

Moreover though, the real issue is that every other time a Frog Lube thread comes up there's something that seems to be afoul about the thread or the product itself. I've seen more attempts by shills trying to promote it than any other product, and for that reason alone I'm not interested in hearing about it.

Posted: 2/11/2012 2:34:19 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Just got astm d4172 4-ball wear results back. Average final was 0.5766mm scar.

That info means basically nothing, to 98% + of all the people who read it here ...

I understand, I typed it for the 2%ers.

Great idea, since there are so many tribologists who are participating in the thread.

Would you prefer I withheld information for the sake of offending those who will not benefit, at cost to those who might? Do you understand the data?

Actually, I was being generous with the 98% figure, it's probably closer to 99% who have no idea what those numbers mean.

But since you seem to be intent on speaking to 1% of the people - who aren't even here - maybe you could also convey your point by using the Chinese language to describe things. You know, for the random few people who will actually understand what's written, but who aren't reading it and are nowhere to be found in this thread.

Moreover though, the real issue is that every other time a Frog Lube thread comes up there's something that seems to be afoul about the thread or the product itself. I've seen more attempts by shills trying to promote it than any other product, and for that reason alone I'm not interested in hearing about it.

Ever see a "shill" post something like this about Froglube?

Posted: 2/11/2012 3:10:40 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Ever see a "shill" post something like this about Froglube?
http://i41.tinypic.com/fo2az4.jpg

And once again, the vast majority of people reading this have no idea what a 4 ball wear test is or how it's conducted, much less what a bunch of odd numbers or your colorful graphs mean.

But okay, so you've got some data. At the very least, post something about how it compares to the competition's numbers so people have some sort of a frame of reference.

Either way though, you having some sort of test results in no way changes the fact that there have been PLENTY of others who have magically appeared from nowhere to talk about how they "just so happened to stumble across something the other day" in an attempt to wow everyone with "how great" it is.

Posted: 2/11/2012 6:33:02 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ever see a "shill" post something like this about Froglube?
http://i41.tinypic.com/fo2az4.jpg

And once again, the vast majority of people reading this have no idea what a 4 ball wear test is or how it's conducted, much less what a bunch of odd numbers or your colorful graphs mean.

But okay, so you've got some data. At the very least, post something about how it compares to the competition's numbers so people have some sort of a frame of reference.

Either way though, you having some sort of test results in no way changes the fact that there have been PLENTY of others who have magically appeared from nowhere to talk about how they "just so happened to stumble across something the other day" in an attempt to wow everyone with "how great" it is.

been here almost a decade.
Searching my posts shows I wasn't always a fan. Search my posts and you will find the opposite.
I'm not selling it, nor anything other than the optic and ammo I have on the EE right now.
Clp has a wear scar of 0.8mm, and slip 2000 of 0.56mm. Mil spec for a liquid firearm lube maximum is 0.8mm, and for a grease or solid lube, 0.6mm.

Posted: 2/11/2012 7:17:37 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ever see a "shill" post something like this about Froglube?
http://i41.tinypic.com/fo2az4.jpg

And once again, the vast majority of people reading this have no idea what a 4 ball wear test is or how it's conducted, much less what a bunch of odd numbers or your colorful graphs mean.

But okay, so you've got some data. At the very least, post something about how it compares to the competition's numbers so people have some sort of a frame of reference.

Either way though, you having some sort of test results in no way changes the fact that there have been PLENTY of others who have magically appeared from nowhere to talk about how they "just so happened to stumble across something the other day" in an attempt to wow everyone with "how great" it is.

been here almost a decade.

Eight years isn't really what I consider "almost a decade" ... but whatever, that doesn't matter.

Searching my posts shows I wasn't always a fan. Search my posts and you will find the opposite.

I'm not the least bit interested in spending any of my time searching your posts.

I'm not selling it, nor anything other than the optic and ammo I have on the EE right now.

In general, I couldn't care less about join dates or post counts. But given that you've been here for a while, I'll take you at your word that you're not selling it.

Clp has a wear scar of 0.8mm, and slip 2000 of 0.56mm. Mil spec for a liquid firearm lube maximum is 0.8mm, and for a grease or solid lube, 0.6mm.

Now, that's helpful ...

... But quite frankly, it's going to take a whole lot more than this thread (or any of the other "promotions" that I've seen for the product) for me to become interested in checking out Frog Lube.

Posted: 2/11/2012 7:36:18 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ever see a "shill" post something like this about Froglube?
http://i41.tinypic.com/fo2az4.jpg

And once again, the vast majority of people reading this have no idea what a 4 ball wear test is or how it's conducted, much less what a bunch of odd numbers or your colorful graphs mean.

But okay, so you've got some data. At the very least, post something about how it compares to the competition's numbers so people have some sort of a frame of reference.

Either way though, you having some sort of test results in no way changes the fact that there have been PLENTY of others who have magically appeared from nowhere to talk about how they "just so happened to stumble across something the other day" in an attempt to wow everyone with "how great" it is.

been here almost a decade.

Eight years isn't really what I consider "almost a decade" ... but whatever, that doesn't matter.

Searching my posts shows I wasn't always a fan. Search my posts and you will find the opposite.

I'm not the least bit interested in spending any of my time searching your posts.

I'm not selling it, nor anything other than the optic and ammo I have on the EE right now.

In general, I couldn't care less about join dates or post counts. But given that you've been here for a while, I'll take you at your word that you're not selling it.

Clp has a wear scar of 0.8mm, and slip 2000 of 0.56mm. Mil spec for a liquid firearm lube maximum is 0.8mm, and for a grease or solid lube, 0.6mm.

Now, that's helpful ...

... But quite frankly, it's going to take a whole lot more than this thread (or any of the other "promotions" that I've seen for the product) for me to become interested in checking out Frog Lube.

That's fine, I've nothing to gain from you liking it. This thread was informative, not persuasive. However, when you hint that I have an agenda to propogate froglube sales, I feel it incumbent upon myself to defend against that inaccuracy. Read my thread, if it changes your opinion, great. If not, that's okay––that wasn't its design, so don't treat it like the sales pitch that it isn't.

Posted: 2/12/2012 1:31:50 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

That's fine, I've nothing to gain from you liking it. This thread was informative, not persuasive. However, when you hint that I have an agenda to propogate froglube sales, I feel it incumbent upon myself to defend against that inaccuracy. Read my thread, if it changes your opinion, great. If not, that's okay––that wasn't its design, so don't treat it like the sales pitch that it isn't.

First of all, I've never - ever - seen an average individual take the time, incur the expense, or go to the trouble of conducting an ASTM d-4172 4-ball wear test on some random gun lube that they're playing with ... just for fun. No one does that. The only people who do that kind of testing are manufacturers who are attempting to demonstrate something special about their product.

But even despite that little tidbit, since you've been here a while, I deliberately decided not to mention it and chose instead to extend you the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, I didn't specifically accuse you of anything. What I did say is that half of the time threads about frog lube come up, there seems to be something fishy about them. Also, I mentioned that fact in the context of "other" people. So why you feel compelled to "defend yourself" is rather ... interesting.

Either way though, at this point, as far as I'm concerned, this thread has basically turned into yet another frog-lube-is-a-waste-of-time type of topic.

Posted: 2/12/2012 2:58:09 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

That's fine, I've nothing to gain from you liking it. This thread was informative, not persuasive. However, when you hint that I have an agenda to propogate froglube sales, I feel it incumbent upon myself to defend against that inaccuracy. Read my thread, if it changes your opinion, great. If not, that's okay––that wasn't its design, so don't treat it like the sales pitch that it isn't.

First of all, I've never - ever - seen an average individual take the time, incur the expense, or go to the trouble of conducting an ASTM d-4172 4-ball wear test on some random gun lube that they're playing with ... just for fun. No one does that. The only people who do that kind of testing are manufacturers who are attempting to demonstrate something special about their product.
I wasn't the one who footed the bill for the test.

But even despite that little tidbit, since you've been here a while, I deliberately decided not to mention it and chose instead to extend you the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, I didn't specifically accuse you of anything. What I did say is that half of the time threads about frog lube come up, there seems to be something fishy about them. Also, I mentioned that fact in the context of "other" people. So why you feel compelled to "defend yourself" is rather ... interesting.
You're hearing hoofbeats and looking for Zebras. Have I faked a dislike for froglube for a month or two only to "get on board with it" and post some fake epiphany story to woo others? Is that what you suspect? For the last half decade I have tried out different "wonderlubes" and they have all sucked, especially militec-1. I finally found on that didn't.
Either way though, at this point, as far as I'm concerned, this thread has basically turned into yet another frog-lube-is-a-waste-of-time type of topic.

Once again, it's a post about how I disliked the stuff, then came around to it. It contains more information than you are likely to find elsewhere on it. I find it a bit odd that someone who understands the test done is so against the product. Do you sell a competing product? Goose/Gander here...

Posted: 2/12/2012 3:04:28 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

That's fine, I've nothing to gain from you liking it. This thread was informative, not persuasive. However, when you hint that I have an agenda to propogate froglube sales, I feel it incumbent upon myself to defend against that inaccuracy. Read my thread, if it changes your opinion, great. If not, that's okay––that wasn't its design, so don't treat it like the sales pitch that it isn't.

First of all, I've never - ever - seen an average individual take the time, incur the expense, or go to the trouble of conducting an ASTM d-4172 4-ball wear test on some random gun lube that they're playing with ... just for fun. No one does that. The only people who do that kind of testing are manufacturers who are attempting to demonstrate something special about their product.
I wasn't the one who footed the bill for the test.

But even despite that little tidbit, since you've been here a while, I deliberately decided not to mention it and chose instead to extend you the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, I didn't specifically accuse you of anything. What I did say is that half of the time threads about frog lube come up, there seems to be something fishy about them. Also, I mentioned that fact in the context of "other" people. So why you feel compelled to "defend yourself" is rather ... interesting.
You're hearing hoofbeats and looking for Zebras. Have I faked a dislike for froglube for a month or two only to "get on board with it" and post some fake epiphany story to woo others? Is that what you suspect? For the last half decade I have tried out different "wonderlubes" and they have all sucked, especially militec-1. I finally found on that didn't.
Either way though, at this point, as far as I'm concerned, this thread has basically turned into yet another frog-lube-is-a-waste-of-time type of topic.

Once again, it's a post about how I disliked the stuff, then came around to it. It contains more information than you are likely to find elsewhere on it. I find it a bit odd that someone who understands the test done is so against the product. Do you sell a competing product? Goose/Gander here...

Posted: 2/12/2012 3:07:38 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

That's fine, I've nothing to gain from you liking it. This thread was informative, not persuasive. However, when you hint that I have an agenda to propogate froglube sales, I feel it incumbent upon myself to defend against that inaccuracy. Read my thread, if it changes your opinion, great. If not, that's okay––that wasn't its design, so don't treat it like the sales pitch that it isn't.

First of all, I've never - ever - seen an average individual take the time, incur the expense, or go to the trouble of conducting an ASTM d-4172 4-ball wear test on some random gun lube that they're playing with ... just for fun. No one does that. The only people who do that kind of testing are manufacturers who are attempting to demonstrate something special about their product.
I wasn't the one who footed the bill for the test.

But even despite that little tidbit, since you've been here a while, I deliberately decided not to mention it and chose instead to extend you the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, I didn't specifically accuse you of anything. What I did say is that half of the time threads about frog lube come up, there seems to be something fishy about them. Also, I mentioned that fact in the context of "other" people. So why you feel compelled to "defend yourself" is rather ... interesting.
You're hearing hoofbeats and looking for Zebras. Have I faked a dislike for froglube for a month or two only to "get on board with it" and post some fake epiphany story to woo others? Is that what you suspect? For the last half decade I have tried out different "wonderlubes" and they have all sucked, especially militec-1. I finally found on that didn't.
Either way though, at this point, as far as I'm concerned, this thread has basically turned into yet another frog-lube-is-a-waste-of-time type of topic.

Once again, it's a post about how I disliked the stuff, then came around to it. It contains more information than you are likely to find elsewhere on it. I find it a bit odd that someone who understands the test done is so against the product. Do you sell a competing product? Goose/Gander here...

Just saying, I found something that seems to do all I want it to do with the added benefit of living in the safe for months on end without evaporating or running off in the slightest and being non-toxic. Yet you want to drag it down, accuse me of being an entity, and all sorts of stuff. I tried like crazy to prove this stuff was pure junk. In the end, I proved to myself that it works.

What this thread has shown (unless you want to begin claiming it's all false).

-Froglube has a higher flash-point than Weaponshield and Sprinco MG Lube, one of which is a true group V.
-Froglube protects against wear almost as well as SLIP2000, and way better than CLP.
-It prevents carbon build-up better than any lube I have tried (CLP, Weapon shield, MG Lube, Rem-Oil––yes, in my early days of shooting)
-We already know it is considered safe by the USDA.
-We already know it won't run all over the place in the closet/safe, filling the buffer tube with lube while the BCG drips it away.
-We already

Posted: 2/12/2012 3:09:58 PM EDT

[#30]

So when frog lubes "coagulates" is it less slick then say SLIP 2000 EWL?

Posted: 2/12/2012 3:13:00 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
So when frog lubes "coagulates" is it less slick then say SLIP 2000 EWL?

I have not tried SLIp EWL, but I have tried LaRue MG Lube as well as CLP, and Weapon-shield on my Noveske. So far when charging the weapon "cold", there really isn't much difference that I can feel.
Initially, I broke it in with Froglube, then switched to WEaponshield as I became distrusting of all the hype. It felt smoother with WS, but after going back to Froglube, the smoothness persists (chemically de-greased for the change-over), and I believe it was just wearing down of the high-spots that caused my initial perception.

If you can find a CO Friction test for SLIP, that would answer the question.

Posted: 2/12/2012 3:16:42 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So when frog lubes "coagulates" is it less slick then say SLIP 2000 EWL?

I have not tried SLIp EWL, but I have tried LaRue MG Lube as well as CLP, and Weapon-shield on my Noveske. So far when charging the weapon "cold", there really isn't much difference that I can feel.
Initially, I broke it in with Froglube, then switched to WEaponshield as I became distrusting of all the hype. It felt smoother with WS, but after going back to Froglube, the smoothness persists (chemically de-greased for the change-over), and I believe it was just wearing down of the high-spots that caused my initial perception.

Machine Gunners lube has nothing to do with LaRue.

Posted: 2/12/2012 3:17:39 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
So when frog lubes "coagulates" is it less slick then say SLIP 2000 EWL?

I have not tried SLIp EWL, but I have tried LaRue MG Lube as well as CLP, and Weapon-shield on my Noveske. So far when charging the weapon "cold", there really isn't much difference that I can feel.
Initially, I broke it in with Froglube, then switched to WEaponshield as I became distrusting of all the hype. It felt smoother with WS, but after going back to Froglube, the smoothness persists (chemically de-greased for the change-over), and I believe it was just wearing down of the high-spots that caused my initial perception.

Machine Gunners lube has nothing to do with LaRue.

I know, it's made by Sprinco, but I first got it in LaRue labeled bottles and I erroneously call it such interchangeably.

Posted: 2/12/2012 5:51:42 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ever see a "shill" post something like this about Froglube?
http://i41.tinypic.com/fo2az4.jpg

And once again, the vast majority of people reading this have no idea what a 4 ball wear test is or how it's conducted, much less what a bunch of odd numbers or your colorful graphs mean.

But okay, so you've got some data. At the very least, post something about how it compares to the competition's numbers so people have some sort of a frame of reference.

Either way though, you having some sort of test results in no way changes the fact that there have been PLENTY of others who have magically appeared from nowhere to talk about how they "just so happened to stumble across something the other day" in an attempt to wow everyone with "how great" it is.

been here almost a decade.
Searching my posts shows I wasn't always a fan. Search my posts and you will find the opposite.
I'm not selling it, nor anything other than the optic and ammo I have on the EE right now.
Clp has a wear scar of 0.8mm, and slip 2000 of 0.56mm. Mil spec for a liquid firearm lube maximum is 0.8mm, and for a grease or solid lube, 0.6mm.

Not trying to pile on,as Ive seen you hammered by the FL supporters on TOS,and now your being criticized as a FL supporter/customer etc..But anyway.....

If we are considering light viscosity pastes/greases:
Mil-comm ASTM testing states a 4-ball wear of .42mm for TW25B.
No need for shakin and bakin,heat guns or tactical crock pot application techniques.Simply apply to desired level and roll on.
Its also a time tested,well documented and certified for use on weapons systems.Its origin was to be as such as well.Offers dry wipe type cleaning,extended performance/storage etc..
Mil-comm is also listed as non-toxic and certainly low odor,actually has a faint scent Hawaiian Tropic suntan lotion IMHO.

Honestly,from what you have stated previously about FL,its application and questionable corrosion protection qualities(per your tests posted),what would make it better than say the TW25B other than a slight cost differential?

I agree with Winn,and you have to admit,the mystique surrounding the FL and the posts by its users even exceed the drama we(and I do mean myself especially) all had with the militec and Firepower FP-10 ten years or so ago.

ETA
I'd like to see how the FL fairs in the hot southern summer humidity conditions.How about a test with just that type of exposure to heat and humidity in Louisiana over say a 3 month period this july etc.?

Posted: 2/12/2012 7:08:09 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ever see a "shill" post something like this about Froglube?
http://i41.tinypic.com/fo2az4.jpg

And once again, the vast majority of people reading this have no idea what a 4 ball wear test is or how it's conducted, much less what a bunch of odd numbers or your colorful graphs mean.

But okay, so you've got some data. At the very least, post something about how it compares to the competition's numbers so people have some sort of a frame of reference.

Either way though, you having some sort of test results in no way changes the fact that there have been PLENTY of others who have magically appeared from nowhere to talk about how they "just so happened to stumble across something the other day" in an attempt to wow everyone with "how great" it is.

been here almost a decade.
Searching my posts shows I wasn't always a fan. Search my posts and you will find the opposite.
I'm not selling it, nor anything other than the optic and ammo I have on the EE right now.
Clp has a wear scar of 0.8mm, and slip 2000 of 0.56mm. Mil spec for a liquid firearm lube maximum is 0.8mm, and for a grease or solid lube, 0.6mm.

Not trying to pile on,as Ive seen you hammered by the FL supporters on TOS,and now your being criticized as a FL supporter/customer etc..But anyway.....

If we are considering light viscosity pastes/greases:
Mil-comm ASTM testing states a 4-ball wear of .42mm for TW25B.
No need for shakin and bakin,heat guns or tactical crock pot application techniques.Simply apply to desired level and roll on.
Its also a time tested,well documented and certified for use on weapons systems.Its origin was to be as such as well.Offers dry wipe type cleaning,extended performance/storage etc..
Mil-comm is also listed as non-toxic and certainly low odor,actually has a faint scent Hawaiian Tropic suntan lotion IMHO.

Honestly,from what you have stated previously about FL,its application and questionable corrosion protection qualities(per your tests posted),what would make it better than say the TW25B other than a slight cost differential?

I agree with Winn,and you have to admit,the mystique surrounding the FL and the posts by its users even exceed the drama we(and I do mean myself especially) all had with the militec and Firepower FP-10 ten years or so ago.

Tw25b is a better lube, but I have never heard of an AR worn out using even clp, which froglube bests handily. I used Tw25b on my Benelli m4s90 and liked it a lot. However, froglube seems to prevent carbon sticking better, cleans faster, and will hold carbon and fouling in suspension better. AR's like to run wet when ran hard, and froglube does that without having the rifle caked. Grease, even Tw25b, is poor at that. As for corrosion testing, froglube is adequate, although not the best. I dont recall testing Tw25b. In short, I like froglube over Tw25b for its physical properties and the way it prevents carbon from sticking. On a Benelli m4s90, though, I would still run my Tw25b. I think froglube is my choice only on the AR platform, where its physical properties and how it prevents carbon baking on are worth more to me than a bit more wear reduction, which at that level is superflous for this application. My p226st still will get slideglide, though.

I don't feel froglube is the best for everything, just the AR, for me.

Posted: 2/12/2012 7:35:18 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ever see a "shill" post something like this about Froglube?
http://i41.tinypic.com/fo2az4.jpg

And once again, the vast majority of people reading this have no idea what a 4 ball wear test is or how it's conducted, much less what a bunch of odd numbers or your colorful graphs mean.

But okay, so you've got some data. At the very least, post something about how it compares to the competition's numbers so people have some sort of a frame of reference.

Either way though, you having some sort of test results in no way changes the fact that there have been PLENTY of others who have magically appeared from nowhere to talk about how they "just so happened to stumble across something the other day" in an attempt to wow everyone with "how great" it is.

been here almost a decade.
Searching my posts shows I wasn't always a fan. Search my posts and you will find the opposite.
I'm not selling it, nor anything other than the optic and ammo I have on the EE right now.
Clp has a wear scar of 0.8mm, and slip 2000 of 0.56mm. Mil spec for a liquid firearm lube maximum is 0.8mm, and for a grease or solid lube, 0.6mm.

Not trying to pile on,as Ive seen you hammered by the FL supporters on TOS,and now your being criticized as a FL supporter/customer etc..But anyway.....

If we are considering light viscosity pastes/greases:
Mil-comm ASTM testing states a 4-ball wear of .42mm for TW25B.
No need for shakin and bakin,heat guns or tactical crock pot application techniques.Simply apply to desired level and roll on.
Its also a time tested,well documented and certified for use on weapons systems.Its origin was to be as such as well.Offers dry wipe type cleaning,extended performance/storage etc..
Mil-comm is also listed as non-toxic and certainly low odor,actually has a faint scent Hawaiian Tropic suntan lotion IMHO.

Honestly,from what you have stated previously about FL,its application and questionable corrosion protection qualities(per your tests posted),what would make it better than say the TW25B other than a slight cost differential?

I agree with Winn,and you have to admit,the mystique surrounding the FL and the posts by its users even exceed the drama we(and I do mean myself especially) all had with the militec and Firepower FP-10 ten years or so ago.

Tw25b is a better lube, but I have never heard of an AR worn out using even clp, which froglube bests handily. I used Tw25b on my Benelli m4s90 and liked it a lot. However, froglube seems to prevent carbon sticking better, cleans faster, and will hold carbon and fouling in suspension better. AR's like to run wet when ran hard, and froglube does that without having the rifle caked. Grease, even Tw25b, is poor at that. As for corrosion testing, froglube is adequate, although not the best. I dont recall testing Tw25b. In short, I like froglube over Tw25b for its physical properties and the way it prevents carbon from sticking. On a Benelli m4s90, though, I would still run my Tw25b. I think froglube is my choice only on the AR platform, where its physical properties and how it prevents carbon baking on are worth more to me than a bit more wear reduction, which at that level is superflous for this application. My p226st still will get slideglide, though.

I don't feel froglube is the best for everything, just the AR, for me.

Im tracking on what your saying now.

I was not referring to your corrosion testing regarding TW25B.

That said I talked with Scott at SEAL-1 last wednesday.He answered the customer service line at SEAL-1(east coast).
Scott basically confirmed some of what you have suspected/heard.
Going from memory of the converstation,but both products are made by his company,the SEAL-1 is just a newer version of his lube.
SEAL-1 liquid uses more bio-based ingredients,does not seperate as bad and requires less agitation, and has slightly improved corrosion protection.
The pastes are similar but the SEAL-1 has a lighter consistency and is easier to apply without heat.
Otherwise I found out its available locally at midsouthshooterssupply at cheap prices.
Thats all I know on the subject.
I will get some SEAL-1 for comparison here this spring and summer just to see if Im missing out on the next best thing.If not the next best thing I'll hand it off to the gun club folks like I do the rest of the stuff I don't like..

Posted: 2/12/2012 7:45:24 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ever see a "shill" post something like this about Froglube?
http://i41.tinypic.com/fo2az4.jpg

And once again, the vast majority of people reading this have no idea what a 4 ball wear test is or how it's conducted, much less what a bunch of odd numbers or your colorful graphs mean.

But okay, so you've got some data. At the very least, post something about how it compares to the competition's numbers so people have some sort of a frame of reference.

Either way though, you having some sort of test results in no way changes the fact that there have been PLENTY of others who have magically appeared from nowhere to talk about how they "just so happened to stumble across something the other day" in an attempt to wow everyone with "how great" it is.

been here almost a decade.
Searching my posts shows I wasn't always a fan. Search my posts and you will find the opposite.
I'm not selling it, nor anything other than the optic and ammo I have on the EE right now.
Clp has a wear scar of 0.8mm, and slip 2000 of 0.56mm. Mil spec for a liquid firearm lube maximum is 0.8mm, and for a grease or solid lube, 0.6mm.

Not trying to pile on,as Ive seen you hammered by the FL supporters on TOS,and now your being criticized as a FL supporter/customer etc..But anyway.....

If we are considering light viscosity pastes/greases:
Mil-comm ASTM testing states a 4-ball wear of .42mm for TW25B.
No need for shakin and bakin,heat guns or tactical crock pot application techniques.Simply apply to desired level and roll on.
Its also a time tested,well documented and certified for use on weapons systems.Its origin was to be as such as well.Offers dry wipe type cleaning,extended performance/storage etc..
Mil-comm is also listed as non-toxic and certainly low odor,actually has a faint scent Hawaiian Tropic suntan lotion IMHO.

Honestly,from what you have stated previously about FL,its application and questionable corrosion protection qualities(per your tests posted),what would make it better than say the TW25B other than a slight cost differential?

I agree with Winn,and you have to admit,the mystique surrounding the FL and the posts by its users even exceed the drama we(and I do mean myself especially) all had with the militec and Firepower FP-10 ten years or so ago.

Tw25b is a better lube, but I have never heard of an AR worn out using even clp, which froglube bests handily. I used Tw25b on my Benelli m4s90 and liked it a lot. However, froglube seems to prevent carbon sticking better, cleans faster, and will hold carbon and fouling in suspension better. AR's like to run wet when ran hard, and froglube does that without having the rifle caked. Grease, even Tw25b, is poor at that. As for corrosion testing, froglube is adequate, although not the best. I dont recall testing Tw25b. In short, I like froglube over Tw25b for its physical properties and the way it prevents carbon from sticking. On a Benelli m4s90, though, I would still run my Tw25b. I think froglube is my choice only on the AR platform, where its physical properties and how it prevents carbon baking on are worth more to me than a bit more wear reduction, which at that level is superflous for this application. My p226st still will get slideglide, though.

I don't feel froglube is the best for everything, just the AR, for me.

Im tracking on what your saying now.

I was not referring to your corrosion testing regarding TW25B.

That said I talked with Scott at SEAL-1 last wednesday.He answered the customer service line at SEAL-1(east coast).
Scott basically confirmed some of what you have suspected/heard.
Going from memory of the converstation,but both products are made by his company,the SEAL-1 is just a newer,upgraded version of his lube.It was offered to FL but they were not interested,so its available under the SEAL-1 group.
SEAL-1 liquid uses more bio-based ingredients,does not seperate as bad and requires less agitation, and has slightly improved corrosion protection.
The pastes are similar but the SEAL-1 has a lighter consistency and is easier to apply without heat.
Otherwise I found out its available locally at midsouthshooterssupply at cheap prices.
Thats all I know on the subject.
I will get some SEAL-1 for comparison here this spring and summer just to see if Im missing out on the next best thing.If not the next best thing I'll hand it off to the gun club folks like I do the rest of the stuff I don't like..

Thankyou. Do you know is seal-1 paste has a lower melting point? I really only use the paste.

Posted: 2/12/2012 8:07:56 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Ever see a "shill" post something like this about Froglube?
http://i41.tinypic.com/fo2az4.jpg

And once again, the vast majority of people reading this have no idea what a 4 ball wear test is or how it's conducted, much less what a bunch of odd numbers or your colorful graphs mean.

But okay, so you've got some data. At the very least, post something about how it compares to the competition's numbers so people have some sort of a frame of reference.

Either way though, you having some sort of test results in no way changes the fact that there have been PLENTY of others who have magically appeared from nowhere to talk about how they "just so happened to stumble across something the other day" in an attempt to wow everyone with "how great" it is.

been here almost a decade.
Searching my posts shows I wasn't always a fan. Search my posts and you will find the opposite.
I'm not selling it, nor anything other than the optic and ammo I have on the EE right now.
Clp has a wear scar of 0.8mm, and slip 2000 of 0.56mm. Mil spec for a liquid firearm lube maximum is 0.8mm, and for a grease or solid lube, 0.6mm.

Not trying to pile on,as Ive seen you hammered by the FL supporters on TOS,and now your being criticized as a FL supporter/customer etc..But anyway.....

If we are considering light viscosity pastes/greases:
Mil-comm ASTM testing states a 4-ball wear of .42mm for TW25B.
No need for shakin and bakin,heat guns or tactical crock pot application techniques.Simply apply to desired level and roll on.
Its also a time tested,well documented and certified for use on weapons systems.Its origin was to be as such as well.Offers dry wipe type cleaning,extended performance/storage etc..
Mil-comm is also listed as non-toxic and certainly low odor,actually has a faint scent Hawaiian Tropic suntan lotion IMHO.

Honestly,from what you have stated previously about FL,its application and questionable corrosion protection qualities(per your tests posted),what would make it better than say the TW25B other than a slight cost differential?

I agree with Winn,and you have to admit,the mystique surrounding the FL and the posts by its users even exceed the drama we(and I do mean myself especially) all had with the militec and Firepower FP-10 ten years or so ago.

Tw25b is a better lube, but I have never heard of an AR worn out using even clp, which froglube bests handily. I used Tw25b on my Benelli m4s90 and liked it a lot. However, froglube seems to prevent carbon sticking better, cleans faster, and will hold carbon and fouling in suspension better. AR's like to run wet when ran hard, and froglube does that without having the rifle caked. Grease, even Tw25b, is poor at that. As for corrosion testing, froglube is adequate, although not the best. I dont recall testing Tw25b. In short, I like froglube over Tw25b for its physical properties and the way it prevents carbon from sticking. On a Benelli m4s90, though, I would still run my Tw25b. I think froglube is my choice only on the AR platform, where its physical properties and how it prevents carbon baking on are worth more to me than a bit more wear reduction, which at that level is superflous for this application. My p226st still will get slideglide, though.

I don't feel froglube is the best for everything, just the AR, for me.

Im tracking on what your saying now.

I was not referring to your corrosion testing regarding TW25B.

That said I talked with Scott at SEAL-1 last wednesday.He answered the customer service line at SEAL-1(east coast).
Scott basically confirmed some of what you have suspected/heard.
Going from memory of the converstation,but both products are made by his company,the SEAL-1 is just a newer,upgraded version of his lube.It was offered to FL but they were not interested,so its available under the SEAL-1 group.
SEAL-1 liquid uses more bio-based ingredients,does not seperate as bad and requires less agitation, and has slightly improved corrosion protection.
The pastes are similar but the SEAL-1 has a lighter consistency and is easier to apply without heat.
Otherwise I found out its available locally at midsouthshooterssupply at cheap prices.
Thats all I know on the subject.
I will get some SEAL-1 for comparison here this spring and summer just to see if Im missing out on the next best thing.If not the next best thing I'll hand it off to the gun club folks like I do the rest of the stuff I don't like..

Thankyou. Do you know is seal-1 paste has a lower melting point? I really only use the paste.

I don't know,didn't ask.But I'd suppose if its a lighter consistency it would liquefy easier.
Call the SEAL-1 customer service line and see if you can find out.
I'll stop by midsouth and get some SEAL-1 and give you some feedback soon.
The two nephews are itching to do some shooting/training so I'll have plenty of opportunity this spring to do some side by side comparisions.

Posted: 2/12/2012 8:52:06 PM EDT

[#39]

Thanks, I will do so. I am curious why Laskey refused to even mention Trillium when we spoke. He said "I cannot discuss that company" when I asked. I would like very much to ask Mr. Lee about Seal-1

Posted: 2/12/2012 9:51:30 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Thanks, I will do so. I am curious why Laskey refused to even mention Trillium when we spoke. He said "I cannot discuss that company" when I asked. I would like very much to ask Mr. Lee about Seal-1

Looks like SEAL-1 updated the website since I looked first of last week.
Scott Lee's direct line is listed on the SEAL-1 contact page now.Should simplify your effort.

My original intention in calling SEAL-1 is I was looking for availability and distributor information,or if I could just buy factory direct.

And honestly,I have interest in using SEAL-1 paste to replace the natural based blackpowder round ball patch/conical bullet lube(which I also use on cap-n-ball revolvers) Ive been using.
Ive had issues with the natural based patch lube Ive been using drying out and becoming a solid leaving a crusty waxy/powder residue on the lubed patches and guns after a few months.Extremely sensitive to cold as well.

I asked Scott if SEAL-1 will dry out in such a manner over time and he stated no,long term exposure degradation is not an issue even in open storage of coated items.Cold temps should not be an issue.The rest of the conversation was just added as the conversation progressed.

That said Scott openly discussed everything freely,some info provided without asking.Seemed like a very pleasant fella.

All that said,I will give it a run on the AR's just for the sake of trying it.If it works good great.But my application is for a completely different purpose than yours.

As you probably know,my preferred lube for AR's(all modern firearms including pistols) is Weapon Shield CLP with a bit of Weapon Shield Grease on the cam pin.
I particularly like the Weapon Shield Grease for pistol slides as its a NLGI 1 grade and does a fantastic job on the aluminum framed pistols and my 1911's.

So thats where I stand.

Posted: 2/12/2012 10:12:30 PM EDT

[#41]

Thanks! I tried weaponshield, but found it to "coke" very badly. Try this. Completely clean and de grease the tail of your bolt, and then lube afroglube, as the instructions indicate (or seal 1 paste). Go shoot it and see how the tail of the bolt compares to your weaponshield experience. Also, go view the video at the very bottom of my first post in this thread.

Posted: 2/12/2012 10:33:47 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Thanks! I tried weaponshield, but found it to "coke" very badly. Try this. Completely clean and de grease the tail of your bolt, and then lube afroglube, as the instructions indicate (or seal 1 paste). Go shoot it and see how the tail of the bolt compares to your weaponshield experience. Also, go view the video at the very bottom of my first post in this thread.

Interesting.
But I typically don't have any issues with the carbon on the bolt tail as I keep that area maintained and well lubed religiously.As an exapmple I put a few drops of WS CLP in the carrier vents with the BCG retracted back approx. half inch and hand cycle a few times during use and when I done shooting for the day.Once home the fouling comes off fairly easy.What little bit does not just wipe off I just coat with WS CLP.
The carbon on the blt tail is self limiting anyway,so I don't focus on it other than keeping the components lubed,and the WS CLP continues to displace fouling during down time.
If I see a heavy amount of deposits on the bolt I'll soak it in good ole Hoppe's No.9 Nitro solvent and it strips carbon right off.
Like I said,I have two nephews who also shoot my AR's,so they see a rather heavy round count typically twice a week,so there is bound to be fouling somewhere on/in the rifle I miss in my wiped down,punch bore and lube up 10 minute cleaning technique.

But I will certainly give the SEAL-1 a good run on the most used AR's to see what I think and relay my thoughts/results to you.

Posted: 2/12/2012 10:52:47 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Thanks! I tried weaponshield, but found it to "coke" very badly. Try this. Completely clean and de grease the tail of your bolt, and then lube afroglube, as the instructions indicate (or seal 1 paste). Go shoot it and see how the tail of the bolt compares to your weaponshield experience. Also, go view the video at the very bottom of my first post in this thread.

Interesting.
But I typically don't have any issues with the carbon on the bolt tail as I keep that area maintained and well lubed religiously.As an exapmple I put a few drops of WS CLP in the carrier vents with the BCG retracted back approx. half inch and hand cycle a few times during use and when I done shooting for the day.Once home the fouling comes off fairly easy.What little bit does not just wipe off I just coat with WS CLP.
The carbon on the blt tail is self limiting anyway,so I don't focus on it other than keeping the components lubed,and the WS CLP continues to displace fouling during down time.
If I see a heavy amount of deposits on the bolt I'll soak it in good ole Hoppe's No.9 Nitro solvent and it strips carbon right off.
Like I said,I have two nephews who also shoot my AR's,so they see a rather heavy round count typically twice a week,so there is bound to be fouling somewhere on/in the rifle I miss in my wiped down,punch bore and lube up 10 minute cleaning technique.

But I will certainly give the SEAL-1 a good run on the most used AR's to see what I think and relay my thoughts/results to you.

give it a go. I dumped weaponshield for froglube and am quite a fan of Mr. Fennel.

Posted: 2/12/2012 10:56:38 PM EDT

[#44]

Also as a further note.
My concerns of using these bio-based lubes as stand alone lubricant/protectants is how well they will perform in long term when applied and/or stored.Particularly in hot humid climates like we live in here in the south.
When they are exposed longterm do they degrade binding oxygen,become hygroscopic and/or go rancid?
What kind of shelf life,or should I say what is the expected biodegrade service/performance life expectation?
Scott says his lubes do not solidify or dry out,so I guess I should have asked that as well.
If you call Scott Lee,ask him that if you will.

Posted: 2/12/2012 11:10:53 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Also as a further note.
My concerns of using these bio-based lubes as stand alone lubricant/protectants is how well they will perform in long term when applied and/or stored.Particularly in hot humid climates like we live in here in the south.
When they are exposed longterm do they degrade binding oxygen,become hygroscopic and/or go rancid?
What kind of shelf life,or should I say what is the expected biodegrade service/performance life expectation?
Scott says his lubes do not solidify or dry out,so I guess I should have asked that as well.
If you call Scott Lee,ask him that if you will.

For nearly a month a froglube coated nail has Hung in my shower. I have seen bo evidence that it is hydroscopic, or that it is breaking down, etc. It did rust where water beaded and was left to evaporate, but that took a while and constitutes neglect. Further, I noted that on the bare and clp treated nails, a hit shower led to thousands of fine drops condensed on the surface due to temp. Differential and humidity. These dried, leaving tiny dark specs all over the nails. I did not observe any condensation with froglube paste. I looked hard, did not see it. That is meaningful to me as I live in the hot, humid south, as well.

According to the msds, froglube clp is not soluble in water.

Posted: 2/12/2012 11:28:31 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Also as a further note.
My concerns of using these bio-based lubes as stand alone lubricant/protectants is how well they will perform in long term when applied and/or stored.Particularly in hot humid climates like we live in here in the south.
When they are exposed longterm do they degrade binding oxygen,become hygroscopic and/or go rancid?
What kind of shelf life,or should I say what is the expected biodegrade service/performance life expectation?
Scott says his lubes do not solidify or dry out,so I guess I should have asked that as well.
If you call Scott Lee,ask him that if you will.

For nearly a month a froglube coated nail has Hung in my shower. I have seen bo evidence that it is hydroscopic, or that it is breaking down, etc. It did rust where water beaded and was left to evaporate, but that took a while and constitutes neglect. Further, I noted that on the bare and clp treated nails, a hit shower led to thousands of fine drops condensed on the surface due to temp. Differential and humidity. These dried, leaving tiny dark specs all over the nails. I did not observe any condensation with froglube paste. I looked hard, did not see it. That is meaningful to me as I live in the hot, humid south, as well.

According to the msds, froglube clp is not soluble in water.

Interesting.Thanks for the info.

Posted: 2/13/2012 9:45:44 AM EDT

[#47]

I spoke at length with Mr. Scott Lee this afternoon. He was friendly and very down to earth about the products we are discussing. No hype, BS, or anything like it. He did not refuse to answer any question I posed unless it could be taken as negative toward any other company or individual, or would compromise his or other's intellectual property.

From what I gather, and this is my interpretation, Seal-1 is not necessarily Froglube Version 2, but Froglube version 1.2.

If you use/like Froglube, stick with it. If not, give SEAL-1 a shot.

Seal 1 paste vs. Froglube paste:

From what I understand, they both melt about the same under fire when applied to an AR.
They both work BEST when applied to CLEAN metal at-temperature.
SEAL-1 has a bit more corrosion resistance.
SEAL-1 and Froglube play decent enough together, although it is best to apply them each in an un-mixed way.

I am tempted to test SEAL-1.

*I am much more partial to the more "sedate" approach SEAL-1's website uses as compared to Froglube's.

Froglube does what I need it to do, and unless everyone begins reporting SEAL-1 is much better, I will probably stick with it.

Posted: 2/13/2012 1:35:49 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

*I am much more partial to the more "sedate" approach SEAL-1's website uses as compared to Froglube's.

Yeap I absolutely agree.Which is one of the reasons I started looking at the SEAL-1 instead of FL..That combined with the brief mention of the SEAL-1 by one of the respected SME's on TOS.

Like I said Im going with the SEAL-1 for my needs mainly due to the fact its available locally,and cheaper from my local distributor compared.
I also like the fact that SEAL-1 has several contact phone numbers available for customers.

Regardless,I ordered some SEAL-1 from Midsouth this afternoon,so I will let you know my thoughts sometime next week after Ive had some time to use it initially.
Otherwise I'll see if its what Im looking for in the longrun.

Posted: 2/13/2012 6:04:50 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:

*I am much more partial to the more "sedate" approach SEAL-1's website uses as compared to Froglube's.

Yeap I absolutely agree.Which is one of the reasons I started looking at the SEAL-1 instead of FL..That combined with the brief mention of the SEAL-1 by one of the respected SME's on TOS.

Like I said Im going with the SEAL-1 for my needs mainly due to the fact its available locally,and cheaper from my local distributor compared.
I also like the fact that SEAL-1 has several contact phone numbers available for customers.

Regardless,I ordered some SEAL-1 from Midsouth this afternoon,so I will let you know my thoughts sometime next week after Ive had some time to use it initially.
Otherwise I'll see if its what Im looking for in the longrun.

Thank-you. If you will PM me your address, I will sent you some frog-lube paste, in small sample, so you can adequately compare. If you think Seal 1 is much better, I will buy. IF it's either/or, I will stick with what I'm running now.

Posted: 2/14/2012 1:40:23 AM EDT

[#50]

Since the 4 ball wear test was mentioned I thought this data from Amsoil might be relevant for comparison purposes. According to the OP, Froglube had an average final scar of 0.5766 mm.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Froglube...changing my opinion. (Page 1 of 2)

AR-15 » Maintenance & Cleaning

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us