I tested FIREClean a while back, and my initial impression was that it performed very poorly against corrosion. The best bio-lube I had tested was Rand CLP. FIREClean insisted in private conversation with me that their product "lasted a month outside on BCG's during hurricane season and did fine", or some such. So, I felt like putting it to the test. Naturally I don't have random BCG's sitting around for destructive testing, but I used stripper clips (had to cut it in 3rds as I only had one), and some bare sanded nails. I left them outside on a utility box. They were rained on. They were baked under the sun. They were frozen. They were thawed. Time/date stamps are on the pictures.
All items from left to right: Control, FIREClean, Rand CLP (current formula)
I would further note that FIREClean's claims about ease of cleaning appear to be true in testing with my severely over-gassed 10.5" suppressed SBR. When the bolt-tail does get build-up on it, it easily chips off using any "sharp" metal instrument, and the rest rubs off with a paper towel. When I say chips off, I mean that it comes off in larger chips, not you have to scour the thing like a dentist. It takes about 0:30-1:30 to have a pristine bolt-tail again. Pretty impressive.
Comparing it to other CLP's on my suppressed .22 pistol, the action does not become gritty nearly as fast. Hundreds of rounds suppressed, and it still feels pretty slick. Not like sand is built up in it.
All things told, I am really starting to like the FIREClean product, and I have tested it to have merit as the company claims in every aspect except on suppressor baffles. My Spectre II doesn't seem to care whether it has FIREClean on the baffles, or something else, or nothing else. FIREClean continues to supply evidence with other suppressors (Sparrows, etc.) showing how well it works, so maybe it's the stainless material + baffle design on the Spectre II. Either way, it has not met their advertising ON MY SUPPRESSOR. In every other aspect, I cannot honestly say that they have not made good on their claims, which are lofty indeed.
I consider myself about as non-biased as it gets, and I have not always been a fan of FIREClean, or my interaction with that company. However, when I expressed interest in further testing to them, even before I told them my positive results, they were very polite and professional with me. Perhaps I had previously caught them on a bad day, or who knows, but I am pleased with how they interacted with me, this go.
*I purchased and paid for every FIREClean product I have touched with my own money, and without FIREClean's knowledge of who or where or when I bought their product from. As with all of the tests I do, I try to be non-biased, and feelings come second to facts. I will happily re-test anything if anyone disagrees, but please understand that the test with the nails is already a re-test of an identical scenario, the original results of which can be seen on the bottom in the second picture, and the initiation of this first test, in the first picture. The second test began in the second picture, as shown.
Conclusion of 90+ days in the elements