Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 11/19/2003 9:33:39 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:33:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/19/2003 10:37:55 AM EST by blikbok]
Yikes. I'd love to take the time to analyze the article, but it seems to be a rehash an old debate in a more dangerous form. Search on the trademarks of the two players and find some of the previous debate. I won't touch it. It's irresponsible journalism for the poor chap at that newsdesk to take all info and reprint it without a critical thought in his head. He might as well have made the article a full-color add for the stuff. And the result is a purely emotional plea, based on a shaky premise ("lubricant leads to jams lead to deaths, save our soldiers!"). My college professors would give that an F after ripping it to shreds. What a sad day for our country when that is the product of a professional journalist. [USA] (only half in jest, sadly)
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 11:32:51 AM EST
For those who missed any of the previous regular attempts to market Militec on the backs of dead Americans, here is the relevant technical information from Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane (listed as a "satisfied customer" by Militec) [url=http://www.militec1.com/linkedhere3.html]Corrosion Protection[/url] "4. The Militec product's ability to prevent corrosion on "gun steel" was evaluated. Test pieces were coated with lubricant and heated at 160 degrees F prior to being placed in the salt fog chamber in accordance with ASTM B117. Two different tests were conducted: a) A bolt assembly from an M-16 rifle was disassembled and the phosphated parts, including the bolt, the bolt carrier, the cam pin, and the chrome-plated firing pin were treated with Militec and placed in the salt fog cabinet. @5 hours: rust spots evident on [b]firing pin[/b] @26 hours: rust spots evident on bolt carrier @101 hours: rust occured from about 30-50% over significant areas of test pieces b) A bolt carrier from an M-16 rifle was stripped of its phosphate coating by grit blasting and treated with Militec and placed in the salt fog cabinet. After 17 hours the bolt carrier was severely rusted (>90% of significant area)." [url=http://www.militec1.com/lubetest5.html]Dust Environment Lubricant Test[/url] (Militec is Brand E) "Dust tests with exposure times of one hour, three hours, six hours, seven hours and eight hours were conducted with military and commercially available lubricants applied to M16A1 rifles. CLP provided the best overall performance with one stoppage in five dust tests. VV-L-800 finished second with three stoppages in five dust tests. Other top finishers were Brand D with three stoppages in four dusts tests, Brand C with seven stoppages in five dust tests and Brand E (Militec) with eight stoppages in five dust tests. The three top finishers were liquid lubricants. Although it appeared that more dust accumulated on the exposed exterior surfaces of bolt carriers with liquid lubricants than on bolt carriers with dry film lubricants, the liquid lubricants had more success overcoming friction caused by dust intrusion. [url="http://www.militec1.com/lubetest18.html"]3.1.5 CLP[/url] QPL-63460-13 Test Sequence #1: MRBS=NA, all 90 rounds fired successfully Test Sequence #2: MRBS=60/1=60 The lubricant used in this test was CLP liquid. In test sequence #1, rifle #4783144 did not have any malfunctions in the one-hour, three-hour, and six-hour tests. In test sequence #2, rifle #4813100 fired without any malfunctions in the seven-hour test, but recorded one malfunction in the eight-hour test. 3.1.6 Brand E (Militec) Test Sequence #1: MRBS=90/3=30 Test Sequence #2: MRBS=60/5=12 In test sequence #1, rifle #4785227 fired without any malfunctions in the one-hour test; but did have one malfunction in the three-hour test and two malfunctions in the six-hour test. In test sequence #2, rifle #5449207 fired without any malfunctions in the seven-hour test, but had five malfunctions in the eight-hour test. 3.1.14 Unlubricated rifle Test Sequence #1: MRBS=NA, was not tested Test Sequence #2: MRBS=30/6=5 An unlubricated rifle was placed in test sequence #2 seven-hour test as a baseline to compare to the lubricated rifles. Rifle #4831774 had six malfunctions.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 11:36:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By hagal: NEWS ARTICLE HERE [url]http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/investigators/wabc_investigators_111803gunlube.html[/url]
View Quote
Gawddamned Sweeps Week! To get the almightly advertising dollar, the local news wraps itself in the flag with this BS......GRRRRRRRRRR
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 11:47:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 11:48:40 AM EST
Miltec is capitalizing on false information and loss of soldiers lives to sell a product.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 12:12:24 PM EST
I saw parts of the Jessica Lynch interview. She said that 2 soldiers in the rear of the HMMV she was in, who she didn't know, and 1Sgt Buggs (IIRC) in the front passenger seat were firing "furiously", while Piestewa was driving and she was in the center rear of the vehicle. Now if 3 out of 5 are shooting, 1 is driving, and 1 has a jammed weapon................... Militec may well be superior to CLP in some conditions. But CLP gives darn good performance under most conditions. Unlike Militec CLP is a cleaner, and a lubricant. I love the article, the CLP attracted sand. Well no shit, almost any oil or grease will attract, and hold dirt, sand etc. That's why less is often more when lubricating weapons.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 12:54:09 PM EST
Wow thats fu**ed up I used miltech in Afghanistan but only a small amount on the gas rings,bolt and carrier and I had no problems. We didnt get into 7-10 day dust storms either. That article pissed me off!! CLP is fine I like miltech. but CLP is free and I use it to clean my rifle miltech is too expensive to use to clean you rifle and I think CLP does a better job.The fact is oil attracts dirt! you gotta clean your rifles everyday period hell after every mission before sleep before chow gotta clean your rifle!! IMO the 507th malfuntions was from lack of cleaning and bad mags. When I was a Drill sgt about 80% or more of the soldiers weapon malfuntions were from bad mags. The rest of the malfuntions were from bad extractors and hammer springs and the only reason that happened was because of the thouasand of rounds that was put through the rifles. FREE
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 2:14:57 PM EST
As someone else pointed out, the 507th went right through a herring boned Marine Convoy to enter An Nas. That unit was BLT 1/2 and they didn't report any major problems with their weapons.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 3:38:17 PM EST
Great comments guys! Someone should e-mail the comments here to ABC news.
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 5:43:21 PM EST
If I recall correctly, Hackworth has taken the Militec bait and went with this theme recently. Is this a co-ordinated operation by Militec? They seem to be good at getting their testimonials and ads into the mainstream press. If you take the time to check the feedback comments from the article itself, at least three "I was there, too" guys point out that it is BS. One made the point that canned graphite powder was made available to his group due to the problems with liquid lubes. If this can be debunked and shown to be a co-ordinated plot by Militec, heads should roll. If I hadn't seen this topic exploded here at AR15.com I wouldn't have picked up on the BS in the article...
Link Posted: 11/19/2003 10:47:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/19/2003 10:48:14 PM EST by BaNo]
Originally Posted By new_RRA_user: Is this a co-ordinated operation by Militec?
View Quote
It's funny, a majority of those who complain are non-infantry units. I imagine their testimonials come free, the firearms "exports" are probably paid. IR KANT SPEEL
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 3:33:08 AM EST
I am highly suspicious of the motives for these dramatic reports. The title of the article immediately raises a flag, it almost reads like a commercial. My military experience with CLP was outstanding. It continues to be my only weapons cleaner and lube to this day. There may be a better product out there and I'm sure we will adopt it once it passes all of the military tests with a significant degree of performance over CLP.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 4:16:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/20/2003 4:18:40 AM EST by John_Wayne777]
I have personally found that CLP does a miserable job as a lubricant, a so so job as a cleaner and a very good job as a rust preventative. CLP does suck up every bit of dirt and crud out there, especially if you use too much of it. In hostile environs like the desert, a dry graphite lubricant or something similar should be used to keep crud out of the weapon. I also know that lots of folks over-lube their weapon attracting far more dirt than they should and leading to weapon jams. I have a feeling most of the problems reported with CLP are related to just that phenomenon. I used CLP in the sand my weapon was good for at least 150 rounds. (My weapon was COVERED in sand. I am still occasionally seeing some sand fall out of my magazines) Though she ran sluggishly, she at least ran well enough to go bang every time I pulled the trigger. The weapon was also caked with the residue from firing 500 rounds earlier in the training day, making the weapon's performance with CLP adequate. I use very small ammounts of Tetra grease in my personal AR and it performs wonderfully. But I don't have to worry about rust. The military wants a one size fits all solution for lubrication, cleaning and preventing rust. I understand this but I don't think that such a thing necessarily exists yet.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 4:42:39 AM EST
The problem isn't CLP. The problem is that there are soldiers who are so unfamiliar with their own weapons. Everyone who's ever deployed to the desert, or who's read after action reports about such deployments, knows that Lots of CLP is a no-no. Different climes and places call for different approaches to weapons lubrication. They should have known this.
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 5:54:39 AM EST
Originally Posted By Cincinnatus: Different climes and places call for different approaches to weapons lubrication.
View Quote
Yep. As stated above there is no perfect lubricant for all climates and situations. Further, there is no single caliber good for all terrains and wars. 5sub
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 6:01:09 AM EST
Jesic's weapon didn't jamb up, she did and said she hid down between the seats. If she did have a "jam", she could have used the drivers weapon, she didn't. Moral of story, (IMO) Little girls don't belong in war. Jack
Link Posted: 11/20/2003 6:51:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By 3rdtk: Jesic's weapon didn't jamb up, she did and said she hid down between the seats. If she did have a "jam", she could have used the drivers weapon, she didn't. Moral of story, (IMO) Little girls don't belong in war. Jack
View Quote
Right, In the interview, she said she tried to chamber a round and the rifle was jammed up. She didn't fire one shot. Then she spent the rest of the time in the fetal position praying. When my wife was new to ARs she would jam them up pretty good trying to chamber a round. First didn't know you had to pulled it back really hard and let go quickly and secondly she didn't have the strength to do it. Now she locks the bolt back, inserts the mag, and chambers the rounds using the bolt release. She is probably stronger than Pvt Lynch. If you don't pull the bolt all the way back and then let go you will have a very nasty jam. Try it some time, it has nothing to do with lube. Add inexperience and fear to this equation and it is hopeless.
Top Top