Posted: 10/5/2009 9:46:06 PM EDT
|
Was reading the Dragon Skin thread and someone made the comment "sounds like the militec guys"
can someone elaborate on the problems with militec? I have my own experiences and sources on some of the issues but want to see what the hive says. |
|
It has a weird smell, but other than that I have used it on EVERYTHING. I like it and use it on all my personal weapons. It was FREE!, and that is probably why they might go under.
ETA: I also dumped a few ounces of it in my Subaru last time I changed the oil, no more tickin' from the lifters. |
|
Quoted:
Was reading the Dragon Skin thread and someone made the comment "sounds like the militec guys" can someone elaborate on the problems with militec? I have my own experiences and sources on some of the issues but want to see what the hive says. That was my comment. The reason I said it is because it repeatedly fails .mil testing. In order to try and get the contracts, they go around and try and create a buzz of "ZOMG!! Our troops are dying because they do not have the bestest gear!" However, it's all bullshit to try and land those fat .gov contracts. http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=931240 Quoted:
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-735R From 1988 to 2006, the military services tested and evaluated MILITEC-1 11 times for various uses, including as a small arms cleaner, lubricant, and preservative; a metal conditioner; a general purpose lubricant; or a lubricant additive. Although the product passed early tests as a lubricant additive in the late 1980s, it did not pass 9 of the 11 tests and evaluations. These tests ranged from a limited demonstration of performance characteristics to a comprehensive assessment of the product with regard to military specifications. The product has not passed any tests and evaluations for a small arms cleaner, lubricant, and preservative, metal conditioner, or a general purpose lubricant. In 1988 and 1989, MILITEC-1 passed Marine Corps and Navy tests and evaluations as a lubricant additive, but it did not pass a subsequent test and evaluation as a lubricant additive in 1994. Militec, Inc., continues to market its product for use as a small arms lubricant to DOD, and asserts that DOD's current product specification is flawed. The Army disagrees that its military specification is flawed and has extended to Militec, Inc., the opportunity either to demonstrate how its product has been modified to conform to the current military specification for a small arms lubricant or indicate why the specification should be modified, according to DOD officials. However, Militec, Inc., has not done so. |
|
Good read. |
|
Quoted:
Good read. Pat _RogersPremium Membership
Leadership Moderator Posted 27 May 2009 03:08 Hide Post This type of marketing (so to speak) falls under the Murray/ Dragon Skin model. If it doesn't work, complain about how the system fucked you.... I think Pat follows my posts 
|