AR Sponsor
Posted: 10/27/2009 2:36:30 AM EDT
|
Has anyone used this before? They give deployed troops a free supply, so I ordered some for me and my Soldiers. It's a dry lube. I would like to know if you have used it, and what kind of results are you getting from it.
http://www.militec-1.com/ |
|
Quoted:
Has anyone used this before? They give deployed troops a free supply, so I ordered some for me and my Soldiers. It's a dry lube. I would like to know if you have used it, and what kind of results are you getting from it. http://www.militec-1.com/ The army specifically says not to use it. Personally I don't think it is as good as the manufacturer claims or as bad as the army claims. |
|
I have personally used the stuff multiple times over the years, including in the testing phase at the 82nd. I found it to be a good lube if used wet. I didn't find it to run as well as a dry lube. yes this included use on crew serves. YMMV, etc.
I think that CLIP works just as well and has the added benefit of being a good cleaning agent-something the Militec-1 lacks. |
|
Okay...I'll be the odd ball in this thread. I love Militec, LOVE IT! Granted I don't use to to clean my weapons nor use it as a rust preventative, but I do use it as an lubricant. I lube the BCG then apply some white lithium grease as well. I don't know what it is, but the BCG really does seem much slicker after using it rather then CLP. Check out this article by Larry Vickers as he uses it, being a former SFOD.
I do use Hoppes to clean the barrel, Gunzilla to clean off carbon, but militec to lube all the parts. |
|
have you noticed whenever the is a militec-1 thread its always started by someone with a super low post count? they always mention how they give free samples to the troops. hell then even order it for the troops with their own money!!! if this product was so great the military would buy it! its garbage plain and simple! they tried for certification and failed!!! why haven't they tried again??? maybe because its snake oil?!
posting a pic of a vfw commander is supplying the troops??  
Defense Logistics: Information on the Test and Evaluation and Assignment and Cancellation of National Stock Numbers as It Relates to MILITEC-1 GAO-09-735R June 25, 2009 Full Report (PDF, 24 pages) Accessible Text Summary The purpose of this letter is to respond to Congressional request for information regarding the test and evaluation process conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD) of a specific synthetic lubricant called MILITEC-1 that is produced by Militec, Inc., and the assignment and cancellation of national stock numbers2 (NSN) associated with that product. Militec, Inc., has challenged DOD decisions not to include MILITEC-1 in the federal supply system. Specifically, we examined (1) the extent to which the military services have tested and evaluated MILITEC-1 as a small arms lubricant, as a metal conditioner, as a general purpose lubricant, and as a lubricant additive, and with what results; and (2) the extent to which the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) followed applicable DOD procedures in assigning and subsequently canceling national stock numbers to MILITEC-1. In addition, we are providing in enclosure I a timeline on the efforts to test and evaluate, and assign and cancel, NSNs for MILITEC-1. MILITEC-1 is a dry, impregnated, synthetic-based metal conditioner that, at the time of our review, has been primarily marketed as a small arms lubricant, although it is also marketed as an automotive and transportation lubricant. The product is packaged in several container sizes and is available for commercial purchase. According to DOD officials, in order for a product to be approved for use on small arms it must fulfill DOD's performance specifications by meeting a number of laboratory and live fire test requirements developed by the Army, which has cognizance across DOD for the specification for cleaner, lubricant, and preservative properties in small arms lubricants. Once a product has been approved and the services have determined that they have sufficient projected demand for the product, the services request that DLA assign the product an NSN––-a label assigned to items that are repeatedly purchased, stocked, stored, issued, and used throughout the federal supply system. 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. DLA did not follow applicable DOD procedures when it assigned NSNs for MILITEC-1 in 1993 and again in 1995 in that it did not first obtain approval from the military services as required by DLA procedures, according to agency officials. However, the agency did follow applicable procedures when it subsequently canceled or blocked NSNs in 1995, 2003, and 2007, according to DLA officials and our review of available documentation. DOD officials told us that their procedures require DLA to obtain approval from the military services prior to assigning NSNs, to ensure that a product meets military specifications. The services did not approve the assignment of NSNs for MILITEC-1 in the 1990s, yet because of the department's push toward the use of commercial off-the-shelf items, the product was assigned NSNs by DLA in 1993 and did get into the supply system. Soon after, however, in 1994 DLA initiated action to cancel the NSNs because of a lack of service support. In that respect, DLA did correctly follow applicable procedures on the occasions when it either canceled the product––that is, removed it from the federal supply system––or halted its purchase throughout the 1990s and continuing to 2007, according to DLA officials. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-735R hey mr. militec-1... if you want to advertise on arfcom you should pay like all the other industry partners! 
|
I found it to lube about as well as CLP in the AR platform for range use, but it is no better and definately has downsides. It smells good and probably tastes good with Vodka, but then again, what doesn't.......
Their marketing techniques are despised almost as much as most liberals. |
|
I've been using Militec for my AR's BCG since 2006. I think it works great for a lubricant. I know it's not a cleaner nor a rust inhibitor. But it does work great as a lubricant in the AR, at least in the conditions I put my AR through (High Power Rifle aka Across the Course aka National Match Course).
I stopped using CLP in the AR awhile back because it gums up too much when any carbon fouling gets mixed in it. I was thinking about trying Phil Wood Tenacious Oil after I heard about it via one of Robert Whitley's (6mmar.com) posts on the NM forums. I know a few people who actually use grease (not oil) on their AR bolts. They seem to like it. |
|
Quoted:
have you noticed whenever the is a militec-1 thread its always started by someone with a super low post count? they always mention how they give free samples to the troops. hell then even order it for the troops with their own money!!! if this product was so great the military would buy it! its garbage plain and simple! they tried for certification and failed!!! why haven't they tried again??? maybe because its snake oil?! posting a pic of a vfw commander is supplying the troops??
Defense Logistics: Information on the Test and Evaluation and Assignment and Cancellation of National Stock Numbers as It Relates to MILITEC-1 GAO-09-735R June 25, 2009 Full Report (PDF, 24 pages) Accessible Text Summary The purpose of this letter is to respond to Congressional request for information regarding the test and evaluation process conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD) of a specific synthetic lubricant called MILITEC-1 that is produced by Militec, Inc., and the assignment and cancellation of national stock numbers2 (NSN) associated with that product. Militec, Inc., has challenged DOD decisions not to include MILITEC-1 in the federal supply system. Specifically, we examined (1) the extent to which the military services have tested and evaluated MILITEC-1 as a small arms lubricant, as a metal conditioner, as a general purpose lubricant, and as a lubricant additive, and with what results; and (2) the extent to which the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) followed applicable DOD procedures in assigning and subsequently canceling national stock numbers to MILITEC-1. In addition, we are providing in enclosure I a timeline on the efforts to test and evaluate, and assign and cancel, NSNs for MILITEC-1. MILITEC-1 is a dry, impregnated, synthetic-based metal conditioner that, at the time of our review, has been primarily marketed as a small arms lubricant, although it is also marketed as an automotive and transportation lubricant. The product is packaged in several container sizes and is available for commercial purchase. According to DOD officials, in order for a product to be approved for use on small arms it must fulfill DOD's performance specifications by meeting a number of laboratory and live fire test requirements developed by the Army, which has cognizance across DOD for the specification for cleaner, lubricant, and preservative properties in small arms lubricants. Once a product has been approved and the services have determined that they have sufficient projected demand for the product, the services request that DLA assign the product an NSN––-a label assigned to items that are repeatedly purchased, stocked, stored, issued, and used throughout the federal supply system. 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. DLA did not follow applicable DOD procedures when it assigned NSNs for MILITEC-1 in 1993 and again in 1995 in that it did not first obtain approval from the military services as required by DLA procedures, according to agency officials. However, the agency did follow applicable procedures when it subsequently canceled or blocked NSNs in 1995, 2003, and 2007, according to DLA officials and our review of available documentation. DOD officials told us that their procedures require DLA to obtain approval from the military services prior to assigning NSNs, to ensure that a product meets military specifications. The services did not approve the assignment of NSNs for MILITEC-1 in the 1990s, yet because of the department's push toward the use of commercial off-the-shelf items, the product was assigned NSNs by DLA in 1993 and did get into the supply system. Soon after, however, in 1994 DLA initiated action to cancel the NSNs because of a lack of service support. In that respect, DLA did correctly follow applicable procedures on the occasions when it either canceled the product––that is, removed it from the federal supply system––or halted its purchase throughout the 1990s and continuing to 2007, according to DLA officials. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-735R hey mr. militec-1... if you want to advertise on arfcom you should pay like all the other industry partners!
Hey Dick, first of all I'm a Soldier, second I was trying to find out some information about the product , but I guess since I don't have the high and mighty post count that you do that I must be pushing some product. Maybe it's because I have a job. Why don't you quit trollling, and add some benefit to the post instead of acting like you know everything AR just because you like to post on forums. If you would learn to read, maybe you would have noticed that I'm also getting some Weapons Shield. Unlike you, I'm not some mall ninja trying to trick out an AR. I'm trying to find some kind of lube to keep my Soldiers alive in combat. I guess you would only know of that from X-Box and watching the news. |
|
Dude. If you are a soldier, use what your chain of command tells you to use, not what a bunch of us couch commandos tell you to use.
We assume you come here because some of us have "been there and done that", but we also have experience with cock sucking shills that come here under the guise of asking for advice, but are really here to drum up some business. Only you really know what group you fit in. And, yes, you played the card. You will now need to post a DD-214 and some proof of who you are, or it will now be assumed you are with the vacuum group that I mentioned. And..........in before the lock.
|
AR Sponsor