AR Sponsor
Posted: 4/30/2013 1:08:27 AM EDT
|
*I removed this information from this forum because one of the manufacturers of the products contacted me and was not pleased with my test method.*
|
|
Cool test.
Have you considered trying the motor oil bio lube, G-Oil? |
|
Quoted:
Why not put them on a gun, shoot them, and see how they do...... I recall one guy putting Froglube on his brake rotors to test for corrosion. I've had good results with Froglube in wet outdoor conditions as long as it's not below 45F. I would recommend NOT putting any type of lubricant on brake rotors, unless they aren't on a vehicle and never will be. So, below 45F did you have malfunctions? Did you wipe off all excess prior, or leave a coating on the operating parts? |
| This is an interesting test. One of my complaints with Froglube has been that it doesn't do the best job of preventing corrosion in the bore of guns that see corrosive ammo. I'm still using FL on pretty much everything right now, but I resort back to Breakfree CLP for use in bores that see corrosive ammo. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why not put them on a gun, shoot them, and see how they do...... I recall one guy putting Froglube on his brake rotors to test for corrosion. I've had good results with Froglube in wet outdoor conditions as long as it's not below 45F. I would recommend NOT putting any type of lubricant on brake rotors, unless they aren't on a vehicle and never will be. So, below 45F did you have malfunctions? Did you wipe off all excess prior, or leave a coating on the operating parts? Turns out the OP put Froglube on brake rotors, in this thread: http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=7&t=583601 They're on a vehicle alright, and one that needs good brakes No malfunctions, but you could feel the tackiness that would cause me to question how it works in very cold temps. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why not put them on a gun, shoot them, and see how they do...... I recall one guy putting Froglube on his brake rotors to test for corrosion. I've had good results with Froglube in wet outdoor conditions as long as it's not below 45F. I would recommend NOT putting any type of lubricant on brake rotors, unless they aren't on a vehicle and never will be. So, below 45F did you have malfunctions? Did you wipe off all excess prior, or leave a coating on the operating parts? Turns out the OP put Froglube on brake rotors, in this thread: http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=7&t=583601 They're on a vehicle alright, and one that needs good brakes No malfunctions, but you could feel the tackiness that would cause me to question how it works in very cold temps. Hehe, well...I wouldn't put any kind of lube on my brake rotors. So back to using it on the guns...in colder temps we all know that Froglube thickens up. My concern with it in operation was due to my using it more like other products, such that the gun is 'wet'. I did that per recommendations from some guys that are supposed to know what they're doing. But, Froglube isn't supposed to be used that way. I'm wondering if wiping off the excess as the instructions state alleviates any cold weather concerns. It's only the first couple shots that could be a problem, and if the action parts are 'dry' then I'm thinking there really won't be any negative affects in cold temps. |
|
Let me get this straight, lubes made from petroleum which occurs naturally from the planet as a result of decaying organic matter, are bad. Synthetic lubes, also a refinement of petroleum are bad.
So something from frogz or corn or basement dweller jizz is somehow "green and environmentally friendly"? It's all bullshit marketing. 
Slip 2000 EWL for the win
|
|
I'm not mention the manufacturer again which complained.
As to the whole "bio" argument... ...I began caring about the "bio" lubes when I moved into a small apartment. Things like Breakfree CLP can seriously stink the place up. Further, I began noticing that I had an allergic reaction to CLP. The skin on my hands does not like it. MPro-7LPX is pretty scent-free, and I had not noticed any issue handling it. I really like MPRO-7LPX. However, I am always out "looking for better". Someone who was former Delta turned me to the Rand CLP product. I went to their website and found coefficient of friction tests (which their representative has been more than happy to supply me with updated runs of, their ultimate COF for the CLP product being just 0.008!), 4-ball scar data (0.39), etc. Damn! I was impressed. MPro-7LPX's maker, Pantheon, had been very helpful to me, also providing me test data. The Rand bio product (I eat vegetable oil, and it has almost no smell, that's what I care about, not some "save the whales" crap.) had bettered the LPX by just a margin on wear. Impressive. So I tested it head-to head with the LPX to see how they handled extreme temps, as well as prolonged "very high" temps. The Rand product was superior. All of the "biolubes" demonstrate extreme stability in max-temperature tests I have done. However, in the prolonged high-temp tests, Froglube dried to form a very sticky substance, while Rand CLP performed identical to a petro based lube, and then some. It was very impressive in holding up to prolonged temperatures of 400-450*F. Why would I test that? Because that is an accelerated evaporation scenario. If it withstands that, chances are, it won't evaporate off in storage, and it won't evaporate off when shooting. It's kindof my version of a "proof" load. I had previously tested all of the "biolubes" for corrosion resistance, and that was why I had moved to LPX. the Rand product, however, has impressed me greatly, as being near equal to LPX, maybe better. So now, I have a scentless lubricant with the lowest coefficient of friction that I can find, which does not cause an allergic reaction, which lubricates very very well, and which protects like a "petroleum" product. Forget the "save the whales" line, my interest is in what best meets my needs (don't want reactions or a light head), and then what performs best. For me, that is Rand CLP. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why not put them on a gun, shoot them, and see how they do...... I recall one guy putting Froglube on his brake rotors to test for corrosion. I've had good results with Froglube in wet outdoor conditions as long as it's not below 45F. I would recommend NOT putting any type of lubricant on brake rotors, unless they aren't on a vehicle and never will be. So, below 45F did you have malfunctions? Did you wipe off all excess prior, or leave a coating on the operating parts? Turns out the OP put Froglube on brake rotors, in this thread: http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=7&t=583601 They're on a vehicle alright, and one that needs good brakes No malfunctions, but you could feel the tackiness that would cause me to question how it works in very cold temps. Indeed, and by god, that car has had some nasty brake issues, but it was on both sides of the car, not just the one that got lubed, lol. |
|
I'd like to put the Rand CLP head-to-head with Breakfree CLP and MPRO-7-LPX.
Breakfree CLP was developed with specific attention to corrosion prevention---which has been evident in my tests---and is "the standard" by virtue of popularity alone, if nothing else. 
Rand was enjoying the festivities, so I paired them up against CLP, the only thing I've ever had best CLP in this test was GunSlick, and I honestly don't think the Rand product is going to beat the CLP, but it's sure making a good showing of itself 5-hours in! Not sure how it will do vs. the LPX. The paper is still damp to the touch, but I will wet it down again before long with more saline solution. This solution is mixed stouter than the last one, I believe. 
More saline solution added: 
The Rand product is starting to show signs of flagging. I'll likely conclude the test when the paper is dry, or very near it. Very impressive! It looks like the Mpro7 LPX product barely edged it out by the slightest margin, but I want to see the damage to the steel before forming a full opinion. 
Well, done is done. The Rand CLP came in slightly behind LPX, and Breakfree CLP ran away with a perfect score. Still very impressive, and the increased temperature stability and lower friction and lesser wear and skin/respiratory friendly nature of the Rand product makes up for a mild edge that the petroleum products have in this extreme test. It's certainly sufficient to keep sweat-beads that fall through your rail onto your barrel from turning it into a Cheeto, even if you run a bare stainless barrel, or to ward off condensation or rain for a training session. 
|
I can't fault you for your decision to remove the original information, but seriously...one of these mfg's complained about you sharing the results from your own testing? WTF? Hell, that kind of behavior may be enough for me to stop using a particular product. People can decide for themselves whether your test results actually mean anything or not. It better not be Froglube pulling this 
ETA: This is no different from someone sharing their experience with the product in use on the gun, or their opinion on it for that matter. I'd have left the info up...f 'em. |
|
Well, so far as I near hour 8, I am very impressed with the Rand CLP. It has kept up with the Breakfree CLP, and the MPro-7 LPX very well. I cannot declare a winner or loser out of the three yet.
Not bad for a vegetable-oil based bio-product! Regardless of which one "wins", I'm going to use the Rand product. It has endured very well in an extremely harsh test, and I feel much better about vegetable oil on my hands than petroleum products used in firearm lubricants (I say that because...Vaseline. Someone would bring that up if I didn't.) For those wondering, it's also doing much better than "SuperLube" did when I tested it a while back. |
|
I find it disturbing that a manufacturer was not pleased with your unbiased test. If they have a decent product, they should come here and explain why your test was flawed and how their product delivers what they promise.
I tried one of the products you tested on a freeze test. I was not happy with the results. I still have some guns oiled with that product, but recently I have been testing Slip2000 and Mil-comm, both of them are rated non-toxic. You just can't eat them.... |
|
Quoted:
I'm not mention the manufacturer again which complained. As to the whole "bio" argument... ...I began caring about the "bio" lubes when I moved into a small apartment. Things like Breakfree CLP can seriously stink the place up. Further, I began noticing that I had an allergic reaction to CLP. The skin on my hands does not like it. MPro-7LPX is pretty scent-free, and I had not noticed any issue handling it. I really like MPRO-7LPX. However, I am always out "looking for better". Someone who was former Delta turned me to the Rand CLP product. I went to their website and found coefficient of friction tests (which their representative has been more than happy to supply me with updated runs of, their ultimate COF for the CLP product being just 0.008!), 4-ball scar data (0.39), etc. Damn! I was impressed. MPro-7LPX's maker, Pantheon, had been very helpful to me, also providing me test data. The Rand bio product (I eat vegetable oil, and it has almost no smell, that's what I care about, not some "save the whales" crap.) had bettered the LPX by just a margin on wear. Impressive. So I tested it head-to head with the LPX to see how they handled extreme temps, as well as prolonged "very high" temps. The Rand product was superior. All of the "biolubes" demonstrate extreme stability in max-temperature tests I have done. However, in the prolonged high-temp tests, Froglube dried to form a very sticky substance, while Rand CLP performed identical to a petro based lube, and then some. It was very impressive in holding up to prolonged temperatures of 400-450*F. Why would I test that? Because that is an accelerated evaporation scenario. If it withstands that, chances are, it won't evaporate off in storage, and it won't evaporate off when shooting. It's kindof my version of a "proof" load. I had previously tested all of the "biolubes" for corrosion resistance, and that was why I had moved to LPX. the Rand product, however, has impressed me greatly, as being near equal to LPX, maybe better. So now, I have a scentless lubricant with the lowest coefficient of friction that I can find, which does not cause an allergic reaction, which lubricates very very well, and which protects like a "petroleum" product. Forget the "save the whales" line, my interest is in what best meets my needs (don't want reactions or a light head), and then what performs best. For me, that is Rand CLP. I guess I was lucky enough to catch the testing before it got taken down. And I am a little befuddled on why a manufacture would complain about a simple corrosion test. Instead they should have chimed in and explain why they think the test was flawed. For me it was useful and shows that RAND has the superior Bio CLP and I will be sending some of my cash to them instead of the other complainers involved in that previous test. JUST BECAUSE! 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not mention the manufacturer again which complained. As to the whole "bio" argument... ...I began caring about the "bio" lubes when I moved into a small apartment. Things like Breakfree CLP can seriously stink the place up. Further, I began noticing that I had an allergic reaction to CLP. The skin on my hands does not like it. MPro-7LPX is pretty scent-free, and I had not noticed any issue handling it. I really like MPRO-7LPX. However, I am always out "looking for better". Someone who was former Delta turned me to the Rand CLP product. I went to their website and found coefficient of friction tests (which their representative has been more than happy to supply me with updated runs of, their ultimate COF for the CLP product being just 0.008!), 4-ball scar data (0.39), etc. Damn! I was impressed. MPro-7LPX's maker, Pantheon, had been very helpful to me, also providing me test data. The Rand bio product (I eat vegetable oil, and it has almost no smell, that's what I care about, not some "save the whales" crap.) had bettered the LPX by just a margin on wear. Impressive. So I tested it head-to head with the LPX to see how they handled extreme temps, as well as prolonged "very high" temps. The Rand product was superior. All of the "biolubes" demonstrate extreme stability in max-temperature tests I have done. However, in the prolonged high-temp tests, Froglube dried to form a very sticky substance, while Rand CLP performed identical to a petro based lube, and then some. It was very impressive in holding up to prolonged temperatures of 400-450*F. Why would I test that? Because that is an accelerated evaporation scenario. If it withstands that, chances are, it won't evaporate off in storage, and it won't evaporate off when shooting. It's kindof my version of a "proof" load. I had previously tested all of the "biolubes" for corrosion resistance, and that was why I had moved to LPX. the Rand product, however, has impressed me greatly, as being near equal to LPX, maybe better. So now, I have a scentless lubricant with the lowest coefficient of friction that I can find, which does not cause an allergic reaction, which lubricates very very well, and which protects like a "petroleum" product. Forget the "save the whales" line, my interest is in what best meets my needs (don't want reactions or a light head), and then what performs best. For me, that is Rand CLP. I guess I was lucky enough to catch the testing before it got taken down. And I am a little befuddled on why a manufacture would complain about a simple corrosion test. Instead they should have chimed in and explain why they think the test was flawed. For me it was useful and shows that RAND has the superior Bio CLP and I will sending some of my cash to them instead of the other complainers involved in that previous test. JUST BECAUSE! The complaint was in reference to this same material posted on another forum. I took it down on all forums I had posted it on. |
|
Quoted:
Wow...I would like to know who is complaining about unbiased tests. well, the op never mentioned fireclean again but had mentioned froglube in passing on another post in this thread and continues testing rand. so... guess ill not be trying fireclean, ever. |
|
Quoted: Same here. If Fireclean is going to pull crap like that I have no desire in trying it.Quoted: Wow...I would like to know who is complaining about unbiased tests. well, the op never mentioned fireclean again but had mentioned froglube in passing on another post in this thread and continues testing rand. so... guess ill not be trying fireclean, ever. |
AR Sponsor