Originally Posted By WUPHF:


A lot of what you said is flat out inaccurate.  What’s the overhead liability for a motor oil manufacturer who skimps on R&D/engineering and causes a bunch of engine failures?  Throw in that oil performance can have some effects from an emissions standpoint (meaning .gov is heavily involved).  They spend billions on R&D and engineering, we even have one or two posters on here who work in the industry and have shared a lot of technical data as to what goes into the engineering of lubricants for internal combustion engines (amongst other items).

As far as CLP spec and what DoD has spec’d, you get exactly what you think you’d get with any government procurement process.  On top of that, DoD requirements are extremely wide arching insofar as weapons lubricant goes.  They have a need for something that provides a basic level of corrosion resistance, especially in salt water environments (the “P” part).  They also need detergents that do at least a semi decent job of dissolving or at least loosening carbon and other deposits (the “C” part).  Lubrication is a a need, but DoD needs something that will work in a wide variety of conditions and environments (to include as wide a temperature range as possible).  

As for better performance in colder conditions, that means you’ll be using an oil that is quite bit thinner than other lubes, which translates to the oil running off/being blown off of internal components more quickly, meaning you’ll need to add more lubricant to the weapon on a more frequent basis.  Anecdotally, I have personally experienced this issue using other lubricants side by side with both old and modern CLP.  The problem was amplified after adding a suppressor and increasing the firing schedule.

Basically, CLP is a “best guess” at a “one size fits all” solution, primarily to minimize issues with procurement and logistics (amongst some other things).  

It’s designed to meet the needs of someone who requires a capability to keep weapons reliably running  in almost all conditions, regardless of how extreme.  It’s also designed to offer some basic levels of corrosion protection and cleaning ability, so DoD users don’t need a HAZMAT locker full of different products to keep their weapons protected, clean, lubricated and running.  None of these things is going to be a concern for the vast majority of civilian firearm owners, and as is the case with most “jack of all trades” solutions, you’re not getting the best performance possible in any one category.  

DoD knows this, as do a lot of others, so I’m not sure why you're trying to sell it as the best option available in any category.  It flat out is not.

Originally Posted By FALARAK:


Yep.

Most snake oil is stupid.