As mentioned earlier I put together a device to capture the dynamic coefficient of friction for all the products I have previously evaluated (including a static friction evaluation)

Ive tabulated the results and they are similar to those of the static coefficient of friction evaluation.

Here is a video showing how the evaluation was conducted and how excess lube actually worsens or confounds our attempts to make metal slide easier against one another. The video will show that only in the absolute minimalist state do the gun lubes actually reduce the friction/drag forces.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5LeeIfvLm0

All the products were run through the friction device and the chart below shows how each product performed in comparison to one another as well as dry steel (no lube at all)

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c239/212007154/dynamicfriction_zps7c12909e.jpg

So where are the scale value labels? And what did your tests conclude? What product was best?

In other words, are you going to force us to watch the video?

LOL at "force"

Reading is gundamental

no mobil 1?

Pennzoil synth was used. It did not perform well (nor did it in any other evaluation I did for lube and corrosion)

wow. what a good job. thanks........how did fireclean do? thanks

Fireclean was not part of this evaluation since my primary focus was on corrosion resistance (fireclean makes no such claim). then lubrication and then a few other asspects. I was evaluating cleaning properties.

once again great job

Your conclusion regarding running wet has a fatal flaw due to carbon being added to the mix via firing. My experience, and many others is that the AR is best run wet.

And you substanitive proof is??? Please provide the objective data set (not just "Im pretty sure"  or "it works for me")What lubes have you evaluated and at what degrees of "wetness" and "dryness". When I read the data you are about to provide I may gain information. Im am suspicious of your mixture of carbon and lube acting as a better lube instead of the gritty slurry it actually is.

Actually shooting guns as opposed to making determinations from jewelry scales and turntables is my short answer.

Your theory works well with guns in storage, range trips of 50 rounds and/or the occasional bolt action, but neglects the effects of propellant gas/residue being "injected" into the working mechanism with every shot. Rifles shot hard and long need to be wet IMO, and in the opinion of a number of well known instructors, one being Mr. Rogers who says "The AR system runs much better wet than dry, and we see that during every class."

I appreciate your evaluation of the products.

So no then? Nothing of substance???

I dont just evaluate gun care products. I use them on actual guns. Semi auto, bolt, single shot, slide action, lever action, you name it, I own em and shoot them and I restore guns and repair them. Friction and fluid dynamics and physics dont change for AR owners.

I still hold out hope you can provide something of substance. Until then I will take objective data over anecdotal every day.

Link to article

I didn't pour through your graph, but did you check the lubricity of Vagisil?

Crane did a test years ago for sand vs lube amount. they found more lube produced less failures.

Ive not heard of it. Can you take a picture of the container you use and post a pic so I know what your using and perhaps can add it to future evaluations.

Your comment seems to be dripping with vinegar and water akin to what would be used on a Summer’s Eve.

And your link doesnt work.

Its clear some are confused about lubricity and comparing and evaluating lubes with equity. My son is currently another birthday on base (this time at Fort Polk and the last two at fort Benning) and when we talk about live fire drills and stoppages and the overlubing that takes place I cant help but shake my damn head. Sure double feeding at time is the cause but improper lubing plays a role.

Link? Data? That sounds like a good read.

LINK

Thanks for that link. He makes some good points. He does however speak of metal galling and uses that as a reasoning for excess lube being his preference.

He states:

“Consider that your carbine is a machine, and like an internal combustion engine, it requires lubrication to make it function. There are certain wear points in the gun that need attention, and failure to do so can cause a stoppage. A good rule of thumb is to look for shiny marks, which indicate metal-to-metal contact. If it shines, get it wet.”

OK, sure but that is more of a greasing regimen to stave off galling of interference and poor design. In that regard, greasing/oiling and aid the movements of poor designs and improper fits. It more in line with thinking about packing a wheel bearing or gear box.  

He states:

“The bolt itself requires a coating of oil, paying particular attention to the bolt rings and the lugs. Those bolt rings function just like the piston rings in your car engine. How long do you think your ride would last without lube?”

See my comments above.

My evaluation is from a side by side and equitable standpoint of lubricity. Which product does the best job of reducing the coefficient of friction between two metal parts moving against one another? An unintended consequence was seeing first hand that excess lube causes cohesion and an increase in drag forces in sliding fits. I did not evaluate poor fits or interference or galling fits. Even if it did, the slipperiest product is still the slipperiest product which can be witnessed from the evaluation and I included caveats and disclaimers about heat and the powerful forces of firearms actions (that many either missed or glossed over).

Also I made it clear that my evaluation was not entirely firearms centric so that should have been the first clue that it is certainly not AR platform centric so if poorly designed and poorly fitting AR platforms favor excess lubes to solve design problems, that does not translate into other firearms sharing this unique trait. Also, 99.995% of civilian AR owners (even though they fancy themselves 1,000 round burst, Rambo types slinging copious amounts of ammo in a pretend world) are not going to see such stoppages.

So I its pretty clear that the cohesion and drag inducing traits of excess lube exist but it may be that excess lube is needed in a couple locations on an AR to solve a problem with the firearms design. That in no way negates or invalidates an evaluation of which products are the slipperiest.

Looked for it again could not find, may still have it on my old home pc

ETA
http://www.militec1.com/lubetest1.html
think that is it.
second ETA
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a260601.pdf

You're at ar15.com. Safe assumption that the main lube useage discussion of your results is going to be AR centric.

Good test, interesting. As any good researcher knows real life trumps (double for informal) research results, and you should be asking yourself where the testing flaw is. In the AR platform, more lube is generally better, which is why you see so many actual vets and trainers using it.