Quantcast

Frog lube failed miserably

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by beeenbag, Nov 12, 2019.

  1. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,509
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Heh! About that PTFE...

    At least as far back as the Slick-50 days, PTFE was hyped in the market as a super slippery additive based on the deliberate association made with non-stick cookware.

    The fact of the matter couldn't be further from the truth, as simply adding PTFE to some liquid base does NOTHING for lubrication.

    Somewhere in another thread here years ago I went over this in enough detail to explain it. Suffice it to say that none of our guns will EVER be operated in the conditions required for PTFE to bond with ANY of the metals of our guns.

    And if they did... you might as well turn it in at a gun buy back and get a down payment for a new gun.
     
  2. Bill460

    Bill460 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2019
    Messages:
    84
    Location:
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    Was there ever any documented proof that Slick 50 ever hurt car engines? I ask because I used it a few times in my 1991 F-150 about 120,000 miles ago. Yeah, I know, I bought into the B.S.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  3. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    14,952
    Location:
    DFW Area
    I've used some products like lock lubes that use PTFE particles as the main ingredient that seem to work quite well. I do agree that there's no "bonding" taking place, but the particles themselves are still slick and if they get between sliding surfaces, they do seem to reduce the friction.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  4. herrwalther

    herrwalther Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    4,912
    I did just that. But not before spending many cold fall and winter months in bases like Drum, Devens, Ethan Allen, and Wainwright shooting.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  5. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,509
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    This is a good question.

    The problem is differentiating damage directly attributable to using Slick-50 and damage directly attributable to people's otherwise poor operating and maintenance practices.

    The concern was that particulate PTFE would settle out and/or potentially clog small oil passages. I don't know what size/shapes these particles are, but essentially they are a particulate plastic in suspension with the oil base. Interestingly oil filters are specifically designed to filter out particulates...and I don't know how efficient they are with respect to the PTFE used. And I can't find anything that isn't anecdotal with respect to this. Apparently, this was a problem with earlier formulations. If this is true, then it WOULD have been a potential clogging issue. However, if formulations today are small enough not to be filtered out, then the only concern is if they are not able to remain in solution. Because then they would settle out and build up within the engine somewhere.

    Finding actual reports of engine damage directly attributable to the use of Slick-50 is rather difficult. The biggest problem is that the claims have never been held up in any kind of legitimate testing and are only supported by anecdotal evidence. This was such a point of contention that the FTC filed a complaint about this, pretty much saying "this is fraudulent advertising".

    Does anybody remember early commercials showing an engine treated with Slick-50 having the oil drained and then being run indefinately with no oil and no oil damage? I couldn't find any illustrating this on youtube, so maybe it's my imagination. I certainly wouldn't deliberately do that under any circumstances, anyway.

    http://skepdic.com/comments/slickcom.html

    http://skepdic.com/slick50.html

    https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pre...slick-50-are-false-and-misleading-ftc-charges
     
  6. Bill460

    Bill460 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2019
    Messages:
    84
    Location:
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    There was also an additive called Prolong back then, that sold under the same anti friction banner . It made a big advertising blitz in the late 90's and into the new millennium. It sponsored A LOT of big name drag racers back then. Kenny Bernstein among them.
     
  7. Skylerbone

    Skylerbone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,994
    Location:
    Hawkeye East
    Years back there was an excellent thread begun on THR about gun oils. The OP used dozens of common gun care products and two stood out well above others almost categorically; WD-40 Specialist for Firearms (which I have yet to see in the wild) and FrogLube. Metal plates were cut, products applied, and then duplicates used for control, lubricity, water, and salt water testing.

    Now to Frog Lube, paste specifically, I’ve been using it for years. From week-long hunts to multi-hour (3-4 hours on occasion) range sessions it did not once fail or freeze. Things wipe clean when I’m finished. They don’t rust. Temperatures? Over that time period, 100+ to -33F and massive humidity swings. If people want to complain about having to follow directions, well, I got nothin for that.

    In my experience however I chose Frog Lube for all but my rimfires-which use waxed bullets- because it works. Shotguns, rifles, pistols, revolvers.
     
    beeenbag likes this.
  8. beeenbag
    • Contributing Member

    beeenbag Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,585
    Location:
    Grayson, Ky
    I remember this exact post you are talking about, and this is actually what led me to buy the first tube of it.

    as far as directions, I did not over use it and it was a thin layer as recommended, I mean it was a bolt gun, does anyone actually run those “wet”?

    Besides, if your gun only works when lubricant is applied sparingly, then it’s not working because of the lube, it’s working despite it.
     
  9. Skylerbone

    Skylerbone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,994
    Location:
    Hawkeye East
    Skgreen and beeenbag like this.
  10. rust collector
    • Contributing Member

    rust collector Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,376
    Location:
    Pierre, SD USA
    I have been pretty lucky with a variety of gun lube products, and I think most of them will do a good job if we don't fall for the sales hype. A discussion that fired up at the LGS this morning, however, got into the rust the gunsmith had been seeing in guns cleaned in ultrasonic tanks. His theory was that the cleaning was thorough enough to remove the oil completely from the pores of the metal, and in effect the seasoning was lost, just as if your favorite cast iron pan was left full of tomato sauce or some other corrosive agent for an extended period. Ironically (that's a pun, son) the most fastidious among us are the most likely to get an unwelcome surprise following a deep cleaning if his observations are accurate.
     
    Skgreen likes this.
  11. oldfortyfiveauto

    oldfortyfiveauto Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2008
    Messages:
    408
    You pretty much need to follow up with a rust preventive/lube dip after cleaning or yes they will rust. The better systems usually come with an extra tank for that.
     
  12. Erief0g
    • Contributing Member

    Erief0g Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2018
    Messages:
    219
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Great read!

    My vote, or what I stock.
    Gallon of hoppes 9.
    Butch's Bore shine when needed
    Break free clp

    That post about break free lp has me wanting some of it as well.

    I also have a bottle of Lucas gun oil but I seem to prefer the break free more.

    Good times!

    I'm sure motor oil works as well just never tried it. I do like how the clp dries to a dry haze.
     
  13. AK103K

    AK103K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,329
    I agree about following the instructions and results. I think its why you hear the horror stories about WD40 and a few other things.

    Before all this fancy stuff showed up, we used WD40 for decades, and never had any of the issues you constantly hear about it today.

    As far as instructions and FL go, in the year or so I was using it, they seem to keep changing, as did the product itself, from bottle to bottle.

    Initially, you were supposed to heat everything with a hairdryer or leave it out in the sun, by the time I stopped using it, that part had gone away, for the most part, and if I remember right, you only did that for long term storage.

    Regardless, even following the directions to the "T", didnt stop the guns cleaned with it form becoming slow and sluggish in function, even if they sat for just a short while, but especially if they sat for a longer period.

    I wonder when that rust test above was done in the timeline of their product. When I first started using it, it was thick and creamy, and almost seemed like it needed the heat to run. By the time I stopped using it, it was very watery and would run off things it had stuck to before.

    It was towards the end too, when things were "watery", that I ran into some rust issues with it on my one S&W revolver. I cleaned the gun as normal with it, and when I grabbed it again a week later to go shooting, there was a fine coat of rust on the hammer, and a couple of places on the frame. That was a surprise. Made me wonder too, if that water change, was them just literally watering things down to make even more money off it.

    My revolvers are what really caught my attention on the sluggishness thing, as the cylinders got "stiff", and wouldn't spin freely when the cylinder was open, and the cylinder "spun".

    By the time the rust showed up, I was about done with it anyway, as it really wasnt working all that great as a cleaner (forget copper fouling), and anything that sat for a short while, seemed gummed up and sluggish when you went to use it.
     
    rust collector likes this.
  14. rust collector
    • Contributing Member

    rust collector Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,376
    Location:
    Pierre, SD USA
    I have seen many product formulations change over time in the relentless drive to make them less toxic, less expensive to make, and to incorporate new wonderstuff such as PTFE. Even good ol' Hoppe's No. 9 has undergone such "improvement," to the point that it can no longer clean as effectively. Still gotta love that perfume, however. It will always remind me of sitting in the kitchen cleaning guns with Dad.

    That is why objective user information such as the report that started this thread is so helpful to the rest of us. Nobody has all the answers, but reports of this type add to the knowledge base and are appreciated.
     
    AK103K and beeenbag like this.
  15. jhb

    jhb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    743
    Location:
    dixie, but some call it florida
    not surprised at all.

    I've also found frog lube to allow rust easily. following directions, not enough to stop wear other lubricants do. yeah I've seen video plate tests and testimonies and such where it did well. on my guns not so much in the tropics. yes following directions to the tee and even not following directions, just to see. at best I'd call it barely okay if kept up with constantly. I havent been impressed.

    where it does well is fantastic internet marketing and sponsorships to get folks to buy it. maybe in the right conditions it does well, not where I am in the wet swamps or in the cold like yourself. maybe out west where it's hot in the summer and tempid in the winter and dry year round, but dont know never tried out there. hot and wet here not so good.


    sorry you had a bad run yourself, op.
     
  16. Skylerbone

    Skylerbone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,994
    Location:
    Hawkeye East
    Subjective.

     
  17. Bill460

    Bill460 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2019
    Messages:
    84
    Location:
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    To me the new stuff doesn't smell anywhere near as good as the old stuff did. I think it was the Benzene it had in it that gave it more of a sweet smell and aroma.
     
  18. rust collector
    • Contributing Member

    rust collector Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,376
    Location:
    Pierre, SD USA
    I have read that the ingredient responsible for the fragrance of the early versions was called banana oil, although it had nothing to do with bananas. Also known as isoamyl acetate.
     
  19. beeenbag
    • Contributing Member

    beeenbag Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,585
    Location:
    Grayson, Ky

    Nah, my experience was pretty objective. I have nothing to gain or lose by giving a false report on froglube. Clearly I wanted it to work as advertised or I wouldn’t have spent money on it.
     
    AK103K and Walkalong like this.
  20. SwampWolf

    SwampWolf Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    5,004
    Location:
    North Central Ohio
    Many years ago, I saw an ad on television when they drained oil from the crankcase of a car and drove it for a specified period of time (not "indefinitely") without the engine incurring any measurable wear. I'm pretty sure the brand of oil being used and advertised as purporting this claim was "Havoline".
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  21. Bill460

    Bill460 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2019
    Messages:
    84
    Location:
    Lake Havasu City, Arizona
    I believe this is the original formula for Hoppes #9 that came from Hatcher's Notebook. The amounts are rounded from the original formula to make 1 quart. This IS NOT the "environmentally correct" Hoppes #9. But rather the original that is bad for humans, dogs, cats, the environment, and every other living thing on planet Earth.

    Just taking the cap off this concoction will send every tree hugger and environmentalist running, screaming, and grabbing for their children!

    Ammonium oleate (CAS #544-60-5) aka Oleic Acid CAS #112-80-1 - 5.0 oz (also known as ammonium soap).

    Amyl Acetate (CAS#544-60-5) - 8.5 oz ("banana oil")

    Nitro-benzene - 2.0 oz (the racing fuel additive)

    K1 Kerosene - 8.5 oz

    Neutral Saponifiable Oil - 8 oz (Not identified, probably sperm oil, but ATF could be substituted)

    Source: http://www.frfrogspad.com/homemade.htm#Bore Cleaner
     
  22. Skylerbone

    Skylerbone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,994
    Location:
    Hawkeye East
    What I quoted is what is, repeat is subjective. I don’t doubt you purchased it with expectations and I’m not questioning your incident report. What I wrote reflects negatively on your credibility and is exactly what you wrote of it; “Internet rumor”.

    That may seem preachy of me but if you want to maintain integrity then wording does matter. Think of all the “Ruger 10/22 is garbage” threads that people jump in on when a member gives a vague account of a jam/poor accuracy/etc. and proclaims the model a failure despite the millions sold. And so it is enough to simply recount your experience as a warning to others, perhaps with a description of how you clean, factory or reloaded ammo, if you followed directions, and other germane information.

    I appreciate your account as one to consider, particularly because I use the product in question. If our collective goal here is to learn from each others’ experience then we should strive to be concise in order to determine the root cause of a failure rather than proclaiming vague anecdotal Internet rumor is correct (and it may be).



    0FD3F1CA-5476-462C-AF29-870D3A7514E2.png
     
    SwampWolf likes this.
  23. beeenbag
    • Contributing Member

    beeenbag Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,585
    Location:
    Grayson, Ky
    confirmation of a problem that has been widely voiced does not differentiate subjectivity and objectivity.

    is it less objective that my study of an apple falling from the table when I push it from the edge confirms gravity, simply because others believe it to be true as well?

    if my very objective experience replicates the same course of complaints that have been expressed prior to my experience, then my very objective scenario lends itself to the credibility of those stories. It does not go the other direction in which internet stories DIScredit my actual experience.

    I’m not trying to argue, as I find many of your posts very informative, and you may very well have a “good batch” of froglube, or me and the many others all just got a “bad batch”. My citing of “internet rumors” however does not negate from the actuality of what happened to me while using the product. Hence objective.
     
  24. Skylerbone

    Skylerbone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,994
    Location:
    Hawkeye East
    And I don’t mean to attack your credibility, only that sometimes we (I am guilty on a daily basis) get a bit cheeky which can trigger the opposite effect of informing people because they shut down.

    Now for the rest; if you had titled your thread “Rifle Jammed During Hunt” and left out any mention of lubricant used or temperature, imagine how different this thread would be. First questions would be ammo related, did you trim brass, pressure signs, and likely no one narrowing in on lube. Instead we would be 3 pages into chamber scrubbing and bolt thrust.

    Of course we won’t likely get to any other possible causes because you zeroed in on Frog Lube, which again can it be excluded, but again, consider that for any number of Internet bashes of a product that not all are likely to have considered an alternative theory. If we took each at face value there would be no model of firearm, no ammo, no cleaning product, and no lubricant worth buying.

    If you have exercised due diligence and excluded all other causes, then indeed we can conclude that Frog Lube can be a failure in cold weather. Still, I can say in my own experience, it, and all other products I have used, have never replicated your results. My singular stuck bolt incident was related to a neck sized casing I errantly used in the wrong rifle.
     
  25. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    14,952
    Location:
    DFW Area
    If we accepted them blindly, that might be true. As it stands, although, as you say, there are many negative reports--probably at least one for any commonly used product, it isn't true that people find it impossible to determine what to buy and what to avoid. It's certainly true that some of those decisions are made on the basis of incorrect information, but it's also true that it's not difficult for most people to sift through the garbage and find the nuggets.

    If there are many reports of problems from people who use a product and claim to follow the directions, that may not be certain proof that the product is always garbage, but it probably indicates that there's some aspect of the product (maybe poorly worded/confusing directions, perhaps intermittent QC issues, or some other similar issue) that is causing problems for a significant number of users.

    That doesn't necessarily mean that the product should be avoided, but, at the least, more investigation is necessary before a purchase decision is made.

    The bottom line is that the statement: "I've used it and never had a problem so it's good stuff and the people who say otherwise are: <<<fill in the blank>>>." is just as problematic, and for exactly the same reasons, as the statement: "I used it and had a problem so it's garbage and the people who say otherwise are: <<<fill in the blank>>>."
     
    Skylerbone likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice