Grease better than oil?

[HisSoldier]

I'm probably at least as opinionated as anyone in the forums, and have been wondering about that lately. Not offending people is probably going to be job #1 in the future.

My new M1A came with explicit instructions to grease sparingly but with deliberation in several areas. Why would that be important for only one type of firearm? I think what is important is the area of load, the pressure and speed of the friction, and time between applications/cleanings. Ideally keeping parts separated during action would be best.

If we see bluing or parkerizing being worn away we know the pressure is too high to keep parts separated, they are making contact through the lubrication. Lightly loaded large area sliding surfaces could probably work best with oils, and such surfaces will be slowed down by grease. Small pins in holes are "captivating" for oils, the oils are more likely to stay put. A gunsmith with many years of experience could probably point to places in most common guns that seem to wear out too fast, such places might need grease even if they are pins in holes.

Greases tend to keep surfaces separated better than oils, all else being equal, oils work perfectly in enclosed pressure lubricated places, even aluminum will wear well with pressure lube and correctly toleranced journals.

Highly loaded areas always get grease in my guns, areas that show inclination to wear get grease. Wilson's Ultima.

 

[JohnBT]

"Break Free does not evaporate"

I believe about 15% of BF is the cleaner portion of the CLP formula and it does evaporate. But the lube is still on the gun and it works fine.

 

[GRIZ22]

Break Free CLP evaporates too quickly, leaving my guns dry and prone to friction and wear. I use it to clean only. And never to lube anything.

The vehicle which carries the lube in Break Free does evaporate but the PTFE (teflon) stays on the gun. If you let it sit in a clear bottle you will see a white material sink to the bottom. This is the lubricant and you don't need much to do the job. I have been using Break Free for about 25 years. I've cleaned and lubed guns with it, put them away for a year, and shot them with no problem as the lubricant is still impregnated in the metal.

 

[w2fnt]

That's what I been saying all along.

 

[Got_Lead?]

Good point about the finish being worn away as a sign the lube film is being broken through. I would agree completely that a heavier lube is needed here.

 

[0311]

I really wouldn't depend too much on the residual teflon left behind by CLP, the weapon may run but not for long and it will be pain to clean as well. CLP will evaporate and cook off. IMO, if you using just CLP you want it visibly wet. If during a long range session you start seeing some dry powder residue it is time to add a few drops.

 

[w2fnt]

I just don't seem to be cooking off the M4 carbines that get smoking hot in the sand box. My are AR 15 just loves the stuff so does the manufacturer of my 15 and endorses it.

By the way, Glock uses it exclusively in Smyrna GA.

There is a reason the stuff has a mil spec number and I trust that more than any internet opinion. No disrespect intended. I just like to do my own thinking for myself. The water displacement factor or the corrosion protection factor has yet to be discussed.

http://www.thegunzone.com/rust.html

Sometimes you have to do the old fashion thing and read!

 

[481]

I really wouldn't depend too much on the residual teflon left behind by CLP, the weapon may run but not for long and it will be pain to clean as well. CLP will evaporate and cook off. IMO, if you using just CLP you want it visibly wet. If during a long range session you start seeing some dry powder residue it is time to add a few drops.

Neither would I, 0311.

Since firearms lubrication relies on the establishment and maintanence of a barrier film to create surface separation, "wet" is a necessity. Teflon is a nice "extra", but not something that should be relied upon as a sole means of lubrication. (once the carrier oil evaporates)

I've used synthetic motor oil for a very long time to lubricate my firearms and they stay "wet" much longer than CLP (on those occasions when I've used it) and make clean-up much easier thanks to the dispersants and detergents present in their formualtion.

 

[w2fnt]

I just can't seem to find (Teflon) from Dow Chemicals as an ingredient of CLP. The last thing you want in a sand blowing environment is a wet gun. That's just asking for trouble.

 

[HisSoldier]

I think PTFE stands up to near 500 degrees F, if you can keep it in place.

 

[481]

I think PTFE stands up to near 500 degrees F, if you can keep it in place.

Yeah, it'll take a lot of heat.

Short of an impregnated coating or finish, that will require either oil or grease of some sort.

 

[JohnKSa]

I've used synthetic motor oil for a very long time to lubricate my firearms and they stay "wet" much longer than CLP (on those occasions when I've used it) and make clean-up much easier thanks to the dispersants and detergents present in their formualtion.

I don't know exactly what to make of claims like these given that 85% of Breakfree CLP is the same synthetic oil used in Mobil 1. That's based on the MSDS sheets for each product.

 

[0311]

Teflon = PTFE, I doubt that cooks off to easily, but it is just a small part percentage of CLP.

Firing enough rounds and you can smell that stuff cooking, not that this bad, just meant there was bit wet.

On the windy, dry, sandy, dirty environment, the weapon doesn't have to be dripping, just well lubed, hit it with a cloth or patch. Personally, I would take dirty and wet over dirty and bone dry.

On a further note, I am not arguing against CLP, it is what I use with a little TW25B. If I could have one cleaner, solvent, oil, grease etc. to maintain my weapon, it would be CLP.

 

[dprice3844444]

slide rails i use amsoil severe duty wheel bearing grease ,gret for all temps,inside i use rem oil or amsoil synthetic liquid lubes

 

[481]

I don't know exactly what to make of claims like these given that 85% of Breakfree CLP is the same synthetic oil used in Mobil 1. That's based on the MSDS sheets for each product.

Make of it whatever you'd like. No skin off my back.

Other folks here and on other forums have had the same experience as I. Perhaps there are others who haven't.

They (synthetic automotive oils) are varying products that may contain different balances/blends of POE/PAO stocks and add packs and therefore may behave very differently than CLP.

 

[481]

On the windy, dry, sandy, dirty environment, the weapon doesn't have to be dripping, just well lubed, hit it with a cloth or patch. Personally, I would take dirty and wet over dirty and bone dry.

That's pretty much how I prefer to keep it.

I seem to remember that an instructor of note is credited with that advice, but I can't recall his name. Probably pointless now, since it is no doubt all over the 'net and many would take credit for it now even if they weren't entitled to that claim.

 

[Zerodefect]

I've noted greater reliability with thicker oils. I know I'm not alone.

Shooting an entire carbine class with just CLP seems like abuse to me, and I can promise you'll have more failures with just CLP. I used to be a CLP only shooter for many years. Then I actually got some training.

And my carrier isn't getting "impregnated" by anything. Get that snake oil out of here. When it's dry it's dry. There ain't nothing left behind by CLP on my carrier.

As for the sand and dust buildup bit. I haven't run into any problems with that, despite laying my rifle flat on the desert(ish) ground between rounds. I'd rather have plenty of oil in my rifle, if my rifle was filled with dust anyways.

 

[481]

I've noted greater reliability with thicker oils. I know I'm not alone.

Shooting an entire carbine class with just CLP seems like abuse to me, and I can promise you'll have more failures with just CLP. I used to be a CLP only shooter for many years. Then I actually got some training.

And my carrier isn't getting "impregnated" by anything. Get that snake oil out of here. When it's dry it's dry. There ain't nothing left behind by CLP on my carrier.

As for the sand and dust buildup bit. I haven't run into any problems with that, despite laying my rifle flat on the desert(ish) ground between rounds. I'd rather have plenty of oil in my rifle, if my rifle was filled with dust anyways.

Aw, c'mon...bolt carriers need love, too! Let 'em have a little fun.

Nice to see that your experiences mirror mine.

 

[Zerodefect]

It should also be noted that while Breakfree CLP is OK'd for .mil use, it's not the only lube the .mil uses.

 

[0311]

It should also be noted that while Breakfree CLP is OK'd for .mil use, it's not the only lube the .mil uses.

I never saw anything else except for an occasional can of LSA for a SAW, I think it was procured from the M2 guys.

Additionally, that is all that was authorized to clean a weapon, at least a M9, M16, and M249, although sometimes the armourers would put out a dunk tank of some solvent. Not saying nothing else was used.

Edit: Boy did this deviate from the OP's question. I use TW25B on the rails and CLP everywhere else.

 

[JohnKSa]

They (synthetic automotive oils) are varying products that may contain different balances/blends of POE/PAO stocks and add packs and therefore may behave very differently than CLP.

I understand that. I've seen the claim for years, primarily that Mobil 1 doesn't evaporate as fast as BF CLP. I had some time one day so I checked into it. I found that, at the time anyway, Mobil 1 and BF CLP contained exactly the same PAO (same CAS #). As I recall, the PAO in question made up about 95% of Mobil 1 and about 85% of BF CLP. Even if one were to assume that the entire contents of BF CLP other than the PAO were evaporants and the entire contents of Mobil 1 other than the PAO weren't evaporants it still makes for a puzzling situation.

Anyway, I stated it as I meant it without any hidden meaning or implied accusation. I really don't know what to make of claims that amount to saying that synthetic oils don't evaporate as quickly as synthetic oils.

 

[w2fnt]

It should also be noted that while Breakfree CLP is OK'd for .mil use, it's not the only lube the .mil uses.

It is the only one that has a Mil Spec Number and I do believe no one said it was the only lubricant the military uses. The specialized grease compositions us on flight decks on steam catapults is a prime example of the many military lubricants

 

[BCRider]

The grease is OK for frame rails that make full contact with the slide (such as the SIGs mentioned, which also have aluminum frames), but IMO is unnecessarily heavy for other contact points and not necessary at all for most polymer frames, whose rails generally make little contact with the slide.

Generally rails only contact in a couple of points at each end of the rail anyway. Any rocking action in the slide for any reason will cause the rails to rub in such a manner. It's not just a factor in polymer frame guns with two molded in hard spots. Rather the polymer gun designers realized that this rocking action and contacting at the ends of the rails is just a fact of life so they did away with the bit in the middle. But as grease is thicker and maintains a film under higher pressure than oil it will maintain a lubrication film better than an oil.

Grease can also hold grit and foulings acting like a lapping compound.

Oil is no better in that regard. Regardless of what is used it pays to clean the guns and replace the lube in a decently regular basis.

 

[MidwestRookie]

I use Gunzilla on all my guns... (read: Beretta 92's and now a PX4 full size)

I use a little grease on the frame rails when I take the gun to the range..

no problems yet and the guns all feel great with grease on the rails. no dirt/powder buildup ever with Wilson Ultimalube and now WeaponShield that I just replaced the wilson stuff with..

 

[481]

I understand that. I've seen the claim for years, primarily that Mobil 1 doesn't evaporate as fast as BF CLP. I had some time one day so I checked into it. I found that, at the time anyway, Mobil 1 and BF CLP contained exactly the same PAO (same CAS #). As I recall, the PAO in question made up about 95% of Mobil 1 and about 85% of BF CLP. Even if one were to assume that the entire contents of BF CLP other than the PAO were evaporants and the entire contents of Mobil 1 other than the PAO weren't evaporants it still makes for a puzzling situation.

Anyway, I stated it as I meant it without any hidden meaning or implied accusation. I really don't know what to make of claims that amount to saying that synthetic oils don't evaporate as quickly as synthetic oils.

I see no accusations (or hidden meanings) from you towards me in your post.

Just because you and I are direct with each other and parse no words doesn't mean that it constitutes offensive or accusatory behavior. I guess I'll never know why folks get so upset when asked a direct question about a statement or question that they have made on a public forum. We are here to debate and exchange ideas and I prefer to do so with out a whole lot of extraneous blabbering and I see nothing wrong with that.

Now; onto your post-

I am not so sure that it is that simple.

First, if an equal mass of each lubricant (CLP and synthetic automotive oil like M1) were permitted to evaporate under identical conditions, the lubricant possessing the higher proportion of PAO (Mobil 1 synthetic automotive oil, 95% PAO by your recollection*) would last longer than the one with the lower proportion (CLP, 85% PAO by your recollection*).

Second, while samples of equal mass consisting of pure PAO base (from an identical manufactured source/process) will certainly evaporate at the same rate (very slowly at STP), such a 1:1 comparison ignores the fact each lubricant (CLP and synthetic automotive oil) is composed of different "additive packs" (both CLP and synthetic/conventional automotive oils contain corrosion inhibitiors, extreme pressure/anti-wear additves, viscosity modifiers, etc. in different proportions) and other volatiles (it seems that you are probably refering to these as "evaporants" in your post, but I may be mistaken) that may have an effect upon the rate of lubricant evaporation over time.



*It has been quite some time since I've used Mobil 1 products for the purpose of lubricating my firearms (After much research, I've moved on to another synthetic automotive lubricant that I believe to provide significantly greater protection across the board, IMHE) and I haven't retained the specifics regarding Mobil 1's MSDSs, so I'll happily accept the percentages that you have kindly provided for the sake of the discussion.