Grease better than oil?

[JohnKSa]

...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*).

It would mean that if you applied an equal amount of each that one would be reduced fairly rapidly by about 15% in amount (worst case assumption) and then the remaining amounts would evaporate at the same rate. Given that there's less of one than the other it would be true that the one with the higher concentration would last longer, but given that neither one is very volatile they would both take quite awhile to evaporate and if you were not super careful with the amount you put on and accidentally got 15% more of the CLP applied then there wouldn't be any difference at all.

In other words, if you applied a drop of synthetic motor oil (about 0.0500ml) and a drop of CLP that was accidentally 15 percent larger (about 0.0575ml) then the two products should stay in place equally long if evaporation was really the only issue.

I suspect that there's something other than evaporation at work.

A few possible explanations which I readily admit are speculative.

1. Synthetic motor oil is really cheap compared to gun oil. I suspect that makes a shooter feel free put a lot more of it on and that results in more of it being there later when they do a checkup.

2. I suspect that people feel really good about "cheating the system" and that alters their perception of the results of any "experiments" having to do with the relative evaporation rates between the expensive special purpose product and the cheap expedient. Especially given that it's doubtful that anyone is doing anything approaching a controlled, repeatable experiment from which to draw their conclusions.

3. There's some other mechanism besides evaporation that really does result in one product "disappearing" noticeably faster than the other one.

 

[JohnBT]

MSDS for CLP:

www.ilpi.com/msds/ref/evaporationrate.html

% volatile = 8% by weight
VOC = <5% by weight

Evaporation Rate: < n-Butyl Acetate

(the general reference material for evaporation rates is n-butyl acetate, so what evaporates, evaporates slowly.)

 

[w2fnt]

Very informative, educational and interesting thread

 

[Super.45]

I ran the gamut of oils and greases , all claiming to be the best thing ever made. Some worked well and some didn't.
Right now the best product of it's type that has me pretty much convinced that it may indeed be the best of all of them is a the products called Weapon Shield.
I have their grease and their oil. I still use Ballistol as an over all wipe down on the exterior of my guns but for lubrication points Weapon Shield is it.
I have yet to find anything better since this stuff bonds to the metal at the molecular level.

 

[481]

It would mean that if you applied an equal amount of each that one would be reduced fairly rapidly by about 15% in amount (worst case assumption) and then the remaining amounts would evaporate at the same rate. Given that there's less of one than the other it would be true that the one with the higher concentration would last longer, but given that neither one is very volatile they would both take quite awhile to evaporate and if you were not super careful with the amount you put on and accidentally got 15% more of the CLP applied then there wouldn't be any difference at all.

In other words, if you applied a drop of synthetic motor oil (about 0.0500ml) and a drop of CLP that was accidentally 15 percent larger (about 0.0575ml) then the two products should stay in place equally long if evaporation was really the only issue.

Kind of "academic" since no one uses just one drop to lubricate a gun. I "wet" all of the required surfaces of my guns using a small applicator, usually a swab or piece of a cotton shop rag. Definitely more'n a drop.

I suspect that there's something other than evaporation at work.

A few possible explanations which I readily admit are speculative.

1. Synthetic motor oil is really cheap compared to gun oil. I suspect that makes a shooter feel free put a lot more of it on and that results in more of it being there later when they do a checkup.

Might be, but I use it because it does a better job than anything else I've ever used. Money is not a factor in this- at least not for me.

2. I suspect that people feel really good about "cheating the system" and that alters their perception of the results of any "experiments" having to do with the relative evaporation rates between the expensive special purpose product and the cheap expedient. Especially given that it's doubtful that anyone is doing anything approaching a controlled, repeatable experiment from which to draw their conclusions.

This one strikes me as corollary to your point #1. above.

3. There's some other mechanism besides evaporation that really does result in one product "disappearing" noticeably faster than the other one.

That is what I was addressing here:

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 that 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.

 

[JohnKSa]

Kind of "academic" since no one uses just one drop to lubricate a gun. I "wet" all of the required surfaces of my guns using a small applicator, usually a swab or piece of a cotton shop rag. Definitely more'n a drop.

Exactly. No one applies a precise amount of lubricant so the idea that evaporation is the key to the question is highly unlikely given that we've established that the rate of evaporation of the two compared lubricants are very similar. One "test" would show one result and another "test" would show the opposite results unless great care were taken to apply precisely equal amounts of lubricant and to test under precisely identical conditions of temperature, etc.

Might be, but I use it because it does a better job than anything else I've ever used. Money is not a factor in this- at least not for me.

Double-blind experiments wouldn't exist if this were always a good answer.

There is absolutely no debate that expectation affects results, especially in loosely controlled "experiments". Single-blind experiments were the first attempt at defeating the "expectation" effect but even that wasn't enough and double-blind experiments were the next attempt.

That is what I was addressing here:

Well not really.

If you're talking about something other than evaporation then you probably wouldn't end up by talking about "the rate of lubricant evaporation over time".

 

[481]

Exactly. No one applies a precise amount of lubricant so the idea that evaporation is the key to the question is highly unlikely given that we've established that the rate of evaporation of the two compared lubricants are very similar. One "test" would show one result and another "test" would show the opposite results unless great care were taken to apply precisely equal amounts of lubricant and to test under precisely identical conditions of temperature, etc.

"We've" established nothing in the way of respective lubricant (CLP v synthetic automotive oil) evaporation rates.

This is a specious assumption that arbitrarily presumes that each product is composed of PAO basestocks of the same origin and synthesis and that each product's additives will have the "same", "negligible" or "no" effect upon the retention/evaporation/durability of the lubricants in question.

It is a poor premise from which to speculate upon test results.

There is absolutely no debate that expectation affects results, especially in loosely controlled "experiments". Single-blind experiments were the first attempt at defeating the "expectation" effect but even that wasn't enough and double-blind experiments were the next attempt.Well not really.

Pure speculation.

It is impossible to guess what, if any, expectations an independent laboratory testing source might introduce. As for "backyard tests" (lacking laboratory control), they are not valid for a wide range of reasons- not just the undue influence of someone's expectations.

If you're talking about something other than evaporation then you probably wouldn't end up by talking about "the rate of lubricant evaporation over time".

There are factors other than evaporation at work here. Just because I've not addressed them doesn't mean that they are excluded from consideration.

 

[JohnBT]

"As for "backyard tests" (lacking laboratory control),"

I don't use, or store, my guns in a laboratory. The first thing I'd want to know about a lab is who pays their salaries.

I have a question. If oil evaporates, then why is there still a dark spot on the garage floor where the car used to be parked?

I don't even want to talk about the spots up and down the street from the neighbor's '47 Harley. I know they don't evaporate or wash away.

 

[481]

"As for "backyard tests" (lacking laboratory control),"

I don't use, or store, my guns in a laboratory. The first thing I'd want to know about a lab is who pays their salaries.

Just because you (and JohnKSa) believe that all laboratories and their personnel are corrupt, ruled by impure motives or have an unjustified agenda does not mean that this is always the case.

"Backard tests" fail to meet the scientific model's criteria of "repeatability" and "reliability" because they fail to control all parameters and variables within a given test. They are simply not valid because the parameters and variables are not reproducible in a consistent manner.

I have a question. If oil evaporates, then why is there still a dark spot on the garage floor where the car used to be parked?

That is because a seal or gasket has failed somewhere and your car has an oil leak; might wanna have that checked.

I don't even want to talk about the spots up and down the street from the neighbor's '47 Harley. I know they don't evaporate or wash away.

Concrete is extremely porous and holds such substances like a sponge limiting their the exposure to the atmosphere reducing the evaporative rate to a mere fraction of what it normally is. Oil spots will eventually fade and disappear, but we are speaking to timeframes on the order of decades in these instances.

 

[GreyCoupe]

Reee-deep.

I am trying Frog Lube. Have used TW25b with good results, too.

 

[Too_Pure]

I tried lithium grease once. Turned into a charcoal goop that really mucked things up and was hell to clean. Finished my little bottle of Hoppe's #9 and am now using synthetic 20w50, applied from a baby's medicine syringe. Works.

 

[Miked7762]

I have a question. If oil evaporates, then why is there still a dark spot on the garage floor where the car used to be parked?

Adsorption and absorption.

 

[kludge]

Grease if it slides, oil if it turns.

So I should oil my wheel bearings?

 

[gofastman]

So I should oil my wheel bearings?

Ideally, yes.
Over the road trucks use an oil lubrication system for wheel bearings.

Grease is just oil trapped in a "sponge" with some EP/AW additives mixed in.

 

[psyshack]

I just cleaned up my M&P .45 after 300 rounds down the tube. It cleaned up great. Relubed it with a very small dab of M1 grease with on drop of M1 0w-20 mixed together. And had lube left over. Cleaned the barrel out real fast and lubed it up with a very light film of the 0w-20. She's slick as can be and will function in a 105 deree Okie dust storm just as well as it did when it was 0 degees.

As do all my firearms. Rust whats that?

 

[0311]

So have we come to a conclusion yet? Grease? Oil?

 

[JohnKSa]

It is impossible to guess what, if any, expectations an independent laboratory testing source might introduce. As for "backyard tests" (lacking laboratory control), they are not valid for a wide range of reasons- not just the undue influence of someone's expectations.

While an independent lab might allow expectation to influence their results such a possibility wouldn't be a huge concern to me given that they have more to lose by providing biased results than they could possibly gain from it. Their reputation depends on providing reliable, unbiased results. I agree with your second sentence 100%

Just because you (and JohnKSa) believe that all laboratories and their personnel are corrupt, ruled by impure motives or have an unjustified agenda does not mean that this is always the case.

I have no idea how I got around to believing this. It was a tremendous surprise to me.

I never said anything at all about independent laboratories until you brought them up. I was trying to politely note that the "results" of your backyard testing (... it does a better job than anything else I've ever used.) were not particularly compelling given that they were obtained from tests that had no type of control or blind at all and because there was not even any attempt to quantify the "betterness" in any objective manner whatsoever.

Actually, I would be extremely interested in seeing the results of any careful testing on various lubricants regardless of who performed the tests. As long as there was a reasonable attempt to set up the experiment so that the results could be quantified in some manner and a reasonable attempt to create at least a rudimentarily controlled test scenario.

This is a specious assumption that arbitrarily presumes that each product is composed of PAO basestocks of the same origin and synthesis...

My comments were referring primarily to the fact that my repeated encounters with folks claiming that Mobil 1 didn't evaporate while BreakFree CLP did caused me to determine that they were, in fact, (at least at the time of my research) composed primarily of exactly the same PAO.

...and that each product's additives will have the "same", "negligible" or "no" effect upon the retention/evaporation/durability of the lubricants in question.

While I can't say (and haven't said) the additives would have no effect at all, I would think that it would be somewhat more speculative to start with the assumption that the additives would have a significant effect on the retention/evaporation/durability than it would be to assume that they would have a negligible effect.

Given that the CLP additives are primarily volatile compounds (per the MSDS), it stands to reason that those compounds would evaporate fairly rapidly leaving the PAO in place to evaporate from that point on at whatever rate PAO evaporates.

But I'm not a chemist, so who knows. It would be really interesting to see someone do some careful testing and provide the results.

Just because I've not addressed them doesn't mean that they are excluded from consideration.

That is what I was addressing here:

I didn't say you had excluded them from consideration. I said you hadn't addressed them. I think you agree that you hadn't addressed them given that you say "...I've not addressed them..." which makes it somewhat confusing to determine what part of my comment you actually disagreed with...

 

[ol' scratch]

I only use grease on my M1 Garand. Everything else gets Mobil One Synthetic Motor Oil. I use 15W and it works well. No problems and I have used it for a few years now on an at the time new gun. It still looks good in all the typical areas.

 

[Dogguy]

I'm not a petroleum engineer or chemist and I have no expertise in much of anything. I didn't realize gun lube was a basis for such religious zeal...call me naive.

Here's a few common sense observations from a non-expert.

You can lubricate with spit or nose grease. It ain't hard to do. Spit and nose grease just don't do the job for very long.

You can clean a gun with standard old household oils, patches and brushes. My dad used to do it on his Browning shotguns and they always worked, didn't rust, never wore out and looked pretty clean to me. 'Course I was a kid at the time and it was the middle of the last century.

The military is concerned with logistics. They like things that do several things simultaneously and adequately. CLP does this, however, "adequately" doesn't mean it's the best at any of the three things it does.

Anything liquid will dry or evaporate.

Most of the claims made by lubricant manufacturers are pure BS, coming straight out of the marketing department.

We're gullible and like to try new stuff. Luckily, most of the lubrication products we use work pretty darn well despite the marketing hyperbole.

No one ever killed a gun by keeping it lubed.

 

[Too_Pure]

I'm not a petroleum engineer or chemist and I have no expertise in much of anything. I didn't realize gun lube was a basis for such religious zeal...call me naive.

Here's a few common sense observations from a non-expert.

You can lubricate with spit or nose grease. It ain't hard to do. Spit and nose grease just don't do the job for very long.

You can clean a gun with standard old household oils, patches and brushes. My dad used to do it on his Browning shotguns and they always worked, didn't rust, never wore out and looked pretty clean to me. 'Course I was a kid at the time and it was the middle of the last century.

The military is concerned with logistics. They like things that do several things simultaneously and adequately. CLP does this, however, "adequately" doesn't mean it's the best at any of the three things it does.

Anything liquid will dry or evaporate.

Most of the claims made by lubricant manufacturers are pure BS, coming straight out of the marketing department.

We're gullible and like to try new stuff. Luckily, most of the lubrication products we use work pretty darn well despite the marketing hyperbole.

No one ever killed a gun by keeping it lubed.

**applause**


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wrs840]

I use Mil-Comm TW25B synthetic grease on autoloader slides and bolt lugs, and RemOil on everything else. This is probably wrong by someone's standards, but it hasn't let me down yet.

 

[jsimmons]

I use Valvoline synthetic wheel bearing grease. In fact, I completely disassembled my Springer 1911, slathered grease on every part, and baked the parts in the oven for 4 hours at about 180 degrees.

That was a few years ago, and i haven't had to do anything to the outside of the pistol since. I also use the same grease on the rails after cleaning the pistol.

 

[481]

I use Valvoline synthetic wheel bearing grease. In fact, I completely disassembled my Springer 1911, slathered grease on every part, and baked the parts in the oven for 4 hours at about 180 degrees.
That was a few years ago, and i haven't had to do anything to the outside of the pistol since. I also use the same grease on the rails after cleaning the pistol.

What were you hoping to acheive by doing this?

 

[Thresh]

A couple questions:

For those that use motor oils to lubricate their firearms, any opinions on the differences in performance among naturals, semi-synthetics, and synthetics?

Anyone have experience using graphite spray lubricants?

 

[Zerodefect]

A couple questions:

For those that use motor oils to lubricate their firearms, any opinions on the differences in performance among naturals, semi-synthetics, and synthetics?

Anyone have experience using graphite spray lubricants?

Synth is stickier. It'll hang around longer, but will flow easier. Worthwhile properties to have when 1 quart will last you a year or two.

Graphite lubes were a no-go for me.