Motor Oil for Lube

[JohnKSa]

Well I am entitled to my opion whether it be right or wrong, conclusive or inconclusive.

Sure you are, but what's the point of continuing to espouse an opinion once you know that it's incorrect? Clearly some gun oils are not just repackaged products, not "snake oil"--the information I provided proves that conclusively.

Obviously I can't prove that ALL gun oils are specialized products--in fact, my suspicion is that at least some of them ARE simply repackaged products as you allege. Does it automatically follow that a person should use general purpose oils since some gun oils are simply repackaged products? Well, that's one response, I suppose. A better option is to do some research and purchase a gun oil that really does offer something beyond what a general purpose oil does.

I do use Mobile One on all my guns and have over 20,000 rounds on a G34 with no real wear (the barrel mics the same at the smiley face as it does on the unaffected part of the barrel) is this any real proof that Mobil One is a good lube?

Automotive testing has shown pretty conclusively that Mobil 1 is a good lube. Breakfree CLP turns this into a win-win for you. It gives you the same lubricating ingredient (CAS 68037-01-4) as Mobil 1 but also contains other additives that provide much improved corrosion protection as evidenced by the testing results I provided.

Frankly, I don't believe there's a huge difference in the practical lubricating properties of gun oils in terms of reduced wear in firearms applications because for the most part I don't think it's a particularly stressing application for oil. There ARE a few spots (like the hammer/sear interface to provide one example) in a firearm that benefit from a lubricant that will provide a bit better lubrication and better "sticking" power than any oil. I typically use a very light grease for those applications.

My gut feeling is that if you are ONLY concerned about lubricating properties you can use most any decent oil, general purpose or not. What you get from the specialized products is additives that prevent corrosion and possibly provide other features that general lubricants don't. Features like the ability to use the oil as a cleaner--a feature provided by various CLP products on the market.

By the way, IF you decide to use something other than a gun oil, it's worthwhile to check the MSDS to verify that there's nothing in the oil that would make it a poor choice for something that's going to be handled a lot and worn close to the skin. Motor oils aren't designed for that sort of application and some of them contain additives that are good for your crankcase but not for your skin.

 

[Slamfire]

Automatic Transmission fluid is a hydraulic fluid. Both ATF and brake fluid are designed to transmit power using a fluid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fluid

I don’t know what is in ATF, but without a doubt it is a highly refined, dewaxed, petroleum product, with additives.

I don’t like the smell, so I don’t use the stuff. Too many bad memories of smelling like ATF for a week after removing the transmission pan. I swear the pans are designed to tip the fluid right on your head.

I much prefer using lubricants that follow a Government specification, then an industry specification. At least you have some idea of what is in the stuff. I have no doubt that most branded “gun oils” are simply straight mineral oil, with nothing in them.

As for oils such as 3 in One, all you know about the oil is that it comes in a trademarked colorful can. The last batch can be totally different from the current mix.

Modern motor oils are wonderful lubricants. There is an industry specification, and if you ever see it, motor oils have to meet some very difficult tests. Motor oils have anti foaming, anti scuff, anti wear additives.

Manufactured base oils in synthetic motor oils are much more resistant to oxidation (break down) than plain mineral oil One of the problems in the US is determining what is a real synthetic oil. At one time, when you bought a “synthetic” motor oil, it was a manufactured oil. But one US company decided to do something different, and that brought on a court case, and now in the US, the term synthetic is a marketing term. From Wiki “Group III based lubricants are not allowed to be marketed as "synthetic" in any market outside of the USA” . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_oil

I use a lot of motor oil on my guns. I have used Mobil One, the current bottle on the table is synthetic Castrol.

If you want rust protection, use something that has additives to prevent oxygen migration through the base oil. CLP is not a long term rust preventative, but it has the additives. Or better yet, go to a boating store and use the rust preventatives on the shelf. They may not be good lubricants, but you can find excellent anti rusting coatings.

The lubrication requirements of firearms are not that severe. So anything used in a more severe envirnoment, like combustion engines, will lubricate nicely.

But most important, keep your guns lubricated. I see so many dry firearms on the range, the owners don’t appreciate these things are mechanical items and function better, and longer, when lubricated.

 

[jcwit]

Here's proof of how well CLP prevents corrosion and how bad a job Mobil 1 does. That's IN SPITE OF THE FACT that they both have the same basic oil as the primary ingredient.
http://www.6mmbr.com/corrosiontest.html

Sure you are, but what's the point of continuing to espouse an opinion once you know that it's incorrect? Clearly some gun oils are not just repackaged products, not "snake oil"--the information I provided proves that conclusively

Your first quote here was the only info you posted that you claim proves conclusively about corrosion protection. Somewhere on the Brownell site they also did a test for corrosion, and in their test WD-40 was an excellent product for protection. I suppose if you want to trust WD for protection of your firearms, have at it, not me. But by their test is great. Is the test you linked to better than the test Brownells did that much better? If so how do I know, by your say so? Further more most of my firearms have yet to go thru a salt spray, in fact I don't remember any of mine going thru a salt spray. I'll stand by my opion and really do not expect to change your opion either.

 

[Tony Sopranno]

Automatic Transmission fluid is a hydraulic fluid. Both ATF and brake fluid are designed to transmit power using a fluid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fluid

I don’t know what is in ATF, but without a doubt it is a highly refined, dewaxed, petroleum product, with additives.

Sperm Whale Oil and its derivatives were used as additives in virtually all automotive lubricants because of its exceptional lubricity (wetting agent) and heat resistance - so effective, a car's transmission fluid was generally never changed.

[...]

This used 30 million pounds of whale oil was used per year. Enter the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

[...]

The trouble was, thousands of sperm whales were killed every year to acquire the almost 29 million pounds of whale oil used in ATF.

Sperm whale oil is an almost pure ester, not really an oil at all. So the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was brought about partly by the use of ATF. ...At the same time, along with the reduced harvest of sperm whales, the automatic transmission industry was burdened with the demands of front-wheel-drive engines and increased restrictions on emissions.

[...]

...an automatic transmission fluid (formerly used) sperm whale oil (really an ester not a true oil) but it is no longer available. So what can we use?

Spanish explorer Hernando Cortez was introduced to a medicinal skin oil and lubricant that the Aztecs used called Jojoba. It is almost the chemical duplicate of spermaceti, the oil from the head of the sperm whale. Both are esters, not (hydrocarbon) oils. Esters occur when an acid is reacted with an alcohol. Esters have strong atomic bonds and do not oxidize easily, They handle heat well.

Rapeseed or canola oil is also in this category...

The new formulations of ATF work fine and last for as long as 100,000 miles.

Sperm whales are no longer in danger of being harvested for their oil, because a substitute has been found. Environmentally friendly oils have been produced that can do the old job with the old parameters.

Re: http://www.noria.com/learning_center/category_article.asp?articleid=392&relatedbookgroup=Maintenance

 

[JohnKSa]

...and in their test WD-40 was an excellent product for protection. I suppose if you want to trust WD for protection of your firearms, have at it, not me.

I don't recall advocating that anyone use WD-40 for firearm protection nor do I consider it a premium gun oil which is what I've been talking about. I don't own any WD-40 and when I did the only use I put it to was as a makeshift starter fluid for my lawnmower. It worked ok for that purpose and didn't smell as bad as ether spray.

I didn't quite follow the rest of your post, so I'll just provide you some more information. Here are the results of another corrosion protection test. This one also involved WD-40 and also some comments (that I agree with) by the tester regarding the use of WD-40 as a gun oil.

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

Further more most of my firearms have yet to go thru a salt spray, in fact I don't remember any of mine going thru a salt spray.

You may not spray your guns with salt water but they are exposed to salt water anytime you handle them because sweat contains salt and water.

I'll stand by my opion and really do not expect to change your opion either.

I never really figured your "opion" was in any danger of being assailed by facts. I did kind of figure that if I provided enough data that contradicted your opinion that you'd at least be ashamed to keep making jabs about people buying "snake oil" and throwing out sweeping assertions about repackaged products being sold to dupes as gun oil.

As for my "opion", I can see why you wouldn't expect me to change it given that you haven't provided any information to support my changing it while I have provided a good bit of information to support my keeping it the same.

 

[Oyeboten]

Hi Tony,



I had no idea...


Darn...I feel pretty bad now about the GM Dual Range Hydromatic my hi-school era Nash had...if I'd have know they were killing Sperm Whales for it's Hydraulic Fluid, I'd have held out for Three-on-the-Three with manual Overdrive...


The wreck of the Whaling Ship 'Essex' comes to mind...


Oye...


How entirely deplorable...

 

[musick]

musick, sulfur is in crude and difficult to remove completely.

Which was my point. S is found in all oils, gun specific or not.

 

[log man]

These lube threads can get out of hand, but I think I'll add a thought and an opinion. The most important thing to me is that the gun is lubricated and second is that it stay that way. I would suggest for those using motor oil or ATF to oil their guns at the range and under normal range conditions will be well lubricated for the entire time. The point being is motor oil migrates on it's own and by gravity and is designed to do so as an engine has an oil circulation system, guns don't. So there is a difference in how the oil stays put, more so than the lube properties. A well formulated gun lube will stay in place and not migrate to one side or out the end of the muzzle when in a holster. Something to think about when making a choice and a routine.

LOG

 

[JohnKSa]

Which was my point. S is found in all oils, gun specific or not.

That's simply not true.

Synthetic oils wouldn't necessarily have sulfur since they are not necessarily derived from crude.

http://www.synthetic-oil.com/

The base stocks from which synthetic lubricants are made contain no sulfur, nitrogen or other elements that invite the formation of sludge and other products of lubricant breakdown. Synthetic lubricants can be used in higher temperatures than refined lubricants without breaking down. Their resistance to breakdown also allows them to be used longer than refined lubricants can be used. Lubricated systems stay cleaner and last longer with synthetics.​

 

[jcwit]

I don't recall advocating that anyone use WD-40 for firearm protection

Never said you did, you brought up a test done by someone that was posted on 6mmbr that supposedly showed that Mobil 1 provided little cossosion protection, this may all be. How ever the Brownell test claimed WD-40 was an excellent product for protection. Personally I'm not an advocate for using WD as a corrosion protector, no more than you feel Mobile 1 is good. What I'm attempting to bring out here is testing results can tell most anything, do the test again and it more than likely be different.

You may not spray your guns with salt water but they are exposed to salt water anytime you handle them because sweat contains salt and water

Not true at all in my case. Doing 6 months of chemo for cancer has made my skin like leather and extremely dry. Further more if you ever worked in a mavhine shop enviroment you would realize some people can handle steel all day and it will not rust, others just have to look at it and there's rust.

I never really figured your "opion" was in any danger of being assailed by facts. I did kind of figure that if I provided enough data

Only "facts" you've claimed to have put forth has been the 6mmbr corrosion test, which leaves lots to be desired but if that is the best you have so be it. No more conclusive than the Brownell test for the same thing.

May you be happy spending $50 to $90 for a qt. of "Super Secret Formula Gun Oil" at $5.00 to $8.00 in 2 oz. containers. I can find more productive products at much better pricing to do the same job. Maybe that was why I was Director of Purchasing for a
Fortune Five Hundred company before retiring.

ashamed

Surely you jest!

I stand by my experience!

 

[JohnKSa]

What I'm attempting to bring out here is testing results can tell most anything, do the test again and it more than likely be different.

So I provided you another test where the results were the same. Premium gun oils scored very well and general purpose products tended to score much more poorly. I suppose if you think both tests are flawed you could always run your own test.

Not true at all in my case. Doing 6 months of chemo for cancer has made my skin like leather and extremely dry.

That's valuable information, no doubt. I'm sure you'll understand if I choose to stick with a product that offers good corrosion protection and forego the 6 months of chemo.

Only "facts" you've claimed to have put forth has been the 6mmbr corrosion test...

Did you click on the link in my post you're quoting from? There's a link to another test in it.

I can find more productive products at much better pricing to do the same job.

That's great. I would love to buy a product that provides the same corrosion protection, lubrication and cleaning properties that Breakfree CLP does but "at much better pricing".

Please post the name of the product and provide proof that it performs as well as Breakfree CLP.

Thanks in advance.

 

[musick]

That's simply not true.

Synthetic oils wouldn't necessarily have sulfur since they are not necessarily derived from crude.

http://www.synthetic-oil.com/

The base stocks from which synthetic lubricants are made contain no sulfur, nitrogen or other elements that invite the formation of sludge and other products of lubricant breakdown. Synthetic lubricants can be used in higher temperatures than refined lubricants without breaking down. Their resistance to breakdown also allows them to be used longer than refined lubricants can be used. Lubricated systems stay cleaner and last longer with synthetics.

Amsoil is your source??!! Um...ok..

PAOs are indeed S-free, but if you look at MSDS, you will see it is VERY rare that any syn oil contains more than 60% PAO. A good portion of the remainder is hydro-cracked crude, which does contain S.

 

[JCisHe]

Patrick Sweeney says "Sta Lube" bearing grease is the way to go. You guys are arguing over nothing.

When Sweeney speaks... shooters listen hahaha

 

[JohnKSa]

Amsoil is your source??!! Um...ok..

Well, if you prefer...

PAOs are indeed S-free

...I'll use you for a source. Thanks.

...if you look at MSDS, you will see it is VERY rare that any syn oil contains more than 60% PAO. A good portion of the remainder is hydro-cracked crude, which does contain S.

Yes, that is precisely correct... IF you're talking about motor oil.

It's true because making motor oil out of 100% synthetic is prohibitively expensive.

Premium gun oils are another story entirely. Many gun owners are willing to pay for the extra performance provided by using the best product as opposed to one that is 40% watered down in the name of low price.

 

[musick]

...I'll use you for a source. Thanks.

Hey, Im gaining credibility around here pretty quick!!

Yes, that is precisely correct... IF you're talking about motor oil.

It's true because making motor oil out of 100% synthetic is prohibitively expensive.

Premium gun oils are another story entirely. Many gun owners are willing to pay for the extra performance provided by using the best product as opposed to one that is 40% watered down in the name of low price.

I cant say Ive looked at ALL the MSDS out there in regards to gun oils, but I do know that Breakfree is only about 50% PAO. ~30% is hydrocracked dino IIRC.

Do you know of a gun lube that is 100% PAO? Im NOT saying it doesnt exist, but as you said, cost is a big factor. I doubt any gun specific-lube is 100% PAO, but I wouldnt mind being proven wrong. Maybe, MAYBE then I MIGHT consider paying $10 for 2 ozs of oil.

I do know (and can post a UOA, used oil analysis) that Amsoil does NOT live up to its claim that its oils will continue to protect for 10K mile OCI (oil change intervals) w/o showing excessive engine wear.

 

[jcwit]

That's valuable information, no doubt. I'm sure you'll understand if I choose to stick with a product that offers good corrosion protection and forego the 6 months of chemo

I will agree that is a very smart decision, and I pray you can stay by it for it is not a pleasant experience to go thru, believe me.

That's great. I would love to buy a product that provides the same corrosion protection, lubrication and cleaning properties that Breakfree CLP does but "at much better pricing

Rust-Veto cut with Mobil-1 to compine a lubercating and rust preventave wipe on product. Somewhat the same as cosmoline, 20 million GI's can't be wrong. Rustproffing for years.

With this being said why do you just use whatever makes you happy, it is very clear you assume you know more than anyone else here. Whatever anyone else comes up with will never come up to your personal standards whether you are right or wrong. Use your $5.00 per 2 oz. bottle of whatever and be happy. I will continue to use my $.50 per 2 oz. "approx." product to keep my collection of arms from orginal Tenn. flint locks to modern collector grade Garands and the 150 plus pcs between in fine condition.

May you have as happy week as I intend to have in my ignorance--darn I ment 40 plus years experience.

 

[JohnKSa]

I cant say Ive looked at ALL the MSDS out there in regards to gun oils, but I do know that Breakfree is only about 50% PAO. ~30% is hydrocracked dino IIRC.

You are correct, breakfree is only about 50% PAO, BUT the rest of the solution is made up of the ingredients that make it a gun oil instead of plain oil or a motor oil. If anything, that is evidence that there is a significant percentage of the product that is specifically tailored for the job it's designed to do. If you have an MSDS showing something different you should post it/link to it. I poked around reasonably thoroughly sometime back looking at this stuff (and refreshed my memory again recently) and have not found an MSDS showing that BF CLP contains any hydrocracked oil.

Do you know of a gun lube that is 100% PAO?

Again, if a lube is to have special additives to make it a special purpose lubricant then it can't be 100% oil. You have to leave room for the additives. But within the limits of that caveat I believe that the OIL in BF CLP is 100% PAO.

 

[Oyeboten]

Well...one would clearly do well to avoid Oils which 'migrate' too much or too well...since in a Loaded Arm, if they migrate to the Cartridge Primers during leisure, one can end up with some dud rounds...

 

[musick]

You are correct, breakfree is only about 50% PAO, BUT the rest of the solution is made up of the ingredients that make it a gun oil instead of plain oil or a motor oil. If anything, that is evidence that there is a significant percentage of the product that is specifically tailored for the job it's designed to do. If you have an MSDS showing something different you should post it/link to it. I poked around reasonably thoroughly sometime back looking at this stuff (and refreshed my memory again recently) and have not found an MSDS showing that BF CLP contains any hydrocracked oil.

What are these, " ingredients that make it a gun oil instead of plain oil or a motor oil."? It is very rare that MSDS give any proprietary information, instead they list generic terms. Do you have information that I dont? If so, please share. As a consumer I find this extremely frustrating as direct gun-specific product comparisons are almost impossible to make since the manufacturer is allowed these generic terms by law.

For example, heres the ingredients of the Breakfree CLP from the MSDS:


Polyalphaolefin synthetic oil - 53.4%/Wt
Synthetic oils, esters & other ingredients - 23.4%/Wt
2 Ethyl Hexyl Acetate - 15.1%/Wt
Dibasic Ester #1 - 5.2%/Wt
Carbon Dioxide - 2.9%/Wt

http://www.wfrfire.com/msds/break.htm



Most of that 23% is hydrocracked oil. I come to this conclusion because BF is a made in the USA product and the US has defined what is syn oil based on the court case Mobil 1 vs. Castrol Syntec. Group III is hydrocracked dino oil and qualifies as a syn oil in the US. By law, the ingredients on line two are listed in decending order. If any of that 23% was PAO, it would have been included in the first line.

15% is a solvent (2-Ethyl Hexyl Acetate) and 5% is aroma (Dibasic Ester #1). CO2 content is a mote point IMO. I dont see anything that makes it better suited to guns than any other PAO basestock product.

Again, if a lube is to have special additives to make it a special purpose lubricant then it can't be 100% oil. You have to leave room for the additives. But within the limits of that caveat I believe that the OIL in BF CLP is 100% PAO.

I believe it would be more correct to say that 53% of BF CLP is 100% PAO, as shown on the MSDS. To correct my initial statement, do you know of any product that is overwhelmingly PAO?

 

[JohnKSa]

Most of that 23% is hydrocracked oil. I come to this conclusion because...

I wouldn't call that a logically bankrupt line of reasoning, but it's still speculation. It seems that neither of us has been able to find an MSDS for Breakfree CLP showing hydrocracked oil as an ingredient. That's in spite of the fact that I have seen many other MSDS for other products that DO contain CAS numbers and/or descriptions explicitly indicating the presence of hydrocracked oil.

I did find one MSDS for BF CLP that called that 23% "Synthetic Inhibitors and Lubrication Additives (Proprietary)" which doesn't seem like code for "hydrocracked oil" to me. I do agree with you that it would be nice if they were a bit more explicit in listing their ingredients.

Rust-Veto cut with Mobil-1 to compine a lubercating and rust preventave wipe on product.

There are at least 14 formulations of Rust Veto and Mobil 1 comes in various "flavors" and weights as well.

When you settle on a formula, I'll acquire the ingredients, mix some up and include it in a corrosion test with Breakfree CLP, straight Mobil 1 (whatever weight you specify in your formula), ATF and any other oils/lubricants/corrosion preventives I happen to have on hand. If I can figure out how to do a reasonably simple test of the lubricating properties of the products I'll do that too.

I will place two caveats on that offer.

1. I have to be able to acquire all of the ingredients in your formula for a reasonable sum (say price + shipping in the near vicinity of $20 or less). Remember, the point of this exercise is cost savings.

2. You must test your formula to make sure it is actually viable. In other words, you need to make sure that Rust Veto will actually dissolve in Mobil 1 without requiring excessive amounts of time & effort to make it happen and also that the resulting mixture is reasonably safe.

 

[jcwit]

May you have as happy week as I intend to have in my ignorance--darn I ment 40 plus years experience

Quote:
Rust-Veto cut with Mobil-1 to compine a lubercating and rust preventave wipe on product.

There are at least 14 formulations of Rust Veto and Mobil 1 comes in various "flavors" and weights as well.

When you settle on a formula, I'll acquire the ingredients, mix some up and include it in a corrosion test with Breakfree CLP, straight Mobil 1 (whatever weight you specify in your formula), ATF and any other oils/lubricants/corrosion preventives I happen to have on hand. If I can figure out how to do a reasonably simple test of the lubricating properties of the products I'll do that too.

I will place two caveats on that offer.

1. I have to be able to acquire all of the ingredients in your formula for a reasonable sum (say price + shipping in the near vicinity of $20 or less). Remember, the point of this exercise is cost savings.

2. You must test your formula to make sure it is actually viable. In other words, you need to make sure that Rust Veto will actually dissolve in Mobil 1 without requiring excessive amounts of time & effort to make it happen and also that the resulting mixture is reasonably safe.
__________________

I have tried to somewhat end this meaningless discussion in as much of a civil way as I know how. This now seems to be impossible as I seem to be dealing with someone who knows it all no matter what, If I don.t believe it just ask him and he will once again attempt to tell me just how stupid I really am, and how little I actually know. So be it, I shall let you bask in your knowledge or ignorance whichever it may be and continue to use the products I which to use which have sufficed for 50 plus years for me.

Once again try this.

With this being said why do you just use whatever makes you happy, it is very clear you assume you know more than anyone else here. Whatever anyone else comes up with will never come up to your personal standards whether you are right or wrong. Use your $5.00 per 2 oz. bottle of whatever and be happy. I will continue to use my $.50 per 2 oz. "approx." product to keep my collection of arms from orginal Tenn. flint locks to modern collector grade Garands and the 150 plus pcs between in fine condition.

May you have as happy week as I intend to have in my ignorance--darn I ment 40 plus years experience

You must test your formula to make sure it is actually viable

At my age "I must " do nothing of the kind. I'm old and now tired of your attidude, my you have a good day as I'm sure I will have as today I spend the day at the range, and will clean my arms with my inferior products " at least in your mind". Me I'm happy.

 

[JohnKSa]

I have tried to somewhat end this meaningless discussion in as much of a civil way as I know how. This now seems to be impossible as I seem to be dealing with someone who knows it all no matter what, If I don.t believe it just ask him and he will once again attempt to tell me just how stupid I really am, and how little I actually know. So be it, I shall let you bask in your knowledge or ignorance whichever it may be and continue to use the products I which to use which have sufficed for 50 plus years for me.

Look, you said you knew something that would outperform Breakfree CLP and cost less. I have said that I am willing to make some per your formula (when you provide a formula) and test it against BF CLP (and other products) to verify your claims. How is that an affront? It's pretty much a win-win-win-win for you.

1. I spend my own money buying the ingredients & testing materials.
2. I spend my own time doing the testing.
3. If the test results favor your formula, no one's going to question that I biased the results to help your product.
4. If the test results don't favor your formula you can dismiss the results by saying that I'm biased against it.

At my age "I must " do nothing of the kind.

I made an offer to test your formula. If you want to take me up on the offer then you "must" indeed satisfy the two included caveats. You are, of course, under zero obligation to take me up on my offer so I'm not sure why you're pretending I'm ordering you around.

I'm old and now tired of your attidude, my you have a good day as I'm sure I will have as today I spend the day at the range, and will clean my arms with my inferior products " at least in your mind". Me I'm happy.

You're forgetting how this all started. A certain person started making claims about "snake oils", "none believers" and making implications that those who disagreed with him weren't using knowledge of scientific facts. My first post on this thread was actually a recommendation for an automotive product--it certainly couldn't be described as trying to make people unhappy nor was I bandying about accusations of inferior products.

I know you meant the quote below to refer to me, but if you read back over this persons initial posts on this thread you will see that the words apply at least equally as well to him.

This now seems to be impossible as I seem to be dealing with someone who knows it all no matter what, If I don.t believe it just ask him and he will once again attempt to tell me just how stupid I really am, and how little I actually know.

 

[jcwit]

Somehow I just knew you wouldn't let it rest.

I'm only speaking from experience and what works for me. Its 6:00 AM here and way to early to spoil the day for me. I already gave you some options to try and your response was there 14 formulations and many different flavors of Mobil1. I doubt any of this would make that much difference in the performance, but then again what the he11 do I know. Obviously very little in your opion, but that bothers me not one iota.

In the grand scheme of things in this world this all means nothing.

Please, Please, PLEASE have a good day.

You're forgetting how this all started. A certain person started making claims about "snake oils", "none believers

This is still my position, like it or not, I stand by it. Its all something called marketing, its out there in just about every product line, from perscription drugs, to auto lubes, to food products, to sporting goods, and yes to gun related items. To many people value (cost) means nothing, to them if an item price is higher it must be of much higher quality, and this is where the snake oil comes into play.

 

[JohnKSa]

I already gave you some options to try and your response was there 14 formulations and many different flavors of Mobil1.

The offer was genuine, but I'm not going to guess which specific products you think should be mixed.

Here are at least some of the products that bear the name "Rust Veto"
http://www.houghton.ca/products.asp?Cat=1&SubCat=4

Here are the variants of Mobil 1 motor oil. They each come in various weights, so the weight would need to be specified as well as the particular product.
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Oils/Oils.aspx

To many people value (cost) means nothing, to them if an item price is higher it must be of much higher quality, and this is where the snake oil comes into play.

I'm not "many people". If I find something inexpensive that works, I use it. On the other hand, if I find something that works really well, I don't mind paying extra for it.

The fact that marketing exists doesn't automatically mean that the products being marketed are snake oil or overpriced. Some are, many aren't. I mean, why do you chose to use more expensive Mobil 1 instead of a cheaper conventional motor oil? I'm guessing it's NOT because you performed carefully controlled intensive experiments to determine its relative performance compared to other products on the market.

 

[jcwit]

Use the water based one and mix it with Mobile 1 15w/50 for good adhesion, should work like a charm.

Now EVERY one will be happy.

I'm not "many people".

Didn't pick you out specifically, if I would have ment you I more than likely spelled Y-O-U.

I have an idea, lets just let this rest and die the natural death it almost did till this morning.