Motor Oil for Lube

[JohnKSa]

Wow, you seem to believe that everyone here answers to you. How arrogant.

You certainly do not have to answer to me.

Just so we can get this out of the way once and for all, let me say explicitly that everyone on THR (including you) is perfectly free to ignore or choose not to respond to anything I post. I believe the forum even provides a special feature to facilitate such a thing.

Furthermore, (just to cover all the bases) no one need feel constrained to comply with any commands that I may issue or that someone may infer from one of my posts.

Ok, that said...

I made this statement earlier (post #86) and it still stands:

Exactly. You've made the claim several times now but you have passed up several opportunities to say how my lack of "demonstrable professional expertise" affects the conclusions about corrosion protection I have drawn.

If the conclusions I drew were correct, then it doesn't really matter what my level of expertise is. If they are incorrect, then why not correct the incorrect information. I'm all about having the facts straight.

 

[Gun Slinger]

This is nothing more than a mere "re-phrasing":

You've made the claim several times now but you have passed up several opportunities to say how my lack of "demonstrable professional expertise" affects the conclusions about corrosion protection I have drawn.

of this:

However; rather than speaking in generalities, why not directly address the specific claim I made, namely: "...the idea that a person needs "posess demonstrable professional expertise in the field of lubricant engineering" to look at corrosion test results and see that the piece of metal protected by product X has less rust than the piece protected by product Y is simply ludicrous."

which is another attempt to relate it (the two posts above) to what I said here:

As I said earlier, it is patently clear that you possess no demonstrable professional expertise in the field of lubricant engineering and as such have no "over-ruling" opinion here.

Let's try not to read more into the statement that I made than was actually stated. If you don't understand what I've said above, then I cannot help you. I've grown quite tired of having you try to put words into my mouth over this nonsense.

 

[JohnKSa]

Let's try not to read more into the statement that I made than was actually stated.

Sure, I'm good with that. You say I'm not an expert on oil/lubrication. You are correct--I'm not. I do not object to your assertion nor have I made any claim to the contrary here or elsewhere. Nor have I predicated any of my claims or assertions on my non-existant expertise in this particular field. So that's out of the way too and now we can focus on the point of the discussion.

So what do you think about my claim (and the evidence I provided) that some specialty lubes provide much improved corrosion protection compared to general purpose/price expedient oils?

 

[Yondering]

One of the reasons I would choose a synthetic motor oil (PAO/Grp. IV) over the ATF, is because there are more anti-corrosion, anti-wear, & antioxidant properties found in the motor oil.

For my gun lube, I use a very thick PAO based motor oil additive. Unfortunately, it is no longer marketed. Thankfully though, I have more than a lifetimes supply.
This additive, Valvoline SynPower Oil Treatment, is just filled with the "goodies" one desires...
Loads of moly, boron, calcium, magnesium, zinc, & phos... To which I add a dash more of ZDDP.

Two Cold Soakers
That is what you were talking about!

 

[Gun Slinger]

Sure, I'm good with that. You say I'm not an expert on oil/lubrication. You are correct--I'm not. I do not object to your assertion nor have I made any claim to the contrary here or elsewhere. Nor have I predicated any of my claims or assertions on my non-existant expertise in this particular field. So that's out of the way too and now we can focus on the point of the discussion.

So what do you think about my claim (and the evidence I provided) that some specialty lubes provide much improved corrosion protection compared to general purpose/price expedient oils?

Fair enough, John.

As for the evidence that you cite here:

http://www.6mmbr.com/corrosiontest.html

While it is indeed an interesting test, it falls short of being a scientific test for a couple of reasons, mostly being that it was not conducted under the typical industry standard controlled conditions (ie: salt spray cabinet, set humidity, temperature, salt spray concentrations) that can be reliably replicated for a true "apples to apples" comparison. (Sorry 'bout using that worn out cliche'. ) This test also disproves the "superiority" of many of the so-called premium gun specific products by their apparent failure in the test. Can they all be that bad? If so, what value do they really have and are they worth the extra money? It is "food for thought" to say the least.

Does that mean that it is invalid? Maybe, maybe not.

While our firearms are not stored in anything resembling "controlled conditions" in most cases since humidity alone fluctuates considerably in our own homes, they are typically better cared for than being left outside to the elements, too. As another member pointed out prior to this, anyone can conduct a(n) (uncontrolled, and probably invalid) test that will produce a certain result one day and another result the next. What do these "tests" tell us?

Nothing that I would feel comfortable calling particularly authoritative.

I look at it like this:

I happen to use Mobil 1 20w50 (and have for well over fourteen years now) as my primary small arms weapons lubricant on all of the firearms that I own. These range from guns that really require minimal corrosion protection like the Glocks, HKs and a couple of stainless S&W 5906s to guns like my finely blued (60's and 70's era) S&W and Colt revolvers and a pre-'64 Winchester Model 70. I've never seen any sort of rust or corrosion (as the test above seems to suggest, not to mention the "say so" of some members here) on any of them despite my use of M1 on them and some of them have been exposed to some rather harsh conditions and treatment.

My individual experience, flies in the face (at least for me) of the suggestions made that my guns will turn into little piles of bright orange iron oxide if I use motor oil to lubricate and protect my guns. The fact that someone else is using a firearms specific grade lubricant and getting the same results that I am does not mean that they are being ripped off or that either alternative is definitively "better".

We are dealing with very small (and often dubious) data samples (sometimes uinformed opinions being passed off as "data") at best in these discussions about what is "best" and lacking any real-world independently controlled data, the claims made here and above still remain in the realm of opinion (albeit not wildly unjustified) and cannot be relied upon as the gospel truth even though they may seem quite reasonable.

The most recent analysis of ATFs and PCMOs that I've seen or had conducted concurs with what Yondering has offered above.

ATF has much, much less of the AW/EP, Friction modifiers, Rust/Corrosion Inhibitors, Detergents/Dispersants and Viscosity Modifiers in its formulation than motor oils, the motor oils (there is a great variance among them, too) being the preferable choice between the two. Motor oils are typically, ~80% basestock (PAO, POE, minerally derived Group III/III+, what have you) the balance being composed of the additive package. As an aside, an older MSDS that I saw for BF CLP was ~70% POA ( http://hazard.com/msds/f2/bgk/bgktj.html ) with the balance being AW/EP additives, solvent and preservatives. For all of these reasons, I disagree tremendously with the "oft cited" article on firearms lubrication by Grant Cunningham in which he recomends ATF over motor oil as being the superior of the two fluids for firearms lubrication. It is not.

I differ also from Yondering in my opinion of the currently available supplemental oil treatments since many seem to "run short" on their promised fortification and are, for the most part, composed of primarily of polymer VMs which have limited lubricative value to begin with.

I refer you to BITOG for a wonderful educational experience in this pursuit. It is a very civil website with a fairly low "noise to signal" ratio (there is some, but the Mods keep it pretty tightly "reigned in") with much to learn.

BTW, all of this is simply my anonymous opinion since I've no way of confirming my educational background to anyone here without dangerously compromising my privacy so you are free to take it for whatever you want.

 

[bejay]

long thread but would say any would work in a pinch it wouldnt be a big deal to use atf or motor oil if you had to.
I would think atf would probably work the best as it is closer to the right viscosity and would likely keep the gun cleaner.
this is kinda like arguing over wich oil to use in your car one guy will use walmarts supertech and changes it every 5000 and the next guy uses a high dollar synthetic and changes it every 5000 they both experience engine failure around 300,000 miles they both got good life out of there engine so why does it matter wich oil is better than the other.

 

[Yondering]

...I differ also from Yondering in my opinion of the currently available supplemental oil treatments since many seem to "run short" on their promised fortification and are, for the most part, composed of primarily of polymer VMs which have limited lubricative value to begin with...

No argument from me...
I'm certain that the molasses like thickness of this PAO base additive is due to the presence of VII's.

 

[AgentAdam]

Is it safe to add powdered graphite or molly to grease and oils?

I think Walther recommends a molly or Teflon based lube to protect the galvanized protective coating on the Zinc slide of the P22.

 

[JohnKSa]

While it is indeed an interesting test, it falls short of being a scientific test for a couple of reasons, mostly being that it was not conducted under the typical industry standard controlled conditions (ie: salt spray cabinet, set humidity, temperature, salt spray concentrations) that can be reliably replicated for a true "apples to apples" comparison.

I also posted the results of a test that is on the Gunzone website. http://www.thegunzone.com/rust.html
The results mirror the 6mmBR test.

While I'm not going to argue that the two tests are rigorously controlled tests, there are no glaring flaws in either the implementation or control of the two tests and the repeatability of the results would seem to be a reasonable endorsement that the experimenters have done their homework well.

Furthermore, while I agree that the tests weren't conducted IAW industry standards and therefore the results can't be compared on an apples-to-apples basis with industry testing results, there is nothing in the testing that would preclude them from providing good results in terms of relative performance of the various products tested. Which is really all the testers were trying to do.

I also don't disagree that while some application specific products do provide added protection (in at least some respects) there are certainly others that don't. I'm not advising that people buy something because it costs more or merely because of what it says on the label, I'm just saying that the claims that there are no added benefits is incorrect in at least some cases. A savvy consumer can find premium gun oils that outperform general purpose/price expedient products if they do their homework.

My individual experience, flies in the face (at least for me) of the suggestions made that my guns will turn into little piles of bright orange iron oxide if I use motor oil to lubricate and protect my guns.

I've certainly not made any such claims. I can attest to the fact that any old oil is a pretty decent rust preventer if the user is careful about applying it and about keeping a light coating in place. But I can also attest to the fact that there are some products that seem to do a much better job at corrosion protection than others. When I started using MP5 (not a lubricant) I completely eliminated the rust issues I was having with blued & unfinished steel that had to be handled on a frequent basis. BF CLP seems to work just about as well as MP5 but was not approved for use in this particular application.

 

[jcwit]

Tenacious little feller isn't he.

Sorta like the Pheniox arising from the ashes.

 

[Gun Slinger]

While I'm not going to argue that the two tests are rigorously controlled tests, there are no glaring flaws in either the implementation or control of the two tests and the repeatability of the results would seem to be a reasonable endorsement that the experimenters have done their homework well.

Um...OK.

I've certainly not made any such claims.

Never said you did. I've heard the claim made elsewhere and simply mentioned it above. My commentary was not directed at you.

 

[JohnKSa]

Tenacious little feller isn't he.

Sorta like the Pheniox arising from the ashes.

It's a discussion forum. Discussions involve two or more participants, generally with views that differ to some extent. If everyone posts only on threads where everyone agrees with them it's not a discussion, it's just a virtual group hug.

Um...OK.

I already get that you disagree with at least some of what I'm posting, but I'm trying to determine the basis of your objection(s) in the hopes of learning something new.

What sort of flaws do you see in the testing methodology that you feel would adversely affect the ability of the test to provide performance comparisons between the products tested?

Do you feel that the similarity of the results of the two tests demonstrates a reasonable level of repeatability and provides some level of confidence in the results?

 

[Yondering]

Is it safe to add powdered graphite or molly to grease and oils?

I think Walther recommends a molly or Teflon based lube to protect the galvanized protective coating on the Zinc slide of the P22.

You can safely add Teflon (PTFE) or moly to your base oil. There's a product called Tufoil, that contains both of those additives.

ZDDP is an important additive, especially when using moly.
Having enough ZDDP, will slow the degradation and increase the anti-friction capabilities, of the moly.

 

[Larry Burchfield]

LUBE

The best that I have found is Mobile 1 in 0w30 for real cold conditions and 5 w 30 for warmer conditions. I would not use anything heavier than 10 w 30.

At the paper mill we used only Mobile 1 lubes in our fleet of fork lifts (85 in 2000 when I had to retire) and for the eight years that I worked in the lift truck shop we never lost anything to oil failure.
Larry Burchfield
SEABEES/VIETNAM/67/68/69
DAV

 

[Gun Slinger]

Yondering-

Do you know of, or have a source (link, perhaps) for a VOA for Tufoil? Wouldn't mind looking at it since I've not seen the product prior to this. Always looking for new "possibilities".

 

[Two Cold Soakers]

this is kinda like arguing over wich oil to use in your car

This is mild.

Automobile manufacturers specify the oil to use in their engines, based on industry-wide constant specifications.

At least in the automotive arguments there are facts backing up some of the positions.

 

[Gun Slinger]

John,

Good questions.

I already get that you disagree with at least some of what I'm posting, but I'm trying to determine the basis of your objection(s) in the hopes of learning something new.

You pretty much answered your own question here (the quote below):

What sort of flaws do you see in the testing methodology that you feel would adversely affect the ability of the test to provide performance comparisons between the products tested?

While I'm not going to argue that the two tests are rigorously controlled tests...

Moving on,

What sort of flaws do you see in the testing methodology that you feel would adversely affect the ability of the test to provide performance comparisons between the products tested?

These "tests have many, many problems, discrepansies and many uncontrolled variables.

To name but a few that just "glare" at me:

1.Differing steel alloys used: Unfinished/Uncoated nails, cold rolled steel sheet, low carbon steel blocks with no specificity as to what type of alloys, carbon content is being used. Definitely detracts from repeatibility and external validity. Without test sample uniformity, validity and repeatability are "long gone".

2. Uncontrolled environmental factors: Seems that these may have been placed outside, there is no specification as to where these test samples were exposed. The "6mmBR long term test" uses a "100x100 chamber" (the closest we come to anything remotely approaching a control) whereas the remainder of that test and the TGZ test do not. So now we have wildly fluctuating ambient temperature ranges and humidity levels being introduced across the board. Another uncontrolled variable.

3. No standardization of test solutions: Widely varying salinities, one of the tests (the "6mmBR" test) involved the use of what the experimenter referred to as a "2% salt solution" that is "roughly a 2% saltwater mixture, with seawater being about 2.5%". Wrong answer. "Roughly" is a little too generous a term for what this fellow is claiming. Sea water is little more "complex" than that.

The other test does not specify concentrations at all other than saying that "salt was added to the water bottle until salt crystals started to precipitate out of the solution. A little more water was added to dissolve the precipitated salt, which got me pretty close to a saturated solution". Um....yeah...

"Repeatability" has been tossed out the window. No valid test solution "formulation specs" are offered or provided.

Big, big problems here, validity inside of the test sample being questionable to begin with, any externally applicable validity and repeatability has taken a serious "hit" and has now "taken wing and is flying into the sunset".

4. (Cross) Contamination issues: One tester (it was the "6mmBR" test I believe) even admits to using his finger to apply the test lubricants to the test panels.

Did he wash or wipe his finger clean between each application? Was his hand/finger sweaty when he did this? Why not use an applicator and/or nitrile gloves for the task? Contamination and "cross" contamination issues rear their ugly heads. An "absolutely sterile" environent is quite unnecessary, but why risk the introduction of contaminants when it can be avoided?

Another experimenter was making his measurements of lubricant dispensed in "blobs". How many millilitres (ml) are there in a "blob"? Yikes.

I could go on, but why bother?


Had I ever submitted such a "loosely" written paper and (un)controlled procedure to any one of my professors, I'd have been laughed out of the room and they'd have offered to roll up such a "work" and use it to light their pipes.

Do you feel that the similarity of the results of the two tests demonstrates a reasonable level of repeatability and provides some level of confidence in the results?

In a word: NO.

Not even within the internal "standards" (waaaaaaaaaayy too many uncontrolled variables) of each test even if they (the same test) were to be repeated.

As I said before, the tests are "interesting" and even "fun" to look at, but they are far from being acceptably and scientifically conclusive for the "evils" that they indulge in and suffer from.

 

[Yondering]

Do you know of, or have a source (link, perhaps) for a VOA for Tufoil?...

Unfortunately, I haven't seen a VOA of Tufoil. It would be interesting to know how many ppm's of moly it has.

I have seen a few UOA's done, with the Tufoil added to the sump.
The moly result is higher than what would normally be in the oil, but you can't really extrapolate from that, the amount of moly in the Tufoil to begin with.
The UOA's looked good though!

I've never felt comfortable using PTFE products in my automobiles, but I have used Teflon in a gun lube before.
This Tufoil stuff might make, or be used to help make, a really great gun lube...

 

[JMusic]

Some synthetics use a detergent to help keep the engine clean. Use ATF if you buy lube out of a quart




Kim

 

[JohnKSa]

1.Differing steel alloys used:
...
2. Uncontrolled environmental factors:
...
3. No standardization of test solutions:

Within each test the steel alloys, the test solution and the environmental factors were the same for all samples.

As an example, say we did two tests that were identical other than the steel alloy used. Are you saying that you would expect the test results (in terms of RELATIVE, not absolute performance) would be different?

In other words, it wouldn't be too surprising to see the overall amount of corrosion change (across all the samples) but I wouldn't expect to see that if product A protected better than product B in one test it would protect worse than product B in a test that was identical with the exception of the type of steel being tested. Is that expectation unjustified in your experience?

That is, do you normally see that changing the steel alloy/test solution/environmental conditions will change the relative performance of various corrosion protection products?

Your comment on external validity is interesting and well taken. It raises another question: How are corrosion protectants typically rated? I'm guessing that it's an amount of time that protection is provided and I can see that they would need to specify the environmental conditions and test solution--do they normally specify the exact alloy protected as well?

"Repeatability" has been tossed out the window. No valid test solution "formulation specs" are offered or provided.

Repeatability in terms of getting the same level (hours) of protection would certainly be impossible to attain given the informal way in which the tests were conducted. However, repeatability in terms of relative performance (which product works better) might not be so difficult to attain. Thoughts?

4. (Cross) Contamination issues: One tester (it was the "6mmBR" test I believe) even admits to using his finger to apply the test lubricants to the test panels.

I went back and re-read both tests. As far as I can tell both testers went to significant lengths to avoid contamination and/or cross contamination. There is a third test (different test, different tester) briefly mentioned at 6mmBR called the "long term exposure test" where the tester did use his finger.

I used nitrile gloves when handling the steel, and changed gloves between oils to avoid any cross contamination. Notches were cut in the bottom edge of each piece so the piece could be identified. This way you can tell I wasn't moving the test pieces from photo to photo.

I then applied oil to each piece, using a clean paper towel and new pair of gloves for each piece.

All of the nails were then degreased with Kleen Bore Gunk Out spray, wiped with clean paper toweling while still wet, and then spray degreased again and patted dry with clean paper towels.

Thereafter, the nails were handled only with forceps that were cleaned and degreased. The test products were applied directly to the nails from the bottles or cans.

In a word: NO.

So you believe that the fact that Eezox and BF CLP came out on top in all three tests is pure coincidence?

 

[Jolly Rogers]

The title of the thread is "Motor oil for LUBE". Corrosion protection discussion should be in another thread. (I personally like RIG for anti corrosion protection. I RIG"d an Ithica M37 and left it untouched for over 5 years and it was rust free )
Joe

 

[jcwit]

Yes RIG is one of the top rust prevention products that was out there. Note I said was, its no longer available. There's some talk about Birchwood Casey bringing it back but so far its just rumors.

 

[Gun Slinger]

So you believe that the fact that Eezox and BF CLP came out on top in all three tests is pure coincidence?

Yep.

 

[Gun Slinger]

Unfortunately, I haven't seen a VOA of Tufoil. It would be interesting to know how many ppm's of moly it has.

Yondering,

Wouldn't mind seein' "the numbers" m'self. Thanks for the quick response.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yep.

Interesting.

So what you're saying is that if I buy a product that claims to offer superior corrosion protection I must verify the types of steel alloys it has been tested on, insure that the environmental conditions where I live match the testing conditions and also be careful not to get anything other than standardized testing solutions on it if I want to be sure of getting the corrosion protection benefit I paid for?