188 replies to this topic

[EATIII]

cobra, on 11 January 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

Vaden

If you don't mind how many rds do you have on your 1911 using froglube?

I'm trying to determine how froglube does on preventing wear on all metal handguns.

I'm not sure if I did something wrong or not but I got some odd wear on my trp  in about 1200 rds using froglube.
I had already had thousands of rds thru the gun before I used froglube.
I have now started to use WS and no further wear has happened.

I really like the idea of froglube but can't get any info on this subject from froglube manufacturer.

  Thanks Vaden

What info do you seek?

[cobra]

EATIII, on 12 January 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

cobra, on 11 January 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

Vaden

If you don't mind how many rds do you have on your 1911 using froglube?

I'm trying to determine how froglube does on preventing wear on all metal handguns.

I'm not sure if I did something wrong or not but I got some odd wear on my trp  in about 1200 rds using froglube.
I had already had thousands of rds thru the gun before I used froglube.
I have now started to use WS and no further wear has happened.

I really like the idea of froglube but can't get any info on this subject from froglube manufacturer.

  Thanks Vaden

What info do you seek?

EatIII
I'm trying to find out if this stuff works as far as wear prevention on all metal and all stainless steel handguns.
It would be nice if the company would release like the Falex test or the five ball test result but for some odd reason they will not.
They have told me tests were done with excellent results but they won;t back that up. Why?

[mauserme]

EATIII, on 12 January 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

What info do you seek?

I would love to see a recent MSDS that has more than "NA" on it.

[EATIII]

cobra, on 12 January 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

EATIII, on 12 January 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

cobra, on 11 January 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

Vaden

If you don't mind how many rds do you have on your 1911 using froglube?

I'm trying to determine how froglube does on preventing wear on all metal handguns.

I'm not sure if I did something wrong or not but I got some odd wear on my trp  in about 1200 rds using froglube.
I had already had thousands of rds thru the gun before I used froglube.
I have now started to use WS and no further wear has happened.

I really like the idea of froglube but can't get any info on this subject from froglube manufacturer.

  Thanks Vaden

What info do you seek?

EatIII
I'm trying to find out if this stuff works as far as wear prevention on all metal and all stainless steel handguns.
It would be nice if the company would release like the Falex test or the five ball test result but for some odd reason they will not.
They have told me tests were done with excellent results but they won;t back that up. Why?

Yes, it has passed with excellent results. The reason they wont show the results is for the simple reason that it is propriety information, with the results a couple of the blanks can be put together and they/we have had our product stolen once and reproduced/ packaged under a diffrent name. Legal action is under way as we speak. As an end user I'm not saying that you are not important but for contracts that require that information we do provide it.

Now if you look at this realistically, we are talking about guns/weapon systems, not an engine. Froglube is unbelievable CLP that does all it says and then some. I know you pulled your question from other fourms/posts and I can tell you for a fact that it does not cause abnormal wear, it prevents it, as I know you have seen the thousands of posts of people who rave about it. If it does not cause wear on a 240/Scar (heavy) or the Ma Duce I would say you are good too go!

[EATIII]

mauserme, on 12 January 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

EATIII, on 12 January 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

What info do you seek?

I would love to see a recent MSDS that has more than "NA" on it.

It has "NA" in places because in that area it doesn't apply, The MSDS is short and sweet because it is that environmentally friendly. It is a 98% USDA Certified Bio-based product. The more that is on a MSDS in both length and info shows the more harm or protective measures that need to be taken. What do you think the MSDS sheet would look like for the cereal you ate this morning

Edited by EATIII, 12 January 2012 - 02:55 PM.

[mauserme]

Don't get me wrong - I want to like Frog Lube but I need to understand things.

The porblem I have is that the entire MSDS for Frog Lube is filled with "NA".   Everything has a melting point, a boiling point, a solubility (which might = insoluble).  Most things bio based will have a flash point, etc.   Nothing that exists can have absolutely no physical characteristics.

I've attached the MSDS for canola oil for comparison.  Many things are not applicable but the basics are there,

So help me like this stuff...

Attached Files

•  Canola Oil MSDS.pdf   22.23K   54 downloads

[Houndawg]

EATIII, on 12 January 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Yes, it has passed with excellent results. The reason they wont show the results is for the simple reason that it is propriety information, with the results a couple of the blanks can be put together and they/we have had our product stolen once and reproduced/ packaged under a diffrent name. Legal action is under way as we speak. As an end user I'm not saying that you are not important but for contracts that require that information we do provide it.

Now if you look at this realistically, we are talking about guns/weapon systems, not an engine. Froglube is unbelievable CLP that does all it says and then some. I know you pulled your question from other fourms/posts and I can tell you for a fact that it does not cause abnormal wear, it prevents it, as I know you have seen the thousands of posts of people who rave about it. If it does not cause wear on a 240/Scar (heavy) or the Ma Duce I would say you are good too go!

I'm sorry, but that's a major cop-out. The results of a test can't be used to reproduce a product. Not publishing the results means there's something to hide.

[scough]

I have to admit that early on I was concerned over the MSDS too. When you see 98% Bio food grade, you have to wonder what the 2% is, and how does that effect the 98%?  Don't get me wrong, so far it seems to work OK, but I too get an uneasy feeling not having any idea what I'm working with. However, when you think about it, it was claimed to be developed by miltary guys out in the field. I think the reason why they won't devulge anything is it's probably the left over residue in the MRE's. I mean what else that's vaguely editible do they have access too? It might very well be bacon grease with green perfume? Again, I don't know and really don't want this to sound negative, but I have to agree that they should at least release something of vague. I mean if someone really wanted to rip them off, they could easily analyze it and make it blue or pink, right? Besides, isn't the stuff patented?

[EATIII]

mauserme, on 12 January 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong - I want to like Frog Lube but I need to understand things.

The porblem I have is that the entire MSDS for Frog Lube is filled with "NA".   Everything has a melting point, a boiling point, a solubility (which might = insoluble).  Most things bio based will have a flash point, etc.   Nothing that exists can have absolutely no physical characteristics.

I've attached the MSDS for canola oil for comparison.  Many things are not applicable but the basics are there,

So help me like this stuff...

If you look at the MSDS for froglube there are two, one for paste and one for liquid. The liquid has all your questions answed, and the paste has it's own. This is approved and we are even a perferd government product. I can't add things that are not there. Also you gave an Oil as an comparison, FL is not an oil or solvent, Its made of plants.

[EATIII]

Houndawg, on 12 January 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

EATIII, on 12 January 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Yes, it has passed with excellent results. The reason they wont show the results is for the simple reason that it is propriety information, with the results a couple of the blanks can be put together and they/we have had our product stolen once and reproduced/ packaged under a diffrent name. Legal action is under way as we speak. As an end user I'm not saying that you are not important but for contracts that require that information we do provide it.

Now if you look at this realistically, we are talking about guns/weapon systems, not an engine. Froglube is unbelievable CLP that does all it says and then some. I know you pulled your question from other fourms/posts and I can tell you for a fact that it does not cause abnormal wear, it prevents it, as I know you have seen the thousands of posts of people who rave about it. If it does not cause wear on a 240/Scar (heavy) or the Ma Duce I would say you are good too go!

I'm sorry, but that's a major cop-out. The results of a test can't be used to reproduce a product. Not publishing the results means there's something to hide.

NOTHING TO HIDE, it is what it is.

[dwh747]

Me thinks, that if even if they were to release the data requested that there would still be people that would take way too much time out of their personal lives to doubt and complain.  As with any product out there some will love it, some will try and don't.  

As for the MSDS sheets, isn't it the Government that regulates just what is supposed to be on it?

Just thinking out loud, I will not take the time to look it up though.  

I am sure that there are those of you that know people in the industry that are going to the SHOT Show.  Ask them to speak to the guy that developed it.  Then you can get an answer from someone you trust.

[dwh747]

scough, on 12 January 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

I have to admit that early on I was concerned over the MSDS too. When you see 98% Bio food grade, you have to wonder what the 2% is, and how does that effect the 98%?  Don't get me wrong, so far it seems to work OK, but I too get an uneasy feeling not having any idea what I'm working with. However, when you think about it, it was claimed to be developed by miltary guys out in the field. I think the reason why they won't devulge anything is it's probably the left over residue in the MRE's. I mean what else that's vaguely editible do they have access too? It might very well be bacon grease with green perfume? Again, I don't know and really don't want this to sound negative, but I have to agree that they should at least release something of vague. I mean if someone really wanted to rip them off, they could easily analyze it and make it blue or pink, right? Besides, isn't the stuff patented?

That replacement bottle is at Article II for you.....  

David

[mauserme]

EATIII, on 12 January 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

If you look at the MSDS for froglube there are two, one for paste and one for liquid. The liquid has all your questions answed, and the paste has it's own. This is approved and we are even a perferd government product. I can't add things that are not there. Also you gave an Oil as an comparison, FL is not an oil or solvent, Its made of plants.

Do you mean the MSDS attached below?

If that's current then that answers my question well enough.  I'm just fine with PAOs and I know there are some food grade synthetic oils out there.  The thing I was having trouble with is someone claiming to be the inventor posted in a forum that the stuff that became Frog Lube was originally found packed in a Civil War era cannon barrel.  PAOs were not known back then as they are a synthesized molecule.


The thing about oils is not all are mineral based.  Corn oil, for example, is plant based as is rape seed oil which is more commonly known as canola oil because rape seed sounds so wrong (canola stand for CANadian Oil Low Acid).


Edited to attach the document.

 Frog Lube 1984 MSDS.pdf   459.7K   43 downloads

Edited by mauserme, 12 January 2012 - 06:59 PM.

[Houndawg]

EATIII, on 12 January 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

Houndawg, on 12 January 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

EATIII, on 12 January 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Yes, it has passed with excellent results. The reason they wont show the results is for the simple reason that it is propriety information, with the results a couple of the blanks can be put together and they/we have had our product stolen once and reproduced/ packaged under a diffrent name. Legal action is under way as we speak. As an end user I'm not saying that you are not important but for contracts that require that information we do provide it.

Now if you look at this realistically, we are talking about guns/weapon systems, not an engine. Froglube is unbelievable CLP that does all it says and then some. I know you pulled your question from other fourms/posts and I can tell you for a fact that it does not cause abnormal wear, it prevents it, as I know you have seen the thousands of posts of people who rave about it. If it does not cause wear on a 240/Scar (heavy) or the Ma Duce I would say you are good too go!

I'm sorry, but that's a major cop-out. The results of a test can't be used to reproduce a product. Not publishing the results means there's something to hide.

NOTHING TO HIDE, it is what it is.

Your argument holds absolutely no water. I can take the stuff to any lab with a gas chromatograph, get an exact breakdown, and reproduce the product exactly. The results from a 4 ball test only allows one to compare the performance of one lubricant against others, not to deduce the chemical properties of a lubricant. Obviously, as a distributer/dealer (who has nothing to do with the manufacture of the product, but likes to use the word "we"), you say whatever you need to to sell the product. It may be a good product, I haven't decided yet. I'm willing to bet your lack of answers is because you have no idea what you're talking about other than what's in the informational brochure. You're just some dude who has a two bit company in North Carolina that came to an Illinois gun forum to push a product he sells.

[bersa380]

[/quote]

Your argument holds absolutely no water. I can take the stuff to any lab with a gas chromatograph, get an exact breakdown, and reproduce the product exactly.
[/quote]

You may be able to determine what it is comprised of but not how it was mixed or in what order.



Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

[EATIII]

[quote name='Houndawg' date='12 January 2012 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1326418449' post='305516']
[quote name='EATIII' date='12 January 2012 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1326409792' post='305493']
[quote name='Houndawg' date='12 January 2012 - 04:22 PM' timestamp='1326406932' post='305484']
[quote name='EATIII' date='12 January 2012 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1326400422' post='305477']


Yes, it has passed with excellent results. The reason they wont show the results is for the simple reason that it is propriety information, with the results a couple of the blanks can be put together and they/we have had our product stolen once and reproduced/ packaged under a diffrent name. Legal action is under way as we speak. As an end user I'm not saying that you are not important but for contracts that require that information we do provide it.

Now if you look at this realistically, we are talking about guns/weapon systems, not an engine. Froglube is unbelievable CLP that does all it says and then some. I know you pulled your question from other fourms/posts and I can tell you for a fact that it does not cause abnormal wear, it prevents it, as I know you have seen the thousands of posts of people who rave about it. If it does not cause wear on a 240/Scar (heavy) or the Ma Duce I would say you are good too go!
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but that's a major cop-out. The results of a test can't be used to reproduce a product. Not publishing the results means there's something to hide.
[/quote]


Your argument holds absolutely no water. I can take the stuff to any lab with a gas chromatograph, get an exact breakdown, and reproduce the product exactly. The results from a 4 ball test only allows one to compare the performance of one lubricant against others, not to deduce the chemical properties of a lubricant. Obviously, as a distributer/dealer (who has nothing to do with the manufacture of the product, but likes to use the word "we"), you say whatever you need to to sell the product. It may be a good product, I haven't decided yet. I'm willing to bet your lack of answers is because you have no idea what you're talking about other than what's in the informational brochure. You're just some dude who has a two bit company in North Carolina that came to an Illinois gun forum to push a product he sells.
[/quote]
Wow, Well Thank you! I know My PR is not that great but once again you didn't do your research and have an opinion that for some reason wants to overload what is fact.

[cobra]

I'm sorry, but that's a major cop-out. The results of a test can't be used to reproduce a product. Not publishing the results means there's something to hide.
[/quote]



Wow, Well Thank you! I know My PR is not that great but once again you didn't do your research and have an opinion that for some reason wants to overload what is fact.
[/quote]

EATIII
I am even more curious, What fact are you referring to? Because telling us that something just works or users raving about it that shoot 500 rds a yr or telling us that the Falex test or four ball test was performed and was ano fail without proof, There is no fact in any of this.

[Houndawg]

Quote

EATIII
I am even more curious, What fact are you referring to? Because telling us that something just works or users raving about it that shoot 500 rds a yr or telling us that the Falex test or four ball test was performed and was ano fail without proof, There is no fact in any of this.

Don't bother. EATIII doesn't know anything. I doubt he even knows what a Felx test is. He's just trying to sell the stuff by making people think he knows what he's talking about.

Edited by Houndawg, 13 January 2012 - 08:28 AM.

[scough]

dwh747, on 12 January 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

scough, on 12 January 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

I have to admit that early on I was concerned over the MSDS too. When you see 98% Bio food grade, you have to wonder what the 2% is, and how does that effect the 98%?  Don't get me wrong, so far it seems to work OK, but I too get an uneasy feeling not having any idea what I'm working with. However, when you think about it, it was claimed to be developed by miltary guys out in the field. I think the reason why they won't devulge anything is it's probably the left over residue in the MRE's. I mean what else that's vaguely editible do they have access too? It might very well be bacon grease with green perfume? Again, I don't know and really don't want this to sound negative, but I have to agree that they should at least release something of vague. I mean if someone really wanted to rip them off, they could easily analyze it and make it blue or pink, right? Besides, isn't the stuff patented?

That replacement bottle is at Article II for you.....  

David

Hey David,

Thanks for the follow up. I was there the other night but forgot the bottle. Seeing I've used close to a 1/4 of it, I think it's only fair just to keep what I have.  I have found that if I microwave it for a minute and shake it like you said, it comes out totally liquid and uniform again, and it'll stay that way for a few hours. I'm fine with that, but thanks for thinking of me. Please just let them know to sell it.  Thanks!

[EATIII]

Houndawg, on 13 January 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Quote

EATIII
I am even more curious, What fact are you referring to? Because telling us that something just works or users raving about it that shoot 500 rds a yr or telling us that the Falex test or four ball test was performed and was ano fail without proof, There is no fact in any of this.

Don't bother. EATIII doesn't know anything. I doubt he even knows what a Felx test is. He's just trying to sell the stuff by making people think he knows what he's talking about.

Hey Dawg,

What is your deal? Why the personal attacks? I believe you are the one with an agenda, what ever that might be. Please get your facts straight about me, It seams like you have a personal grudge against me. Did you fail Ranger school, Did I scuff you up at Batt or any of my other assignments, Did I fail you in a course? or are you just a bitter person. At 43 your to young to be a curmudgeon. You and Cobra would be better off Training than wasting time, kicking your heals and stomping your feet. Use the product or not, if you decide not to, it is your loss.

[scough]

EATIII, on 13 January 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Houndawg, on 13 January 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Quote

EATIII
I am even more curious, What fact are you referring to? Because telling us that something just works or users raving about it that shoot 500 rds a yr or telling us that the Falex test or four ball test was performed and was ano fail without proof, There is no fact in any of this.

Don't bother. EATIII doesn't know anything. I doubt he even knows what a Felx test is. He's just trying to sell the stuff by making people think he knows what he's talking about.

Hey Dawg,

What is your deal? Why the personal attacks? I believe you are the one with an agenda, what ever that might be. Please get your facts straight about me, It seams like you have a personal grudge against me. Did you fail Ranger school, Did I scuff you up at Batt or any of my other assignments, Did I fail you in a course? or are you just a bitter person. At 43 your to young to be a curmudgeon. You and Cobra would be better off Training than wasting time, kicking your heals and stomping your feet. Use the product or not, if you decide not to, it is your loss.

With all due respect, after omitting the heated rhetoric, I think they are asking reasonable questions. In this era of unregulated and unsustantiated wild claims that run rampant, I have to agree that it is only reasonable to provide the backup to statistical or performance claims made. Imho, I think what's upsetting the situation is when someone asks for the backup, and the inquiry is disregarded as unreasonable. That's a sure-fire recipe to upset people.

Again, I think the stuff works pretty good. I'm not sure if it necessarily works better than the other alternatives, but it does help with not stinking up the house like most of the other stuff does. However, I am able to clearly see what's in most of the other stuff, and I've been working with it for 40+ years, so I'm mildly confident I'm not going to grow extra fingers. I don't have the same confidence built yet with the FL.

I think the point is, when a customer - or potential customer asks for a vendor or mfr to substantiate a claim, I think it's reasonable to do so to the best of your ability. Isn't that part and parcel of making the claim in the first place? That doesn't forgive folks getting a little testy over the matter, but I can clearly see and understand how this hostility has built over the last few posts.

If you don't have the answers, as a vendor, it might be a good idea to enlist the help of an official of the firm, before arbitrarily turning off a number of potential customers by ratcheting up the rhetoric. That's not helpful on any level, and might turn off scores of people just on principle, lurkers too. You don't want that, do you?

Just thinking out loud.

[EATIII]

Scough,

Yes, I agree with you, they were reasonable questions and I answered with what the company response is. Its that simple, a four ball test is not going to make some people happy no matter what, they will just find another avenue of approach to put the product down. An MSDS is not going to show that you won't grow an extra arm, nor is it going to change the onions of some people. But it is (including this one) recognized and accepted in the industry. Come see us at the Shot show and we can talk

Also, I don't want to put anyone off as I wouldn't have any dealing with a person who would not stand up for themselves. I'm not a PR guru, I'm a guy who is still serving after 15 yrs who has done what America needs, in service and out. In this case creating Jobs from Illinois to people in Illinois where I'm a resident and a patriot of. That being said I'm thick headed at times but I get what works to people that need it.

Edited by EATIII, 13 January 2012 - 10:27 AM.

[cobra]

[
[/quote]
Hey Dawg,

What is your deal? Why the personal attacks? I believe you are the one with an agenda, what ever that might be. Please get your facts straight about me, It seams like you have a personal grudge against me. Did you fail Ranger school, Did I scuff you up at Batt or any of my other assignments, Did I fail you in a course? or are you just a bitter person. At 43 your to young to be a curmudgeon. You and Cobra would be better off Training than wasting time, kicking your heals and stomping your feet. Use the product or not, if you decide not to, it is your loss.
[/quote]

You know EATIII I was not saying anything at or to you so I think maybe before what you say about me goes any further you should know who you are talking about. I spent plenty of time practicing in the service as a firearms instructor and Hand to hand.
And after the service I worked in the same field in the LE field, What I am trying to say I know guns do you know your Lubricates?
I mean like I asked before there is no reason I mean no reason that the tests on wear can not be made available. Those tests pose no threat to the Identity of the ingredients of the product. And if you think it's unreasonable to ask that then maybe you should be concerned that you are selling something that you have no Idea what long term effects there may be. If it were me I would want the Manufacturer give me these proven results before I would sell it. And a long with that goes building confidence with buyers or potential buyers will not happen by with holding everything from them. I have been started to hear more and more disappointed users then I did six months ago and for two reasons. No info on the product and after firing several thousand rds problems with unusual wear and malfunctions are popping up. And again this info is all from forums and hear say but we have nothing else to go on at this. Saying it just works is only going to work so long!

[scough]

EATIII, on 13 January 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Scough,

Yes, I agree with you, they were reasonable questions and I answered with what the company response is. Its that simple, a four ball test is not going to make some people happy no matter what, they will just find another avenue of approach to put the product down. An MSDS is not going to show that you won't grow an extra arm, nor is it going to change the onions of some people. But it is (including this one) recognized and accepted in the industry. Come see us at the Shot show and we can talk

Also, I don't want to put anyone off as I wouldn't have any dealing with a person who would not stand up for themselves. I'm not a PR guru, I'm a guy who is still serving after 15 yrs who has done what America needs, in service and out. In this case creating Jobs from Illinois to people in Illinois where I'm a resident and a patriot of. That being said I'm thick headed at times but I get what works to people that need it.

Thanks for the invite, and I might just do that. However, I really have to say, your answer to the test results, 'Its that simple, a four ball test is not going to make some people happy no matter what,...', reads to me that the product didn't do so well, or the FL guys would be leveraging this to the hilt. The angle you seem to be suggesting the company is advising you to take very much concerns me. If I had a product that an unbiased 3rd party uniform test could prove that my product was better and outperformed the the competition, I'd have those results plastered everywhere. The angle you all are taking here is exactly what is fueling the skepticism you are seeing.  

I happen to be a marketing consultant for many major Fortune companies, and the logic here just isn't adding up I'm afraid.

Might be worthwhile constructive feedback for the FL folks perhaps? I don't have a stake in this, so just my .02 from the peanut gallery.

[mauserme]

EATIII, on 13 January 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

An MSDS is not going to show that you won't grow an extra arm, nor is it going to change the onions of some people.

My question was not asked out of concern over growing extra arms or any other appendages.   I asked because I prefer synthetic lubricants over those based on older chemistry and I was hopng to get a more definitive answer than can be found with a google search.

If the MSDS from 1984 is current (and I still don't know if it is) and the product is a polyalphaolefin then that's great by me but it sort of conflicts with the "not an oil" thing unless you define oil as mineral based and maybe Frog Lube was synthesised from a plant base stock.  It also conflicts with the cannon barrel story which I admit might be completely inaccurate.  Again, I was just trying to like it enough to give it a try but if asking a question about it causes this much strife then I'm fine just using what I've been using.  


Edited to remove the part of my post that might be taken as adding to the sarcasm.

Edited by mauserme, 13 January 2012 - 12:39 PM.

[Houndawg]

EATIII, on 13 January 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Houndawg, on 13 January 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Quote

EATIII
I am even more curious, What fact are you referring to? Because telling us that something just works or users raving about it that shoot 500 rds a yr or telling us that the Falex test or four ball test was performed and was ano fail without proof, There is no fact in any of this.

Don't bother. EATIII doesn't know anything. I doubt he even knows what a Felx test is. He's just trying to sell the stuff by making people think he knows what he's talking about.

Hey Dawg,

What is your deal? Why the personal attacks? I believe you are the one with an agenda, what ever that might be. Please get your facts straight about me, It seams like you have a personal grudge against me. Did you fail Ranger school, Did I scuff you up at Batt or any of my other assignments, Did I fail you in a course? or are you just a bitter person. At 43 your to young to be a curmudgeon. You and Cobra would be better off Training than wasting time, kicking your heals and stomping your feet. Use the product or not, if you decide not to, it is your loss.

Your little blurbs about being a Ranger don't impress me. Rangers in general don't impress me. I know more than a few who wear the tab and some who wear the scroll. A Ranger is nothing but a glorified grunt. Even in the truly elite units, the members may be experts in weapon use and deployment, but that doesn't make them experts in what make a weapon work or what keeps it running.

What would impress me is if you came up with the information that was requested. Until then you'll be an uneducated shill.

Your invitation to see you at SHOT means nothing. You know it's for industry members only, don't you? And who's going to hop on a plane to Vegas just so they can get information that can be just as easily provided right here?

[EATIII]

cobra,

please help me, are you asking for long term affects of FL lubrication? If you Lube your gun properly and actually do routine maintenance why would you have a problem? Are you saying you want your gun to go to the point of failure and so you can see how long you can push your gas gage ie: you don't take care of your gun, so the four ball test is your benchmark. On what level is that test going to pertain to you and your gun, If you use FL it as prescribed you will have no issues, no pun intend but it has no bearing, apples and oranges

[EATIII]

Your little blurbs about being a Ranger don't impress me. Rangers in general don't impress me. I know more than a few who wear the tab and some who wear the scroll. A Ranger is nothing but a glorified grunt. Even in the truly elite units, the members may be experts in weapon use and deployment, but that doesn't make them experts in what make a weapon work or what keeps it running.

What would impress me is if you came up with the information that was requested. Until then you'll be an uneducated shill.

Your invitation to see you at SHOT means nothing. You know it's for industry members only, don't you? And who's going to hop on a plane to Vegas just so they can get information that can be just as easily provided right here?
[/quote]
Well that answers that question and if you don't think a Ranger knows how to get the most out of his kit well?, and shot is open to more than Industry members, Its for professionals. I'll pay for/get your pass for you if you don't qualify and  want to expand your knowledge base.

[cobra]

EATIII, on 13 January 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

cobra,

please help me, are you asking for long term affects of FL lubrication? If you Lube your gun properly and actually do routine maintenance why would you have a problem? Are you saying you want your gun to go to the point of failure and so you can see how long you can push your gas gage ie: you don't take care of your gun, so the four ball test is your benchmark. On what level is that test going to pertain to you and your gun, If you use FL it as prescribed you will have no issues, no pun intend but it has no bearing, apples and oranges

Sure, It's simple I want to know how it does on wear. And common sense will tell you that lubing your gun properly will maintain your weapon only as
good as what you are using. Every time someone wants to know something about froglube the question always get evaded for the simple facf that you have no answers. Long term simply means I want to see the test results to give me some Idea of what to expect after a few thousand rds down range again common sense. I have yet to have someone tell me that they have put several thousand rds downrange with an all metal handgun and
not had unusual wear.

What you need to help me with is why won't froglube let any one see those test results if in fact there is nothing to hide!?  You say if I use froglube the right way I will have no  issues well back that up with some real tests instead of internet Hype!

Edited by cobra, 13 January 2012 - 01:15 PM.

[cobra]

Hello all

I just heard that a guy  froglube and Ballistol and he said Ballistol way better then froglube.

When I went to the range to shovel some snow I got to talking about this cause this guy was cleaning his weapon with ballistol when he got done shooting.
He is apparently a retired Le officer never met him before today.

Any way he said he had froglube on springfield GI 1911 and he said the darn thing started to wear out right away so he put ballistol on there and all wear has stopped.

What do think guys? Ballistol better than froglube?