AR Sponsor
Posted: 11/2/2025 1:33:11 PM EDT
| For a while it was the rage in Afghanistan and Iraq. Does anybody still use it? |
|
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-735r.pdf MILITEC-1 Did Not Pass Any Tests and Evaluations as a Small Arms Cleaner, Lubricant, and Preservative The study found that the advantages in velocity and accuracy claimed by Militec, Inc., were not achieved. The study also found that MILITEC-1 posed a possible health hazard following both acute and chronic overexposure to the skin, and it noted that the product should not be recommended for use. The Navy tested and evaluated 14 commercial small arms lubricants, including MILITEC-1, in these environments. The Navy found in the dust tests with various exposure times that although liquid lubricants appeared to accumulate more dust than the dry lubricants, they were actually more effective in overcoming the friction caused by the dust. In addition, the test and evaluation showed that only the currently approved cleaning, lubrication, and preservation product and one other tested and evaluated lubricant provided 6We note that some government agencies (for example, U.S. Park Service, Secret Service, and the Police Department of the U.S. Supreme Court) purchase MILITEC-1, but according to DOD officials, DOD’s product specifications for military users are based on its broader needs for a product that performs in diverse operational conditions and climates. adequate corrosion protection. The rest of the lubricants, including MILITEC-1, did not perform satisfactorily in this area. Therefore, the Navy concluded that none of the lubricants provided significant benefits over the approved cleaning, lubrication, and preservation product, which it found to be adequate for general use in these environments. MILITEC-1, along with 15 other products, did not pass the initial live fire test because of excessive firing malfunctions and was therefore not considered for further live fire testing. In response to the test and evaluation results, the Army issued a safety and maintenance message to all Army components in December 2006 emphasizing that only the approved cleaning, lubrication, and preservation products should be used on small arms, and that small arms reliability could be compromised if other products were used. In July 1997, the Army Tank-Automotive and Armament Command conducted a test and evaluation of MILITEC-1 as a possible lubricant for weapons seals but stopped the test after 1 hour after observing extensive corrosion. etc. etc. etc. The 24 page report gives the results of multiple different tests and million of dollars spent over various decades to evaluate Militec-1, and it was found lacking. Militec-1 was a failed engine oil additive which was later rebranded as a weapon lubricant. I've personally used Miltec-1 and found no benefit over other products. |
WTB: Steel Bodied Surefire Trainer
|
Originally Posted By Postal0311: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-735r.pdf etc. etc. etc. The 24 page report gives the results of multiple different tests and million of dollars spent over various decades to evaluate Militec-1, and it was found lacking. Militec-1 was a failed engine oil additive which was later rebranded as a weapon lubricant. I've personally used Miltec-1 and found no benefit over other products. Originally Posted By Postal0311: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-735r.pdf MILITEC-1 Did Not Pass Any Tests and Evaluations as a Small Arms Cleaner, Lubricant, and Preservative The study found that the advantages in velocity and accuracy claimed by Militec, Inc., were not achieved. The study also found that MILITEC-1 posed a possible health hazard following both acute and chronic overexposure to the skin, and it noted that the product should not be recommended for use. The Navy tested and evaluated 14 commercial small arms lubricants, including MILITEC-1, in these environments. The Navy found in the dust tests with various exposure times that although liquid lubricants appeared to accumulate more dust than the dry lubricants, they were actually more effective in overcoming the friction caused by the dust. In addition, the test and evaluation showed that only the currently approved cleaning, lubrication, and preservation product and one other tested and evaluated lubricant provided 6We note that some government agencies (for example, U.S. Park Service, Secret Service, and the Police Department of the U.S. Supreme Court) purchase MILITEC-1, but according to DOD officials, DOD’s product specifications for military users are based on its broader needs for a product that performs in diverse operational conditions and climates. adequate corrosion protection. The rest of the lubricants, including MILITEC-1, did not perform satisfactorily in this area. Therefore, the Navy concluded that none of the lubricants provided significant benefits over the approved cleaning, lubrication, and preservation product, which it found to be adequate for general use in these environments. MILITEC-1, along with 15 other products, did not pass the initial live fire test because of excessive firing malfunctions and was therefore not considered for further live fire testing. In response to the test and evaluation results, the Army issued a safety and maintenance message to all Army components in December 2006 emphasizing that only the approved cleaning, lubrication, and preservation products should be used on small arms, and that small arms reliability could be compromised if other products were used. In July 1997, the Army Tank-Automotive and Armament Command conducted a test and evaluation of MILITEC-1 as a possible lubricant for weapons seals but stopped the test after 1 hour after observing extensive corrosion. etc. etc. etc. The 24 page report gives the results of multiple different tests and million of dollars spent over various decades to evaluate Militec-1, and it was found lacking. Militec-1 was a failed engine oil additive which was later rebranded as a weapon lubricant. I've personally used Miltec-1 and found no benefit over other products. Yeah, but does it work? 
|
|
Originally Posted By kymarkh: I used the hell out of their free samples and lived to tell the tale. It worked fine. There are no 'wonder lubricants'. End of message. Yeah, remember they would give out free bottles to anyone with a gov id? I recall that time. I think what they wanted you to do was use a lighter and light the parts for a few seconds then apply the lube and wipe it off. From what I recall the primary problem with millitec was that their stuff had chlorine mixture in it which explains why it cleaned the guns so well but also over time it will cause structural failures for metal. The way I understand it the military banned all use of chlorine products that is used on metal parts because they had used this specific cleaner on a ship part that broke after a while in unusual ways. They started studying it a bit more and found out the cleaner they used had chlorine in it and that was the primary reason of the failure. Once they stopped using it the part worked and never broke again. Once I realized this I kept it as a lube in my garage myself. Now here's a funny thing that happened that I'm not sure if it is because of this bottle but I had this lawnmower at my parent's that I would pour the remainder of the bottle into. I only used the one bottle that I had but anyway a little while later I remember my dad was using the mower and one day a loud boom happened and there was a huge hole on the side of the mower. I always wondered if it was because of that millitec 1 bottle I had used? But I never could prove it since it was only used once and it was some time ago but I never heard of a mower failing that way. |
Joined:
Jan 2025
Posts:
129
EE: 95% (19)
TX, USA
|
I fell for the hype in like 99 and used it until around 2005. After I realized just how much of a junk product it really was. It was allowing a lot of rust, or possibly even causing it in the bore of my USP. They were a smaller company and I called to ask a question and the person put me on the phone with one of their techs (supposedly anyway) who said, "it's the exact same thing in the bottle," when I asked if there was a difference between the gun lube and the car oil additive. Because the gun lube was four times the price. The small bottles labeled gun lube were the same price as the larger 8 or 12 ounce (I don't remember which) bottles of auto oil additive. I put some of each on a few SAWs in places you aren't supposed to oil at all, just to see how bad they'd be and the Militec was as bad or even worse than Royco CLP for burning off and fouling buildup. Tetra was decent at keeping some of the fouling from sticking. |
| I still have an old bottle of Militec on the bench. It smells rancid. I need to throw it away. I'd rather lubricate my rifles with synthetic 5W-40, personally. |
RIP TSgt Jason Norton and SSgt Brian McElroy. KIA 22 Jan 06, near Taji, Iraq.
LaRue Armorer, Colt 1911 Armorer, Colt M16/AR15 Armorer, Glock Armorer
LaRue Armorer, Colt 1911 Armorer, Colt M16/AR15 Armorer, Glock Armorer
|
Originally Posted By CATM: I still have an old bottle of Militec on the bench. It smells rancid. I need to throw it away. I'd rather lubricate my rifles with synthetic 5W-40, personally. I have a bottle of synthetic 0w on the bench, a tube of Mobil 1 synthetic grease, homemade Ed’s red cleaner, and a couple different copper solvents. Oh and I lube the AR with cornhead 00 grease. It’s semi liquid. Works well below freezing and doesn’t migrate. Oh and it’s cheap. I remember in the Cherry balm thread with Dallas the owner and he couldn’t fault the use of the cornhead grease as it was damn close to one of his boutique products. Only the cornhead grease was $6.95 a quart. I don’t mind cleaning it off and replacing the lube at that price. I cannot do the Cherry balm high round count between cleanings thing. I have shooter’s choice for copper solvent and BoreTech next in rotation. Also the foaming WipeOut is outstanding stuff. |
The only hyphenated names I like are cartridge names......30-06, 30-40, 38-55 etc.
AR Sponsor