AR Sponsor
Posted: 1/24/2004 4:54:27 PM EDT
| Have any of you used this new lubricant, solvent? A local shop is selling this stuff and says it is one of the best clp type products around. |
|
Eezox is excellent. It's rust-prevention is tops. It's lubricating ability far exceeds BreakFree CLP. In ASTN standard wear & friction testing, it's lubrication performance is on par with FP-10 -- both Eezox and FP-10 tops in lubrication. FP-10 and Eezox have both been accepted by Canadian police for lubrication in arctic conditions as they keep their lubricating properties better than just about anything out there for frozen temperatures. You can't go wrong with FP-10 or Eezox. The thing I like about Eezox is that the solvent is the carrier. After carrying the lubrication and rust protection, the solvent portion dries and leaves behind a "drier" lubrication/protection that likes to stay in the place you put it. FP-10 stays "wet" and thin. Neither hold onto dust & dirt as bad as BreakFree CLP does. |
|
Quoted: If you get eezox, buy the aerosol can version, not the squeeze bottle. The solvent will evaporate from the squeeze bottle over time, making it difficult to apply the CLP down the road. Hmm.. never had that problem. I don't like aerosol cans of ANYTHING that's supposed to be a protectant. Aerosol cans introduce moisture, it's unavoidable -- I know.. it's minscule but I still stick with the squeeze/pour bottles; and that goes for any kind of protectant. [:)] |
| My Co just ordered a ton of EEZOX to take with us on our deployment. Just used some of it tonight on my own weapons and must say it's unique in that it doesn't leave much of a film. When working the actions it seems to be there but you wouldn't know it by wiping the area with your finger. Goes on kinda dry. Will leave feedback after going to the range. |
|
That looks like one of the tests that was done by Jeff/Crufflerjj over on the old Gunboards the first of last year. Sorry I cant remember all the details. There were a couple tests done with totally different results.Ezzox failed in the next test.With some of the other oils that had done poorly performed very well.So the test was not repeatable other than Break Free being fairly consistent with less rust than the others. Jeff also commented that the humidity cabinet may be contaminated by acids and chemicals from testing different coatings etc. at his work.The water was not changed and the tank not clean for unknown time frame if ever.So there was more than just humidity at work in there. If you notice the first piece of wood that is holding the panels,shorter of the two closest.. The panels rusted severly where they made contact with and above the wood.Jeff said its been used many many times testing different chemicals and probably contains acids from corrosive tests in the past on chromed panels/parts etc.. This is probably why the test results where different everytime,with the exception that Break Free came out with less rust than anything else consistently,not eezox. Afterall,this test went way beyond the mil-spec at well over 1000 hours in the tank,not counting the very likely acid contamination. I was very interested in the tests because it included Break Free and FP-10 and followed it closely.The 1st test included old Shooters Choice FP-10.I mentioned that the MPC Firepower FP-10 was a updated formula so jeff got a sample and ran it in the second test. I even posted a link to it on this forum at the time. After the second test I lost interest.Mainly due to the unknown contamination of the tank and the non-repatable test results.Test results should be able to be repeated using the same procedure.If not there are other issues involved effectively changing the performance of all the lubricants. If this is the same test and the picture sure looks like the one from the test,its only telling half the story. If somebody is using this to promote Eezox,then ask them for the second test pics as well.The results were not so good. Thats what I remember from memory. hth Raymond P.S. I tried to locate Crufflerjj's original test posts on the Collectors and Wins workbench forums...but due to the server change at gunboards.com the post is not around anymore. |
|
BreakFree CLP better protection than Eezox? BAHHAHAHAHA. If this guys test was contaminated then you must throw out ALL results. I don't really care about anyone else's tests. I've done my own tests and there was no contamination, everything was cleaned with electronics grade 100% isopropyl alcohol. Lubricant/protectants were applied with gloved hands, each set had it's own pair of gloves. Eezox and FP-10 came out tops. BreakFree did ok, TW-25B did pretty good (especially when left on thick). Oh, and my test results were repeatable, because I repeated them again 2 months later. Edited to add: Just pulled out my Mossberg 500 which was treated with Eezox. Last time it was out was about 3-4 months ago, shooting in the pouring rain. Never cleaned or lubricated it since then, just wiped off the excess water before putting it away. Not a speck of rust or corrosion anywhere to be seen. |
|
Quoted: BreakFree CLP better protection than Eezox? BAHHAHAHAHA. If this guys test was contaminated then you must throw out ALL results. I don't really care about anyone else's tests. I've done my own tests and there was no contamination, everything was cleaned with electronics grade 100% isopropyl alcohol. Lubricant/protectants were applied with gloved hands, each set had it's own pair of gloves. Eezox and FP-10 came out tops. BreakFree did ok, TW-25B did pretty good (especially when left on thick). Oh, and my test results were repeatable, because I repeated them again 2 months later. Edited to add: Just pulled out my Mossberg 500 which was treated with Eezox. Last time it was out was about 3-4 months ago, shooting in the pouring rain. Never cleaned or lubricated it since then, just wiped off the excess water before putting it away. Not a speck of rust or corrosion anywhere to be seen. Well said wyv3rn. Thats exactly the points I was trying to make. First I need to say...I was not trying to be negative about Eezox or Crufflerjj...or trying to say Break Free is better than Eezox etc.etc.. Its just that the lone picture above is lacking alot of information and additional pictures...there were alot of pictures of the tests posted too.In this case,as in most cases,its not worth a thousand words. Its just there is more to it than is seen. In the first test Eezox had little to no rust looking like new.In the second test it failed. Products that failed in the first test did well in the second and so on. Why? The results were not repeatable.Thats my point. My comments about Break free being fairly consistent showing less rust was just that it had less rust in both tests...was it the best in that test...who knows. There are corrosion test pictures and claims all over the internet saying one product is better than the other and its all up to each individual to get the facts unfortunately. If this picture is in fact from the test I mentioned,and I think it is,then the entire text should be represented to give the details of the test.As well as the repeat test for confirmation. If it cant be repeated then there are other issues involved.And the test in question there was likely unkown contamination of the cabinet. Doing your own testing is the only way to go. Fragments and lone pictures being thrown up of past tests just do not tell the entire story. Thats what disturbed me here. In my personal experience its very misleading.Ive learned the hard way to be skeptical about what I see and read as well as doing my own testing to confirm for myself before jumping. Raymond |
|
Quoted: Quoted: BreakFree CLP better protection than Eezox? BAHHAHAHAHA. If this guys test was contaminated then you must throw out ALL results. I don't really care about anyone else's tests. I've done my own tests and there was no contamination, everything was cleaned with electronics grade 100% isopropyl alcohol. Lubricant/protectants were applied with gloved hands, each set had it's own pair of gloves. Eezox and FP-10 came out tops. BreakFree did ok, TW-25B did pretty good (especially when left on thick). Oh, and my test results were repeatable, because I repeated them again 2 months later. Edited to add: Just pulled out my Mossberg 500 which was treated with Eezox. Last time it was out was about 3-4 months ago, shooting in the pouring rain. Never cleaned or lubricated it since then, just wiped off the excess water before putting it away. Not a speck of rust or corrosion anywhere to be seen. Well said wyv3rn. Thats exactly the points I was trying to make. First I need to say...I was not trying to be negative about Eezox or Crufflerjj...or trying to say Break Free is better than Eezox etc.etc.. Its just that the lone picture above is lacking alot of information and additional pictures...there were alot of pictures of the tests posted too.In this case,as in most cases,its not worth a thousand words. Its just there is more to it than is seen. In the first test Eezox had little to no rust looking like new.In the second test it failed. Products that failed in the first test did well in the second and so on. Why? The results were not repeatable.Thats my point. My comments about Break free being fairly consistent showing less rust was just that it had less rust in both tests...was it the best in that test...who knows. There are corrosion test pictures and claims all over the internet saying one product is better than the other and its all up to each individual to get the facts unfortunately. If this picture is in fact from the test I mentioned,and I think it is,then the entire text should be represented to give the details of the test.As well as the repeat test for confirmation. If it cant be repeated then there are other issues involved.And the test in question there was likely unkown contamination of the cabinet. Doing your own testing is the only way to go. Fragments and lone pictures being thrown up of past tests just do not tell the entire story. Thats what disturbed me here. In my personal experience its very misleading.Ive learned the hard way to be skeptical about what I see and read as well as doing my own testing to confirm for myself before jumping. Raymond Very well said. I agree completely. |
|
Quoted: Thanks for the info about the pic. I'll refrain from posting it anymore. Maybe someone can do a more accurate test in the future. Although, someone will always want to dispute the accuracy of any test. I apologize if it seemed my comments were directed towards you for posting the picture.That was not my intention at all. Basically Im just shootin the breeze about something interesting to me with the folk's here. The fact that you saw the picture somewhere,as a fragment of the test with no information with it...and therefore lead to believe whatever someone wants to make of it. Thats the problem as I see it,not you posting the picture.Thats why Im a skeptic about all this.Ive been bit more than once by some of this stuff.But not anymore. And your right,every corrosion test that is done will have the nay sayers.Mainly because of a possible hidden agenda or faulty procedures etc.. Like wyv3rn said. "I don't really care about anyone else's tests. I've done my own tests " Thats the way to be. Crufflerjj/Jeff actually did a very good job on that test,spent alot of time doing it and was very honest and straight foward with the findings.Its just at the end,the test could not be repeated and he comments about possible contamination of the tank.That made the test worthless.But you have to see it all to see there was a problem like a contaminated tank etc.. Raymond |
|
By all means, please blow the wistle on faulty tests any day of the week. There's enough bad info flying around as it is. FWIW, the picture is pretty consistent with the results I obtained though. Except for the FP-10 sheet. I have a suspicion they had the old FP-10, I tested the new stuff. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Thanks for the info about the pic. I'll refrain from posting it anymore. Maybe someone can do a more accurate test in the future. Although, someone will always want to dispute the accuracy of any test. I apologize if it seemed my comments were directed towards you for posting the picture.That was not my intention at all. No, no.....I apologize if it seems I was upset about you thinking you directed your comments to me, LOL. That make any sense? [:)] I wasn't upset nor did I think it was directed at me. I'm glad you stated the facts. When I've seen it posted at other places, I too have asked the details and specifics regarding the test and the tester, and never got a clear answer. It seems you know better than anyone else I've come across what the jist of it is. Nice to know and thanks for sharing. |
|
Just wanted to make sure I was not stepping on anyone's toes. I wish I had printed crufflerjj's test threads out now.They were interesting eitherway. The tests started sometime around the first of 2003 and ended early august 2003. The tests were commented on weekly if I remember with the results first given after 6 days and so on. The picture above was the long term exposure using the panels from one of the tests. Like I said after seeing the test was not repeatable and the possible contamination I lost interest. Now to find something else to talk about.[beer] Raymond |
|
Makes you goofy if you use too much! After finding ggo dstuff on Eezox, I bought a quart and went to work on my guns. I was dipping my hands into the solution, and I was breathing the fumes as I was trying to get it to dry on the dozens of guns I was cleaning. I then got GOOFY. After two days I called poison control. They explained to me that the cutting agent is a commercial solvent -- maybe TCE(?)-- and it is the stuff that young types huff to get high. They told me that it probably did not cause brain damage due to my limited exposure, but that there were two aspects that were messing with me -- one had a half-life of 24 hours and one had a half-life of two weeks (!). It obviusly was this second one that was messing with me days after the cleaning. For the life of me I cannot see what the kids see in this "high". I still have the stuff, but I have not used it since (the mind is a terrible thing to waste). The next time I use it I intend to wear gloves and use my scuba gear (so as not to breath the fumes). |
|
Makes you goofy if you use too much! After finding ggo dstuff on Eezox, I bought a quart and went to work on my guns. I was dipping my hands into the solution, and I was breathing the fumes as I was trying to get it to dry on the dozens of guns I was cleaning. I then got GOOFY. After two days I called poison control. They explained to me that the cutting agent is a commercial solvent -- maybe TCE(?)-- and it is the stuff that young types huff to get high. They told me that it probably did not cause brain damage due to my limited exposure, but that there were two aspects that were messing with me -- one had a half-life of 24 hours and one had a half-life of two weeks (!). It obviusly was this second one that was messing with me days after the cleaning. For the life of me I cannot see what the kids see in this "high". I still have the stuff, but I have not used it since (the mind is a terrible thing to waste). The next time I use it I intend to wear gloves and use my scuba gear (so as not to breath the fumes). |
|
Quoted: Makes you goofy if you use too much! After finding ggo dstuff on Eezox, I bought a quart and went to work on my guns. I was dipping my hands into the solution, and I was breathing the fumes as I was trying to get it to dry on the dozens of guns I was cleaning. I then got GOOFY. After two days I called poison control. They explained to me that the cutting agent is a commercial solvent -- maybe TCE(?)-- and it is the stuff that young types huff to get high. They told me that it probably did not cause brain damage due to my limited exposure, but that there were two aspects that were messing with me -- one had a half-life of 24 hours and one had a half-life of two weeks (!). It obviusly was this second one that was messing with me days after the cleaning. For the life of me I cannot see what the kids see in this "high". I still have the stuff, but I have not used it since (the mind is a terrible thing to waste). The next time I use it I intend to wear gloves and use my scuba gear (so as not to breath the fumes). Am I the only one who reads the MSDS before I use a chemical of some sort? That must've been a rather enclosed area with little ventilation. Eezox and BreakFree should both be used in good ventilation. FP-10 should be used in ventilation as well but is much safer than either. Mil-comm products are tops in human and environmental friendlyness. Completely non-toxic. Big plus for those who are stuffed into tiny, unventilated rooms and clean guns all day. |
|
Quoted: FP-10 should be used in ventilation as well but is much safer than either. Mil-comm products are tops in human and environmental friendlyness. Completely non-toxic. Big plus for those who are stuffed into tiny, unventilated rooms and clean guns all day. Nope I read the MSDS's too.Kinda strange about it too.I guess you could say fanatic. FP-10 contains no solvents,so no volatiles.Just oils,including cinnamon oil. But it is a hydrocarbon oil and may bother some folks skin.Rare but it happens. FP-10 is listed by the DLA as environmentally friendly though.Thats more than can be said about most other clps. Mil-comm is great stuff but I disaggree about it being completely safe and enviromentally friendly due to the concerns of the PTFE content,which is rather high percentage per volume in the TW-25B. That is if you let things like PTFE concern you. But your absolutely right,everyone should read the MSDS's and take precautions no matter what they use.Washing your hands is one of the most important things to do after using any oil or solvent. Raymond |
|
Quoted: Quoted: FP-10 should be used in ventilation as well but is much safer than either. Mil-comm products are tops in human and environmental friendlyness. Completely non-toxic. Big plus for those who are stuffed into tiny, unventilated rooms and clean guns all day. Nope I read the MSDS's too.Kinda strange about it too.I guess you could say fanatic. FP-10 contains no solvents,so no volatiles.Just oils,including cinnamon oil. But it is a hydrocarbon oil and may bother some folks skin.Rare but it happens. FP-10 is listed by the DLA as environmentally friendly though.Thats more than can be said about most other clps. Mil-comm is great stuff but I disaggree about it being completely safe and enviromentally friendly due to the concerns of the PTFE content,which is rather high percentage per volume in the TW-25B. That is if you let things like PTFE concern you. But your absolutely right,everyone should read the MSDS's and take precautions no matter what they use.Washing your hands is one of the most important things to do after using any oil or solvent. Raymond Thank you for the corrections, good info! |
|
I bought a case of the stuff for 20 bucks a dealer freind of mine was closing his doors. Best stuff for rust prevent going that i have used. the cans are the old style all metal camo paint job. Granted it dosent come out as easy as i would like so i bought that refillable sparyer and another quart from the ezzox web sight. I love the stuff for a oil lub and rust prevent, but i still use tetra and tw25b from mil com on my M1, M1a. My Bushmaster gets eezox. as well as all the 1911 and P99 i have. |
|
Quoted: Eezox is excellent. It's rust-prevention is tops. It's lubricating ability far exceeds BreakFree CLP. In ASTN standard wear & friction testing, it's lubrication performance is on par with FP-10 -- both Eezox and FP-10 tops in lubrication. FP-10 and Eezox have both been accepted by Canadian police for lubrication in arctic conditions as they keep their lubricating properties better than just about anything out there for frozen temperatures. You can't go wrong with FP-10 or Eezox. The thing I like about Eezox is that the solvent is the carrier. After carrying the lubrication and rust protection, the solvent portion dries and leaves behind a "drier" lubrication/protection that likes to stay in the place you put it. FP-10 stays "wet" and thin. Neither hold onto dust & dirt as bad as BreakFree CLP does. I agree here on the EEZOX! I did some testing a bit over a year ago and the EEZOX came out after a week with no rust at all. I finally gave up. Tried it again with the same results. I did not have any fp-10 to test at the time. EEZOX is a top rate protectant hands down IMHO and the C&L properties are top notch too. My test was less scientific. Used sanded nails coated with a patch of each product..A light coat. Sprayed with salt mist throughout the day every day for the duration (I know...I work at home and have time to do such stuff). EEZOX, CLP, then Militec. Performed in that order. Funny that the militec started failing the first day as did the control nail. CLP lasted longer than expected but when it failed I sprayed the eezox nail for two more days and gave up. No rust at all! take care! |
AR Sponsor