Several weeks ago I submitted eighteen samples of various gun lubricants and cooking oils for infrared spectroscopy and other testing. If you would like to read more about how the testing was conducted and learn some science, read this article written by the man who was instrumental in this second round of gun lube chemical analysis.
All eighteen will be the subject of future articles, many of which will be published this week – but we’ll start with the mundane. Four of those samples were CLP, and they are the subject of this post
(It’s important to note that from manufacturer to manufacturer, the term “CLP” may not mean the same exact thing, even though they might be intended for the same purpose).
The oldest was a bottle I’d been issued while in the military. It was manufactured by Royal Lubricants Co in March of 2000. This was sample number 15.
The second oldest was a bottle of Otis CLP I’d also picked up in the military, but it was made in (roughly) 2005. This was sample number 10.
Next was an aerosol can of Break-Free CLP purchased in 2010. This was sample number 14.
Finally, I bought a new bottle of non-aerosol Break-Free CLP in September of 2015. This was sample number 5.
The IR spectroscopy showed that they were all similar, but…well, here’s what Everett had to say, before he knew what they were.
“Samples #5, #10, #14, and #15 are all similar, but the varying height of the 2000 to 500 cm-1 peaks indicates that there are some differences. I almost wonder if they are the same starting material but some samples broke down more than others.”
Seems he’s a pretty smart guy, or at least, he knows chemistry. Yes, it would appear that CLP breaks down over time. Is the older stuff less effective as a result? I’ve no idea. The Y2K tube was one I’d used without issue over the last ten years, but that is not conclusive proof that old oil is as good as new oil. We can see that there are some chemical differences, so we should expect some difference in performance at some point. Hook me up with a million rounds of 5.56 and a dozen people whose fingers never get tired, and I’ll find that point.
—
Everett (who conducted the testing and is linked above) wished me to thank:
IR isn’t a quantitative measurement. “Some” difference can be attributed to batch variations.
CLP formulations have changed over time as well. The early formulas (80s?) had a lot more solvent and there was a lot of teflon for lubrication. IIRC, the teflon went away due to cold bore shot issues and bore damage in some circumstances. The solvents went the way of all effective things in this age of EPA and OSHA. So the older CLPs weren’t really that bad per se. Fortunately the water based cleaners have become darn good and the synthetic, low vapor pressure oils work. But, you still need multiple products where one used to be good enough.
I disagree with the chemist who made that statement. I only see differences in amount. In addition, CLP is a distillate, most likely a hodge podge of similar size and weight molecules. Methinks it’s sampling error.
Kind of arrogant to look at a single graphic and dispute the claims of the person who put it together, especially when they have (what I assume to be) extensive lab experience. Then again, maybe you do too.