Hello,
I was wondering what is a better lube between the two above assuming neither will be used for cleaning. Only lubricant. Some possible questions:
Which lasts longer before reapplication is required?
Which is better in cold climates?
Which is better in hot climates?
Which is better in damp climates? Dry climates?
Which is better for use over a long period of time (years)?
Do the answers above also apply to firearms other than the AR platform?
I like Frog Lube
I like bacon grease.
I use MILITEC-1 synthetic metal conditioner both the oil and grease.
According to the military, and all of its testing since 1978, CLP is better than LSA. I will say that LSA is still used on the Mk19 and other weapons where CLP doesn’t seem to work well, or is not approved.
Currently manufactured LSA is probably impossible to get in CONUS as there has been a big shortage overseas.
The only authorized CLP supplier that sells to the general public is G96 Products. G96 Synthetic CLP is a pretty good product and readily available to everyone.
I think any lube will work fine overall, if you use enough of it, and use it frequently. I personally don’t believe in so called lubricant failures, only in failures to lube. Just my opinion. YMMV.
According to the military, and all of its testing since 1978, CLP is better than LSA.
Better for what purpose? it is a better jack of all trades. LSA is a better pure lube. It will stay put, not drain off while the rifle sits in the corner and the lube takes longer to burn off.
TW-25B grease! Stuff stays on. Works great.
Better for the military. Again this is according to their own testing and protocols. CLP will have a wider temp range and wash off much less than LSA, according to MIL-L-63460. Issue CLP performs much better in mil spec testing - this is a fact. Now whether or not any of that really matters in real world use - that’s up for debate and has been for years.
Better for the military can mean many things that have nothing to do with absolute performance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually, it is quantifiable per MIL-L-63460. The Army wanted a product to meet a specific set of demands and so they wrote the performance specification for a military arms lubricant, amended it several times over the years, and hold every supplier (currently five) to the specification. LSA doesn’t meet this specification. Not even close. CLP blows LSA out of the water - according to the tests done by the U.S. Army.
Again, not trying to be argumentative, but these things are just facts. You can argue that you like a particular product better for whatever reason, but it doesn’t change what .MIL has discovered through actual testing. I’m certainly not saying that I think military issue CLP is the world’s best lubricant, period. I don’t. Heck, half the written specs in MIL-L-63460E don’t even apply to the civilian shooter. For instance, I could care less if my lube has any effect on chemical weapon detection paper or not.
I’m just trying to answer the OP’s questions, not just recommend MY favorite product.
I can tell you this much. If you take a rifle and lube it with Royco or Break Free CLP, not the current contract holder but the previous, issue type lube from the 2000’s and you lube a rifle with a 1968 bottle of LSA, the rifle with the LSA will still be wet in 6 months and the rifle lubed with the break free will be almost totally dry.
It is interesting that the heavier duty crew served, like the MK19, which tend to see a harsher firing schedule and are less forgiving of marginal lube, specify LSA still.
CLP is designed to replace several products. I think the current product finally replaces LAW as well. There is a logistical side to this as well as a performance side.
I remember being told in the 80s how Break Free CLP was technically superior to LSA. It was over hyped to death then. I know it has been improved but I am still skeptical as to the claims that a lube that will still be fluid at -45 is going to be thick enough at higher temp to persist under a heavy firing schedule. I would like to try some of the newer G-96 stuff but I still doubt it will hold a candle to stuff like Fire Clean. The problem is the tech is improving faster than the Army can re-work its specs. That and I don’t have to worry about whether a gallon of lube is shipped to Norway or Panama and has to work in both places.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agree 100%
LSA-T is Lubricant, Small Arms with Teflon in it. It is 25% Teflon and 75% LSA. Regular LSA doesn’t have Teflon in it. Is one better than the other? Or is one better for certain things like shooting in the rain?
I came across a site where a person can apparently get the newer or older CLP. See the link below. The old one was manufactured in 1988. See number 45. The newer CLP was manufactured in 2008. See number 46. Which one is the pleasant smelling one? Is one better than the other? Or maybe one is better at one function but the other is better at another function?
Whilest we are talking about CLP…whats that flaky looking white stuff that always settles to the bottom of an unused bottle?
Military Break Free CLP is a bottle of compromise that does NOTHING particularly well. It generally sucks, but can be shipped in one jug (as opposed to two separate items, Rifle Bore Cleaner and Weapons Lubricant (LSA).
LSA was initially blended for the 20mm Vulcan and 7.62 Mini-gun in high-speed/ high-altitude aircraft. Adding Teflon made it even better.
You can download LSA and LSA-T MIL-SPEC MIL-L-46150 and amendment here: http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-L/MIL-L-46150_34909/
Slow down there hater! Everyone knows that CLP is the shizzle nizzle and if you don’t drink the CLP Kool-aid something is wrong.
I use CLP to help prevent chaffing :dance3:
From another Lube thread
dandruff
EVERYONE knows that bacon grease is the only way to go.