?This is a really an in depth discussion and analysis. http://www.jwmercantile.com/infooil.html
on oils, terminology, comparisons , etc. ad nauseam.
The following quote is taken from it....
The synthetics offer the only truly significant differences, due to their superior high
temperature oxidation resistance, high film strength, very low tendency to form deposits,
stable viscosity base, and low temperature flow characteristics. Synthetics are superior
lubricants compared to traditional petroleum oils. You will have to decide if their high cost is
justified in your application.
For gun applications, I think we can ignore “High temp. oxidation resistance” as a relevant
performance feature. Much of the rest is interesting and pertinent...such as “high film strength”.
That is why syn has such great rust preventative performance. It has a film that doesn’t tire of
“sticking” and slide off of the metal, as petro oil does. “Leaves no deposits” so scrubbing the old
oil off of the gun has less of requirement. “Lower temp flow” so the gun mechanisms don’t
become sticky or jam in sub zero temps and consequently one viscosity can be chosen for , say,
80 degrees and that will perform well at all temps. AND “Stable Viscosity Base. In the
discussion this is partly redundant to “Lower Temp Flow”.
An oil’s viscosity can be changed by using it to a excessive degree. The theory being that the oil
wears out by “shearing the oil molecules, thereby shortening them, and lowering the viscosity
number due to oil thinning that results from shorter molecular length. I have read that this is a
laboratory possibility “only” and cannot be experienced in application to any degree that the oil
would be made to perform differently at any point in its life cycle due to being “worn out”. But
as any engineer will tell you “no statement, regardless of how complete or correct in terms of
application, cannot be contradicted on the remotest of irreverent possibilities”. They are trained
to do that and are graded on their abilities to fault almost anything.
Please understand that it is not I that is saying that you are not correct in your statements....Rather
it is the squirrel that put together that treatise on oils. He is the academic and the expert on the
subject. I only consider my self expert on three fields and one of those pertains to straight hetro
sex. The other two, as well, don’t pertain to oil.
Now, about your post:
Quote
You guys who are talking about "synthetic" oil "stability" might want to read up on the subject.
It is rude to come out of the chute with a blatant contradiction of another. Your parents should
have impressed this universal truth upon you in Grammar School. It isn’t a high echelon
behavior in a mature man and you don’t well reflect. The subject of your comment is becoming
apprised of a subject that one is demonstrably ignorant about. You can verify this opinion by
reading up on “Acceptable Social Behavior and Etiquette”.
The "stability" that synthetics reference is about sheer (which is a term used to reference the
break down of the molecular chains which gives motor oil it's desired protection properties).
I used the word stability. It means what I want it to when I use it and I have complete license in
that so long as there are more than one accepted or understood definitions. In this case I was
referring to the most associated characteristic of “viscosity” stability due to temp delta. No one
could possibly expect a bolt action rifle to wear out oil, of an type, and reduce its viscosity in any
degree let alone a degree that would impact it’s ability to lubricate in that application.
Higher temps typically lead to early break down - so "Temp Stability" is not what you are
implying with respect to how you are using it on your rifles.
I meant what I was implying and what I clearly stated, as well. As far as it refers to temp
stability for a gun lubricant, temp stability can only refer to potential ambient temperatures.
While syn might still perform at 480 degrees F that fact is superfoules . Ambient, as far as the
Fed and the Military are concerned, is -40 to +125 F. Out side that temp. range the operation of
a rifle is not possible due to the operator being inoperable,,,if not dead.
Since sheer is not a factor in this case (used on rifes), then those attributes in motor oil have no
real benefit (or none that I can identify) over other lubricants.
I don’t know that “sheerability” is a oil performance spec in syn or petro base stock oils. If each
were subjected to the same “sheering” the reduction in viscosity, I expect, would be equal as a percent
of viscosity change. Due to syn having better film strength and thusly outperforming petro metal
contact prevention, I would expect any operating cycle to reduce the syn less.
There may be some protection from the added VI packets and cleansers, but I'm not privy to
anything there either.
Suffice to say, motor oil is probably not going to hurt your rifle (BTW... careful with ATF - it
makes a good paint/finish remover).
We weren’t talking of it being benign. Rather the point was made the syn is patently better at
lubrication and rust prevention. The link directly contradicts you on that opinion. Thanks for the heads up on the ATF and finish impact.
However, don't think that it will be something of a miracle or otherwise for your rifle either.
To the degree that syn out performs Petro oil I think, at least in the common vernacular, miracle
is appropriate. What else would you call it? Better?
Particularly the synthetics (which have several forms and none of them will have any benefit to a
rifle - at least not a bolt action rifle anyway).
I believe you are completely wrong on this statement. Completely! You, or I don’t have to read
too deep on this topic to come to that conclusion. I don’t see how this common fact could have
escaped you. I am however interested greatly in seeing any credible source support your position as
it will refute something I consider fact. As always, I appreciate being proven wrong as it
indicates a learning experience. Empty contradictions are a different story.
You hijacked my thread. The subject was “OIL”. You changed the subject to “My technical
competency”. Your opinion of me or my intellect or integrity are absolutely none of my
business. I have only made you a topic in that regard as a rebuttal in the same vein as your post.
I hope in the future you show some respect for me and others on the forum. I am your elder and
even without regard to that, I am a fellow forum member. You can feel free to contact me by PM
if you need the license for more base communication. You have to understand that the forum is
read by many hundreds and any insult is broadly witnessed. Unless, of course, that is your
desired result. Use PM’s
I am collecting date on the relative benefits of oils and other lubricants in their application to
rifles. From that you can duplicate and verify results AND run the same controlled experiments
and test other oils and add their performance to the findings for the edification of the forum at
large. This would not prevent any of us being contradicted out of hand but it would allow a sort
of peer review.
Thanks for your comments,
John