1911Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
ok i have a good question,i am a disabled 2 time luekemic lymphoma survivior and a 7 time stroke/heart medal winner as well.

at one point at my docs when we were trying to figure out what caused my cancer i had mentioned i was once a super in a bearings manufacturing plant and we used alot of chems ,i mean ALOT of the nastys like triclorethane,trichlorethenss etc and on our drums of 40 weight oil for the heat treat and final dip they were marked cancer causers as well as the other oils.

to boot alot of us i tracked down were also afflicted with cancer as well that i once worked with,all guys i went to school with and grew up and worked in the same plant with back home.

on most of the new packing the additives and or ingredients are never mentioned on the bottle,my concern is long term health over a period using these oils these days and possible illness associated with them.

i use a minimal wipe on the outer steel surfaces and on the rails and inner surfaces i use a q-tip,never just a bare finger as i have seen my buddies do and the not wash theyre hands but wear the stuff on them thru out the day wiping theyre eyes mouth etc.

can someone post a list of whats in what that i can cross ref? oh and as far as wd-40 goes it has benzenes in i am told,i know guys using the crap for arthritis pain relief ,bad stuff to say the least.

maybe i am being paranoid here but i know 3rd time at the docs i wont be comin back.please at least wash your hands off after using any oil.i am almost ready to go back to cosmoline,(thats basically vaseline for you kids in here).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
940 Posts
how would a mineral oil work for you . I use it with camp knives to keep them rust free and mineral oil can be ingested and not absorbed I beleave. I'm not sure if it would hold up under heavy fire though. good luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Wear nitrile gloves if you don't want the stuff on your hands.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,405 Posts
Yeah, I second wearing gloves. I really don't like the smell or feel of any of the solvents or lubricants, especially when they linger on my hands. I also use them in a well-ventilated area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
265 Posts
I tried using standard "examination gloves," but some of the solvents eat them. Are the "nitrile" gloves mentioned above impervious to solvents, and where do you get them? Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,836 Posts
I agree that health concerns are important, but using something for cleaning a gun every once in a while is not the same as working with it continuously every day.

Motor oils are marked with an advisory to avoid continuous contact and to wash hands after use; I have not seen any gun oil so marked. Motor oils contain chemicals intended to retain viscosity and cleaning power under the extreme heat and pressure in an automobile engine, but those chemicals are not needed and not used in gun oils.

I have not checked on other automotive products, such as brake cleaner or carburetor cleaner which are sometimes used for cleaning guns, but I recommend reading the warning labels before using them. If there are warnings, prolonged contact with the substance should be avoided.

Most people use these common automotive products because they are cheap; it could be false economy if prolonged use can cause health problems.

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
I no longer use cancer-in-a-can except on those rare occasions I feel my shotgun's trigger group requires a good blasting - for that I use the green can of CRC brake cleaner.

For the handgun its CLP (the FP_10 variety exclusively now) and on the occasional detail strip the gun takes a bath in soap and water, then a water displacer, then FP-10.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,457 Posts
Good suggestion to check out the MSDS (material safety data sheet) on the materials you use. FWIW, I'm a distributor of Mil-Comms products and all of the products (TW25B grease & oil) are very safe and highly effective. If you go that route, you can order them off my web site.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
Ooooohhh....not so!!!

Begging your pardon, David, I MUST disagree, as fiction does not sit well with me when the FACTS are at hand. You should read these. It applies to ALL products containing Teflon or PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene):

http://www.ewg.org/policymemo/20021113/20030328.php
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Teflon/teflon.htm
http://tuberose.com/Teflon.html
http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20030606/presentation.php
http://www.ewg.org/news/eclips.php?reportid=138,127,140
http://64.177.90.157/science/html/pfos_pfoa.html

By the waym the Perfluoronated Sulfonates and other nasties are all present and leech from teflon and it's coatings, not to mention the toxic gases that form at combustion.

Do your homework.

Respectfully,
George

PS...did you ever give any of that stuff away for FREE, for folks to try here. Your post on the thread sounds more like a "solicitation" than information. You might want to read the rules of the forum, but hey, maybe your post is just what was needed to bring light to the toxicity and cacinogenity of PTFE, for those folks who are genuinely concerned.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,457 Posts
Mr. Fennel,

Unlike you, I'm not a scientist. The reports you provided greatly resemble many others issued by the scientific community. There is both truth and conjecture. The concept of exposing a lab rab to six continuous hours of vapor inhalation for a 16 day period to see if there might be a reaction seems self fulfilling. I suppose that if you replaced whatever chemical you are testing with tap water, you might see a reaction to floride as well. I have no doubt that PTFE, PFOA, PFOS, etc. might cause problems under certain circumstances but what they are isn't clear. The FACTS aren't quite as clear as you make them out to be.

As for your rudely stated question of whether I give away samples, the answer is yes. I also stated that I was a distributor of the product and that if interested, where it could be found as it's not a generically available item. Was that a solicitation? No more than your signature line and free sample offers are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
Balistol- This is an almost century old product that was developed for the German army. It is an outstanding product for all around firearms cleaning and maintainence. It is non-toxic as well. IT is the safest of cleaner/lubes of which I know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Fliedout said:
I tried using standard "examination gloves," but some of the solvents eat them. Are the "nitrile" gloves mentioned above impervious to solvents, and where do you get them? Thanks.
Not impervious but much much better then latex. I sure over long periods of time they will break down with some solvents. The ones I use start to get funky with Brake Clean but keep your hands dry. The other stuff I use, Miltech, Mobil One, Breakfree CLP, Hoppes No.9 and Benchrest, MPro7, etc. will not penetrate or deform nitrile gloves. I get mine from http://www.ammex.com/ and I use these http://www.ammex.com/dsp_prod_detail.cfm?pid=26&catid=20&nav_id=4
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Anti-PTFE Propaganda

Mr. Fennell:

Mil-Comm Products Co. strongly refutes your claim about PTFE / Teflon being a dangerous carcinogen.

You really need to present any evidence that you may have directly to DuPont. Evidence goes a long way ... and DuPont isn't being threatened by any regulatory body to stop production.

Also, it is amazing how low a competitor will go to impress consumers with highly technical information. Reality is, in regards to firearms (that is what we are talking about), you would never have a realistic situation where you would use a massive amount such a lubricant, and apply excessive heat consistently over a long period of time ... because that is what it would take to identify a trace element of what you are talking about. That is not even remotely realistic in regards to firearms.

TW-25B is a non-toxic, unsolvated product which contains no petroleum products. And, it outperforms ANY and ALL weapons lubricants in the world. The U.S. Military and 25 weapons manufacturers seem to think so.

Good luck dealing with your own toxicity issues, you lying sack of sugar.

Greg Cohen
VP, Sales & Marketing
Mil-Comm Products Co.
"Makers of TW-25B lubricant protectant"
www.mil-comm.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
E for Effort...

I'm not here to banter with you David (or Mr. Blinder, whichever you prefer), but I will answer this and then be done with it. By the way, you CAN call me George, but if you prefer to use my surname, the correct spelling is "Fennell"; comes from the ancient Gaeilge (Irish) language, formerly O'Fennell; not the herbal seed :D

You said safe. I said not, and provided just a tid-bit of the CONCLUSIVE info on the subject. The folks who are concerned with carcinogenisis don't want "conjecture" and will understand this, if you can't. There is over 30 years of a "blunder" in this scenario, and the lawsuits coming out of it make those against Agent Orange, pale in comparison. Will they get something off the market that has been in our lives for this long? I doubt it, but they CAN get it out of our FDA related products that make exposure to it a very high risk. The results are in....that's why the EPA indictment last April, but it sure has been kept quiet in the public sector. There are MANY reasons for that (mostly $$$ related) but we ALSO hate to face the nightmares we have lived (and died) with for so long. It's just easier to ignore it, and go on reporting the daily "bad" news and spins that the media want us to know about.

As for your perception of "rude", well, if the shoe fits, I'll wear it. But I do take a bit of offense to anyone who "self-serves" on such a malignant subject, saying it's "safe", and then does a shameless plug to make a buck. Tactful or not, it was not right in my opinion. If you had been on another thread that had nothing to do with the "topic" and just offered up your wares, you'd have never heard a peep outta me. But your answer to the concerns of maineyak, was by no means "informative" to his questions, or for that matter, anyone, as a cancer survivor(s)...just a false statement and a shot at making a sale(s) from his post. If you've offered up samples on this or any other forum, I surely never saw them. I've put my product where my mouth is since 1988, and given samples to anyone who requests them. In the last 2 years on the forums, I have given out over 40,000 samples of FP-10 to anyone who wants to try it, which does not obligate them to a thing, and prevents them from going out and having to buy it, just to try it. If they don't like it, they've lost nothing. I'd say that's a "service", and not a "plug". Funny thing is; if you go to all the firearms forums on the net, including this one, you'll find that it is the most praised and talked about product of it's kind. Now, THAT is the essence of a great product, that was designed for firearms, to be the best, above all others.

But many will tell you, my motivation on the forums is not entirely FP-10 related. It is my ability to bring the truth about such things to the public light along with the evidence to back it up. Being a Scientist has nothing to do with it, as I never worked for DuPont or any other chemical companies, other than MPC (which I started with my dad in 1985, after leaving Pitt). It's a matter of distilling and separating the facts and fiction, which this industry was beginning to fill with, due to all the spill overs of products from the automotive and "frying pan" industries. I've been a shooter my ENTIRE life (at 52 now, and counting) and submersed in lubrication as an Engineer and design specialist for over 18 of them. If that makes you feel inferior with your statement of "I'm not a scientist..", then I suggest you get over it. You don't have to be one. Just have an open mind and RESEARCH what you hear, before believing it, just because some entity says it's so.
My motto has always been "Scientia est Potentia", which translated means "Knowledge is Power". Every can endow themselves with that power. It's a matter of not only keeping an open mind, but questioning what you hear and read.
Folks question me everyday, and everyday I'm here, doing my utmost to answer those questions. If I don't know, I'll tell them so, but make a monumental effort to research it and find the CORRECT answer to their questions.

Nuff said...

Best regards (ta-ta),
George
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
Re: Anti-PTFE Propaganda

Originally posted by TW-25B
...it is amazing how low a competitor will go to impress consumers with highly technical information.
That information is really what eventually won this consumer over. That and the other thing...
you lying sack of sugar
That's the other thing...Whether it's Pistolsmith.com, the old Firing Line, or here, it's part of an old pattern
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
OMG...it's "little D" aka "tribologist"...hiya greg

My my....

Mil-Comm Products Co. strongly refutes your claim about PTFE / Teflon being a dangerous carcinogen.
Of course you do.

You really need to present any evidence that you may have directly to DuPont. Evidence goes a long way ... and DuPont isn't being threatened by any regulatory body to stop production.
Naw...It isn't MY evidence...just the research of others over the last 20 years.
What I said in my last post ($$$)

Also, it is amazing how low a competitor will go to impress consumers with highly technical information. Reality is, in regards to firearms (that is what we are talking about), you would never have a realistic situation where you would use a massive amount such a lubricant, and apply excessive heat consistently over a long period of time ... because that is what it would take to identify a trace element of what you are talking about. That is not even remotely realistic in regards to firearms.
Truth is Low...ok. (sheesh) Technical info has just been negated by you...
Knowing your past posts and plugs on the forums, as well as Dane Burns giving you "warning" on pistolsmith.com, I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
By the way, the Military banned all lubes containing PTFE from use in all fighting vehicles and any weapons system that is enclosed, due to the formation of Fluoric acid and phosgene (mustard) gas, because soldiers were become sick and neuro-damaged when exposed to these gases after firing and break-down of the PTFE as well as the carrier agents.

TW-25B is a non-toxic, unsolvated product which contains no petroleum products. And, it outperforms ANY and ALL weapons lubricants in the world. The U.S. Military and 25 weapons manufacturers seem to think so.
Right...(sigh)

http://www.mil-comm.com/pdf/949430484.pdf

You get your RFQ's and I get mine...what's your point?
Good luck dealing with your own toxicity issues,
Well, frankly, we don't have any. I'll bet you just haven't heard that we've been on the DLA "enviro-friendly" products list for years.

you lying sack of sugar.
Good to see, you're improving in your tact, but you haven't come very far on that "projectionist" problem.

Later Greg...(much)
George
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
That information is really what eventually won this consumer over. That and the other thing...
I second you on that, romulus!
TW-25B is a non-toxic, unsolvated product which contains no petroleum products
obviously, some doubt is in order:

http://www.ewg.org/policymemo/20021113/20030328.php
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Teflon/teflon.htm
http://tuberose.com/Teflon.html
http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/2003...resentation.php
http://www.ewg.org/news/eclips.php?reportid=138,127,140
http://64.177.90.157/science/html/pfos_pfoa.html
By the way, the Military banned all lubes containing PTFE from use in all fighting vehicles and any weapons system that is enclosed, due to the formation of Fluoric acid and phosgene (mustard) gas, because soldiers were become sick and neuro-damaged when exposed to these gases after firing and break-down of the PTFE as well as the carrier agents.
?...!!!
And, it outperforms ANY and ALL weapons lubricants in the world. The U.S. Military and 25 weapons manufacturers seem to think so.
Well, some don’t, especially when the product’s performance speaks to its own…

Quickloader
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Let's get something really clear here George, so we can stop wasting our time with this.

1) There is no such ban on PTFE lubes by the U.S. Military. Several Mil-Spec lubes, including the #1 formula in the arsenal system -- "CLP" -- is 10% PTFE. That is written in the formula, which is a matter of public record.

You are either a liar and/or sick in the head.

2) TW-25B is specified or approved for use on 20+ U.S. military weapons systems, so your assault doesn't hold water.

3) Attacking other commercial lubricants does more harm then good in trying to dethrone Mil-Spec CLP from its virtual monopoly. What we all want to do is get superior lubricants on weapons used by our troops - so go after the arsenal system, not us.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top