FIREClean – Despite Rumors to the Contrary, It’s Not What’s for Dinner

File this under “why did it even have to be said?”

We would like to address recent false or misleading allegations that range from simply misguided to false, defamatory, and libelous. These attacks have been made by competitors and others that paint our product in a false or misleading light. The allegations do not focus on actual performance or relevant tests, and draw a misleading picture.

FIREClean Advanced Gun Oil is a specifically formulated, technically superior weapon reliability solution that resists the harshest firing with enormous heat and carbon overload that seize most weapons. It is a formulation- made specifically for exceptional reliability in firearms and weapons- not a re-labeled or re-packaged product.

FIREClean has been proven in combat in Afghanistan by US Special Operations Forces, and is in use by Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Special Operations. It is also in use by elements of the FBI, DHS, DEA, CBP, Secret Service, Department of State, various intelligence agencies as well as numerous State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies.

FIREClean has been successfully tested on and is in use on weapons from handguns and shotguns to fully automatic and suppressed individual weapons. It has also been successfully tested on and is in use on crew served weapons from 5.56mm M249s to 40mm Automatic Grenade Launchers.

In addition to over 3 years of Combat and Service/Duty usage, FIREClean has been used on the competition circuit by the best shooters in the world, including the US Army Marksmanship Unit. It has been used to win multiple National Championships in Pistol, 3 Gun, Sniping, and many other competitive shooting disciplines.

We are proud to be of service to those that bear arms in defense of our freedom, those that serve to keep us safe in our communities, and those that carry firearms for self defense. We are also pleased to be of service to tens of thousands of competitors, hunters, and recreational shooters- all of whom appreciate the highest possible levels of reliability and safety.

We believe that our performance speaks for itself. We offer what we and many others regard as the best, highest performing product on the market. We have not commented on the formulation, nor will we do so now. We have focused on performance, and we will continue to do so.

Rest assured that we will defend our good name against false, defamatory and libelous allegations using the full measure of remedies available to us.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

-Posted by FIREclean on their Facebook wall.


138 Responses to “FIREClean – Despite Rumors to the Contrary, It’s Not What’s for Dinner”

  1. James Francis says:

    I was hoping for a better response from FireClean, it sounds like “look at the all the people who use our product.. we’re gonna start suing!” As I’ve read it, I don’t think anyone ever really questioned the efficacy of the actual product, but rather what the actual product is. The talk all seems to revolve around, “FireClean is basically Crisco (Canola Oil?)”. I’ve been using FireClean for two years now with great result, and plan to continue using it, though it would be pretty funny if it really is just Crisco.

    • SSD says:

      Is it Crisco? Science says “no” but bullshit stories on the internet say “yes.”

      • war13usaf says:

        Wait. So bc they say its not, it has to be True?

      • The Stig says:

        I keep rereading this looking for where they deny that it’s Canola Oil. They simply don’t. From what I’ve read, the effectiveness was not questioned. It seems like a whole lot of misdirection to focus your press release not on the allegation, but on the effectiveness. Pay no attention to what it is, look at how great it works!

        The lawyer in me says this is confirmed.

        • Kurt says:

          At NO point do they address the controversy, their silence is deafening. This is Clinton 101 here. Don’t talk about it and threaten to sue. Then direct the attention away “Look at how many people use it”

          How about a direct answer. Is it or isn’t it basically Crisco ?

          Most of us could care less if it is, just that it works. This is like Coca Cola in 2004 marketing tap water as bottled “pure” water, in the UK.

  2. Jim says:

    If it works, it works.

    But from a PR perspective their press release basically said nothing.

    The sad general trend in the firearms industry is:
    1. Find a different mouse trap
    2. Market it as better than everyone else
    3. Give free samples to everyone at Shot Show and as many “tier” units as you can
    4. Get at least one celebrity instructor to endorse you
    5. If you get challenged, threaten to sue everyone instead of providing objective data

    • SSD says:

      So please, by all means, enlighten us as to how this is the case here. You seem quite knowledgable on the subject.

      • Jim says:

        I didn’t say that the product was deficient in anyway, but that the response from FC is standard firearms industry damage control PR speak – i.e. an emotional appeal rather one supported by facts.

        Big claims require big evidence – I have not seen either from FC or its detractors.

        FWIW, I think FC works just fine as a lube. I’m just disappointed by the official response.

  3. Eric says:


    An infrared spectroscopy allegedly shows that it is probably some type of vegetable oil.

    I personally don’t care and have never even really heard of Fire Clean until just now.

    • SSD says:

      Go actually look at the images you are referencing. They aren’t the same despite the author’s assertion and you can see it. I don’t often critique the work of other bloggers but that article is shameful and the others that have been based on it, worse.

      • N says:

        I feel like no one is reading the article.

        “I did not – and still do not – believe that FireClean is Crisco, but not for the reason you might think.”

      • PPGMD says:

        They are never exactly the same. There will always be small variations when you run it test to test. And typically those are more categorized as noise particularly when it is in a wave length that you get a low response.

        Based on the results you can definitely say that it is a vegetable oil. And likely very close if not actually Canola Oil.

        There are more definitive tests, and there are reports that people are looking to do it.

        • SSD says:

          Pay a lab. If you do it yourself, it’s just buffoonery.

          • PPGMD says:


            The tools required for more definitive tests are very expensive. The people that have access to them will know what they are doing. The tester took it to a doctor of organic chemistry, and he ran the test in his lab and made the conclusions.

            If you believe the test is wrong, it is up to you to prove it wrong. Not to call the tester a buffoon without evidence.

            People are treating this is magic. When in reality it is basic science, in fact this started by using some of the early methods of chemistry. And followed the basic scientific principles of verifying someone else’s results by running the test themselves.

            This didn’t just come out of no where in an attempt to smear Fireclean. It came out of scientific curiosity. Without which we would still be living in caves.

            • SSD says:

              Yes, I will call anyone who does not use the proper equipment and procedures a buffoon. I will also call bullshit anytime an unnamed source conducts a test. When you write a story saying a test was conducted by some unnamed guy, it’s telling me that “unnamed guy” won’t put his reputation behind his test. That means…its bullshit. It’s simple, there are right ways and wrong ways to do things. This was wrong.

              And yes, the genesis of this entire affair was to smear Fireclean, Touhy even mentions their competitors in his article.

              • PPGMD says:

                And what proof do you have that he didn’t use the proper equipment or procedures? Have you replaced the tests and achieved different results?

                How many times have you mentioned an unnamed source when talking about things like Multicam, and the Army? Sometimes people don’t want to be put in the middle of a shit storm, there is already threats of lawsuits by Fireclean.

                Finally the only competitors that were brought up was due to the owner of another lube company made a claim the same claim, and he wanted to put it in context that he is the developer of two separate lubricants.

                As you said yourself, you think the results are crap? Get a lab to run it for you and prove it wrong. The most important ideal in science.

                • SSD says:

                  We have no proof they did. Using a lab removes all doubt. I don’t need to run these tests. I didn’t stick my neck out on a chopping block making unsubstantiated claims.

              • NTS says:

                “And yes, the genesis of this entire affair was to smear Fireclean, Touhy even mentions their competitors in his article.”

                Yet you seemed to miss the “trust but verify” part where he gave FC the benefit of the doubt.

                He is not working for the makers of FP10.

                ” That means…its bullshit. It’s simple, there are right ways and wrong ways to do things. This was wrong. ”

                Oh the irony, considering you guys have written articles pertaining to unsubstantiated claims through “unnamed sources”.

                Like what was said before, refute the data. FC failed to do so, so maybe you can pick up the slack.

                • SSD says:

                  Well I’m sorry that you can’t see the difference between an “unnamed source” as in a government official who will get into trouble for spilling the beans and an “unnamed professor” who supposedly conducted a test that should have been attributable to a lab so that the results could be verified. There’s no secret spectrometer test. It’s standard, so long as you do it right, don’t contaminate samples and use calibrated equipment. We have no idea if the “unnamed source” referenced in the article did anything right.

                  Ignorance is bliss. You must be the happiest man alive.

      • NineWays says:

        I don’t understand infrared spectroscopy. I do (mostly) understand English, so when I read the patent for what is likely this product, it leads me to form conclusions that tend to agree with Tuohy’s work.

        FireClean definitely works as advertised. The debacle here is perceived value by consumers and PR by the FireClean folks.

  4. darrel says:

    Listing off the agencies and units that use your product is one of the most textbook and laughable ways for a company to garner reputation.

    Mentioning what lube important people are using in their guns is like Windex or Hanes or Colgate mentioning that operators use their products. It basically means nothing, it just makes it look like they are pandering to people who can’t think for themselves or make opinions without that check in the box saying that someone else used it first.

    I don’t really care if Fireclean is Crisco or not, but I think they are handling this the wrong way. People are still going to use their product as long as it does what it claims. Even if it indeed turns out to be crisco, I think a lot of shooters would probably be uncomfortable putting something as crude as vegetable oil on their weapons anyway.

  5. war13usaf says:

    Everyone is having fun with this, because well its funny. Just because FC says “it’s not Crisco” does not mean it isn’t an organic oil identical to Crisco AND if it works then WHO CARES!? The only thing people are upset about is that a company would knowingly repurpose a very cheap product and make it very expensive, simply for a different use.

    Larry Vickers, FC, and everyone wants to make their money and sell products. If your product works, cool. Just don’t be a douchebag about it when you get called out and try to act like your consumers are peasants.

    F*ck it. I’m about to fry up some eggs with Fireclean if anyone is hungry.

    • SSD says:

      They’ve never said its not a vegetable oil based material. Rather, competitors have insisted that it’s Crisco, which it is clearly not. Worse yet, bloggers have misled the public.

      • Joe says:

        Pedantic much? Politically Correct mumbo jumbo for FRIDAY got called out, the PR team is floundering in their attempts to keep the sizzle in the pan.

      • NTS says:

        “Crisco” the brand name? or “crisco” the generalization that is common for off the shelf canola oils? Because it has a lot in common with both.

        Are you deliberately being obtuse? or trying to throw out a red herring?

        • SSD says:

          There isn’t a generic Crisco. It’s a brand name. No one generically refers to cooking oil as Crisco except the guys that got their ass in a sling over the past few days.

          • NTS says:

            Bullshit. “Crisco” is commonly used to refer to a variety of veggie-oil type products, that includes “Crisco” brand name and generics. dont be dense, you know this to be true.

            The only one with their ass in the sling is the advertising mouthpieces who are throwing out the common red herring, “oh but it works!”, to justify a marked up, commercially available product. Its quite comical watching the mental gymnastics to justify this behavior.

            This is just the beginning too. People will start viewing their favored gun oils with a bit more skepticism and start questioning/testing things. Itll prove that us “motor oil/wheel bearing grease” guys were right all along. Unless they want to pay more for marked up product. their business.

          • WW says:

            I definitely do, it’s been Crisco my whole life and I don’t have a clue what generic off-brand oil is in my kitchen right now.

  6. jbgleason says:

    Everything else aside, I have always hated the “Delta Team 9 Ranger SEALS PJ ninja squadron 42” uses our product claims. Most of the time it seems like they give a sample to one member of the organization that gets thrown in a gear locker and that makes their claim legit in their eyes. Even if the product is a NSN’ed regular purchase item for a particular unit, is that really relevant in most cases? I would much prefer to see claims like “chosen after extensive head to head testing with comparable products for use in XYZ applications by such and such” along with actual data. But Marketing is Marketing I guess and sex sells as they say.

    • The Dude says:

      I would much rather them say, “We gave it to a squad of infantry PFCs and their weapons still work”. Ok, some tier one guys use CriscoClean…? Before that they used CLP and still completed the mission lmao. It’s just lube.

      • SSD says:

        But it’s not just lube. Can’t you tell by the amount of BS behind this? These lube companies are like the fucking Russians and Germans in Leningrad, sniping at each other every chance they get.

        • BAP45 says:

          I think we need a meme here using a still from enemy at the gates, haha.

          But seriously everyone is freaking out way too much.

  7. SR says:

    Does this mean that FrogLube is just Crisco mixed with bengay?

  8. Bob says:

    It may not be “Crisco” per say, but based on the tests that have been run, it does appear to be some mixture of plant-based oil.

    Seeing as that is the case, the price they are asking for something that is essentially non-food grade vegetable oil is absolutely obscene.

  9. Dave says:


    I don’t think anyone is questioning the performance. Rather, I believe the hate and noise is coming from the thought of paying $3-5 per ounce for something that may be a household product that costs roughly 5 or 6 cents per ounce.

    With FC, there seems to be a lot of pride. There are a lot of guys wanting to say: “Just another snake oil…told ya so”. Meanwhile, users don’t want to feel like they’ve been conned into paying a 7000% mark-up. People vote with their wallet and no one likes to be wrong.

    • SSD says:

      The problem is that the accusations are false.

      • Chris L says:

        Why so defensive SSD? Is FC Crisco, no. Is FC a vegetable oil that’s chemical composition is very, very close to Crisco, yes. Would Crisco work just as well as FC, testing is needed.

        Did you not notice that in their press release they only stated that it was not a repackaged product. All that means is that FC is getting the veg oil from a supplier and not repackaging anyone else’s vegetable oil. They did not deny that it is vegetable oil, which their patent also indicates.

        Full disclosure: I’m in IT so I have no experience in this field. I have been using FC for over a year and I’ve been very happy with its performance.

        I just don’t understand why SSD’s comments are so defensive of FC. Who cares if it’s veg oil. Consumers now have more choices when it comes to veg oil gun lunbricants. Use FC or take your chances with an off the shelf veg oil from your local grocery store.

        • SSD says:

          Defensive? No.
          Sick and tired of halfassed bloggers spreading bullshit? Yes!

          I don’t care if it’s vegetable oil. The accusation has been made that it is Crisco. It is not. That’s at the heart of this matter; lies.

          • Red Pill Ethics says:

            Andrew Tuhoy (who I dislike as a person but respect as a researcher) specifically said “FireClean is probably a modern unsaturated vegetable oil virtually the same as many oils used for cooking.”

            Maybe the larger internet has distilled that into “crisco” but holding up a reductionist sound bite that’s fundamentally if not literally true and calling it a lie isn’t exactly the most honest rebuttal.

            I’m a fan of yours as a blogger (I’ve even submitted to this blog under another pen name) but your comments have been defensive and – try to take this from a journalistic ethics perspective – it does make me question your motives. Has SSD ever been sponsored by FireClean?

            • SSD says:

              Thanks for questioning my ethics without using your name. Not impressed one bit.

              Nope, never been sponsored by Fireclean but I will say that it works.

              Once again, I’m not being defensive. I am fired up over this pseudo-science bullshit being fed to gullible readers. You want to test something? Have it tested by a lab. Don’t cook up some bullshit and write a halfassed story. Don’t cite some unnamed professor. Don’t go on and on about a product being the same as another brand name, compare it to it, and it alone and then publish results saying that they are essentially the same in the narrative.

              This isn’t his first time at the rodeo. Touhy, who I like as a guy, but can’t seriously be called a researcher, has a history of conducting goofy “experiments” and making claims that are unethical. Anyone remember the Eyepro “test”? What a shitshow. At that pint I just started ignoring his antics. I have discussed testing with him. He obviously doesn’t care to do things right.

              • The Dude says:

                Don’t worry, MattV2099 is inbound with a totally 100% scientific Glock Brand HiPoint test of CriscoClean vs Original Crisco to put your minds at ease. Matt is the defacto firearms researcher of our researcher of our time.

              • Andrew Tuohy says:

                You and I have never discussed testing.

                I have never said FireClean was Crisco; in fact my article clearly states that I do NOT think FireClean was Crisco.

                If my work is bad, then prove me wrong. If I am a liar, then prove me wrong. If the professor and the lab are fake or did the test in their toilet, then prove me wrong. It should be really easy for you to do that, and since you and many others would absolutely love to rub my face in the dirt, it shouldn’t be hard for you to pool some money together and pay for your own testing.

                • SSD says:

                  Yes, we have at SHOT Show several years ago during a Proof Research event. I told you that you had finally learned about testing with your endurance test after that poorly run eye pro deal. You told me how hard the enduarance test was and that you never wanted to do it again.

                  I don’t need to prove you wrong. You made this bed and now you’ve doubled down.

                  By all means, cut corners. Make stuff up as you go along. It seems to be working for you.

              • NTS says:

                Your response to this manner is absolutely ridiculous, SSD. You have pissed me off.

                Since you have chosen to attack a blogger who has done much to advance the cause of gun rights, and refuting commonly held bullshit spread by industry lackeys (LIKE YOURSELF APPARENTLY!) and know-nothings, you have permanently lost me as a reader.

                Done. Finished.

                Enjoy being a mouthpiece for ridiculous behavior like marking up canola oil at multitudes its price. And the subsequent asshattery that FC resorted to in their response, which DID NOTHING to address the test results. OBFUSCATION.

                “Nope, never been sponsored by Fireclean but I will say that it works. ”

                For those that want value for money, buy high temp wheel bearing grease or synthetic motor oil. Far cheaper, performs much better.

                And you wont be giving your money to snake oil salesmen.

            • Carlos says:

              Some SSD advertisers are Fireclean dealers.

              “Crisco” is to vegetable oil like “Xerox” is the photocopying. If Fireclean is just a blend of vegetable oils without additives, then short of pedantry it is basically Crisco.

              There is nothing wrong with Fireclean being just vegetable oils, since it would be hard to be non-toxic otherwise, but it seems that they lack the integrity to come out and say something like, “Fireclean is a field-tested blend of highly refined plant oils (with or without additives) which is NOT the same as supermarket vegetable oil for x technical reasons.” They don’t have to give out their formula, but their “cool kids like us” response makes them look bad.

      • Dave says:


        I read it RIGHT HERE on on this very blog of someone making mention that there is no altruism in this industry. Once more, the lube department of said industry is one of the most notorious of either:
        A) Making outlandish/untrue claims
        B) Rebranding/repackaging simple commodities
        C) both A & B

        I’m not surprised to see the shit show this has become. Frankly, I’m surprised it took this long.

        • SSD says:

          I hate mentioning weapon lube. I have yet to figure out why there aren’t more lubricant companies considering the amount of experts that like to spout off every time a brand is mentioned.

          • Brett says:

            “I hate mentioning weapon lube.”

            “Top 5 Topics That Bring Out The Trolls: #2 Weapons Lubricant”

            You are just trying to prove this, SSD. LOL

  10. The One says:

    Wow, how about putting up an MSDS? That’s too easy.

  11. tom says:

    Why all the hate? Lots of products have high markups. Also, What marketing dept. would use the tag line “Nobody uses our product!”? If two hunters use the same gun oil can’t the company say “Used by hunters” without being called dishonest? The fact is it’s “buyer beware”. If they are selling straight piss in a bottle to use for some purpose and somebody is will to pay for it than so be it. I see it on the shelf labeled
    “Buck Lure” and “Doe in Heat” and lots of guys buy it and it just PISS!!!
    If FC did their research and added a few other ingredients then it’s their product and their IP and FC has a right to sell it on the open market. I don’t think people consider the cost of doing business with chemicals components The EPA has rules that must be followed and all the rules have a cost associated with them.

  12. Ross says:

    Hahaaaa!!! What a joke. When we were still a little boys and played army-army in Angola … we used diesel and motor-oil. This story is a classic case of gear-whores being duped into paying for something that is not really needed. LOL

  13. Reeky says:

    Will FIREclean improve the taste of my chicken stir fry?

  14. Iceman says:

    I recommend that all those that wish to save some coin to just go buy crisco and use it on your gun. Fireclean has amazed me with its ability to bust carbon build up that nothing else would. Sorry to them for this bs.

    • Dev says:

      Seconded. Why isn’t anyone using, nay, or better yet substituting their favourite product with vegetable oil if they’re so adamant about it?

      Put your money where your mouth is and let us now the results.

  15. LawDog says:

    It’s a bit intellectually dishonest to say that folks are wrong because they are insisting fireclean is crisco. Crisco is a brand name, i.e. Other vegetable oils that aren’t crisco, aren’t crisco. They are in all probability however the same oil blend. I don’t think there’s much argument that the chemical composition of fireclean is similar if not the same as whatever brand of vegetable oil you prefer. Where things may differ is in the refinement, which can make a significant difference in the performance of the oil.

    So, in short, it’s not accurate the claims from both sides are likely wrong. Fireclean probably is a vegetable oil blend like crisco. However it’s probably undergone a variety of refinements to distinguish if from what you can by at the market.

  16. Todd says:

    I’m in an agency listed above and a Firearms Instructor. I have never seen it issued. I have purchased it on my own to try, and like it. I use it because it works for me and it is non-toxic. If it is a plant based vegetable oil that make sense to meet te non-toxic claim. There are probably other things added to it. Someone soon will try running Crisco on their weapons to compare it to, mark my words. My only complaint about the product was the packaging. Had one leak some in shipping.

  17. SSD says:

    I’ll just leave this right here.



    • TracerTong says:

      Do you actually take TFB seriously? They can’t even do simple spellcheck in their articles. They and ENDO are competing for being the Daily Mail of gun blogs. But yeah, go ahead and attack low-hanging fruit without addressing the actual source article from Vuurwapen.

  18. SShink says:

    As the product seems to work, vegetable oil or not, FC should embellish the fact that their oil is (mostly) organic and that it’s non-carcinogenic.
    There’s a lot of gun-folks coming down with cancer recently and we’re learning that some commonly used cleaning and lubing chemicals are readily absorbed through the skin (right through latex or nitrile gloves) and go straight to the liver.

    • SSD says:

      They talk about it being non-toxic. In fact, there are several, non-toxic, vegetable oil-based lubricants on the market.

  19. SecondGradeMath says:


    Go start a business

    Buy Crisco

    Get insured

    Do a lot of testing to see if it works. Ammo is cheap, right?

    Bottle it

    Give some out

    Do some marketing

    Feed your kids

    Pay your mortgage

    Build a website

    Travel to shows

    Sponsor events

    Cut margins to make distribution viable

    Let your dealers make some money too

    Roll some money into future projects

    Feed yourself

    Make your truck payment

    Hosting fees


    See how cheap you can sell stuff for. Pat yourself on the back if yours actually WORKS, like Fireclean.

  20. WO Lando says:

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but if FireClean wants to defend their product, maybe a factory tour video would be helpful vs. chest-thumping.

    I don’t care to know the exact composition of their oil blend. However, seeing some sort of spinning centrifuge or industrial process would be proof enough to believe they have a proprietary blend that can’t be made up at home.

    On a personal note, I’ve switched to Fireclean* from Froglube*. My AK would be seized up with Froglube from prolonged storage but would run fine once warmed up. I will continue to use both since they are non-toxic.

    *I also have received both lubes free at one point from the different jobs I’ve had in the firearms industry

    • SSD says:

      Should Coke give you its recipe as well? I would hazard a guess that no one who is drooling at the mouth over this even uses Fireclean.

      • tom says:

        FC should not have to defend their IP or their manufacturing methods or anything else. I sell a product. Do you want to buy it for my price? If not, have a nice day and make way for paying customers. that’s the way it works folks.

        • WO Lando says:

          Sorry if I was not very clear in my OP. I meant to convey that I DO NOT need to know the proprietary blend or specifics (emphasis) of FireClean’s refinement technologies. Their IP is theirs, I agree.

          My intent was that I wanted to point out that a better way to defend their product and this PR fiasco would be to elaborate on their development cycle, their testing, or just show a factory tour of the good people they employ and why they believe in their product. We see this stuff all the time from BCM, or SilencerCo et al.

  21. cy says:

    That explains why I always craved fried chicken after a mag dump. FC is good stuff no matter what. Good marketing should not looked down on.

  22. Chris says:

    I have read the Patent, the big take away is the amount of refinement. It to me seems that FC did a good chunk of R&D to develop the product. One of the biggest things (straight from that patent) is that that Canola Oil was one of the best performing veggie oils. Now with that said it states in the patent that the use of a “highly refined” oil. Most commercial cooking oils are either not refined “health nut or organic oils” or are slightly refined to ensure uniform taste and color.

    What sets this product is apart is the amount of refinement and probably the proprietary nature of that refinement to produce the product. I have not used FC but have heard really good thing about it. With that said the amount of R&D, marketing and business development as well as production cost, packaging and distribution as well as profit margins leads to the price.

    It seems that me that FC has done there homework to develop a competitive product that works as advertised. Where as I am sure that some can probably soak there rifle in Kroger Canaola Oil or $20 a bottle extra virgin olive oil but I would like to see the hard evidence that it works.

    I do agree with SSD here, in my industry (Aerospace) I can think about even publishing an smidgen of data with proving where it was tested, who tested it, the certifications for the test lab, when the calibration for the test equipment was done and who calibrated it. If these experiments were truly done correct there is no reason why actual data sheets can’t be published.

    • BAP45 says:

      Well said. I think a lot of it come from people not realizing just how similar things are when you break them down to that level.

  23. Eric says:

    Who cares?

    This argument is my lube could beat up your lube. I like cats and i like Aimpoint but if Aimpoint didn’t like cats… It would not effect my purchase of an Aimpoint because Aimpoints are still sweet.

    It’s not like Fireclean uses children’s tears (a great lubricant) there is nothing immoral going on there.

    Not all Lubes are the same. Hops and CLP sting on my bare hands. Rand CLP and Fireclean seem cool. And i honestly bought Froglube over it’s competitors because it was non-toxic and smelt like mint – i still use it because it works (and smells like mint).

    If Fireclean works for you then use it.

    • tom says:

      your right. It’s not like they’re melting down bunnies and puppies to make gun lube. I don’t care if it comes from corn or boiled peanuts i’m only going to use what works for me and I’m willing to pay for it.

  24. Ex11A says:

    All of this is why I use 3 in One, Mobil One, and sometimes KY.

  25. Diddler says:

    I couldn’t care less what Fireclean is made of. For certain applications it works quite well. There are, however, some issues with the product. The creator has been made aware of the problems. He attributes all the problems to everything but his product. I can understand that, he wants to sell more product. Doesn’t change the fact that his product out performs some products in some areas and under performs in others.

    • Diddler says:

      One more thing. I hate it when a company says, “look at all these Branches, units, agencies, etc. that use our product,” when it’s just some individuals have used a product, or even a GPC holder made a unit purchase for it. That doesn’t mean that the product was evaluated and is now an approved product, program of record, etc..

      Fact, some guy in a SOF unit has used Tapco products in combat theater. Doesn’t mean Tapco makes the current wonder product that USASOC is fielding. Individual or unit purchase does not make an item something that is officially used. I’m not saying that FC is automatically in that boat, because I can’t speak for all the units and organizations out there.

      • MilTester says:

        Speaking of which, some folks belonging in a certain CSAR unit got a stern talking to from the Responsible Test Organization because a certain company that made litters claimed that it was “tested” by said folks.

        Until a product has undergone the entire DoD Acquisitions process, from source selection, to Developmental and Operational Test & Evaluation, to contract aware, and to fielding, it hasn’t been vetted by the military.

  26. Mike Nomad says:

    I wonder how Ballistol feels about FC…

    Ballistol’s MSDS:

    From page 1, under Carcinogenicity:

    “Ballistol is based on medicinal grade white mineral oil, (CAS # 8042-47-5) which has been classified “Class 3″ by the IARC.”

  27. I’m just here for the Comments and Popcorn….. 🙂

  28. K. Newman says:

    TFB did some tests, and YES, they are proven scientific test’s, and the results speak for themselves. Curious, how “FireClean” didn’t respond to the allegations, rather, we don’t like what you’re saying, so were gonna SUE!

    I call BS.

    • SSD says:

      Well, TFB did change their story after it was published. I’ve posted screenshots.

      If they did (or someone else did) conduct some scientific tests, then there should be no problem providing the name of the lab that actually conducted them. Because if dude did it in his kitchen, that’s called an experiment and experiments presented as facts will get your ass in a sling, especially when they are used to make claims about someone’s livelihood.

      • Chris says:

        SSD I couldn’t agree more. If this was done in a true accredited test lab there should be no reason they can’t publish the labs name, actual data sheets and exact test methods.

        I can understand if there’s was an agreement in place like an NDA that prevents or to protect the test lab if something was done illegal (corporate espionage type stuff) but at least publish a redacted data sheet that hides confidential information.

        • SSD says:

          Exactly, but since the product is available over the counter, there is no reason the results of these “tests” should not be published.

      • MilTester says:

        What about a scientific test conducted by a University research professor in the University laboratories?

        • SSD says:

          Great, let’s get his name and a certified test report. That shouldn’t be a problem at all if it was conducted according to protocol and he’s willing to stand behind the results like a commercial lab would.

          • MilTester says:

            Go ask Andrew for those details then.

            • SSD says:

              It was his decision to not offer those to his readers. That’s on him.

              • MilTester says:

                So Andrew provided the results of the IR Spectroscopy along with a professional anecdote from the professor (who might choose to remain anonymous) doing the test and you’re still completely dismissing it? Did you even read the Vuurwapen post?

                Getting a University professor to run an IR Spectroscopy pro-bono is about as detailed and comprehensive you can get for a one-man independent test. Andrew doesn’t have the same level of funding as Aberdeen Test Center. These preliminary results are enough to start raising questions, calling for subsequent testing, and keeping FireClean accountable.

                It’s also FireClean’s decision not to offer an actual counter-point to the experiment in question. That’s on them and that’s saying a lot. If FireClean really was more than just a glorified blend of vegetable oil, then they only have to do one of the following:

                1) Declare that some additional ingredient is in the formula which is crucial to FireClean’s properties, puts it a step above “just Crisco”, and likely wouldn’t have been detected by the IR Spectroscopy. Bam, this would instantly nullify Andrew’s experiment.

                2) Deconstruct the IR Spectroscopy and explain why it’s a flawed method of test.

                3) Counter-test with a method that is more comprehensive and reliable than an IR Spectroscopy.

                FireClean has done none of those things as of yet, and instead resorts to parroting some weak PR points. Until they’ve done something to factually debunk Andrew’s testing, they remain suspect.

  29. Max says:

    Ok, I haven’t read any article that said flat out that Fireclean is Crisco… Now I’ve read that it is primarily made of vegetable oil (which is most coming branded as Crisco) and has few additives. Hey, WD40 is fish oil with additives. Their own patent application confirms this. No, Crisco does not equal fireclean. There are differences, but fire clean is made from a vegetable oil. Gee, if it’s not a petroleum based oil what can it be? If it works, it works, it can be purified polished turds for all I care, if it works, it works.

    For what it’s worth, I have not, nor do I use, fireclean as in still using my first order of froglube products I bought two years ago… Yes, I loved the sample they sent me so much that I bough a little more. Fine, a ton more.

    What I don’t like is their response, it didn’t address a single relevant thing. Nobody disputes that it works, maybe a bit on how but it does work. Just say it, yes, fireclean is a vegetable based product with additives to give it its superior, safe, effective performance. Big deal.

    • SSD says:


      Look at those two screenshots I posted. Blogs have already changed their stories after being called out for bullshit.


      • NTS says:

        They changed the title because guys like you ran in the completely wrong direction with it. Then there is the possibilities coming from shithouse lawyers…

        “Crisco” as in canola oil, not in the specific name brand that may have proprietary ingredients “Crisco”. Kind of like “coke” for a “cola”-type beverage.

        That level of pedantry is pathetically weak and you know it!

        • SSD says:

          No, nice try though. When you call something a brand name AND use photos of that product, you are calling it that and not a generic.

          • NTS says:

            If you would have spent some time actually reading, rather than blindly defending your white buffalo Fireclean, then you would have understood the use of “crisco”.


            Keep practicing though. When the other ‘super tier1 operator!” gun lubes are dismantled as well, you are going to need it.

      • Max says:

        Maybe I’m late to the game then…

        Still, Ballistol is mineral oil, WD40 is fish oil, if it works, it works.

  30. Easy E says:

    The latest, posted today by Touhy, in relation to this (that there is some sort of fraud being committed): “SEVERE PROBLEMS WITH VICKERS TACTICAL FIRECLEAN VIDEO”

    I skimmed the article, but it seems that Andrew is expanding this argument to more than just Fireclean — he appear to believe there may have been fraud in the Vicker’s piece on Fireclean.

    Personally, I bought some Fireclean and have found it’s very effective. Does that mean it’s not some highly refined vegetable oil? No, but that in itself does not make Fireclean a fraudulent product or ineffective.

    • Easy E says:

      I should also note that I do put stock into Vickers’ views, but also realize that everyone, including Vickers and myself, have biases. I do not, based on what I know of Vickers and my experiences with products he recommends, believe that he would utilize fraudulent tests to promote a product.

    • PJ says:

      Was just about to post this. The plot thickens.
      The article posts still frames of rounds being fired in a video LAV did with FIREClean. Here’s the video:
      The claim is that different ammunition was used for the dry and CLP shoots than the FIREClean shoot and that the ammo difference would do a lot to explain the extra “smoke” that FIREClean alledges is carbon their product prevented building up on the gun.

      • SSD says:

        I am now eating popcorn, microwave though. I saw this earlier. I wonder if a certain young man hasn’t bitten off more than he can chew.

        • PJ says:

          He may have. As he notes it’s HIGHLY unlikely Larry Vickers wouldn’t notice he went from shooting low powered “blaster” ammo to +P. This looks like it’s gonna get FAR more interesting before it’s over.

        • Salt & Real Butter on the Popcorn or Lawrys Seasoning Salt? 🙂

          Seriously though Hate to see things like this blow up, we have used Fire Clean and it worked well. I have met the main dudes before seemed like good guys with a good product I don’t really care what it’s made out of it works Awesome.

        • NTS says:

          Au contrare! He seems to have torn down the bullshit, cult of personality, brand name bullshit constructed by many in the firearms industry.

          Its comical. And wrecking some nerves.

        • MilTester says:

          Andrew is doing exactly what this industry needs. We need more people that ask questions and critically deconstruct products on the market. Glock wouldn’t have fixed the initial problems of the Gen4 if people hadn’t called them out on their bullshit instead of letting Glock tell them that they just need to shoot 500 rounds through the gun to “break it in” and Glocks are just “Perfection”. There are plenty of examples out there.

          There needs to be more investigative journalism and less mindless product promotion.

          • SSD says:

            Yeah, I’m all for a guy making up test protocols at his local range, doesn’t tell anyone that his “test” was arbitrary and then tells people that stuff fails his test and is dangerous. It’s also a great idea to say that something was tested, implying that it was tested to a standard by a qualified mystery person, and then use that information to attack someone’s livelihood. Because when you do things like that, you identify yourself as an asshat.

            ASTMs exist for a reason. Mil-Specs exist for a reason. Both military and civilian test labs use those and you’d know that if you had any idea what you were talking about. You aren’t a miltester.

            • MilTester says:

              Wow you are really quick with the personal attacks, which really is reflective of your professionalism (or lack thereof). I’m not a military tester? And, pray tell, how many years of experience do you have working for an RTO in either DT or OT as an ORSA or a PM? What’s your experience with Design of Experiments, regression analysis, ANOVA, and T-tests?

              I’ve yet to see you author a detailed critique of Andrew’s testing methods in his EyePro test and his brass/steel case test (which I assume are the tests you reference). If you think his testing methods or conclusions are sketchy, then the onus is on you to provide a valid counterpoint using hard evidence, facts, and/or your own testing and experimentation. I’ve searched Google and I’m pretty sure you’ve offered little else than pure vitriol.

              So really it’s you isn’t the tester here, all things considered, because any actual tester would have deconstructed and highlighted the flaws of the experiment in question instead of resorting to personal attacks. So do us a favor and keep blogging about the latest cool gear and leave the actual testing to the big brains.

      • Carlos says:

        More smoke just means an oil with a lower smoke point (ie less temperature resistant), which is more prevalent in less saturated oils (like vegetable oils) or less refined oils (like organic extra virgin oils).

    • Max says:

      Oh, snap. It’s getting real now.

  31. Ed Hickey says:

    I’m just gonna sit back & wait for guys to try the Crisco & report back! This is almost as nutty as classic cars.

  32. mike says:

    FWIW I only use oil of cloves on my guns. If it works for my katana, it’ll definitely work for them.

  33. Danke says:

    What does Smuckers have to say?

  34. Max says:

    You don’t care if it’s vegetable oil, in fact you believe it is some form of vegetable oil, with an additive or two.
    You are upset that they mentioned “Crisco” as a comparative product that also uses vegetable oils, arguably the most common brand of vegetable oil known to consumers.

  35. Rob Collins says:

    My dad used motor oil & sand to clean his M-14 lacking anything better in 1966. Blueing polished right off, the whole thing would be covered in rust the next morning, only to be re-cleaned with whatever a Marine could scrounge. I guarantee he’d have rather had a case of crisco than a 4 oz bottle of FC back then… The spectrometer test tells me not so much that there’s anything wrong with FC, but that I’d take crisco over a dirty weapon, and that raiding the cupboard is a last resort.

    I want to see the test that proves crisco removes copper fouling…. 🙂