Brakleen used for maintenance..... - Page 4 - RimfireCentral.com Forums

Go Back   RimfireCentral.com Forums > >

Notices

Join Team RFC to remove these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old 04-17-2017, 06:30 AM
Phish4one

Join Date: 
Feb 2017
Location: 
Ohio
Posts: 
53
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)


Log in to see fewer ads
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc88 View Post
I have used non-chlorinated brake cleaner to clean gun PARTS from time to time. Never near anything plastic or wood & I always lubricate afterwards. This may have already been mentioned in this thread and if so I apologize for repeating but man, KANO KROIL is by far the best gun cleaner/solvent I've ever tried. I haven't used anything else since I first tried it (aside from copper solvent). My $.02
Love Kroil oil its some magical stuff. Whenever a Fitter call job goes out on a oil refineries they will have 55 gal drums of Kroil for losing up all the nuts and bolts. PB Pentrator won't even do the job.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-17-2017, 06:44 AM
leavinc
US Navy Veteran

Join Date: 
Mar 2007
Posts: 
93
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
I started using Birchwood Casey gun scrubber and I really liked how it dissolved all the power and carbon buildup. It also degreased everything so I was sure to lubricate everything when done.

Problem is, it's kind of expensive. I heard somewhere that non chlorinated brake cleaner can be used instead. So I went out and bought a can.

To my dismay, I noticed it actually started dissolving the paint on my 10/22 receiver (I tested it on an inconspicuous spot first).

I'm kind of bummed because I haven't noticed any paint damage with the gun scrubber.

I guess my question is: Is there a cheaper alternative to the Birchwood Casey gun scrubber? Is carb cleaner as harsh as the non chlorinated brake cleaner?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-17-2017, 08:05 AM
Al the Infidel's Avatar
Al the Infidel
US Marines Disabled American Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Jan 2007
Location: 
Yoopersville
Posts: 
18,694
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
I started with Hoppes #9 in 1956 when I got my first gun. Guess what, it still works today for general cleaning. You buy cheap cleaners/strippers ya take your chances of spraying dribbling on finishes.

Clint says it best around the 2 1/2 min mark…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xjr2hnOHiM

__________________
If you're going to talk through your arse stand up, I hate mumbling.
Reply With Quote
 
  #49  
Old 04-17-2017, 08:10 AM
noremf's Avatar
noremf is online now
US Army Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Jan 2011
Location: 
Alabama
Posts: 
8,399
TPC Rating: 
100% (2)
Read the whole thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by leavinc View Post
I started using Birchwood Casey gun scrubber and I really liked how it dissolved all the power and carbon buildup. It also degreased everything so I was sure to lubricate everything when done.

Problem is, it's kind of expensive. I heard somewhere that non chlorinated brake cleaner can be used instead. So I went out and bought a can.

To my dismay, I noticed it actually started dissolving the paint on my 10/22 receiver (I tested it on an inconspicuous spot first).

I'm kind of bummed because I haven't noticed any paint damage with the gun scrubber.

I guess my question is: Is there a cheaper alternative to the Birchwood Casey gun scrubber? Is carb cleaner as harsh as the non chlorinated brake cleaner?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
If you want the same safety and performance then there really is not, at least not in the spray version.

Stuff that come close to the performance of Gun Scrubber relative to degreasing and being pretty safe that are also in aerosol containers and are cheaper (because the solvents in them are far less expensive) and don't leave a residue are activated by heat and water and then neutralized by rinsing with clear water.

Assuming you want to go through that process getting all the water out is a tough gig even with an air compressor.

They for sure will screw up a wood finish if they get on there though.

No "MAGIC" bullets where solvents are considered. They are all caustic to one degree or another. The ones that are the least caustic are pretty ineffective as degreasers and as the performance goes up the so do the the safety hazards including carcinogenicity.


No. Already addressed in post #25 on this thread.

noremf(George)
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-17-2017, 09:07 AM
smokey9701

Join Date: 
Apr 2017
Location: 
Park City UT
Posts: 
31
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al the Infidel View Post
I started with Hoppes #9 in 1956 when I got my first gun.
That #9 stuff has been around forever. What solvents could possible be in it that are some big secret for 100 years. It's got to be a mix of some very ordinary stuff. But I keep using it and the price is reasonable. It works, I wish I could find a woman with #9 perfume. What could be better then that?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-17-2017, 09:44 AM
sicumj's Avatar
sicumj
Law Enforcement Officer NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Oct 2014
Location: 
Ohio, USA
Posts: 
1,813
TPC Rating: 
100% (1)
I use to purchase cleaners and lubricants for Industries. Read an article called "Snake Oils" back in the 80's. Call it what you want, make bold hard to verify claims just so it sells. Pretty well sums up this thread. Reputable chemical companies do exhaustive testing and also have constant feed back from customers. This typically gives them a view of their product that the typical consumer could never replicate or think of.

What I found was there was little that changes in cleaners that wasn't known for decades. The cleaners could be replicated easily with common ingredients. Oils didn't change much until the synthetics were introduced. And all synthetics are not equal.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-17-2017, 10:55 AM
noremf's Avatar
noremf is online now
US Army Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Jan 2011
Location: 
Alabama
Posts: 
8,399
TPC Rating: 
100% (2)
Second final post....I hope

The original OP post was about the member being unhappy with what he calls an "oily feel" which he intimated was a deal breaker. My responses were were with that in mind albeit got into safety issues etc.

If an "oily feel" which means the product has left some type of protectorate on the metal, which can be wiped off if it really bothers you, is not a deal breaker there are all kinds of safe products, primarily in the "White Spirits" family that are at least as good from a degreaser and more better as a protectorate then the stuff in Gun Scrubber.

They are significantly cheaper per application and you have to buy a quantity that if you are only going to use on firearms will probably outlast you. But.....they also are versatile and have a number of uses around the homestead.

Unfortunately they don't come in an aerosol can but will work very well from a hand held squeeze type spray bottle.

Some of the other "snake oil" products that "sicumj" alludes to though while safe for humans will really screw up a chemical coatings finish so you got to be careful which one or ones you are thinking about maybe using.

Hoppe's #9 is one that does not screw up chemical coatings finishes or you by the way.

Neither will Ed's red minus the Acetone and you can make a gallon of that stuff for literally less then a penny per application.

noremf(George)
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-17-2017, 11:11 AM
noremf's Avatar
noremf is online now
US Army Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Jan 2011
Location: 
Alabama
Posts: 
8,399
TPC Rating: 
100% (2)
Trivia

Quote:
Originally Posted by sicumj View Post
I use to purchase cleaners and lubricants for Industries. Read an article called "Snake Oils" back in the 80's. Call it what you want, make bold hard to verify claims just so it sells. Pretty well sums up this thread. Reputable chemical companies do exhaustive testing and also have constant feed back from customers. This typically gives them a view of their product that the typical consumer could never replicate or think of.

What I found was there was little that changes in cleaners that wasn't known for decades. The cleaners could be replicated easily with common ingredients. Oils didn't change much until the synthetics were introduced. And all synthetics are not equal.
Try like centuries at the least.

First documentation on that kind of stuff as well as wood finishes etc. came out in 1250 and was written by a Paderhorn Monk by the name of Theophilus.

Until then nobody published anything about any of the stuff in their formulations which is mentioned in our "Stocks" forum. They, including DaVinci and Michelangelo, treated the stuff as vital to them in creating customers and that what they formulated was top secret.

One yucky example though to close out this post is that stand urine, especially from folks who had just drank a bunch of "adult beverages" not only was a great degreaser but also a formidable colorant. Folks like the above would have pots outside their work areas and would pay a nominal fee for folks to use their pots. Fee went up if you were "blasted".

Got all kinds of pretty much useless Trivia stuff on chemicals and wood finishes.

noremf(George)
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-20-2017, 02:00 AM
Vee3

Join Date: 
Jun 2005
Posts: 
1,051
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by noremf View Post
Never said that. IE: "based on it being banned in Europe". You said that, not me. What I said was......

"But I choose to go with the chemists, scientists, labs and research organizations, especially since there are degreasing/cleaning chemicals on the market that will do as good if not better for DIY folks that don't carry the kind of baggage that Tetrachloroethylene does, and I choose not imply or openly support stuff like tetrachloroethylene or any other chemical as hazardous or worse to RFC members."

I have highlighted what I believe is the operative part in red. "2A" and that is the U.S. classification, is enough for me to recommend not using it.

Lots of stuff I warn folks about on RFC. They want to use it fine. They want to justify that with anecdotal comments, fine. They want to cherry pick words or sentences out of context to support their position, fine.

Just don't look for me to go against documented research etc. from folks that don't have a dog in the fight so to speak, and support what they (IE: folks in the previous 3 sentences) are doing. I spent too many years working with and ultimately being responsible for one of the top 5 chemical coatings labs on the planet going over this kind of stuff, to choose any anecdotal comments posted on the INTERNET or forums if for no other reason that the "test" cycle time is minuscule compared to that discipline in Chemical "Houses".

I am done posting on this chemical.

noremf(George)
I didn't take anything "out of context;" I left the immediate context in my post and the entire context is available right here in the thread for anyone to read.

As far as "cherry picking" goes, I addressed what I felt (IMO) needed addressing just like most everyone who responds to a post does. If that's cherry picking, then I'm guilty as charged.

Many chemicals we use in our hobby CAN be hazardous if we don't take basic safety precautions. For most (including the one in question), that would be proper gloves, eye wear and adequate ventilation.

If those basic precautions ARE taken, the chemical has no measurable effect on us as we're not exposing ourselves to it in a hazardous concentration, and far less than any Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) allowed by OSHA, etc. in an industrial setting.

Boiling corn on the cob can be dangerous if you tip the pot over. A gun can be deadly if it goes off unexpectedly. We take basic precautions to minimize such hazards on a daily basis and chemical exposure is no different.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-20-2017, 04:30 AM
noremf's Avatar
noremf is online now
US Army Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Jan 2011
Location: 
Alabama
Posts: 
8,399
TPC Rating: 
100% (2)
Let the readers decide

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vee3 View Post
I didn't take anything "out of context;" I left the immediate context in my post and the entire context is available right here in the thread for anyone to read.

As far as "cherry picking" goes, I addressed what I felt (IMO) needed addressing just like most everyone who responds to a post does. If that's cherry picking, then I'm guilty as charged.

Many chemicals we use in our hobby CAN be hazardous if we don't take basic safety precautions. For most (including the one in question), that would be proper gloves, eye wear and adequate ventilation.

If those basic precautions ARE taken, the chemical has no measurable effect on us as we're not exposing ourselves to it in a hazardous concentration, and far less than any Permissible Exposure Level (PEL) allowed by OSHA, etc. in an industrial setting.

Boiling corn on the cob can be dangerous if you tip the pot over. A gun can be deadly if it goes off unexpectedly. We take basic precautions to minimize such hazards on a daily basis and chemical exposure is no different.
Your reference:

http://redirect.viglink.com/?format=...chloroethylene

The infomation you chose to post.

"Tetrachloroethylene is an excellent solvent for organic materials. Otherwise it is volatile, highly stable, and nonflammable. For these reasons, it is widely used in dry cleaning. It is also used to degrease metal parts in the automotive and other metalworking industries, usually as a mixture with other chlorocarbons. It appears in a few consumer products including paint strippers and spot removers.

The toxicity of tetrachloroethylene "is moderate to low". "Reports of human injury are uncommon despite its wide usage in dry cleaning and degreasing."


Information you chose not to post.

"The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified tetrachloroethylene as a Group 2A carcinogen, which means that it is probably carcinogenic to humans.[8] Like many chlorinated hydrocarbons, tetrachloroethylene is a central nervous system depressant and can enter the body through respiratory or dermal exposure.[9] Tetrachloroethylene dissolves fats from the skin, potentially resulting in skin irritation.

"Owing to tetrachloroethylene's cancer risks, California's Air Resources Board banned the substance from use in new dry-cleaning machines in 2007, with older PCE-using machines shut down by mid-2010 and the use of all such machines discontinued in California by 2023"


Digging deeper.

My reference:

http://redirect.viglink.com/?format=...i%2FCarcinogen

The specifics under under the Classification heading.






If you want to dig even deeper using other laboratory documents you will find that "Tetrachloroethylene poisoning is ACCUMULATIVE..."

I would also point out that there is a major difference between "toxicity" and "carcinogenic" ala....

"Toxicity: The degree to which a substance (a toxin or poison) can harm humans or animals." and since it is not a Federally regulated word manufacturers get to define what THEY mean by toxic and non-toxic

"Carcinogen..A substance that causes cancer." and since Carcinogen is a Federally regulated word manufacturers cannot define it.

"Can" is not considered a definitive word while "cause" is.

Also

"Toxicity can be described as a substance’s ability to cause damage to a living organism from sub-cellular levels".

Carcinogens are substances capable of causing cancer in moving tissue/cells"


The differences is the "moving tissue cells" which means it can spread and reproduce.

If you really want to dig deep you will see that the regulating organizations are expected to reclassify Tetrachloroethylene as a level 1 carcinogen. How long that will take them is unknown. It took em about 5 years to reclassify Liquid and particle Silicone's as "IARC Classification: Carcinogenic to humans" and "NTP classification: Known to be a human carcinogen."

but the fact that they are even considering doing that tells us something.

Like I said....let the reader(s) decide.

noremf(George)

Last edited by noremf; 04-20-2017 at 05:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-20-2017, 01:57 PM
Vee3

Join Date: 
Jun 2005
Posts: 
1,051
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
And just like with chain saws and sharp sticks, we take precautions. We don't stop using them.

Many useful things are dangerous in some way. If they weren't, they wouldn't be very useful.

However, I'm in little danger from using brake cleaner because I'm only exposed to minuscule amounts, few and far between exposures. I'm not using it daily as hair spray.

This discussion reminds me of "3rd hand smoke." Now we not only have to avoid others who are smoking, we have to evacuate the area if someone was smoking there last week. If someone had told me about this before I read it in the news, I would have assumed it was comedy lifted from The Onion.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-21-2017, 01:24 AM
Gizzy's Avatar
Gizzy
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Aug 2006
Location: 
Ohio
Posts: 
17,419
TPC Rating: 
100% (139)
All I can say is when I jeweled bolts, and used brake parts cleaners to spray the grit away, then lube, I had a couple of the rust on me. I do not use any break parts cleaners on any parts of my guns now.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:08 PM.

Privacy Policy

DMCA Notice

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2000-2015 RimfireCentral.com
x