High Stress Handgun Test

October31, 1997

Mr. Bill Lacey
Militec Incorporated
2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400
Arlington, Virginia 22201-3001

Dear Mr. Lacey:

TALON Manufacturing is pleased to submit the attached report of an independent, "Blind Test" which was  conducted at our Wyoming County, West Virginia range facility.

I am sure you will be pleased with the results which clearly reflect the superiority of MILITEC-1 lubricant, over the standard issue lubricant which was also used in the test.

Specific comments from those shooters who participated in the firing test included:  "There was an apparent difference in the ease of trigger pull" on the MILITEC-1 treated weapons;  "The action was smoother on the MILITEC-1 lubricated weapons";  "The non-MILITEC-1 treated weapons were much hotter to hold during extended firing".

Following announcement of the results, everyone involved in the test indicated they were switching to MILITEC-1 for their personal weapons.

If you have comments or questions concerning the test results, please contact me at my Herndon, West Virginia office.

Sincerely,

C.P. Dublin
President

MILITEC-1 WEAPONS LUBRICANT TEST

Conducted Independently
By

TALON Manufacturing Company, Inc.
621 West King Street
Martinsburg, WV 25401

October 31, 1997

11828 Pika Drive., Waldorf, MD 20602 · U.S. only Toll Free 1-877-222-5512 · Phone 1-301-893-3910
Fax 1-301- 893-8354 · E-mail: militec@militec-1.com · Website: http://www.militec-1.com

TEST SUMMARY

An independent two-month test of handguns and rifles, using MILITEC-1 as a lubricant, was conducted in West Virginia by TALON Manufacturing Company, Inc. The test concluded that MILITEC-1 is a superior lubricant to the standard issue lubricant generally used.

For the test, new 9mm and   .40 cal. semi-automatic pistols, and M16-A2 automatic rifles were lubricated according to the Department of Defense maintenance manual with half being treated with standard issue lubricating oil, and half with MILITEC-1. No subsequent maintenance was performed until the test was concluded.

During the "Blind Test", shooters, which included military, former military, distinguished marksmen, and civilian law enforcement personnel were not informed which lubricant was used on the weapons they were firing until after the test was completed.

Highlights of the test showed that MILITEC-1 treated weapons continued to operate after the weapons treated with the standard issue lubricant had failed to function properly. Test weapons were fired at a sustained rate of fire of one round per second. The non-MILITEC-1 treated weapons began experiencing jams early in the test (less than 2,000 rounds) and several were removed from the range due to lubrication related malfunctions. Non-MILITEC-1 treated weapons became too hot to handle with unprotected hands during sustained testing. The weapons treated with MILITEC-1 continued to fire without excessive buildup of heat.

The MILITEC-1 treated  weapons experienced a consistent advantage in increased muzzle velocity, which continued to increase as the test progressed. Conversely, the muzzle velocity of non-MILITEC-1 treated  weapons showed a continuous decrease. Accuracy testing indicated MILITEC-1 treated weapons to be fourteen percent more accurate than Non-MILITEC-1 treated weapons.

Overall test results supported earlier conclusions of many federal, state and local law enforcement agencies which include MILITEC-1 as a mandatory element of their agency weapons' maintenance program.

PERFORMANCE TEST OF MILITEC-1 LUBRICANT

An extensive test was conducted during the period 15 July 1997 to 18 September 1997. Test criteria were developed to determine the relative effectiveness of MILITEC-1's metal conditioning performance enhancement qualities in weapons treatment applications. This was a comparative test utilizing CLP lubricant as a performance baseline. Test weapons included, standard military style Beretta 9mm and cal.  .40 semiautomatic pistols, KAHR K9, 9mm semiautomatic pistols, Colt M16-A2, 5.56mm automatic rifles, and Glock 22C, cal. .40 semiautomatic pistols.

TEST PLAN

Militec Incorporated, 11828 Pika Drive, Waldorf MD 20602, proposed the test plan.

I. Test Conditions:

TALON Manufacturing Company, Inc., 621 West King Street, Martinsburg, WV, performed the test at their range facility located in Wyoming County, West Virginia. Test firing was conducted through a variety of conditions, ranging from hot and dry; hot and humid; to warm and wet.

II. Test Objective:

To test and evaluate the quantitative and qualitative differences in the measurable effects of different weapon lubrication technologies.

III. Test Procedures:

Test procedures consisted of hand firing all weapons until total operational failure occurred, or until 5000 rounds of ammunition were fired through each weapon. The test weapons consisted of: six new Beretta semiautomatic pistols, four 9mm and two cal. .40, two KAHR 9mm semiautomatic pistols, two Colt M16-A2 automatic rifles, and two GLOCK 22C cal. .40 semiautomatic pistols. No measurable barrel wear was anticipated, during firing of 5000 rounds, and therefore barrel wear was not measured.

A. All test weapons  were thoroughly cleaned, completely dried, and measured at strategic wear points. The weapons were then lubricated with MILITEC-1 or CLP in accordance with the instructions on the bottle, and the individual weapons manuals.

B. The test was conducted utilizing shooters from different backgrounds including the military, retired military, distinguished shooters, and law enforcement officers. The test was a "Blind Test" in that shooters did not know which lubricant was used on the weapons they fired, until after the test was completed. All weapons were fired in the off hand position at rapid fire and slow fire sequences. The two M16-A2 rifles were fired with blank ammunition and a standard military Blank Firing Adapter (BFA). The intent was to fire 5000 rounds through each weapon or until a significant failure occurred.

C. All malfunctions during the test were recorded to determine performance of the weapons using different lubricants. Velocities for the Beretta and GLOCK pistols were recorded after the first 50 rounds and then at 1000 round intervals until test end. All chronograph readings are averages from 50 round strings of fire.

D. The two GLOCK 22C, cal. .40 pistols were bench rested and fired for accuracy. Each weapon was fired on four different targets using 10 round strings of fire. The same shooter fired all accuracy strings of fire.

TEST RESULTS

I. The following effects wee observed, measured and recorded:

A. Operation/Functioning:

It was noted that shooters firing the CLP lubricated weapons requested gloves, due to the fact that those weapons heated up and became uncomfortable to hold after repeated firing. Shooters firing MILITEC-1 treated weapons made no such requests.

Shooters consistently chose the MILITEC-1 treated weapons, when asked to fire both weapons  in a set, and compare them to determine which was better for ease and smoothness of trigger pull.

B. Muzzle Velocity:

Velocities were taken with a chronograph after 50 rounds, and then at each thousand round interval during test firing.

1. Velocities registered higher on six out of seven readings for the MILITEC-1 treated Beretta 9mm pistols and on one out of seven readings for the CLP treated Beretta 9mm pistols. Velocities registered higher on three out of five readings for the CLP treated Beretta cal. .40 pistol and on two out of five for the MILITEC-1 treated Beretta cal. .40 pistol.

2. Velocities for the GLOCK cal. .40 pistols registered higher on five out of six readings for the weapons treated with MILITEC-1.

(These increased velocities are frequently credited with increased weapon accuracy. Militec Incorporated)

C. Accuracy:

The accuracy data depicts the area of the smallest circle which includes all individual shots within each shot pattern. This string of fire was shot with two Glock cal. .40 weapons, one lubricated with MILITEC-1, and the other with CLP. The accuracy test was done after firing 4500 rounds through each weapon. All strings of fire were shot from a bench rest at 10 meters by the same shooter. The radius of each shot pattern was used to compute the area of the smallest circle which would encompass the complete shot pattern. The areas were then added together and divided by the number of shot patterns. This calculation resulted in the average area of shot groups. The average shot pattern area for MILITEC-1 lubricated weapon was 14% smaller than for the CLP lubricated weapon.

D. Degradation of Performance:

Four out of six CLP lubricated weapons malfunctioned sooner than the MILITEC-1 lubricated weapons. One MILITEC-1 lubricated weapon encountered malfunctions at a lower round count than the CLP test weapons. The GLOCK 22C pistols had no failures throughout the test.

1. Two Beretta 9mms were treated with MILITEC-1. One had no failures until 3312 rounds were fired, the other had no failures throughout the test. One Beretta 9mm treated with CLP encountered jamming beginning at 380 rounds, with 11 successive jams, and the test was stopped for recurrent jamming at 1850 rounds. The second Beretta 9mm treated with CLP started jamming at 1983 rounds with 6 successive jams, but continued to fire until test end.

2. The Colt M16-A2 5.56mm treated with CLP encountered a jam at 1093 rounds with and continuous jams thereafter, until total failure at 1570 rounds. The M16-A2 treated with MILITEC-1 did not incur a jam until firing 3954 blanks.

(With blank rounds becoming more significant in military training, this could be a great time and money saver for the U.S. Armed Forces. Almost double the rounds were fired without problems. Militec Incorporated.)

3. No failures were encountered while firing the GLOCK cal. .40 pistols.

E. Factors in Cleaning

At the outset of the test it was determined that the newly manufactured weapons used for the test would be initially cleaned, prior to being measured and treated with the test lubricants. They would then not again be cleaned until after either 5000 rounds had been fired, or the individual weapons had ceased to function to a degree that caused the test to be halted.

MILITEC-1  treated weapons were easier to clean than those weapons which were treated with CLP. This was primarily due to the fact that the CLP treated weapons experienced greater carbon buildup during the test than the MILITEC-1 treated weapons.

F. Observed Corrosion:

No corrosion was observed on any of the weapons.

G. Observed Parts Wear:

Weapon measurements were taken before firing, and after completion of test firing. Three out of four of the CLP test weapons recorded wear on at least one area. Only one of the MILITEC-1 weapons recorded wear.

CONCLUSIONS

I  It is concluded, based upon the results observed, measured and recorded during the test, that:

A. Difference in Operating Characteristics:

MILITEC-1 treated weapons remained cooler during sustained firing. MILITEC-1  weapons were consistently selected by shooters for smoothness of functioning, and ease of trigger pull.

B. Identifiable Performance

Advantages of MILITEC-1 treatment on performance included:

·Higher muzzle velocity than for CLP treated weapons
·Increase in muzzle velocity throughout conduct of test
·Measurably tighter shot groups than for CLP treated weapons

C. Operational failure modes experienced:

MILITEC-1 treated weapons continued to operate after the weapons treated with CLP had failed to function properly. The CLP treated weapons began experiencing jams early in the test (less than 2,000 rounds) and several were removed from the range due to lubrication related malfunctions.

D. Ease/Difficulty Factors in Cleaning

MILITEC-1 treated weapons experienced less carbon build up during the test firing. They were therefore, significantly easier to clean than those treated with CLP.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1: Weather Conditions

Attachment 2: Accuracy Data

Attachment 3: Shot Pattern Illustrations

TALON Mfg. Co Inc. Testing Data
Testing for: Militec Incorporated

Dates, Weather Conditions and Weapons Tested