Pirate 4x4 banner

Yes, It’s True: FireClean is Crisco

5K views 54 replies 30 participants last post by  rocket flier 
#1 · (Edited)
I have not heard of this gun lube before, but I guess it is nothing but canola oil. Marketing at it's finest.

"proved to be nothing more than canola oil at a 10,000% markup"

I copied and pasted the text below, but there are charts and a video if you follow the link.

Yes, It’s True: FireClean is Crisco - The Firearm Blog

Initially, the idea that FIREClean was basically just Crisco started with rumors of a spectral analysis, but took off after July of this year, when AR15.com member 12_gauge posted a video to YouTube of a burn-off test between FIREClean and canola oil. The results of this poor man’s spectroscopy were that FireClean and the canola oil looked identical; not a conclusive result, but it began to raise suspicions. Further, FireClean founder Edward Sugg was listed on a patent available to the public listing alternative uses for vegetable oils, such as canola oil, including as firearms lubricants. It was with this that I was all but convinced: FIREClean was canola oil, commonly sold under the brand name “Crisco”. Yesterday the inimitable Andrew Tuohy, a contributor to this blog, posted an article proving to me beyond any doubt that FIREClean is vegetable oil. The results of the infrared spectroscopy he conducted are reproduced below:

It is quite apparent that the results for FIREClean and Crisco are very similar. While I’d rather see a control, it is apparent to me that none of the three look more similar in this regard to other common oils than they do to each other. So, in short, to the best of my knowledge, FireClean is canola oil.

From my perspective, FIREClean has been one of the most aggressively branded gun lubricants in recent years, promoted as a “revolutionary” lubricant that cleans and removes fouling unlike other offerings. [screenshot here] Gun expert Larry Vickers, who I have great respect for, recently released a spot promoting FIREClean as a superior lubricant, “proven” to carry away more fouling from a firearm due to the greater smoke it produced. Those of us with a modest basis in chemistry were immediately skeptical: The smoke produced by an oil under heat has at best only a tangential relationship to its ability to collect and trap debris.

It was with this video, on the backs of what felt like more than circumstantial evidence, that made many feel that “enough was enough”. FIREClean may not have been a poor lubricant, at least for the range where it wasn’t applied to firearms that were stored for a long time, but if it really was $15/oz canola oil as the patents and smoke tests suggested, then the company would have quite a lot to answer for.

With Andrew’s spectroscopy, this has been realized. FIREClean, marketed as “the real deal”, a revolutionary lubricant that would sweep aside all the snake oils that have plagued the gun market for years, has proved to be nothing more than canola oil at a 10,000% markup. Those who bought into it may feel cheated, as they undoubtedly were. Those who learned from previous snake oil gun lubes may feel smug, but they shouldn’t. A slick marketing campaign and a reasonably effective (but horrendously overpriced) product was enough to get many people whose opinion I did and continue to respect. Better men than I, for a certainty, were taken in by this product, which has proven to be nothing more than vegetable oil. FIREClean’s reputation should suffer; theirs should not.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
So the problem is? Salesmenship?

If its not damaging the weapons then i guess only going to lose sales do to readily available cheaper source, that apperantly is the shit to get.
 
#15 ·
x2.

I have bought lubricant in years because i have gallons of oil sitting in the garage leftover from my motorcycles, car, and truck.

Solvent?? I have a couple gallons of diesel and bronze welding brushes.

I do however have a full kit of bronze brushes and I'm going to make my own full length brass cleaning rod
 
#12 ·
Found this in the Amazon reviews.

I was just messing around on the Internet and one day I heard about a company that made a gun cleaning product. I didn't think much of it till I purchased my AR. Since then I have become very picky in the cleaning of my guns. Walmart shelf stuff was no good for my baby. I remembered this stuff and I promptly watched some videos on it and decided to take the plunge.
 
#13 ·
So, FIREclean is denying that thier product is canola oil.

"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 Defends Product, Publishes statement on “CanolaOilGate” - The Firearm Blog
 
#18 ·
This has been all over social media. Facebook and instagram mainly. Everybody seems butthurt over it being canola oil? Why? Because you got duped into paying so much for something in your kitchen? Big deal! Nobody denies the fact that it works, and works very well as claimed. FireClean says there are other additives in it. If everybody who says its only canola oil cares then I'd love to see a pancake cooked with fireclean eaten.
 
#21 · (Edited)
Fire Clean is sold as safe to consume for humans. So the likely hood that they are mixing anything in is very small or are other vegetable oils. They are using a high flash point vegetable oil that if you wanted to you could use to cook with.

All safe to eat oils and waxes are plant derived and other manufactures(read Froglube) are probably getting nervous.
 
#25 ·
I used to use bacon grease and old candle wax mixed together to lube patches for my muzzle loader. Smelled amazing, but was pretty nasty to handle on a hot day. Not enough wax, I suppose...

My interpretation is that people are getting upset about how FireClean or whomever are using bad advertising technique (there was a review on vuurwapen about a comparison of no lube to CLP to FC) to unethically separate people from their cash. Now FC is trying to throw a bunch of BS around and vaguely threaten libel suits rather than just address things in a straightforward manner.
 
#28 · (Edited)
Fireclean LLC Sues Andrew Tuohy and Everett Baker for Defamation in Federal Court - Soldier Systems Daily

Fireclean LLC Sues Andrew Tuohy and Everett Baker for Defamation in Federal Court

Last September, social media was ablaze with multiple versions of a common theme, “Fireclean lubricant is Crisco”. The source of this buzz was an article on Vuurwapen blog by Andrew Tuohy, entitled “INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY OF FIRECLEAN AND CRISCO OILS” where he claimed to have had samples of Fireclean tested in order to determine if it was Crisco. At the time of the article, I was publicly critical of Tuohy’s methodology, relying on anonymous sources for lab tests.

The content was so popular it even spawned a second round of articles by Tuohy as well as blogger Everett Baker who claims to have conducted testing of his own that verified Tuohy’s assertions. To double down, Tuohy wrote an article where he claimed that a demonstration video of Fireclean by tactical trainer Larry Vickers was fraudulent. Interestingly, Tuohy initially published this article as “WHERE THERE’S SMOKE, THERE’S LIAR” but later changed it to “SEVERE PROBLEMS WITH VICKERS TACTICAL FIRECLEAN VIDEO”.

At the time, lots of people were quite entertained by the shenanigans. But not everyone was laughing. While most have moved on from the incident, Fireclean has not. In fact, last week they filed the first, in what we understand will be series of federal lawsuits, against Andrew Tuohy and Everett Baker. Suits against others are said to follow. According to this suit, Fireclean has suffered losses of $25,000 per month in sales since the round of articles. Seeing how they are in Northern Virginia, Fireclean has turned to Federal Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the original ‘Rocket Docket’, for relief. Andrew Tuohy hails from Arizona and Everett Baker is from New Hampshire, according to his blog but Fireclean makes their case early on in the suit for a Virginia venue.

At the heart of this issue is whether the bloggers’ posts are protected by the First Amendment or if their actions were intentionally misleading. Fireclean alleges multiple counts of defamation against Tuohy and a single count against Baker as well as violation of the Virginia Business Conspiracy Act and Common Law Conspiracy. They are demanding a jury trial and compensatory damages, presumed damages for defamation, punitive damages in addition to court costs and attorney’s fees.

You can read the entire, 209 page suit here: Fireclean LLC v Tuohy and Baker. It’s quite extensive and in the document you can see that Fireclean does exactly what Tuohy and Baker didn’t, which was use a well known laboratory to analyze the product. Rather than rely on anonymous testing or tests performed by a college student, Fireclean obtained the services of Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories. Their testing is part of the suit, in exhibit R.

Whichever way this suit goes, it is one to watch because it is not only an attempt to hold firearms bloggers responsible for their content, but that it could have far reaching effects for blogging writ large as well as other social media content.

In closing, I would like to disclose that Vickers Tactical, who is not a party to this suit, but is mentioned, is an advertiser on SSD. While, Larry Vickers has endorsed Fireclean in the past, Fireclean is in no way associated with SSD.
 
#29 ·
well they took the douchey way out.

so fuck them.
If you can prove that your product isn't chemically identical to crisco then do so and post the results very publicly. Sueing people to have content removed and gag orders issued is douchey corporate type shit.
 
#32 ·
I could give two shits if all they did was funnel Crisco into a smaller bottle and hang a stupid price on it. I am not gonna buy it. You have some responsibility to do some kind of research into what you are buying. A couple questions... Does it work as advertised? We're folks happy with it? Did it damage anyone's shit? If it was great until you found out you were dupped than too fucking bad.

As far as the blogger... If what he is saying is not 100% true than fuck his ass. He shit on a business and now wonders why they are suing him? Sounds like he will have a job in the msm when he is done in court.

If he is 100% correct then I reckon he helped save some fools a few bucks until the next wiz bang thing comes around.
 
#36 ·
fireclean's analysis is in the court paper work. Waaayyyyyy the fuck towards the end in the exhibits.


it sure looks and acts like vegetable oil, even in their tests, with some very minor formulation differences.

so I'm gonna go with "It's not crisco, but it's crisco"
 
#41 ·
FireClean Releases Statement on Vuurwapen Lawsuit - The Firearm Blog

After FireClean filed the lawsuit against blogger Andrew Tuohy of Vuurwapen Blog, the reaction online was quick and viscous. The company took quite the Public Relations hit. Many have believed that the suit was an attempt to silence bloggers and reviewers online.


On the other side of the coin, those who supported the suit believed FireClean to be taking legal action to right a wrong. To clarify why they filed the suit, and circumstances surrounding it, FireClean has released a statement. In it, FireClean asserts that they are not attempting to pursue action on an opinion, but what they feel was an unsubstantiated attack on their company by someone who ignored attempts by the company to educate them. They claim that FireClean is not a big bad wolf against bloggers and reviewers.

The statement in full:


“FireClean LLC has recently filed a lawsuit against Andrew Tuohy and Everett Baker, asserting defamation and Virginia Business Conspiracy Act claims against these defendants, who with the specific purpose of harming FireClean, initiated a protracted and intentional smear campaign against the company.

FIREClean’s patent application was publicly accessible online two years before Tuohy wrote about FIREClean®. The patent application, on the very first page, describes a product that is composed of at least three substances, which may be plant or vegetable-based oils, and which make up between 25 and 100 percent of the formulation. Tuohy never undertook to test this statement. He chose a test that would give him the result he wanted so that he could publish sensational headlines. An infrared spectroscopy analysis was not sufficient to distinguish FIREClean® from Crisco vegetable or canola oil, and Tuohy knew this. Moreover, even after publishing his articles, Tuohy was alerted to this fact by other readers of his blog, and he never undertook to correct his analysis or conclusions.

When Tuohy told us that he intended to publish his first article- the night before he published it- and told us what his conclusions would be, we asked him for a chance to read it first, so we could provide a proper response. He refused. In his blog post he stated, “That is not how this blog works.”

Clearly, Tuohy wanted to turn a blind eye to anything that might tamper down his eye-grabbing headlines. He wanted readership, not the truth.

Some recent public social media comments have compared our suit against Tuohy to a David-versus-Goliath First Amendment case. It is anything but that. In fact, Tuohy has as many aircraft registered in his name as FireClean has employees (two). FireClean is a small business that has been subject to an unprovoked and unfair attack.

FIREClean® is not Crisco Vegetable nor Canola oil – nor otherwise common vegetable oil. FIREClean® is a proprietary, high-efficiency formulation that yielded unprecedented results in Tuohy’s own live-fire use. Tuohy’s separate statements that are the subject of our lawsuit were false, continuous, persistent, and maliciously made. FireClean has no choice but self defense. Anyone who thinks the company is wrong for doing so has clearly never had their livelihood attacked by someone engaged in a protracted smear campaign.

The Citizens of the United States of America certainly enjoy the freedom of speech provided in the First Amendment. But just as it is illegal to run into a crowded theater and yell “fire” when there is no fire, there are limits on—and repercussions to—speech that is intentionally or negligently false, that causes harm to another. These are the rights that we seek to vindicate.”

In these types of lawsuits, quite simply the truth will set one free.

FireClean will have to show, in court, that their formula is not what Vuurwapen implied and likewise Tuohy will have to show that there was sufficient evidence to support his assertions and that he completed the due diligence prior to such articles.

My parting thought? The comment on number of airplanes was in poor taste. I get trying to drive a point, but there is a line of class that I feel was crossed there.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top