Fireclean - They're making sure no one EVER buys again.

  • Fireclean is doing a great job of making sure no one will EVER buy their product again.

    Snake oil salesmen, having the audacity to sue people for reporting that it's snake oil. Maybe afterward they can write a book: "How to ensure a company is completely driven into the ground after someone says something bad about you."

  • I was wondering if this would get posted here. Saw it on the Hide, Frank actually supports the lawsuit.

    I haven't checked the thread to see if anyone posted after that.

  • @rhyno said:

    I was wondering if this would get posted here. Saw it on the Hide, Frank actually supports the lawsuit.

    Why? Maybe there's some personal crap behind the scenes between the blogger and fireclean... I don't know. Either way, no way does this end up well for fireclean. They'll likely have a tough road ahead of them in court.

    Suppose Fireclean IS crisco, and they are successful in suing this blogger? We can pretty much kiss honest reviews of products goodbye. Anytime something negative is said, they'll be sued.

    I read Franks posts just now. I can certainly see his point. Perhaps it is all in the wording. However, it's a slippery damn slope, and reviewers/bloggers should be able to say whatever they want so long as its not libel/slander.

  • Frank claims Fire clean also had a test done and published it to show it was not just Crisco.

    If that's the case, then that changes things I think.

    I think FireClean is in a lose lose, I don't know if their claims are true, I think it would have been better to go a different way.

    I don't know, I thought it was interesting to see Frank say he supports the lawsuit after the Tactical Rifles dot net thing.

  • They did a test? Isn't that like cigarette companies doing a test and saying it's safe? ;)

  • Before today I'd never heard of fireclean. I sure as shit won't be buying any now. Canola oil or otherwise. The Streisand effect at work.

    I'm also of the belief that dedicated cleaning products do a better job. It doesn't bother me if it takes an extra step to clean the carbon out and then the copper versus doing them all at once.

    I will however, continue to use my gallon jug of clp left over from the military on my ARs till the day I die.

  • Let me preface this by saying I'm not defending FireClean, just I like to read about things like these and see what both sides are saying, and try to understand it.

    So what FireClean is saying is that the tests done by the bloggers were from a random lab, the pictures of the results were each scaled different to get them to match, and that spectroscopy analysis is a poor way to do it, since the base oils are similar and it doesn't do a good job of detecting the addictive packages.

    The first issue I can't really say anything about, the second issue I did look at the pictures closely and they were scaled dofferent, I can't say what effect that has on the picture though.

    The third part is interesting, and it's the same thing we see with motor oils, everyone has the same base oil, Valvoline, Mobil, Havoline, Penzoil, etc all have the same base oils, where they seperate is the additive package. So that makes sense, but I have no idea what spectro analysis is or does so I don't know about that.

    FireClean then says it had a certified independent lab test their product through a different method along with Crisco and they were wildly different.

    I haven't been able to find that yet.

    It's interesting, and I have no dog in the fight, and I won't use FireClean. But seeing Frank say he agreed with it was intriguing, and that what cause me to look into it a bit further.

    I do think suing is the wrong way to go about it though, a better way would be to show their results on public forums and call out the other guys, I think.

  • @rhyno

    I suppose if I had paid attention in school, I'd know how to read the damn thing.
    Someone needs to go shoot it through a HPLC Mass Spectrometer, then we'll know exactly what it is.

    The issue is the way they're handling it.

    I'd have mostly ignored it, had I been the fireclean people. Maybe laugh it off and say something to the effect of "our reputation speaks for itself" especially if they have people like Larry Vickers in their corner. Taking it to court is the absolute wrong way to go. Lose-lose.

    Also as to the base oil aspect, I'd think an organic (in this case a plant derived oil) oil would be a negative thing in terms of gun care. I think I'd prefer either a mineral oil or some petroleum distillate as the base oil.
    Keep in mind this part is just opinion, for all I know CLP is canola oil based too, though I suspect that its not.

  • But the argument is being made that had the bloggers simply said we think it's Crisco, there would be no problem, but to say "here is scientific data that proves it's Crisco" is where the problem was. Especially if FireCleans claims of the data being skewed to make it look similar is true.

    We know people will believe bologna if they think it's scientific, we see this everytime someone calls someone a lemmings, or they're against vaccines, or they are against firearms.

    This is all as I understand it right now anyways. And again, not that I have a dog In the fight, or care either way, I just like to research stuff like this. It gets me in trouble quite a bit.

    As far as the oil thing, I bet it has something to do with possible government contracts and being green, Canola oil or really any plant oil being "green" and "healthy" where petroleum is toxic. IIRC the military wanted a "green" or biodegradable oil. That and vegetable oil is probably way cheaper then petroleum.

  • I can certainly see that point. If they manipulated data to show an untrue correlation, the blogger should be smushed.

  • Gun oil is either dino or veggie based......


    I wonder what the idiots at fireclean will do next to ensure the continued destruction of their brand?

  • Banned