Billnpatti
Cannon
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 7,340
- Reaction score
- 44
A while back, we had a discussion on this forum about a product called Frog Lube. There were some pros and some cons abut it. I wondered if the stuff did what they claimed it would do. there were claims that it "seasoned" the bore of guns in which it was used, it made fouling more easily removed and it rustproofed metal. It sounded too good to be true and I was a skeptic. So, I wanted to see for myself if any of their claims were valid. I got some Frog Lube and gave it a try. I wanted to see if it had any effect on my bore so I devised an experiment to test this "seasoning" claim. First, I fired 10 shots over a chronograph and recorded the data. Then I treated the bore carefully following their directions. Then I fired 10 more shots over a chronograph and recorded the results. Let me stop here and say that I went to extremes to hold all other variables constant and having the Frog Lube as the only variable to effect the velocities. To my amazement, the velocities were measurably different indicating that Frog Lube actually did something in my bore that would make this difference. I am still not willing to say that it "seasoned" my bore but it did something. I am going to say that it "conditioned" my bore.
The change in velocities from the Frog Lube treated bore were approximately 150 fps slower compared to the velocities from the untreated bore. The untreated bore velocities were an average of 1266 fps with a std dev. of 32 fps. The average velocity from the treated bore was 1179 with a std. dev. of 51. The change is obvious. It is also obvious that the Frog Lube treated bore is slicker than the untreated bore which allows the PRB to have less friction to overcome and, thus, to be more easily displaced upon firing. This results in a lower breach pressure and, consequently, slower velocities. Ergo, Frog Lube does actually do something to the bore to make it slicker. This change is measurable and verifiable. I choose to call this conditioning rather than seasoning.
It would have seemed that the greater std. dev. from the treated bore velocities would make the treated bore less accurate. I found quite the opposite. Of course this is based on only one target but the group size from the treated bore was tighter than the group from the treated bore. When I measure groups for comparison, I prefer to use a method called Maximum Mean Radius (MMR). This method minimizes the effect of the occasional flier and yields a better number for group size comparison. The MMR for the untreated bore was 0.75 inches and the MMR for the treated bore was 0.52 inches. Since this is data from only two targets, one before and one after treatment, it is not a good statistical comparison but it does seem to indicate that the treated bore is at least as accurate as an untreated bore and quite possibly more accurate.
Another claim was that Frog Lube made dirt and fouling more easily removed from a Frog Lube treated surface. I gave this some thought and was unable to come up with any easily quantifiable method that would be a subjective rather than an objective evaluation. I could come up with no easy way to do this other than weighing each wiping patch before and after wiping the bore. Way too much work. So, I settled for a method that was very subjective but I determined that I would be very careful in making my observations and evaluations. So, to determine if Frog Lube made fouling removal easier, I carefully saved all of my between shot wiping patches in the order in which I used them and then looked at each patch to see if I could see any observable difference in how much fouling was on each patch. The fact was that there was a very obvious difference in the amount of fouling on the patches from the Frog Lube treated bore when compared to the amount of fouling on the patches from the untreated bore. The patches from the Frog Lube treated bore had obviously more fouling on them when compared to the patches from the untreated bore. This confirmed that a Frog Lube treated bore is more easily cleaned than an untreated bore. Let me say here that each patch was run down the bore with one stroke and removed in one single stroke such that the only variable, when comparing them, was the Frog Lube treatment.
Another claim that is made my the Frog Lube people is that it provides good rustproofing. I was very skeptical about this claim. I have tried several other products that made such claims but were not actual gun oil type products. These have long been the only products that I considered to provide real rust protection. So, I am sort of like a person from Missouri in that when someone makes such a claim, I say "Show me!". A week after treating my bore with Frog Lube, I ran a clean patch down my bore to see if I could find any rust. It came out clean as a hound's tooth, not a sign of rust. After another shooting session in which I used Frog Lube as a rust preventive in my bore, I checked again and found no rust in my bore.
My conclusion from all of this is that Frog Lube does exactly what it says it will do. I don't know what the secret is but Frog Lube just works. And it smells pretty good, too.
The change in velocities from the Frog Lube treated bore were approximately 150 fps slower compared to the velocities from the untreated bore. The untreated bore velocities were an average of 1266 fps with a std dev. of 32 fps. The average velocity from the treated bore was 1179 with a std. dev. of 51. The change is obvious. It is also obvious that the Frog Lube treated bore is slicker than the untreated bore which allows the PRB to have less friction to overcome and, thus, to be more easily displaced upon firing. This results in a lower breach pressure and, consequently, slower velocities. Ergo, Frog Lube does actually do something to the bore to make it slicker. This change is measurable and verifiable. I choose to call this conditioning rather than seasoning.
It would have seemed that the greater std. dev. from the treated bore velocities would make the treated bore less accurate. I found quite the opposite. Of course this is based on only one target but the group size from the treated bore was tighter than the group from the treated bore. When I measure groups for comparison, I prefer to use a method called Maximum Mean Radius (MMR). This method minimizes the effect of the occasional flier and yields a better number for group size comparison. The MMR for the untreated bore was 0.75 inches and the MMR for the treated bore was 0.52 inches. Since this is data from only two targets, one before and one after treatment, it is not a good statistical comparison but it does seem to indicate that the treated bore is at least as accurate as an untreated bore and quite possibly more accurate.
Another claim was that Frog Lube made dirt and fouling more easily removed from a Frog Lube treated surface. I gave this some thought and was unable to come up with any easily quantifiable method that would be a subjective rather than an objective evaluation. I could come up with no easy way to do this other than weighing each wiping patch before and after wiping the bore. Way too much work. So, I settled for a method that was very subjective but I determined that I would be very careful in making my observations and evaluations. So, to determine if Frog Lube made fouling removal easier, I carefully saved all of my between shot wiping patches in the order in which I used them and then looked at each patch to see if I could see any observable difference in how much fouling was on each patch. The fact was that there was a very obvious difference in the amount of fouling on the patches from the Frog Lube treated bore when compared to the amount of fouling on the patches from the untreated bore. The patches from the Frog Lube treated bore had obviously more fouling on them when compared to the patches from the untreated bore. This confirmed that a Frog Lube treated bore is more easily cleaned than an untreated bore. Let me say here that each patch was run down the bore with one stroke and removed in one single stroke such that the only variable, when comparing them, was the Frog Lube treatment.
Another claim that is made my the Frog Lube people is that it provides good rustproofing. I was very skeptical about this claim. I have tried several other products that made such claims but were not actual gun oil type products. These have long been the only products that I considered to provide real rust protection. So, I am sort of like a person from Missouri in that when someone makes such a claim, I say "Show me!". A week after treating my bore with Frog Lube, I ran a clean patch down my bore to see if I could find any rust. It came out clean as a hound's tooth, not a sign of rust. After another shooting session in which I used Frog Lube as a rust preventive in my bore, I checked again and found no rust in my bore.
My conclusion from all of this is that Frog Lube does exactly what it says it will do. I don't know what the secret is but Frog Lube just works. And it smells pretty good, too.
ff here but I'll respectfully disagree with you.
