Before and after

Yesterday, as you might imagine, there was quite a bit of talk at work about the shooting in San Bernardino. Two different people who I barely know and seldom see wanted to talk guns with me. Usually I might get one or two conversations a month.

One was a middle-aged woman who lives alone. She wanted to take a shooting class to prepare for home defense. She had done a fair amount of shooting growing up but had never taken any classes. Her boyfriend has quite a bit of rifle shooting but no handgun shooting. They both wanted to take a handgun class or two. I referred her to West Coast Armory and Insights Training. And suggested the specific classes I thought would be appropriate for their skill levels.

The second person was a young guy. He owns at least three guns and has a concealed carry permit. He had just got a new gun and it was shooting to a much different point of aim than his carry gun. He couldn’t figure out why it was so different. I figured I knew what the problem was but didn’t want to tell him until I knew for certain. I offered to take him to the range and look at his guns with him and figure out the problem. He brought the guns to work (left in his car, yes, our parking lot is an okay place for guns) and at lunch time we went to the range to do some tests.

I had him take a few shots with his gun to demonstrate the problem. I put the target at 15 feet and asked him to shoot at the top right diamond (I very deliberately suggested the TOP). Most of the .45 caliber holes below are the result:

ShooterBefore

Okay. I know what the problem is, but need him to figure it out on his own. I asked him to shoot a few rounds with his carry gun. The 9mm holes above are the result.

I then shot three rounds with his .45 at the top left diamond on the target. Here is the result:

JoeTest

Oh. He got a big clue and I pushed a little bit more by suggesting, “I don’t think there is anything wrong with the gun or ammo.”

He agreed and had him shoot my .22. The .22 holes mixed with .45 holes in the target above where the result. The first one was the one low and to the left. The rest were in on very close to the diamond. Much better. But I knew he could do better still.

I then had him doing some dry fire exercises. I explained what it meant and repeated the mantra as he pulled the trigger on an empty chamber again and again, “Trigger prep, sight alignment, squeeze, follow through.”

The first half dozen “shots” resulted in the muzzle of the gun dipping down as the hammer fell. He got it under control and after he had “fired” probably 20 in a row holding it rock steady I told him I was going to either have a live round in the chamber for him or it might be empty.

He again had a steady muzzle for five or six rounds before I put a live one in the chamber. It was on target. More empties and another live one. Again on target.

We talked about it for a while and he then wanted to shoot a few more rounds knowing they were all live. The top three holes below were the result:

ShooterAfter

He asked about how to aim. I explained and he said that because his guns always shot lower than than that he would always aim a little higher than what I suggested. He tried aiming as I suggested and the hole at 9:00 on the target above was the result. Close enough. I told him to go home and do lots of dry fire exercises before going to the range again. And consider getting a .22 to practice with. It will take a while to get the bad habit out of his trigger finger and dry firing 10 rounds for every one live round is what my instructors recommend.

As we left I pointed out the Insights Training flyers in the hallway to the ranges and he and I both picked up a few. He seemed very interested in taking a class and thanked me for helping him.

We went back to work where I gave the flyers I had picked up to the woman I had talked to yesterday and I figured I had done my good deeds for the day.

Changing our culture. One new shooter at a time.

Steel match results

On November 3rd I had surgery on my left shoulder. Over three and half weeks later I still have large bruises and somewhat limited range of motion.

WP_20151109_18_35_22_ProWeb

But I had made it to the range a couple of times for practice and my shooting was okay and only occasionally experienced some pain. So Saturday I went to Whidbey Island for the Holmes Harbor Rod and Gun Club steel match.

I tried to take just a little more time before squeezing off the shot but still make the target transitions as quickly as I could. This seemed to work a lot better than if I tried to make everything go fast.

My rimfire results in particular were very good. I cut my total match time by over 10 seconds (this is about a 15% improvement!). This was a total of 56.64 seconds for five stages. Since there are four strings of five shots in each stage this means my average time for each string was 2.83 seconds. And since every stage requires five shots the average time per shot was 0.5664 seconds. I’m constantly amazed this is even possible let alone that I am capable of shooting this fast on targets likes these:

WP_20151128_10_33_29_ProWP_20151128_11_00_38_Pro
WP_20151128_11_14_13_ProWP_20151128_11_35_48_Pro
WP_20151128_09_57_44_Pro

But it’s possible. Here is the video to prove it:

The scores were:

Class: Rimfire Rifle Open  
Name Match Time
Brian Lawson 37.54
Tony Ceci 48.39
Brian Lawson 48.64
Ron Wigger 50.24
Dan Lavaty 54.02
Ethan Kimball 63.90
Class: Rimfire Iron
Name Match Time
Joe Huffman 56.64
Brian Lawson 71.27
Scott Bertino 84.73
Class: Rimfire Open
Name Match Time
Dan Lavaty 64.03
Jim Dunlap 88.05
Rev Barchenger 96.47
Dave Shupe Mechanical Issues
Class: Centerfire Iron
Name Match Time
Joe Huffman 78.44
Bruce Barchenger 90.18
Dave Shupe 124.71
Dennis Bohling 132.05
Scott Bertino 140.83
Class: Centerfire Revolver Open
Name Match Time
Chris Ceci 80.93
Class: Centerfire Revolver Iron
Name Match Time
Ron Wigger 96.82

Quote of the day—Dana Loesch

Women think it’s not a world for them and I say the hell with that! It absolutely is. I believe if you can drive a car you can handle and shoot a gun.

Dana Loesch
April 18, 2015
Dana Loesch – Truly A Well Armed Woman
[Actually, in many circumstances, you can shoot a gun safely and effectively even when you can’t drive a car.—Joe]

Good advice

From Tactical Warrior Wear.

I like this one best:

KeepCalmReturnFire

Bullets and bombers

Sebastian sent me an email this morning and suggested:

Apparently the Paris bombers had vests made of TATP explosive material. I was wondering if it might make a good post on the nature of the explosive, and particularly its sensitivity to bullets.

Good idea. I have written a little bit about TATP before but not in this context.

Sebastian also wrote on the general topic today. I would like to add that steel matches are excellent practice for making multiple head shots. In the right circumstances five head shots can be made in two seconds flat.

If you are in a shooting situation where your target is in close proximity to TATP explosives you should either make certain you don’t hit the containers or you are prepared to accept the consequences of a detonation. TATP is extremely impact sensitive:


Acetone peroxide impact sensitivity by JudyMaceo

GlobalSecurity.org says, “TATP is one of the most sensitive explosives known, being extremely sensitive to impact, temperature change and friction.” I have zero doubt about a TATP bomb detonating from a bullet impact.

In the case of a suicide bomber give serious consideration to a head shot. This is not just because of the reason above but because if you don’t shut them down in a fraction of a second they are likely to manually detonate it after they take a solid hit to anything but the central nervous system. Even then, a deadman switch could cause detonation as soon as they let go.

The range of the explosion is of course dependent upon the amount of explosives and the type of fragmentation jacket (which creates the shrapnel) used, and the objects between the bomber and innocent people. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this but it is better than no information at all:

A common security drill against suspected suicide bombers is to isolate the suspect to at least 15 metres (49 ft) away from other people, and ask him to remove his upper clothing (coat, shirt, etc.) in order to see if there is an explosive vest strapped under them.

Personally I would want at least this much range between them and me and I would take cover as low to the ground as I could. You will also have a fraction of a second between the time you pull the trigger and the time shrapnel arrives at your location. Use that time wisely.

Interflon Fin Super update

About three months ago I wrote about a gun lubricant which I was rather pleased with, Interflon Fin Super. Today I received an email which said, in part:

We have been informed by the Head Office of Interflon in the Netherlands that there is an issue with selling Interflon products directly to consumers online, because the Licensing Agreement that Interflon has with DuPont for the use of Teflon in their products limits them to selling these products to the professional market only. Selling to consumers is in breach of this licensing agreement and we have been asked to take the offering on Amazon offline immediately.

We will be taking the product off line by the end of this week and will no longer be selling directly to consumers. The product will still be available to professional buyers such as gun clubs and gun stores.

I haven’t seen this in any gun store so I immediately went on line at Amazon and ordered what I figured would be a lifetime supply for me. I don’t know if they will actually ship it but I figured it wouldn’t hurt to try.

Shooting the Glock 43

Apparently it’s a thing. People often talk of shooting their guns, but it never quite made sense to me. Why shoot a perfectly good gun?

Media definition of a clip

For many years I’ve been fighting a losing battle (daughter Jaime claims I lost the battle years ago) about people calling a “magazine” a “clip”. I’m not fighting the battle alone though. Guy Sagi posted Top Media-Abused Gun Terms and points out the problem is larger than I usually view it:

Clip—Any ammunition-retention system, including magazines, speed loaders, belts, bandoleers and TSA screeners.

Steel match results

I was expecting the worst when I went to Whidbey Island for the monthly steel match. I have been very busy recently and hadn’t shot a pistol in nearly a month. After I arrived I realized I had left my race holster at home. My centerfire shooting was all from an inside the waistband holster and my draw time showed this.

 

I was surprised to do as well as I did. I did quite well (I won) with iron sighted rimfire pistol and decent (second place) with iron sighted centerfire pistol:

 

Name Division Seconds
Brian Lawson RF-RI-O 42
Brian Lawson RF-O 44.08
Steve Mooney RF-RI-O 44.99
Steve Mooney RF-O 51.36
Steve Mooney RF-O 57.44
Joe Huffman RF-I 63.54
Theo Newstad PCC-O 67
Scott Bertino RF-O 69.14
Jim Dunlap RF-O 69.93
Scott Bertino RF-I 73.31
Theo Newstad RF-O 80.17
Rev Barchenger RF-O 83.17
Dave Shupe CF-O 83.29
MAC RF-RI-I 84.11
Bruce Barchenger CF-I 84.27
Joe Huffman CF-I 86.34
Brian Lawson CF-I 89.46
Theo Newstad CF-I 91.12
Dave Shupe RF-O 92.05
Bob Austin CF-I 92.27
Bruce Barchenger CF-I 94.32
Larry Languille PCC-I 116.05
MAC CF-I 124.95
Dennis Bohling CF-I 151.76
Linda Pickering CF-I 165.21

RF-RI-O: Rimfire Rifle Optics

RF-O: Rimfire Pistol Optics
RF-I: Rimfire Iron sights
PCC-O: Pistol Caliber Carbine Optics
RF-RI-I: Rimfire Rifle Iron sights
CF-I: Centerfire Iron sights

PCC-I: Pistol Caliber Carbine Iron sights

 

One round short

I just finished reloading a few rounds for my next pistol match and ran my round counting program to report on the total number of rounds I have ever reloaded. By complete coincidence the total was one short of a nice round number (from a computer programmer’s viewpoint):

223.LOG: 2027 rounds.
22LR.log: 0 rounds.
3006.LOG: 467 rounds.
300WIN.LOG: 1351 rounds.
40SW.LOG: 40054 rounds.
45.log: 0 rounds.
50bmg.log: 0 rounds.
9MM.LOG: 21636 rounds.
Total: 65535 rounds.

Boomershoot 2015 video

Via email from Ballisticarc:

A very select audience

If programming languages were weapons. This won’t make much sense to you unless you are a computer programmer and a gun nut.

Marysville Monster Match

This was a “USPSA like” match I shot in last Sunday. The shooting part was by USPSA rules but the stage designs were NOT! Stages had from 40 to 60 rounds. This was the 60 round stage:

WP_20150920_09_47_10_Pro

Here is a 59 round stage:WP_20150920_11_24_08_Pro

I didn’t do all that well at this match. I made a fair number of mistakes. I overlooked one target. I failed to shoot another target twice, and I had far too many misses on the all steel stage. I also started one stage, stage 5 which I don’t have video of, with a magazine that was only about half full.

It was fun though. There weren’t any no-shoots. There wasn’t any hard cover. There weren’t any disappearing targets. There was just a lot of trigger pulling, reloading and of course fun.

Overall I placed 44th out of 83. In Limited Division I was 25th out 41. Other results things such as individual stage results can be found here.

My shooter point of view video:

Loke was in my squad and has his own video and commentary on the match. His video, and of course his shooting (he came in second overall) is far better than mine:

I wonder what this will mean for concealed carry?

From CNN:

A cloak of invisibility may be common in science fiction but it is not so easy in the real world. New research suggests such a device may be moving closer to reality.

Scientists said on Thursday (September 17) they have successfully tested an ultra-thin invisibility cloak made of microscopic rectangular gold blocks that, like skin, conform to the shape of an object and can render it undetectable with visible light.

The researchers said while their experiments involved cloaking a miniscule object they believe the technology could be made to conceal larger objects, with military and other possible applications.

The cloak, 80 nanometers in thickness, was wrapped around a three-dimensional object shaped with bumps and dents. The cloak’s surface rerouted light waves scattered from the object to make it invisible to optical detection.

What if you had a holster that was made with a cloak of invisibility? You could have the comfort and access of open carry with the discreetness of concealed carry.

Canola, rapeseed, and synthetic oils

There has been a fair amount of discussion in the past few days about a “gun oil” that is suspected of being nothing more than repackaged Canola oil:

In response to a Facebook post on this topic I wrote the following comment:

We sometimes grow rapeseed and canola on the farm.

Rapeseed oil is the main component in all the “synthetic” motor oils. It can tolerate higher temperatures than the pumped from the ground. Rapeseed oil is believed to be toxic (not dramatically so, but you shouldn’t cook with it on a regular basis).

The Canola plant and seed look identical to rapeseed but the oil is much lower in erucic acid than the oil from rapeseed. The erucic acid is desired in the lubricating oils.

Canola oil is not going to be as good a high temperature lubricant as rapeseed oil. If you want to use something cheaper than the hyped up gun oils but better than common lubricants then use a Mobil One or some other synthetic motor oil.

There are some severe factual errors in that comment. It was probably 45 years ago Dad had told me Mobile 1 was made of rapeseed oil. Yesterday I discovered that was wrong. I went searching for a web page to show it was true and could not find evidence to support that claim.

I sent an email to my brother Doug asking him what the story was. He wrote back saying he had discovered the error many years ago himself. Dad was not one to exaggerate or make things up and Doug elaborated on how he might have come to this erroneous conclusion.

He elaborated quite a bit but it boiled down to the following (slightly edited to remove names):

I don’t think Dad fabricated the entire rapeseed story.  When I first started farming, I sat in several farm meetings where rapeseed and its many industrial uses was discussed.  I think much of it came from a certain plant breeder.  Dad really liked him and I did too.  He seemed like a great guy, but I have heard he was a bit of a visionary/exaggerator.  He left in the late 80s and was replaced.  The new breeder also seems like a great guy, but I have seen the results for enough years to know that most of his dreams don’t come true.  His great plans for various new crops have all fizzled over the years and he really has very little to show for his 25 years of plant breeding.

In answer to your question, I suspect much of the hype about rapeseed came from these two plant breeders and much of it was based on wishful thinking rather than reality.  I don’t have any other good explanation.

I did further research and found that while rapeseed oil has been used for lubricating oil for a long, long time it doesn’t have the extraordinary high smoke point that I had been lead to believe. When refined it is higher than many cooking oils but it’s not anything worthy of exception note.

The synthetic oils, like Mobile 1, do tolerate very high temperatures but it isn’t because they have any particular vegetable oil in them. It is because they have very particular, custom built, molecules in them that are temperature tolerant. Conventional oils, and vegetable oils, have a wide variety of molecules in them. Some of the molecules break down at lower temperatures than others. As soon as any component of the oil starts breaking down it changes everything. The viscosity can change, the lubricity can change, and the oil will cease to do its job.

I suspect that high temperature tolerance is important in firearms but I don’t know for certain. It’s not as if the oil is for the chamber and barrel of the gun. It’s for the metal on metal parts of the gun which doesn’t reach chamber and barrel temperatures.

Bullets and steel

Ry and I were at the Boomershoot site in Idaho this weekend when Sebastian sent me an email asking about steel penetration by bullets. I was pretty sure I gave him off the cuff correct answers but I was in a good position to do some of the tests. The next morning Ry and I found a piece of 0.5” mild rod and I shot it a few times.

The question was, “Could a pistol bullet severely damage the mild steel rod? Or is severe damage proof that AP rifle rounds were used?” I said, “I don’t think 1000 FPS pistol bullets will do that.” But I also said that a rifle, even relatively low powered lead core rounds, would go right through. Ry said, “The pistol bullets will only polish the metal.”

Here is the photographic evidence:

WP_20150913_10_12_05_Pro
Entrance of a .223 52 grain JHP from 30 feet.

WP_20150913_10_12_15_Pro
Side view of the .223 shot.

WP_20150913_10_12_30_Pro
Left to right are Winchester Ranger 180 grain .40 S&W, hand loaded 180 grain polymer coated lead, .223 exit.

The Winchester Rangers were probably going about 1015 fps and polished the metal a little better than the handloads going about 950 fps. I don’t have any chronograph data of my own for the .223 rounds out of my gun but Black Hills says to expect about 3250 fps.

This shows why those who wish to ban ammo that penetrates police soft body armor are actually proposing to ban all hunting ammo.

Steel match results

Saturday I went to Whidbey Island for the steel match at Holmes Harbor Rod & Gun Club. I had specially practiced for this match last Thursday and had high hopes of doing well.

Here are the results:

Name Division Time
Steve M. RF-O 44.92
Steve M. RF-RI-O 45.6
Brian L. RF-RI-O 46.35
Jeff K. RF-RI-O  52.72
Alex V. RF-RI-O 56.15
Jeff D. RF-O 63.2
Joe H. RF-I 67.22
MAC RF-O 69.61
Jim D. RF-O 71.43
Brian L. RF-I 77.43
Susan K. RF-O 81.4
Joe H. CF-I 82.13
Bruce B. CF-I 82.43
Bruce B. CF-I 83.73
Mitch H. RF-I 96.04
Brian L. CF-I 98.47
MAC              CF-RV-I 98.71
Jeff K. CF-I 99.08
Rev B. RF-O 100.7
Jeff D. CF-I 101.08
John H. CF-I 115
Jeff S. CF-I 141.44
Bekah H. RF-I 351.29

I won in both rimfire iron sighted (RF-I) and centerfire iron sighted (CF-I). In a similar match last month I had times of 69.39 seconds and 82.6 seconds compared to this months 67.22 and 82.13 seconds. Those differences are essentially in the noise unless the stages were more difficult this month but comparison of other shooters between the months doesn’t show a clear pattern so I’m going with I didn’t shoot measurably better this month. I had a lot of misses so I think I probably was doing the transitions quickly enough to make up for the misses. If I can combine the speed up in transitions with accuracy then I might see some improvement.

Here are pictures of the stages. You can play a game of “Where’s the tennis ball?” in each of the pictures to discover the starting aiming point for people shooting rimfire guns.

WP_20150822_10_36_38_Pro

WP_20150822_10_59_23_Pro

WP_20150822_11_24_43_Pro

WP_20150822_11_52_11_Pro

WP_20150822_10_00_48_Pro

I used my video glasses to record most of the stages. Again I forgot to turn on the glasses for one of the stages.

I was very pleased with one string (starting at 0.00:24). I shot five targets in 1.94 seconds. The first shot took about 0.77 seconds so the remaining four had an average split time of less than 0.30 seconds.

It was hazy from all the smoke but I had a nice ferry ride on my way home:

WP_20150822_14_44_05_Pro

600 rounds well spent

I reserved the training bay at the local indoor range last night and put about 600 rounds of .22 down range:

WP_20150820_20_42_29_Pro

I had noticed something when I watched Master and Grandmaster class shooters. When they transition between targets they move the gun much faster than I do. Why don’t I do that?

I set up the simulated steel challenge stage with paper targets with the largest possible angle I could get in the range and still keep the bullets in the berm from 30 feet away:

WP_20150820_20_44_38_Pro

The stop “plate” is the center target so I could test shooting left to right and right to left. And a secondary test was an order of shooting question I had wondered about for years (1, 2, 4, 5, 3 versus 1, 2, 5, 4, 3).

First I shot as I normally do and found the order of shooting didn’t make any difference. And although it was more comfortable for me to shoot left to right it didn’t make a measurable difference in my time. It was always between about 4.6 and 4.9 seconds.

I tried swinging the gun faster between targets. Maximum acceleration then stopping on target long enough to fire an aimed shot then maximum acceleration to the next target. I found it took me quite a bit longer to get the gun settled on the target compared to the way I usually do it. The end result was that I ended up with essentially the same times.

But I kept trying. At about 300 rounds my time just dropped by a full second. It wasn’t gradual. It was just the same as usual on one string of fire and the next was a full second faster. It continued to be in the 3.6 second range and when I sometimes messed up with a target acquisition and it took something like 4.5 seconds it seemed like forever. 4.5 seconds a few minutes earlier would have been a good run.

I pushed a little harder and even had a few runs that were in the 2.8 to 2.9 range. That’s almost two seconds off my previous times. That a reduction of about 40 percent! I backed off some so that I was consistent and was steady at about 3.6 seconds per string. I continued shooting until I ran out of time trying to condition my brain and muscles to make this a comfortable habit.

My gun got so hot I couldn’t hold onto the barrel and I found out when I cleaned it tonight the front sight had come loose. The heat had probably degraded Loctite on the threads.

The gun also got quite dirty on the outside as well as the inside:

WP_20150820_20_52_38_Pro

I’ll find out at the steel match tomorrow if the training stuck. If it did and I can shoot as fast and accurately tomorrow as I could last night I will be very pleased.

Why you should never shoot a gun

It totally ruins them

Hat tip; Uncle

That’s what I envision whenever people speak of shooting their guns. Why would you even think of shooting a perfectly good gun on purpose?

I fire mine a lot, I’ve shot a few deer and a lot of cans and bottles and other things, but I’ve never shot a gun.

It may annoy some people, but I find the fact that words mean things to be both convenient and comforting. If I seem over-zealous at times, that is the reason why– I LIKE words to mean things, and I like them to mean the same things in the future as they did in the past. The trend of course is something else.

Interflon Fin Super

Update: This product is being taking off the direct to customer market. See this post for more information.


I received a free can of Interflon Fin Super for review a while back and have been using it on my guns and in a few around the house applications. Here is a portion of the email I received about it:

Hi Joe,

I am writing to you because I represent a  lubricant called Fin Super.  Fin Super is a multi-purpose spray.  It is not very well known in the states, but has been used for a number of years by military and police brigades for firearm lubrication in Europe.

Do you accept product to conduct reviews on your blog?  If so, I would be happy to send you a sample to try.  The feedback I get is always overwhelmingly positive.

I have included some info about Fin Super.  In the attachments you will find:

-a review written by a friend who has been using Fin Super for the past three years
-A picture of what the can looks like
-An article translated from an Italian Firearms magazine (the translations isn’t great but the information is very useful)

A copy of the article is included in text form lower in the email.

Lastly, here are some useful links:

Company site:
www.interflon.com

Product Page:
http://www.interflon.com/ca/en/products/570/interflon-fin-super-%28aerosol%29

Technical data sheet:
http://www.interflon.com/asset/download/2866

Safety data sheet:
http://www.interflon.com/asset/download/16513

Here are the two supplied reviews of the product and a picture of the container:

You can purchase Interflon Fin Super from Amazon.

I have been wanting a dry lubricant for my guns for some time. I frequently am in a very dirty environment and the oil on guns attracts even more dirt. Notice the dirt build up in the rear of the slide below:

Another problem with liquid lubricants, particularly with my .22s, it seemed that they contributed to the build up of powder residue in the receivers. Dry lubricants should reduce that problem.

And finally I have shot in matches where it was very cold, sub-zero, and because I had been using appropriate lubricants I had higher scores than Master class shooters because their guns turned into single shots instead of semi-auto because the slide would not go into battery without manual assistance. Dry lubricants don’t have this problem.

I had two main concerns I wanted to test:

  1. I had used a Teflon spray lubricant before that dried within seconds but the lubricant seemed to rub off very easily. I didn’t trust it to actually reduce wear over extended shooting sessions. Would this lubricant persist after extensive use?
  2. Would it make cleaning the inside of the barrel easier like the current lubricant (the original Friction Defense, not Friction Defense Xtreme) I was using?

I was initially annoyed when I applied the lubricant as directed and even after 24 hours the interior surfaces of the gun were still wet. I agree with one of the supplied reviews on this topic (emphasis added):

One essential – and actually, in terms of the way it appears, almost unique – characteristic of Fin Super is that it is a semi-dry detergent-lubricant-protective product (the manufacturer considers it to be “dry”, but we think our definition is more accurate). After it has been applied to metal after giving the bottle a short but necessary shake, it evaporates slowly leaving a highly adhesive film offering the great advantage that it does not grease or stain the hands and clothes, nor does it attract dust or dirt.

I had closed the action of the gun and put it in my holster with a loaded magazine and a round in the chamber. Of course evaporation is going to be unlikely in that environment. I tested it again by leaving the gun unassembled and having an incandescent light bulb shine on it from a few inches away overnight. The surfaces were no longer wet but had a film that wasn’t really wet and adhered well.

After shooting hundreds of rounds through the gun the barrel cleaned up easily. Perhaps easier than it would have with Friction Defense. The film was still detectable with a rub of your finger over the surfaces and hence the lubricant had passed my two tests. But the slow drying brought up another question.

What if you were to apply the lubricant and take it into a cold environment before it had dried? The same reviewer I quoted above had this to say (emphasis added):

Let’s take a look at the stated chemical and physical properties: this is a semi-synthetic PTFE (Teflon) oil with a medium density (0.85 grams per millilitre at 20°C), flash point at 80° C and self-ignition at 370° C, a muddy yellow-nut brown colour common to many products to which Teflon has been added, almost insoluble in water, usable between -43° C and +170° C (although it should be pointed out that after application and vaporation of solvents the product remains effective at between -200 and +300° C).

Okay. -43 C (-45.4F) is probably below the temperature I will be using it. But what does “usable” mean? Will the gun still cycle at low temperatures? I applied the lubricant to all the usual surfaces of the gun and without wiping the excess off put the gun in the freezer (6.2F) for several hours. When I pulled it out it was almost instantly covered in frost. I should have taken a picture because it was a pretty funny looking gun with the frost growing on all the metal surfaces. But despite the cold and frost the slide and hammer moved as freely as they do at normal temperatures.

Interflon Fin Super has passed all my tests and I’m now using it on all my guns (when I get around to cleaning them). The price does seem to be a bit high ($28.00 + $7.49 shipping from Amazon). But at the current rate of consumption I’m sure the can will supply enough lubrication such that each gun cleaning will only amount to a few pennies. I can live with that for the benefits of having a semi-dry lubricant.