What's in your cleaner

[T*O*F]

Under pressure from the "Greenies" several companies have opted to start listing the ingredients of their products, so that consumers will be able to assess the environmental and physical impact their products might have.  Heretofore, this information has not been revealed and was always listed as "proprietary" ingredients under the trademark protection of their "secret formulations."

http://www.whatsinsidescjohnson.com/en/products-by-brand.aspx

Just an FYI for anyone who might be interested in what they are putting down their gun barrels.

[Jerry V Lape]

You lost me!   Unless you are putting Glade fragrances down you barrel. 

[eagle24]

You lost me!   Unless you are putting Glade fragrances down you barrel. 

Me too.  I'm not using any of that stuff to clean my rifle.

[T*O*F]

You lost me!   Unless you are putting Glade fragrances down you barrel.

DUH...........try scrolling thru all the products to see Windex, Fantastic, Drano, and all the other products made by the Johnson company.

[Acer Saccharum]

Duh? That's not very friendly, TOF.

I use water, thanks.

Tom

[Daryl]

I use water, too.

[bob in the woods]

I use our well water. Not chlorinated or treated. Straight from the well. Works fine.

[axelp]

water works for me... its from our well but its been softened, and reverse osmosis. My well water tested high for arsenic, manganese and also natural ocurring uranium. (good old sierra nevada granite) But now its safe---too safe probably... RO takes out ALL the minerals and that is not good either.

Ken

[Acer Saccharum]

You have to wonder with the variety of products out there for cleaning, is this so called 'cleaning problem' just a platform for launching a bunch of products?

This BP shooting is such an individual thing, and full of independent styled folks, it's not a great market for selling the new 'cure-all-cleaner'. Most of us have been in this for a long time, and have seen so many products come and go.

[Dphariss]

Years ago I was looking for something to clean BPCRs that was cheap and worked.
I stumbled across a Windex with Vinegar (apparently very little) and cut is with 3 parts water and it worked great. Used it for MLs too.
The label changed from time to time but it was apparently the same stuff.
Then Windex went "green".
I have no idea what is in this stuff but the enviro-friendly stuff is really nasty and I would avoid it like the plague.
So over the past few months I have pretty well returned to water given my experience with the environmentlly friendly windex.
I used to use Blacksolve years and years ago but in reality could not see it was better than water.
I went to a weak soap solution because in BPCR there is often bullet lube at the front of the chamber.

I would never wet BP fouling and leave it in the bore for more than a minute or two. Water activates the corrosive elements in the fouling. Washing and dumping via the plugged vent process will quickly remove the bulk of the corrosive elements wiping a time or two and a second flush makes the bore pretty clean by bore scope exam. But they still need more wiping after 2-3 flushes to assure the bore won't rust.
This said IMO a lot of the black that comes out on the patch toward the end of dry patching is iron oxide rubbed off the bore as it drys.  This after wet patches come out clean. If the powder is graphited it may be left over graphite. But I don't use graphited powder anymore.

The need for high priced special cleaners is based on people wanting to sell special cleaners.

Dan

Dan

[T*O*F]

Duh? That's not very friendly, TOF.

Duh....Ummm....Errr.......it's called a poignant pause while one considers what one really wants to say, but doesn't.  It is neither friendly nor unfriendly, it's merely a literary device which expresses the consternation of the writer.
You said:

I use water, thanks.

I originally wrote:

Just an FYI for anyone who might be interested in what they are putting down their gun barrels.

So, it was a public service message that those who do use various solutions like Windex or Fantastic could see the chemical make-up of those products.

Since you and others only use water, it is not directed at you.  Therefore what is unfriendly about this is hijacking an informational thread with information not germaine to the topic.  Thread hijacking is considered downright rude in netiquette and a moderator should know better.

Further, Me-too type responses are best reserved for social networking media like Twitter.  Me-too postings are are also a breach of netiquette, as they add nothing to the informational database of any particular subject.  They are banned by most responsible administrators of of this type of media.  Me-too messages just add to the bandwidth of a board "without providing any viable content."  They also take up valuable archival storage space and cause the results any serious search of any particular topic to be filled with unrelated information.  This is especially relevant when pleas are being made for more funding due to increased bandwidth.  Social networkers have nothing but time; and, by clogging boards with their non-informational content soon drive away those serious students who tire of wading thru pages of fluff to find a pearl.  They are the direct causal influence of a site's entropy.  Denial accelerates entropy; but, in spite of hard work by many serious contributors, it is happening now.