Hoppe's No. 9 is not a CLP

[rwsmith]

What rockyq sez, and more....

Ed's Red or Hoppe's #9 is "not an oil on the metal", at least for me. I wipe down the metal with a lightly oiled (whatever oil is handy) soft cotton cloth. There's a difference between a solvent and an oil.

After I clean with Hoppes 9 I oil the gun.

AND This bears repeating. DO NOT use Hoppes 9 or any other solvent that has ammonia in it's formula because the newer blued finishes that they started using a few years ago will turn plum colored. So at the range instead of people admiring the blued finish they will be telling you how your plum gun matches your handbag.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Advertising works. People will buy what is claimed to be the goodest and bestest. People will pay ridiculous prices for tiny bottles of stuff that some gun mag writer is pushing to increase advertiser revenues.

A number of the popular products in recent years are little more than canola oil with a variety of colorants and scents added. Basically the same stuff you might have in your kitchen cabinet, about $2 per quart at the grocery store but several dollars per ounce with a big advertiser's name on it. By the way, canola oil is a trade reference to the vegetable oil harvested from seeds of the rape plant; apparently the advertising folks figured out they might have problems selling "rape oil" in modern North America.

All of this stuff comes from chemical companies in various formulations for different uses and industrial applications. Whatever works for you is probably just what you need.

 

[stansdds]

Hoppes No.9 is still my go-to, general purpose firearms cleaning solution and likely will be for years to come since I bought it in the big, 32 ounce bottle. My standard practice has always been to use it as a solvent, a cleaning agent, one that is wiped off, then oil or wax applied to prevent corrosion.

I'm not worried about it changing the color of the bluing on any of my blued firearms as mine were made well before 2000, when S&W went to it's current, EPA friendly oxide finish. Not worried about it on my nickel plated S&W either as S&W plated directly to the steel, no copper intermediate layer to worry about dissolving.

 

[WildBillWJW]

I used Hoppe's #9 in the '40s,'50s, and '60s. But after they changed their formula I only still use it as cologne.

Cloward pre-64 243 custom for sale....unfired.

Beautiful!!!

 

[DWalt]

Long ago, I was gifted with a quart of Shooters Choice bore cleaner, so that is what I use. I don’t believe there is any detectable difference between any of the bore cleaner brands. Fact is that any light machine oil, like 3-in-1, will do as good a bore cleaning job as any name brand bore cleaner. And CLP is nothing different from low viscosity synthetic engine oil. Except for its price.

 

[Greyman50]

Getting ready to finish cleaning of 3 Smiths I shot the other day. Ran bore brush with new Hoppes through cylinders, barrels and used old tooth brush on cylinder face , crane and inside frame. Been about 3 hours so they will get scrubbed again, cleaning patches run then sprayed with brake cleaner to remove everything. Then small amount of Em oil or another to finish them off. 1 is stainless.

 

[Trooper224]

Since Ol'#9 doesn't do anything well, this is no surprise.

 

[GnarlsR2]

About 2 months ago I was watching a Youtuber cleaning his AR. He used Hoppe's then he used Bore Tech's Cu+2 Copper Cleaner on the bore.

I bought a bottle of Bore Tech and cleaned the bore with it on all my firearms and I was blown away at how much copper residue came out of those bores. I now have switched to Cu+2 Copper cleaner for all my cleaning. I then lube with Clenzoil.

 

[Eddie Southgate]

Never used it for anything but a solvent . Never had any issues. About anything else would be a better lubricant .

 

[rockquarry]

About 2 months ago I was watching a Youtuber cleaning his AR. He used Hoppe's then he used Bore Tech's Cu+2 Copper Cleaner on the bore.

I bought a bottle of Bore Tech and cleaned the bore with it on all my firearms and I was blown away at how much copper residue came out of those bores. I now have switched to Cu+2 Copper cleaner for all my cleaning. I then lube with Clenzoil.

Bore Tech makes good products. I guess I've used them all. The fastest and most complete copper remover I've found has been Patch Out used in conjunction with Patch Out Accelerator. Montana Extreme Copper Remover isn't far behind. All the rest work well, just slower with some requiring an overnight soaking of the bore.

Contrary to many opinions, clean lots of rifle bores and you'll find out most barrels don't need all the copper removed to shoot well. Some will actually shoot worse if the copper is removed down to the bare metal and it may take a few shots to get it shooting accurately again. Same for carbon fouling. The ones that really need copper removal often are the ones that foul quickly...I had a Kimber .257 Roberts some years back that was very accurate for about twenty rounds. The bore wasn't smooth and twenty rounds may as well have been 500. It copper fouled fast. Same for a pre-'64 Model 70 Featherweight .30-06; lots of chatter marks in barrel, but still quite accurate for twenty or thirty rounds.


During a tour of Ed Shilen's barrel shop many years ago, Mr. Shilen mentioned it was not necessary to remove all copper fouling as long as accuracy was good. When accuracy fell off that was the time to remove the bulk of the copper fouling. This may be ten rounds or it may be several hundred.

 

[Bullseye Smith]

I use CLP to lube and clean then WAX with Carnauba only and have no problems at all. Works on wood and all metals. Oil is nasty, take the top off a new can and set outside for a week and see what you get! It sucks and feeds on water and turns into a white slim, NASTY.

 

[GnarlsR2]

“Contrary to many opinions, clean lots of rifle bores and you'll find out most barrels don't need all the copper removed to shoot well.”

Yes, it appears there is some physical science to that. It would be interesting to learn the physics behind the cause.

Without extremely careful measurements, knowing the ammo construction, copper hardness and thickness, monitoring barrel temperature, and all other aspects of testing, it looks like it would be difficult to accurately know when copper or carbon build up improves accuracy or degrades accuracy.

 

[rockquarry]

“Contrary to many opinions, clean lots of rifle bores and you'll find out most barrels don't need all the copper removed to shoot well.”

Yes, it appears there is some physical science to that. It would be interesting to learn the physics behind the cause.

Without extremely careful measurements, knowing the ammo construction, copper hardness and thickness, monitoring barrel temperature, and all other aspects of testing, it looks like it would be difficult to accurately know when copper or carbon build up improves accuracy or degrades accuracy.

Not if you have a very accurate rifle and pay attention to your groups- but that's a good and valid answer only for the practical-minded, not the obsessive.

While there is truth to your comments, this can all be compared to other facets of shooting, like how long a barrel will last, which type of rifling is best, is barrel break-in necessary, etc. Absolutely no one or no business is going to take the time, effort or expense to put these arguments to rest, hence they'll continue perpetually. I prefer to enjoy shooting and handloading in my world of "practical" rather than scientific perfection; relaxing and a lot more fun.

 

[GnarlsR2]

Of all the aspects of firearms, the one that is at the top is ACCURACY, right?

Outside of environmental elements, the three primary things that affect accuracy is the gun, the ammo, and the shooter.

After all these years, I’m surprised I have not read or viewed videos with more actual physical science applied to analyzing what effects accuracy via serious testing and measuring. Maybe the firearm manufacturers do that and not publish their findings?

There are lots of YT videos showing how one particular ammo is shooting more accurately over others, but there isn’t much discussion about scientifically WHY.

Is it the design, construction, and powder? Or is it the dimensions of the bullet works better in the bore.

Is it the rifling or the grain weight?

Like rockquarry said, perhaps the “science” of accuracy is not that interesting to most shooters.

 

[rockquarry]

Of all the aspects of firearms, the one that is at the top is ACCURACY, right?

Outside of environmental elements, the three primary things that affect accuracy is the gun, the ammo, and the shooter.

After all these years, I’m surprised I have not read or viewed videos with more actual physical science applied to analyzing what effects accuracy via serious testing and measuring. Maybe the firearm manufacturers do that and not publish their findings?

There are lots of YT videos showing how one particular ammo is shooting more accurately over others, but there isn’t much discussion about scientifically WHY.

Is it the design, construction, and powder? Or is it the dimensions of the bullet works better in the bore.

Is it the rifling or the grain weight?

Like rockquarry said, perhaps the “science” of accuracy is not that interesting to most shooters.

YouTube is often a waste of time if you're looking for anything scientific or evidence-based. Better to do the empirical research yourself.

 

[Chip12]

YouTube is often a waste of time if you're looking for anything scientific or evidence-based. Better to do the empirical research yourself.

I did that for years and it was very expensive mostly without definitive results. You Tube is a great resource for info. and can show things you've not considered. The 22 guys seem to show more mechanical/ physical differences relating to group sizes than others. They change barrels and shim for head space differences, chasses, tuners, ammo, etc.. It is quite the study and the top guys do a very good job on how the info. is presented. Of course, you have to do the time to weed out the hacks, but their information has saved a great deal of money and time by giving me a direction to look. I've been very pleased with and improved accuracy with several things learned from them.