FIREClean Sues Andrew Tuohy

In September of 2015, Andrew Tuohy of Vuurwapen Blog had an infrared spectroscopy performed on Crisco canola oil, Crisco vegetable oil, and FIREClean by a gentleman with a Ph.D. in organic chemistry. The results allegedly showed a shocking similarity between the oils, and the professor commented that he did not see any sign of other additives such as antioxidants or corrosion inhibitors.

FIREClean did respond, insisting that “allegations do not focus on actual performance or relevant tests, and draw a misleading picture”.

Now it seems that on March 17th, FireClean LLC has filed a lawsuit against Mr. Tuohy and Everett Baker, a man who performed his own tests to verify Tuohy’s findings. In their complaint, FireClean LLC claims that “Tuohy initiated a public smear campaign against FireClean” and holds that Mr. Baker “contacted Tuohy for the express purpose of conspiring with him to further defame and damage FireClean”. FireClean LLC also states that since the publishing of the test, their revenues have fallen by over $25,000 per month.

Andrew posted on his blog this morning that he and Baker were now defendants in a lawsuit. Andrew has taken the initiative to set up a gofundme page for his legal defense, where he estimates that it will take $15,000 in expenses to have a fair legal defense.

UPDATE: Closing comments below as they are getting out of hand.

Alex C.

Alex is a Senior Writer for The Firearm Blog and Director of TFBTV.


  • Pete M

    Sticky situation.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      Like FrogLube in the cold…… LAWSUIT PLEASE!

      • Lee

        Does that stuff really work? All i ever hear is that it smells nice.

        • JumpIf NotZero

          I locked an AR-15 up twice in the cold. Press bolt release and nothing happened. I’ll never use again. In my unprofessional opinion (LAWSUIT PLEASE!) any lube that has a special routine to apply is not one I want.

          • Lee

            Thanks for the reply. I will definitely avoid. When i hear “biodegradable” and “food grade ingredients” i think of something that will not last.

          • JumpIf NotZero

            Meh, it’s pretty good in warm weather and it does smell nice.

            I still use Fireclean. I really don’t like the idea of vaporizing known carcinogens like motoroil near my face. I haven’t actually had any issue at all with FC, canola oil or not.

          • Neither have I. Seems to work ok.

        • I’ve tried a ton of lubes/cleaners. If a company sends them to me I give them a try. I never had any problems with Frog Lube. In fact most work pretty well. Of course some work better than others. Personally I just use Wilson Combat grease on my M1A and the three types of gun oil they sell for most everything else.

        • MemorableC

          Frog lube is just coconut oil

          • FinallyFree

            looks like you are opening yourself up for a suit….

        • Creepermoss

          Works fine, assuming you follow the instructions. Bad choice for something that wants to be run wet, in cold climates or weather, though, as they direct you to run the gun pretty dry if it’s near or below freezing.

          It doesn’t really smell good, IMO, as much as it doesn’t smell bad, if that makes sense? Kind of a mint/pepto bismol smell.

          • RA

            I like the fried turkey smell better.

    • LOL… I see what you did there.

  • Trey

    Truth being an absolute defense against both libel and slander, if the statements were truthful this case will go nowhere fast.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      You clearly didn’t read the lawsuit where FC’s actual lab disputes Andrew’s assertions based on a college student’s results.

      Even if Andrew is 100% right, FC will be able to tie him up in court or force him to settle. It’s a no win for him I’m afraid.

      • Mr Universe

        …Unless this part is true:

        “Recently I discovered FireClean was suing myself and Everett for libel, slander, and assault. This didn’t come as a huge surprise as they had both threatened to sue me before I published the first article and also told me they’d “throw money” at anyone who could perform a test which they clearly expected to show other products being inferior to theirs – and repeatedly suggested I perform that test, reminding me that I’d be paid for my time.”

        • JumpIf NotZero

          That makes them jerks, but legally doesn’t make them wrong. I am assured their lawyer did not tell them to write that! 😀 But in the basis of their lab being able to point out issues with Andrew’s methodology – it’s irrelevant.

          • Mr Universe

            Not really. If he truly has records of them trying to buy results, then their lab evidence will be rendered moot.

          • JumpIf NotZero

            their lab evidence will be rendered moot that’s not how independent lab testing works. You’re making the claim that their lab testing is falsified because they said they would pay for testing. A judge/jury would have believe the illegitimacy of that third party lab. Which would be difficult I think. FC would just get a second report that showed the same thing – IF their first results were legit.

            All the same… My point is that Andrew with a GoFundMe of 15k isn’t in a good position even if he is right.

          • Independent George

            And if he doesn’t have records of them trying to buy results, then that statement is itself libelous.

          • Mr Universe

            Only if they can prove that he caused net damages to their business (and that their ridiculous PR shenanigans have not)…

      • Jay

        What would Popehat say…they sure did work hard to make sure the case would be heard on their home court of Virginia, which seems to not have an “anti-SLAPP” law on the books. Andrew’s statement they reference says “probably” and is clearly opinion. (in my opinion)

      • iksnilol

        But how can we trust their lab?

        It is obivous that FC’s lab has a conflict of interest. Thusly I would be sceptical of what they say.

    • USMC03Vet

      This is US Tort Law we are talking about here. The burden is so low actual truth doesn’t matter just as long as you can show any damages. Being exposed and losing sales as a result certainly is damages regardless of whether or not the truth coming out caused it.

      • The burden is only low if the defense cannot prove the truth. If Andrew has supporting documentation and can show good faith and diligent analysis, he will win.

      • Trey

        The Filed Compliant alleges that ” “Tuhoy published false an disparaging statements” So if the statements are true the Complaint has no merit.

        And no loss of sales due to a factual review is NOT a tort.

    • Glenn Bellamy

      No, even if literally true, it can be actionable if the statements were misleading to the typical consumer seeing/reading it.

      • Trey

        Please cite any case law where a factually correct statement was found to be libel.

        • In a jury trial anything can and does happen.

          • Trey

            The defendent chooses bench vs jury. So doubt that 12 or 6 random people will decide on the technical issue here.

    • n0truscotsman

      …In an ideal world…

  • cwp

    And thus FireClean ensures that I will never purchase any of their products, whether they’re made from canola oil or unicorn tears.

    • ostiariusalpha

      Yeah, because resorting to the Trump school of public relations through litigation definitely makes me want to buy some FIREClean.

      • JumpIf NotZero

        I’d like to agree with you, but having read all the articles from the start and the comments this part “Tuohy initiated a public smear campaign against FireClean” If it ever went to a trail I feel like it would be tough for him to beat.

        • Brocus

          it’s only a smear campaign if the results and their presentation were intentionally false or grossly misleading, which would need to be proven in court

        • Joshua

          How? He posted numerous, unbiased scientific results that proved him right.

          It’s only libel if it’s false.

          • Glenn Bellamy

            Even if it is literally true, if it is misleading it can be actionable.

          • SD

            Which it isn’t.

          • zippiest

            Bingo. Frivolous lawsuit. Toss.

          • JumpIf NotZero

            You clearly have not read the links.

          • Precisely. The issue is further complicated buy Tuohy’s comments and actions after articles were published which seems to help clarify the intent to mislead.

          • n0truscotsman

            Someone’s comments are leading to further complications all right, and they aren’t Andrews…

          • Core

            I’ve read all of his findings and had numerous discussions with him and Tuohy’s motives have always been focused on seeking the truth, and in no way driven to defame FireClean. I had mentioned that spectrum analysis is not always conclusive, and Tuohy agreed. He never once made a statement that suggests he was targeting FireClean as we discussed numerous other firearm friction reduction products. FireClean screwed up, by not clarifying Touhy’s study in a way that reached the market. I read their statement but they failed to deliver it on the forums. It goes to show a company needs to take digital marketing seriously these days and suing Touhy is a pretty pathetic way to make up for your shortcomings.

          • RA

            Bad part is all the insinuations that the product is just plain vegetable oil. That FC rigged the shooting tests, etc. IMO he went out of his way to push his perspective about the product/company’s integrity.

          • Rob

            The problem is that he had a problem with methodology. It doesn’t matter how many tests that yield consistent results were presented if the methods were not adequate to test the claims made. Even his expert stated that the results were not enough to be conclusive. When some knowledgeable people pointed that out he publicly dismissed them and became further entrenched in his statements. While bad science may have been a problem on both sides, it might become a problem for one side when it is used to make false claims that are projected to cost a company 3 million dollars across 5 years. Headlines such as “Where there is smoke, there is lair” certainly don’t help his case.

          • Laionidas

            If Tuohy’s expert acknowledge that the results were not enough to be conclusive, and if neither he nor Tuohy himself criticised the product performance, then Tuohy presenting his opinion the provenance of the product, and that causing a storm on the internet are just bad luck for FC. In fact it’s precisely because he did not address FC’s performance that it is. I can’t see FC benefitting from this lawsuit, not even if they win, except if they prove that the tests were actually rigged or tampered with.

          • Old Vet

            From what I have read, the old gas chromatograph would probably been a cheaper test and would have given very accurate results as well. The use of the infrared spec method is probably even more accurate, so how is that bad science??

          • It’s really more complicated than most imagine. If you do some searching on methods you can discover even what appear as minor differences can make a big difference in the results.

        • zippiest

          From what I’ve read, he’s insisted that he never said it was Crisco, so I’m pretty sure the judge will toss the case. Even provided proof he never stated it was.

          • Rob

            Read the complaint. It details what he said that are taking issue with.

      • remman

        Drag Trump into it you idiot.

        • ostiariusalpha

          Well, if it isn’t one of the gun community’s numerous knuckle-draggers. I’m surprised you could find the time to post a comment here instead of your regular area of obsession with Jooz, Naggers, and Fegs. I’ll certainly take your insight under advisement.

          • jdl6mm

            But he’s right! Why drag Trump into it? What a douche!

          • ostiariusalpha

            You’ll get no argument from me, Trump is indeed a douche. Do you have some other point to make?

          • jdl6mm

            Oh I was calling you the douche ostiarius! But I think you know that.

          • ostiariusalpha

            LOL! Of course I knew what you were struggling through your inadequate education to say, you silly Billy! Correct punctuation would have helped prevent me from reinterpreting your “sentence” to suit my sense of humor, but I doubt I’ll have to worry about you getting your grammmatical act together anytime soon.

          • Jon David

            You literally are a self righteous douche though, in whatever language or grammatical representation anyone can muster. Perhaps an educated douche, but I think that actually makes it worse…

          • jdl6mm

            Correct punctuation? I am very well educated. A general surgeon as a matter of fact. Probably more educated than you, and definitely not a libtard like you seem to be. But it’s really not my problem that you can’t read correctly. But it is all our problem that you are an idiot libtard.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Yeah, you’re truly amazing in real life, I’m sure.

          • Leigh Rich

            osti troll

          • uisconfruzed

            “I know the best words”- Hilarious meme

          • RA

            No reason at all to bring Trump into this. You seem to have an ax to grind. Are you voting for Hillary or Feel the Bern?

          • ostiariusalpha

            Support Hillary? You mean like Trump used to? And I have no reason to pull punches on a conman. Enjoy your FIREClean, RA.

          • Guys I’m not fooling around stop the insults!

          • Rick5555

            Where do you practice.? I’m a gastro-intestinal surgeon, at Vanderbilt University, Medical Center. Though I’m highly and well educated too. My writing skills are not the best. Many physicians are poor spellers, writers. Though we exceed in science. Nice to see a peer, who’s into firearms,

          • jdl6mm

            Rick, I had my practice in Connellsville, PA for quite a while before my divorce then worked at St Joe’s in Buchanan, WV. Right now I’m looking and trying to decide where I want to be to “grow up” and start again.

          • brian

            You started 2 sentences with “but” while trying to prove your educational status haha

          • Leigh Rich

            Replied like a true liberal gun banner.

          • Let’s back off the insults!

          • Leigh Rich

            osti supports Hillary and gun bans

          • Pranqster

            i love seeing republicans tear each other apart!

          • RA

            That’s what is dangerous about you. You support the fall of unity and patriotism in the US over your agenda. We have always not completely agreed on everything, but we have always supported each other as fellow Americans.

      • n0truscotsman

        That is the first thing that came to mind!

        Filing a civil suit against an independent blogger has sure made me see the light of my foolish ways, alright. Going to go buy some FC! /rolls eyes/

      • Leigh Rich

        Please don’t vote for Hillary osti

        • ostiariusalpha

          I’m glad you were able to resist that caps lock key, Leigh, but you need to lay off the Vicodin. As for gun bans, take that up with your flip-flopping candidate.

          • RA

            Isn’t that slander and defamation of character if LR doesn’t take vicodin or other narcotics? Just curious

          • ostiariusalpha

            It would be libel, since I wrote it. Though showing damage would be difficult in this case.

          • RA

            Ok thanks! Can we all just get along?

    • Rob

      Just curious how many bottles have you purchased from them in the past? Or did you refuse to because of the presumption that it was canola oil? Or some other reason?

      • cwp

        Honestly, not enough that they’re likely to even notice my absence. It’s just the principle of the thing.

        The funny part is, evidence that the stuff was just vegetable oil didn’t take them off my list. I’ve read from a number of people, including Andrew Tuohy, that it actually works very well as a firearms lubricant, and as long as it works I don’t really care what it is. That it’s vegetable oil is even a point in its favor, in that it’s nontoxic and safe to use as often as needed. I might decide not to use it for other reasons, but I wouldn’t disqualify it just because it was canola.

      • n0truscotsman

        That is the same ridiculous argument being thrown around by ‘some other people’ as if its some kind of magical ‘gotcha!” for daring to criticize a company’s product.

        I’ve purchased from them and have also received their product through someone else. It seems that was a mistake on my part.

        • Rob

          What argument? I asked if he had used a product in the past and has since stopped. I asked if it was the result if Andrews claims; claims that a company claim have lost them business. Do you not view that as an interesting question given the circumstances?

          • n0truscotsman

            Perhaps you were asking a legitimate question then…

            Seeing that question before, I’ve seen it as a rhetorical one and a passive aggressive way of saying “the critics dont buy/use the stuff anyways, they should shut up”.

            If im mistaken, then my bad.

          • cwp

            I probably would never have given Fireclean a thought if it were not for Mr. Tuohy’s statement that “FireClean works very well as a lubricant for the AR-15.” So the overall effect of his coverage of the product is, for my sample size of one, almost exactly the opposite of what they claim.

    • Major Tom

      I’ve never bought FireClean before and now I definitely never will. This is a gun oil company going full r*tard.

    • n0truscotsman

      I second that. Screw them.

      Their behavior has crossed the line a long time ago. Now to compensate for their shattered ego, they use the rotten, bureaucratic nightmare that is civil court to go after a blogger. Typical.

      And unsurprisingly, the usual to-remain-unnamed suspects line up to defend FC, gleefully happy to see this goat copulation continue.

      • Harrison Jones

        While I never like attorney’s making money because they are the only ones who ever do FireClean is right. All the test proved was that FireClean is a plant based oil, yet the Mr. Tuohy stated it was nothing but canola oil. That’s like going to a gas station test are 4 fuels at the pump to see if they are petroleum based and then saying diesel is gasoline.

        • n0truscotsman

          I’ve reviewed this from the very beginning and have heard differing things from differing people about what andrew actually said. From “he said it was crisco” specifically, to “being only canola oil”, etc.

          To me, its a red herring from the fact that FC got fact checked, they didn’t like it, and the rest is history. I couldn’t care less about what it really is. in fact, if they sold water and rebranded it as gun lube, its their right to do so. They are also free to play a game of ‘involve the lawyer’ if it appeases their sensibilities and to right what wrong they feel was inflicted upon them. Dont be surprised, however, if they dont come out smelling like a rose when its all over with.

          I’ve already said my piece a while ago on the whole thing.

          • Harrison Jones

            The best FireClean can hope for is a lot of publicity if they win the case. Andrew did imply that the product was nothing but cooking grade oil such as you would buy at walmart. It set the internet on fire with negative publicity that fireclean still hasn’t recovered from. Half the comments on this article are still accusing FireClean of taking regular canola oil and rebranding it.

          • RA

            Even though that is not the case. The patent application is very clear on the composition.
            Unless it can be proven it is just regular vegetable oil such as canola vs what it is supposed to be, Andrew may be in deep.
            By taking to time to read a lot more, I started seeing all the effort these men put towards their products. There’s a good bit of history on what they worked towards to bring this to market. Not to mention other things they’ve designed. Honestly I would be pretty mad myself.

  • Lee

    Andrew does great research and im sure his conclusions drawn from his lab testing are accurate and not at all slanderous.

    Fireclean could easily just run there own tests and prove their product is legit, instead they are bullying a man with a frivolous lawsuit.

    Looks like its time for me to buy some more Slip 2000 EWL.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      conclusions drawn from his lab testing are accurate and not at all slanderous… Fireclean could easily just run there own tests and prove their product
      is legit, instead they are bullying a man with a frivolous lawsuit.

      That’s exactly what FC did before filing suit. That’s the lawsuit. That they say their independent lab proved contradictory results and took exception to his stated testing claims.

      You can disagree with Andrew’s methods, as FC does. Or disagree it was a smear-campaign that FC says. But this isn’t a frivolous suit I’m afraid. FC has a decent leg to stand on because their lab says Andrew is not correct.

      • Mr Universe

        Andrew supposedly has records of FireClean attempting to pay him to do a skewed test. If he produces those in court, their independent lab tests will be called into question.

        • The operative word supposedly. I tend to doubt they attempted to have him do a false test. That would be a very dumb thing to do.

          • Mr Universe

            Well, the fact that they’ve quoted AR15-dot-com doesn’t instill me with confidence in their intelligence.

      • Lee

        Every snake oil salesman has lab tests proving the merit of their product.

        Andrew had a legitimate test done by a organic chemist. Id go with the neutral party’s result. I was never suprised with andrews test results. When you have a non toxic, organic product, more than likely it will be based on some vegetable oil anyways. This fact shouldnt be a shock to anyone.

        At least we all learned that vegetable oil is perfectly fine for an end of the world situation.

        • JumpIf NotZero

          Andrew had a legitimate test done by a organic chemist.

          From what I understand he has a chemistry STUDENT do some off-hours testing. And if you look over the lawsuit you’ll see FC’s 3rd party lab takes issue with the testing methodology.

          • Lee

            Well, i think it is safe to say andrew will be in a lose lose situation. He should have probably had the product tested by a second and third independent party to cover his own ass.

          • JumpIf NotZero

            should have probably had the product tested by a second and third independent party to cover his own ass.

            Ya. I hope that’s what a lot of his 15k fundraiser is for.

          • n0truscotsman

            And that will sure encourage future testing of products, so that we have objective opinions about them other than what the manufacturer wants put out there.



          • Andrew Tuohy

            I had both substances tested at three different laboratories and have released all data from all tests.

          • RA

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t their patent application state it is a combination of vegetable oils? It gives several statements of ratio and percentages with high smoke points? How is that any different that what your tests say? Who owns the company if it is ok to ask.

      • Jay

        Frivolous or not, the Streisand effect is a real thing.

      • LG

        Would not FireClean have to do the analysis with the same Lot and Batch tested by the defendant or produce the a priori quality control data and analysis of the same lot and batch?

    • Vitor Roma

      The thick Slip 2000 is amazing for bicycle chains.

  • LG

    A parallel course of action would to delete all web sites, blogs, parent companies, and retailers who continue to sell FireClean from one’s places of visit and purchase. Obviously FireClean and it’s owners are a pariah and scourge upon firearms community and should be treated as such. Regrettably, FireClean it seems wants to punish the messenger.

  • You knew that was coming.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      I certainly would have thought so.

    • Dave Parks

      Funny you say that, I had almost the exact same experience using vegetable oil for an oil cooled computer (long story). After a year, everything was covered in this sticky layer of what I assume was fat.

    • FinallyFree

      Your ignorance is showing.

      • JML

        Your Ignorance is showing.

      • Oh really? In what way? What did I say that was incorrect?
        Spell it out for me.

        • FinallyFree

          Perhaps read the claims in the lawsuit. FC has shown that the product is not rapeseed (canola) oil.

      • Funny… Looking at all your comments on this topic… How long have you been working for FIREClean?

        • FinallyFree

          I have not received any compensation (not even a free sample, dammit), from FC.

      • RA

        Do you know what it is made of by chance?

        • FinallyFree

          So far, the only details shown about the product are that it is made with a choice of thermally stable bio-based base oils, and that it is not just canola or vegetable oil (data in the lawsuit). The IR and NMR spectra simply show that it contains mostly fatty acids that are consistent with all plant based oils, but does not identify what carbon chain length. So, in short – NO – the product remains a trade secret, other than the clues given in the FC patent.

          • RA

            Agree. I took more time to read and reflect on all of this. It’s a combination of very specific oils. If that is proven to be accurate, I think the defendant is in deep.

    • Ted Unlis

      Rapeseed oil, not “Grapeseed Oil”.

  • Travis

    Whether or not FireClean is a highly engineered product or just basically a simple blend of vegetable oils, this all shows how strong word of mouth is. I firmly believe that whether or not a business succeeds is based on how the public perceives them, and in this case it has really damaged their brand…

    • JumpIf NotZero

      Which is why I think they may have luck with framing it as a smear campaign. Andrew didn’t seem subtle at all about the results, and if FC can prove the testing was incorrect, well… I hope Andrew comes out of this, but it’s going to be tough. Esp when your war chest is 15k in a gofundme.

    • n0truscotsman

      And it mostly has nothing to do with what the product is or isn’t, IMO, it has everything to do with their behavior.

      That alone chapped my behind. And I actually thought their product worked fine for what it was designed to do. If it was the greatest gun lube ever, they would still lose my support.

  • What is interesting to me is that few of the commentators have actually read the formal legal complaint. I am through most of it and the fact is that legally at face value, FIREClean has quite the case.

    This strikes me a situation like Jesse Ventura when he sued Chris Kyle and later the estate of Mr. Kyle looking like a bad guy, when he was, in fact, 100% right and legally vindicated.

    Due to the huge expense of just filing a lawsuit, I do not believe FireClean did it lightly and they knew full-well the consequences in marketing of the decision. I believe they filed only as they felt it required to vindicate their name and that they were advise they had an good case by a competent attorney.

    • Jay

      But I only see “false/misleading inferences” as opposed to false statements of fact. If that were the legal basis of libel, there would not be a functioning news outlet remaining in the US, no?

      • JumpIf NotZero

        For all I know… I think this is why the news calls those OPINION pieces.

    • USMC03Vet

      Civil law has such a low burden it’s almost criminal in an of itself. Just because they may have a case doesn’t mean it’s justice by a long shot.

      • That is for the court to decide. If Andrew shows through documentation that the “facts” were tested without issue and conclusions drawn were reasonable, he will not just win the suit, but be eligible for his own damages. If he cannot, he can and should lose as then his negligence cost FIREClean its reputation and income.

        • FinallyFree

          That’s the problem. As a scientist who has followed this story – I can tell you that his conclusions were ludicrous. Andrew knows nothing about the analytical techniques that he showed somehow as proof that the FC was veg.oil. It was shoddy science presented by a person who is not a scientist. He deserves to be brought to the woodshed for causing lost sales and badmouthing a good product.

          • Rog Uinta

            You are not a scientist. You are a fanboy.

            Go back to watching Vickers videos, “home slice.”

          • FinallyFree

            Gee, my alma mater that gave me the degree in BioChem would be surprised.

          • Ted Unlis

            Sure they did FF. Too funny! Ain’t it great that you can pretend to be anyone you want on the Internet? Even a virtual scientist.

          • FinallyFree

            Sure, and any fool with a computer can say that anyone else is lying. That does not make it fact.

          • nadnerbus

            If you can interpret Andrew’s results in a more scientifically rigorous way for the layperson reading here at TFB, they may very well publish it as a guest post. I wouldn’t be opposed to a different, educated take on the data that he presented.

          • FinallyFree

            The interpretation is simple. Both the IR and NMR spectra look at absorbances between carbon-carbon bonding (primarily double bonds), and bonding between carbon and oxygen, or carbon and other elements. These spectra are very similar for a wide range of fatty acids, and cannot be used by themselves to identify exactly which fatty acid (or combination of acids) are used. For the lay-person, a fatty acid is the oil derived from a tri-glyceride fat which is found in either plant or animal sources. Thus the bio-based product is confirmed by FireClean both in comments and in their patent – but the data shown by Andrew does NOT show that it is canola, or other vegetable cooking oil. In fact, the data does not show chain length at all. Note that different sources of oil have different carbon chain lengths. The longer ones with less double bonding are more thermally stable and less volatile. For example, peanut oil is more stable than corn oil (higher smoke point). These tests show generalities, but are not a conclusive de-formulation which identify the actual components. Nor would those techniques show any efficacy as a lubricant (thermal, lubricious, or other tribological properties). The only claim possible is that the product is made of bio-based oil – which has already been confirmed. The inference that the product is not formulated with optimum choice of oil, and contains no additives to enhance performance is where there is an issue. My opinion.

          • Redfoot

            Put up or shut up. The simple fact that different ammo was used in the slo-mo is enough to nullify accusations-i.e. less smoke when shooting. I for one will stick with lubricants that do not require an inordinate amount or prep and application, and cost less.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      No one else here has even mentioned the Vickers/FC video, where Andrew said things he couldn’t possibly have backed up as he wasn’t there.

      • Jambo

        I wonder about that. If the video had nothing wrong with it, why was it taken down?

        • Its also interesting to see that Andrew removed all the supporting documentation in his posting of the PDF. The original posted on Soldier Systems had all of FIREClean’s exhibits, which add quite a bit of context.

          • Jambo

            Seems they are different documents from different sources. It also looks like SSD has a merged document, thus the filename “merged_document.pdf.” Andrew’s page also has a text-searchable document vs a scanned copy on SSD. Correct me if I’m wrong, though, but this doesn’t look like an omission on his part.

            Does FireClean have a case? Maybe. I’ll wait for the courts to decide, but I still don’t like the air of dishonesty about this.

          • Andrew Tuohy

            I did not remove anything. I posted the only copy of the complaint available to me at the time as I had yet to be served with the lawsuit when SSD posted their article.

          • JumpIf NotZero

            Well, that’s a crappy way to start your day, when you read about your being sued on some website.

          • n0truscotsman


            whatever tiny shred of respect i had for that website has just been completely eviscerated.

      • Precisely. There are other issues as well, specifically in what Andrew posted on Facebook and other outlets as the description or as comments. The legal complaint as submitted by Fireclean is rather damning and given the follow-up communication from FIREClean after the article, its easy to show malicious intent. My cursory take, as stated earlier, is that FIREClean has a good case.

      • J.T.

        About them using different ammo during their tests? That can be seen in the video since the primers on the ejected rounds are different.

      • Larry V hasn’t been associated with Fireclean for some time now.

    • Don Ward

      Really? I’ve read through the complaint, and it is baseless.

    • lifetimearearesident

      “Due to the huge expense of just filing a lawsuit, I do not believe FireClean did it lightly and they knew full-well the consequences in marketing of the decision. I believe they filed only as they felt it required to vindicate their name and that they were advise they had an good case by a competent attorney.”

      You are assuming that FIREClean is managed by a rational level headed CEO. In my view and it’s really just a guess here is a more likely scenario. Please consider my best guess based on your own experiences and feel free to comment especially if you think it’s out of line.

      CEO and founder is a man with a huge ego and is willing to sell anything to make a profit.

      CEO figures out that some form or mix of vegetable oils will clean guns.

      CEO sells this FIREClean product and hides the fact that it is mostly vegetable oil because he wants users to think it is more than that.

      Blogger exposes the fact that FIREClean is vegetable oil. This is the basic underlying fact.

      Enraged CEO is very angry and files lawsuit. Emotion not logic now controls his behavior.

      • junyo

        Also, if they are in fact losing $25K a month, a lawsuit that discourages people from potentially bad mouthing their product, legitimate or not, probably has a decent ROI, and maybe salvages the value of the brand. That’s completely rational.

  • LG

    Ultimately, would not FireClean have to state EXACTLY what the product is?

    • No, they just have to prove that its not what it was claimed by the writers to be.

      • LG

        In pre trial discovery and depositions would it not come out as to who are FireClean’s suppliers.

        • No they wouldn’t need to test the same batch. They just need to show the formula hasn’t changed and the batch tested was a true and accurate representation of the product.

          • tt_ttf

            Its not that simple – if the batch Andrew tested is what he said it is, the FC has a problem since his results are true based on what they sold.

            If their QA is bad enough that it allows their suppliers to substitute materials and they sell it as ‘something else’ that is not Andrew’s problem nor does it invalidate Andrew’s statements.

            The trick will come down to Andrew having a smart lawyer

            But their reply and suit is going to great lengths to NOT say whats in it or what its made of

          • LG

            Precisely! I believe that FireClean will have to “come clean” as to their suppliers, formulation practices, and quality control. Obviously that is something that they do not want.

          • LG

            Without adequate quality control data, how does one not know that either FireClean or the defendant tested an aberrant batch or lot. I just believe that if the case goes forward, somebody will have to produce quality control data, possibly from the original sources. Somebody, in some lab, someplace did a quality control analysis, wether it be mass spectroscopy, TLC, GC, IR spectroscopy, etc for each batch and lot. Metals and other contaminants can enter any system. There can be minor lot to lot differences in the plant feed stocks from different manufacturers and sources. Crude oil stock from West Texas is not the same as crude oil stock from Saudi Arabia. If it is primarily a biologically produced product then differences in soil, fertilizer, water, and specific hybrid strain can produce distinct variations. Water is water. Some is good some is bad. To say that a city delivers you water to your house does not mean that it is necessarily the same in New Orleans as New York. But the laboratory day to day quality control documents the differences and simularities. Would not FireClean have to show variance of analysis, using a similar system, from the same batch and lot as the defendant. IR may look like a plant oil fingerprint. But Mass Spectroscopy may show minute traces of Magnesium etc. variations between lots, batches, and sources.

  • JumpIf NotZero

    Yikes! The some of the comments on the GoFundMe are not exactly rave reviews for Andrew : I didn’t expect that.

    One more claim most people are missing is that he implied/called Vickers and FC liars for their “no smoke” video. That’s going to be a rough one to prove.

    • I saw that as well. Some pretty negative responses.

    • n0truscotsman

      I expected it FULLY when a certain website with their own agenda about this situation has the gofundme linked directly on an article of theirs.

      Unsurprising that the trolls and fanbois would put their 2 shillings in.

  • michaeljball

    Saw that coming from a mile away

  • BryanS

    I knew not to use the stuff when i saw good working firearms jam in competition after competitors used it the first night after being gifted bottles.

    Smoke leaving means you burn the damn oil off… and now you have carbon and bare metal.

    At least Weaponshield can back up their data with specs, certification, and experimentation with results.

    • G0rdon_Fr33man

      Same goes for FrogLube. It works fine on things like Glocks or other service-oriented firearms, but for .22s, or other firearms with very tight fitting, it is hopeless. Add to that cold weather, and it is even worse. I prefer an oil which allows me to be lazy with cleaning (I hate it), and just add more oil.

      • Vanns40

        Which is why I’ve simply used any 100% synthetic 10w30 motor oil for around 20 years or more.

        • 1911a145acp

          Mobil 1 10w50 wt and or Royal Purple 2/3 to 1/3 mix w/ CLP has served me well on ALL types, all weather ALL temps for 25 years. I have a tube of Mobil 1 synthetic Marine wheel bearing grease that I have used on rails, locking lugs, gas keys,hammer pivot pins, AK pistons and on metal exteriors to prevent rust. I paid $ 9.00 for that tube of syn grease at LEAST 15 years ago- it’s only half gone.

          • DB

            All these different oils and such, I’m starting to figure out why that turkey I fried last week tasted funny but smelled familiar!!

        • ThePontificator

          Mobil One or Militec 1 for me.

          • Militec 1 is good stuff——-

          • RA

            Have you or anyone else tried Archoil products? I use AR2400 dri lube for the rail and trigger group on my crossbow. It improved the FPS through the chrony and made the trigger pull significantly better. I guess I should use a trigger pull gauge to check.
            Any way the specs on the stuff is outstanding and almost 100% sure it is not “crisco”.

        • n0truscotsman

          And I’d gladly compare that or any other similar synthetic motor oil against any gun lube any day of the week. Ultimately, I guess use what you like. I like letting people know you dont need to spend 30 dollars for a bottle of oil to have an excellent gun oil.

  • Nicks87

    Regardless of the differences I’ve had with Andrew over the years I wish him the best of luck in beating this. I don’t know him personally but I know he is a gun enthusiast with righteous intentions and a fellow veteran so hopefully things work out in his favor.

    • Andrew Tuohy

      Wow. Thank you.

      • Redfoot

        You can count on a donation from myself, and I suspect many here. Time to rally the forces on Calguns as well.

  • Danny Gonzalez

    I hope everybody chips in a little bit for his legal defense. I can’t afford to give much but I will try to. Everybody should look a this as a danger to the whole community of firearms enthusiasts. We live and die on youtube, sites like TFB, blogs like Vuurwapen, everything we have built up over the years into this robust and honest community where we value people’s opinions based on their actual testing.

    The days of payola gun magazines are dying off and what we have now is so much better, more objective. But if gun companies have precedent to sue individuals, bloggers, youtube content creators for a negative test or review, it threatens the integrity of our whole community that has come to rely on these mediums.

    I have faith that these tests were done scientifically and I hope they can prove that but i don’t want to see other bloggers/reviewers scared off and then the only reviews and products tests we’re going to get are those sponsored and approved by the companies making the products – that’s going to suck, that’s not objective.

    • There is a HUGE difference between negative reviews (of which I and others have published them) and lying or attempting to mislead someone. The lawsuit claims that Tuohy did the latter. TFB is protected when we publish factual information.

      • Don Ward

        Good luck proving that Tuohy lied. Which is why historically libel cases have gone nowhere.

        • The key is NOT that he lied, but that he either lied, intentionally mislead, or should have known that his results and subsequent conclusions were incorrect.

          For example, if he should have known from testing that mass spectrometers or others would not show individual differences in makeup yet still published and drew damning conclusions, he can be liable for that communication. Considering that various parties advised him that the testing would not show that it was different, that he communicated with FireClean who explained that its different, etc., he will have a substanial burden to show he acted only in good faith and did all relevant diligence. My guess is that in discovery, e-mails or other communication will show that he knew the testing results would not be enough to draw conclusions that he published.

          To that effect, people said the same thing about Jesse Ventura against Chris Kyle. Ventura vindicated himself despite the court of public opinion being against him.

          • Don Ward

            Why are you shilling so hard for FireClean Nathan? Seriously?

            This is a sleazy company acting sleazy and is now trying to stifle gun bloggers.

            I’m just curious.

          • I’m not. I have never used nor plan on using FireClean (I’m a solid CLP user after my time in the Corps).

            My point is that most are simply leaping to Andrew’s defense as they think he’s right without any reading of the actual case or understanding of the legalities involved. He’s the hero against a company who’s reputation is in the gutter due to his actions.

            Based on the filing from FireClean, they have a solid case and considering the legal costs and known marketing hit they have taken, they would only have taken this action if they felt it was fully justified and needed to claim their name.

            As such, I attempt to help people understand BOTH sides, as a good journalist should do rather than leap to conclusions as many are.

            FIREClean is NOT stifling gun bloggers (and I say that as a Blogger). They are attempting to defend themselves against what they perceive and contend as an unjustified and libelous statements.

          • Don Ward

            If you have any understanding of libel, from a journalistic perspective, Mr. Touhy did nothing wrong. A test was performed. A test was reported on. The readers of that report are allowed to form their own judgment. It is equivalent to hundreds and thousands of news stories that have been printed in the past pointing out irregularities in a product’s merits.

            As someone who actually has worked as a journalist at real publications, and not simply as a blogger, it is pretty clear that the purveyors of FireClean are attempting to stifle criticism from gun bloggers with this malicious lawsuit.

            Based on their filing, which I have read, they don’t have a leg to stand on legally or in the court of public opinion.

          • RA

            After reading, I have to agree.

          • Bill

            It isn’t shilling if it’s true. Oliver Wendall Holmes was quoted once telling a lawyer in front of him that “This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.” However well-intentioned a defendant might be in a case like this, if the Is aren’t dotted and the Ts crossed, there is the potential for trouble.

    • n0truscotsman

      Thats what people dont seem to understand. TFB will be affected as well.

      Of course, why should they think about unintended consequences while some already have a personal axe to grind with andrew, apparently? By disliking andrew personally, they miss the entire point.

      • Danny Gonzalez

        yes, to me, I don’t see a distinction between TFB reviews and anyone else’s review out there. I have a lot of respect for the info and opinions that TFB puts out there but I don’t see how they would be more or less protected than anybody else who makes content. I fear that if they go after one of us, they could go after any of us.

      • ozzallos .

        …And any comment made by the editors- ahem – will be put under a microscope and taken apart for meaning. What personally amuses me is the suddenly neutral tone we’re seeing here. Anybody want to race back to the original breaking story and pull them those comments?

        • n0truscotsman

          I say do it. Hell, if they do that, they will also pull disqus comments and continue on from there. Or Arfcom. or ENDO.

          In fact I can think of only one other website with their sycophantic, circle boinking cool guys club (Operators! tm) that *wouldn’t* be affected, primarily because of their article writer’s obvious support for FC and contempt for bloggers apparently.

          well see how popular FC becomes after that. Their move.

          Those geniuses have not figured out yet that they lost business because of their behavior (obfuscation, etc), not because of their product.

  • Tyler McCommon

    I’m still using Hoppe’s……. But if I ever had the thought of buying fireclean I definitely don’t now.

  • nova3930

    Right or wrong, good bad or ugly, it usually isn’t a good idea to sue the media, even bloggers…

  • junyo

    Dear people at FIREClean,
    Google the “Streisand Effect”. I’ll wait.
    [“Trip Switch” by Nothing But Thieves playing]
    Okay, got it? Know when to stop digging. Nothing positive will come from this. Take the money you made, call it good, and move on.

    You’re welcome.

  • Big Daddy

    I’m going to see if I can send Andrew some money.

    • Big Daddy

      I do not want to give out my CC #. Oh well. I’ll see if I can send him money another way.

      • You could just email him—-

        • Big Daddy

          I’ll use a debit card with a minimal amount in the account. This is total BS by a company that is total BS.

          He better win this or what little faith I have left in the legal system will be gone.

  • Geoffry K

    So what, 2 – 4 ounce bottles for $30?
    I wouldn’t pay that much, I don’t care good it is.
    RemOil, Hoppes #9, 100% Acetone, and 91% IPA (plastic and ploymer parts) is all I use.

    • John L.

      I assume that last isn’t India Pale Ale, so…?

    • JumpIf NotZero

      lol, rem oil…. See you at the berm clearing some bizarre stoppage.

      • Geoffry K

        Hey. I don’t LEAVE the RemOil in the barrel. It gets an IPA clean after. Then Acetone. I have shiny bores.
        I use it on my pistol slide, never any problems.
        What you got against RemOil?
        So this should get you, I use 3-in-1 oil on my AR triggers.

  • FIREclean is nothing more than food grade vegetable oil with some small percentage of non-food grade antioxidant and anti-corrosion additives… and there is nothing at all wrong with that. Vegetable oil has been used to lubricate complex mechanical equipment for centuries, and it does a very good job of it. I’ve never used it, but I have no doubt that FIREclean is a well-made product that does exactly what it says on the bottle.

    The problem with FIREclean is that they charge $7.50 per ounce for it, which means that for the price of one ounce of the stuff you could literally get an entire gallon of name brand canola oil from your corner grocery store, and have enough left over for a package of cotton swabs to apply it. FireClean LLC’s indignant reaction to the Vuurwapen tests reads exactly like what you would expect from a company that’s repackaging a dirt cheap product at a massive brand name markup and is furious at having been called out on it, because now their customer base knows that they could get almost all of the same results at less than 1% of the price just by hitting up an H-E-B or Safeway instead of Amazon or Academy.

    If you use and clean your guns regularly– and store them out of direct sunlight– ordinary canola oil probably won’t even have time to oxidize enough to start smelling like an old cast iron skillet before the next time you go shooting, and if it does… that’s still better than the rancid bananas of Hoppe’s #9, or the nitro headache smell of old school Hoppe’s.

  • Edeco

    Should be interesting. I don’t much understand the methodology, and honestly I’m not about to crawl out of my cave, start walking upright again and learn it… I already have too much knowledge the way it is. So just myself I’m 100% not sure the results mean its crisco. It’ll be interesting to see them fight over it, if the case goes that way.

  • FinallyFree

    Tuohy and others posted opinion that the product was simply Crisco. They supported their claim with analytical data that did not prove what they were saying, but was simply speculative. Fireclean lost sales due to it. Tuohy, perhaps unintentionally(?), instigated many (just read here) to continue many people to post false statements about the product only being vegetable oil, when Fireclean had referenced their patent, and also clearly denied that this was the case. It’s a good product… Tuohy does not even dispute that. I guess we will see if the courts find any malice.

    • Gross negligence (ie the unintentional part) is one aspect for Libel.

    • Andrew Tuohy

      I said I did not think their product was Crisco.

      • FinallyFree

        Andrew – I’m not the one you have to convince. There are hundreds (perhaps more) of people out there that believed that you were saying that the product was nothing more than vegetable oil – which from what I have seen – you did nothing to clear up. They also perpetuated this belief, and it hurt what is potentially a bone-a-fide product. I wish you luck. Next time, maybe go find a lubricant chemist who knows about such things, and don’t post data that does not support wild comments. I have no stake in this game, other than I hate when science is used incorrectly to support wrong claims.

      • Mc Cain

        Oh, bullshit, Andrew. We all know this is precisely what you accused them of with all your “oh so cool snarky” comments for a long time on this subject. If all your lawyer has done is to tell you to keep repeating, “I did not say I thought their product was Crisco” you better get a good lawyer, and fast. The evidence against you is quite overwhelming.

        You repeatedly said, over and over, implied, said, stated, and led many to believe Fireclean was nothing more than vegetable oil. Simply because you may not have used a vegetable oil brand name as if the issue is “Crisco” or not, is utter and complete BS.

        • Roy

          Hey Paul, did you lose a FireClean sponsorship or something? You have managed to travel to every part of the internet to spew your obvious misunderstanding of law and the truth on this. keep being tacticool dude!

        • n0truscotsman

          Overwhelming? what planet do you live on?

          FC just proved themselves to be whiny, pedantic children who cant handle any criticism of their products. This drama isn’t over by a long shot.

          The propensity for companies to self-destruct over criticism never ceases to amaze me. You would think they would have learned a lesson from AAC. Apparently not.

      • HKGuns

        I donated to your cause Andrew. Good luck, I hope you take them down hard.

  • Don Ward


  • trev

    More reasons to never buy from this company, sounds like the butt hurt is real at fireclean…..

  • ConservativeSurge

    A business exercising its constitutional right to obtain redress through an impartial court system…what a great basis for a boycott.

    • zippiest

      Why boycott it. Just don’t buy it. You’ve got a bazillion other choices. Hell I’ll even sell you a bottle of elephant jiz!

  • imachinegunstuff

    Never given to a go fund me, but this one might get my moneys. I can tell you one thing, Fireclean will never get a dime, and hopefully 25,000 a month becomes 50,000 a month to pay the jerk tax

  • zippiest

    Personally, I use elephant jiz to clean my guns. Smells a little funny, but it sure gets the gunk off!

    • Don Ward

      Well, it gets the elephant off at any rate.

  • Joe

    They are not suing him because of a negative review. They are suing him
    because he definitively said that their product was Crisco. Their
    patents say that it is not Crisco, does not contain any Crisco, and is
    much more complex than veg oil.

    Yes, we should let a jury figure this all out in court, but it sounds like they have a pretty good case.

    • Don Ward

      There is Crisco, a product brandname. And then there is the general lose term of Crisco meaning any vegetable oil. Good luck proving that in court.

      • Joe

        They have a patent that clearly spells out what their product is made up of. If there is no veg oil in it as they are claiming, then that will take all of about 30 seconds to ‘prove that in court’.

        • Faceman

          The document from Fireclean practically admits that it contains at least some vegetable oil.

          41. This statement,alongside the side-by-side spectra, which are scaled differently,

          conveys the false and disparaging notion that FIREClean® is Crisco Vegetable Oil, Crisco Canola Oil, or a single conmion household cooking oil.”

          So it’s not made of a *single* common household oil. But may still contain one. Maybe the spectroscopy missed some additives? Possible. I think this case is going to come down to trying to prove malice, and what the actual composition of the formula is. If Andrew simply missed additives somehow, I still don’t see FC winning this case.

          Plus, there is the the minor problem that Andrew never said it was Crisco, or Canola. If he did, I would like someone to quote it chapter and verse.

          I ain’t a lawyer.

      • n0truscotsman

        Yep, which was my argument from the beginning of this fiasco. Crisco, as a generalized term rather than specific brand name with its own supposed proprietary ingredients, is common vernacular in modern language.

        Apparently some geniuses haven’t figured that out yet.

    • Andrew Tuohy

      I said from the very beginning – I did not think their product was Crisco.

      TFB said their product was Crisco.

      Please keep the facts of who said what about Crisco straight.

      • Mc Cain

        You screwed the pooch Andrew and though your fan-boy groupies on this blog will defend you, I read through Fireclean’s filing and you guys are in a big world of poop because of your desire to position yourself as some kind of respected expert in the “gun community.” It’s what happens when boys like you with stupid ideas in their heads start blogging.

        What you wrote has consequences and you are learning what those consequences are now.

        • look its Paul McCain!

          You must not read many court cases.

        • n0truscotsman

          yeah stupid ideas like ‘science’ and ‘testing’ and ‘reporting’. “silly ideas’ to the kind of knuckle dragging neandrathals that typically support snake oil like FC, lying coiled like a rattlesnake ready to defend your product to the death.

          I guess if i spend 30 dollars for a small bottle of plant oil, id try very hard to justfy that purchase too.

          But oh do continue. And inspire FC to continue with their nonsense also. Well see them go the unfortunate way of other companies that tried to play the lawsuit game, who eventually end up pissing off the gun community.

        • HKGuns

          Go back and read the article moron. I dare you. He stated very clearly that he didn’t think it was just Crisco.

  • Don Ward

    I think a certain TFB writer shilling in the comments here doesn’t understand the legal definition of libel nor the historical difficulty in proving it.

    • That particular TFB writer has a conflict of interest in this fight. His other employer is also aggrieved with Andrew over negative reviews.

      • n0truscotsman


  • Blake
  • ThePontificator

    One less Fireclean consumer here.

  • Zapp Brannigan

    The people being sued should see if there are any anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws in their state. If there are, they should inform FIREClean of that fact as that might be enough to get them to drop the lawsuit as this case seems like it would be covered under such a law.

  • Joe Schmo

    My main concern is this, what will happen to everyone else that had the same speculation? Will Ian and Karl from InRangeTV be summoned to court as well? They made a video about “Patent Medicine” and the claims made by manufacturers in the firearms industry. And they compared the use of FireClean and canola oil in that video and concluded that there was no noticeable short term difference between the two. And then will MattV2099 be summoned as well? He made a video making fun of FireClean, will he be sued for libel or defamation? If Andrew has to worry about publishing an article or video about a product and its construction, then everyone else will as well. Whether or not he is guilty, this was a speculation piece that has now landed him in hot water. If someone else were to make a speculation piece about a Colt rifle, or a Glock pistol, or Rand CLP, or anything else where they pose questions to the audience, they may now face trial if someone else thinks that it is detrimental to their company or product. A scary thought, but I’m also not a lawyer.

    • RA

      I really think it is more about the implied intent of all the information he posted. That he seemed to fan the flames of false advertisement by FC on the discussion. Just my perspective based on the suit. If FC refutes his claims and can prove malice they well win IMO.

  • I’m absolutely fascinated by the number of attorneys in the firearms community. Something like 90% or more of all gunnies are attorneys! With multiple specialties! That’s astounding!

    I’m not an attorney. Feeling kind of left out. 🙁

    • Let’s get Colion Noir’s opinion for both sides of the coin!!!!!

    • n0truscotsman

      Its the internet. Everybody is an expert.


  • Southpaw89

    You rebrand canola oil and sell it for a huge markup, then throw a hissy fit when someone exposes you? If you don’t want to get burned don’t play with fire, never had much interest in their product before, certainly wont buy it now.

  • HKGuns

    The snake oil salesmen deserve a counter suit for their deception and pillaging of dollars from the firearms community.

  • Jack

    Wait is FireClean owned by “The Donald”?

  • frivolous cases like this are exactly why we need tort reform

  • Frank Martin

    I now use Weapon Shield for most of my firearms although I am still using Frog Lube on a couple of “minor guns”. Because I can not stand to waste product.

    Then again.. some time back Frog Lube was accused of being something else too.

  • Wayne Cummins

    I will do my best to badmouth FIREclean every chance I get. Hopefully they go bankrupt.

    • And take away the income of the employees and their families? I tend to think of them rather than hoping a business will go bankrupt.

      • Wayne Cummins

        So any business that attacks people that criticize their crappy product, should stay in business because they employ people? I don’t think so. I will say it again, I hope they go bankrupt, and I hope I can help them do so.

        • Let me just ask if you have used FC or going on what you may have heard?
          I’m not drawing any conclusions rather I’ll wait to see what the court finds.

      • Division Charlemange

        Thanks Phil, I too do my best to support the employees of companies that make electric turbos and homeopathic arsenic.

    • n0truscotsman

      So will I, or rather, Ill continue doing so since the last time this circus arrived into town.

      Ill let the free market decide

  • Marc

    So, did Fireclean make the statement “our product is not just canola oil” in the mean time? Would be easy if true.

  • Justin Roney

    Do you think Larry Vickers will be called to the stand as a “character” witness? Oops, here comes a lawsuit…

  • ks

    wonder if froglube is far behind…similar test were conducted and reported regarding coconut oil?

  • Dustin Euchner

    What’s a bottle of FireClean worth again, about $25? Seems fitting to donate one bottle to Mr.V!

  • n0truscotsman

    Oh and lets not forget,



    “Our product is supported by Tier 1 operators, real live ones. We support ‘murica too! and the troops! dont you dare criticize us!”

    Quite the idiot factory

  • Sledgecrowbar

    Considering that the original piece was posted on tfb, I could look it up, but I think he just gave the facts and stated that spectral analysis can determine some things but not everything, so I don’t see how fireclean has a case. This is dickwaving, and will just dig the company deeper into negative perception.

  • Lets not get worked up over this and start insulting each other. There are many views being expressed which is fine but there is no reason to be angry about it.

  • Aaron E

    Danny I think the difference with the video you mention, is that the guy simply presented the test he was going to do, and then reported on his results. He never said one product was fake, their claims were false, or that the companies were misleading customers.

    Unfortunately, Andrew made all 3 of these claims against FireClean. Although I appreciate his extra step to discover a product’s make-up, it may not have been comprehensive enough to satisfactorily prove his points, and therefore may subject him to libel’s recourse.

  • brian

    Fire Clean sues the first amendment! I guess the only one they really care about is the SECOND. I hope they suffer a loss of an additional $25000 having to payback legal fees! …not to mention if they are making bank like that on repackaging veg oil they could have put more money into design of their piss poor packaging and horrid graphics lol …it’s 2016 buy Photoshop for crying out loud…at least make an effort lol

  • Brian Diffenderfer

    sue someone because they busted your scam… the makers of fireclean have nothing to lose at this point because their business went belly-up

  • RA

    Win or lose, FC still has accountability to satisfy the consumer for their business to continue. If they are actually selling a low cost vegetable oil with low cost preservatives etc. as an exotic high end gun lube product, they are snake oil salesmen and will be treated as such by the consumer.
    I.E We all know we are being priced gouged on gas/diesel fuel by big oil, but we don’t have an option to buy lower cost fuel on the market. We do have the option available to buy other lower cost gun lube products.

  • During discovery the company will have to show of what their product is made and how it is made. I guess the vegetable oil will no longer be a trade secret? Maybe they added a bit of MMO to their vegetable oil, who knows, but, soon we will since the company foolishly decided to go to trial.

    Anyone know if this awesome product was patented ?

    I suggest holding onto old unsealed bottles so the past formula can be tested against any samples given during discovery, to make sure it was not changed.

    • RA

      On their website it says patent pending.

      • Then you can find out what the product really is and they can not hide it even in discovery because they applied for a patent, which is public.

        This might be the time to invalidate the patent before approval if the method used on the vegetable oil was not unique in the past 100s of years, and did not provide a substantial unique improvement over CRISCO.

        Now, if they did not apply for a patent, then you come into criminal charges of false advertising.

        • RA

          I posted above on the patent. If it is a utility patent they may have recourse, but not 100% on that.

          • Thanks.

            One thing is sure, as this builds steam, now gun owners in every country with their own patent system will be checking the above patent for “uniqueness” and some live in countries with patent/copyright systems much older and expansive then ours.

            Someone in a 3rd world country with no patent system might have been making his gun oil the same way for the past 15 years.

            Now, someone from China will hear about this, will copy it exactly, and then import it as “new and improved” with a slight twist, with no patent, and say it is better then FireClean and much cheaper by the case load. How will you prove how they made it?

            If I was running FireClean, my whole response would have been to provide a link to the REAL pending patent (and not a paid Google page, let us say) and to provide the original information on the company website and to leave it at that for people to make up their own minds, based on results.

            If I found a larger response was needed, I would have used the blog as a constant chance to show why my patent pending formula produced a unique and better result against competitors, even if it’s base was made of CRISCO.

            Tomato salsas are all made of the same base product, but, some tomatoes and some spices, in unique combinations taste way better then NYC salsa …. as an example.

          • RA

            Good points IMO. If anything at least had a sit down with involved parties and discuss the issue. The product does work.

          • > at least had a sit down with involved parties

            Exactly, invite them to a gun range (free plane ticket if needed), the company provides free ammo, then test the whiz bang product, and have some fun.

            What gun blogger would turn down a free chance to shoot some free ammo?

            > The product does work.

            That would have been the whole focus for me, why -MY- .45 acp 1911 is better then everyone else’s .45 acp 1911, as an example.

            I would have shown testimony from owners of all sorts of makes and models of guns using my product. If I was losing $25,000 per month I would have been running promotional $500 contests showing people on video using my awesome product and how happy they were with it.

            Free sample bottles (wrapped in positive blogs/testimony with on-line links) to every gun store owner in America because I am SO patriotic about the 1st AND 2nd amendment ! 😀

            Then again, as a friend pointed out once, my businesses failed because I was too nice to say “no” to requests because I like helping people, so, what do I know.

          • RA

            Even as screwed up as things are this day and age, trust and integrity still go along way in my book.

  • Old Vet

    They have to sue now, if for no other reason than face-saving measures. It is obvious the fact that revenues are tanking is probably a good motivator also. Personally I would never buy a product that takes on the air of “snake oil sales”.

  • RA

    FYI if you google their patent application it pretty much tells you what vegetable oils it contains.

  • Guido FL

    Counter suit after case is dismissed !

  • uisconfruzed

    Even if it is adulterated Crisco, it’s outperformed BreakFree in my suppressed SBR. an E9 Spec-Op friend gave me some to try, it’s what their unit was using and happy with as well.
    I mixed the two.

    • RA

      This reminds me of the products used for black powder rifles. Vegetable based and works great. You know how bad they carbon up the rifle.
      Or same process for an old school cast iron skillet!

  • SirOliverHumperdink

    And this is why I post under an anonymous Disqus profile. Let them sue Disqus for my words.

  • OldNorthState

    My bugaboo with this whole issue is simply that it all seems like “an accusation in search of a crime”. This is America… if something works well for one’s particular needs, continue buying it and enjoying its benefits. If it doesn’t “suit”, discontinue using it. But NO, in today’s litigious, “something for nothing” society, we have to play the victim and come up with some “Somebody done me wrong” BS. I’m not stumping for this product, nor am I against it. It doesn’t matter if it was developed from horse manure – if it works to suit, great! If not, too bad… it will die a natural death in the marketplace without all of these whining little schmucks trying to prove “it’s not as good as it should be”, “it’s overpriced” (which is ridiculous in view of how capitalism works), or more likely, “THEY SHOULD GIVE IT TO ME FREE BECAUSE I’M REALLY A CLOSET SOCIALIST AND WANT EVERYTHING HANDED TO ME, and don’t want to see anyone else “do well” in their businesses because I’ve never done well in anything and it’s their fault!!”

    “Get a life”, and God help us all.

    • RA

      I agree with the scope of your post. I don’t agree with price gouging. I.E. Big Oil has been price gouging the crap out of it’s fuel consumers. I know part of that is caused by the stock market, but the historical data proves they have had record breaking profit margins for over the past ten years. I think the gist is are they trying to sell a common low cost product as something special with an exorbitant price tag. if not, I agree with them going to court.

  • OldLawyer

    During my 67 years of being a gun nut, I have spent 35 as a trial lawyer. While I am no smarter than anyone else, I do have a perspective. Basically, free speech does not allow us to go on a blog and destroy someone with false or misleading statements or alleged facts. If you take something on as a task to attack and that attack causes harm or financial loss, the proper place to fix that harm is a courtroom. So, a lawsuit may be his quickest and easiest way to save his company. He can file his suit and immediately demand copies of every test and information the other guy claims as his proof. And if he did not do all the relevant tests to find whatever additional ingredient that may actually exist, then he can narrow the lawsuit. Point being, if I sell a product and you try to destroy it in a blog you better be right. Now it is common for products to be nothing more than other existing products with little of nothing added. I have no clue if they are just selling canola oil only as a cleaining and preservative and it may be great for that use. Just pointing out that filing a lawsuit to save your company and reputation may be the cheapest and quickest way of getting the truth out. And rememeber, either side can hire a biased expert. FWIW

  • Norm Glitz

    One of my favorite sayings about the $5/oz gun lubes (or any other magic mouse milk) is “there is no magic”. Unfortunately, now there are lawyers.

  • kcshooter

    “Hey, those two guys are keeping us from ripping people off! Sue them!” – FIREClean

  • karmicforce01

    On a positive note, after several rounds I smell donuts.

    • RA

      Krispy Kreme or Duncan’s?

      • karmicforce01

        Our guns run on Dunkin.

  • Donald Darr

    I guess the truth hurts. Instead of proving that their product works, they sue the guys that showed it’s no more than regular cooking oil.

  • Well, it wouldn’t be the first time a company got called out for selling a product or service that was proven to be iffy or misleading- or just a rebranded version of something else. The Chinese do it all the time with fake designer accessories or jewelry or electronics. Nobody sues them that I know of. FireClean is trying to stop the money loss from people deciding to save money by buying a similar product that costs a lot less but does the same thing! It’s a matter of preference- buy the much more expensive FC or the vegetable/soybean oil and get the same effect! As far as irrefutable proof that FC is vegetable oi? So far they haven’t said that. In court, to win, they’ll need prove that fact and that their intent wasn’t done to intentionally defame. Hope they get a good lawyer!

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    Apparently, Fireclean is suing Tuohy and Baker for definition of character. When scientific truth defames your product and telling people the truth leads to a lawsuit, our country is in big trouble.

  • Andrew Foss

    I laugh at people who buy “gun lubes”. NLGI GC-LB #2 chassis and bearing grease runs you about 15 cents per ounce and stays put. For cleaning I use a bucket of Ed’s Red and a nylon bristle brush.

    I haven’t had to clean my rifles more than running a bore snake through after each session and (usually “just”) wiping the grease off and reapplying a heavy coat of it after every thousand-ish rounds.

    Look at it this way: If it’s good enough for your car’s wheel bearings, it’s more than good enough for your weapon. (a typical wheel bearing is doing upwards of 1,200 RPM at highway speed. Well beyond the cyclic rate of most weapons.

    My AR’s bolt looks like I fed my sling to it after going cyclic (the grease traps the carbon.) but a wipedown gives you a bolt that looks like it’s new.