FireClean Releases Statement on Vuurwapen Lawsuit

1.jpg

After FireClean filed the lawsuit against blogger Andrew Tuohy of Vuurwapen Blog, the reaction online was quick and viscous. The company took quite the Public Relations hit. Many have believed that the suit was an attempt to silence bloggers and reviewers online.

On the other side of the coin, those who supported the suit believed FireClean to be taking legal action to right a wrong. To clarify why they filed the suit, and circumstances surrounding it, FireClean has released a statement. In it, FireClean asserts that they are not attempting to pursue action on an opinion, but what they feel was an unsubstantiated attack on their company by someone who ignored attempts by the company to educate them. They claim that FireClean is not a big bad wolf against bloggers and reviewers.

The statement in full:

FireClean LLC has recently filed a lawsuit against Andrew Tuohy and Everett Baker, asserting defamation and Virginia Business Conspiracy Act claims against these defendants, who with the specific purpose of harming FireClean, initiated a protracted and intentional smear campaign against the company.

FIREClean’s patent application was publicly accessible online two years before Tuohy wrote about FIREClean®. The patent application, on the very first page, describes a product that is composed of at least three substances, which may be plant or vegetable-based oils, and which make up between 25 and 100 percent of the formulation. Tuohy never undertook to test this statement. He chose a test that would give him the result he wanted so that he could publish sensational headlines. An infrared spectroscopy analysis was not sufficient to distinguish FIREClean® from Crisco vegetable or canola oil, and Tuohy knew this. Moreover, even after publishing his articles, Tuohy was alerted to this fact by other readers of his blog, and he never undertook to correct his analysis or conclusions.

When Tuohy told us that he intended to publish his first article- the night before he published it- and told us what his conclusions would be, we asked him for a chance to read it first, so we could provide a proper response. He refused. In his blog post he stated, “That is not how this blog works.”

Clearly, Tuohy wanted to turn a blind eye to anything that might tamper down his eye-grabbing headlines. He wanted readership, not the truth.

Some recent public social media comments have compared our suit against Tuohy to a David-versus-Goliath First Amendment case. It is anything but that. In fact, Tuohy has as many aircraft registered in his name as FireClean has employees (two). FireClean is a small business that has been subject to an unprovoked and unfair attack.

FIREClean® is not Crisco Vegetable nor Canola oil – nor otherwise common vegetable oil. FIREClean® is a proprietary, high-efficiency formulation that yielded unprecedented results in Tuohy’s own live-fire use. Tuohy’s separate statements that are the subject of our lawsuit were false, continuous, persistent, and maliciously made. FireClean has no choice but self defense. Anyone who thinks the company is wrong for doing so has clearly never had their livelihood attacked by someone engaged in a protracted smear campaign.

The Citizens of the United States of America certainly enjoy the freedom of speech provided in the First Amendment. But just as it is illegal to run into a crowded theater and yell “fire” when there is no fire, there are limits on—and repercussions to—speech that is intentionally or negligently false, that causes harm to another. These are the rights that we seek to vindicate.

In these types of lawsuits, quite simply the truth will set one free.

FireClean will have to show, in court, that their formula is not what Vuurwapen implied and likewise Tuohy will have to show that there was sufficient evidence to support his assertions and that he completed the due diligence prior to such articles.

My parting thought? The comment on number of airplanes was in poor taste. I get trying to drive a point, but there is a line of class that I feel was crossed there.

UPDATE: It appears Andrew does not have 5 aircraft (look in the comments below). Fireclean says …

FullSizeRender(34)-1

 



Nathan S.

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

Nathan can be reached at Nathan.S@TheFirearmBlog.com

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


Advertisement

  • 2hotel9

    AT provided science based test results. FIREClean® provided a PR handout. And Andrew never called FIREClean® Crisco. So yes, FIREClean® is attempting to silence criticism of their product. Perhaps FIREClean® should have simply provided the science based test results they have to refute AT, instead they have thrown a hissy fit and gone to court to silence people.

    • Ammono Cruose

      This has been my big point since this whole mess started. If Fireclean would simply release the results of their own scientific testing showing that their product is what they claim it is, then this would all be over. Instead, they decided to sue. I don’t see how they can win this without proving, scientifically, that these claims are incorrect.

      • 2hotel9

        When the results get outed during discovery, if this goes that far, they will show what AT already illustrated. Which is exactly why they won’t simply release the data. These guys are working from the old PR axiom, “any publicity is good publicity”, and it is killing their sales. THAT is why they are trying to use scab-kneed ambulance chaser tactics to silence people who don’t like their product.

        • itsmefool

          Actually, that “any publicity…” line is not a PR axiom (nor is it true), but something the general public likes to rehash! PR flacks prefer to work 8-5, M-F, so anything that would require them to stay late or come in on a weekend is not desirable.

        • Marcus D.

          I rather suspect that FireClean will produce its formula only under a trade secrets protective order, preventing defendants from publicly releasing that information except during trial.And if defendants are successful in having the case dismissed on a motion for summary judgment, then that formula will not find its way into the public domain.

          • 2hotel9

            Still never buying their “products”, or anything else they are involved with. These two “businessmen” have poisoned the well for themselves. Had they simply released their test results refuting AT’s then I would most likely have bought some and tried it. As is they are losing business, no matter how this case ends I, and a whole lot of other people, will never buy FIREClean®. Nor anything else they are associated with.

      • aka_mythos

        Andrew Tuohy made statements in “good faith with the reasonable belief they were true and supported by scientific testing” that’s what his defense will say. Fireclean’s scientific evidence while it may be supportive of one side or the other, simply represents “truth” the first defense to libel, “good faith and reasonable belief in truth” are going to be the next easy defense positions to take if Fireclean shows that whatever blend of oils and additives it contains deviates enough from Tuohy’s analysis and the substantivity of that deviation is up to the judge.

        The Fireclean’s evidence of it’s products contents aren’t necessarily important. Andrew Tuohy has made a scientifically supported claims about their product, and short of a willful and malicious misrepresentation of that scientific testing or the presentation of the results, it is at worse erroneous or flawed, but he believes its true, thus it isn’t libel.

    • n0truscotsman

      Yep and by refutations, I mean science, not “we support the troops!”, “we support america!” “were used by operators!” talking points.

      Apparently ‘arguments’ like that are convincing enough for the stupid people calling for andrew’s head.

      • AlbertEinstein

        He may not have been an “operator operating operationally 24/8,” like others claim to be, but Andrew lists himself as an honorably discharged Navy hospital corpsman who patrolled in Iraq with the units he was assigned to. Is FC forgetting that he is also one of “the troops?”

        • 2hotel9

          You meant to say 25/8/366! Gots to be gettin’ da operationally operating operator jargon right, son!

  • 2hotel9

    Oh, and FIREClean®? I probably would have purchased a few bottles of your product and used it, had you two not acted the a$$. Instead I will stick to RemOil spray and 3in1 oil, WD for cleaning and Hoppes9 for bore brushing.

    • Geoffry K

      Same stuff I use except for the WD40. I might try dry graphite spray for moving parts.

      • 2hotel9

        I picked up a can of RemDriLube to try out on my new polymer frame pistol, so far working OK. I am a bit worried about hot weather, I carry IWB and sweat is a bit salty, so we will see. Everything else gets the usual.

        Only use WD for cleaning since it is not a lube, amazing how fast all the residue from it evaps. Kills me to see some people using for lube and yet they keep doing it even after getting signs of surface rust.

        • Jared Vynn

          Try brake cleaner in place of wd40.

          • 2hotel9

            Have used brake cleaner when stripping cosmoline off older milsurp weapons, though that was many years. Bit harsh on the hands, though today it may not be so harsh. I do know some guys who use it on ARs.

        • Gunner4guy

          I’ve gotten by with LSA and RBC supplemented with BreakFree-CLP for certain wpns. I suspect that I may try 1 of the alternates mentioned to see if it works before the older stuff finally is used up. However, in nearly 20 yrs of service up to just before Desert Shield I ‘acquired’ enough milspec lubes that my step-son shouldn’t need to worry about buying for a while. Assuming any future political czars(or czarina’s) allow us to have anything more than pictures or videos of firearms.

          • 2hotel9

            Once the bottles I had in my cleaning gear box after leaving Army ran out I went with off the shelf stuff, and 3in1. Used that before going in service and always had a small can in my gear. Lots of good stuff out here, just got to pick what ya like and shoot on!

          • Gunner4guy

            I used Hoppe’s No.9 prior and just bought some more last year…. something just called me..! 1st unit I was in after I went ANG was a firing battery so we had LOTS of BreakFree around(for the tubes) and the last one was a Cbt Engr unit, again, LOTS of BreakFree. So it became the go-to cleaner/lube for me. It works so, ‘why butterfly, GI?’
            Oh, yeah, I have 3-in-1 oil too but don’t forget: “Lubricating Oil, General Purpose” SPEC: VV-L-820C 9150-00-252-6173, DATE MFD. 11/85, LOT NO. 21231 DLA400-85-M-CN95, TEST DATE 11/88. And made by….American Writing Ink Co., Inc. in Boston____and which smells suspiciously like____3-in-1 oil. Imagine that..!

          • 2hotel9

            Lots of stuff US military issues is just off the shelf items with the labels stripped off and an NSN stenciled on it.

          • Gunner4guy

            Yep, not disagreeing with you! When the unit I was TDY to was Beta-testing the MILES units, the batteries we were issued for them were just plain Everready carbon-zinc. The label was the commercial label but in black lettering on an OD green label with an NSN added plus a bit about auth. uses.
            Those MILES units sucked down those carbon-zinc batteries so fast we called TACOM and told them to switch to alkaline batteries if they wanted more than 5 or 6 hours lifespan before the components died. We had cases of commercial alkalines with 3 days of calling – guess the Army wanted them to work(only these were off-the-shelf commercial batteries).
            BTW, looked at a metal squeeze can of 3-in-1 oil: old one is made by Rickett & Colman in NJ, new one in a plastic bottle is a trademark of WD40 in Cali. & manufactured for them. Example of a corporate buy-out.

          • 2hotel9

            HA! I remember those batteries at FT Sill. We overlapped, I was in a 8in howitzer battalion that was deactivated in ’85 to make room for MLRS.

          • Gunner4guy

            Those towed 8 inchers were probably the most accurate thing around for a fire mission. AND they could reach out further than the 105’s or 155’s(pigs) Always on call and not affected by weather like the fast-movers. or the helos. Have a co-worker who was in MLRS for Desert Storm – he wasn’t impressed, don’t know why.

    • Bill

      WD40 should be avoided around firearms. It forms a gummy residue, only displaces water, and tends to attract dirt. It may be fine for door hinges and removing bugs from car finishes, but there are many, many better products outs there.

      I can’t speak to 3 in 1 oil, but every container of it I have has a gummy residue on it, which is a dead bang indicator that it isn’t something you’d want on a firearm.

      • 2hotel9

        Which is why I only clean with it. 3in1 I have used for weapons in storage for 35 years and never had a problem. Can’t slather on any oil/grease like gravy on fries, a light coating is always best. That is another thing I hate to see people do, gobbing on lube like they are painting a house! If you are in a saltwater environment you may need some extra lube, otherwise, as you said, just attracting dirt and dust.

  • Ira

    I’ve never purchased Fireclean and now I never will, especially considering the market is flooded with plenty of affordable alternatives.

    • Sledgecrowbar

      Like regularly-priced Crisco!

    • Now I just lube my ar with crisco these days.

      • Beju

        I find Crisco to be more suited for pistol slides.

    • Major Tom

      Yeah, like Valvoline motor oil! That stuff’s sometimes cheaper than bottled water!

      • Vanns40

        I’ve used 10w-30 full synthetic motor oil for more than 30 years, for lube when I shot competition and for general use cleaning and lubing. It’s far cheaper than any “gun” oil, has a high flash point and doesn’t congeal in the cold. On sale at $5 a qt. it lasts a long time and works great on full auto also!

        • BigR

          Hell, I never “thunk” of that! That sounds a lot cheaper than the gun market oils. I’m going to give it a try!

        • LetsTryLibertyAgain

          I have a YouTube video that shows me using Castrol full synthetic motor oil to resize .223 rifle cases. I use it for all rifle cases, up to and including 50 BMG, and you definitely don’t want to stick one of those cases!

        • CountryBoy

          I filter my used Mobil 1 to get any dirt out, and use it on my guns. Never had a problem with cars or guns that was lube-related, in nearly 300K miles per car or 10K rounds per gun. Changing the oil every 5K miles leaves very little to filter too.

    • BigR

      The “teeny weeny” plastic bottle is really cute.

  • Chris

    Their own patent says ” three substances that are plant or vegetable based oils that make up 25 to 100%” looks to me like Tuohy got it right.

    • Joseph Smith

      I’m no lawyer but if I’m on a jury and read this, they just admitted to what the blogger found. It may not exactly match what is know commercially as “Crisco” but to a layperson it’s close enough. Both parties now admit it’s vegetable oil.

      FIREClean divided by zero, twice.

      • Major Tom

        Divide by zero nothing, that’s a classic own goal.

    • J.T.

      Yep, since his conclusion was. “FireClean is probably a modern unsaturated vegetable oil virtually the same as many oils used for cooking.” and he never claimed it was Crisco or Canola, just that it was similar.

      If FireClean was going to sue anyone, they would have been better off going after George Fennell, who started the whole “FireClean is Crisco” thing.

      • Ther’s a second suit against someone… can’t recall whom.

      • Zachary marrs

        They are suing him too

    • AlbertEinstein

      Interesting to note: On page 79 of the scanned copy of FC’s lawsuit posted on Soldier Systems website there is a photo (figure 6) of FC’s own carbon removal testing that they submitted in their patent application that is labeled, “canola soybean blend”. The photo, although very grainy, shows what appears to be a supermarket bottle of canola/soy oil.

      As well, pages 64/65 of the same document have a grid/table listing the results of FC’s own tests. Their results show that the blends that removed the most amount of carbon were: 80%-20% Canola/Soybean 3.5 rating, 100% walnut, 3.5 rating, 50/50% Ricebran soybean, 4.0 rating and 33.3%/33.3%/33.3% Ricebran/Walnut and unknown oil 4.0-4.5 rating.

      It therefore seems a safe assumption that, given their own test results, that their product turns out to be a combination of the top performing oil and oil blends. (Including oelic content, heat resistance, and carbon removal performance) Which makes the phrases, “FireClean is probably a modern unsaturated vegetable oil virtually the same as many oils used for cooking.” and “There’s still nothing about the NMR that would indicate that fireclean is anything but vegetable oil.” very plausible.

  • Spencer

    Only two employees and their patent specifies “at least three substances, which may be plant or vegetable-based oils, and which make up between 25 and 100 percent of the formulation”. – Yeah sounds real legit. Sounds like they have one guy out back packaging a random mix of whatever vegetable oil happens to be cheap at the time and the other in the office making sales calls.

    • 624A24

      “Between 25 and 100 percent of their formulation” sounds like they have absurdly bad QC, or they can’t make up their minds. That statement claims their product could be solely vegetable oil, which they are suing to prove otherwise.

      • Michael Lubrecht

        Not defending the FireClean folks here, but it’s pretty common to make broad claims in filing a patent application. You want to make sure that the patent is valid in as many cases as possible. If your patent specifies that you’ll use 33% of this oil, 33% of that oil, and the rest of some other oil in your formulation, then it’s pretty easy for a competitor to change those percentages slightly and not be infringing. So the strategy in patenting an invention is to make as broad of claims as the patent examiner will let you get away with, which provides future flexibility in manufacturing and selling your invention.

        • LG

          Patent pending. It will be most interesting to see if it is finally granted. It seems to me if NOTHING is new or unique with the product.

          • comatus

            That guy Pat Pending, and his cousin Pat Applfor, seem to have innovated nearly as much as the prolific songwriters, Trad and Anon.

        • Sekmet

          I also wonder if the patent will be granted. On its face, it looks way way too vague.

          • Secundius

            Actually, their in a Lose, Lose Situation. They’ll Probably Get the Patent, Problem being. Will ANYONE BUY? If they Change the Name, They MIGHT have to Go through the Whole Court Process AGAIN, When their Product get’s Analysed AGAIN…

        • DaveGinOly

          True, but somewhere along the line they’re probably going to have to divulge the components of FireClean. This dancing around the specifics (by citing the patent application instead of just saying what’s in it) makes it look like they’re doing a Clinton – “It depends on what ‘vegetable oil’ means.”

    • Rick5555

      Quite possible Fireclean licenses out the manufacturing of their product. I’m a surgeon thru out the week. However, I have multi million dollar company that employs 7 people. I invented some surgical instruments, in which I got patents for. And then have another well known surgical equipment/instruments manufacture make, distribute, market, etc. via a licensing agreement, Both companies make money from the sales, Hence, I’m able to do what I love doing. And my product gets out to hospitals in the USA and Europe. So Fireclean claim of 2 employees is not unheard of,

      • Dingus

        You do realize that anyone that wants to blaze at fireclean will refuse to accept anything you say that isn’t against fireclean as a lie and ridiculous to even consider no matter how truthful it is…right?

      • jdl6mm

        What type of surgeon are you? What instruments does your company make?

    • Mike Lashewitz

      I use filtered rendered pork grease. So far my weapons have not complained…

      • BigR

        Mike, are you kidding! If you’re serious, I might try it! Every time we cook bacon, we pour the grease in a coffee can. I might be able to bottle it, and sell it! You think?

        • Mike Lashewitz

          Great question! And no I would not sell it. It is important to render the fat. Filter it and then render it again and double filter it. It works and I use my weapons regularly.
          I haven’t noticed any damage or problems caused by the grease/oil. But I do use a good quality cleaner. I am not religious but those I may be shooting at are. Soo . . . .
          I also do not fire my weapons into meltdown mode. 30 to 50 rounds per weapon per setting unless I am training someone. Now in my long range weapon I do not leave anything to chance. Too much invested there….
          Oh and I only use oil derived from locally produced bacon none of that GMO fed crap… (LOL)

          • J. Livaudais

            Bacon grease would make your guns unclean and nor self respecting jihadist radical Muslim would even touch it. Oh, maybe you do have a good idea there.

        • Jwedel1231

          “Anti-Muslim Gun Grease!” With the right marketing you would be a millionaire. It would be in extremely poor taste, but it would be tasty.

          • LG

            Read about The Great Mutiny in India under British rule. A factor therein were rumors that the slugs for the precision British rifles were lubed with bacon tallow. The observant Muslims could not load their guns because they could not let their lips touch the paper cartridge contaminated with hog tallow. Others thought that it was a conspiracy to steal their soles. Actually the bullets were lubed with lamb tallow.

          • Bwahaha

            Oh no! we don’t want “anti” anything. it sounds so negative. We just call it “Muslim tears” Hoorah

      • Cobranut

        And as a bonus, they smell great when they get hot. 😉
        MMMMMMMM, Bacon…

        • Mike Lashewitz

          LOL! Not really . . . 😉

  • Jason

    Tuohy has two registered N numbers. N666SN, a DJI Inspire 1, which is a 6 pound quadcopter; and N66686 which is a reserved number with no assigned aircraft.

    • Budogunner

      The aircraft comment, which was not well researched, seems to be the same kind of smear that this company claims they are a victim of. That does not gain my sympathy.

      The defendant used results of a scientific test, the prosecuting party is attacking the defendants character. Again, you aren’t winning hearts and minds.

      • 2hotel9

        The results of multiple scientific tests, from two different sources. Rather telling, when their response is “He is picking on us!” instead of “Here are our test results.”. I have the feeling a third party is going to drop a pile of test results into this little drama, and it is not going to go well for FIREClean®.

      • JumpIf NotZero

        I don’t know whow the airplanes are registered to, but anyone who has ever met him knows his real interest is flying and he does have at least access to two planes.

        That said, not a great idea for fireclean to attack. Would have been better to say “look we’re just a two person small business” and stop right there.

      • n0truscotsman

        I know who is throwing around the “omg he has two aircraft!!! and he has a gofund me? what an idiot!” point as well. The same contemptuous group of dillweeds that have been inflaming this entire situation to begin with.

        The same who rushed to attack the messenger in the ‘where there’s smoke…” video debacle.

      • Flight Er Doc

        Reminds me of tactics a lawyer shared with me once:

        When the law is on your side, argue the law;
        When the facts are on your side, argue the facts;
        When neither are on your side, pound on the table…

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        Yeah, when some dirtbag claimed Taco Bell’s meat was only 70% beef, or whatever, they published their recipe and had an outside agency verify contents.

        The claim and threatened suit magically went away.

        All FireCrisco had to do was show a spectrum of tests on different products including theirs, and show similarities and differences between them. It likely would have been cheaper than an IP attorney, and would have shut whatsisname right up.

        • Secundius

          Actually, 88% of it is Beef! The Rest is Maltodextrin, Torula Yeast, Modified Corn Starch, Soy Lecithin, Sodium Phosphates, Lactic Acid, Carmel Color & Cocoa Powder, and Trehalose. ENJOY…

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            So, what every restaurant in the country serves, or what I make at home with packaged seasonings.

            It was 96% or so, IIRC, but either way, don’t care.

          • Secundius

            Like ALL Fast Food Places, Taco Bell has It’s Own Food Distribution System. And Get there Food From Them, It a Way of Making Sure that the Food Sold IS THE SAME…

          • Jwedel1231

            Don’t worry, I do enjoy it.

    • Joshua

      Those 6lb quadcopters are SRS business and only rich folks can afford em.

      • 2hotel9

        Reading the news out of eastern Europe they are also becoming the poor man’s cruise missile. Maybe that will be their next step in this travesty of justice.

      • Budogunner

        Smart people build instead of buy, same as with computers. It’s not that hard or expensive, either. Google “flitetest”. Just be sure to register as a pilot with the FAA for your tail number.

        • MichaelZWilliamson

          What do you use for motor lube in those things? EngineClean?

      • Atticus Bryant

        Incorrect. They’re not that expensive, if it’s a hobby or side-work. Project cars are expensive, doesn’t keep poor people from buying them and never completing them.

        • M

          I think he was being sarcastic…

  • xerodown

    I used to use it all the time. After hearing of the lawsuit I have fully switched to Slip2000. Our community has no place for this. The majority of good firearms information comes from bloggers and youtube. Silencing them with lawsuits is not the proper reaction. How about you craft a proper response and articulate why your product is better?

    • LG

      I agree. How about a response to the “snake oil” sale from He Who Shall Not Be Named indicating that the more smoke from the chamber means that more carbon cleaning is occurring?

  • G B

    I personally don’t care what Fireclean is made of, I made up my mind about the company (and Larry Vickers) when I saw their “smoke test” video on Vickers YouTube channel. That was a blatant lie if I’ve ever seen one.

    • Slvrwrx

      So wait, you’re telling me that the Z-max that Carroll Shelby told me to buy, is all a lie as well!!!

    • Joshua

      But Fireclean causes more smoke, which means it self cleans the rifle by pulling carbon fouling out of the bore and ejecting it through Science!

      • MichaelinPA

        My 14 year old car smokes pretty good. I must have some clean pistons!

    • n0truscotsman

      And the excuse for that was utterly laughable, “but smoke cleans carbon!”

      /double facepalm/

    • LG

      Precisely! He Who Will Remain Nameless was a facilitator of FireClean and should be judged accordingly. If there were “junk science” then it was surely in the more smoke video. It is also interesting to note here that Alec C is not “defending” FireClean here as he was in a previous article. Don’t follow snake oil salesmen.

    • fleetwrench

      If its smoking when fired thats a oil with a low flash point. Smoke and mirrors.

  • Suppressed

    I’m not buying the “2 employees” line. If that’s the truth then they’re either not counting the owners who work there or they have a subcontracted manufacturer/relabeler that simply bottles up canola oil as fireclean.

    • Paul O.

      Watch it there Suppressed, you’re going to be added to their lawsuit.

    • RealitiCzech

      Odds are they get a contractor to send them a couple of 55gal drums of the oil, then they pour it into the little white bottles with the nice labels and it suddenly becomes worth a ton of money.

      • Jwedel1231

        One 55gal drum of canola oil, a 1 gal jug of avocado oil, (2) 1 gal jugs of sesame oil.
        mix.
        pour into tiny botttles
        PROFIT

        • RealitiCzech

          Wouldn’t be a bit surprised if that’s exactly how it’s done.

  • “But just as it is illegal to run into a crowded theater and yell “fire” when there is no fire…”

    1. That was dicta from Schenck v. United States, and thus not exactly legally binding.

    2. Schenck was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio.

    This whole thing started stupid, and FireClean shows no indications of correcting that.

    • Trey Odom

      Can I run into a crowded theater and shout FireClean?

      • Jwedel1231

        You can, but you’ll be sued for defamation.

  • DIR911911 .

    “The comment on number of airplanes was in poor taste” . . . ??? what???

    • Budogunner

      That information is irrelevant to the facts surrounding the content of their product and is merely an attack on the defendant, trying to make him look like the Goliath and not the David.

      I’d have rather seen test results contrary to what the defendant found rather than attempts to discredit the source. That’s not science, nor justice, but journalism.

    • The comments were out of context as the two aircraft licensed are mini-drones.

      • 2hotel9

        He has used one for doing videos. He is a multi-talented individual. Perhaps that is the source of their animosity towards him, ya know how jealous some people can be! 😉

        • n0truscotsman

          Especially some of the keyboard commando, Operator (TM) man-beard worshiping, wannabe witless wonders that just hate it when bloggers and writers call their sponsored companies out on their horsecrap.

          To think some of these geniuses actually *supported* a blogger being sued for this is judgement enough of their pitiful character.

      • He actually is a licensed pilot. He has a Cessna 172B that apparently went up for sale in January (if internet classifieds are to be believed).

        • That aircraft isn’t registered to him. I suspect it belonged to his late father.

  • gunsandrockets

    “… the reaction online was quick and viscous.”

    Viscous? How viscous? The same viscosity as FireClean?

    • 2hotel9

      I missed that one!

    • N E W T

      Haha good catch!

    • JSmath

      I feel like that was deliberate, considering the subject.

    • Dingus

      So viscous that they could do a slump test with it!

  • gunsandrockets

    FireClean apparently thinks they can resist the Streisand effect.

    D’oh!

  • I love these guys. They whine that he didn’t give them special rights to go pre-respond to his blog post, and then they go attack him because he has a couple of registered drones. What’s that, like a thousand bucks of UAVs? Not exactly an indicator that he’s rich.

    Fireclean needs to fire whomever is doing their PR before they wreck the Fireclean brand any further.

    • MichaelinPA

      It is a death cry.

    • BigR

      The brand is probably “WRECKED” already!

  • Andrew

    “The patent application, on the very first page, describes a product that is composed of at least three substances, which may be plant or vegetable-based oils, and which make up between 25 and 100 percent of the formulation.”

    So, fireclean is Crisco, but we don’t like it when other people say it’s Crisco. This lawsuit is like that kid at school who tells everyone his brother is an idiot, but then punches you when you call his brother an idiot.

  • Steven

    Yes, you can legally run into a crowded theater and yell “fire” when there is no fire. Not only is that a misquoting of a phrase from a Supreme Court ruling, that ruling has been essentially overruled for over a half century, and the author of that ruling immediately started backtracking on it within months in later rulings.

    I hope they know that the lab Fireclean contracted is certified by a suspected accreditation mill. It is surprising that they used the services of a lab that was involved in major issues by its president towards its staff. Maybe the lawyers Fireclean is using are the same ones that the lab used in it’s attempt to silence reports of sexual harassment and misdeeds.

  • hking

    Even after reading the entire suit I have yet to see where AT makes any clear false statement. He provides his opinion and thoughts in a manner that clearly comes across as solid hypothesis based on the results of scientific tests. At no time does he even claim anything to be a strict fact, just a interpretation of the data. In fact one of the only definitive statements he does make is to clearly and concisely say that Fireclean IS NOT Crisco.

    • 2hotel9

      “clearly and concisely say that Fireclean IS NOT Crisco.” Several times.

      • marathag

        OK, not Crisco © ® ™, but some other white shortening made from vegetable oil, like the generic Kroger stuff.

        But not Crisco © ® ™, at all.

        Other stuff is cheaper, too. Bonus.

  • Bear The Grizzly

    Their lawyers need to get them to shut up already. It’s like everytime they try to defend themselves they shoot themselves in the foot instead.

  • The first rule of lubricant club is that you don’t talk about FireClean.

    • 2hotel9

      You win the intratubesthingy for the day!!!!!!

    • Brett

      I am weary of the members of said club.

      • 2hotel9

        Yes, with their constant prattling on about FIREClean®. 😉

  • Robert Brian Steely

    It isn’t vegetable or canola oil though it is between 25-100% vegetable or canola oil.

    • 2hotel9

      That other 25% must be some serious juju!

      • marathag

        Or just Transmission fluid and/or STP

  • Joshua

    Am I the only one who has questioned how two guys, somehow managed to do more R&D into chemical engineering than many companies pouring millions every year into it?

    Yet somehow two random, not rich, average guys can out R&D companies that have major chemists on the payroll.

  • Ike

    “Quick and viscous”…brilliant!

  • Hey Buddy!

    I hope fireclean goes out of businesstock, what a bunch of classless bums.

  • Flight Er Doc

    All my firearms are lubed with Mobil Jet 254 turbine oil, and all work fine. A quart cost me about $25 ten years ago and I still have 2/3 left….So why by the lube d’jour?

    • 2hotel9

      That is the best suggestion I have heard in awhile. Watch out! The FIREClean® DynamicDuo may come after you now. 😉

    • LG

      Exactly. And the Mobil Jet will not smoke and break down under chamber pressure and temperatures. If one keeps reinventing the wheel it may turn out square!

      • Soless

        We’ve already gone there. Check out Shark wheels for skateboards.

    • tyrannyofevilmen

      Yep. Any motor oil that can keep your engine from destroying itself idling at 1500 RPM can certainly keep your guns running.

      Everything else is just marketing.

      • iksnilol

        Your engine idles at 1500 RPM???

        • JSmath

          Mobil Jet turbine oil, iks. Turbine engines tend to idle pretty quick, and spin up pretty quick too.

          That’s a pretty low idle speed compared to one bird I’ve had seat time in, too. 🙂

        • guest

          a sportsbike engine will easily have an “absolute low” RPM of around 1000 before it starts “shaking” too much. So yeah, not uncommon, with turbines even more so.

          • iksnilol

            Weird stuff. Most cars I’ve seen idle around 1000. Granted, those are not motorcycles. 😛

          • Flight Er Doc

            Turbines (jets, not turbochargers) ‘idle’ at around 10-15% of max RPM, which would work out to something like 3000 rpm – at idle.

    • Martin M

      Wow, I looked that up. Seems you can get a quart for under $20, or a case of 24 for about $300.

      • Flight Er Doc

        Thats a good price.

        The Jet 254 lubes at very high and very low temps, doesn’t gum up or create a lot of soot, so my weapons run clean.

        I use CV joint grease for applications that require a grease. The fantasies about the latest and greatest gun lubes are always a joy to read. They’ve been happening since I started shooting in the 1960’s.

    • Bryan Brah

      Not as high-speed as jet turbine oil, but I use 30 weight Mobil 1 full-synthetic automotive motor oil for all my firearms lubrication and have done so since the early 90s. Up until that time, I was using Rem Oil which was THE lube du jour. One day at a match I was complaining about spending $2 for a 1 oz tube of Rem Oil and had a couple of salty old IPSC guys laugh at me until they finally shared their “secret recipe.” $6 for a quart of Mobil 1 and you can buy it everywhere! Oh, as far as other cheap gun-chemical alternatives go, brake cleaner works as well or better than Gun Scrubber at $3 a can versus $10 (just be careful with wood finishes). If you need bore cleaner, mix up a batch of Ed’s Red. For heavy lubrication needs, I have a tube of hi-temp axle/bearing grease. I’m not an operator, but for several years I shot at least 1000 – 1500 rounds per week through my Limited-class 1911 and I never had any of these “substitute” products fail me.

  • LG

    As I had previously stated. FireClean will have to “come clean” with the specific chemical profile and quality control data in the exact batch and lot reviewed by AT. Even if it were a blend, it may match a commercially available cooking product. The best products are still those specified for aerospace and marine commercial applications. Check the handbooks, and one will have a good product with rigorous quality control and consistency from lot to lot. The real “snake oil” sale was when He Who Shall Remain Nameless stated that FireClean removes the carbon as determined by the increased smoke. I guess that was true in a sense as the hydrocarbon based lubricant was apparently “cooking off” from the heat of the chamber. So I guess in a chemical sense less carbon, in total molecular count, was in the chamber after firing. I believe that LESS SMOKE from the chamber would be an indicator of a lubricant not chemically breaking down.

    • stephen

      In the video from “HWSRN” (He who shall remain nameless) also used two different types of ammo in that video. So its possible that there was not cooking off, just a different type of powder.

      😉

      • LG

        Yes, that is true and correct. The real “junk science” was the snake oil sale stating that the more smoke equated with more carbon removal and cleaner running. I just believe that He Who Will Remain Nameless needs to “come clean” with his video. Obviously HWWRN was in league with FireClean at the time and should be held tainted as such.

  • Vonda

    Whats interesting is that FireClean goes on about the testing, about how it was malicious, how the patent was available, etc…but they very carefully dance around stating whether AT was *correct*. They say that the results were a foregone conclusion, that it was a corporate hitjob by a competitor, etc…but they never say that FireClean *isn’t* what those guys implied it was.

    • Macht

      Umm, can you read? They clearly state: “FireClean is not Crisco Vegetable nor Canola oil – nor otherwise common vegetable oil.”

      • JeffSexton

        Macht,

        First, I would note that this is the first time FireClean has clearly stated that their product is not Canola oil. If you read their previous statements re: AT’s tests, they never come out and state that.

        Second, saying that Fireclean isn’t canola oil doesn’t mean that Fireclean is not a mix of Canola oil plus a few other vegetable oils.

        Basically, AT claims that chemical analysis seems to show that Fireclean is “probably a modern unsaturated vegetable oil” and Fireclean is saying “nuh-ah, we’re not *A* vegetable oil, we are a *MIX* of plant/vegetable oils.” Seeing as rapeseed isn’t a vegetable, they have to throw the “plant” in there, but you get the point: it’s a distinction without a difference.

        The chemical analysis that AT commissioned and the results that he stated were correct. And Fireclean is still equivocating and hoping their screaming and yelling and law suits will distract everyone from the essential truth about their product. I own Fireclean and will continue to use the bottle that I have, but I’ll never buy the product — or anything else these jackasses ever make — again.

        • n0truscotsman

          You’re right on every count.

          FC needs a razor blade with the absurd level of hair splitting they are doing on verbiage. Because of this they are deserving of every ounce of contempt they have received so far.

          Any little credibility they had for their case went down the toilet the moment they decided to go after George Fennell too.

      • Nelson Kerr

        They stated otherwise in the patent application

    • J.T.

      Because AT’s conclusion was “FireClean is probably a modern unsaturated vegetable oil virtually the same as many oils used for cooking.” and their own patent describes a product that is composed of at least three substances, which may be plant or vegetable-based oils, and which make up between 25 and 100 percent of the formulation, which is what his results showed. Their arguments make zero sense.

  • burner

    mobile 1

  • Joel Thompson

    I just read the lawsuit, everything up to the summary. I was totally against FIREclean before, but now I’m not so sure. Of course, it’s a lawyer’s job to write a compelling argument that may or may not be the truth. So take it for what it is. If my understanding is correct, if AT had published the spectroscopy results and concluded that they appeared to be similar, and left it at that, there wouldn’t be an issue. The problems is the spectroscopy doesn’t give a complete picture of what is going on chemically in a formulation. AT was informed of this and publicly disregarded it, and made some conclusions that he couldn’t have made from a spectroscopy test alone. Fireclean acknowledges that their product is made up of plant oils, any spectroscopy test of plant oils will be similar. The original title of the article also implies that FIREclean has been lying about it’s product, an attack on their reputation.

    Where AT really makes his mistake is when he goes after them again in the “where there’s smoke there’s a liar” (or something like that) where he accuses them of using different ammunition to rig the test. They claim that they use factory remanufactured ammunition obviously would have different brass. Nevertheless, AT accuses them of lying and fudging the tests. When you pair this with the previous article it paints a clear assertion that FIREclean is untrustworthy.

    AT makes yet another mistake when he responds to comments endorsing off the shelf as a viable alternative and equivalent to FIREclean. Repeatedly! This reinforces the idea that, even though he said it isn’t Crisco, it really is. True or false, that is information that the spectroscopy test provided him was not enough to make that sort of a judgment.

    As a result, FIREclean’s reputation has suffered as has their sales. Unless something particularly damning comes out in discovery, I don’t see this going his way. I see this as a warning, if you are going go beyond opinion and start leveraging scientific data to make claims, make sure that you don’t make ANY claim that goes beyond what your data would allow. Further, don’t poke a wounded bear. AT continued to make comments that struck directly at FIREclean’s reputation both in other articles and in comments he replied to. This made it seem personal, and malicious, whatever AT’s true intent.

  • stephen

    All I know is that I clean my firearms and make scrambled eggs every sunday morning with FireClean!

    The multipurpose cleaning/cooking oil!

    😉

  • N E W T

    You have upset the FIREQueen®! Now play the GAME!!!!!!!!

  • Jaedo Drax

    6. The oil composition of claim 1, wherein each of the at least three
    vegetable oils are selected from the group consisting of: almond oil,
    avocado oil, canola oil, corn oil, cottonseed oil, flax seed oil,
    hazelnut oil, hemp seed oil, grapeseed oil, jojoba oil, macadamia nut
    oil, olive oil, peanut oil, rapeseed oil, rice bran oil, safflower oil,
    sesame oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil, and walnut oil.

    If all of these are available at my local supermarket, does that make them common?

  • Atticus Bryant

    Fireclean initiated a smear campaign against their own company. Good. They cannot even specify, in their own statement, what their product is compared of…..

    Hey Fireclean, I hope you go out of business.

  • rs

    From a careful read of the original article, I don’t think FireClean has a leg to stand on. And, I think it could kill their business.

    But, and this is just a guess, their business might have been going down the drain after the article anyway. They may literally have nothing to lose.

  • Darryl

    Doesn’t that actual formula need to come out in court for a judge/jury to decide if FireClean was maligned?

    • Renato H. M. de Oliveira

      Eventually. That will backfire for FC.

  • Brandon

    Not sure of the specifics of this case, but more than IR spectroscopy is required for a definite conclusion on what a substance is. IR spectroscopy will only provide information on the types of bonds present in a molecule. While this can provide some detail into the structure it does not provide a clear image.

    • Renato H. M. de Oliveira

      That’s why AT didn’t state anything authoritatively. He said like, not specifically.

  • guest

    Snake Oil Mfg LLC versus Douche Blogger.
    Round 1… FIGHT!

  • Fist_of_Doom

    Crisco original formula was a machine lube. So its possible FC is close to that with some automatic transmission fluid added.

  • guest

    I didn’t think they could, but they successfully pushed me even further away from purchasing their snake oil products.

    • 2hotel9

      I would like a full list of whatever else these two “businessmen” are involved with so I can stay away from them, too.

  • Eric X Ericx

    Dear FireClean,
    You duped us into buying canola oil at $10/oz… feel lucky if we don’t form a class-action suit against you for this.
    You got exposed and people are pissed.
    And now you think you can sue the people that used science to expose you? Really? What then when an independent lab confirms Andrew Tuohy/Vuurwapen Blog’s findings in court? Will you then sue the other lab… the court?
    Sure, the product worked “as advertised” but your 10,000% markup left us feeling a wee bit ripped off.
    And now you want to ruin someone’s life because they exposed your scam? Amazing!

  • Leigh Rich

    The liberal media fabricates BD all the time to sell copy. Tuohy is just a slimy

  • John Richardson

    You wrote “the reaction online was quick and viscous”. While I think you meant the reaction was vicious, your misspelling, intentional or not, was hilarious given the product involved.

  • kcshooter

    FireClean:
    “is composed of at least three substances, which may be plant or vegetable-based oils, and which make up between 25 and 100 percent of the formulation”

    Tuohy:
    “FireClean is probably a modern unsaturated vegetable oil virtually the same as many oils used for cooking.”
    “There’s still nothing about the NMR that would indicate that fireclean is anything but vegetable oil.”

    I’m not a lawyer, but you gotta be kidding me, right? Why would there be any repercussions expected for damaging someone’s reputation by making true and factual statements?

  • smalltowndude

    Viscous? Was that a misspelling or a pun?

  • Secundius

    Once you Yell the Word “FIRE”, it’s Virtually Impossible to “Retract It”…

  • BigFED

    SNAKE OILS!!! Exactly what these products are! I remember when there was a gun solvent and AN oil of some kind! Used them forever and didn’t miss a beat! The single most item that changed the picture was the invention of CLP! After that, anything else is SNAKE OIL!!! No ONE shoots enough where the difference comes down to the oil they use!!! The environment dictates what is BEST, but doesn’t dictate the answer! NO oil if dust and dirt are a major factor, or subfreezing temperatures. I think that few outside of our special forces operate under those condition. So all of those armchair warriors can just STFU! Keep your weapons clean with whatever is product is your favorite or whatever is at hand!

  • Jenny Everywhere

    Hey, blogger! You’re ruining my business by telling the truth about it! I don’t like that, so hold still while I SLAPP you.

    Are there Anti-SLAPP laws in his state?

  • Joe Hathaway

    “the reaction online was quick and viscous”

    The reaction was “thick, sticky consistency between solid and liquid”?

    • Trey Odom

      I caught that too. I was on the fence as to whether it was an error or perhaps a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor considering the subject matter.

  • Trey Odom

    That lube is garbage If you want a quality firearms lubricant and protectant, try out our patented “KY Rail Grease®” or “Astroglide CLP®”. Don’t ask what’s in it, or we WILL Google your name and wildly grasp at straws trying to damage your credibility with questionable assertions.

  • Secundius

    My Grandfather on my Mother’s Side, was Conscripted into the German Army. And Saw Action at Stalingrad, the German Army Issued Him “Ballistol”. A White Mineral Oil (water based) Liquid Lubricant that FROZE Solid at -32F. He Later used Captured Soviet-Issued Solid Dry Lubricant called Oil-RzH (aka as Russian Standard TY38.1011315-90), which was Rated to -70F. It took me years to Find the Product, But Is Know Produced in the USA by Specialized Lubrication Manufacturers…

  • madmann135

    From my perspective I think the Fireclean company is making a mistake in the lawsuit. The way I see it Fireclean is the same as Spring Steel while Crisco is Iron.
    9260 Spring steel is by weight around 96% iron (the rest being carbon, silicon and Manganese). The comparison of Iron and steel is no contest, Steel is superior.
    Fireclean is a chemical mixture with plant oils as its base. For those that use Fireclean, go on and continue to use it.
    In my opinion all (Well most) “Gun lubes” are snake oil. If you find out what’s in it you will be disappointed.

  • Jwedel1231

    Trade secrets and patents are different.

  • really.really!really?

    3-in-1 oil. My grandmother could get a sewing machine hotter than a mini-gun! Never failed her or the Singer.

    • Secundius

      I believe that Singer Sewing Machine Oil is Recommended as a US. Army Substitution for the Standard Issue in a Pinch. At least it Was in the Mid ’70’s and Early ’80’s for me…

  • IndyToddrick

    Ah, so Fireclean is Crisco, acetone, and magic Muskrat farts?

  • Aaron

    I bet they’ll fight tooth and nail to not lay out what their product is made of. It may be a mix anyone could make for significantly less all by themselves. Then there would be no point in procuring it from them. It would be interesting to test samples and figure out exactly what is in it. Then they’d take action against some lab for revealing their secrets.

    • 2hotel9

      That is exactly what has happened, already. Do please keep up.

  • Division Charlemange

    viscous.. like regularly overheated rapeseed oil.

  • Division Charlemange

    Crap, c–t. Go crisp some chips.

  • 2hotel9

    And yet, you can’t prove AT did not do the testing, can you? He provides the test results and you refuse delivery, instead closing your eyes and covering your ears and screeching LALALALALALALALALALALALA, all the while clutching your bottles of over priced vegetable oil. And yes, AT showed it was “some combination of vegetable oil”, so get over yourself FIREClean®. Your product sucks.

  • ThePontificator

    “…quick and viscous”???

    vis·cous
    ˈviskəs/
    adjective
    adjective: viscous
    having a thick, sticky consistency between solid and liquid; having a high viscosity.”viscous lava”synonyms:glutinous, gelatinous, thick, viscid, mucous, mucoid, mucilaginous, gummy, gluey, adhesive, tacky, adherent, treacly, syrupy;

    Don’t you mean “quick and vicious”?

  • BigR

    I saw a write up in a gun magazine and I bought FireClean before Tuohy’s article came out! Now I don’t know if to use it on my gun or in my skillet!

  • steveday72

    Crisco is a cheap alternative to Anal-Eze – though it’s missing any numbing agent and cherry flavoring.

  • Just staring the pot a little… 😉