Here am I.
Mac: Thanks for the detailed report and for liking the process as a useful addition to in your testing, ultimate bore-preparation process, as opposed to being an alternative to it.
I'm glad the Mother, wife, family situation has improved and the weather has cooperated at least a bit. I hope that Poison Ivy is finally beaten.
I look forward to continuing to work with you, and thanks for the follow-up too.
Mac, on the follow up I agree with your recommendations as to what you suggest it will not be beneficial for: as in barrels dedicated to Moly-Disulphide rounds for the rest of their lives. I doubt reinventing the process on those dedicated barrels is practical from an expectation now point-of-view.
It is additionally only for smooth super-clean metal surface interior with no burrs (physical defects), meaning factory barrels should be lapped and cleaned first. Because it will not polish any metal for you.
Quickdtoo: I look forward to you following Mac11700's testing and maybe you will want to at your option do some testing observations yourself too, if you have time for it.
I, as owner of Shooter Solutions, that is a sponsor of Graybeard Outdoors, and owner of the trademarked Moly-Fusion am interceding for Mac here.
My opinion is to set the record straight on Moly-Fusion and what it is claimed to be: not contain any solids, which preclude it being a colloidal suspension like you have made.
I do not knock anyone whatsoever for whatever path on travels, in all civility.
However, one addition is Mac has told me that in fact, no offense intended, but as a technical person, did not take my word for truth without testing everything in the light of testing, including to see if it was a suspension.
If I understand it correctly, do everything shooter-reasonable to remove it, I believe he tried to lap it all out with Flitz, at some point, and was unsuccessful in doing so. Removing it, that is, with reasonable force.
I believe one criteria for himself, anyway, was not just if it worked, but if the results was worth the investment not only in money, VS other products, and investment in time total as well: from Mac's regimen' point of view.
He did not post all of the empirical data after the first application as that would have been for an even longer post.
Mac didn't mention I am a site sponsor, since when I make a post, it will show..
Proof is in the results.When Mac called, he promised to be a tough taskmaster but fair, and post the good the bad and the ugly, including if it is noteworthy to stand on its own, and in this case it is noteworthy at the front, again, without knocking any competing stuff. It is all good, Moly-Fusion is of course unique. Highly refined Moly-Disulphide is good, but Moly-Fusion is different.
It is defined as fusion from a chemistry(covalent) point-of-view, not as turning lead into gold on the more exotic side, nor "merely" "a bright idea".
Note: Mac says he approached me after becoming interested due to a friend and others, so thanks to those!
This is the same thing that happened to Stephen Camp for his handgun use, and posted “Conclusion & Observations: Does the Moly-Fusion work or is it sucker bait? Based upon what I have been able to see, it is good stuff and it does work” Mac mirrors the same thing, except for this forum-specific.
That's my weight in on posts preceding this one.
Jonathan Doege.
http://molyfusion.com/mfgundiykits.html, where did Mac review it from?
http://www.shootersolutions.com/molyfusion1.html and
http://shootersolutions.com/mfgundiykits.html, to show Shooter Solutions’ ownership.
I hope the post isn’t too long. For better or worse, I’m giving my gut reaction on a few important things before this post, and I stand behind Mac as to his integrity, and the reason I mention Stephen Camp as on topic to this test is because his last-year on-line published independent review, in up front stated goal was to see if it was any good, he would be independent in testing, and all of the good, the bad, and the ugly would get posted, as is his way.
