Do you clean a gun before selling?

[Plenty_Pack_556]

But seriously, what I said was a suggestion, precaution for others using Ultrasonic cleaners on aluminum, and online gun subreddits and gun forums threads backs up my suggestion more than it backs up 2 users in this thread that is against my suggestion.

Why are you 2 so adamant that it won't ruin it?

What backings do you 2 have to prove your instead of talking ?

Oh look, a Gun Website that also decided not to use Ultrasonic Cleaner on aluminum. On a review of Ultrasonic Cleaners for Brass and Gun Parts.

2 Best Ultrasonic Gun & Case Cleaners [Hornady vs Lyman]

Want to save time, keep your hands clean, and get ridiculously clean brass? Check out our hands-on review of the best ultrasonic cleaners: Hornady vs Lyman.

www.pewpewtactical.com

 

[Skilly]

And, does it dissolve aluminum or not? I proved a point, which you failed to prove.

Did it dissolve the aluminum or did it not?
I don't understand how much a dumbass you gotta be.

You said UC does not dissolve aluminum? I said it does. Now you walking back?

Is aluminum foil not metal. Aluminum is aluminum. I proved my point, where's yours.

Retarded.

OK. The end of your note, charming. Was that a signature, or where you name calling?

Couple of things - foil is perforating from the bubbles, so its NOT dissolving, its creating a mini event that is putting holes in it. Now here's the part where I seem to lose you. The difference between tinfoil and 6061, or 7075 Aluminum is substantial.

Tinfoil is 16 microns thick and this instance used for hats, not for firearms.....unless you can point to a gun made from tinfoil.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

---

The end of your note, charming. Was that a signature, or where you name calling?

That was me saying this conversation is retarded. I provided links to a source of what I was talking about.

You, none. When did you get your Ultrasonic Cleaner? Not too long ago, based on

I recently purchased a sonic cleaner on Amazon. It makes life a LOT easier.

And now you're an expert. Just link a source or 2.

 

[Skilly]

That was me saying this conversation is retarded. I provided links to a source of what I was talking about.

You, none. When did you get your Ultrasonic Cleaner? Not too long ago, based on



And now you're an expert. Just link a source or 2.

Fine, Ill help you. Here are a few:

This is the machine that I have (and have been using for the better part of 9 months). Literally 100s of examples of law enforcement, and military referenced customers:

Infante Ultrasonic Gun Cleaners | Trusted by Industry Leaders

Discover why top firearms manufacturers and law enforcement agencies choose Infante ultrasonic gun cleaners. Superior technology for professional-grade firearm maintenance.

www.infanteultrasonics.com

Here is another supplier, that even references the foil test you mentioned (just scroll down):

FAQs

www.lrultrasonics.com

Finally, here is an independent study. The lab tests that document cavitation damage to aluminum concentrate the energy onto a single spot at point-blank range for hours, at a much harsher frequency than any ultra sonic machine, and even then the damage is gradual microscopic pitting with an incubation period before any mass loss is measurable.

Loading…

www.sciencedirect.com

A gun cleaning tank spreads far gentler cavitation over the whole part for ten minutes (or less). On the order of hundreds to thousands of times less intense at the surface, by reasonable estimate.

I'll just defer back to what might be middle ground. Used incorrectly (chemically), these machines CAN cause damage. But the machines themselves are not the origin of the damage.

 

[jclusin]

No way, they get sold in the same condition as the pictures I took of them.

Ragebait opinion: I clean them when they start to jam. If wiping it off with a paper towel and kind of oil doesn't fix it, then probably time to change a spring or something.

 

[sonofeugene]

If you were to measure a metal rod with a micrometer, and then leave it in an ultrasonic cleaner, running for 24 hours, you could not measure any differences. It’s a non issue.

 

[sonofeugene]

And how do you think gun manufacturers clean parts before assembling a gun? They ultrasonically clean them.

 

[sonofeugene]

Worrying about ultrasonic cleaners is like worrying about magazine springs degrading from being compressed in a magazine.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

Fine, Ill help you. Here are a few:

This is the machine that I have (and have been using for the better part of 9 months). Literally 100s of examples of law enforcement, and military referenced customers:

Infante Ultrasonic Gun Cleaners | Trusted by Industry Leaders

Discover why top firearms manufacturers and law enforcement agencies choose Infante ultrasonic gun cleaners. Superior technology for professional-grade firearm maintenance.

www.infanteultrasonics.com

Here is another supplier, that even references the foil test you mentioned (just scroll down):

FAQs

www.lrultrasonics.com

Finally, here is an independent study. The lab tests that document cavitation damage to aluminum concentrate the energy onto a single spot at point-blank range for hours, at a much harsher frequency than any ultra sonic machine, and even then the damage is gradual microscopic pitting with an incubation period before any mass loss is measurable.

Loading…

www.sciencedirect.com

A gun cleaning tank spreads far gentler cavitation over the whole part for ten minutes (or less). On the order of hundreds to thousands of times less intense at the surface, by reasonable estimate.

I'll just defer back to what might be middle ground. Used incorrectly (chemically), these machines CAN cause damage. But the machines themselves are not the origin of the damage.

Bro stop lying. You bought a Infante Ultasonic cleaner from Amazon where it was never sold.
F-ing bull lie.

Second, did you read your 2nd link?
Mass loss has been measured, and they used different aluminum alloy and coatings that is not the common 6061 and 7075 aluminum alloys used in gun parts.

Mass loss​

As shown in Table 2, the mass losses of 2124–2000 and 2124–5000 are 0.90 mg and 0.89 mg after 15 h cavitation tests. The results are very close to the one obtained by Bazanini and Bressan [22], which worked with a rotating disk of 250 mm in diameter, using only a smaller hole as cavitation inducer. Compared with our test conditions, Bazanini used a greater sample diameter of 25.4 mm and a higher peripheral velocity of 47.9 m/s. It is believed that the sample with a larger surface and a higher

Conclusions​

• (1)
  In contrast to the aluminum alloy, the MAO coatings elongate the incubation period of aluminum alloy in the cavitation tests, leading to an excellent cavitation erosion resistance. MAO coatings cannot only reduce the amount of the erosion pits, but also decrease the MDE due to the cavitation damage.
• (2)
  Different from the continuous increasing of the MDE of the aluminum alloy, the MDE of the MAO coating increases in the beginning of the cavitation tests, and keeps constant with further increasing

You didn't know which aluminum alloys were used in gun parts, did ya? Bullter.

When you can stop lying to kick it, then I'll take you seriously.

 

[peahi2]

Common decency. Plus buyer might refuse the purchase. You wouldn’t take a scummy gin would you?

 

[kdub1290]

I clean guns I sell because you never know how the other person feels about how clean guns their guns should be. Better safe than risk my trader score. Personally, I don’t care much about a gun I buy being squeaky clean (within reason for a gun seeing normal use). I’m going to clean it when I get it as a portion of the process of taking it apart and inspecting it anyways.

 

[jclusin]

Common decency. Plus buyer might refuse the purchase. You wouldn’t take a scummy gin would you?

If I'm buying a used one I wouldn't mind a filthy one, can probably use it to negotiate a lower price??

 

[Skilly]

Bro stop lying. You bought a Infante Ultasonic cleaner from Amazon where it was never sold.
F-ing bull lie.

Second, did you read your 2nd link?
Mass loss has been measured, and they used different aluminum alloy and coatings that is not the common 6061 and 7075 aluminum alloys used in gun parts.

Mass loss​

As shown in Table 2, the mass losses of 2124–2000 and 2124–5000 are 0.90 mg and 0.89 mg after 15 h cavitation tests. The results are very close to the one obtained by Bazanini and Bressan [22], which worked with a rotating disk of 250 mm in diameter, using only a smaller hole as cavitation inducer. Compared with our test conditions, Bazanini used a greater sample diameter of 25.4 mm and a higher peripheral velocity of 47.9 m/s. It is believed that the sample with a larger surface and a higher

Conclusions​

• (1)
  In contrast to the aluminum alloy, the MAO coatings elongate the incubation period of aluminum alloy in the cavitation tests, leading to an excellent cavitation erosion resistance. MAO coatings cannot only reduce the amount of the erosion pits, but also decrease the MDE due to the cavitation damage.
• (2)
  Different from the continuous increasing of the MDE of the aluminum alloy, the MDE of the MAO coating increases in the beginning of the cavitation tests, and keeps constant with further increasing

You didn't know which aluminum alloys were used in gun parts, did ya? Bullter.

When you can stop lying to kick it, then I'll take you seriously.

Ha, first reading isn't your thing is it but throwing insults is...cool. Pesky facts anger you? - and hey, how wrong are all of those agencies as active references. Man, they should talk to you right? You did catch me on a typo though - I actually purchased the Infante though Optics Planet; I can send you a discount code when you are ready!

Now to address your constructive feedback. I guess I could start by stating gun parts aren't made with tin foil. As far is 6061/7075 you do realize 7075 is the least likely to be impacted in this test? So if there were something beyond foil to prove your case, 2024 is a great middle road option.

And then more specifically your interpretation of the test. I don't suppose you actually read and understand the cut/paste you did? Maybe note the testing cycle? It says it right there - 15 hrs or the equivalent of 90 normal cycle runs for cleaning a firearm. Also, did you consider what 0.90mg of mass means? It's the equivalent of about a grain of sand. In AR Lowers terms, a forged lower would be about 220g of aluminum; a billet could be double that. Staying with the lighter of the two, thats 0.0004% of the total mass.

Do you know what the Dunning-Kruger Effect is?

 

[RustVendor]

Clean you guns or else you may end up getting lectured about ultrasonic cleaners

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

Ha, first reading isn't your thing is it but throwing insults is...cool. Pesky facts anger you? - and hey, how wrong are all of those agencies as active references. Man, they should talk to you right? You did catch me on a typo though - I actually purchased the Infante though Optics Planet; I can send you a discount code when you are ready!

Now to address your constructive feedback. I guess I could start by stating gun parts aren't made with tin foil. As far is 6061/7075 you do realize 7075 is the least likely to be impacted in this test? So if there were something beyond foil to prove your case, 2024 is a great middle road option.

And then more specifically your interpretation of the test. I don't suppose you actually read and understand the cut/paste you did? Maybe note the testing cycle? It says it right there - 15 hrs or the equivalent of 90 normal cycle runs for cleaning a firearm. Also, did you consider what 0.90mg of mass means? It's the equivalent of about a grain of sand. In AR Lowers terms, a forged lower would be about 220g of aluminum; a billet could be double that. Staying with the lighter of the two, thats 0.0004% of the total mass.

Do you know what the Dunning-Kruger Effect is?

Read and pay attention.





Not the same, and not used for same. But you do you and stick with that Amazon Ultrasonic Cleaner that you want to bull to people saying you have a Infante off Amazon.

 

[Skilly]

Clean you guns or else you may end up getting lectured about ultrasonic cleaners

Haha, thats awesome and perfectly timed!! Ill own it and be glad to break the cycle!

 

[-D.M.-]

Of the half dozen ppt's I've done in the last couple of years, every single one was superficially "clean" but filthy internals.

Contrast that to the one gun I sold, I broke it down and meticulously cleaned it, the magazines, the case... Everything.

That's just the way it be sometimes I guess.

 

[Gawernator]

But seriously, what I said was a suggestion, precaution for others using Ultrasonic cleaners on aluminum, and online gun subreddits and gun forums threads backs up my suggestion more than it backs up 2 users in this thread that is against my suggestion.

Why are you 2 so adamant that it won't ruin it?

What backings do you 2 have to prove your instead of talking ?

Oh look, a Gun Website that also decided not to use Ultrasonic Cleaner on aluminum. On a review of Ultrasonic Cleaners for Brass and Gun Parts.

2 Best Ultrasonic Gun & Case Cleaners [Hornady vs Lyman]

Want to save time, keep your hands clean, and get ridiculously clean brass? Check out our hands-on review of the best ultrasonic cleaners: Hornady vs Lyman.

www.pewpewtactical.com

who's the baddie in your pfp

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

who's the baddie in your pfp

I don't know. For the longest time I thought it was AOC with an AK in college, but beginning to have my doubts.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

Gun cleaning solvents have no effect on metal gun parts.

Ammonia based cleaning solvents that dissolve copper residue. Leaving these inside barrels and overuse of these can lead to etching and pitting.

Chlorinated cleaning solvents or brake cleaners can cause bare metal, which then rusts and corrodes.

I suggest everyone just read online or elsewhere to get better info on cleaning or ultrasonicing, instead of a "2 vs 1 conversation."