PDF VERSION

11828 Pika Drive, Waldorf, Maryland 20602 USA
Phone (301) 893-3910 Fax: (301) 893-8354
Internet: www.militec-1.com

October 18, 2005
To: MG Nadeau, Commander, RDECOM
From: Brad P. Giordani, President
Subj: Your letter dated October 12, 2005 to Sen. Mikulski

In your letter to Senator Mikulski you wrote:

“MILITEC-1 was tested against the requirements of Mil-PRF- 63460, Performance Specification Lubricant, Cleaner and Preservative for Weapons and Weapons Systems (CLP). The data collected was analyzed by both the Government and an independent laboratory. Both concluded that MILITEC-1 does not meet the specification requirements as a weapons lubricant.”

Militec, Inc has always agreed that MILITEC-1 does not meet the specification requirements as a weapons lubricant for CLP. This is not the point. Instead, we can prove that Mil-PRF- 63460 is an inadequate and improper specification for a weapons lubricant to be used in a desert environment.

The sole purpose of this recent testing (initiated by Gen Paul Kern) was to find a lubricant that would work properly in a desert environment. The simulated and controlled laboratory procedures you cite as evidence do not, and cannot, correlate to desert combat conditions that our troops encounter for the following reasons:

(A) The user conditions our troops encounter are the exact opposite of your testing (lab controls vs. field conditions). (B) The exact opposite application instructions were used for desert environments (wet weapons vs. dry weapons). (C) RDECOM used the exact opposite contaminates that our soldiers’ weapons are exposed to (silica mesh flour versus real sand).

Since real-world desert lubricant testing was not performed, the proper performance baseline between wet weapons performance in a controlled lab environment versus dry weapons performance in desert combat conditions cannot be established. In desert environments, weapons must be carried dry (and covered when possible). CLP makes this impossible because it attracts and holds dust and sand to gunmetal.

The other easily correctable problem is that weapons manuals that establish the proper application of CLP/Lubricant to gunmetal in a desert environment have never been published for our troops. This is due to the following reasons:

(A) CLP and all other MilSpec Lubricants cannot be used wet in a desert environment (they trap dust and sand). (B) If all excess oil is removed (dry weapon), CLP is ineffective (lack of lubrication). (C) This “Catch-22” situation (wet weapons don’t work, but CLP can’t be used dry) means there cannot be a proper way to apply CLP in the desert.

In response to our 15 years of criticism (and unprecedented soldier support) concerning the defective nature of CLP, especially in desert environments, RDECOM/ARDEC is advising our soldiers to apply CLP or any other CLP lubricant to gunmetal and then wipe off all excess lubricant. The problem with doing this is that in sustained gunfights there is not enough lubrication on the gunmetal to reduce temperatures and counter the barrage of contaminates that create the conditions for jammed weapons. Col. Michael Smith’s MSWORD SWAT Report states to our troops that “soldiers’ elbow grease” is the best lubricant to use in the desert. This is a deadly position for our troops! The link to his ARDEC report is located at: www.militec1.com/swat.pdf.

Weapons must be carried dry (and sometimes covered) in desert environments to help avoid sand and dust cementing to the gunmetal. In desert environments wet oil traps dust particles to gunmetal, where dry lubricated gunmetal does not. This is why the simulated testing under your command produced results that were exactly the opposite of what our troops reported when they were fresh off combat in Iraq. The link to the May 15, 2003 PEO Soldier After Action Report (AAR) is located at: www.militec1.com/OperationIraqiFreedom.pdf

Since OEF, our troops have sent us over 20,000 emails and received over one million bottles of MILITEC-1 to use on all their weapons. I attached below one email I received this morning from a concerned soldier.

----- Original Message -----
From: XXXXXXXXXXXX
To: militec@militec1.com
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 11:04 PM
Subject: Militec NEEDED!!!!!!!
We are about to deploy at Fort Stewart and we are still waiting for the DSCR order from 4 monthes ago!! Please help us!
Spc. XX XX.
XX
Hinesville GA 31313
1 case (200 bottles) 1/2 oz bottles

FOR THE RECORD:
(A) The recent simulated desert testing sanctioned by your command is faulty. (B) Our troops have proven in combat that the CLP product your command supports is defective. (C) The civilians under your command have a deep bias towards me and cannot admit that they have supported a defective weapons lubricant (CLP) for the past twentyfive years that is directly responsible for jammed weapons and dead troops. I would like to meet with you at your convenience, or provide us your POC so we may send additional information that will allow you to root out the truth.

Brad P. Giordani