Review: RAND CLP

When it comes to lubricating my firearms, I have found that just about anything will work as long as you use enough of it. If you keep the bolt wet, an good AR-15 will run like a sewing machine. This makes me very skeptical of and even uncomfortable with lubes that make grand claims. However, I acknowledge that while just about any lube will work, some lubes have properties that make them preferable in some ways to others. It is with this understanding that I approached this review RAND CLP, a fairly new CLP on the market.

Rand CLP


RAND CLP is a non-toxic, non-combustible, vegetable oil based gun lube that can used to Clean, Lube, and Protect (from corrosion) your firearms. Its consistency is a bit thicker than most gun oils and it has little to no smell. RAND claims that it provides faster and easier cleaning after pretreatment.

RAND also claims the following:

“The state of the art nanotechnology we use allows our nano-particles work their way into the metal in your firearm and form a protective shield against rust, carbon and dirt. The vegetable oil acts as a scavenger, “lifting” the carbon/fouling from the metal, allowing it to be wiped away easily during cleaning.”

One of the nano-particles used is Boron which RAND claims has the potential to make the gun run cooler because it “has the characteristic of pulling heat from metal.”

Observations from Use

Some of these claims make me uneasy about this review because I can’t verify any of the nanotechnology by taking an AR-15 to the range. The heat reduction claim sounds a lot like one of those things that could be real in theory but makes very little difference in practice. I can’t really test it and I can’t imagine it makes that much of a difference. Heat is the enemy of machines. If you run your gun hard, it is going to get hot no matter what lube you use. I am not saying that RAND CLP doesn’t do everything it claims. I am just saying that I can’t test it and that is typical of a lot of marketing claims in the gun oil world. So, all that said, I set out to test RAND CLP on its merits as a gun oil without regard for nanotechnology.

I like a gun lube that stays where I put it. This is a bit of a balancing act because a lube shouldn’t be so thick that it gels in cold weather or so thin that is runs off the parts that it is supposed to protect. RAND CLP does a good job of staying where you apply it. I applied 5 drops of it to the surface of a relatively clean AR-15 bolt carrier group along with 5 drops of another gun oil to another bolt carrier group, spread it around with my fingers, and then placed the guns in the safe with their muzzles up. Both bolt carrier groups looks very wet when they were first placed in the safe.

After 5 days, the bolt carrier group that was treated with RAND CLP was still wet while the other bolt carrier group looked and felt basically dry. Most of the oil from bolt carrier group treated with the other lube had seeped out around the take down pin and down into the receiver extension where it could do little to no good. The RAND CLP treated bolt carrier group was not as wet as it was when I first placed it in the safe, but it was definitely still wet. In fact, after more than 2 weeks, the bolt carrier group was still somewhat wet in appearance and feel. I haven’t tried any other lubes that stay put quite this well.

Rand CLP Comparison

Lube brand X after 5 days in the safe…

Rand CLP 5 Days

RAND CLP after 5 days in the safe…

I used RAND CLP to clean in two different ways. First, I cleaned an already dirty bolt carrier group that had a different brand’s lube on it. The RAND CLP did a decent job though I am not sure it did any better than a dedicated cleaning product. It isn’t like the carbon on the bolt tail wiped away on its own. It still required scraping. Second, I pretreated a bolt to see how it worked when used in the way RAND suggests. It definitely cleaned up fairly easily but many gun oils will have this effect if you pre-treat the bolt. The bottom line here is that it is an effective cleaner but it isn’t magic. I don’t need magic. I just need something that works well enough that I don’t have to carry multiple cleaning products to the range (just in case I want to go completely out of character and decide to clean a rifle at the range) and RAND CLP delivers on that.

There are three things that I wasn’t really thinking about at first but that I really came to appreciate as I directly compared RAND CLP with other gun lubes that I was already using. First, RAND CLP doesn’t smell. I can get it all over my hands without smelling like a medicine cabinet. Second, it doesn’t really smoke. Many gun lubes can start to smoke as the gun gets hot. RAND CLP wasn’t as smokey as most (it still smokes) and, in fact, it didn’t seem to burn off as readily as similar products. Finally, I really like that RAND CLP is a traditional oil and by that I mean, you don’t have to do any pretreatment before you use it. I can just drop some into the the ejection port and start shooting.

I should also mention that RAND CLP has a very smooth feel to it when you hand cycle a treated AR-15. If you have ever switched from an old CLP to a more modern one, you know what I am talking about. You can really feel and hear a difference. The charging handle feels smoother, less gritty, and there is less of that crunchy metal on metal sound that can sometimes still remain after treatment with a poor lube. RAND CLP slicks up the action immediately. It is like an instant break in. This isn’t unique to RAND CLP but it is a mark of a good lube.

Wrap Up

In spite of the nanotechnology and heat removal claims that make me grit my teeth, I am actually very happy with this lube. It doesn’t smell, it doesn’t smoke, it feels very smooth, and, most importantly, it stays where you put it. It is also an effective enough cleaner that I would feel comfortable leaving the Hoppes at home (that’s right, I still use Hoppes) when I go to the range.

Check out RAND CLP.

5 Responses to Review: RAND CLP

  1. Will Maxwell May 24, 2013 at 19:06 #

    Sounds like the claims made by Frog Lube and FireClean. I’d love to have someone use and compare across multiple range visits. Thanks for given me something else to buy/try 🙂

    • Matt May 24, 2013 at 19:20 #

      I don’t think you would see much difference with the firearms that I use. AR-15s just need to be kept wet regardless of which lube is used and my Glocks are very tolerant of being run without oil (not that I would recommend it). I suspect that it wouldn’t make much difference for most people which is why I like this RAND CLP – at least it has the benefits of not stinking and staying where you put it.

  2. Tim May 26, 2013 at 10:29 #

    Hello I’m Tim, a Territory Manager for RAND Brands, and we have a testimonial/review written by SFC
    Keith Waller Special Forces Weapons
    Sergeant at Ft. Bragg. He ran a 10-day intensive shooting course, where his guys ran an average of over 2k rounds a day, after only a single pretreat of RAND. This included Colt
    M4,Smith & Wesson M&P 15, Glock 19,
    Berretta M9,and the Glock 17. Ever tried that? Even for a casual shooter, most of the time when you run a couple hundred rounds through an AR you have to lube it several times. Thank you for your review of our CLP. It was very fair and unbiased, although, when you are running a weapon at the range is where you will really start to notice the difference, and of course the clean up afterwards.

  3. dave July 10, 2013 at 05:51 #

    Did you even range test this product?What’s the point of posting a review for God, Google and the NSA to peruse for the rest of time that has no trigger time to back it up? You might as well be putting lip gloss on your bcg.

    • Matt July 10, 2013 at 07:11 #


      Did you even read the review before you posted? What is the point of posting a comment for God, Google, and the NSA to peruse for the rest of time if you make assumptions that make you look silly.

      Yes it was used on the range hence the comments about how pleased I was with how little it smoked and how little it burned off. Were you expecting some other revelations from range testing? Running multiple thousands of rounds on a drop of lube is not realistic and even it is was, there is no way to verify that it is the lube actually causing some kind of positive effect and not just the reliability of the test system without doing it multiple times. I would gladly test the lube that way as soon as you, or someone else, drop ships the ammo. 8000 rounds should be a good start.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes