As you may be aware, part of Fireclean’s new lawsuit has to do with my article regarding the Fireclean Lube Test video they made with Larry Vickers about nine months before the controversy began.
In the original version of their Arizona lawsuit, they included the line “After the comparison, David Sugg and Edward Sugg observe and comment on the testing.”
In their amended complaint, however, they added something to this sentence in addition to changing “David Sugg and Edward Sugg” to “The Sugg Brothers” – it now reads “…and Vickers concludes there was ‘not much difference’ between the dry gun, CLP, and Fireclean.”
With the Vickers video having been taken down by the LAV himself, a mistake appears to have been made in describing the video in its absence.
Fortunately, a copy of the video was preserved and re-uploaded to YouTube by a third party the very same day I wrote my article about the video. It is now cited in my Motion to Dismiss, and you can watch it here.
In the video, Vickers makes the following statement before testing:
4:55 “Fireclean will be properly applied by the Fireclean brothers, and then we’ll see what kind of fouling we get coming out the ejection port and the muzzle. Hopefully, we think you’ll be able to see this on high speed camera and you’ll be able to see the amount of fouling that’s jettisoned out of the gun and therefore keeps the gun cleaner.”
During testing, he says:
9:00 “My gut is, not a lot more than the CLP, but a bit more.”
9:15 “Last up, Bravo Company carbine with Fireclean applied. Going to check out the ejection port and the muzzle and I think we’re going to see some extra debris blowing downrange.”
After testing, Vickers says:
9:47 “Dramatic. That was much more noticeable. A lot more vented out. Compare that to the dry”
10:25 “With CLP or certainly Fireclean, there is more debris coming out of the gun… From what I saw, to summarize, more debris comes out of the gun with Fireclean in a handgun, but dramatically more with a carbine. That’s what I saw, and I think it’s 100% due to the pressures involved.”
At no time does Vickers say that there was “‘not much difference’ between the dry gun, CLP, and Fireclean” as claimed in in their First Amended Complaint.
On page 13 of their response to my motion to dismiss, Fireclean claims they can “provide evidence, such as the results of scientifically sound lab tests, eyewitness testimony, and expert testimony, to prove the FAC’s allegations that they did not falsify any video test results or mislead the public” – but if you follow the reference they make to the original document, it’s just the IR testing comparing Fireclean to various types of Crisco – it doesn’t have anything to do with the video. None of their 200 pages of exhibits contains a reproduction or re-verification of the Fireclean Lube Test video.
Elsewhere in their complaint, Fireclean accuses me of ruining their business relationship with Larry Vickers. In their case against George Fennell they did not put Larry Vickers on their witness list even though they did include another industry personality. They also fought hard to have themselves defined as expert witnesses.
I encourage you to read these items, watch the video, and come to your own conclusions about what this means.