The authoritative public forum
  for Metal Finishing since 1989
  

  -----

MIL-L-11195 or MIL-DTL-11195? Dipcoating

2007

I am quoting a mil spec coating job (MIL-STD-171E 20.2 after 5.1.1 zinc phosphate) and have received paint quotes for both L-11195D and DTL-11195G.

I understand that DTL-11195 is a low-VOC enamel as opposed to lacquer.

Do both meet the current standard?

What are the advantages/disadvantages?

Dipcoating is my preferred process. I have read that the lacquer will dip coat well with one part thinner. Is dipcoating recommended for either or both? Can thickness specification of .8 to 1.2 mils be held?

What thinners/ratios are recommended for the two paints?

Thanks for any help!

Kelly Warnock
Milspec Painting - Ridgeland, MS

---

Use the current standard, MIL-DTL-11195G ENAMEL, LUSTERLESS, FAST DRY, VOC COMPLIANT, (FOR USE ON AMMUNITION AND OTHER METALS), not the D version dated 1964! Paint must be from the most recent QPL, presently QPL-11195-31 (09-AUG-2006). Note the 2 types; Type II has greater corrosion resistance. Apply per current standard and manufacturer's instructions.

The only application method mentioned is spraying. Thinning by 1/8 with A-A-3007 thinner is allowed. A dry film thickness of 0.0013 to 0.0017 inches is mentioned for test panels.

Ken Vlach [deceased]
- Goleta, California
Finishing.com honored Ken for his countless carefully researched responses. He passed away May 14, 2015.
Rest in peace, Ken. Thank you for your hard work which the finishing world, and we at finishing.com, continue to benefit from.
2007

---

2007

Thanks for the help.

Are you saying that even though MIL-STD-171E currently lists MIL-L-11195 it is not currently acceptable?

Or just that MIL-DTL11195 is a better product?

Kelly Warnock
- Ridgeland, MS

---

2007

MIL-L-11195 is unacceptable for government work. The lacquer formulations are possibly illegal under EPA rules, definitely so if containing PbCrO4, so cannot use for commercial work, either.

Superseded specifications are obsolete. Occasionally, newer specs. allow using the obsolete spec. for replacement or repairs on older parts (but not new production). I see no such language in this specification. MIL-STD-171E was written in 1989, so many of its citations require following a revision paper trail to the current specification. MIL-L-11195D was superseded by the 'E' revision, then 'F' and presently 'G,' MIL-DTL-11195G. The 'E' revision in 1993 made the change to enamel, lead- and chromate-free.

Further, each '11195' spec. requires using materials listed on the most recently published QPL, presently QPL-11195-31. As to better, 'G' Type I coatings have the same 120 hours salt spray requirement as 'D' coatings. However, 'G' Type II have a 240 hours requirement.

Ken Vlach [deceased]
- Goleta, California
Finishing.com honored Ken for his countless carefully researched responses. He passed away May 14, 2015.
Rest in peace, Ken. Thank you for your hard work which the finishing world, and we at finishing.com, continue to benefit from.