Scope mounting loctite or not?

[Jpsmith1]

Liberals are blue... Always go red!

As a user of Purple loctite for most small fasteners, lol

 

[Valumpessa]

Using thread locker creates a wet thread, A wet thread can not be torqued accurately as it will slightly throw off the torque reading, and may result in over torque situation that could cause damage to the mount and/or scope.
Thanks,
SEAN ASH
Warne Tech Support

Out of curiosity, are Warne screws not pre-greased like Talleys?

 

[omicron1792]

This thread just keeps pointing out the vast majority of the public’s lack of ability to use critical thinking skills, and sheep like appeal to authority. It is absolutely disgusting and a direct look into what is going wrong with the US as a whole. Here you have several people pointing out over and over having personal experience with scopes coming loose and a fool proof way to fix and prevent it. Then you have people that provide nothing to the argument of substance or actual experience other than “I heard, was told”, or “my gunsmith says” ,or I’ve been doing it forever “this” way and it’s fine, “trust me I have 40 years experience but I’ve never used loctite on rings!” I can’t believe the same voices keep saying the same crap over and over thinking that repeating it is somehow going to make it true with out having any real evidence or testing.

As for the constant appeal to authority, remember %50 of engineers, gunsmiths, and snipers graduated at the bottom half of their class. Feel free to fact check that…

Everything is broken until you fix it

Ryan

Comparing a manufacturer recommendation to blindly following authority is silly. Next time just put diesel in your gas car and connect your microwave to a 220 when the instructions say a 110.

 

[omicron1792]

Out of curiosity, are Warne screws not pre-greased like Talleys?

I’ve owned over 10 warne ring sets and have never seen any “greased.”

 

[Macintosh]

Just got this answer from warne.

SEAN ASH (Warne Scope Mounts)

Apr 19, 2024, 8:02 AM PDT

Using thread locker creates a wet thread, A wet thread can not be torqued accurately as it will slightly throw off the torque reading, and may result in over torque situation that could cause damage to the mount and/or scope.

Thanks,
SEAN ASH
Warne Tech Support

Did you ask him if they have actually measured an increase in clamping force between their “lightly oiled” (ie also wet) screws versus Loctited screws, or are they assuming all their customers decrease the screws before applying a calibrated torque wrench?
Also, since this seems to be such a critical measurement, maybe ask them if using the supplied L wrench, if you accidentally apply exactly 3.6 inch pounds too much torque on your properly de-greased screws, if that will be a problem? I know everyone here can determine exactly when they’re at 18 inch pounds using an Allen wrench, and not 21.6 pounds, that would just be dumb, but just on the off chance that someone slips up while distracted or the sun gets in their eyes. 3.6 inch pounds being a 20% increase from 18 inch pounds, as suggested by many scope manufacturers. And also, coincidentally, approximately coinciding with the increase you might see with a loctited screw vs a dry degreased screw. Just a coincidence though. (please forgive the sarcasm, I cant help myself, not intending to belittle anyone, just call out the contradiction in what's being said)

Also, you are talking to a customer service person, not an engineer. The answer you are getting is out of their customer service manual on how someone else decided they are going to communicate to customers to balance function with customer-idiot-proofing. Sure, dont disregard it blindly, but also dont follow it blindly.

Also, also: "de-greased" is the word I know for "chemically removing all lubrication or oil from a surface". I think we're talking about a rust-preventative oil that comes already-applied to all of the fasteners that come with scope rings, and does serve to prevent rust as well as to add some lubricity to the fastener as it's torqued, and "de-greasing" would be using acetone or gasoline or whatever to remove all of that lubricating oil. I dont know of any manufacturer who recommends degreasing their screws, so it seems they are actually telling you that the 18inlb or whatever they recommend IS a "wet torque" already...that's the point I've been trying to make for several posts. Why they then say loctite is a problem when that isnt...well, my guess is its momentum and past problems with warranty where ham-handed customers went overboard tightening with the allen wrench, maybe some damaged very delicate scopes not in their control, stripped screw-heads, etc.

As long as we are quoting manufacturers, here's another one: (relevant from about 1:10-3:00)

 

[Sandstrom]

No what's going wrong in this country is acting like a cry baby liberal when someone else has an opinion other than yours. It's pretty much my way or the highway. We were just pointing out our experiences and were backing that up with industry practices that obviously work or these companies would be out of business. We all can learn something new you're never too old for that. Of course only if you're open minded and not narrow or close minded. In the end do what makes you happy and works for you.

Thank you for %100 making my point!!

Bonus points for name calling

 

[Valumpessa]

I’ve owned over 10 warne ring sets and have never seen any “greased.”

Grease, oil, you know what I mean. Okay, I'll assume that means they are completely dry, not "wet". Good to know, thanks.

 

[BBob]

Here you have several people pointing out over and over having personal experience with scopes coming loose and a fool proof way to fix and prevent it.

I have 40 years experience but I’ve never used loctite on rings

Tell me the difference between those two groups? Both say it works for them. You allude to one side has proof but the other doesn’t? Torqued properly (cleaned and dry) I’ve never had an issue with rings coming loose without thread locker so you can count me in that group. Did I specifically go out and drop test, beat test it? No, but when follow up checked after being shot a zillion times and hunted they aren’t loose and are still at original torque. So there that’s my experience not some made up I want it to be that way experience.

 

[CampSmith]

Thank you for %100 making my point!!

Bonus points for name calling

Wait a minute none of us were doing anything other than voicing our opinion and experiences. When all of a sudden the know it alls on this forum tried to impose their ultimate wisdom on anyone who has an opposing opinion they starting being sarcastic and condescending and acting like nobody knew anything except them. And you categorize anyone who didn't agree with your opinion or views as what's wrong with the country. Check yourself next time.

 

[BBob]

As a user of Purple loctite for most small fasteners, lol

I use a lot of Loctite 222 (it’s great stuff) but not on my rings

Edit: If I were to use a thread locker on rings I’d pick 222. It’s made for small fasteners, it doesn’t come loose if prepped properly and you can get it apart without tearing up the fastener like 242 can cause at times.

 

[CampSmith]

Tell me the difference between those two groups? Both say it works for them. You allude to one side has proof but the other doesn’t? Torqued properly (cleaned and dry) I’ve never had an issue with rings coming loose without thread locker so you can count me in that group. Did I specifically go out and drop test, beat test it? No, but when follow up checked after being shot a zillion times and hunted they aren’t loose and are still at original torque. So there that’s my experience not some made up I want it to be that way experience.

Exactly

 

[5811]

Just know I always used blue loctite on them until I damaged a scope. Haha

Can you expand on this, please? I know you said steiner scope, but what rings, torque measuring device, torque you applied, and recommended torque by ring and scope manufacturers?

 

[Formidilosus]

Tell me the difference between those two groups? Both say it works for them. You allude to one side has proof but the other doesn’t?

That is an extremely poor analogy. Your analogy is akin to a couple of people saying that they have smoked three packs of cigarettes a day for 40 years and don’t have cancer or lung problems- so the people saying not to smoke three packs a day are dumb.

Torqued properly (cleaned and dry) I’ve never had an issue with rings coming loose without thread locker so you can count me in that group. Did I specifically go out and drop test, beat test it? No, but when follow up checked after being shot a zillion times and hunted they aren’t loose and are still at original torque. So there that’s my experience not some made up I want it to be that way experience.

A zillion rounds fired? Can you show clear pictures of those rifles with a zillion rounds fired on them?

 

[CampSmith]

That is an extremely poor analogy. Your analogy is akin to a couple of people saying that they have smoked three packs of cigarettes a day for 40 years and don’t have cancer or lung problems- so the people saying not to smoke three packs a day are dumb.





A zillion rounds fired? Can you show clear pictures of those rifles with a zillion rounds fired on them?

You ever hear of James Eagleman the ex special forces sniper who runs Barbour Creek Shooting Academy? Guess what seen him mount scopes without loctite on the rings and guess what. Those rifles are fired 1000's of times a year in his classes. He recently swapped a barrel on one with over 4000 round on it. Still hitting original poa with no change in poi just groups were opening up because barrel was toast. Now tell me he doesn't know what he's doing or talking about. Just because the way you do it works for you doesn't mean that's the only way to do it.

 

[SDHNTR]

You ever hear of James Eagleman the ex special forces sniper who runs Barbour Creek Shooting Academy? Guess what seen him mount scopes without loctite on the rings and guess what. Those rifles are fired 1000's of times a year in his classes. He recently swapped a barrel on one with over 4000 round on it. Still hitting original poi just groups were opening up because barrel was toast. Now tell me he doesn't know what he's doing or talking about.

Yes, but the haircut automatically disqualifies anything he says.

 

[Formidilosus]

You ever hear of James Eagleman the ex special forces sniper who runs Barbour Creek Shooting Academy?

Appeal to authority doesn’t work on me.


“The Appeal to Authority fallacy is a logical fallacy which occurs when an individual attempts to validate an argument or claim by citing an authoritative source. This can take the form of citing an individual as an authority on a particular subject, or citing a source that is generally viewed as being an authority on the subject. This type of fallacy is often used to present an argument as being beyond debate, when in fact there may be valid counter-arguments or evidence which could refute the argument.

The Appeal to Authority fallacy is based on the assumption that the cited authority is correct and that the argument is valid simply because it is being made by an authority. This can be a dangerous assumption to make, as authorities can be wrong, and their opinions may not be based on fact. Additionally, it is important to note that an authority does not always have the final say on a subject, as there may be other experts with different opinions who may have greater knowledge of the subject.

The Appeal to Authority fallacy is commonly seen in debates or discussions, where one party will cite an authoritative source in an attempt to validate their argument. This type of fallacy can be used to create arguments with the intention of convincing the listener without providing evidence or rational arguments to back up their claims. In many cases, the individual using the Appeal to Authority fallacy may not have any actual knowledge or expertise on the subject they are citing, but are simply relying on the authority of the source they are citing.

The Appeal to Authority fallacy is a logical fallacy and should be avoided when making an argument. It is important to remember that authorities are not always correct and that the argument should be based on facts and evidence. Additionally, it is important to consider other sources of information and to seek out multiple perspectives when forming an opinion on a subject”

Guess what seen him mount scopes without loctite on the rings and guess what. Those rifles are fired 1000's of times a year in his classes.

He recently swapped a barrel on one with over 4000 round on it. Still hitting original poi just groups were opening up because barrel was toast. Now tell me he doesn't know what he's doing or talking about.

A whole 4,000 rounds? Neat. Must have been a big day. Again, your argument for someone’s else round count doesn’t work on me.
For more than a decade I directly shot, and witnessed shot more than 500,000 rounds a year by a relatively small group of people. Zero retention was the number one problem that was dealt with constantly. Once moving to scopes and mounts that work reliably through high round counts and hard use, loss of zero issues went way down. However, there were still issues.
All of the issues came down to mounts or rings coming loose somewhere- all of these scope were mounted by extremely meticulous individuals following manufactures recommendations to the T.
Once fully degreasing everything- every screw, every base, the rings, the scope tube, and thread locking became mandated- all issues stopped.

Using the exact same rifles, scopes, and mounts it went from 10-20% of rifles having a loss of zero due to a loose screw before 2,500 rounds, to 0 (zero) rifles having a loss of zero in 2,500 rounds. More than that, I have never seen a degreased system, thread locked, and torqued correctly have a screw inadvertently lossen. To this day almost without exception, every single issue with scope mounts is with rifles/mounts/rigs/scopes that weren’t fully stripped of all oil and weren’t thread locked.

 

[CampSmith]

Appeal to authority doesn’t work on me.


“The Appeal to Authority fallacy is a logical fallacy which occurs when an individual attempts to validate an argument or claim by citing an authoritative source. This can take the form of citing an individual as an authority on a particular subject, or citing a source that is generally viewed as being an authority on the subject. This type of fallacy is often used to present an argument as being beyond debate, when in fact there may be valid counter-arguments or evidence which could refute the argument.

The Appeal to Authority fallacy is based on the assumption that the cited authority is correct and that the argument is valid simply because it is being made by an authority. This can be a dangerous assumption to make, as authorities can be wrong, and their opinions may not be based on fact. Additionally, it is important to note that an authority does not always have the final say on a subject, as there may be other experts with different opinions who may have greater knowledge of the subject.

The Appeal to Authority fallacy is commonly seen in debates or discussions, where one party will cite an authoritative source in an attempt to validate their argument. This type of fallacy can be used to create arguments with the intention of convincing the listener without providing evidence or rational arguments to back up their claims. In many cases, the individual using the Appeal to Authority fallacy may not have any actual knowledge or expertise on the subject they are citing, but are simply relying on the authority of the source they are citing.

The Appeal to Authority fallacy is a logical fallacy and should be avoided when making an argument. It is important to remember that authorities are not always correct and that the argument should be based on facts and evidence. Additionally, it is important to consider other sources of information and to seek out multiple perspectives when forming an opinion on a subject”






A whole 4,000 rounds? Neat. Must have been a big day. Again, your argument for someone’s else round count doesn’t work on me.
For more than a decade I directly shot, and witnessed shot more than 500,000 rounds a year by a relatively small group of people. Zero retention was the number one problem that was dealt with constantly. Once moving to scopes and mounts that work reliably through high round counts and hard use, loss of zero issues went way down. However, there were still issues.
All of the issues came down to mounts or rings coming loose somewhere- all of these scope were mounted by extremely meticulous individuals following manufactures recommendations to the T.
Once fully degreasing everything- every screw, every base, the rings, the scope tube, and thread locking became mandated- all issues stopped.

Using the exact same rifles, scopes, and mounts it went from 10-20% of rifles having a loss of zero due to a loose screw before 2,500 rounds, to 0 (zero) rifles having a loss of zero in 2,500 rounds. More than that, I have never seen a degreased system, thread locked, and torqued correctly have a screw inadvertently lossen. To this day almost without exception, every single issue with scope mounts is with rifles/mounts/rigs/scopes that weren’t fully stripped of all oil and weren’t thread locked.

Doesn't work on you? That's a guy who relied on his weapon when his and his brothers lives were on the line and counted on it working every time. Shooting paper or at animals really can't compare. They dont shoot back. Come on dude you really need to come down from that high horse.

 

[BBob]

so the people saying not to smoke three packs a day are dumb.

I never said that those recommending thread locker on rings were dumb. I just said I don't do it and neither do others and we're good.

Can you show clear pictures of those rifles with a zillion rounds fired on them?

For F's sake dude like a picture of a freaking rifle is proof??? What if it's not beat to crap like you like to have yours? Will that mean it hasn't been used to your definition of used? Gimme a picture and mby I'll believe you

 

[Formidilosus]

For F's sake dude like a picture of a freaking rifle is proof??? What if it's not beat to crap like you like to have yours? Will that mean it hasn't been used to your definition of used?

Yes- that’s exactly what it means. “Use” shows it. When someone says “I abuse the hell out of my scope and it has worked perfectly”, and then proceeds to show said scope and rifle and there isn’t a scritch or scratch on it, and it looks better than NIB ones sitting on the shelf- that rifle hasn’t been “used”, let alone “abused”.

 

[Formidilosus]

Doesn't work on you? That's a guy who relied on his weapon when his and his brothers lives were on the line and counted on it working every time. Shooting paper or at animals really can't compare. They dont shoot back. Come on dude you really need to come down from that high horse.

Is that so?

Comanches relied on their weapons to keep them and their brothers alive, does that mean that their thoughts on thread locker and scope mounting are correct?