Scope mounting loctite or not?

[CampSmith]

But then, read this:

I've installed many of their vertical split rings according to their instructions and with a torque wrench and never damaged a scope. So I'll take that statement with a grain of salt. Do you realize how many guys have and continue to mount scopes without one. Same as working on a car or truck without one can you yes should you absolutely not

 

[Bearwhisky]

So why do you loctite your bases? To keep them from coming loose? And why don't you loctite your rings? You don't care if they come loose?

Ive heard the argument that on rings, since they do not touch or “bottom out”, there is constant force pulling the top and bottom away from each other. This causes the screw and threads to have a constant, equal contact negating the need for loctite to fill the gaps between threads. Im not an engineer, so I dont know how true this is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Macintosh]

Aaand, we’re right back at 1) they are clearly trying to cover their asses, they explicitly say as much.
2) their rationale is possible scope damage from a wet torque…but the screws come oiled which, unless you mount them de-greased, results in a higher torque in the first place than youd get with loctite anyway.

Cant have it both ways, so which is it? Is it ok to mount the screws as they come out of the box, which results in a wet torque? Because if so, loctite has to be ok too.
Or is any wet torque too high and screws must be degreased for mounting, in which case everyone who doesnt use degreased screws will obviously eff up their scope?

Look, Ive written dozens of product manuals for technical stuff like this in other industries. The directions almost always have CYA language in them that isnt transparent or necessary, its just trying to give them an out for the most stupid, egregiously dumb stuff that people do out of ignorance. With some of the most popular scopes recommending to mount rings at 15 inlb, its no wonder.

I’m left with: after following the recommendation, there are plenty of people that doesnt work for. And when you take the time to dig into the recommendation, it doesnt hold nearly as much water as it should. So the evidence says to me its a CYA recommendation based on the lowest-common-denominator of scopes mounted without a torque wrench. Given the choice between understanding the recommendation and everything that goes into it, and what to compare it against, and making my own decision based on the actual situation to address the problem at hand even if that goes against the recommendation…versus living with scope rings and bases that come loose always at an inconvenient time…I know which choice makes more sense for me.



We’re going in circles.

 

[Vaultman]

Liberals are blue... Always go red!

 

[CampSmith]

Ive heard the argument that on rings, since they do not touch or “bottom out”, there is constant force pulling the top and bottom away from each other. This causes the screw and threads to have a constant, equal contact negating the need for loctite to fill the gaps between threads. Im not an engineer, so I dont know how true this is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes my exact argument. Rails and bases that are screwed down onto a receiver don't have much flex so all the tension is on a thin piece of aluminum and the screw. Ring caps that are being pulled in 2 different directions and are exerting opposing forces on each other and the scope tube is adding to that tension. There's also flex on the ring base clamps as well.

 

[UpNorth89]

I've had properly torqued and degreased rings come loose. Loctite always for me.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[TaperPin]

Lol - there is a pretty good mix of mix of poor advice from many sources.

Threaded fasteners in high vibration applications aren’t anything new or unique to firearms - the physics involved are well understood, as are how it’s dealt with. Engine piston rod bolts/nuts aren’t wired, thread locked, or utilize a locking nut, yet they survive millions of cycles - mainly due to high enough torque. Turbine engine bolts are wired or have a high friction nut. High performance engines of all types use a combination of high torque, high friction bolt/nut heads, and thread locker.

I don’t loctite anything, but it’s because I check torque on the screws before anything important - I’ve never had a problem, or if a problem started I never knew because it took such a small amount to get it retorqued it wasn’t noticed.

Factory torque values vary all over the place because the quality of screws varies and desire to keep the customer service phone from ringing. Simply trusting a overly high torque number because one person got away with it, is a sure way to twist off a screw, especially when loosening one with loctite.

Loctite advice to the masses has to take into account the average shooter doesn’t have great mechanical abilities or judgement - it has to be dumbed down or the customer service phone rings. If you do use loctite use a tiny amount.

Friction between scope and rings is what holds it in place. Oil greatly reduces friction, yet people often focus on the ring screws rather than degreasing the tube and inside of rings. Put a small drop of blue loctite on the inside of the rings to lock them to the scope tube and the scope won’t go anywhere even if you had half the recommended screw torque.

 

[Axlrod]

Yes I agree that most reputable companies, like Warne, make recommendations because of what works from their testing. For someone to say that no one from these companies has any idea what their talking about is just plain being ignorant. I highly doubt these companies became so successful and lucrative providing bad or unreliable advice on their products. I've been using recommendations from multiple companies over the years and never had an issue.

In post 17, you shared Talley's advice where they "highly advise against lapping their rings" In post 26 you state "Yes I recommend lapping". So does Talley not have any idea what they are talking about? Are they providing bad or unreliable advice?

 

[Bearwhisky]

Aaand, we’re right back at 1) they are clearly trying to cover their asses, they explicitly say as much.
2) their rationale is possible scope damage from a wet torque…but the screws come oiled which, unless you mount them de-greased, results in a higher torque in the first place than youd get with loctite anyway.

Cant have it both ways, so which is it? Is it ok to mount the screws as they come out of the box, which results in a wet torque? Because if so, loctite has to be ok too.
Or is any wet torque too high and screws must be degreased for mounting, in which case everyone who doesnt use degreased screws will obviously eff up their scope?

Look, Ive written dozens of product manuals for technical stuff like this in other industries. The directions almost always have CYA language in them that isnt transparent or necessary, its just trying to give them an out for the most stupid, egregiously dumb stuff that people do out of ignorance. With some of the most popular scopes recommending to mount rings at 15 inlb, its no wonder.

I’m left with: after following the recommendation, there are plenty of people that doesnt work for. And when you take the time to dig into the recommendation, it doesnt hold nearly as much water as it should. So the evidence says to me its a CYA recommendation based on the lowest-common-denominator of scopes mounted without a torque wrench. Given the choice between understanding the recommendation and everything that goes into it, and what to compare it against, and making my own decision based on the actual situation to address the problem at hand even if that goes against the recommendation…versus living with scope rings and bases that come loose always at an inconvenient time…I know which choice makes more sense for me.



We’re going in circles.

Agree, I wasnt saying the no loctite was the way. Just sharing the proposed rationale of why the rings dont need it. Sorry havent read all posts, it may have already been stated. I dont buy the argument of them being wet and damaging scopes. The manufactures dont want you using it because of stripping screws/warranty work, zero doubt in my mind. Still not 100% convinced it is necessary on ring screws because of the opposing, equal forces but I certainly do not think it will hurt to go ahead and loctite them.

Have inadvertently done my own little prolonged experiment I suppose. On my main AR that I train with quite a bit and am pretty damn hard on (around 5,000 rounds and countless hours banging it around the woods) I have a unity mount housing a vortex razor 1-6. Have accidentally dropped it or hit it on stuff several times. Have not loctited the ring screws, just torqued to spec and installed per instructions in rotating order. Witness marks on ring screws from original install. Have had no signs of screws backing out according to witness marks, and have had no zero shift in 3 years. Ive kept meaning to uninstall the rings and loctite them after I was sure it was where I wanted it. Kind of scared to mess with anything now because it has yet to let me down haha.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TaperPin]

I've installed many of their vertical split rings according to their instructions and with a torque wrench and never damaged a scope. So I'll take that statement with a grain of salt. Do you realize how many guys have and continue to mount scopes without one. Same as working on a car or truck without one can you yes should you absolutely not

I agree there’s nothing wrong with most split rings when installed properly. Talley split rings have been widely used for half a century and continue to have a good reputation. Warne are a cheap imitation, but I have a pair and they are functional.

For those that don’t know, the bottom of the vertical split ring is held together with screws that have to be tightened first so there is no gap between the rings. Then the top screws are tightened. If there is any gap at the bottom, the additional pressure from the screw that locks rings onto the base combines with pressure from the other lower screws and can damage the tube.

If there is a damaged scope tube I’d bet the biggest Christmas present under the tree it was from installation error.

 

[omicron1792]

Aaand, we’re right back at 1) they are clearly trying to cover their asses, they explicitly say as much.
2) their rationale is possible scope damage from a wet torque…but the screws come oiled which, unless you mount them de-greased, results in a higher torque in the first place than youd get with loctite anyway.

Cant have it both ways, so which is it? Is it ok to mount the screws as they come out of the box, which results in a wet torque? Because if so, loctite has to be ok too.
Or is any wet torque too high and screws must be degreased for mounting, in which case everyone who doesnt use degreased screws will obviously eff up their scope?

Look, Ive written dozens of product manuals for technical stuff like this in other industries. The directions almost always have CYA language in them that isnt transparent or necessary, its just trying to give them an out for the most stupid, egregiously dumb stuff that people do out of ignorance. With some of the most popular scopes recommending to mount rings at 15 inlb, its no wonder.

I’m left with: after following the recommendation, there are plenty of people that doesnt work for. And when you take the time to dig into the recommendation, it doesnt hold nearly as much water as it should. So the evidence says to me its a CYA recommendation based on the lowest-common-denominator of scopes mounted without a torque wrench. Given the choice between understanding the recommendation and everything that goes into it, and what to compare it against, and making my own decision based on the actual situation to address the problem at hand even if that goes against the recommendation…versus living with scope rings and bases that come loose always at an inconvenient time…I know which choice makes more sense for me.



We’re going in circles.

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

 

[omicron1792]

I agree there’s nothing wrong with most split rings when installed properly. Talley split rings have been widely used for half a century and continue to have a good reputation. Warne are a cheap imitation, but I have a pair and they are functional.

For those that don’t know, the bottom of the vertical split ring is held together with screws that have to be tightened first so there is no gap between the rings. Then the top screws are tightened. If there is any gap at the bottom, the additional pressure from the screw that locks rings onto the base combines with pressure from the other lower screws and can damage the tube.

If there is a damaged scope tube I’d bet the biggest Christmas present under the tree it was from installation error.

I don’t like split rings.

Saying because they make some split rings that all information they provide is worthless is nonsensical.

 

[omicron1792]

From American defense.

 

[omicron1792]

Talley

 

[TaperPin]

I don’t like split rings.

Saying because they make some split rings that all information they provide is worthless is nonsensical.

Ok. If manufacturer literature is important to you, then by all means make a selection based on the company with the best technical writers.

 

[CampSmith]

In post 17, you shared Talley's advice where they "highly advise against lapping their rings" In post 26 you state "Yes I recommend lapping". So does Talley not have any idea what they are talking about? Are they providing bad or unreliable advice?

Talley clearly states lap if you want.

 

[omicron1792]

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

 

[CampSmith]

In post 17, you shared Talley's advice where they "highly advise against lapping their rings" In post 26 you state "Yes I recommend lapping". So does Talley not have any idea what they are talking about? Are they providing bad or unreliable advice?

You reading that correctly. They only advise against lapping steel rings. Those steel talley are amongst the highest quality rings in the industry. Aluminum rings are another story that's why they say you can lap them if you like.

 

[Sandstrom]

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

 

[CampSmith]

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

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.