Scope mounting to maintain zero

[Formidilosus]

That's interesting. I had no idea about nail polish! Sure enough a quick Google search indicates that both "solvent" based and water based nail polishes exist. Not sure which one I reclaimed* from my daughter but I'll have to check. I could have used my wife's oil based paint pens, but I felt that the nail polish brush gave me more control. I guess we'll see if the screws back out based on the bright red nail polish witness marks.

@Formidilosus maybe you can chime in on whether the type of nail polish (solvent vs water based) matters? I'm really hoping you say it doesn't, because I don't feel like stripping down my scope and degreasing it again.

*she said she didn't want that color anymore, FWIW, I say reclaimed simply because she's a tween, meaning I technically paid for it

I haven’t seen it matter.

 

[DJL2]

Form I’ve got a dumb question. I tore my rifle down to get the barrel threaded and I’m going to put everything back together with degrease/paint pen now that everything is finally going to stay. My scope is a tenmile in um tikka rings and assuming that I can remount it without having to relevel the scope. Can I take out the ring cap screws one at a time to degrease and thread lock then retorque so I don’t need to re level and set eye relief. Or will this cause weird toque points and cause problems?

FWIW I did something similar this week - needed to move a scope ring, so the front got completely undone, everything got pulled off the rail, front ring got moved, everything got remounted with the rear ring as the datum. No issues at all. This was using a set of ARC rings that, thankfully, didn't need to scope squished into them.

 

[DisplacedHusky]

First time using nail polish/paint pen. How hard is it to get them loose after everything has cured. Do you need to use something to help, or is brute force all it takes?

 

[atmat]

First time using nail polish/paint pen. How hard is it to get them loose after everything has cured. Do you need to use something to help, or is brute force all it takes?

Brute force. It’s a lot like normal blue loctite. Except easier to clean the threads for next time.

 

[Alpha Echo]

Brute force. It’s a lot like normal blue loctite. Except easier to clean the threads for next time.

Easy cleaning is my hope! IIRC Form has also mentioned that unlike blue loctite it does not rely on exposure to air to cure.

 

[atmat]

Easy cleaning is my hope! IIRC Form has also mentioned that unlike blue loctite it does not rely on exposure to air to cure.

It’s actually the opposite: blue loctite cures anaerobically.

 

[Alpha Echo]

It’s actually the opposite: blue loctite cures anaerobically.

I figured I'd get that backwards. Thanks for catching that.

 

[damnbluedog]

As one field data point, I followed this procedure with a Tikka, Sportsmatch rings and a NF scope. Packing out an animal on an angle of repose slope, both feet blew out from under me and all of my weight and the pack landed on the rifle. Range trip today confirmed no zero shift. Thank you for the mounting details.

 

[JohnJohnson]

@Formidilosus I've been hearing more about "wet mounting" scope rings and am curious on your thoughts.

1:15 in this video below mentions it, though I'm not really interested in the guy's entire process. Hawkins and Area419 (as well as Spuhr) recommend wet mounting. It definitely makes sense as long as the rail-clamp friction is still enough to prevent the rings from slipping rearward. Do you think it would be?

Oh and side note, I'm about to have my KRG Bravo bedded for the sole purpose of zero retention. Does that make sense or is it a waste?

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus I've been hearing more about "wet mounting" scope rings and am curious on your thoughts.

1:15 in this video below mentions it, though I'm not really interested in the guy's entire process. Hawkins and Area419 (as well as Spuhr) recommend wet mounting. It definitely makes sense as long as the rail-clamp friction is still enough to prevent the rings from slipping rearward. Do you think it would be?

Oh and side note, I'm about to have my KRG Bravo bedded for the sole purpose of zero retention. Does that make sense or is it a waste?

There’s a bunch just in the few minutes I watched. Spuhr along with the others, have done exactly 0 comparative testing with live ammo and shooting determine what things help a rifle system to stay zeroed, and what things help a rifle system to loose zero.


However, to cut straight to the end- oil on anything helps it be able to loosen easier. Nothing on a rifle action, scope mounts, rings, or scope should help it loosen easier.

 

[Castle Rock]

There’s a bunch just in the few minutes I watched. Spuhr along with the others, have done exactly 0 comparative testing with live ammo and shooting determine what things help a rifle system to stay zeroed, and what things help a rifle system to loose zero.


However, to cut straight to the end- oil on anything helps it be able to loosen easier. Nothing on a rifle action, scope mounts, rings, or scope should help it loosen easier.

Lubricants help parts to come up to tolerances correctly and if those parts are mated well there will be no problems with loosening
Glues make stuff that isn’t well fitted stay together
Both have their place

 

[Veloci_Wrench]

I previously worked in an industry where suspension components (shocks, rockers, links, etc) were under fairly extreme loads radially, vertically, laterally, and torsionally, and it was always spec to lube the mating materials except the threading surfaces which were degreased and loctited. Loctite 243 is the oil resistant version of 242.

Now, I run my optic mounts completely dry, but if one were to carefully lube under the clamping section of a pic rail (like with a Q-tip), it would probably be OK.

 

[Rams horns]

I have or have had G, Larue, ADM, and just about everything else if that tier. I don’t trust any of them to truly return to zero.

 

[wawa]

I previously worked in an industry where suspension components (shocks, rockers, links, etc) were under fairly extreme loads radially, vertically, laterally, and torsionally, and it was always spec to lube the mating materials except the threading surfaces which were degreased and loctited. Loctite 243 is the oil resistant version of 242.

Now, I run my optic mounts completely dry, but if one were to carefully lube under the clamping section of a pic rail (like with a Q-tip), it would probably be OK.

This makes sense, as do Form's opinions on dry mounting. I think one perspective not mentioned often is intent... in the example you mention, I'd assume the reasoning for oiling the bonding surfaces is so that they do not bind together and cause harm or become difficult to separate AND because there is a waaay higher clamping force on the much larger bolts, etc. Also, there's potentially a lot more force on those parts than a properly clamped optic, but lets not compare different things - I dont know the "recoil energies or velocities" of suspension parts on X vehicle/machine, so I wonder how the force and speed compare to a rifle, in general. Probably a very different scenario, but I sure dont know, yet this and your point are still valid thoughts to consider.
Now with the optics on firearms, @Formidilosus have you ever seen [not cheap] rings bind or damage a scope when the rings aren't over-tightened? If someone were interested in swapping scopes or not necessarily just putting one optic on a rifle for its entire life, do you see a benefit, given @Veloci_Wrench comment, for a VERY light oiling of ONLY the ring-scope contact circumference? Or possibly using a compound for metal on metal contact to prevent binding? I'm fully on board with all your suggestions beyond this inquiry - massive thank you for all you've provided all over the internet.
Cheers all, this is a great thread.

 

[Formidilosus]

Now with the optics on firearms, @Formidilosus have you ever seen [not cheap] rings bind or damage a scope when the rings aren't over-tightened?

No. Not the rings. But there are scopes with extremely thin tubes that will slip at very low clamp forces.

If someone were interested in swapping scopes or not necessarily just putting one optic on a rifle for its entire life, do you see a benefit, given @Veloci_Wrench comment, for a VERY light oiling of ONLY the ring-scope contact circumference? Or possibly using a compound for metal on metal contact to prevent binding? I'm fully on board with all your suggestions beyond this inquiry - massive thank you for all you've provided all over the internet.
Cheers all, this is a great thread.

No. I remove and remount multiple scopes a week on average. They come apart without issue when I want them to- that’s the difference; only when I want them to come apart. Oil makes things come loose easier- that’s what it’s for.

 

[abbrown]

Trying to mount my own bases/rings scope following this process.
Bases are Warne Maxima two piece steel weaver style bases for Browning BLR.
When placed into receiver and torqued to factory spec, the bases are slightly off level to each other. If I put bubble level on both they are close, like both bubbles within the middle lines, but not exactly even.
Before locking everything down and into place, would it make more sense to:

1) just run with these, assuming the very minor variability will not affect the scope mount and accuracy/function outcome? Using Warne Mountain Tech rings and SWFA 3-9.

2) choose a single piece pic rail a la a 7000 series aluminum Talley BLR pic rail? I assume the rail would maintain its level front-back even if torqued into receiver. side benefit of this is more scope mounting positions too.

Thanks for advice team.

 

[Stud Duck]

Trying to mount my own bases/rings scope following this process.
Bases are Warne Maxima two piece steel weaver style bases for Browning BLR.
When placed into receiver and torqued to factory spec, the bases are slightly off level to each other. If I put bubble level on both they are close, like both bubbles within the middle lines, but not exactly even.
Before locking everything down and into place, would it make more sense to:

1) just run with these, assuming the very minor variability will not affect the scope mount and accuracy/function outcome? Using Warne Mountain Tech rings and SWFA 3-9.

2) choose a single piece pic rail a la a 7000 series aluminum Talley BLR pic rail? I assume the rail would maintain its level front-back even if torqued into receiver. side benefit of this is more scope mounting positions too.

Thanks for advice team.

You'd still need to bed the rail to ensure a level mounting platform.

 

[Veloci_Wrench]

Trying to mount my own bases/rings scope following this process.
Bases are Warne Maxima two piece steel weaver style bases for Browning BLR.
When placed into receiver and torqued to factory spec, the bases are slightly off level to each other. If I put bubble level on both they are close, like both bubbles within the middle lines, but not exactly even.
Before locking everything down and into place, would it make more sense to:

1) just run with these, assuming the very minor variability will not affect the scope mount and accuracy/function outcome? Using Warne Mountain Tech rings and SWFA 3-9.

2) choose a single piece pic rail a la a 7000 series aluminum Talley BLR pic rail? I assume the rail would maintain its level front-back even if torqued into receiver. side benefit of this is more scope mounting positions too.

Thanks for advice team.

I suggest you grab a 1 piece rail, but take a straight edge and make sure the rail is nice and straight. Then mount rail with only front screws, check for gap at rear. Next, mount rail with only back screws, check front for gap. This is how you figure out which side of the receiver is off. If the gap is on the back side, only tighten the front screws when you bed it, or vice versa if the gap is up front. The epoxy will fill in the discrepancy. Only after that, would I then mount my rings and scope.

 

[Choupique]

I have a general comment on oiling vs dry vs loctite ect

Some people do a little bolted joint reading and decide that if oiled studs are good enough for mounting turbines, it must be good enough for mounting scopes. That's a big piece of steel foot, mounted to a steel base, with a hardened steel stud and hardened steel nuts, torqued with hydraulic stud tensioners. You need lubricated threads for a few reasons here, and the stud tension is so tremendous when torqued up that nothing is going to move, oiled or not. We use 15w40 motor oil on stuff like that. There's basically no parallels between machinery joints and scope mounting.

Form is correct in his statement that oil helps things get loose in this application. With scope mounting, we are always using small steel screws, often into stainless steel or aluminum. The general principals of bolted joints for machinery don't apply here and having some glue on everything instead of lubricant is going to give much stronger joints. The clamp loads are small, the impulse loading can be relatively large under recoil or impacts. The screws are never going to be properly stretched because of their size and the materials involved. The bonding compounds become a major component of the joint. Oil on any mating surfaces and any threads is subtracting from the total strength of the system.

Its also important to add that with a "bolted joint," the bolt is basically a spring squeezing the parts together, and friction between the parts is what keeps them from slipping. The bolt is not meant to take any shear load, that is what pins or fitted bolts do. Since these dinky little screws can't give much clamp load, you need to dramatically increase the friction to keep things from moving. Thats what your bonding compound is doing for you.

 

[RockAndSage]

I have a general comment on oiling vs dry vs loctite ect

Some people do a little bolted joint reading and decide that if oiled studs are good enough for mounting turbines, it must be good enough for mounting scopes. That's a big piece of steel foot, mounted to a steel base, with a hardened steel stud and hardened steel nuts, torqued with hydraulic stud tensioners. You need lubricated threads for a few reasons here, and the stud tension is so tremendous when torqued up that nothing is going to move, oiled or not. We use 15w40 motor oil on stuff like that. There's basically no parallels between machinery joints and scope mounting.

Form is correct in his statement that oil helps things get loose in this application. With scope mounting, we are always using small steel screws, often into stainless steel or aluminum. The general principals of bolted joints for machinery don't apply here and having some glue on everything instead of lubricant is going to give much stronger joints. The clamp loads are small, the impulse loading can be relatively large under recoil or impacts. The screws are never going to be properly stretched because of their size and the materials involved. The bonding compounds become a major component of the joint. Oil on any mating surfaces and any threads is subtracting from the total strength of the system.

Its also important to add that with a "bolted joint," the bolt is basically a spring squeezing the parts together, and friction between the parts is what keeps them from slipping. The bolt is not meant to take any shear load, that is what pins or fitted bolts do. Since these dinky little screws can't give much clamp load, you need to dramatically increase the friction to keep things from moving. Thats what your bonding compound is doing for you.

There are a lot of things in the gun world that are that way because "they've always" been that way, and nobody bothers questioning the initial validity of it. The way you phrased all this caused me to wonder something: whether there would be significant advantages to using larger diameter screws. Are these tiny screws that are pretty standardized part of the problem with scope bases coming loose - is it in any way related to the screws just being too small of a diameter in general?

EDIT: The idea behind the question is whether larger diameter screws would increase the overall surface area of the threaded mating surfaces, handle higher torque loads, and in general just secure scope bases/rails more effectively.