Wet Mounting Scope Mounts - Where It All Started

matt2143

Gunny Sergeant
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Dec 4, 2009
    1,997
    114
    Northern, VA
    I figure since Hakan did a video interview about it, maybe it’s time to bring all the testing to the light.

    In a nutshell, I experienced a scope zero shift in 2015 from the rifle falling over in the hotel room at the Hide Cup. When i returned home and started testing to find the origin of the shift issue we had the first round of NF Atacr 5-25’s at the time and just had switched from our Schmidt PMII’s. What started as a test with a couple mounts on the range turned into an international effort across over a dozen companies. Some companies provided mounts for testing, others got involved in the testing, many different brands and types of optics were tested, various platforms, literally barrels were burnt out just doing the testing over the next 2 years. In the end all parties found no design fix to the inherent shift in the pic rail design. Spoiler: It can be reduced or almost totally mitigated by greasing the rail. Early on when I thought the scopes may be the issue, I spent a whole day at the S&B US Service center with Jerry Ricker absolutely beating up scopes, guns and mounts testing on the collimator and determined the optics weren’t the problem (that and Ryan Brandt from Big Dog Steel decided to JB Weld his scope into his rings and still had shift). Interesting note; a drop of a rifle from hip height on the scope yields consistent .2-.4 mil shift while a ‘dead blow’ on the objective yields up to 2.3 mils with some mounts. Once the shift occurs, you can retorque the mount cross bolts or hit the chassis of the rifle with a hammer and the shock will center the mount back to its zero position.

    I found out greasing the rail fixes the issue by grabbing a set of brand new Badger rings out of the package covered in grease and was tired of prepping mounts so I slapped em on greasy and figured if they held zero I would remount them after a full cleaning. Well, sure enough they didn’t shift. So I said that’s it, I’m running Marty’s rings going forward. Pulled them, cleaned and remounted them. I decided to confirm the install and retested since I couldn’t believe everything shifts .9-2.3mils and these guys didn’t shift at all. Whelp, they shifted when retested and the only thing I did was degrease them. Further testing of all previous mounts greased yielded varying amounts of shift to no shift at all confirming the observation. During these tests, it became apparent overtouquing mounts made the issue worse. So make sure to torque only to mfg specs.

    Also tested were oversized Pic Rails, polished pic rails, varying coatings on pic rails, from steel to aluminum. Even other types of rail designs were looked at, such as euro dovetail on AI and Sako rifles, those shifted as well.

    Another interesting note is that we never saw scopes shift in any ring set we tried when mounted properly. That’s saying something since we literally were beating up 4x4 blocks with scopes and rolling rifles off the backs of truck for drop testing.

    ETA: this is all about an observed windage shift. The number of recoil lugs or cross bolts made no difference. The grease prevents the mount from ‘sticking’ off center and allows it to find its center. The idea is, the mount will shift side to side when impacted, with a deadened blow there is a lack of residual vibration to keep the mount moving until it recenters and that’s why a by violent drop has 1/3 or less the shift of a deadened blow of the hand or a dead blow hammer tapped against the left or right side of the objective.
     
    Last edited:
    Making sure I understand...

    You are saying that everybody's mounts can shift around between the teeth of a pic rail, but if you grease the rail then this occurs less. I assume thats because the grease is taking up all the extra space between the crossbolt and the pic rail teeth and essentially hydraulically locking the mount into one place?
     
    Even other types of rail designs were looked at, such as euro dovetail on AI and Sako rifles, those shifted as well.

    So I have an AI AW, old school with the AI Dovetail mount.
    I set the zero on the S&B 5-25x56 scope that it came with some nearly 15 years ago.
    It's fallen off benches onto concrete.
    Bounced around in trucks
    Fallen over many times
    Gone in and out of bags and been hauled around.

    Still impacts at the exact point of aim first shot and every shot at 100 just as before.

    I'm not sure how it was mounted but whatever they did on that one, they did it right.
     
    The more I think about this, the more it kinda makes sense. The only things resisting a mounts ability to shift around within a single pic rail slot are the cross bar hitting a rail rib, or the gripping force of the claw. The friction force between the claw and the rail must not be great enough to resist minute amounts of sliding during an impact. Once the claw starts sliding, the crossbar hitting a rib stops it eventually, but a small shift has occurred. Overtightening the claws could conceivable make this worse if it causes the claw to deflect upwards and reduce contact area with the rail.

    I could see grease on the rail taking up all the extra space around the crossbar within the rail slot possibly preventing the crossbar from moving, as the grease doesn't have anywhere to flow out of the way.
     
    The grease isn't taking up space. It lowers the friction on mating surfaces allowing a tighter clamping force. It makes sense if you look at it from a torque perspective. I had to take torque training for work yay long time ago and the difference between lubed and unlubed fasteners and the torque involved is wild.

    When you think about the mating angles on the bases and the rings if there's any friction there they won't truly get tight if they are dry. I ran into this problem recently with an ADM mount causing some strange vertical shift. Discovered the issue when I pulled the scope. Had I greased or put some oil on it during assembly I don't think I would have had that problem. It has badger rings on it now though.

    Enjoy.
     
    Are you speaking to 2pc rings in the comment?
    Sorry I meant. The scope relative to the ring never shifted. We still had a horizontal shift between the mount and pic rail.

    Also it’s not about clamping force as it was determined by a number of engineers that higher torque made the issue worse. Simply put, the clamp will shift side to side and we need to make it slick so it returns to zero. Just like optics, they don’t need steel tubes as they are designed to flex during a recoil impulse and that’s how they resonate the energy safely and repeatably. Put any scope in a collimator and touch the objective and watch how far the reticle moves. It’s normal operation and is only an issue when the tube doesn’t come back to zero.

    Another interesting side test, I mounted the optic in a mount, zero’d it on a rifle, removed the scope from the mount and the removed the mount from the rifle and then remounted the optic/mount and torqued everything down and checked zero. I had more than one mount that would return to within .1 mil of zero. Even when completely disassembled and reassembled.

    In part, this research is why the military is not buying QD optic mounts anymore….
     
    Last edited:
    I ran into this issue over the summer. Had a PMII in Badger rings on an ATX that was in a bad and fell sideways against the A-pillar in my Jeep.

    No joke, my windage was off 9 mils. Yes, 9.0 mils. I rezeroed and it started to walk again after 2-3 rounds.

    I sent it to Jerry who confirmed the scope was 100% ok with the equipment at S&B. Remounted it was some grease under the claw of the rings and haven't had an issue since.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Bigrederic
    The general layman explanation is if both surfaces are too dry (especially if you degrease the surfaces or similar), the friction will be too high.

    That means your torque limiter will indicate before the clamp/s engage the mating surface as "deep" as they were designed to do. The clamp stops "short" of the appropriate amount of rail engagement required to keep the mount from moving during recoil.



    A good way to visualize this. Take a piece of squeaky clean brass and seat a bullet. You will either hit your desired seating force before your bullet is seated to the depth that you intend......or you will require significantly more seating force to seat the bullet to the appropriate depth.

    Now lube the inside of the neck and you'll see the difference.


    "Wet mounting" an optic mount is the same idea.
     
    The general layman explanation is if both surfaces are too dry (especially if you degrease the surfaces or similar), the friction will be too high.

    That means your torque limiter will indicate before the clamp/s engage the mating surface as "deep" as they were designed to do. The clamp stops "short" of the appropriate amount of rail engagement required to keep the mount from moving during recoil.



    A good way to visualize this. Take a piece of squeaky clean brass and seat a bullet. You will either hit your desired seating force before your bullet is seated to the depth that you intend......or you will require significantly more seating force to seat the bullet to the appropriate depth.

    Now lube the inside of the neck and you'll see the difference.


    "Wet mounting" an optic mount is the same idea.
    As someone who deals with torque and tight fitting parts all the time, I think I agree with you. I say I think only because I have given this no more thought than the 1 minute it took me to read this thread up to this post. However if you read what Matt2143 said the engineers reports were it isn’t the lack of clamping force caused by excess friction between the parting surfaces:
    Also it’s not about clamping force as it was determined by a number of engineers that higher torque made the issue worse. Simply put, the clamp will shift side to side and we need to make it slick so it returns to zero. Just like optics, they don’t need steel tubes as they are designed to flex during a recoil impulse and that’s how they resonate the energy safely and repeatably. Put any scope in a collimator and touch the objective and watch how far the reticle moves. It’s normal operation and is only an issue when the tube doesn’t come back to zero.

    This is very interesting for sure and something I will definitely ponder on a while as I too have experienced it (as I am sure we all have).

    Matt2143, did the testing include other design scope rings or was it the most common straight cut clamp? I am thinking specifically of Jered Jopplin’s APA rings where there is a radius and a hinge style clamp? It may not matter but with these rings I haven’t experienced the slight zero shift that I have with other “conventional style clamp design. As someone else mentioned, did you test a dovetail style ring to base mount like the old AI mounts, SSG3000, or Sako TRG mounts? The TRG mount should be one of the better designs for this with the tight fitting mortise and tenon interface. I am very curious now…
     
    Last edited:
    This is an excellent thread and the answer appears to be wet mounting. The theory of what happening isn't as clear to me. The OP, who damn sure did the work, suggest the grease allows it to return to its location. My thoughts, and it appears a few others as well, think it’s never truly seated because of friction until it takes that blow to overcome the friction causing a shift but a correct seat. If that theory holds, tapping the mount with a small brass hammer after mounting and torquing dry will yield a loose mount that requires a little more torque to reach spec. It’s like the mount is preloaded waiting to shift.

    I’m just theorizing here and likely wrong, but would like have a complete understanding.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Jscb1b
    As someone who deals with torque and tight fitting parts all the time, I think I agree with you. I say I think only because I have given this no more thought than the 1 minute it took me to read this thread up to this post. However if you read what Matt2143 said the engineers reports were it isn’t the lack of clamping force caused by excess friction between the parting surfaces:


    This is very interesting for sure and something I will definitely ponder on a while as I too have experienced it (as I am sure we all have).

    Matt2143, did the testing include other design scope rings or was it the most common straight cut clamp? I am thinking specifically of Jered Jopplin’s APA rings where there is a radius and a hinge style clamp? It may not matter but with these rings I haven’t experienced the slight zero shift that I have with other “conventional style clamp design. As someone else mentioned, did you test a dovetail style ring to base mount like the old AI mounts, SSG3000, or Sako TRG mounts? The TRG mount should be one of the better designs for this with the tight fitting mortise and tenon interface. I am very curious now…

    I didn't read anything about "engineers" in his post, but I could have missed it.

    The lubrication allowing the mount to slip back into place is at best an erroneous observation. Even if it were the case, then there would be an issue of how much lubrication is needed and how long before the lubrication wears off. As you can't just lubricate something and then not come back periodically to apply more once it's worn off.


    Both Spuhr and Area419 (419 having an owner who is an engineer) agree that in a setting such as a clamp onto a picatinny rail.....most torque is lost to friction if the surfaces aren't lubricated or extremely smooth.

    You're essentially just binding the clamp onto the rail.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Bigrederic
    The general layman explanation is if both surfaces are too dry (especially if you degrease the surfaces or similar), the friction will be too high.

    That means your torque limiter will indicate before the clamp/s engage the mating surface as "deep" as they were designed to do. The clamp stops "short" of the appropriate amount of rail engagement required to keep the mount from moving during recoil.



    A good way to visualize this. Take a piece of squeaky clean brass and seat a bullet. You will either hit your desired seating force before your bullet is seated to the depth that you intend......or you will require significantly more seating force to seat the bullet to the appropriate depth.

    Now lube the inside of the neck and you'll see the difference.


    "Wet mounting" an optic mount is the same idea.
    The lubing a bullet explanation works for me. My seating depth is a lot more consistent at the the same due setting with lubed bullets. Lubricant allowing the ring to Center itself with an equal amount of clamping force on each side makes sense to me.
     
    I figure since Hakan did a video interview about it, maybe it’s time to bring all the testing to the light.

    In a nutshell, I experienced a scope zero shift in 2015 from the rifle falling over in the hotel room at the Hide Cup. When i returned home and started testing to find the origin of the shift issue we had the first round of NF Atacr 5-25’s at the time and just had switched from our Schmidt PMII’s. What started as a test with a couple mounts on the range turned into an international effort across over a dozen companies. Some companies provided mounts for testing, others got involved in the testing, many different brands and types of optics were tested, various platforms, literally barrels were burnt out just doing the testing over the next 2 years. In the end all parties found no design fix to the inherent shift in the pic rail design. Spoiler: It can be reduced or almost totally mitigated by greasing the rail. Early on when I thought the scopes may be the issue, I spent a whole day at the S&B US Service center with Jerry Ricker absolutely beating up scopes, guns and mounts testing on the collimator and determined the optics weren’t the problem (that and Ryan Brandt from Big Dog Steel decided to JB Weld his scope into his rings and still had shift). Interesting note; a drop of a rifle from hip height on the scope yields consistent .2-.4 mil shift while a ‘dead blow’ on the objective yields up to 2.3 mils with some mounts. Once the shift occurs, you can retorque the mount cross bolts or hit the chassis of the rifle with a hammer and the shock will center the mount back to its zero position.

    I found out greasing the rail fixes the issue by grabbing a set of brand new Badger rings out of the package covered in grease and was tired of prepping mounts so I slapped em on greasy and figured if they held zero I would remount them after a full cleaning. Well, sure enough they didn’t shift. So I said that’s it, I’m running Marty’s rings going forward. Pulled them, cleaned and remounted them. I decided to confirm the install and retested since I couldn’t believe everything shifts .9-2.3mils and these guys didn’t shift at all. Whelp, they shifted when retested and the only thing I did was degrease them. Further testing of all previous mounts greased yielded varying amounts of shift to no shift at all confirming the observation. During these tests, it became apparent overtouquing mounts made the issue worse. So make sure to torque only to mfg specs.

    Also tested were oversized Pic Rails, polished pic rails, varying coatings on pic rails, from steel to aluminum. Even other types of rail designs were looked at, such as euro dovetail on AI and Sako rifles, those shifted as well.

    Another interesting note is that we never saw scopes shift in any ring set we tried when mounted properly. That’s saying something since we literally were beating up 4x4 blocks with scopes and rolling rifles off the backs of truck for drop testing.

    ETA: this is all about an observed windage shift. The number of recoil lugs or cross bolts made no difference. The grease prevents the mount from ‘sticking’ off center and allows it to find its center. The idea is, the mount will shift side to side when impacted, with a deadened blow there is a lack of residual vibration to keep the mount moving until it recenters and that’s why a by violent drop has 1/3 or less the shift of a deadened blow of the hand or a dead blow hammer tapped against the left or right side of the objective.
    I see many shooters press their support hand down on their optic. I haven’t been comfortable with that. Are you saying that practice moves the reticle significantly?
     
    Have any manufacturers (or even builders) tried using a dry friction reducing coating on rails? Examples; the Teflon coating inside an AR upper or Cerakote micro slick?
     
    Håkan posted about this a few months ago, and while it’s something I’ve never considered, it makes perfect sense.

    Dry, the mount can bind up on the pic rail while torquing it down, not seating correctly. Lubed, the friction between the two pieces is reduced and the mount can fully seat and reach the full clamping force without binding up. If the scope/mount/rifle takes a hard blow after being mounted dry, that friction can be overcame and the mount can shift into a different position or more natural position.

    I had a huge shift on one of my hunting rifles 10+ years ago that I could never comprehend. It was sitting on the floor on a set of bipods, it got bumped and tipped over onto the windage turret…not a huge drop, but not very forgiving on a ceramic tile floor.
    When checking my zero later, I had a 3 mil shift. I thought the scope was ruined. After resetting the zero, it held just fine. That always made me scratch my head…if everything was torqued and the scope wasn’t broken…how did it shift so much and then hold just fine after? Considering the friction aspect of the mount and rail, I now feel like that situation makes sense.

    I mounted a scope to a new long range rimfire build yesterday, it got a coating of aeroshell 33 between the Spuhr mount and the pic rail.
     
    I didn't read anything about "engineers" in his post, but I could have missed it.

    The lubrication allowing the mount to slip back into place is at best an erroneous observation. Even if it were the case, then there would be an issue of how much lubrication is needed and how long before the lubrication wears off. As you can't just lubricate something and then not come back periodically to apply more once it's worn off.


    Both Spuhr and Area419 (419 having an owner who is an engineer) agree that in a setting such as a clamp onto a picatinny rail.....most torque is lost to friction if the surfaces aren't lubricated or extremely smooth.

    You're essentially just binding the clamp onto the rail.
    I am with you on this, but I am open to it being something different.
     
    The more I think about this, the more it kinda makes sense. The only things resisting a mounts ability to shift around within a single pic rail slot are the cross bar hitting a rail rib, or the gripping force of the claw. The friction force between the claw and the rail must not be great enough to resist minute amounts of sliding during an impact. Once the claw starts sliding, the crossbar hitting a rib stops it eventually, but a small shift has occurred. Overtightening the claws could conceivable make this worse if it causes the claw to deflect upwards and reduce contact area with the rail.

    I could see grease on the rail taking up all the extra space around the crossbar within the rail slot possibly preventing the crossbar from moving, as the grease doesn't have anywhere to flow out of the way.
    Do you think there's still enough friction to prevent rearward movement? As an extreme example if the rifle was resting with its butt on the flood of a truck that was driving down a rough road to a hunting destination.
     
    Glad this was posted. Didn’t know I was doing it wrong for over 30 years with my scope and mounts not moving at all. Going to have to take them all apart and make them wet! lol


    1737904957819.gif
     
    I've never had an issue and my gear is heavily used. If you have been around here long enough you remember the USO (I think in Badger rings) torture test where the gun was shot and then thrown off a hill onto gravel a few times and shot again without issues. I am sure slipppage happens, not disputing that. This approach makes it seem as if you don't wet mount and your gun falls on the bench over you are done for and I don't think that is the case. In effect isn't torquing wet just torquing to a higher value than the wrench reads? Any instructions on torquing I have ever taken the time to read specifically says dont torque wet or you will get more toque than the reading indicates. Anyway good read and I enjoy geeking out about some obscure reloading practices so I get it.
     
    I'm waiting for a bunch of people to jump on this bandwagon, then you might see some scope ring manufacturers start marketing something like "our rings are so good, no wet mounting necessary, you can run em dry!" as a selling point. When in reality, it was a non-issue to begin with. Or maybe someone will come out with a $20 per ounce bottle of "scope ring mounting lubricant" that was vigorously tested to give the best results in a "torture test" and outperformed all the other greases and oils.
     
    Have any manufacturers (or even builders) tried using a dry friction reducing coating on rails? Examples; the Teflon coating inside an AR upper or Cerakote micro slick?
    Why do you think Mark LaRue lubes his levers with anti-seize and uses a medical company to polish TF out of them? Why do you think Bobro uses a tensioning spring in the "foot" of the mount to constantly adjust the mount forward, as well as springs that allow movement to begin with? Why are both designs stoopid repeatable and shoot tiny groups? Some people have accepted for a long time that mounts move under impact, and have baked this into the designs due to high speed footage they've taken.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: lash
    I have been using a dap of Rem oil on a q-tip to the matting surfaces for a while now.

    Is grease necessary?
    I believe in the video with 419 he says light grease or oil work...Ive been using a light coat of STP oil treatment on bolt bodies for years so figured what the hell should work for a scope base...which I've never done before this morning.
     
    Same, I'm interested in the logic here too. There is no problem torquing a steel fastener into anodized aluminum no matter what size as long as you adhere to proper torque specs for the material and size and use a noble anti seize (nickel is great) or at very least a quality grease to stop galvanic corrosion. But I'm always open to learn...
     
    • Like
    Reactions: HardRockARC
    B

    But they still only specify dry torque values.

    I think you're probably assuming this is the case without actually reading the instructions. For example:

    -ARC rings recommends using oil on screws.
    -Spuhr screws come waxed from factory. They also tell you which loctite to use if you want to degrease and use something other than supplied wax.

    They then go on to give you a torque spec. These torque specs are assuming you followed the initial instructions. They aren't giving you dry torque specs after instructing you to lubricate the screws.


    In fact, I'd love anyone to post screenshots or links to a manual to any ring maker recommending lubricating screws and then specifically giving you a dry torque value. As that would be pretty nonsensical.
     
    Wet torquing involves lubricating the fastener threads and underside of the head.
    That's a completely different subject than lubing a couple of mating surfaces so they will seat properly.


    Both topics boil down to coefficient of friction on mating wedge surfaces. Just like you get more clamping force on a lubricated bolt for the same torque, you will get more clamping force on a mount/rail interaction with lubricated surfaces for the same force applied to the clamp. The friction opposes the clamping action. That's one part of it. The other part I think is that having the higher state of friction allows the mount to shift then lock in place, where lubrication may allow things to slide back home.
     
    The other part I think is that having the higher state of friction allows the mount to shift then lock in place, where lubrication may allow things to slide back home.

    I mean, do we think a scope is slipping in the rings and then sliding back into place? If not, then why are we thinking the mount does it? If we can long one part down, we can lock the other down. I understand that the way the optic is clamped and the rails is clamped are different. But still.

    Another example, Ted @ ARC has stated he only puts a recoil lug on his mounts because the industry expects it. That it doesn't require one as his clamp should easily hold under heavy recoil when properly installed. I know the OP is talking about windage, but again.....if we can clamp an angled surface and it's not slipping with heavy recoil, I'd think we can clamp tight enough that we aren't going to see "moving and then slipping back into place" due to lubrication allowing it.


    @308pirate

    What's your opinion on this? I'm always open to learning.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: 308pirate
    I've read about this a few times over the years, first time was probably at least 10 years ago, it makes sense so I do it, but clearly lots of people are not having issues not doing it. I believe the idea is that it allows the clamp/mount to "seat" better and end up with a more solid junction. Not that it somehow takes up space, or that without it the clamp is shifting back and forth between positions. It's simply that it's not seated as well as it could be so impact then shift the mount.

    It's not surprising, some rails and mounts have a matte and likely high friction coating on them, so some amount of clamping force is getting lost. Seekins is a good one for this, it's much harder to easily adjust a scope loosely in Seekins rings than something with a smoother coating like NF. However some are glossy/slick, and then there's the angles of the rail, clamp, clamp design etc. etc. How much probably varies massively between coatings, brands of pic rails that may or may not be in spec, how much surface contact there is between the clamp and rails etc. There's also the fact that the manufacturer might know and simply adjust for that. It's unlikely do damage a clamp or rail so some companies might just add another 10-20-XX% torque to address it.

    That said, I also hate that companies don't provide wet torque values for their screws, or at least specific directions. I don't know what the value is, but there has to be a massive effective system torque difference between say a dry (or worse dry and corroded screw) versus a screw that has oil/anti-sieze/threadlocker on it. The number of high end mounts I've received with dry and even rusted screws is sad. From what little I looked it seems like dry vs wet can easily increase "effective system torque" 30-40% for oil and 20% for threadlocker. So if the mount manufacturer wants 25in/lbs on a dry screw and you put loctite on it and use a 25in/lb torque wrench on it you effectively just put 30in/lbs into it.
     
    The truth is different lubricants have different coefficients of friction, so technically the lube should be specified. But with such low torque values it really doesn't matter as the change in lubricants is really a percentage rather than a fixed specific amount. Basically, don't over think it...
     
    • Like
    Reactions: XP1K and lash