Wet Mounting Scope Mounts - Where It All Started

I think you’re completely missing the point, which doesn’t surprise me, but I just need clarification on something. Are you trusting Hakkan to build you a Honda engine?
Lol, no, just like I'm not using honda transmission case bolts as a case study on how to tighten ring cap screws. I'm relying on KAC, Hakan, Geissele, and Nightforce for advice, there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: supercorndogs
Are we really comparing a Swedish redneck to a literal army of engineers informing a corporation that puts an astronomically higher quantity of fasteners into service daily?
Were comparing a transmission case removal for reman repair effort to ring cap screws, so why not?
 
Lol, no, just like I'm not using honda transmission case bolts as a case study on how to tighten ring cap screws. I'm relying on KAC, Hakan, Geissele, and Nightforce for advice, there.
But you are using blanket statements for things that aren’t simple enough to be covered by blanket statements, and that’s why you’re having such a hard time.
 
Last edited:
But you are using blanket statements for things that aren’t simple enough to be covered by blanket statements, and that’s why you’re having such a hard time.
Some dude is talking about transmissions. I'm talking about scope mounting. He does this in every thread about the topic. I don't care about how much money he made fixing busted Hondas. This is about scopes. Trying to find some esoteric bullshit like tranmission casings in an attempt to provd the exception to the rule is absurd. Okay. Ive been proved wrong. IF I ever buy some old tech gas car, I'll remember...if it's a honda. Don't lube trans case bolts. Happy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: supercorndogs
Let’s just cut the bs

Lube or not. The most reliable scope out there is a nightforce in a Nightforce mount.



And Spuhr shouldn’t be a consideration. They break way too much. And are over priced
 
Did you measure bolt stretch? How did you quantify that the tension was indeed equal? Dry on dry threads will result in un-equal torque across fasteners.

The relationship between torque and tension is stabilized by lubricating the threads.



View attachment 8604110


There is a preponderance of data suggesting strongly that lubricated threads produce a more consistent relationship between torque and tension.
Carol Shelby was well aware of this.
 
Let’s just cut the bs

Lube or not. The most reliable scope out there is a nightforce in a Nightforce mount.



And Spuhr shouldn’t be a consideration. They break way too much. And are over priced
Yes, and I mount my Nightforce scopes exactly how Nightforce recommended. Loctite the ring cap screws.
 
Let’s just cut the bs

Lube or not. The most reliable scope out there is a nightforce in a Nightforce mount.
4 pages and you don’t know whether to lube or not? Come on man you got to lube! Lube the base, lube the rings/mount and lube the ring cap screws. If you don’t the rifle loses zero if you sneeze on it or if you slam your unlubed Honda door near it! Lol
 
There’s an off chance our dear @308pirate has been pulling T H E I S-grade shenanigans for years.

But I doubt it.

I think @E. Bryant (among others) would have caught him by now.

@JWG are you, ah, an engineer by trade?
Well, here he is over half a decade ago talking about Honda transmissions again trying to equate it to the topic at hand.
1000004920.jpg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: lash and Haney
4 pages and you don’t know whether to lube or not? Come on man you got to lube! Lube the base, lube the rings/mount and lube the ring cap screws. If you don’t the rifle loses zero if you sneeze on it or if you slam your unlubed Honda door near it! Lol
Honestly. By the time I mount it , no lube is needed
 
Let’s just cut the bs

Lube or not. The most reliable scope out there is a nightforce in a Nightforce mount.



And Spuhr shouldn’t be a consideration. They break way too much. And are over priced
I've seen nightforce rings seperate at the bottom of the screw holes in the ring caps. Cap popped right off. The screws held though.
 
I don't get real carried away with it, but I always wipe the underside of my actions down with oil before I put them in the stock/chassis.
And lightly oil the action screws, which should never be used without a washer to reduce friction of the steel bolt head against an aluminum pillar...which causes false and very inconsistent clamping force.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Rob01
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


View attachment 8601368
Pretty much this. I've read alot of retarded threads on this site over the last 25 years or so....but this one may take the cake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldrifleman
also, once a fastener is torqued in the optimum environment and condition. It should be marked and torqued to angle when serviced in the future (torque back to the last known proper torqued position for consistency). Loosening and tightening a fastener other than optimal conditions and ensuring the threads/contacts points are the same as before will effectively change the tension of the fastener. That’s from Hakan, he is much smarter than me on these things. For aerospace purposes I get it. Doesn’t really matter for what we do. Also Ted at ARC has been consulted about this shift issue as well.

I was using spray on silicone dry lube for a while and it did wear off and the shift came back. I use a grease now for longevity. Also most scope rings are intentionally oval to allow compression of the scope tubes as all manufacturers have varying dimensions of tubes within a specific diameter.
Hakan spuhr should be the last fucking person on the planet anyone should listen to about fastners. He uses the shittiest quality money can buy.

Here is what happens. When you torque down a fastners you are elogating ( stretching) it out. The elastic properties of most steel are usually not very good. In many critical applications fastners have a cycle life of 1, for this reason. Witness marks are not for future install but to ensure the fastners has not backed out, it's a form of inspection.

There are so many factors that can cause issues, saying it's because you need to wet the clamp is pure retardation. Scope issues, scope tube straightness, receiver straightness, rail straightness, the tolerance from everything from a 1913 rail to the clamp, the type of clamp, the bearing surface of the clamp, the size of the fastners, the torque values, how many times you have cycled then , ect ect ect ect. Then add in user error and people are chasing their tails.

When you wet a fastner it generally reduces friction resulting in a much higher torque value than indicated. A properly speced torque value taking into account the material, size and application does not need thread locker. Even in applications where vibration is present. You may have to torque it to the point of it becoming a one use fastners but it is what it is depending on application. Safety wife may be called for due to critical failure risk, but should not be needed all things being equal. I spent over a year running a multi million dollar fastner study for a federal agency and learned more about this shit than I ever want to know. The big one being, most grades and specs are bullshit, and unless you buy from a respectable US manufacture who retains data sheets and certs, you are probably getting the cheapest Chinese garbage yum sim pumped out at the end of his 30 hour shift.

Based on my over a dozen spuhr mounts over the years, I can with 100% confidence say Hakan is a cheap bastard using The shittiest fastners only rivaled by tikka. Probably from the same shitty vendor.
 
Hakan spuhr should be the last fucking person on the planet anyone should listen to about fastners. He uses the shittiest quality money can buy.

Here is what happens. When you torque down a fastners you are elogating ( stretching) it out. The elastic properties of most steel are usually not very good. In many critical applications fastners have a cycle life of 1, for this reason. Witness marks are not for future install but to ensure the fastners has not backed out, it's a form of inspection.

There are so many factors that can cause issues, saying it's because you need to wet the clamp is pure retardation. Scope issues, scope tube straightness, receiver straightness, rail straightness, the tolerance from everything from a 1913 rail to the clamp, the type of clamp, the bearing surface of the clamp, the size of the fastners, the torque values, how many times you have cycled then , ect ect ect ect. Then add in user error and people are chasing their tails.

When you wet a fastner it generally reduces friction resulting in a much higher torque value than indicated. A properly speced torque value taking into account the material, size and application does not need thread locker. Even in applications where vibration is present. You may have to torque it to the point of it becoming a one use fastners but it is what it is depending on application. Safety wife may be called for due to critical failure risk, but should not be needed all things being equal. I spent over a year running a multi million dollar fastner study for a federal agency and learned more about this shit than I ever want to know. The big one being, most grades and specs are bullshit, and unless you buy from a respectable US manufacture who retains data sheets and certs, you are probably getting the cheapest Chinese garbage yum sim pumped out at the end of his 30 hour shift.

Based on my over a dozen spuhr mounts over the years, I can with 100% confidence say Hakan is a cheap bastard using The shittiest fastners only rivaled by tikka. Probably from the same shitty vendor.
^^^ This. Witness marks are not for return to position it is to let you know if they moved. Safety wire is to try to prevent movement and oil is a lubricant that alters torque reliability.
 
Well, here he is over half a decade ago talking about Honda transmissions again trying to equate it to the topic at hand.
View attachment 8605430
Well it looks like he’s really gotten into your head, huh? Who cares?

As to wet mounting the scope rings or base to the rail, I’ll probably do it on my next setup. It makes some sense, but Not going to throw out he baby with the bath water.
 
That does it, going in boys! Cover me!
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.
Diddy got to move that 1000 bottles
 
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.
If they did come out with some sort of "scope ring mounting lubricant," don't fall for it. Just go in the kitchen section of your local department store and get non-caloric silicone based kitchen lubricant or Griswold's Sled Wax.

iu
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Darryle and lash
Wow, this strayed wildly off course. Needless to say we don’t need to over think the fastener state/ type, etc. as we know the mount shifts left to right and greasing the mating surfaces fixes the issue. If you don’t believe it happens, spend $5 in ammo and test it yourself, anyone can do it in five minutes on the range.

Rob01, since you didn’t test it and you come into the thread making fun of it, I think you should rethink your behavior here. It just makes you appear more irrelevant with each post.

I have nothing to sell. Just sharing information that has been validated by dozens of engineers across pretty much all the main line optics/mount manufacturers. Choose to believe it or not, make fun of it if you choose, I could care less. I’m about shooting and teaching. I do both every week, I don’t really ever post anything on the hide but just recently this topic surfaced again and since I started the discussion I figured I would jump in here.