I think we're thinking 90 degrees different. My comment was in regard to something impacting the side of the scope/mount as if it were dropped. In that instance you have elastic deformation of the clamp assembly then the clamp rebounding. I don't know if that's what's happening. I've personally never experienced this to my knowledge.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Wet Mounting Scope Mounts - Where It All Started
- Thread starter matt2143
- Start date
I think we're thinking 90 degrees different. My comment was in regard to something impacting the side of the scope/mount as if it were dropped. In that instance you have elastic deformation of the clamp assembly then the clamp rebounding. I don't know if that's what's happening. I've personally never experienced this to my knowledge.
Well, I asked Spuhr about this last year and they recommend cleaning the screws with some sort of degreaser before using Loctite, and to lessen the torque by 15%.
They don't recommend using oil and loctite together because it might prevent the Loctite for curing properly
In the early 1940's the Swiss tried several German optics/mounts and were dissatisfied with the zero retention and general ruggedness of the optics and mounts so they solved the problem by filling the gap between the optic and receiver with weld... So at least we know there's a nuclear option if all of this still fails us 
This isn’t about lube on the fasteners, it’s the surfaces of the pic rail and clamp on the mount/rings.
No disagreement from me.
I was just clarifying for those that confused wet screws with the actual subject at hand, which is surfaces that are effectively sliding to each other in the mating process.
The purpose of the lube is literally trying to prevent mini galling, stiction or any other name someone wants to apply to it.
Sliding on a dry water slide vs having a tiny bit of water for lube.
We see the same thing in our indoor tunnel. No external light, no mirage, bolted down heavy rail gun fixture. If you push the objective around, the image goes the direction you push. Bullet POI doesn't change but you can move where the scope is "looking" with surprisingly little force. The image is all generated from the objective lens and the thin wall aluminum tube isn't exceptionally rigid.
I have literally been using this in the aircraft industry since 1979, amazing stuff.
I have literally been using this in the aircraft industry since 1979, amazing stuff.
So I think a few have confused the two issues here.
The oil is on the mount NOT the screw so the torque value is not affected.
The fastener is dry. The mating surfaces of the rail and ring is allowed to "slip" into places as the fastener is torqued.
This allows the two surfaces to seat together instead of binding against each other.
The oil is on the mount NOT the screw so the torque value is not affected.
The fastener is dry. The mating surfaces of the rail and ring is allowed to "slip" into places as the fastener is torqued.
This allows the two surfaces to seat together instead of binding against each other.
I didn’t mean that there are instructions to lube your fasteners and then torque to a dry value. That’s quite a leap.
What I meant is just that many of the instructions provide dry values (which is standard), while most of the people I know who are knowledgeable in fasteners simply rely on their knowledge.
What I meant is just that many of the instructions provide dry values (which is standard), while most of the people I know who are knowledgeable in fasteners simply rely on their knowledge.
Last edited:
I have seen lots of instructions for torquing firearms accessories that give one torque value but also suggest using threadlocker.
Some people are saying oil, some are saying grease. Does it matter? Do you just slather it on the rail slots? This seems simple but I wouldn't mind seeing a video of someone doing it.
Last edited:
So I think a few have confused the two issues here.
The oil is on the mount NOT the screw so the torque value is not affected.
The fastener is dry. The mating surfaces of the rail and ring is allowed to "slip" into places as the fastener is torqued.
This allows the two surfaces to seat together instead of binding against each other.
The oil is on the mount NOT the screw so the torque value is not affected.
The fastener is dry. The mating surfaces of the rail and ring is allowed to "slip" into places as the fastener is torqued.
This allows the two surfaces to seat together instead of binding against each other.
We use metric tons of anti-seize(quantity over all, not on each fasten) for threaded fasteners, then use tie wire to prevent them from loosening.
We have tons of documents that cover the various types of lubricants and installation procedures.
Having experienced the horizontal shift from "soft" falls, I see the merits of the use on the clamping surfaces.
I have a couple of low recoiling rifles that I will experiment with. They have held zero for quite a while, so if the issue is friction, wet installation should change the POI horizontallly after removal, lubricating surfaces and reinstalling of the optic. We'll see.
Not necessarily. Torque specs by fastener size are generally calculated to be maximum unlubricated torque for that fastener assuming that both male and female threads are the same material.
There are literally thousands of applications where the joint's torque specifications are in a range that is either more restrictive than the general specs, or completely outside of the general specification. And for good reason.
ETA Just say your follow on post saying essentially the same thing.
Too much generalization in this post (as usual for technical topics) for me to comment.
I wonder if all the zero shift problems seen here would be a simple issue of scope ring bearing surface contact.
If anyone has ever lapped a set of rings you'd be shocked by the lack of contact.
Same goes for scope rails. Take the straightest custom action and torque an imperfect rail, the tolerance is all going towards canting or twisting the rings out of true.
Maybe stress free bedding a quality one piece bases and lapping and or bedding rings is the correct solution.??
If anyone has ever lapped a set of rings you'd be shocked by the lack of contact.
Same goes for scope rails. Take the straightest custom action and torque an imperfect rail, the tolerance is all going towards canting or twisting the rings out of true.
Maybe stress free bedding a quality one piece bases and lapping and or bedding rings is the correct solution.??
Been doing this for a little over a year after Hawkins told me about it. I’ve had my scope. Get knocked from an RO at match a few years ago ago at the Ruger Koenig PRC PRS match that I attributed this the the zero getting knocked off. Haven’t had it happen since, but I have had other problems. 
And your statement is not correct. ARC states to lube fasteners for their rings with oil.
Playing devils advocate here:
How do you know for sure your stress free bedding doesn't allow a crooked rail to remain crooked?
Maybe torquing the slightly twisted aluminum rail down on a straight, steel receiver, straightens it out...
Who knows?
Just some food for thought.
This is probably why a lot of shooters gravitate towards rails machined as part of the receiver.
Again, who knows?
Waiting for Ron Popeil to jump out with his new miracle grease to put between your mount or rings and base and never lose zero again!
Still reading, but is say a nitride action slick enough with aluminum clamps to act like a lube?
Last edited:
I'm telling you, this is about to be the next fad. I can see it, next week we'll see the "WHAT THE PRO'S USE" survey so everyone can choose the same scope mounting lube.
Scope rings will starting coming with built in dip sticks. And from now on, anytime someone asks about zero shifting, instead of telling them to check their fasteners or try another proven scope..."go check ya picatinny grease!!!"
How is friction in a clamp different than fastener/screw?
You can see this with fasteners with lube on threads and/or mating surfaces, increase of the degrees of clockwise rotation is the example.
Seems simple enough to prove to yourself with a previously mounted and zero'd scope using the clean and dry process, more so if you have previously removed and reinstalled and shift was documented, remove, use a dry/wet lube and reinstall, note any shift. If any, it should be exactly opposite of the previous shift.
You can see this with fasteners with lube on threads and/or mating surfaces, increase of the degrees of clockwise rotation is the example.
Seems simple enough to prove to yourself with a previously mounted and zero'd scope using the clean and dry process, more so if you have previously removed and reinstalled and shift was documented, remove, use a dry/wet lube and reinstall, note any shift. If any, it should be exactly opposite of the previous shift.
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.
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.
this testing encompassed various types of pic rails including, steel rail types tested were; cerakoted, nitrided, and polished. Aluminum types tested with cerakoted and also anodized. The types of rings and mount styles tested were; two piece aluminum, two piece steel, unimount systems in aluminum, QD lever type mounts, QD clamp type mounts. Styles of pic rail clamps included; wrap around with a single angled foot (APA type), single cross bolt (Badger, NF type), multi screw separate rings (seekins, etc), cross bolt uni mounts, multi fasteners acting on a single bar (ARC, Spuhr, etc).
The large shifts come from ‘Soft impacts’. A hard impact allows the mount to return to zero versus ‘sticking’ off center. This is proven by a hard and abrupt shock has minimal zero shift effect of quality equipment installed to manufacturer specs.
The large shifts come from ‘Soft impacts’. A hard impact allows the mount to return to zero versus ‘sticking’ off center. This is proven by a hard and abrupt shock has minimal zero shift effect of quality equipment installed to manufacturer specs.
It can. MDT has a video on this where they exerted different measured forces to the top of the objective bell to show the corresponding POA/POI shift. I’m no engineer, but I would think the amount of shift observed, using this technique, would also be dependent on the positioning of the front ring and how much unsupported tube is forward of that ring.
I was in a match a couple years ago and didn’t understand why I was seeing a 0.1-0.2 mil shift on various stages until another competitor, who happens to also be an instructor, pointed out my hand placement. Solved at least one of my problems!
Last edited:
Do you know the OP?
I’ve known Matt for over 15 years and just some of his involvement in the precision rifle industry. The guy is a bit of a mad scientist and knows his shit. I’d maybe consider what he has to say instead of just poking fun at something he’s been testing for a damn decade along with some of the best manufacturers in the industry and elite SF groups.
Thanks for caring.
Oh and for the record I wasn’t saying the OP was trying to sell something or is like Mr Popeil.
You’d made two replies in this thread just being a straight up troll mocking the OP’s testing who knows more than you and has more experience and accomplishments than you.
Like I said, you’re embarrassing yourself.
Rifle Scopes - Spuhr Mount, Oil on Rail (Base) ?
Hello Members Just got my first Spuhr mount. Reading the instructions it states " Apply a light coat of oil to the rail before attaching the mount." What is the deal with that? Never hear of such a thing. Does anyone actually do that? Comments?
www.snipershide.com
Stop by the CherryBalmz booth at SHOT and get a first look at their new rail lube.
I usually add some thick grease to the insides of the ring/mount clamps and onto the top surface of the clamps (essentially, the three STANAG datum surfaces). Where I live there is always a lot of sand/dust, so I try to keep the amount of exposed wet lubricant to a minimum.
How much it helps varies somewhat based on a mount design (old Aadmounts did not care a ton about this, for example). However, I am not aware of a situation where this would hurt.
With scope mounts, you are really playing the odds. Most quality mounts work adequately well in most situations. What I am looking to do here is to pay due diligence and minimize the probability of an error.
It has been pretty nicely established that most riflescopes from quality scope manufacturers are impressively resistant to all sorts of impact and the subtle zero shifts people complain about almost invariably come down to either the shooter or the mounting or a bit of both. Nothing in this is ever absolute, so all we can do is play the odds.
ILya
How much it helps varies somewhat based on a mount design (old Aadmounts did not care a ton about this, for example). However, I am not aware of a situation where this would hurt.
With scope mounts, you are really playing the odds. Most quality mounts work adequately well in most situations. What I am looking to do here is to pay due diligence and minimize the probability of an error.
It has been pretty nicely established that most riflescopes from quality scope manufacturers are impressively resistant to all sorts of impact and the subtle zero shifts people complain about almost invariably come down to either the shooter or the mounting or a bit of both. Nothing in this is ever absolute, so all we can do is play the odds.
ILya
Rokslide is going to have a meltdown over this one.
Spuhr has long recommended against using thread locker (ie Loctite) because the additional lubricant will cause over-tightening of rings etc which could damage a scope. If people buy into this then it seems this would also apply to greasing things, and perhaps we would have to generate proper torque specs for “wet mounting” scopes.
Except they are completely different things. Not the same. This has been discussed ad nauseam already. In addition, had you actually read through the posts in the thread, you would have seen this link posted just a few above your post:
Rifle Scopes - Spuhr Mount, Oil on Rail (Base) ?
Hello Members Just got my first Spuhr mount. Reading the instructions it states " Apply a light coat of oil to the rail before attaching the mount." What is the deal with that? Never hear of such a thing. Does anyone actually do that? Comments?
www.snipershide.com
Note that it says:
“Just got my first Spuhr mount. Reading the instructions it states " Apply a light coat of oil to the rail before attaching the mount."”
None of what's being discussed above is in relation to the rings.
I would not be too worried about that one. Persistent Aggressive Ignorance has a way of soldering on regardless of the evidence.
ILya
The friction will eat into your compression/stretch a LOT with anodize aluminum surface. This is why when you see screws removed from ring caps that had zero lube under the screw head, the aluminum is bare/ano torn off. All that force went into THAT instead of bolt stretch and tube compression. I personally use Loctite 243. Does it suck if you are wishy washy and remount all your stuff all the time? Sure. I don't do that.
Similar threads
