Used blue loctite to mount my scopes however, seen somewhere that there is a torque difference between wet torque vs dry torque. What is the difference?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Wet or dry torque?
- Thread starter NndMojoman
- Start date
theoretically theres a difference......practically there is not.
torque to mfg specs wet or dry
torque to mfg specs wet or dry
Thread locker leads to a wet-torque measurement as the liquid is actually lubricating the threads. Yer Torque driver might read 15 inch pounds but due to the lubrication the actual torque can be much higher.
I have seen scopes damaged by improper torquing due to lube on the ring screw threads and I never use thread locker on any scope mounting screws.
There is no consensus that I have seen. Lots of opinions - I believe Vortex officially discourages the use of thread locker.
VooDoo
I have seen scopes damaged by improper torquing due to lube on the ring screw threads and I never use thread locker on any scope mounting screws.
There is no consensus that I have seen. Lots of opinions - I believe Vortex officially discourages the use of thread locker.
VooDoo
you may have seen scopes damaged by inapropriate torque......but it was not caused by lube on the screws.
most common consensus is to reduce torque by 15%.......well if you are torquing a scope to 15inlbs.....an additional 15% is only adding an aditional 2.25 lbs.......and no scope is going to be damaged at 17.5 inlbs.
Most torque values are specified for "dry" conditions, unless stated otherwise. Unfortunately, this is one of the reasons why torque values are such a troublesome area. What you really want is a certain amount of elastic deformation of the screw -- something in the neighborhood of 10% of it's yield strength. This works out to about 90 degrees of rotation past "tight". Trying to do this by torque makes a lot of assumptions. If it's dry, it might take 25 in-lbs for that rotation, while lubed with a good grease, it might only take 10 in-lbs. If you try to torque it to 25 while well lubed, it might very well fail before you get there.
If you don't want to go by controlled over-rotation, I would de-rate any torque values by 30-40% when using loctite, and maybe 50% if using a good grease or anti-seize. Worst case, it's not quite as tight as you could get it. The alternative is risking screw head failure, and / or stripping the threads in your action. ;-(
If you don't want to go by controlled over-rotation, I would de-rate any torque values by 30-40% when using loctite, and maybe 50% if using a good grease or anti-seize. Worst case, it's not quite as tight as you could get it. The alternative is risking screw head failure, and / or stripping the threads in your action. ;-(
Torque calculations have to be figured or modified based on the compound used coefficient of friction.
This. Also as said above, at 15 inch pounds, the difference is so small as to be negligible. If you really feel the need for thread locker, then apply a minimal amount on just the last two threads.
Much ado about nothing. Until you remove the screws. Now you have to get the old loctite off the screw and out of the threaded holes if you want to re-torque with any kind of accuracy. Any time I see loctite on scope rings/mounts I can't help wondering what else did this guy screw up....
You are half right. The thread locker might act as a lubricant, but most of it is so runny that I doubt it.
Your misunderstanding (common) is thinking that the torque applied to the fastener changes between dry and lubricated threads. The torque does not change. 15 in-lbs wet is the same torque (force applied to wrench x moment arm) as 15 in-lbs dry. What changes is the amount of clamping force generated by the fastener because less of those 15 in-lbs of torque applied goes to overcome thread friction in a lubricated joint.
"Warne does not recommend the use of threadlocker on our rings. When a threadlocking compound is applied to screw threads, it can act as a lubricant."
https://warnescopemounts.com/do-i-need-threadlocker/
Have a look at 3:30 where the Dude from Vortex tells you they don't recommend using thread locker.
I'm not trying to be combative - I *did* say there is no consensus on this. Read a lot and use what works best. Like I said earlier, I have seen 2 scopes (both Vortex) that were mounted with Loctite (the blue stuff) and torqued to 15 inch pounds. One was erratic in tracking until remounted without the Loctite. The other was permanently damaged. Different scopes, different rings, different thread lock = different opinions and observations.
YMMV.
VooDoo
https://warnescopemounts.com/do-i-need-threadlocker/
Have a look at 3:30 where the Dude from Vortex tells you they don't recommend using thread locker.
I'm not trying to be combative - I *did* say there is no consensus on this. Read a lot and use what works best. Like I said earlier, I have seen 2 scopes (both Vortex) that were mounted with Loctite (the blue stuff) and torqued to 15 inch pounds. One was erratic in tracking until remounted without the Loctite. The other was permanently damaged. Different scopes, different rings, different thread lock = different opinions and observations.
YMMV.
VooDoo
I use a dedicated 20 inch pound torque wrench from Seekonk on ring screws with out loctite every once in a while I retighten the screws most of the time none move every once in a while I will get one to very slightly turn. My POI is never affected.
I can't speak to ARC rings. I can speak to a denied claim by the scope factory for damage caused by over torqued rings.
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
Torque is a relatively arbitrary value that is easy to measure.. clamp load is what's actually important in a threaded joint but not easily measured (need instrumented screws or load cell washers). Fastener condition (wet, dry, coating, etc.) will significantly change the clamp load or clamp force of a fastened joint for a given torque value.
I've personally measured bolts that failed while being torqued to "spec" and the only difference is they type of coating prescription (trivalent vs. Hexavalent)... friction coefficient is that critical in a threaded joint.
Also, a virgin threaded joint will require lower torque to achieve a given clamp load. I.e., if it's your 5th time torquing your scope rings down onto your scope tube, the joint will have a lower clamp load (force holding it together) than it did the 1st time due to higher friction - at the same torque value.
Here's more info for those who would like to read more on the subject.
I'm in the dry thread, middle range of the torque value school.
Old aircraft maintenance habits die hard.
https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/83789-fastening-the-truth-about-torque-and-tension
I'm in the dry thread, middle range of the torque value school.
Old aircraft maintenance habits die hard.
https://www.assemblymag.com/articles/83789-fastening-the-truth-about-torque-and-tension
Noobie to scope mounting alert!
In other contexts, like bicycles, the conventional wisdom seems to be that you HAVE TO put something in the threads, to avoid a permanent bond. It could be thread locker, grease, or chalk, depending on tastes and what metal to metal contact you are dealing with.
How are bolts on a rifle different?
In other contexts, like bicycles, the conventional wisdom seems to be that you HAVE TO put something in the threads, to avoid a permanent bond. It could be thread locker, grease, or chalk, depending on tastes and what metal to metal contact you are dealing with.
How are bolts on a rifle different?
I've never heard of your conventional wisdom. And I've been making high end shit (like airplanes, automatic transmissions, and ultra high end electric motors) my entire adult life after the Navy.
I have encountered a steel to aluminum bond that I couldn't undo, on a bicycle after some months of not moving the parts. Pity, it was a quite serviceable bike frame before I tried to remove the part.
With dissimilar metals like you encounter on a bicycle, we've always used what's called assembly lube.
Honestly, it looks like dielectric grease.
It's used in the seat tube mostly to prevent a corrosion bond.
Word to the wise, don't lube carbon fiber parts. They must be fit dry and they will hold firmly without excessive torque needed to keep them in place.
Sorry to hear about that bike frame. There are still a lot of classic steel frames that can use a restoration
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
I have only seen Ruger small ring screws seize. A little grease probably would have prevented this.
Thats what you do, and you have never heard of putting anti seize on threads? Please tell me you feign ignorance.
Yes, I've heard of it.
Honda doesn't call it out on its transmission case bolts, which are steel and thread into aluminum. So it's not the universal rule some think it is.
You're welcome
I put blue on my scope bases fixed to the rifle. Everything else does not get it. I spoke to seekins on this a few days ago and they mentioned 15-17 inch pounds on there bases. The guy I spoke to said personal choice of thread locker. Don't think it really does much to the torque value. If you are going by feel, I would say 99% of people would be in the mid 20 or more range. It's so easy to pass those low torque values using just a Allen or torx driver. And the majority of folks out there are just screwing them on hand tight I bet. Maybe not SH members, but your average Joe isn't using a torque wrench.
Nobody "calls is out." You are supposed to be knowledgeable enough to use it. You're welcome.
Scope rings are anodized, this keeps the steel from bonding to the aluminum.
Have always torqued my rings, crossbolt/screws and cap screws, dry to the manufacturers specs.
Have held every scope I've used for decades.
Not a mark on a scope yet.
R
Have held every scope I've used for decades.
Not a mark on a scope yet.
R
I crushed some tubes on some cheap scopes when I first started out. Leaned not to make them too tight. Years latter I picked a phat wrench, and used it for a while. Now it mostly just sits. Its not hard to get a feel for how tight to make something. A torque wrench is talked about here like a required piece of kit for scope mounting. But i don't think its that common of a practice. i still use that phat wrench for things like the action screw on my 10/22.
Not that this is the best method but just my opinion and has worked well.
I de-grease the threads and torque to manufacturers specs, then usually put a mark on top of the screw heads with a paint pen or nail polish. Not only will it help keep moisture out but you can use it as a witness mark if a screw ever came loose. I assume most rings and screws come coated in a light film of oil/grease for storage purposes, not to be left on there. If a scope ring were to work itself loose over time, having oil on the threads is only going to make it easier.
I de-grease the threads and torque to manufacturers specs, then usually put a mark on top of the screw heads with a paint pen or nail polish. Not only will it help keep moisture out but you can use it as a witness mark if a screw ever came loose. I assume most rings and screws come coated in a light film of oil/grease for storage purposes, not to be left on there. If a scope ring were to work itself loose over time, having oil on the threads is only going to make it easier.
D
Deleted member 10043
Guest
I, personally don't use thread locker on scope rings. I torque and re-torque after the 1st firing session and have never had a failure.
Although scope rings are anodized or coated, the machined surfaces (this includes the cut threads) are typically not coated. If I used my rifles/optics in corrosive environments such as around saltwater I would probably use a threadlocker, more as an inhibitor to corrosion bonding the fastener to the threaded body. On optics mounting, I would shy away from using a lubricant for obvious reasons. In the case of using threadlocker, I would use pink (lowest holding power) and I would apply the thread locker sparingly and allow to dry before threading/torquing. This way, you get corrosion protection, but should not alter the torque applied to tighten the threads.
Although scope rings are anodized or coated, the machined surfaces (this includes the cut threads) are typically not coated. If I used my rifles/optics in corrosive environments such as around saltwater I would probably use a threadlocker, more as an inhibitor to corrosion bonding the fastener to the threaded body. On optics mounting, I would shy away from using a lubricant for obvious reasons. In the case of using threadlocker, I would use pink (lowest holding power) and I would apply the thread locker sparingly and allow to dry before threading/torquing. This way, you get corrosion protection, but should not alter the torque applied to tighten the threads.
I have never seen a set of rings that were not anodized inside the threads. They machine then Anodize, not the other way around.
Not true. In particular with ring caps, the smaller threads, the smaller diameter screws are very prone to over torque (the degree is determined by the materials used) and the addition of Loctite using mfg. dry specs can lead to torque up to 25% over. It doesn't take much to strip small screws and with scope rings and mounts, I'm betting that they're maxing the torque as much as possible and there's not much room for error in most. I've seen more stripped threads on small screws this way than any other. It's NOT hard to do either. Of course shittier rings and mounts are more prone than quality ones, especially aluminum ones that don't have a steel threaded insert.
Sounds about right. 25% is I think more of a general number and was in reference to materials other than and including Loctite. Grease can do the same thing. Anything that fills in the spaces between threads will do this.
I used to use Loctite too, blue, and after damaging some rings that way I got a set of Badgers and they cover all this in detail, first time I'd heard it.
Not saying you CAN'T use Loctite, just make sure to subtract the 15% or whatever from the spec torque and you'll be good to go. I'd give it some gentle heat before trying to take apart though, if you can. That or dissolve the Loctite I solvent.
Haven't had 'em back out either, not even with the brutal recoil of a DTA HTI .50BMG (those Badger M107 rings are TOUGH!).
As always, contact the mfg. and see what they say --it's possible their torque rating includes the use of Loctite, or is optimized for both Loctite and no Loctite. Sometimes the instructions are vague. Sometimes they don't even include torque specs (rarely). I ask on here too, but I also call the mfg. when I have questions too.
I mostly use Loctite when mounting scopes to put a layer on the bottom of the mount where it attaches to the rail. It's habit, just helps hold it all in place well. Too much and it won't dry.
Finally, if backing out were a problem, I'm sure rings and mounts would have evolved to use either a lock nut under the ring or perhaps a different type of screw, staked screw or different mounting method altogether.
You are correct but I think he is mainly referring to galvanic corrosion due to using dissimilar metals. I have used many of my rifles at or near sea level in some very humid environments along the gulf coast of Texas and have never noticed any issues, but I'm no frog man swimming ashore with my rifle and wipe them down and apply a light coat of oil if rained on before putting them away.
The simplest answer to all of this is don't over think the process, if I were going to adjust from a dry to wet torque values if I were using thread locker wich I don't I would use the value given for a light machine oiled thread.
The anodizing is an oxidation process. I am pretty sure it acts as a barrier to any galvanic corrosion.
I understand that and understood your point initially but I think that is what was being lost in translation. Galvanic corrosion is not much of or any issue on anodized parts or the manufacturers would state in the assembly to use a certain compound on dissimilar parts to prevent it.
The only rings I have ever used blue thread locker on have been on a fairly light 300wm that needed it and they were steel rings not aluminum. I have allways been leery of using thread locker on aluminum threaded parts, to much that can go wrong as opposed to just using a proper torque value and checking it occasionally to make myself feel better.
I keep a log for all threaded fasteners on my rifles and check them from time to time, and I too use the Fat wrench. Great little tool and priced right.
Jesus Christ.... only SH can make a big fucking deal about scope ring screws..
I’ve designed navy radar systems and we never bawked this much about screws.
Just screw them in, torque them down, loctite or not and be done with it.
It’s honestly not a big deal.
Of all the reasons you are a bad shooter.... loctite or not on your screws isn’t one of them.
I’ve designed navy radar systems and we never bawked this much about screws.
Just screw them in, torque them down, loctite or not and be done with it.
It’s honestly not a big deal.
Of all the reasons you are a bad shooter.... loctite or not on your screws isn’t one of them.
WHAAAT, We haven't even gotten to the tutorial on safety wiring all fasteners and the proper way to do it yet ???
And here we see the difference between backyard mechanics who think they know better and professionals who follow OEM requirements to the letter because not doing so exposes their company to huge financial liabilities due to non-conformances and quality escapes.
Looking at the Honda Automatic. i would not antisieze those bolts. I never put it on the transmission pan bolts, I never used on the valve body bolts. Diesel, we put it on everything. There is nothing like trashing a $20k dollar core because you can't get a head bolt out. We were taught in school to always lube a bolt so you get a correct torque value, unless the manufacture specifies dry. I have never seen anything that specified dry torque. I help my ASE master certification, and spent 10 years working things after coming out of NWKTC automotive program as the #1 recruit.
Last edited:
