Hi guys,

Was wondering what you use with your scope bases and rings on the heavy hitters.
I have read from some pretty notable sources not to use any, but do you then take the scope off routinely and check to see that the base is tight? one source said to degrease the screws and such with lighter fluid or something similar first. or should I just lock-tite them all and not worry about it.

what say ye?

I use loctite, green...not blue. My biggest advice is to use steel bases & steel rings. You get what you pay for. It always blows my mind that folks will spend several hundred dollars to a grand or more on a gun & then want to use cheap bases & rings. Two steel rings with torx screws are stronger & more rigid than 3 or 4 aluminum rings. This has always worked for me, but use whatever works for you. My 416 Barnes generates some serious recoil!

Ditto. Steel will give you the edge of mentally knowing your optic will stay put and on target for those long shots on that lifetime trophy.

I use blue loctite on my 460. I took it a step farther and got rid of the screws that come with the Weigand rings, and put in the heavy duty "won't break no matter how tight you screw them in" allen head screws from Fastenal. Ok, so maybe that's just my name for them, but I want things TIGHT. I also used them when I put the base on the MGM barrel.

I have broken my share of heads off of screws, so I did a little research, and went with those super strong screws and have never had a problem since. I only have a scoped 460 as far as heavy hitters go, but I have the confidence that my optics are NOT going to move.

If you're curious, the screws I use are the SHCS #6 allen head screws. Tougher than anything out there. I TRIED to break one in an old scope ring, and couldn't do it.

I clean screws and holes good with degreaser and use a dab of blue loc-tite. Seems to work for me. Never had any issues.

I use blue loc-tite and Warne rings as a default for every hand cannon I have, and I have everything including a .458 Lott and .470 NE Encore "pistol". Aluminum rings will work just fine and may actually be preferable to steel ones because they're lighter and as a result contribute less mass to the forward momentum that sheers scope base screws. This isn't an issue for a lot of guns, but is a huge problem for encores and contenders which is why the TSOB, etc. use 6 screws instead of 4 as 4 loaded with a steel base and 3 steel rings will sheer the screws, and I have the scar above my nose to prove it. Aluminum bases seem like a bad idea to me just because they flex and can crack as a result, but getting back to your actual question Loctite is a must. I also use spray adhesive on the inside of the rings for the big boomers to help prevent the scope from sliding, or having to tighten the rings so much to the point that high dollar rings even leave marks.

I understand what you are saying bobhanson1. I like the green loctite just because it is a little stronger than the blue. 1600 psi as opposed to 1400 psi. Either one should work fine & are a lot better than not using any. I too have had a scope crack me in the head. I was sighting in my 376 Steyr and was using 3 Durasight "aluminum alloy" rings. They are supposed to be 50 percent stronger than aluminum. Well, lets just say that I had ring failure with that set up & a Burris variable hit my eye brow at 100 mph...that stunk! After switching to 2 Warne "steel" rings I have had no problems. I also switched the 3 aluminum rings that I had on my 416 Barnes, because after 175 rounds or so, my scope was slipping. 2 Warne rings seem to have fixed the problem. Use whatever works for your situation.

When I decide to scope a handgun, I don't ever intend for the base to come loose. I make sure that the screws will each bottom on the base properly, without hitting bottom first. I test one screw at a time. Then removing the base, I clean and degrease all screws, holes, and base, using alcohol. After everything dries, I apply red Loctite to the base and all screws, and snug them down, allowing everything to dry at least 24 hours.

When affixing rings, I do not use Loctite, as I may later want to change scopes. I do, however, check ring tightness after each shooting session.
A red Loctited base can later be removed if nesessary, by applying heat.

I use both steel and aluminum rings, depending upon the base and degree of recoil involved. The lighter weight of aluminum rings and a lighter scope like a 2X Leupold can be an advantage in keeping a mount from pulling loose. But this is somewhat superfluous if one is using one of the heavier scopes like a variable higher power Burris.

I like to use all steel bases and rings, but haven't had any issues with the aluminum rings I have used. I am especially found of the Leupold Dual-dovetail system. I have used the Burris Signature rings with excellent results as well.

I de-grease all components before assembly. I use red loctite on the base screws and blue loctite on the ring screws.

hey thanks for the replies!

overwhelmingly in favor of lock-tite! I would agree with you guys on this also. I am remounting my T'SOB on my FA 83, because of ring failure (i will get into that in a second) and noticed that when previously mounted, the rear screws in the base came loose and the front of the base was rubbing on the barrel some during recoil. had it mounted by the factory, but I think during cleaning, too much oil wound up loosening the screws or something. They obviously had zero lock-tite

Anyways, I asked the techs at FA, and they stated "no Lock-tite, and 30" lbs on base screws and about 20" lbs on the rings" I , myself, thought in order to be worry free on the base It should have some lock-tite(because I cannot regularly check the screws with the scope mounted). I also emailed JDJ Jones and he gave no mention of lock-tite, so I wanted to check with you guys to see what you do.

About the rings. I was disappointed to say the least, when I noticed that the rear two Weigand mag rings out of the 4 on my gun were cracking where the aluminum ring hooks the bottom of the base. Bad enough that I noticed this after I missed a buck during the season, but then I removed the scope and rings to see that the rings had marred the slotts in the base. after further inspection, I noticed that the bolts in the weigands were threaded way further than they needed to be, and only filled roughly a quarter of the depth of the slot in the base, essentially making very little contact with the base except for the very top of the slot which is the part that got marred badly. this is when I also noticed that the rear screw of the base was loose and allowed the front of the base to rub on the barrel. There was also some oil pooled up under the base between the base and the top strap of the gun.

So, not trusting the damaged base, I had to order a new one, and went with the SSK rings which it turns out, I should have used to start with. these rings look more stout to me, and the UNthreaded portion of the cross bolt (the one that anchors the ring in the slot of the base) fills the ENTIRE slot, therefore should allow no movement or flex like the weigand did. I think there is something to be said of the vertical split rings strength also, instead of the horizontal split.

I also thought maybe the the Burris 1-4 is too heavy, but JD did not think so, and when doing a little research, it is only 1oz heavier than the bushnell elite, which many people recomend on hard kickers.

So, to make a long winded post longer, I want this to be the last time I have to mess with the mounts, so i will be using lock-tite for piece of mind. I also learned that I need to go easy with the oil, and my oil wipes are probably putting too much on when I wipe the gun down

P.s. I agree with you guys on the steel Warne rings. they are awesome, and if this were a single shot monster like you guys have or a thumper of a rifle,that would be my setup as well

I've never had screws loosen when loc-tited, but have when they were just torqued to spec. so it was a pretty obvious solution in my mind!

Blue Loc-Tite goes on everything these days for me...

BB - I had the same revelation with the Weigands that you did with the T'SOB when I bought a used T'SOB from a forum member - he prefaced the sale by saying that he had augered out the slots specifically for his rings such that they would mount securely in the slots.

The post makes me reconsider the Weigands on my newest 10" .454...

Hmm - may be due for a remount.

I have Weigands on all my FA's and prefer them to the vertical split rings. I put blue loc-tite on any thing that has a thread and haven't had any issues.

SC and KRal,

I know a few of the members have had good luck with the Weigands on T'SOB bases with similar setups, and that is why I went with them to start with.

But after this, I am obviously not impressed, and it ended up costing me a bunch of extra $$ on a new base and different rings. I MAYBE could have reused the same base after some filing and such, but I didn't want to think about it every time I look at the gun or pull the trigger so I bit the bullet and bought a new one.

The SSK rings look beefier, and I definitely like the way the crossbolt fits the slots better already.

now I just have to get some lock-tite and sling some lead to see how they do

BB,
I can't blame you for shying away. I'm just wondering if the ring failure was due to your T'SOB base working loose. That could cause a lot of energy transfer to unwanted areas.

Could you post some pics of the damaged mount and rings?

BB,

Sounds like you have things sorted out. I too use loctite with the Tsob Base and my FA 83.

It sounds like you will be using more than two rings. Whether two or more, I like to also make sure that each of the rings is at the forward edge of their respective slot. The idea being that the gun will head back, and the scope and rings will resist and bear forward. If all of your rings are bearing on the forward edge of their slots, you will have less chance for slippage.

This might be a little overkill, but you can also use a little excess loctite to take up any slack or gap in the fit between the tsob and your sight channel. And a word of caution. With other makes of rings, you can strip a screw hole. With the SSK rings, before you strip the screw hole, you will probably slightly crush your scope tube. Use the torque setting you got from SSK, use the loctite, but do not give it that last little "just in case" torque ;^)

Craig

KRal,

That is possible, and something that I considered, but I believe that if the rings would have been designed like the SSK rings as far as the crossbolt goes, then I don't think they would have cracked or garred up the base. The threaded portion of the bolt was actually slightly embedded in part of the base kinda making it look threaded.
I will post a few picks for ya guys

Craig,
I am using four rings because there is enough room for them so why not right? I think it looks good too fwiw. I would have put lock-tite on the base myself, but it came from the factory mounted, and they do not put any on it. I will get it all fixed up though now.

I also saw you post the experience with moving the ring forward as much as possible in the slot, and thought that was a good idea so that is how these were mounted. the SSK rings however, seem to darn near fill the entire slot with the crossbolt, allowing little room to move, but I will still consider this when mounting. I mean, REMOUNTING after i put lock-tite on everything

I tried taking pictures of the rings and stuff, but my crappy old camera doesn't do well with close ups I guess

Does it have a "macro" setting? Even my crappy camera does, but I had to look to find it. Works great for close stuff.

OK, these turned out alright, but not perfect, had to do some editing found the setting too Rod, still not a very good camera! lol ... I think you should be able to see anyways.
This one you can see the thread imprints from the crossbolt in the ring, and the bent "finger" on the left side

this shows how shallow the crossbolt is in the ring, and the bent/cracking "finger"

3 of the rings from worst to better, right to left. again, the bent "Fingers" on the left side

I am saying fingers in lack of a better term lol

this one is a bit harder to see, but the first and third slots are bent and garred up with thread marks on the front edge.

I will post a lil better pic

here you can see the edges of the slots that were damaged a little easier (left side of base). not the greatest pictures, but you get the idea. looks worse in person.

If anything now I have an excuse to buy another 83 some day that recoils a little less so I can reuse the base

I just couldn't get myself to trust this one now that it is damaged

That would be a "reason" to buy another not an excuse!!!

BB,
All of my Weigand mounts have the thread prints in the rings; straight from the factory. I think it's cause they thread it before the cut out for the mount. Don't know for a fact, just guessing. I really think the issue was the mount working loose. Either way, I'll be willing to buy that T'SOB mount from you at a "unserviceable price".

KRal,
that could be so.

I may be interested in parting with the base (I don't think you'll want the rings due to the damage) shoot me a pm with an offer and we'll go from there

I had some of those style rings do the same thing. Easy fix though. The vertical split rings as far as I know are just the cheap Leupold rifleman vertical split. I have both the ones from SSK and the Leupold and can't tell the difference. I'm sure that's where they are coming from and they are super cheap from Midway. I like the vertical ones myself and typically have 4 rings on all of them just out of habit and the OCD side of me does NOT like an uneven 3.....sorry, can't help that