Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: Applying loctite to increase accuracy?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,611
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by pinzgauer View Post
    Bill Alexander has indicated in the past that while it is not *needed*, he has seen some benefit in using locktite on the barrel extension for grendels. It reduces some of the harmonics that can cause vertical stringing without having to over torque the barrel nut like some bench shooters do.

    He was very clear that in any single rifle you may not see a benefit. Remember, grendels are normally sub-moa even with carbine rack grade barrels and half MOA is not uncommon with some care and decent ammo. So the grendel crowd is more accuracy oriented. Bill recommends 243, and it handles the heat in the receiver sections with no problem, yet can still be removed if needed.

    For a typical hard use 5.56 carbine I personally do not believe you would see a benefit.

    If you feel the need to do something on the gas block or hider, many use Rockset, which can handle the higher temps. I personally do not believe it's needed on a properly assembled m4'gery.

    Of course, if you are concerned about the sight block most will tell you you should pin it, so the only benefit to "bedding" is for gas seal, which should not be an issue with decent components.
    Loctite is not just Loctite. Bill did his research when he recommended 243. You also won't be waltzing down to Wal-mart of Home Depot and buying formula 243, either. I recently had to attach Ti and anodized Al using loctite. I, too, settled on 243, and it has worked very well. It's a self-priming formula, slightly more robust than 242, and will work on inert materials...such as an anodized AR receiver.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    7,868
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Littlelebowski View Post
    Those two are one of my favorite couples. So happy together!

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    They really true up each other's chassis, if ya know what I mean.
    We miss you, AC.
    We miss you, ToddG.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Malmo, Sweden
    Posts
    678
    Feedback Score
    0
    As others have noted there are two schools of thought:
    • Anti-seize to allow the barrel to be easily replaced (I would call this the M4C School of Enlightenment)
    • Loctite/Rockset to minimize any chance of movement between the barrel and the receiver (the High Power School of Whatever)

    The M4C School operates on three factors; a) quality parts, b) high round count, and c) ease of replacement. I.e. we will shoot the shit out of the weapon and within a certain time-frame* the barrel will have to be replaced - and when that happens all we want to do is unscrew the barrel nut, remove the old barrel, pop a new one in and tighten to the correct torque with a minimum of complications.

    The HP School operates on one factor only: the removal of any possible factor that can negatively affect the accuracy of the system. Is it possible that the front of the receiver is uneven so that even if the barrel is torqued down to spec there is room for movement? Yes, it is possible.** So let's Loctite that bad boy in there. Oh, and once we perceive the barrel to be shot out we'll deal with the added pain of trying to remove it when glued in place; it's worth it due to the perceived - or real (depending on what POS parts are used) - increase in accuracy.


    * That will occur during our lifetime.
    ** Especially since many of these guys belong to the "just as good as" crowd and will base their builds on receivers the rest of us wouldn't even consider.
    Last edited by skullworks; 12-31-12 at 12:12.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,681
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    How many barrels have you worn out?

    There are a few rail systems on the market whereas the user will be dealing with the removal of loctite for a barrel replacement. Ie, KAC rails. As luck would have it, applying a heat gun to the parts does the trick. Maybe I should add a double asterix to really drive that point.

    I absolutely don't understand this fascination with, after firing tens of thousands of rounds to wear out a barrel, the need to save the cheapest part of the entire assembly; the upper receiver.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Malmo, Sweden
    Posts
    678
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bp7178 View Post
    How many barrels have you worn out?
    If the question is directed to me the answer is none. Then again I sold off my first AR back in '03 (before it had reached 1000 rounds) and having since moved back to Sweden I wasn't able to get a new one until the day before X-mas last year. Bought another one a few months ago.

    However, the point is that the system is designed so that all parts (including the barrel) would be easily replaced, hence the stipulated use of anti-seize or grease.

    I absolutely don't understand this fascination with, after firing tens of thousands of rounds to wear out a barrel, the need to save the cheapest part of the entire assembly; the upper receiver.
    For a private citizen in the U.S. I would agree. For law enforcement and/or military it might be regulated that the upper should be kept in use as long as possible until it shows "actual" signs of needing to be replaced (I have not worked as an armorer so I don't know if there are any such recommendations/regulations.)

    As for us poor sods here in Sweden, the upper is a registered part (as are the barrel and bolt.) They cannot be as easily replaced as in the U.S.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,681
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    I find it odd that a person who has never needed to replace a barrel puts so much importance on it.

    Loctite isn't some miracle chemical weld. It's easily undone...

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,217
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    I dunk my whole gun in a tub of Loctite and that shit shoots sub moa all day long!
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Malmo, Sweden
    Posts
    678
    Feedback Score
    0
    Wow, bp7178, you read WAAAAAY too much into my post. But please feel free to expand on why you use one over the other?

    There are more than one type of Loctite, so I guess it all depends on which one you refer to and/or what your definition of "easily" is.
    Last edited by skullworks; 12-31-12 at 13:53.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,681
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by skullworks View Post
    Wow, bp7178, you read WAAAAAY too much into my post. But please feel free to expand on why you use one over the other?

    There are more than one type of Loctite, so I guess it all depends on which one you refer to and/or what your definition of "easily" is.
    Use one what?

    How did I read too much into it?

    You made a rather long post to express your view, and I responded to it. Your logic on what the M4 "school" wants/does is misplaced, considering its from a guy who never shot out a barrel. I'm not a high power shooter, but I've met a few. To say that those guys would use parts "just as good as" is full of fail as well.

    This is a technical thread, and there are so many posts which don't have one bit of technical information or at least an unbiased view of the topic.

    Back to the topic;

    Bedding an AR15 barrel has done by many respectable gunsmiths, and I think it has its merit, but within limitations. Its something that has to be done in conjunction with other operations. Ie, making sure the upper rail and face is true to the centerline of the receiver, the barrel extension fits properly to the receiver etc. The problem is your average end user can't hand select an upper from a crate of them. You're kind of stuck with what you buy. To that end, if accuracy is a concern, buying a quality upper receiver to begin with is the way to go.

    If you're running 55gr FMJ ammo and blasting away at 50 yards and in, its never going to matter.

    I dunk my whole gun in a tub of Loctite and that shit shoots sub moa all day long!
    Bravo...quality as always.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Malmo, Sweden
    Posts
    678
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bp7178 View Post
    Use one what?
    Which do you use and/or prefer; anti-seize or a bonding agent? And why?

    You made a rather long post to express your view, and I responded to it.
    My view is that there are two schools of thoughts: those who prefer anti-seize and those who prefer a bonding agent such as Loctite. I further expanded - in a joking manner I admit, but I guess humor will always be lost on some - on the demographics of the two groups (i.e. people here at M4C tend to prefer anti-seize - because that is the MilSpec way* - whereas high power shooters (and I guess I could add long-range shooters and varmint hunters as well) are more likely to go with Loctite than the M4C crowd are.) Obviously there are going to be some cross-polination between the various groups and/or applications, but still...

    Your logic on what the M4 "school" wants/does is misplaced, considering its from a guy who never shot out a barrel.
    So just because I haven't shot out a barrel myself I am by definition unable to comprehend why people chose to use anti-seize even if they tell me why? Let's give it another go; please enlighten me. What does the M4 "school" want? And why? As Loctiting a barrel has merit why do reputable people here still say that you shouldn't do it?

    I'm not a high power shooter, but I've met a few. To say that those guys would use parts "just as good as" is full of fail as well.
    They would never use a DPMS receiver then?

    This is a technical thread, and there are so many posts which don't have one bit of technical information or at least an unbiased view of the topic.
    So since I apparently was way off the mark you dispute that High Power shooters glue their barrels to minimize any possible factor that could have an adverse effect on the accuracy? How was this wrong? And what is the true reason people chose to use anti-seize instead?

    Bedding an AR15 barrel has done by many respectable gunsmiths, and I think it has its merit, but within limitations. Its something that has to be done in conjunction with other operations. Ie, making sure the upper rail and face is true to the centerline of the receiver, the barrel extension fits properly to the receiver etc.
    So it is your opinion that gluing an AR-barrel only has merit if the barrel/receiver fit is good to begin with? It is therefore pointless to use glue to compensate for an otherwise sloppy fit between the two parts?


    * And as I already noted, the MilSpec way of using anti-seize is to enable an easy change of barrel or receiver if either part breaks or wears out.
    Last edited by skullworks; 12-31-12 at 16:27.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •