Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/5/2010 4:46:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2010 7:09:23 AM EDT by Another-Bill]
Good or bad?





Thanks
Bill
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 5:32:53 AM EDT
Tag, for replays as well. I used on mine, thinking of dis-similar metals.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 6:00:04 AM EDT
I'm guessing OP and responder #1 both know it's not the specified lube for the job, so what you're asking is, "Is it good enough?" But there is no specific brand or formula mentioned to say anything positive or negative about.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 6:27:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JustKeepSwimming:
I'm guessing OP and responder #1 both know it's not the specified lube for the job, so what you're asking is, "Is it good enough?" But there is no specific brand or formula mentioned to say anything positive or negative about.


I have some and after reading the label it looked like a pretty good solution. I do know that it isn't the recommended product.
It does look to offer somethings better in the anti-seize department.





Bill
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 6:43:13 AM EDT


I have used it on the threads, but I use grease on the shoulder where the barrel nut tightens against the barrel.


Never any problems.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 6:45:26 AM EDT
The metallic component in the grease is important. Copper is OK for some applications, but the specified material is molybdenum disulfide in a lithium grease base meeting MIL-G21164 standards. There are several reasons this grease is specified. One is that it works, and very well. Another is that greases meeting this standard have a track record of handling high temperature, high stress applications well-this sort of grease is used in assembling the brake systems on jets.

And since MIL-G21164 greases have a proven track record for doing the job properly, it makes sense to use such greases in building your AR, instead of experimenting with "how many sides should my wheel have?"

Go with the real, specified material and don't worry about what will happen, because nothing bad will happen. Play around with something else, and you may wind up being sorry.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 6:06:33 PM EDT
What could it do adversely?

Says it good for exhaust manifolds which I would think get pretty hot.
Not trying to be argumentative nor am I just trying to use something only because I have it.
Just wondering.




Thanks for the replies, BTW,
Bill
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 9:13:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2010 9:14:55 PM EDT by Keith_J]
Wrong material, PERIOD. Copper causes corrosion to aluminum, not as bad as graphite but bad enough to where 2000 series aluminum which are used in aviation have the poorest corrosion resistance, simply because they contain copper.

MoS2 is at best, a semiconductor. This reduces galvanic corrosion.

Copper based anti-seizes are for use at higher temperatures where standard zinc powder based formulations would vaporize, like exhaust systems.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 11:58:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Keith_J:
Wrong material, PERIOD. Copper causes corrosion to aluminum, not as bad as graphite but bad enough to where 2000 series aluminum which are used in aviation have the poorest corrosion resistance, simply because they contain copper.

MoS2 is at best, a semiconductor. This reduces galvanic corrosion.

Copper based anti-seizes are for use at higher temperatures where standard zinc powder based formulations would vaporize, like exhaust systems.




Thank You Keith,

That is what i wanted to know, the "why." (or in case the "why not").





Bill
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 4:22:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2010 4:43:09 AM EDT by JustKeepSwimming]
Uhhhhhh... that's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. When you're talking about copper in an anti-seize compound, the manufacturer has the luxury of adding corrosion inhibitors.

Consider that a common and recommended use for copper anti-seize paste is on automotive spark plugs in an aluminum cylinder head; in that application you have the same Al/Fe material interface as in the AR receiver/barrel nut; it's subject to more a bunch of heat like the AR, (right there in the combustion chamber) stays hot longer in normal use, and passes infinitely more current through the Al/Fe junction than an AR will ever see. If anything, experience says that galvanic corrosion is a non-issue in an intelligently concocted copper-laden goo.

ETA: Stirkeout after rumination, I don't know which use generates more heat in the actual threaded area.
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 4:48:10 AM EDT
Nickle based would be a better choice for spark plug use.
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 5:44:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JustKeepSwimming:
Uhhhhhh... that's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. When you're talking about copper in an anti-seize compound, the manufacturer has the luxury of adding corrosion inhibitors.

Consider that a common and recommended use for copper anti-seize paste is on automotive spark plugs in an aluminum cylinder head; in that application you have the same Al/Fe material interface as in the AR receiver/barrel nut; it's subject to more a bunch of heat like the AR, (right there in the combustion chamber) stays hot longer in normal use, and passes infinitely more current through the Al/Fe junction than an AR will ever see. If anything, experience says that galvanic corrosion is a non-issue in an intelligently concocted copper-laden goo.

ETA: Stirkeout after rumination, I don't know which use generates more heat in the actual threaded area.


Spark plugs are generally torqued quite a bit lower than a barrel nut. And they are removed and replaced on a regular basis. So with an application like this, your comparison is also "apples to oranges." Barrel nuts are supposed to be torqued to at least 30 ft/lbs and they stay in place for a long, long time. The thermal issues are different too for a number of reasons, not the least of which has to do with which part is "female" and which part is "male." Good logic, but it isn't really the same situation at all.
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 6:47:11 AM EDT
I forgot to also mention that copper anti-seize compound is more electrically conductive than moly grease. Remember, the spark plug is part of an electrical circuit that carries a LOT of current-it needs to be both properly torqued and electrically bonded to the head. No electrical connection is needed in the AR...
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 7:51:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2010 7:52:30 AM EDT by j3_]
The hard coat anodizing is a poor conductor. I thought the moly grease was used because of the characteristics of the particle standing up to the pressure from being tightened against when the grease squeezed out.
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 8:39:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By j3_:
The hard coat anodizing is a poor conductor. I thought the moly grease was used because of the characteristics of the particle standing up to the pressure from being tightened against when the grease squeezed out.


The moly particles are particularly small, and they do not scour the hardcoat. This is in contrast to graphite (which is in most automotive greases whether they have molybdenum disulfide or not), which has larger, flat particles that can scratch up the anodizing. My post above was specifically why the copper anti-seize may be great for spark plugs, but not the greatest substitute in an AR.
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 8:49:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GHPorter:
Originally Posted By JustKeepSwimming:
(Snipped) If anything, experience says that galvanic corrosion is a non-issue in an intelligently concocted copper-laden goo.


Spark plugs are generally torqued quite a bit lower than a barrel nut. And they are removed and replaced on a regular basis. So with an application like this, your comparison is also "apples to oranges." Barrel nuts are supposed to be torqued to at least 30 ft/lbs and they stay in place for a long, long time. The thermal issues are different too for a number of reasons, not the least of which has to do with which part is "female" and which part is "male." Good logic, but it isn't really the same situation at all.


I should have put in more effort to show that I was referring primarily to the now-quoted concept that the anti-seize paste would facilitate corrosion, and my "apples and oranges" analogy could have been more clear that galvanic corrosion in an Al Cu alloyed structural piece is not comparable to what happens in a paste lubricant specifically designed to alleviate a variety of undesirable chemical and physical conditions.
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 9:17:39 AM EDT
Cylinder heads are cast from a relatively benign alloy. Not forged from 7075. Anodization is brittle and when torqued, it cracks in the threads, exposing the aluminum to potential corrosion. This isn't a cylinder head, it is a rifle which can be exposed to rain and sweat. Galvanic corrosion between the steel and the aluminum can make future removal impossible because the aluminum oxide which can form will expand in the connection, setting up as hard as concrete.

Link Posted: 9/6/2010 11:50:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2010 11:50:31 AM EDT by Another-Bill]
To all concerned, I used the moly spec grease.





Bill
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:20:45 AM EDT
Just use the correct grease and call it a day!
HERE
Top Top