AR Sponsor
Posted: 7/20/2013 8:58:22 PM EDT
|
I took my AR to a gunsmith this week to have the head space checked. This was my first build so I also wanted to ask him as few questions too.
He asked me if I put Loc Tite on the barrel extension before fitting it into the upper receiver assembly. He suggested green Loc Tite and only finger applying a thin coat. He said that this would help maintain accuracy over the long haul. Does anyone else do this? I can't imagine it would hurt, but haven't seen that anywhere else. His credentials are legit. 22 yrs Army, he was on one of the all army competition shooting teams (I can't remember which one, not AMU) and he said that some crusty old 1SG taught it to him. Plus he's been gunsmithing for a long time too. |
|
No, I just wanted to check head space and ask some questions. He had this three page list of things he checked regarding the whole assembly. I got a lot of great tips that I had never read or thought of when putting it all together.
It turns out he's cousins with my father in law and it didn't cost me dime. Cool dude and he knew a lot of shit. Right now I'm debating wether or not to disassemble the upper to do this loc tite thing. I guess it's better to do it right than not at all. It's just a pain in the ass. And I don't really want to use red because I don't think I want it to be permanent or have to take a torch to it if I want to take it apart. |
|
Ok, I thought you were saying adding loctite between the extension and the barrel, but now I understand.
Yeah, don't use red for that  .
If your receiver is true, and you properly torque the barrel nut, the loctite won't do that much, it's more personal preference. If you ever plan to replace the barrel in the future on that upper receiver, it will make it more of a chore. |
|
The green LocTite (290) has the best penetrating abilities and can be applied without dis-assembly. You can read more about it on their tech data sheet:
LocTite 290 Stan |
| Sounds like over kill. I read a lot about it before building my first ar15. In most the threads I read everyone said it was not needed. And no one could prove it improved accuracy, one guy even tested it without and with and got the same groupings. As long as your barrel nut is properly torqued you will be good to go. |
|
It is a simple bedding concept, adapted from bolt action rifles. You want the barreled action bedded into the stock (on a bolt gun) in order to ensure that the contact points with the stock or continuous across the surface area of the action. This limits the possibility for any movement and limits changing any shot to shot variances.
Non-bedded actions are still easily capable of .5MOA accuracy potential. The bedding simply removes another variable from the equation. When it comes to AR's.... when making the ultimate/accurate rifle... there are concepts like using a tool to ensure the upper receiver face is perfectly perpendicular to the bore, and then using a bedding compound surrounding the barrel extension to fill any voids in the contact surface between barrel and receiver.... for the same concepts. Should you do this to your rifle? Of course not.... it's a silly practice.... unless you are going to handload match ammunition, hand measure each powder throw, turn the necks for consistent tension, use a bullet concentricity tool, experiment with adjusting your bullets just off the lands, hand weigh and sort all your brass by weight, and your barrel is a kreiger, or some other custom barrel that is capable of sub-half-MOA accuracy and that is not good enough for the shooting you will be doing. Now, if you are planning on doing ALL of the above.... sure - knock yourself out. It can only help by removing on more variable in the quest for consistent sub half-moa accuracy from a semiauto rifle. (in before the noobs post "but I want to do anything I can to ensure I can wring the most accuracy from my rifle" then we find out they have a chrome lined M4 barrel and will be shooting Russian steel cased or military surplus ammo) |
|
Quoted:
The green LocTite (290) has the best penetrating abilities and can be applied without dis-assembly. You can read more about it on their tech data sheet: LocTite 290 Stan Wrong green, that's the penetrating threadlocker, not the retaining compound. The number for retaining compound is 640/680. |
|
The idea of needing to "bed" a barrel extension into an upper is quaint, but not necessary. The barrel extension is sized for a very close slip-fit into the upper, and the barrel nut holds it in place in all axes. In short, if you assemble it with the normal parts, it will stay that way until you disassemble it. The concept of bedding a bolt action rifle comes from trying to fit the stock as perfectly as possible to the action. There's nothing about an AR that even vaguely suggests that sort of thing is helpful.
Consider the source though. This guy probably sells his services for "bedding ARs" along with a lot of other shop work. One of the worst places to get good advice about guns, especially ARs, is a gun shop that offers "gun smithing services," because of the serious potential for a conflict of interests - yours and the shop's. |
|
Quoted:
It is my opinion that putting LocTite in this area has no effect on accuracy, but has a great effect on being able to disassemble the rifle later. Don't do it! If you must, then use the weakest shit they make. They are *not* difficult at all to remove after they have been bedded. A tap or two with a wooden down pops them right out. |
|
Quoted:
Wrong green, that's the penetrating threadlocker, not the retaining compound. The number for retaining compound is 640/680. Quoted:
Quoted:
The green LocTite (290) has the best penetrating abilities and can be applied without dis-assembly. You can read more about it on their tech data sheet: LocTite 290 Stan Wrong green, that's the penetrating threadlocker, not the retaining compound. The number for retaining compound is 640/680. You are right RDTCU, my bad. Thanks for the correction. Stan |
|
Quoted:
This has nothing to do with what you place on the threads.  Quoted:
Quoted:
In before the "you must use xxx moly grease or you will have galvanic corrosion crowd" This has nothing to do with what you place on the threads. Who ever said it did? A lot of people put grease on the barrel extension because the barrel is steel and the receiver is aluminum. |
|
Quoted:
They are *not* difficult at all to remove after they have been bedded. A tap or two with a wooden down pops them right out. Quoted:
Quoted:
It is my opinion that putting LocTite in this area has no effect on accuracy, but has a great effect on being able to disassemble the rifle later. Don't do it! If you must, then use the weakest shit they make. They are *not* difficult at all to remove after they have been bedded. A tap or two with a wooden down pops them right out. If bedding the barrel by applying LocTite to the smooth surfaces of the receiver and barrel extension could improve accuracy, and does not make disassembly difficult, then what is the argument for not taking this step? Aren't there many measures in the course of assembling a rifle we could just not bother about? Why grease this or that, why tighten/loosen the barrel multiple times before applying final torque, et cetera. I've done this to all of my builds because it makes sense to me. And I don't use grease with graphite on the receiver extension threads, not because I'm afraid the rifle will dissolve in my hands while low crawling through saltwater, but because it makes sense not to; and moly paste is not so hard to find without graphite. |
| Its a silly idea if you understand how the parts fit together. The barrel flange butting against the upper is the crucial part of assembling an upper. That's why there is a torque spec. As long as the nut is torqued to a proper spec, it won't move to change the fit between barrel and upper. The rest has no measurable effect on accuracy. |
|
Quoted:
If bedding the barrel by applying LocTite to the smooth surfaces of the receiver and barrel extension could improve accuracy, and does not make disassembly difficult, then what is the argument for not taking this step? Aren't there many measures in the course of assembling a rifle we could just not bother about? Why grease this or that, why tighten/loosen the barrel multiple times before applying final torque, et cetera. I've done this to all of my builds because it makes sense to me. And I don't use grease with graphite on the receiver extension threads, not because I'm afraid the rifle will dissolve in my hands while low crawling through saltwater, but because it makes sense not to; and moly paste is not so hard to find without graphite. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is my opinion that putting LocTite in this area has no effect on accuracy, but has a great effect on being able to disassemble the rifle later. Don't do it! If you must, then use the weakest shit they make. They are *not* difficult at all to remove after they have been bedded. A tap or two with a wooden down pops them right out. If bedding the barrel by applying LocTite to the smooth surfaces of the receiver and barrel extension could improve accuracy, and does not make disassembly difficult, then what is the argument for not taking this step? Aren't there many measures in the course of assembling a rifle we could just not bother about? Why grease this or that, why tighten/loosen the barrel multiple times before applying final torque, et cetera. I've done this to all of my builds because it makes sense to me. And I don't use grease with graphite on the receiver extension threads, not because I'm afraid the rifle will dissolve in my hands while low crawling through saltwater, but because it makes sense not to; and moly paste is not so hard to find without graphite. Accuracy with an AR depends on the barrel being well made, solidly attached to the upper, and with its sights properly aligned, not the barrel being perfectly concentric to the upper (which this Loc-Tite step does not even remotely guarantee). If it makes you feel better to go to the trouble of doing this, fine. But there's no evidence it actually works. I'm not a "hater," I just don't buy into things people do because they say it works but don't have any evidence to support it. Multiple cycles of tighten/loosen/tighten on the barrel nut serve to distribute the grease evenly on the threads of both the upper and the nut. Since the grease is the vehicle through which torque is transmitted between nut and upper, it's important to get it well distributed. I use a grease that meets the MIL-G specification because it's the type of grease used in developing the torque spec for the barrel nut. Not just any "moly paste" without graphite, but a (readily available) compliant grease. It "makes sense" to me to do this because there is a reason to use that kind of grease. The whole point is that, if you're going to go to the trouble of building an AR, shouldn't you have a decent reason for doing each step? I have evidence, such as the GI technical manual's instructions and specifications, the mission I want my rifle to accomplish, and so on, for each part and process choice. I firmly believe that almost every bit of the "bedding an AR barrel" concept comes from a so-called "gunsmith" who wanted a new profit source that didn't take him more than a minute to do, but for which he could charge an additional $50 for. On the other hand, if someone can provide a link to well documented, well conducted, and repeatable experiments that show this process to be actually useful, I'll change my tune (as soon as I verify that information, of course ).
|
|
I guess I didn't fully explain the conversation we were having when he mentioned this step. He mentioned it while we were talking about how this shooting team he was on built their own rifles. Now they were building rifles for competition and accuracy was paramount.
Considering he didn't charge me a dime for his time, I don't think he was trying to up-sell me on any service. |
|
Quoted:
I would point out that there is no available, verifiable data suggesting that "bedding" an AR barrel has any useful effect on accuracy. Unless there's some well-designed, carefully documented test done by more than one experimenter that shows such "bedding" actually does improve accuracy, I can not think of a reason to do it - unless to conduct such an experiment. Accuracy with an AR depends on the barrel being well made, solidly attached to the upper, and with its sights properly aligned, not the barrel being perfectly concentric to the upper (which this Loc-Tite step does not even remotely guarantee). If it makes you feel better to go to the trouble of doing this, fine. But there's no evidence it actually works. I'm not a "hater," I just don't buy into things people do because they say it works but don't have any evidence to support it. Multiple cycles of tighten/loosen/tighten on the barrel nut serve to distribute the grease evenly on the threads of both the upper and the nut. Since the grease is the vehicle through which torque is transmitted between nut and upper, it's important to get it well distributed. I use a grease that meets the MIL-G specification because it's the type of grease used in developing the torque spec for the barrel nut. Not just any "moly paste" without graphite, but a (readily available) compliant grease. It "makes sense" to me to do this because there is a reason to use that kind of grease. The whole point is that, if you're going to go to the trouble of building an AR, shouldn't you have a decent reason for doing each step? I have evidence, such as the GI technical manual's instructions and specifications, the mission I want my rifle to accomplish, and so on, for each part and process choice. I firmly believe that almost every bit of the "bedding an AR barrel" concept comes from a so-called "gunsmith" who wanted a new profit source that didn't take him more than a minute to do, but for which he could charge an additional $50 for. On the other hand, if someone can provide a link to well documented, well conducted, and repeatable experiments that show this process to be actually useful, I'll change my tune (as soon as I verify that information, of course ).
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is my opinion that putting LocTite in this area has no effect on accuracy, but has a great effect on being able to disassemble the rifle later. Don't do it! If you must, then use the weakest shit they make. They are *not* difficult at all to remove after they have been bedded. A tap or two with a wooden down pops them right out. If bedding the barrel by applying LocTite to the smooth surfaces of the receiver and barrel extension could improve accuracy, and does not make disassembly difficult, then what is the argument for not taking this step? Aren't there many measures in the course of assembling a rifle we could just not bother about? Why grease this or that, why tighten/loosen the barrel multiple times before applying final torque, et cetera. I've done this to all of my builds because it makes sense to me. And I don't use grease with graphite on the receiver extension threads, not because I'm afraid the rifle will dissolve in my hands while low crawling through saltwater, but because it makes sense not to; and moly paste is not so hard to find without graphite. Accuracy with an AR depends on the barrel being well made, solidly attached to the upper, and with its sights properly aligned, not the barrel being perfectly concentric to the upper (which this Loc-Tite step does not even remotely guarantee). If it makes you feel better to go to the trouble of doing this, fine. But there's no evidence it actually works. I'm not a "hater," I just don't buy into things people do because they say it works but don't have any evidence to support it. Multiple cycles of tighten/loosen/tighten on the barrel nut serve to distribute the grease evenly on the threads of both the upper and the nut. Since the grease is the vehicle through which torque is transmitted between nut and upper, it's important to get it well distributed. I use a grease that meets the MIL-G specification because it's the type of grease used in developing the torque spec for the barrel nut. Not just any "moly paste" without graphite, but a (readily available) compliant grease. It "makes sense" to me to do this because there is a reason to use that kind of grease. The whole point is that, if you're going to go to the trouble of building an AR, shouldn't you have a decent reason for doing each step? I have evidence, such as the GI technical manual's instructions and specifications, the mission I want my rifle to accomplish, and so on, for each part and process choice. I firmly believe that almost every bit of the "bedding an AR barrel" concept comes from a so-called "gunsmith" who wanted a new profit source that didn't take him more than a minute to do, but for which he could charge an additional $50 for. On the other hand, if someone can provide a link to well documented, well conducted, and repeatable experiments that show this process to be actually useful, I'll change my tune (as soon as I verify that information, of course ).
I have to agree with this post for many of the same reasons and from my experience and the exprience of others I know who are far wiser than I. |
|
Here is a post by Hikeeba from 2010 regarding the same question:
Heard of applying loctite between the reciever and barrel extension, yes. The step is discussed and recommended in The AR-15 Complete Assembly Guide Vol. 2 by Walt Kuleck and Clint McKee. I used the book recently as a reference for my first complete rifle build project, but I skipped that step. I understand the purpose of doing it, but I guess I wasn't comfortable with the idea of having to undo it down the road. I figured I could always go back and do it if I felt it was necessary. Goggle is my friend. I thought it was worth mentioning considering it is documented and recommended by published professional gunsmiths. |
|
I don't care who wrote it. It makes no sense since loctite actually hardens. With all of the flexing that shooting imparts, I see nothing happening expect for the crystals breaking apart. I bet that anyone who has done this has seen a powder like residue if they happen to take the rifle back apart. That is pulverized loctite.
And as was stated before. The fit is already close tolerance with a good amount of torque on the barrel nut. Adding loctite to that area is doing absolutely nothing that I can think of. Except making a sticky mess when it comes time to disassemble. |
|
Quoted:
I don't care who wrote it..... I don't understand your logic. These people are experts in their field. Obviously I don't have the right answer or I wouldn't have asked the question, but the more I look into it, the more I'm beginning to believe it might be worth the effort. If I do decide to do it, I won't be using red loc tite. |
|
Quoted:
I don't understand your logic. These people are experts in their field. Obviously I don't have the right answer or I wouldn't have asked the question, but the more I look into it, the more I'm beginning to believe it might be worth the effort. If I do decide to do it, I won't be using red loc tite. Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't care who wrote it..... I don't understand your logic. These people are experts in their field. Obviously I don't have the right answer or I wouldn't have asked the question, but the more I look into it, the more I'm beginning to believe it might be worth the effort. If I do decide to do it, I won't be using red loc tite. There are a lot of experts in just about any field that espouse old folklore, myths, or their personal beliefs. I bet a single one can't show empirical evidence of such a practice making any measurable amount of difference in accuracy. |
|
Quoted:
There are a lot of experts in just about any field that espouse old folklore, myths, or their personal beliefs. I bet a single one can't show empirical evidence of such a practice making any measurable amount of difference in accuracy. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't care who wrote it..... I don't understand your logic. These people are experts in their field. Obviously I don't have the right answer or I wouldn't have asked the question, but the more I look into it, the more I'm beginning to believe it might be worth the effort. If I do decide to do it, I won't be using red loc tite. There are a lot of experts in just about any field that espouse old folklore, myths, or their personal beliefs. I bet a single one can't show empirical evidence of such a practice making any measurable amount of difference in accuracy. Can you? 
|
|
Quoted:
Can you? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't care who wrote it..... I don't understand your logic. These people are experts in their field. Obviously I don't have the right answer or I wouldn't have asked the question, but the more I look into it, the more I'm beginning to believe it might be worth the effort. If I do decide to do it, I won't be using red loc tite. There are a lot of experts in just about any field that espouse old folklore, myths, or their personal beliefs. I bet a single one can't show empirical evidence of such a practice making any measurable amount of difference in accuracy. Can you? You are asking me if I can prove their bullshit? |
|
Quoted:
You are asking me if I can prove their bullshit? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't care who wrote it..... I don't understand your logic. These people are experts in their field. Obviously I don't have the right answer or I wouldn't have asked the question, but the more I look into it, the more I'm beginning to believe it might be worth the effort. If I do decide to do it, I won't be using red loc tite. There are a lot of experts in just about any field that espouse old folklore, myths, or their personal beliefs. I bet a single one can't show empirical evidence of such a practice making any measurable amount of difference in accuracy. Can you? You are asking me if I can prove their bullshit? With all due respect, you can't say someone is full of shit for lack of evidence when you have none of your own. |
|
I think of it as one of those anal rententive things that precision shooters will do so that they feel like they've done everything possible to win the match.
They also wear the same socks that they wore when they won that match back in '59. For most ARs in the wild, not necesary IMO. |
|
Quoted:
With all due respect, you can't say someone is full of shit for lack of evidence when you have none of your own. Really?????????????? What kind of make believe world do you live in? My position is that it makes little to no difference. Even if it does, 99 percent of AR shooters will not notice or be able to take advantage of the difference. I don't have to prove that. It is simply the way the world is. |
|
Really?????????????? What kind of make believe world do you live in? Maybe you need a nap. I guess this means this thread is officially over in regards to real professional advice. I was just trying to resolve a valid question about some thing I heard from a reputable person. I'm not trying to entertain boneheads. |
|
Quoted:
Maybe you need a nap. I guess this means this thread is officially over in regards to real professional advice. I was just trying to resolve a valid question about some thing I heard from a reputable person. I'm not trying to entertain boneheads. Quoted:
Really?????????????? What kind of make believe world do you live in? Maybe you need a nap. I guess this means this thread is officially over in regards to real professional advice. I was just trying to resolve a valid question about some thing I heard from a reputable person. I'm not trying to entertain boneheads. You were told several times by several people it was doubtful it would make any appreciable difference. Who is the real bonehead here? |
|
Quoted:
Maybe you need a nap. I guess this means this thread is officially over in regards to real professional advice. I was just trying to resolve a valid question about some thing I heard from a reputable person. I'm not trying to entertain boneheads. Quoted:
Really?????????????? What kind of make believe world do you live in? Maybe you need a nap. I guess this means this thread is officially over in regards to real professional advice. I was just trying to resolve a valid question about some thing I heard from a reputable person. I'm not trying to entertain boneheads. You got your answer, and now you're just making inane banter for the sake of being contrary. |
|
Quoted:
You were told several times by several people it was doubtful it would make any appreciable difference. Who is the real bonehead here? Quoted:
Quoted:
Really?????????????? What kind of make believe world do you live in? Maybe you need a nap. I guess this means this thread is officially over in regards to real professional advice. I was just trying to resolve a valid question about some thing I heard from a reputable person. I'm not trying to entertain boneheads. You were told several times by several people it was doubtful it would make any appreciable difference. Who is the real bonehead here? I called you a bonehead because you accused me of living in a make believe world. Why would you even say that? I thought we were trying to have a civilized conversation here. There were several people who also said that it may make a difference. I'm not sure why you feel so invested in making your point. I started the conversation and will continue to contribute information until I am satisfied, or people stop responding. You stopped contributing anything worth while several posts ago. It's not that I don't think you have anything to contribute to the conversation, but when you say something like you did, it makes me want to bite your face off. |
|
Quoted:
You got your answer, and now you're just making inane banter for the sake of being contrary. Quoted:
Quoted:
Really?????????????? What kind of make believe world do you live in? Maybe you need a nap. I guess this means this thread is officially over in regards to real professional advice. I was just trying to resolve a valid question about some thing I heard from a reputable person. I'm not trying to entertain boneheads. You got your answer, and now you're just making inane banter for the sake of being contrary. So if some one asked you what make believe world you live in, you would just take it on the chin, even after you are the one that asked the question? I have introduced the name of several authors and a published book that recomends this process and no one has spoke to that since. Is that the contrary banter you are referring to? |
|
Quoted:
So if some one asked you what make believe world you live in, you would just take it on the chin, even after you are the one that asked the question? I have introduced the name of several authors and a published book that recomends this process and no one has spoke to that since. Is that the contrary banter you are referring to? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really?????????????? What kind of make believe world do you live in? Maybe you need a nap. I guess this means this thread is officially over in regards to real professional advice. I was just trying to resolve a valid question about some thing I heard from a reputable person. I'm not trying to entertain boneheads. You got your answer, and now you're just making inane banter for the sake of being contrary. So if some one asked you what make believe world you live in, you would just take it on the chin, even after you are the one that asked the question? I have introduced the name of several authors and a published book that recomends this process and no one has spoke to that since. Is that the contrary banter you are referring to? This is the internet, grow some thicker skin, or you won't be here long. |
|
Quoted:
This is the internet, grow some thicker skin, or you won't be here long. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really?????????????? What kind of make believe world do you live in? Maybe you need a nap. I guess this means this thread is officially over in regards to real professional advice. I was just trying to resolve a valid question about some thing I heard from a reputable person. I'm not trying to entertain boneheads. You got your answer, and now you're just making inane banter for the sake of being contrary. So if some one asked you what make believe world you live in, you would just take it on the chin, even after you are the one that asked the question? I have introduced the name of several authors and a published book that recomends this process and no one has spoke to that since. Is that the contrary banter you are referring to? This is the internet, grow some thicker skin, or you won't be here long. You guys killed my thread 
|
| OP, even if your gunsmith guy recommended this from his competitive experience, and even if he didn't seem to have an obvious profit motive, is your build supposed to be a long-distance competition gun, or is it supposed to be a multipurpose carbine? There's a big deal involved here: a competition gun may benefit from all sorts of tiny tweaks, may involve use of free-float handguards that use specialized barrel nuts that work slightly differently from stock nuts, and may be built with specialized barrels that are intended to have extra steps taken with their installation. I'm not saying it would hurt to use Loc-Tite between your barrel extension and receiver, but for a less specialized gun, it may not do much more than give you a warm feeling |
|
Quoted:There were several people who also said that it may make a difference. I'm not sure why you feel so invested in making your point. I started the conversation and will continue to contribute information until I am satisfied, or people stop responding. You stopped contributing anything worth while several posts ago.
It's not that I don't think you have anything to contribute to the conversation, but when you say something like you did, it makes me want to bite your face off. Sounds like you're pretty sold on the idea (nothing wrong with that). Several (most?) have said they don't think it's worth the effort (more accurately, wouldn't make a difference). If you expect those here to go out and test to prove that, I think the expectation is unreasonable. But here's an idea. YOU have the perfect opportunity to prove the practice in the positive. You didn't do the procedure on your new rifle. Simply go out and test fire (be as scientific as you can) and document conditions/results etc. Next, pull the barrel (really not a big deal at all) and perform the procedure. Do everything else the same as the first time. Then, go and re-test (there were enough views saying the process had validity here, plus your 'Smith and the one referenced in the book above, that it's certainly worth it to check it out). Hey, depending on what part of the State you're in, I might even join you at the range (for that matter, I also have a new build to test, as yet unfired, we could both do the procedure and see how it goes! If I were a betting man though (I'm really not, except the Lotto, which I look at more as a donation  ), I'd say we won't find an appreciable difference. But I've been proven wrong before! And I'm open to the experience.
|
| My opinion - and that's all it is - is that I think you'd have to shoot from a mechanical rest to detect any benefit. Being as how the manner in which MOST AR's are used doesn't include that type of use, I'd think it would be an exercise in futility. I'd imagine that for every so-called professional that praises this practice, there is another that would say don't bother. That's why you should always get 2-3 Drs. opinions, because even though they are all professionals, they each have different means to acquire the desired results. Bottom line - even if this little trick improves 100 yd. groups by .005", there are far too many other variables to even make it worth the effort. |
|
There are some threads out there to suggest that it works...I'm going to use it on my next build.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_4/606627_Redloctite_on_the_Barrel_Extension_Works_.html http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=4&t=510712 |
|
And not one naysayer in this thread has given any valuable advice on why NOT to apply LocTite to the smooth surfaces of the barrel and receiver extensions.
It seems sound to me to do this. It takes a few seconds during assembly and costs pennies given that one likely has some LocTite around the home or shop. So what if the net benefit is nil. What harm is it going to cause? |
|
Quoted:
And not one naysayer in this thread has given any valuable advice on why NOT to apply LocTite to the smooth surfaces of the barrel and receiver extensions. It seems sound to me to do this. It takes a few seconds during assembly and costs pennies given that one likely has some LocTite around the home or shop. So what if the net benefit is nil. What harm is it going to cause? You may end up having to scrape it out to replace the barrel if the receiver extension is on the high end of the spec on the new barrel, other than that, there's not really much to go wrong. |
|
Quoted:
And not one naysayer in this thread has given any valuable advice on why NOT to apply LocTite to the smooth surfaces of the barrel and receiver extensions. It seems sound to me to do this. It takes a few seconds during assembly and costs pennies given that one likely has some LocTite around the home or shop. So what if the net benefit is nil. What harm is it going to cause? The burden of proof is on the proponent of an activity. We already know the results of the non-activity. |
AR Sponsor