Reply With QuoteThe barrel is 416 stainless, the anti seize is Loctite sold by brownells. It cost me $7, no big deal if I don't use it. Every thing I've read says to use some type of anti seize, but after reading this thread I'm not sure.
Depending on the anti seize and the bbl material maybe shouldn't mix anyway... I used anti seize on mine and so far all is well with no issuess. I doubt as course as threads are that you should have a problem. If chrome moly I wouldn't worry, stainless is another story.
The barrel is 416 stainless, the anti seize is Loctite sold by brownells. It cost me $7, no big deal if I don't use it. Every thing I've read says to use some type of anti seize, but after reading this thread I'm not sure.
Anti-seize is a good idea for Stainless. Surprisingly enough the elements added to steel to make it "Stainless" also make it more prone to "galling". It doesn't take much to keep the threads from galling, just enough to coat the threads as they are screwed together. I just put a little on the first couple of threads on barrel or fastener and that is transferred to the internal threads and the rest of the external threads as screwed together. Another popular anti-seize/lube is Aeroshell 33. Again, a small amount.Originally Posted by huntin1
As stated earlier, "wet" torque values are less than those for "dry". One manufacturer of anti-seize products recommends a reduction in torque of 25%.
http://www.antiseize.com/PDFs/torque_specifications.pdf
As far as friction holding the position of the barrel nut in place, if there is tension the film remaining between nut and action is thin enough to hold nut in place. The anti-seize is merely an "anti-weld" agent that prevents the asperities on both surfaces from welding together when moved (due to the high temps caused at the sharp contact points) with the resultant galling.
The recoil lug may be compressed, but as it floats over the barrel, doesn't matter to the cause. The nut, like all lock nuts, tries to pull apart the action and barrel threads. That fricion of pulling thread against thread, is what stops things from coming loose.
I'm a firm believer in the theory that if it bleeds, I can kill it.
So long as it doesn't have copper in it you should be good to go. Copper anti-seize on stainless is a no! Nickel based anti-seize is what you want.
I use two rubber mallet whacks on the barrel nut wrench while I hold the action in my hand. not sure how much torque it is. I use anti seize and have only had a couple of barrels move when tightening or loosening a muzzle brake that was on tight.
Since this subject has been breached again I am curious. What issue are you afraid of when using a copper based anti seize? Galvanic corrosion? Please elaborate...
From a product brochure put out by an anti-seize manufacturer:
First paragraph:
http://www.armitelabs.com/products/C...nti-Seize.html
Haven't heard of it ever happening on an SS Rifle barrel but on smaller fasteners I've seen some strange breaks.
I hate the copper (stuff is too kind) on general principles.
While not necessarily relevant to the Savage, we put it on shaft to hold sprockets on. Usually with a squeeze hub that the sprocket bolted to ( the hub and sprocket had tapered surfaces, so the bolting squeezed the hub to the shaft)
The stuff welded the hub onto the sprocket. If used with just a set screw bearing or sprocket, it welded them to the shaft.
Never used it for anything again, threw away what we had.
Not disagreeing that 20 can be effective nor you could hand tighten thought hat seems nebulous on several fronts.
This is a far more complex joint/interface than a bolt that simply tightens into the body of whatever its attached to.
You have a threaded barrel, that is not tensioned by the barrel shoulder itself but by a separate nut. That nut is free to move as its not part of the barrel.
Copper on stainless steel creates an inter-crystaline corrosion, which can make actual stainless steel parts crack and break. This is why the nuclear power plants/ petroleum refineries do not allow copper with any material which comes in contact with the stainless steel parts.
I hijacked most of that description with a simple google search as I didn't feel like writing a research paper on the topic. Basically though it's similar to galvanic corrosion from the electron potential in the dissimilar metals.
I understand metallurgy and what happens when two dissimilar metals are put together. Galvanic action fortunately requires three elements to come together. The most important is a constant level of exposure to water or a corrosive environment which no rifle of mine are exposed to at any real length of time. Otherwise the metals will breakdown at a normal rate which should outlive me.
I also understand the issues that arise from inter-crystallization corrosion that is caused with dissimilar metals under continuous heat (temps of 400-850 degrees Celsius) or during the process of welding. If my rifle were to reach the temperatures over the sustained time frame required to cause inter-crystallization my wood stocks would burst into flames or at the very least my epoxy bedding would melt..
I was curious and got my answer. Thank you for the response.
Yes, fortunately rifles, in general terms, are not subjected to great deals of moisture. However undoubtedly there is some that will travel under the bbl nut where it can become a host for galvanic action. Also copper on various steels and under various conditions has shown to induce stress cracking/embrittlement. There are a handful of mechanisms by which this occurs.
The entire potential for for any of this can be avoided using nickel based antiseize, so I guess you can use whatever you like, but it's cheap insurance.
and I guess I should add that I now just use a dab of white lithium grease for assembly. Just enough to prevent galling.
Better cheap insurance than no insurance. I do agree that nickel would be the best choice when it comes to stainless. I have used copper, black moly, and nickel based anti-seizes when mounting barrels. I cannot say that any work better than another but I can say I have never had a barrel come loose nor removed requiring excessive force.
This is an incorrect ststement. I too am an engineer and I also manage a fastener testing Lab. You are correct that most of the torque applied is wasted overcoming the friction forces. The misconception is that friction prevents the joint from loosening. Actually the stretching of the components ( traditionally the bolt but in our case the threads in the nut) act as a spring and keep the joint closed. You could say that the sping applies s normal force to the surfaces and therefore friction is still reasponcible for keeping the joint closed
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
But if you increase the coefficient of friction you generally only increase the torque required to achieve the same clamp load. Two joint with different coefficient of friction and equal clamp load will function more or less the same assuming traditional application. In the case of the barrel nut, I would suspect the nut has seen too many cycles and it jumps threads during torqueing or shooting. To prevent the barrel nut from coming loose we need enough clamp load to compress the threads more than the chamber pressure tries to stretch the barrel, if this is true then summing our forces always yields clamp load.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
No, that is not an incorrect statement. Friction does prevent the joint from loosening, which is accomplished via the compression/tension that is applied from the fastener being tightened. The important part to remember here is that the friction is made possible by the compressive load from the barrel nut/receiver face, applied by the tension from the barrel. Otherwise a roller bearing between the mating surfaces should not matter! And if there were roller bearings between the thread mating surfaces and the union it would freely spin, even under relatively high torque values.
Its really no different in terms of physics than loading weight onto a sled and the more the load increases the larger the force needed to overcome the friction required to make it move. The friction coefficient in this example and the barrel example remain the same. So the torque value only changes with the applied normal force
Another way to think of this, is, with standard helical threads on a bolt(barrel), is that in reality they are a ramp, or inclined plane. The nut, or in reality the threads of the nut sit on this inclined plane. The only thing that holds the nut from sliding down the plane is the friction between the two. Applying force along the axis of the bolt increases the total force required to overcome this friction. Depending on the modulus of elasticity of the material and the yield strength determines how much force can be applied before failure from plastic deformation occcurs and the compressive/tension force holding the two surfaces is lost.
Frankly, there is a difference between cheap and wrong.
If you have a heart condition and get insurance for a brain tumor and croak, that does the survivor no good.
Mr. Furious has pointed out that the factory uses nothing (other then left over residue from tumbling the barrel and that is an accident of the process)
Maybe the best example of wrong but perceived as insurance was (still are?) those magical claims of being able to run you engine without oil.
Actually it works and you can (test by the USAA in WWII for oviousl reason)
The problem?
Its a chlorine based, said chlorine base lube attacks lead bearings like there is no tomorrow.
So, if you loose your oil before the bearings are destroyed, it will save you.
Unfortunately its a pretty narrow window and your engine is most likely going to quit on the other side of the German border.
I had some experience with TFE? back in the day. The good news was the engine I chose to put it in had lots of clearance and did not cause any problems.
The bad news was that people with more intricate engines (Japanese, European ) has passages clog up and oil starvation to important parts.
I think we need to step back and gain some perspective. I would not run my BMW without the recommended oil or lubricants. My rifles on the other hand are another matter. I agree with Mr Furious in regards to Savage not using any type of anti seize. I shot with a number of Savage employees and engineers (one of the main reasons I shoot Savage rifles) at the Westfield Sportsman's Club while living in Springfield, MA. I have had this discussion with them and they do not apply anything during assembly. From a manufacturers stand point applying what they must figure an unnecessary compound to the assembly process would affect the bottom line and the bottom line is king.
That being said I am a competitive shooter and a brick and mortar graduated gunsmith. I tend to roll my barrels more than most. I have been through 3 barrels on my first F-Class rifle and have 1500 on my second F-Class in two seasons. I use copper on my AR builds and abuse them regularly. I have used various different anti seizes on barrel changes and have not had any problems. Until I see something that would cause me concern I will continue using something than nothing.
Well I see plumbers use Teflon tape, dope and have even seen Permatex used on flare fittings.
It doesn't hurt for the most part, it can mess up the seal as well.
My only reasons to use what I do is I prefer a smoother joint, and the torques setting is predicated on a lubed joint.
Savage clearly has it figured out its not needed for correct and lasting assembly.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks