Ray Atkinson recently posted the following:

"Also all the nitrogen goes out of any scope after about a year, even in todays best high dollar scopes or so the big boys have told me..the secret is in the seal. Just passing that on for what its worth, I suppose they should know.

But, if one takes one of these scopes apart then do it in a clean enviorment and keep the scope standing on its front lens at all time and don't let it tip..Nitrogen is heavier than air and will not come up and out or the scope unless you tip it..carefully slide on the ring, then the rubber collar, then ocular lens and presto you still have the nitrogen in it, at least for awhile and if it had any in it to start with, which isn't likely in the first place on an old Lyman...Anyway thats the process used back yonder by the best of gunsmiths."

I claim NO EXPERTISE in the area of optics, but I would be surprised/disappointed if the nitrogen leaked out of my Leupolds. Likewise, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that the nitrogen, if there ever was any nitrogen, in my old steel-tube Weavers and Lyman Alaskans has leaked out over the years.

Jeff

Well, first of all, Ray is kinda old fashioned in alot of what he believes but that is one of the more untrue statements he's made. If you open a scope by removing the ocular or objective end you will have moisture when you attempt to reseal it. Scopes, at least the good ones anyway, are purged several times to remove any moisture that might be present in the environment they are being sealed in to begin with.

To answer the other question about leaking, well that is mostly true and depending on how well the scope is sealed to begin with will mostly determine how long that process takes.

I work on vacuum systems, semi-conductor industry stuff.

Yeah the nitrogen will eventualy leak out. No such thing as a perfect seal. But a nitrogen atom is a bit bigger than say a helium atom, so it wont all leak out, mostly I would suspect it would leak to a point of neutral pressure with that of the surrounding air. 1 atmosphere I guess.

As an example: Helium balloons are made of mylar instead of rubber. Reason being helium atoms (molecules if you like) are so small they quickly leak out of the pores in the rubber. They also leak out of the pores in mylar, but not as fast. Thats why helium ballons only float for so long.

The O-rings in your oprics are likely viton. They wont make a perfect seal. Argon would make a better purge gas. Larger less reactive atoms/molecules I believe. Less reactive to chnages in temp ect aslo I think....

Bottom line. Nitrogen is much less reactive to heat ect.... than room air that has 20 some odd percent oxygen and other stuff. If the optics seal is good enough water molecules wont be able to get in. They are alot bigger than nitrogen molecules. And the leak rate will be so slow as to be not a concern.

No you cant open it and keep all the nitrogen. Gases occupy the space they are given.

To simplify all that nonsense I wrote above: Dont open your scope. Dont worry about whats inside your scope so long as its not water or doesnt affect function. If you get water in your scope send it back to be purged and resealed. Follow that and you'll be A OK.

Ray's comment was made in the context of removing the occualar assembly to use a Stith mount on a Remington 722 that was not factory d&t in the rear receiver bridge. The early 722s were factory d&t for on the left of the rear receiver ring for receiver/peep sights, so the Stith and early B&L Bal-Var rear bases mounted via those factory provided d&t holes.

Jeff

so is argon/krypton even better than nitrogen? i hear the molecule is bigger

Better for what? Slowing the leak process ?

it is not that bad at all. Worst case scenario, if you crack the seal fully open, you still have 80% of nitrogen remaining no matter how you shake it.

lol

Think we need Steelhead to clear this up.....

[/quote] so is argon/krypton even better than nitrogen? i hear the molecule is bigger [/quote]

Honestly I didnt go look at the molecular weight of each and compare. But from the hip I'd say yes. Argon is less reactive than Nitrogen. It is suposedly less reactive to temp change also. Maybe it plays different with light also.......

Its all meaningless to the shooter. But Costco will put Nitrogen in your tires of your car if you want. For alot of the same reasons they use it in scopes.

The triple paine windows that we had installed claim to have argon between the panes for insulation purposes. Don't know if it is true, but it sounds good.

Jeff

Triple pane??? And here I thought we were uptown with double pane windows.

I did my due diligence and determined that the cost/benefit of going triple pane vs. double pane was worth the small incrimental difference, IF they REALLY provided the improved insulating value claimed. Kind of like buying full synthetic motor oil in lieu of dinosaur oil, is it REALLY worth the difference in price?

Jeff

That's very close to what I've been led to believe. Argon is better than Nitrogen because the molecules are larger. My 6.5X32IF Minox binocular is purged with Argon. A Krypton/Argon mixture should be even better.
The important thing is if the scope actually leaks. The big difference is between the gases passing through an effective seal by osmosis (sp ?) and a seal that no longer works. That's why it's a good idea to test scopes by submerging them in warm, 140 degree water and seeing if they leak. If they leak, after 5 mins or so, then everytime the air pressure changes, air will enter or leave the scope, along with moisture. Something you don't want in a scope. E

I think we should start taping our scopes. Blue of course.

Is your test covered under Leupold's warranty ?

Yes it is. Found one that leaked that way. They fixed it w/o charge. E

Do you tell them that you purposely broke it or do you just send it in and hope they do ?

I do not "purposely break" the scope's seals.
I have told them under what circumstances it leaked. They fixed it w/o comment.
All the 140 degree water does is expand the gases in the scope and put some pressure on the seals. A recommended test procedure in "Optics for the Hunter" by JB. E

I asked Barsness about that and that's not what he recommends now or in the Optics book he wrote. I don't see why you would do that unless you hunt in temp's of 140 degrees. John told me he dunks scopes in warm water (comfortable to the touch) for 30 seconds or so.

so is argon/krypton even better than nitrogen? i hear the molecule is bigger [/quote]

Honestly I didnt go look at the molecular weight of each and compare. But from the hip I'd say yes. Argon is less reactive than Nitrogen. It is suposedly less reactive to temp change also. Maybe it plays different with light also.......

Its all meaningless to the shooter. But Costco will put Nitrogen in your tires of your car if you want. For alot of the same reasons they use it in scopes.

[/quote]

If your lucky certain brands leak on the first shot.

Or after you get done boiling them...

If the nitrogen leaked out of the scope within the first year and the owner of said scope lived in a humid climate they would see fogging internally.

I don't know about this molecular size argument. Argon gas is in the form of single Argon atoms, while Nitrogen gas is in the form of N2 molecules, and without looking it up because I don't have the reference at home I would be surprised if the N2 molecule wasn't larger, or at least longer, than the Ar atom.

I also would be surprised if either gas doesn't leak out over time, but purging the scope with a dry gas like nitrogen or argon will ensure that it starts out dry and will probably stay dry for some time. Certainly if you open your scope, whatever nitrogen or argon is in there will instantly depart, Mr. Atkinson's statements to the contrary.

Since moisture is larger than Nitrogen or Argon, then that doeswn't mean that the moisture can get in even if some of the Nitrogen or Argon leak out.

If some want to dunk their scopes in hot water so be it. Since that is something that is hard to imagine a scope being subjected to, I find little interest in doing so for the reason of why subject it to an extreme that may cause it to fail prematurely. Which in all likelihood would be at the wrong time. Leave them outside on a cold winter night then bring them in the house and see what happens seems to be more realistic of real world conditions. Let the manufacturer do the extreme testing in it's R/D department. Can't remember of hearing about a Leupold of recent manufacturer fogging. Even by the non Leupold people on this forum.

That is the point exactly. Stressing scope seals beyond what they would ever encounter in real life hunting conditions is pointless and irrelevant. Would you throw your scope or bino into 20 feet of water to see if would withstand heavy rainfall?

Guys, I agree.

You might be able to heat a riflesope up to 140 degrees in actualy use if it is sitting in a vechicle outside of Bagdad in the Summer, but it damn sure won't be submerged in water while you do it..

That type of seal 'test is pretty much abuse.. just like shooting a barrel until it gets super hot to see "how good the steel is" by shooting the throat out.

So,I'm thinkin now that my molecule's are bigger than most..
I'm good with that...

I've heard that scopes need to be air conditioned or you shift POI. In the sun they heat up and start to stretch and move around. You need a chunk of aluminum several inches away with chromoly steel in between to keep that from happening. Very complex thermodynamics....

Who ever told ya that needs a rehab stay....

I wrap all my guns in aluminum foil..doesn't everyone?

Ask anyone. They will tell you that is the real value of the high rings.

Okay, now THAT is fuggin' funny!

I'm ROLLIN'!

And, yes, I know that was a joke.

WELL DONE, Ringman!

No, it does not leak out in one year. Don't believe everything you have heard.

I used the fifteen foot drop test on one of my VX-3 1.75-6 scopes and it passed with flying colors. It didn't even change zero!
I let it slip out of the ladder stand, and the rifle landed in the snow barrel first. I cleaned out the barrel and was good to go. I did switch stands in case the naughty words scared the deer away.
whelennut

I'll have to remember that for when I test my VX-3 scope..

Where's the post or e-mail where he said that, RD ? The book, "Optics for the Hunter" does say just that, page 43-45. In the book, he doesn't specify 140 degree water or 5 mins. That I've seen him state in other articles or posts.
Odviously you've never hunted or shot in really warm temps if you think a scope would never warm to 140 degrees. Try putting your hand on a black scope on a day when it's been in full sun for a while and the air temperture, in the shade, is over 105. E

E, I PM'ed John after seeing you state this thinking perhaps he actually did say something you claim he did and as usual he didn't. If you feel that your test is indicative of hunting conditions you encounter that's fine. You should just state that instead of telling everyone that John Barsness stated it and save lots of folks from sending their scopes to Leupold for repair.

I've never seen him state that or anything close to it. Maybe you should get your facts straight before quoting someone like John Barsness to validate your BS.

Let me clear this up.

No, I never stated anything like 140 degrees or 5 minutes--but I have written about dunking a scope in warm (not HOT) water to see if it ALREADY has a faulty seal.

This is done in water that feels pretty warm to the touch, but not uncomfortable. The temperature is probably around 100 degrees, and won't harm the seals in any scope.

The warm water heats up the gas inside the scope, whether atmosphere, nitrogen or whatever. If the scope does have a faulty seal, the gas will start leaking steadily from the seal. Once that occurs, the scope should be removed from the water. Because the gas is pushing outward, no water enters the scope.

By the way, scopes are filled with nitrogen (or argon, or whatever) just to be sure there's no atmospheric moisture inside when they leave the factory. The nitrogen is expected to bleed off eventually, though obviously not all will leave the scope. But if the seals remain tight they prevent moisture from entering the scope, even after some of the nitrogen bleeds off.

The purpose of dunking the scope in warm water is to heat the nitrogen gas in the scope so that it expands and if there is an improper seal somewhere you will see bubbles coming up in the warm water. John Barsness relayed that one in his optics book but like anyone telling a good story some feel the need to add excitement to the original thought or process. John specifically stated that you place a scope in warm water and if you see bubbles continue to rise for more than 10 seconds, you have a leak. I took the liberty to confirm this with Barsness after seeing the boiling test outlined by Eremicus many, many, many times over.

John, you didn't have to clear that up on my account because when I read something I usually understand what I read and I sure as hell wouldn't be mis-quoting you here or anywhere else as I deem that disrespectful at the least.

RD,

Yeah, I know you--and know you comprehend what you read!

I posted it because the thread had turned into a real hairball.

MD and others - when do you decide to test? Give it a dunking before it ever sees a set of scope rings, only after you see moisture issues or what?

For me, when they are new or before they ever see scope mounts.

RD, water boils at 212 degrees, not 140.
Thanks John for carifying this. A good practical test that I find useful. E

Did you think for a minute I was lying ? You could have saved yourself the embarrassment but I guess you're used to that by now.

I've seen you "misunderstand" such things before.
OK, he said he never said 140 degree water for 5 mins. Must have picked that idea up from somebody else.
The bottom line is that this is a very practical test that the owner of a new scope should perform before mounting the scope.
The other point(s) made here also tend to confirm the idea that using filler gases that have larger molecules may well be a good idea. E

Yes, E I'm sure I have not understood things on many different topics. On this particular topic I was sure he didn't but gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked him. In fairness to you, I don't hunt in hot climates like you do so maybe going above and beyond makes sense for your conditions. For me, it is totally unnecessary and I believe that the test you are performing puts undue stress on a scope. That's just my opinion.

I think that using filler gases with larger molecules as an improvement is a good thing and I applaud Leupold for doing the R&D. Sorry I jumped on your back like that. I'll try to behave in the future.

No problem. Like I said, when I sent the scope in that leaked, I described how I found the leak in the seals. Was repaired w/o comment.
So, 100 degree water for over 10 secs is enough.
Mine took five minutes to finally leak in two places. When repaired, it passed the same test just fine. As did my 4X and other 6X42 Leupolds.
Ok, so I over do it sometimes. I tend to hunt really tough conditions for extended periods of time. Have seen stuff belonging to others break down as well as my own. So I tend to be pushy/fussy when it comes to testing. E

Well, you know if you bought an Elite you'd be ready for anything................

teal,

To be honest, I don't do the dunk test much anymore.

When I started doing it, around 20 years ago, a lot of scope had problems. Cheap scopes often leaked, and some of the really expensive European scopes didn't have O-rings in their adjustment turrets, so bubbled immediately.

These days all the scope manufacturers (or, rather, the companies that make scopes for dozens of manufacturers) that I know of seal their scopes, and its pretty rare to see one with a leak. Mostly I tend to test used scopes, or brands I've never tested before.

MD - thanks. I've never done the test, was wondering what the "tipping point" was for some to do one.

What's next? Dip your barrel to make sure the muzzle tape is not leaking?

Question: How many have bought a new scope from Leupold that has fogged up in lets say 10years of use? I have a couple that old, but only one is presently on a rifle. It has not fogged.

Addition: Never mind, I just saw J.Bs. post. I seriously doubted that it was worth the effort with the progress that has been made with scopes.

I dont think I am gonna buy a scope and put it in 100 degree water just to see if it fails. E amazes me!

You could also pitch it out the window from the second story. Wait, Sticks Son pitched one off a tree and bench, with some heat IIRC and it still worked. Think I'll just mount them and then go shoot.

Seems like the ocular cannot be sealed as it's threaded to adjust focus.

Am I missing something?

Yep

I read the whole thread and it was worth it, for the laughs.

When the OP said that nitrogen was heavier than air, perhaps he forgot that nitrogen makes up about 78% of the air. Oxygen, a heavier atom than nitrogen, makes up about 21% and argon, a much heavier atom, makes up about 1% or the atmosphere.

The other funny one was the bit about moisture being heavier than the N2 molecule. That's probably why I get getting woken up by huge clouds crashing down to ground do to the heavy water vapor molecule. Whoops, water is H2O so when in a vapor state, such as in humid environments, it's lighter than air.

Argon is a noble gas and does not react with anything, it's completely inert and is 38% denser than air, which is why it makes a better medium in a riflescope than nitrogen. It has low thermal conductivity and that's why you find it in double and triple-pane windows.

BTW, March scopes are filled with argon instead of nitrogen.

I agree. Regardless of scope brand, I do not water test my scopes for leaky seals. That is another thing that should be done at some stage of engineering or QC. As far as "What if your scope fogs up on you on an expensive or remote hunt"? In that case, I remove the scope, put it in my pack and within less than 2 minutes have those old useless, outdated, pre-zeroed iron sights installed and keep hunting. RJ

Tract also claims to be filled with argon

Thanks for the info. So I sauntered over to their website and did a search for argon. It seems they only use argon in three of their spotting scopes; the 30X80, 22X80, and the 27-55X80. None of their riflescopes have argon.

Actually Tract riflescopes are filled with Argon.
This from one of the owners


"Good morning John, yes our scopes are filled with argon gas"

Badda boom

From one of the owners of Tract

"We specifically request Argon Gas to be used in our rifle scopes, binoculars and spotting scopes."

Just about everyone here can experience a leakdown if they keep a vehicle long enough.

The little black cylinders, gas springs is the term I think, that hold up car hoods or the rear hatch are nitrogen charged & work harder than the gas that's in a scope. Considering that, the gas springs have a pretty good lifespan.

I always do the boiling water test after the throwing test.

It escapes from every scope brand except NF which has super duper sealed and bedded lenses

Excellent. I can only go by what they say at the website. If they don't mention it for the riflescopes but they do for the spotting scopes, that means the riflescopes do not have it because in my book that is a differentiator, and they don't mention it; they sillies.

So now, only the few readers of this thread know that.

Pick a toric riflescope
Scroll down under the toric line (IDK about the rest)
Under features of the toric scopes

FTR SHOOTER,you are spreading miss information

https://tractoptics.com/videosview/argon-vs-nitrogen-gas.html

They fully explain that Tracts are filled with argon

I can see why you were banned on another website, with comments like that.

For being factual? Which you weren't

Excellent. I used their search engine, typed in argon and it came back with 3 results, their spotting scope that I listed. I had to actually go look at each one and do a ctl-f argon to find it.

I think they need to work on their website.

Good job, JeffP.