Russ Fill
Well-known member
Just wondering if anyone or RED has an answer to being able to make all my older Mounts Captive Screw mounts so Im not getting screwed to death when going back and forth from older non captive to the newer one/s....
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
Captive Screws on older mounts
- Thread starter Russ Fill
- Start date
Jake Wilganowski
Well-known member
Boy that would be awesome
Demetri Zuev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,221
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I'm getting confused with these new mounts.
What does captive mean? Will my old Ti PL mount work with a DSMC2 style body?
I remember right after a Weapon announcement there was another PL mount announced that was the same to current Ti PL in regards to design but different, but I can't find it now.
And what's the deal with that new PL mount costing $3500? Is it that high tech? The price seems way over the top.
What does captive mean? Will my old Ti PL mount work with a DSMC2 style body?
I remember right after a Weapon announcement there was another PL mount announced that was the same to current Ti PL in regards to design but different, but I can't find it now.
And what's the deal with that new PL mount costing $3500? Is it that high tech? The price seems way over the top.
- Moderator
- #4
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 13,392
- Reaction score
- 795
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.phfx.com
Captive = the bolts remain attached to the mount when you take it off the camera.
Previous DSMC Mounts all work with Scarlet-W and Weapon bodies. There might be a modification you'll want for your PL mount at the time of upgrading, which is why RED wants it attached to the camera so they can look at it.
The MG PL Mount is strong, but it's mainly lighter weight than the Ti PL Mount.
Robert Hart
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 1,258
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 38
Making the screws captive on the mounts for the Epic/Scarlet/Dragon camera platform would be relatively easy for a machinist but would compromise the strength of the machine screws used to fasten the mount.
Two methods :-
One would require the screws to have channels cut in them to hold circlips or "e-clips" and clearance holes cut into the rear face around the screwholes. Most likely there will be required clearance shoulders to be machined into the mount to allow the loose fit of the circlips within the mount.
Another would require custom screws to be made with wider threaded shanks and threads cut within the existing holes in the mount. The same clearance shoulders would be cut in the rear face of the mount to allow the wider threads to pass through and float the screws for fastening of the mount to the camera body.
A balance of convenience question arises due to the following :-
Real risk of a screw fracturing at the stress riser of the circlip channel.
Custom-made screw threads baulking in the helicoils in the camera body, leaving the mount slightly insecure and able to flex or stress the camera body.
Baulked screws tearing the helicoils out when next unfastened, a BIG heartbreak in the field.
Weakening, however slight, of the camera mouint at the screwholes.
The inevitable voiding of the RED warranty if you get found out.
The cost of the mods versus simply buying a bunch of spare screws.
I would go with taking spare screws. If you need the assurance of wedlocking them to the camera wherever it goes, you can drill and thread holes in your camera's accessory cage as storage places for the spare screws. Just make sure the screw-ends don't pass through the cage and damage any bodywork or fittings beneath.
Why didn't RED think of it? Likely they did and rejected the notion for the above reasons as well as the four extra machining operations required for each mount and special-order screw sets of four, a cost incurred for no performance or reliability gain.
Two methods :-
One would require the screws to have channels cut in them to hold circlips or "e-clips" and clearance holes cut into the rear face around the screwholes. Most likely there will be required clearance shoulders to be machined into the mount to allow the loose fit of the circlips within the mount.
Another would require custom screws to be made with wider threaded shanks and threads cut within the existing holes in the mount. The same clearance shoulders would be cut in the rear face of the mount to allow the wider threads to pass through and float the screws for fastening of the mount to the camera body.
A balance of convenience question arises due to the following :-
Real risk of a screw fracturing at the stress riser of the circlip channel.
Custom-made screw threads baulking in the helicoils in the camera body, leaving the mount slightly insecure and able to flex or stress the camera body.
Baulked screws tearing the helicoils out when next unfastened, a BIG heartbreak in the field.
Weakening, however slight, of the camera mouint at the screwholes.
The inevitable voiding of the RED warranty if you get found out.
The cost of the mods versus simply buying a bunch of spare screws.
I would go with taking spare screws. If you need the assurance of wedlocking them to the camera wherever it goes, you can drill and thread holes in your camera's accessory cage as storage places for the spare screws. Just make sure the screw-ends don't pass through the cage and damage any bodywork or fittings beneath.
Why didn't RED think of it? Likely they did and rejected the notion for the above reasons as well as the four extra machining operations required for each mount and special-order screw sets of four, a cost incurred for no performance or reliability gain.
Last edited: