Yes, these kind of vids are most of the problem.
They rely on the ignorance of their audience &, are more than likely ignorant themselves as well.
EC tuner brake
- Thread starter eric1911
- Start date
- Status
They rely on the ignorance of their audience &, are more than likely ignorant themselves as well.
I'm watching it right now.
They may as well be testing the "Satterlee method". Through their testing methodology, they would be telling you that the "Satterlee method" does in fact work because they found a flat spot on a graph with a statistically irrelevant sample size. I feel like its 2015 again...
You've literally said all of the above in here before.
If you dont believe that the data that exists is valid, then go and gather your own data.
http://www.varmintal.com/aeste.htm this covers it in much further detail than you (or anyone else in this thread) has presented, and is as void of emotion as possible.
it explains barrel harmonics and the effects of tuners on barrel harmonics. Its pretty simple to understand how a tuner works based on this.
Typically speaking, if someone is quoting you, and responding directly to you, then that comment would be directed at you.
Or were you referring to someone else entirely, each time you quoted me?
Im still trying to figure out, were you born this slow, or was the condition learned over time? If you were born like this, then I truly feel bad. I dont make make it a point to typically bully the mentally ill, but its really a coin toss with you.
Maybe you should stick to that radio you were talking about earlier? Push buttons and talk to it some more. Maybe the voices will eventually make sense in your head?
I have done my own testing.
And cool, POI moves with a tuner. We all get that. I think anyone that's had a muzzle brake or suppressor come loose knows that.
What can't be explained or demonstrated is how a change in barrel frequency makes a rifle and ammo more precise.
Anyways, I'm going back into the shadows. I have no vested interested in this, I have nothing to gain from anyone thinking either way on this topic.
I'll keep lurking if some compelling data actually shows up, but until then I'm remaining a skeptic.
I'll keep lurking if some compelling data actually shows up, but until then I'm remaining a skeptic.
Where is this testing?
From what can see tuners used to be popular years ago. Browning even had the boss system. I can tell you for rimfire where you can't tune your load, I know alot of people that swear by tuners. I know a few guys who use them in PRS and like them as well.
The science behind a tuner is pretty clear. Now how much it effects a heavy profile barrel shooting centerfire where you can already tune your load is debatable. If I had to guess, its much less effective on centerfire for that reason and the lighter and longer the barrel, the more pronounced the effects are.
Benchrest guys shoot short fat barrels for a reason.
Its the only way to test and eliminate the weakest variable (The shooter) Thats why it is done. What about Benchrest guys locked into a 50 pound sled shooting a 30lb gun on a concrete bench? They are taking the recoil out of the shot as well.
Gavin never found a product he didnt love , er pimp for the right price.
Wow, I can’t remember the last time someone misinterpreted a statement this bad.
It’s not about the test fixture. It’s about what happens when in the fixture. As far as group size still being large enough to require long term testing.
Also, if you think for a minute that Lapua believes they are always giving you the best ammo for your rifle based on that few hours of testing, you’re wrong. What they have given you is a pretty decent chance of being really good ammo for your rifle. And also a chance of being absolutely great ammo. Hell, they won’t even test the top top shelf ammo unless you request it.
This is also why you can have a lot of center-x outperform Midas + (talking about in general in many rifles on the street). Because they are made on the same machine and lot tested to see which one to label and sell for a higher price.
At times their lot testing ends up being on the low side of the probability scale and the center-x should have been labeled midas and the midas should have been center-x.
You’re a little up past your bedtime on this stuff.
Also, just an FYI for the future, citing ultimate reloader is not a good idea. He is very good at what he does, and I enjoy his product videos. He is however not actually educating anyone on loading and is absolutely not testing anything with results that are confident or significant.
I don't have that testing information, but others have alluded to that testing being done. Whether it gets made public or not, I don't know.
Whether PRS shooters like them or not is not a convincing argument in itself. These are the same people that post pictures of their 3-shot chronograph readings that show they have an ES of 5 or less for their uneducated followers to jerk off too.
Rimfires are a completely different world, one that I'm not apart of. There's a lot of nuances to rimfires that differentiate them from centerfires, and that's a world I have almost no experience in. I'll just have to give those people the benefit of the doubt.
And no, the science is not clear on tuners.
To be clear, I’m not saying that testing fixtures aren’t a valid means of testing. They absolutely are.
I’m saying that a test fixture doesn’t bring the number of shots to be confident down.
It means a human requires even more. Generally speaking.
I’m saying that a test fixture doesn’t bring the number of shots to be confident down.
It means a human requires even more. Generally speaking.
So what your saying is you have no evidence that Tuners don't work but we have a ton of respected people including national and world champs who swear by them, but the science is not clear.
Its pretty simple. See what the best in any dicipline is doing/using, and copy it. No need to reinvent the wheel. This is the best advice for 99% of shooters. That other 1%, well they may unlock the next great secret or blow their brains out in frustration trying to come up with a better wheel. Do you want to spend time having fun shooting or what?
And no dont throw in some retard generalization of social media along with all PRS shooters. Alot of guys spend an insane amount of time to make the most accurate loads they can and take this very seriously. Many of those same shooters are Scientists, MD's, Engineers, ect in their day job, and probably understand statistic sampling a bit more than you give them credit.
I don't run a tunner on a centerfire to be clear. I am unsure of the real benefit, however the theory behind it is sound, and its up to each person to decide what level of diminishing returns they want to chase. Those that do, more power to them and I will assume they are doing what they feel is right.
Lash, my sentiments exactly. Don’t need a computer to see the obvious, or God forbid a statistician to obfuscate it.
You completely misunderstand my argument.
No other centerfire discipline uses tuners to make their rifles more precise. We are NOT using tuners the same way as F-class and benchrest, we are prescribing a whole new purpose for them in PRS. The way in which tuners are used in F-class and benchrest is completely different and irrelevant to how people are trying to use them in our discipline.
There's a lot of science in harmonic frequency, sure. But there's little to no science that outlines the relationship between harmonic frequencies and group sizes.
The theory behind it is sound. The science is not.
That’s a pretty important distinction.
To be fair, I doubt the science will ever be fleshed out though. The ROI is next to zero. You would gain almost nothing by unquestionably proofing they work or don’t work and if they do, proving exactly how they work.
You likely wouldn’t be able to monetize the information. With the exception of something like Applied Ballistics who literally sell information.
What matters is hitting what the fuck you are aiming at…..Now, while we are still young.Because 2-3 shots is statistically irrelevant.
But apparently statistics doesn't matter when it comes to ES/SD and tuners
There’s an old saying, older than I am, that still holds true today.
I’m a retired engineer and spent a lot of time correcting people after their presentations using quality control data. It’s not like I don’t know how they are to be used when proving and/or disproving a point. I’ve created many charts and graphs over the years, all using real properly collected data, that told the story I needed to tell at the time. It’s all about choosing your data sets carefully, now isn’t it guys?
I also spent many years managing engineers. Some of my sharpest and smartest guys were the most difficult to get to make choices and decisions. They never have enough data to make decisions or take calculated risks. That’s why they needed a manager.
Anyway, here’s your proof:
im still on the fence about tuners and their working or not..both sides make sense ..which is unusual for the hide lol
from what i can gather consensus says:
the barrel is supposedly moving before the bullet is out of the barrel
the timing of velocity/seating depth is focused at getting the bullet to leave when the barrel is at its longest "dead" spot
might be a few more nuances but that is the basics from what i consistently hear
has anyone tried:
shooting groups at each seating depth without a tuner
recording those groups, those are now a untuned barrel seating depth test
using the tightest untuned group as the standard/best (if the smallest groups is .5 or bigger its prob a waste because .5 is a joke if you have a accurate rifle)
put a tuner on the rifle
take the other seating depths and manipulate the tuner to see if you can match the "untuned barrel" best group
if you are unable to "tune" EACH seating depth to match the best non tuned group...tuners dont work 100% or at all
if you can make all the seating depths match the best untuned group, they we have some serious testing to do
thanks
from what i can gather consensus says:
the barrel is supposedly moving before the bullet is out of the barrel
the timing of velocity/seating depth is focused at getting the bullet to leave when the barrel is at its longest "dead" spot
might be a few more nuances but that is the basics from what i consistently hear
has anyone tried:
shooting groups at each seating depth without a tuner
recording those groups, those are now a untuned barrel seating depth test
using the tightest untuned group as the standard/best (if the smallest groups is .5 or bigger its prob a waste because .5 is a joke if you have a accurate rifle)
put a tuner on the rifle
take the other seating depths and manipulate the tuner to see if you can match the "untuned barrel" best group
if you are unable to "tune" EACH seating depth to match the best non tuned group...tuners dont work 100% or at all
if you can make all the seating depths match the best untuned group, they we have some serious testing to do
thanks
Lash, There is also the ability to shape your groups at long range to avoid excess wind sensitivity, if you can shoot the difference and read what the wind should have done. Tremendous deficiency of Right brain thinking amongst the flat earth linear thinkers on here.
Exactly. And faucci is an @ industry leader thus the term is perjorative in my book. The man who demands statistics can’t name one industry leader data set, to complement his techno-Fascist vibe.
To humor myself I'm going to take my tuner and 6.5 Creedmoor out to the range, I have a bunch of different factory ammo I never shoot anymore that I can test out. I'll test for myself over multiple different days and conditions as I have the time. I've already determined that a tuner can't make proper reloads more precise, but perhaps there's something to the factory ammo argument.
I have no interest in the petty name calling and insults this thread is degrading to. Its not a good look if you have to make insults in order to try and win an argument (which this shouldn't even be in the first place).
I have no interest in the petty name calling and insults this thread is degrading to. Its not a good look if you have to make insults in order to try and win an argument (which this shouldn't even be in the first place).
When did anyone in this thread say that the purpose of a tuner is strictly for PRS...?
Literally no one is saying that.
The fact that you are even bringing that up as a point makes me realize that this entire discussion has been lost on you.
Your posts are starting to sound more like a poem and less like a point.
Monetizing the information means creating a product that can be sold with that information. Thats exactly what a tuner is, or any other product that is designed to "improve" upon the function of something.
Where in this discussion have you agreed to what exactly would constitute an accurate and scientific test of a barrel tuner? I keep asking you to lay out what a proper test would look like, and you keep ignoring the question just to come back and wax poetic.
Is there another Kthomas who posted that then? or someone using your account to argue on your behalf?
The quote sure looks like yours. It even has your name on it. Why are you so hung on up PRS, f class, or any other competitive shooting? Its not required to be a competitive shooter to see a benefit from a barrel tuner.
I've never stated that tuners are only used for PRS. In fact, I've mentioned f-class and benchrest numerous times as part of my talking points.
If it could be, you'd think Browning wouldn't have given up on that BOSS they had years ago. I never saw anybody with one bragging or showing pics of groups in person. I think even Browning has learned that a good barrel makes an accurate bolt action rifle or else they'd still be putting them on.
Propaganda circa 2010 on YT, came out in mid-90's. https://www.browning.com/news/tech-terms/boss-rifle-accuracy-system.html
I see their value in rimfire. Maybe if you buy "hunting" ammo.
A poorly marketed product doesnt mean it didnt work.
I agree.
It's been done in the past, and more or less abandoned except for the most niche uses. You would think that if the results were that compelling, that tuners (which were made decades ago), would be a lot more prominent.
Instead tuners seem to be relegated to very specific uses, such as tuning during BR matches to account for changing environmentals (we are talking very, very small changes, not shrinking your group size by ~50% type changes).
I find it very interesting that the PRS crowd has suddenly found and adopted tuners, I've followed this trend with a lot of interest. What's really intriguing is the new use that's been prescribed for tuners for this discipline - to shrink group sizes. Through my testing I've found that a tuner is not a replacement for proper reloads - something the benchrest crowd has known for decades and agrees on. I'm more open to the idea that it can potentially have benefits with factory ammo, but there's yet to be compelling evidence to suggest this is the case.
That's why I'm going to test it for myself. It'll be multiple days of shooting (conducted over many months and conditions), hundreds of rounds, with different types of ammo (Prime, Hornady AMAX, Hornady ELM's). One to two days of testing using just 2-3 shot groups is far from telling the full story. All the evidence that's been presented thus far is anecdotal garbage, and about as worthy as the "Satterlee method" of reloading.
Sounds good, and once you finish testing it, we'll call bullshit on your findings, and pick it apart, and say its noise, as you (and a small handful of stubborn others have) for every other piece of evidence presented so far.
In the video I posted you have literally the "who's who" of Fudd writers of the time. Carmichael should have known better but I bet the rest got a free rifle for some pro-jabber. They state in their video, a 2" group will work at 100 yards on a deer but not at 400. So why did they just show tuned groups at 100 yards and not at 400 or 600?
I guess you can use a tuner at 600 yards if you're an F class guy, but why would you bother with a good rifle? I watched EC's videos of the SW championship. The scores were close and all the shooters stated it was just pulling triggers, until the wind changed.
You're free to say what you want. In most cases I couldn't care less what a random stranger on the internet has to say.
I may not even share it. But I'll test it out for myself, since some believe so strongly in this new prescribed use of tuners.
I believe you've see that post too, since you responded multiple times in that thread, a year ago, telling people all the reasons why they shouldnt buy one then either.
The better question is, why you have a chip on your shoulder to be arguing against tuners so much? Usually someone doesnt spend this much time and energy trying to discredit a product they simply dont like, they just move on with their lives.
Centerfire Benchrest Shooters Explore Benefits of Tuners « Daily Bulletin
Barrel tuners have been used successfully in rimfire benchrest for many years (see photo below). While there are competing theories as to how and why barrel tuners work on rimfire rifles, there is no question that the accuracy of some rimfire barrels can be improved with the addition of a tuner.
article is 9 years old too..so looks like barrel tuners certainly arent a "newly prescribed use" either.
The difference is we're now getting to a point where they are a mass-produced item instead of a custom machined add-on that required a gunsmith's work to complete.
I actually have no emotions invested in this topic, I just find the topic super intriguing, and I find the lack of data very surprising.
Seems to be quite a bit of data actually. I do find it intriguing that you choose to keep ignoring it though.
I will look forward to those convincing tests and data you plan on bringing us then.
Once I gather the data I may make my own thread and report back. Feel free to participate and provide your critiques.
I think it could be an interesting conversation.
Looks like MPA is now offering the EC tuner as part of their rifle builds.
Quite a heavy endorsement for a product that does "nothing"
Quite a heavy endorsement for a product that does "nothing"
I don't think anyone is saying it does "nothing", including myself.
And companies offer products that the consumers want. What utility those products may or may not supply is something entirely different.
Anyways, I'm done arguing with you. I personally don't care. You are obviously very emotionally invested in this product.
Enjoy your tuners. Don't take things so personally and seriously - life's to short to get so petty.
Some might tell keith trapp that tuners dont work cause he was using one when he wone the SWN on ft-r and while your at it ask him if he ignored load devlopment sence he was using a tuner?
You’d be surprised how much of “what we know” is all word of mouth with no data backing it up.
Every time I/we thought we had info or opinions we could trust…it was based on “experience in the firearms industry not data.
I /we would then pay for real data or buy the part/product and play with it.
I truthfully think that the market is so big and shooters are a mix of impulse, looks, buying performance and they need a story to tell about their purchase.
Hey you see my new XYZ..david tubb uses it etc.
Instead of saying..see my new XYZ…this is a pic of my groups before and after.
Very different approach
Are you responding to me or yourself with that advice? A year later and you’re still arguing with strangers on the internet about the use of barrel tuners. Sounds like you’re stuck on them, quite seriously.
If you need me to go back and quote your own posts about what they do (or don’t do), you may have a bigger issue.
IMO, it's an "Appeal to Authority." It's a common argument fallacy.
- Status
