EC tuner brake
- Thread starter eric1911
- Start date
- Status
I don't know that there's a black and white "putting it to bed". One thing I have learned is that barrels have attitude, and they're not all the same... but I'd be satisfied with a 20-shot dot drill with it tuned to a "good" setting and then another with it "out of tune". 40 rounds. That would say "Yes, there is a difference". Now this is me being an engineer, but at some point I'd like to do a 20 shot test (or two) at each setting and see if things "tune" in and out... That's a different beast.
Anyway, we already know that strapping weight to the muzzle has the potential to change performance-- you see that with suppressors and muzzle brakes, so a simple on/off test you'd almost expect to see a difference. I often wonder if simply the presence of more mass at the end of the barrel isn't what people are seeing. This is a hypothesis, but I have doubt that "micro"-scale increments of "tuning" are doing much, and that adding macro-scale mass to the muzzle is. Time will tell if I'm right.
Every bell curve has tails. There are low probability events and you don't know if you got the best case 3, the worst case 3, or where in-between. I mean if it's hot dog shit like 2 MOA then yeah you're fairly safe writing it off...
But let's say we're going to shoot 2 different loads, 35 shots each... 3 shots in to each group one is .7 and one is .4. I would not bet money on the long-term results. It's a coin toss. By the time each of those groups has 35 shots in it, they're both probably going to be in the .8-1.5 MOA range and it's impossible to tell where-- and that .8-1.5 MOA guess is just a guess based on experience. One may stay at .7 or may be 2.5 MOA. No confidence at just 3 rounds to say which.
My short lived stint with RDF's agree exactly with your sentiment
I shot some amazing 3 shot groups with those projectiles, and doing only 3 shot tests with bullet seating depth for those really had me wasting a lot of time and money on projectiles that weren't worth a shit.
That's a lot of what I see people do. Confirmation bias funnels... Load development schemes are confirmation bias funnels. You shoot an array of white-noise 3 or 5 shot testing, grab the low points, "test" them again for seating depth, grab the low points, then verify with some more white noise and if it survives 2-4 layers of white-noise-low-point grabbing (even with some cognitive dissonance throwing a bad group or two out because you *must have* flinched etc...), you have a 1/4 MOA all-day-long load.
I'm joking a little bit... But only a little bit. A few years back I shot a few 50-shot strings and my load development house of cards crashed. FWIW, I "feel around" with 10 or 15 shotters and verify everything with 20-35. I've seen POI, mean radius, velocity avg and SD, all pretty much level out within a useful margin around 16-18 rounds. So I shoot 20 and call it good enough. There is some information gained by shooting 25-100 but usually not enough to worry about.
Anyway, I'm not saying everyone needs to have rock-solid data for everything they do... But it is nice to have when considering purchases or get serious about competitions. Again, do what makes you happy. Often enough a bughole 3-shot group is all a guy needs to see to feel like his stuff is shit-hot so go for it. Just don't try to sell me on it
I agree that 2 x 5 shot groups is in no way a comprehensive test but, it will almost certainly put paid to a 0.2 MOA 3 shot bug hole.
As Ledzep said, the testing doesn't have to be done to the nth degree for every application, it just has to have some semblance of reality &, 3 shot groups are not reality for any competition shooting that I'm aware of.
For example, if you shoot PRS, I think there are usually 6 to 10 shots in a stage. (correct me if I'm wrong)
So if it were me, I'd be very interested to know if the rifle/ammo/tuner setting combination will hold up reasonably over 10 shots taken in roughly the time to shoot an average stage. Now there's a realistic test that will show some real world results.
As Ledzep said, the testing doesn't have to be done to the nth degree for every application, it just has to have some semblance of reality &, 3 shot groups are not reality for any competition shooting that I'm aware of.
For example, if you shoot PRS, I think there are usually 6 to 10 shots in a stage. (correct me if I'm wrong)
So if it were me, I'd be very interested to know if the rifle/ammo/tuner setting combination will hold up reasonably over 10 shots taken in roughly the time to shoot an average stage. Now there's a realistic test that will show some real world results.
No mention of Chrono's that I can recall.
Couple 5 shot groups is a good start. You've nothing to loose but some misplaced assumptions.
Just in case you wanted to know, the answer is about 4 ft/sec.
It's almost impossible not to piss on the chrono though.
same answer to you. If you're so thoroughly convinced that everything everyone else has put up is not valid, prove it otherwise.
I already own the product, I'm not the one begging for others to spend money on something to convince me.
You just don't get it do you.
Three shot groups are telling you about the same as a random number sequence between 2 roughly defined points.
Read the following quote from Ledzep. The following quote explains the real value of your testing.
"That's a lot of what I see people do. Confirmation bias funnels... Load development schemes are confirmation bias funnels. You shoot an array of white-noise 3 or 5 shot testing, grab the low points, "test" them again for seating depth, grab the low points, then verify with some more white noise and if it survives 2-4 layers of white-noise-low-point grabbing (even with some cognitive dissonance throwing a bad group or two out because you *must have* flinched etc...), you have a 1/4 MOA all-day-long load"
You don't have to take my word or Ledzep or anybody else on here. Go & read Grubbs research. You can download all of his research papers & see how he tested & why he tested the way he did. It was all centred around meaningful statistical analysis. Grubbs testing was, to my knowledge, by far the most comprehensive statistical analysis of quantifying small arms dispersion.
The mathematics of statistics has been defined & formulated for many decades so it's not us who are deciding that 3 shot groups are inadequate.
So here’s a tuner test I did a few weeks ago. It was the tmb tuner, not the ec. I was crunching n570 and was at my max coal for feeding in a 300 prc with 245 Berger’s so I wanted to keep coal and was right where I felt good with pressure. Groups start at top left and go clockwise. 2 shot groups unless I felt there may be something or I felt I might have pulled a shot. The last bottom left is me adjusting and then setting zero stop and final is bullseye. This is at 200 yards. I tested data at 600 and 1000 last weekend and was shooting very well for conditions 4-15 wind. I only have a pic of my buddies grandson shooting a 22 creed at 1000 and you have to zoom to see target in fresh dirt. This process works for me and saves me some time and components and only reason I’m posting is maybe it will do the same for someone else.
Attachments
Or you could just nut up, like a grown man, and buy the product you have literally 0 experience with. Im not sure if you realize it yet or not, but not a single person you keep arguing with, cares about your opinion on something you dont actually own.
I have no issue with anyone else's opinion you mentioned either, because they're not acting like a butthurt child. As it stands, you've submitted over 20 responses in one thread, on a product you dont actually own, and have no basis on trying to discredit, because you've conducted no actual testing of your own. Youve genuinely demonstrated becoming the gold standard for an internet troll, and a complete moron.
Enjoy being blocked.
@Barelstroker got pissy in a couple posts, sure, but he also is attempting to discuss basic statistical theory and is being ignored and/or attacked. You literally just keep hoisting the same red herring at him over and over again. You aren't actually attending to any of the points he's bringing up, which are statistical in nature, not about whether you (or others) deem the product works for you (or them).
I have no dog in this fight, but I do find it ironic you did the same exact thing you are contending @Barelstroker is doing in the XTRIII thread. After you got upset that people disagreed that the XTRIII (a product you've never owned or seen) and Ares ETR were in the same league and brought up overall quality of the glass, construction, QA standards, US vs Chinese made, etc... You shifted the argument and contended that obviously Burris and Athlon have the same attention to QA because they have both utilized LOW for scopes... which, not only makes no sense, it is a logical fallacy, lol.
Anyway - Might want to listen a little more and stop arguing so much. From a mathematical standpoint, @Barelstroker is bringing up fair questions.
Isn't it funny when you make yourself look like an idiot, assuming things about people you've never actually met, and know nothing about?
I had no issue buying a product I intend to use, to determine which was better for the money. A barrel tuner is a fraction of the cost of a scope.
Feel free to buy one yourself if you want to discuss performance about a product you've never owned either. Or maybe try staying on subject next time, since your weak attempt at a personal attack, would be the textbook use of a logical fallacy.
Isn't it funny when you make yourself look like an idiot, assuming things about people you've never actually met, and know nothing about?
I had no issue buying a product I intend to use, to determine which was better for the money. A barrel tuner is a fraction of the cost of a scope.
Feel free to buy one yourself if you want to discuss performance about a product you've never owned either. Or maybe try staying on subject next time, since your weak attempt at a personal attack, would be the textbook use of a logical fallacy.
Your response is no surprised to me, as this is the second thread I've run into you in, and all youve done in either is get defensive and lob attacks at people.
I made zero assumptions. Your post can be viewed in the XLRIII thread (https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/burris-xtr3.6913504/post-9654150). You said you have never seen one or owned one. Neither here nor there - but buying a scope to "test it" (whatever that means on here, pretty much zero unless Koshkin is doing it) and then reselling it undoubtedly has much less overall cost than a valid statistical sampling of the effectiveness of a tuner.
Again, the discussion brought up in this thread is in regards to the statistical merits of the testing, which as someone who builds, validates, and uses models for a living interests me, as does the effectiveness of a tuner (in regards to this hobby).
But I digress - you can (undoubtedly) attack me for this post but I wont respond, I'd rather not drag down the thread any further.
Seems like this thread is split into people who have tuners and tested them, NOT WITH JUST THREE SHOT GROUPS as that incorrect assumption keeps coming up, and use them because they work and people who don’t own them but think they work at NASA and are landing on Mars with their “testing” methods they are telling the actual users they need to perform to prove to them they work and if the users don’t then their actual use is invalid. Lol Again, but one or don’t. Your choice.
So you come in trying to insult me, building your entire argument about scientific testing, and owning a product being a key requirement, get mad when it backfires on you, and decide now you want to take the holier than thou approach?
Good plan bud. It must REALLY suck to get caught with your foot in your mouth like that, only to have to backpedal immediately after.
Let me know what statistical methodology you've used to setup the controls of an experiment on a product you dont actually own, or never have seen, princess
Or you know, you could just nut up, and buy one, and shut us all up. Seems funny how the nay sayers want everyone else to do the leg work for them.
Pointing out the difference between a statistically valid test as @Ledzep has done above, and what you said is worlds apart, with all due respect. Its counterproductive to any discussion to divide people into two groups, of which there has to be a right and wrong, and where one is the winner and the other is obviously hairbrained and out of touch with reality (assumption of intent is mine, not a quote of yours).
Again, I never backtracked. I linked to your post. Lol. I have no idea what your scopes your picture shows, nor did I discuss it, nor do I care.So you come in trying to insult me, building your entire argument about scientific testing, and owning a product being a key requirement, get mad when it backfires on you, and decide now you want to take the holier than thou approach?
Good plan bud. It must REALLY suck to get caught with your foot in your mouth like that, only to have to backpedal immediately after.
Let me know what statistical methodology you've used to setup the controls of an experiment on a product you dont actually own, or never have seen, princess
Or you know, you could just nut up, and buy one, and shut us all up. Seems funny how the nay sayers want everyone else to do the leg work for them.
I dont have a plan, the questions I've read in this thread point more to the people selling this product to produce the results, and a general discussion about valid testing. It seems like a fair point to discuss, IMO, and one I am interested in.
So now your argument is that you cant tell what scopes are in the picture? is that what you're really basing your argument on? Should I share the order invoice from midway for my burris XTR? Or do you want to keep playing "move the goal post" instead of just admitting that you were wrong?
Maybe you should stick to your own plan of not responding. You continue to make yourself sound like more of an idiot each time. Logical fallacies and all.
But the group is divided if you look at the posts. People who don’t own one telling people who do they don’t know how to test because they saw some 3 shot group somewhere. Not my rules but an observation. Also the super strict testing is not needed. Can you do it? Sure but one and do it but people who test and find their location that works usually find it fairly quickly and 20-50 shot groups are not needed. But again if anyone doesn’t like others results then pony up and buy one and do your own testing.
In regards to where the discussion degraded to, I dont disagree with your assessment, I'd agree and say you're right.
But I felt that where @Ledzep took it later in the thread, it was much less accusatory and much more about explaining what is statistically significant and the pitfalls people run into when utilizing test data, particularly in this discipline. I think its a positive to have that type of insight in the thread, especially given his congenial tone and that he (to me) obviously was trying to teach and not accuse - and on top of that he was bringing up very fair points.
All well and good to lay out extensive testing methods but the fact is most here don’t need to do that. The highly OCD might but most can go out and make adjustments to the tuner, see differences in impacts and find the spot that works with that ammo and then shoot a few groups to confirm. Almost like load testing. Took me all of maybe an hour to test 3 lots of ammo and find adjustments for all three to shoot very tight groups. No long drawn out testing.
My gripe is the coming into every product page, not just this one, and then going "prove it" "prove it" "prove it" over and over and over.
You missed a category: people that have tuners, have tested them, and found no benefit/performance improvement for their intended uses
On a side note I think all the bickering should be moved to a new thread, rather then muddy up a product specific thread. There's valid points being made on both sides in between all the nonsense, there's a lot to talk about. But we've moved way beyond the intention of this thread. I'll be glad to participate in a different thread on the topic, but I won't be contributing to this nonsense in an EC Tuner related thread anymore.
I understand where you're coming from & sometimes it can work out but, cross my heart & hope to die, you're more than likely seeing what you want to see. Please understand, I'm not trying to belittle you when I say that. Seeing what WE want to see is in essence a very large part of what robust testing is designed to avoid. As an example, I've shot many dozens of 10 shot groups that started out with the 1st 3 or 4 shots with a bug hole group. Keep slinging led at the target & the story changed dramatically. I've had that happen so many times I have wondered about it.
In your post you made this statement:
" Groups start at top left and go clockwise. 2 shot groups unless I felt there may be something or I felt I might have pulled a shot."
This is exactly the kind of self induced bias that WE all can easily introduce into our testing that more robust testing methods cancel out.
The number of samples (shots) we use in our testing has a direct impact on "confidence" & in statistical terminology is presented & calculated as "confidence interval". A confidence interval can be directly applied to a specific number of samples. I am of the opinion that statistical confidence is poorly understood or ignored completely by most shooters however, it is one of the most important aspects of statistical analysis.
Statistical confidence can be compared to betting on an outcome.
For example, lets say you or I shoot a 0.3 MOA 3 shot group. If you were asked how much you are willing to bet that you could shoot another 0.3 MOA 3 shot group or smaller, how much would you be willing to bet?
If I were forced to make that bet, my personal choice would be $5. Would you bet $10,000?
Almost certainly not. This is basically the essence of confidence intervals.
Without knowing any of the math or fancy formulas, you intuitively know the chances (probability) of you winning that bet.
If you shot 10 shots into 0.5 MOA & were asked to bet on shooting the next 10 shots into 1.5 MOA or less, what would you bet? I reckon you'd consider $10,000 especially if you had a very high quality, proven rifle/ammo combo.
Last edited:
I’d bet $10,000 you continue to mention 3 shot groups at least once in every post you make. Lol
That might be a fair bet but, arguing about the validity of "1+2" shot groups is the inverse of arguing about whether gravity exists or not.
It just shouldn't be an issue.
Man,I really can’t afford throwing dollars out at 1-200 yards. I see what your saying but my next targets were at 600 and 1000. That’s where I’d rather see what’s happening in 2-3 shots. Tuners work very well for me and you should give a good one a try. Maybe try what I showed you and test it to distance and see for yourself. Try it at 200 so you can actually see the spread if conditions allow. Everything looks good at 100 and I’ve been tricked before like what your saying but 200 seems to be more honest.
Yes, you could have a point with the 200 yard testing. Testing at 200 basically looks at it with a magnifying glass but, it's still subject to our bias with too few shots. The only negative about longer distance shooting is that it can allow wind to be a larger factor than it has to be which, can bias negatively & positively.
Anyhow, you are testing your chosen setting & that's my emphasis. If you watch what amounts to be "the promo video" of this particular tuner, the connotation seems to be that we can shoot the final 3 shot bug hole group then, off to the competition.
The other explanation to the "1+2" shot group (trying to win a bet) appearing to continually produce reliable results, might be because the darn rifle just shoots within your expectations most of the time.
I have a 243 which refuses to shoot more than 1.5 MOA no matter what & it usually shoots around 1/2 to 3/4. That's well within my expectation because it's a factory rifle so for me, there doesn't seem to be much point &, a 5 shot group seems to be about the same as a 10 shot, so there's that I suppose.
My 308 on the other hand, is the opposite. Very finicky with certain projectiles & powders but can & has shot really small groups with what I've found to be shitty loads when I've kept testing.
I have read about other guys testing at 200 & 300 & some of the benefits &, I had thought of giving it go.
I suspect you will find out tuners definitely work and you won’t have as much tuning or forcing your 308 to like something you want it to. Definitely helps me to do load work at 200. I suspect the ec tuner works fine, I have the ats and tmb. The tmb is heavier than the ats and I saw more dramatic changes while tuning. This is just what I noticed but I would have to be convinced otherwise. If you do decide to try it and it does work for you, it would be interesting to see if the tune stays good within 1/10 of a grain. That’s something that I haven’t tried
Hey, while your here. Would you be kind enough list the weights of the tuners you mentioned.
I don't have a proper tuner but, I have tried a collet fitting on my 308 cause the 308 I have ATM has no muzzle thread. I have stuck that collet block on a couple times & it was a disaster. The last 5 shot shot group I shot with that on the barrel was 10" or 12" with the rough centre of the group about 10"high & 6 or 8 "the right of the POA. The thing weighs 17.6 oz so, I was wondering if it was far too heavy.
So, not to disrupt a perfectly typical pissing contest, but with all the arguing about baby stats and Central Limit Theorem, I can only laugh.
Arguing adequate sample size without any measure of variance is a waste of time (if you can not express the variance for the firearm x ammo combination, you can not estimate the required sample size, regardless of alpha level or desired beta level). Baby statistics!
So let’s cut the BS and be honest, most of the results presented thus far have been simple comparisons. Nothing wrong there. Just limited with respect to inference. However, multiple raters claiming to have detected a difference with small sample sizes.... implies the effect size, if real, must be fairly large. Think about that carefully.... again baby statistical reasoning.
Rant complete. Back to the regularly scheduled pissing match
Arguing adequate sample size without any measure of variance is a waste of time (if you can not express the variance for the firearm x ammo combination, you can not estimate the required sample size, regardless of alpha level or desired beta level). Baby statistics!
So let’s cut the BS and be honest, most of the results presented thus far have been simple comparisons. Nothing wrong there. Just limited with respect to inference. However, multiple raters claiming to have detected a difference with small sample sizes.... implies the effect size, if real, must be fairly large. Think about that carefully.... again baby statistical reasoning.
Rant complete. Back to the regularly scheduled pissing match
Is it a reasonable comparison with 0ne 1+2 shot group per tuner adjustment.So, not to disrupt a perfectly typical pissing contest, but with all the arguing about baby stats and Central Limit Theorem, I can only laugh.
Arguing adequate sample size without any measure of variance is a waste of time (if you can not express the variance for the firearm x ammo combination, you can not estimate the required sample size, regardless of alpha level or desired beta level). Baby statistics!
So let’s cut the BS and be honest, most of the results presented thus far have been simple comparisons. Nothing wrong there. Just limited with respect to inference. However, multiple raters claiming to have detected a difference with small sample sizes.... implies the effect size, if real, must be fairly large. Think about that carefully.... again baby statistical reasoning.
Rant complete. Back to the regularly scheduled pissing match
Howdy,
As I tried to say above this is difficult to ascertain without more info. But you could do sequential 3 shot groups over a span of adjustments and use regression to test Slope, all other conditions remaining equal (i.e, radial dispersion vs adjustment). Power is still low, but if the effect size is large, as suspected from the anecdotal evidence, then you may get a good test.
Probably the easiest procedure. But the results could be hyperbolic if the testing continues through a full cycle (sine wave).
I think that is your problem. You think the tuning by using 3 shots is the only testing. It’s not. It’s the tuning. Actually I only used 2 shots while adjusting as that is what Aaron recommended for his tuner and it works. You can watch the shots come together as you make adjustments. Once at the spot you feel is the tightest you will get, as if you keep going you will watch the groups open back up, then you test with 5 shot groups. I think the whole 3 shot hang up is working off a wrong assumption.
So it's not the tuning part but you think people only test after tuning with 3 shot groups?
It's the tuning part. That's why I said to test the chosen setting with a couple 5 shot groups to see if it holds up to the 3 shot group used to make the decision.
If you expect to see a large difference, 3 shots MAY show a true trend but, you still can't be sure. If you're trying to see smaller differences like say 1/2 MOA- 1/3 MOA between adjustments, highly unlikely.
You're telling me to test a tuner & that's fair enough. I think you may be surprised at the results if you shoot 3x3 groups at the same setting. You may see some tuner settings which hold the setting but, in my experience of testing, you'll probably see a good deal of the settings you thought were good, balloon out to where you can't see much if any difference between other settings.
I think in all this, guys think I'm suggesting tuners don't or can't work. I have never said that, nor do I believe that. I think they can be made to work as expected, I just know from many hundreds of 10 shot groups over many years that 2 or 3 shots per tuner setting won't tell you what you think it's telling you most of the time.
And that is what people do. You find the spot and then test with 5 shot groups. You don't need to shoot 5 shot groups during tuning. People, if they are smart, don't just hit a spot in the tuning and say that's it. I would never do that and hope no one else would either. The tuning is done with a few rounds but testing done with more. You don't have a tuner so you haven't tested a tuner. It's not load testing. Look at one of my test targets below. You can see two lots of ammo. The #1 dot is actually target two of the 715 lot test but looking at 2 through 7 of lot 537 you can see them come together with each target but hit about as close as they will come with 6/7. That ammo was tested with 5 shot groups after this test and they held. Just like the 715 lot. The 537 was never an accurate lot in my rifle but it is now.
Well, if you were a good bloke, you'd send me a tuner so I can test. If your not a good bloke, you won't. Choice is yours.
Well if you were really interested in a tuner you would buy one and try it yourself. It's not on me or anyone else to provide you with anything for free and nothing to do with being a good bloke or not.
So you've finally convinced me to try one but, you're now the main obstacle.Well if you were really interested in a tuner you would buy one and try it yourself. It's not on me or anyone else to provide you with anything for free and nothing to do with being a good bloke or not.
Top stuff pal.
Lol if I am the main obstacle then you have no excuse as I am not one. Look at both the tuner options, the EC and ATS, and see what works for you. I like the ATS as I have brakes already so just pop it on under my brake and go but if you need a brake then the EC is another option.
Ahh, only joking with you. I'm pissed off cause I can't get anyone to bite on the MOA vs Mil page.Well if you were really interested in a tuner you would buy one and try it yourself. It's not on me or anyone else to provide you with anything for free and nothing to do with being a good bloke or not.
Terrible.
- Status
