Barrel Tuners and Bryan Litz’s vol. 3

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Because he's the one willing to foot the bill for proper irrefutable testing that it actually works. Try to keep up.

Don't forget the at least $200k on top of the testing bill for investment into the product/tech after a positive test result.


Apparently being willing to put up $300k or more is a bad thing now? I mean, if XYZ person already has the means or money to market their own product, they wouldn't be here arguing on the hide.


It's as if he doesn't understand that something as simple as buying stock in a company is literally "getting your grubby hands on technology."

 

[Slides]

Surely for demonstration purposes a shoot through shotmarker system frame (no actual paper) at 2/3/4 hundred yards to coincide with trajectory, a shotmarket at 900/1000 and a chronograph is all that's needed to demonstrate positive compensation (with or without a muzzle device) and tuner shifting the vertical response? Don't need to see anyone's model or software for that to be observable, add another shoot through at 50 of 100 if you don't mind buying or borrowing another shot marker system for 3 points in the trajectory.

 

[timintx]

Surely for demonstration purposes a shoot through shotmarker system frame (no actual paper) at 2/3/4 hundred yards to coincide with trajectory, a shotmarket at 900/1000 and a chronograph is all that's needed to demonstrate positive compensation (with or without a muzzle device) and tuner shifting the vertical response? Don't need to see anyone's model or software for that to be observable, add another shoot through at 50 of 100 if you don't mind buying or borrowing another shot marker system for 3 points in the trajectory.

Absolutely works great .

 

[timintx]

This was one of the first test I did not sure of the dates. I was using a variable weight system. forgive the field note scribble. The early years were never logged to the computer.

 

[iceng]

Data.. pure data is king.

 

[brianf]

Data.. pure data is king.

Witchcraft I say…Data has no place here

 

[John Baker]

You probably need to separate the fact you can load tune for positive compensation or anywhere in the muzzle movement range first.

Adding mass at the muzzle, will tend in general to reduce group size from shooter influence or minor load/ignition system behaviours via simple inertia. But the other thing it does is slow the impulse phasing response that people normally tune loads to, so not only can you adjust the phase to suit variations in barrel transit time, which at least here in Australia are primarily from powder temp variations but that usable window may now be large enough that you don't even have to adjust unless going for world records or somewhere with very large temperature swings. The people telling Tim he's an idiot for calling a fixed mass a tuner haven't worked out that if he has doubled or trippled the muzzle transient time either at stoke end or upswing for positive compensation, depending on whether he is trying from up close benchrest, 1000 or ELR even with charge temp variations he is close enough to still be in tune, likewise people claiming he can't tune to whatever mill spec ammunition with suppressors.

Likewise just because someone ignorant of actual functionality or effects uses something doesn't mean it doesn't work or people cannot use them for different purposes. I imagine before chronographs were common/reliable you could intentionally tune a barrel for a larger vertical spread to quickly assess load consistency between lots of factory ammunition outside you normal cone of accuracy for instance.

I don't see people claiming fixed lenght Helmholtz resonators on mine vent fans don't work because atmospheric temperature and pressure vary a bit?

There seem to be a lot of detractors expecting some universal fit this one device to any barrel lenght/profile/cartridge/action and it will respond in exactly this way with every 1/8th turn on the tuner, if not its bullshit. You don't all tune loads in the same powder mass steps for BR cases as cheytac do you? You don't seat ELDS like VLDs? You don't aim for the same AFRs and ignition timing on a 100cc 2 stroke as a 660cu big block do you?

Another car guy- which is great. Simple comparisons. And my PSI blower motor is not tuned the same as the 660cu normally aspirated big block.
We could move the tuning on our tools by .005" cuts (45+lb D2 52rc). Change the shape of the wave front by simple OD cuts and added shapes. No two tools were exactly alike even though they could be consecutive cut offs from a bar. You absolutely change the tune of the barrel depending on how its is bolted to a chassis/stock- what do I mean? I mean if you clamp a barrel hard enough on its OD, or its end, or along the bore's axis and perhaps add enough weight you can totally change how it tunes. I can kill a tuning fork adhering it to lead (extreme example). Because of the variables of the build no tuner or tuner position will fit all rifles. Or perhaps even work. However, if a tuner only changes group size for better or worse it had an effect. It has to work in other cases. (Rarely are bell curve of performance cut off as in GO-NOGO) Thermally- nodes move with temp changes.
The rifle shown in the above case- I would say is NOT an applicant for a tuner. Our barrels don't respond to tuners. But I have seen grams move things. A harmonic wave/tune has to have a viable outlet. You just don't go to the hardware store buy some steel, weld and bolt a bit here and there and think a tool will harmonically function... tuning fork is what shape.. fork... not spoon. Joking here. Serious crowd.
Another simple question: why do the "typical" chassis "ring" (look through the scope) on a dry trigger pull? They are part of the "tune". Glass/wood/laminate/fiber all dampen vibration.
Changing mass, location of mass, type of mass .. has to effect its harmonic properties- something about base engineering and physics I think.
Time to cut a barrel inch by inch.
Add weight ounces by ounces.
Remove weight ounces by ounces.
Turn a diameter in steps to a literal tube holding the rifling.
If the argument is that harmonics is not part of any accuracy equation than a tuner is not part of the equation either... which seems to be a major component of disagreement here. And none of the above will matter.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Another car guy- which is great. Simple comparisons. And my PSI blower motor is not tuned the same as the 660cu normally aspirated big block.
We could move the tuning on our tools by .005" cuts (45+lb D2 52rc). Change the shape of the wave front by simple OD cuts and added shapes. No two tools were exactly alike even though they could be consecutive cut offs from a bar. You absolutely change the tune of the barrel depending on how its is bolted to a chassis/stock- what do I mean? I mean if you clamp a barrel hard enough on its OD, or its end, or along the bore's axis and perhaps add enough weight you can totally change how it tunes. I can kill a tuning fork adhering it to lead (extreme example). Because of the variables of the build no tuner or tuner position will fit all rifles. Or perhaps even work. However, if a tuner only changes group size for better or worse it had an effect. It has to work in other cases. (Rarely are bell curve of performance cut off as in GO-NOGO) Thermally- nodes move with temp changes.
The rifle shown in the above case- I would say is NOT an applicant for a tuner. Our barrels don't respond to tuners. But I have seen grams move things. A harmonic wave/tune has to have a viable outlet. You just don't go to the hardware store buy some steel, weld and bolt a bit here and there and think a tool will harmonically function... tuning fork is what shape.. fork... not spoon. Joking here. Serious crowd.
Another simple question: why do the "typical" chassis "ring" (look through the scope) on a dry trigger pull? They are part of the "tune". Glass/wood/laminate/fiber all dampen vibration.
Changing mass, location of mass, type of mass .. has to effect its harmonic properties- something about base engineering and physics I think.
Time to cut a barrel inch by inch.
Add weight ounces by ounces.
Remove weight ounces by ounces.
Turn a diameter in steps to a literal tube holding the rifling.
If the argument is that harmonics is not part of any accuracy equation than a tuner is not part of the equation either... which seems to be a major component of disagreement here. And none of the above will matter.

The major disagreement is that once actual testing apparatus (not things most any consumer can afford), that positive compensation either shows non repeatable results or no results.

Everyone who claims to have "proven" PC is posting stuff like hand written notes and such.


And, the claims being made (such as compensation 100 or more FPS @ 1k yds) would be insanely easy to demonstrate across radar when bullets are impacting in places that none of the sensor data predicts that it should.

 

[timintx]

The major disagreement is that once actual testing apparatus (not things most any consumer can afford), that positive compensation either shows non repeatable results or no results.

Everyone who claims to have "proven" PC is posting stuff like hand written notes and such.


And, the claims being made (such as compensation 100 or more FPS @ 1k yds) would be insanely easy to demonstrate across radar when bullets are impacting in places that none of the sensor data predicts that it should.

If Bryan will not look at it I have to go other routes and did . We don’t prove anything by notes , We teach which is intention of the video. We prove them by observation on the target while measuring velocity and BC variance and directly relating them to the POI. You have not seen what I have gone though so it is understandable and if no one else can do this I would to expect to get called out . I have to rely on witnesses and testing crews and cameras at the target I have hired to do so over the years . It has cost me thousands of dollars to do so . Countless trips to the range an hour away , up at day light and home by nightfall , weekend after weekend for years so I am the last person to make assumptions .I want to see it many times to confirm anything. And have done so proving many times what I am doing is in fact working . So it is just not heresay but is in fact based on measured testing not just look at this and where it hit .

 

[Tokay444]

Well now you have a $300,000 offer that Bryan won’t be able to refuse. Have you send an email yet?

 

[timintx]

People could have shot through paper 20yrs ago and shown a larger angular group at 100yds than 1000yds. It's long been proven that paper isn't enough to mess with the trajectory after it passes through.

And somehow, no one has done that. Hell, Litz has been asking people to just show him that for at least 10yrs. And somehow no one has taken him up on the offer.


Also, do you think that if people could show this so easily with shotmarkers, they wouldn't have been posting those results for years? Guys like Litz and others would have shown up just to see that happen.


Which is a major crux of the issue. There are so many ways this stuff could easily be shown......and yet all there is, is "trust me," "you're doing it wrong", and "here's this paper or spreadsheet."

I have done just that for years, but differently , shoot 2 different powder charges at 100 - 500 and 1000 compairing trajectories. It is too hard to line up targets out to 1000.

 

[timintx]

Well now you have a $300,000 offer that Bryan won’t be able to refuse. Have you send an email yet?

No , there is certain conflicts of interest that I am still mulling over .

 

[Tokay444]

No , there is certain conflicts of interest that I am still mulling over .

Have your attorney draft the NDA for their consideration and alteration.
You’ve already stated you don’t actually make anything.

 

[Asgard1]

Have your attorney draft the NDA for their consideration and alteration.
You’ve already stated you don’t actually make anything.

Here is the problem if tim was to agree and allow rio to pay the 300 grand and show the lab the prosess of obtaining positive compensation the lab would be legally obligated to turn over all information to the person that paid the lab bill now Rio would be the owner of positive compensation. For marketing and could and would claim what ever he wants. A nda is only worth what you are willing to fight in court for and that requires $$ there are other avenues that tim can present and market positive compensation. If there is a valid application for its use and need the technology will be adopted. Tim is not a manufactoring company. But could as he currently has made all the items he uses for testing.

 

[Tokay444]

All the testing facility is doing is displaying a target that shows a lower velocity impacting higher at 1000 yards a than at 100, and faster velocity doing the inverse. They don’t need to see any of Tim’s chicken scratch for that.