Barrel Tuners and Bryan Litz’s vol. 3

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I tried your test. I ran it three times. There was never a statistically significant difference at any reasonable p level. You can hide behind "your testing flawed, my testing is perfect" all you want. Take brianf or Rio's deal. You won't, because either you can't guarantee it, or the effect is so small it's washed out with rubber bipod feet.

You just strawman and ad holminem your way out of addressing any dissenting view or providing any proofs at all.

My deal also doesn’t come with any repayment caveats. If the testing does not come back conclusive in the technology’s favor, they still pay nothing.

We will be perfectly happy with what we learned from the testing. So the money is well spent for us.

Literally a freeroll for anyone.

 

[brianf]

Better chance of seeing Haley’s commit than Tim or CJ taking that offer up.

 

[timintx]

I tried your test. I ran it three times. There was never a statistically significant difference at any reasonable p level. You can hide behind "your testing flawed, my testing is perfect" all you want. Take brianf or Rio's deal. You won't, because either you can't guarantee it, or the effect is so small it's washed out with rubber bipod feet.

You just strawman and ad hominem your way out of addressing any dissenting view or providing any proofs at all.

What test ? Graphs or two shot test.If you are not seeing something just looking for possible causes , not saying everybody is testing wrong . If Rio wants to set up an escrow I will do it.

 

[timintx]

My deal also doesn’t come with any repayment caveats. If the testing does not come back conclusive in the technology’s favor, they still pay nothing.

We will be perfectly happy with what we learned from the testing. So the money is well spent for us.

Literally a freeroll for anyone.

Set up an escrow and we will get it done .

 

[timintx]

Better chance of seeing Haley’s commit than Tim or CJ taking that offer up.

Got a higher bid?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Set up an escrow and we will get it done .

Escrow? You’re not getting paid $200k.

You’re being given a chance to prove your product works and an investment into the product/technology to sell once the testing is conclusive.

There will be contracts drawn up prior agreeing to how much we will invest and the % each party makes after expenses are recouped.

You want to monetize what you believe works, here’s your chance.

If interested, PM us with an overview of your product/technology. Include how much you believe the product is worth/will sell for. And how much a % of the profit you would like.

We’ll double check the expected costs associated with the marketing and production.
Then we’ll have attorneys start writing it up.

We would also be open to outright purchasing the technology or rights if you’d rather just take a payout. Again, pending the testing.


If you truly believe in your technology then 10min writing it up shouldn’t be an issue after 22+ years of research and testing.

You can also email [email protected]

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Once contracts are signed, we will set up a separate account for the endeavor and fully fund it with the agreed upon amount.

We look forward to hearing from you.

(This is an open offer. If anyone else has something similar, email above. If the product works….lets all make some money)

 

[cameljockey230]

I’m truthfully confused…not joking

On the other thread the consensus was from yourself and Tim (main tuner proponents) said that tuners will not fix factory ammo.

Yet you saying that tuners work on rimfire which is factory ammo

Factory ammo: can’t change seating depth, charge etc

So logically if what you say is correct tuners should work on factory center fire ammo but you say it doesn’t

???

Your not paying attention.
Those rimfire rifles I am speaking of are shooting Shilen or mullerworks octagon barrels and that's not the outside contour.
They are using flash ebert or diorio turbo actions. They are put together by guys named Calfee Myers Penrod and Gohrman not a guy working in his garage after he gets home
The ammo is 99% Eley from 1 machine usually number 6 and without a tuner they shoot better groups than all the rifles by 95% of those posting here I can see.

 

[brianf]

Your not paying attention.
Those rimfire rifles I am speaking of are shooting Shilen or mullerworks octagon barrels and that's not the outside contour.
They are using flash ebert or diorio turbo actions. They are put together by guys named Calfee Myers Penrod and Gohrman not a guy working in his garage after he gets home

Build doesn’t matter.

If tuners cannot “tune” seating depth

…then how do they tune rim fire ammo that seating depth cannot be manipulated

On its face it’s illogical as you are speaking absolute opposites.

 

[cameljockey230]

Oh and why that matters.
If your gunsmith is working behind his house like the guy from an earlier post now deleted your guns groups will be all over the map. It will shrink the groups like the browning Boss does but it will throw a flipper shot ruining your day and your testing.
If your gun is capable it is easy.

 

[brianf]

Oh and why that matters.
If your gunsmith is working behind his house like the guy from an earlier post now deleted your guns groups will be all over the map. It will shrink the groups like the browning Boss does but it will throw a flipper shot ruining your day and your testing.
If your gun is capable it is easy.

I understand that, but that is the actual testing, it has nothing to do with the theory of tuning.

But I do not understand how :

Rimfire it can tune out “seating depth”

And

Center fire it can not

 

[cameljockey230]

I understand that, but that is the actual testing, it has nothing to do with the theory of tuning.

But I do not understand how :

Rimfire it can tune out “seating depth”

And

Center fire it can not

The reason nobody uses a semi auto in rimfire is because the actions available can't put enough engagement on the lead bullet.
100% of the bolt rifles are using 0.043 - 0.045 on the chamber which you can only do with a bolt.
Centerfire allows us to jump or jam at will.
Rimfire at 50 yards shooting 0.150 is phenomenal and those same groups with a centerfire at 100 are commonplace

 

[Baron23]

 

[brianf]

The reason nobody uses a semi auto in rimfire is because the actions available can't put enough engagement on the lead bullet.
100% of the bolt rifles are using 0.043 - 0.045 on the chamber which you can only do with a bolt.
Centerfire allows us to jump or jam at will.
Rimfire at 50 yards shooting 0.150 is phenomenal and those same groups with a centerfire at 100 are commonplace

What are you saying?

Who said semi auto??
Who said group size?
Who said jump or jam?

I asked…

how can a tuner tune out seating depth with rim fire and not center fire.

I think that’s a pretty clear question.

 

[timintx]

Escrow? You’re not getting paid $200k.

You’re being given a chance to prove your product works and an investment into the product/technology to sell once the testing is conclusive.

There will be contracts drawn up prior agreeing to how much we will invest and the % each party makes after expenses are recouped.

You want to monetize what you believe works, here’s your chance.

If interested, PM us with an overview of your product/technology. Include how much you believe the product is worth/will sell for. And how much a % of the profit you would like.

We’ll double check the expected costs associated with the marketing and production.
Then we’ll have attorneys start writing it up.

We would also be open to outright purchasing the technology or rights if you’d rather just take a payout. Again, pending the testing.


If you truly believe in your technology then 10min writing it up shouldn’t be an issue after 22+ years of research and testing.

You can also email [email protected]

Will do

 

[MikeMiller]

If you look at all the posts here you see a couple shooters using tuners with some success.
You then see a few who tried a manufacturers tuner who didn't get it to work.
The next group has never used a tuner has never looked for any data online and yes it has been posted on this forum many times.
The last group is what we used to call window loicking short bus retards or wlsbr's. They want to take a factory Savage 338 add a tuner and shoot factory ammo into a national title by going on the internet.
As Tim posted you can shoot one of my rifles and it only takes a few moments to see 25 year old news.
With the internet the advances are coming even to states with Dorothy rubbing her ruby slippers and you will either run a tuner or get beat by a tuner equipped gun.
This forum and ELR shooting was headed in the right direction but with the rules and restrictions some of the sanctioning bodies imposed creativity and experimentation will only come from the most accurate disciplines and trickle down slowly to these posters.

That’s pretty condescending considering I shot F TR in many National and international events while a member of Team USA for eight plus years. I never got beat by a tuner between 2006 and 2019 when I stopped competing. I set a few records along the way and filled a trophy case.

I have seen a metric ton of guys win in F Open and F TR without a tuner and frankly they have the greatest accuracy requirement of any of the shooting sports. Try hitting a five inch X or V ring at a 1000 yards and tell me differently

 

[Baron23]

That’s pretty condescending considering I shot F TR in many National and international events while a member of Team USA for eight plus years. I never got beat by a tuner between 2006 and 2019 when I stopped competing. I set a few records along the way and filled a trophy case.

I have seen a metric ton of guys win in F Open and F TR without a tuner and frankly they have the greatest accuracy requirement of any of the shooting sports. Try hitting a five inch X or V ring at a 1000 yards and tell me differently

Mr Keith Glasscock, who you may well know as the fella who came in 2nd two (or was it three) times in a row at F Open Nationals, has an interesting explanation in a YT vid on why he’s decided against using tuners.

Personally, I like his logical, rigorous, and data driven approach that reminds me of folks I worked with for many years as a PM in high tech.

Cheers

 

[Jefe's Dope]

As someone who has zero skin in the game, the tuner proponents sound like flat earthers, previous reference noted, trying to convince everyone else the Earth is flat.

And honestly, I'd love for tuners to actually work as it would make my life so much easier and improve my results. Can we just get some actual scientific method testing done and put a rest to the inane arguing?

 

[cameljockey230]

That’s pretty condescending considering I shot F TR in many National and international events while a member of Team USA for eight plus years. I never got beat by a tuner between 2006 and 2019 when I stopped competing. I set a few records along the way and filled a trophy case.

I have seen a metric ton of guys win in F Open and F TR without a tuner and frankly they have the greatest accuracy requirement of any of the shooting sports. Try hitting a five inch X or V ring at a 1000 yards and tell me differently

I was actually in agreement with your post

 

[cameljockey230]

What are you saying?

Who said semi auto??
Who said group size?
Who said jump or jam?

I asked…

how can a tuner tune out seating depth with rim fire and not center fire.

I think that’s a pretty clear question.

I explained why seating depth with a lead bullet as used in 22 rimfire it set with the reamer but as you don't understand the difference communicating is difficult.

 

[brianf]

I explained why seating depth with a lead bullet as used in 22 rimfire it set with the reamer but as you don't understand the difference communicating is difficult.

No you just refuse to explain why you talk out of both sides of your mouth

Although rim fire is like JV

You are saying that rim fire chambers by the best smith are set where they are supposed to be …understoof

That means that there is a specific head space jump you are “tuning”

Now ..see if you can follow I know its hard

If “tuning” works on one head space it will work on all head spaces, it will just need a different weight at a different position

So either you don’t have a formula or process for other than perfect 22’s (which is fine just admit it)..or you don’t have definitive data on center fire

Either one is fine, but you can’t have both

 

[category_theory]

As someone who has zero skin in the game, the tuner proponents sound like flat earthers, previous reference noted, trying to convince everyone else the Earth is flat.

And honestly, I'd love for tuners to actually work as it would make my life so much easier and improve my results. Can we just get some actual scientific method testing done and put a rest to the inane arguing?

I agree. I have zero skin in the game too. I wanted a debate about the science and stats and I’d hope we can bring it back. So here’s my question. For those that don’t agree w Bryan’s methods can we construct a methodology that’d test the assumption that tuners are having a measurable and statistically significant effect at changing the spread of a 2d distribution at distance (precision / accuracy).

I’m a little unclear as the definitions of a gun / barrel being in tune or out. I’d imagine that a system can be in tune or not but if the premise and fundamental disagreement stems from a rifle system being out of tune and tuner bring it “back into tune” how might one test that? How might one isolate all the appropriate variables needed or detect enough signal to over come the ones that can’t be?

Seriously I’d like an actual debate around the methods…. And offer solutions and critical analysis. . .

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I agree. I have zero skin in the game too. I wanted a debate about the science and stats and I’d hope we can bring it back. So here’s my question. For those that don’t agree w Bryan’s methods can we construct a methodology that’d test the assumption that tuners are having a measurable and statistically significant effect at changing the spread of a 2d distribution at distance (precision / accuracy).

I’m a little unclear as the definitions of a gun / barrel being in tune or out. I’d imagine that a system can be in tune or not but if the premise and fundamental disagreement stems from a rifle system being out of tune and tuner bring it “back into tune” how might one test that? How might one isolate all the appropriate variables needed or detect enough signal to over come the ones that can’t be?

Seriously I’d like an actual debate around the methods…. And offer solutions and critical analysis. . .

That's part of the root of the problem. The proponents all define words like "tune" differently. And the definitions are fluid when they are presented with logical counterpoints.

I hate to keep bringing up flat earthers as some will take that as an insult, but it's the same thing. You can't logically debate when the words aren't defined and they become fluid.


The easy button answer to isolating as many variables is always going to be systems like radar. Sometimes they are expensive, but generally, you can find ways to make those tests happen in a way that's affordable. The real issue is when those tests don't show what people want them to show. Then the definitions become fluid again.


Another problem is, when you ask anyone who disagrees with AB/Bryan's methods to come up with their own testing......it almost always ends up being stuff like two shots at each tuner setting.......open air shooting with just chrono and wind flags.......etc etc.

So, you end up with an impasse from jump street. Scientists or like minded know what kind of rigorous data is needed and people who disagree want tests that are too insignificant for the other party to partake.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

No you just refuse to explain why you talk out of both sides of your mouth

Although rim fire is like JV

You are saying that rim fire chambers by the best smith are set where they are supposed to be …understoof

That means that there is a specific head space jump you are “tuning”

Now ..see if you can follow I know its hard

If “tuning” works on one head space it will work on all head spaces, it will just need a different weight at a different position

So either you don’t have a formula or process for other than perfect 22’s (which is fine just admit it)..or you don’t have definitive data on center fire

Either one is fine, but you can’t have both

You're experiencing the Lynn treatment for the first time. It's a pretty good one.

First, he says all kinds of shit and tries to make it sound fancy and professional. When people ask for clarification, he says he already told you and that you don't understand. It's quite amazing to watch and impressive he's stuck with this strategy all this time.


He's even started claiming that moderators here (some of them use tuners....LOL) are deleting the data he posts proving tuners.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Mr Keith Glasscock, who you may well know as the fella who came in 2nd two (or was it three) times in a row at F Open Nationals, has an interesting explanation in a YT vid on why he’s decided against using tuners.

Personally, I like his logical, rigorous, and data driven approach that reminds me of folks I worked with for many years as a PM in high tech.

Cheers

He has a very good channel. Even if you disagree with him, his points are logical and well made. And he will freely admit when he doesn't have enough data to back up his opinion and that he realizes he may be wrong.

 

[brianf]

You're experiencing the Lynn treatment for the first time. It's a pretty good one.

First, he says all kinds of shit and tries to make it sound fancy and professional. When people ask for clarification, he says he already told you and that you don't understand. It's quite amazing to watch and impressive he's stuck with this strategy all this time.


He's even started claiming that moderators here (some of them use tuners....LOL) are deleting the data he posts proving tuners.

So they think that the mods are conspiring against them to hide tuner data?

WTF

 

[MikeMiller]

I was actually in agreement with your post

Mr Keith Glasscock, who you may well know as the fella who came in 2nd two (or was it three) times in a row at F Open Nationals, has an interesting explanation in a YT vid on why he’s decided against using tuners.

Personally, I like his logical, rigorous, and data driven approach that reminds me of folks I worked with for many years as a PM in high tech.

Cheers

Like I said earlier if it works for someone I won’t dispute it. Big part of being successful at shooting sports is believing in yourself and your set up. My only issue is when someone says if I don’t use a tuner I will be best by a tuner.

Years ago we had barrel length charts that predicted vibration based on length and diameter. Many all knew it had to fall in the chart or would not work. That passed

We had people that said you must shoot moly coated bullets to win. That passed

The only thing that has not passed was good machining and good shooter plus good ammo equals good scores

 

[cameljockey230]

I agree. I have zero skin in the game too. I wanted a debate about the science and stats and I’d hope we can bring it back. So here’s my question. For those that don’t agree w Bryan’s methods can we construct a methodology that’d test the assumption that tuners are having a measurable and statistically significant effect at changing the spread of a 2d distribution at distance (precision / accuracy).

I’m a little unclear as the definitions of a gun / barrel being in tune or out. I’d imagine that a system can be in tune or not but if the premise and fundamental disagreement stems from a rifle system being out of tune and tuner bring it “back into tune” how might one test that? How might one isolate all the appropriate variables needed or detect enough signal to over come the ones that can’t be?

Seriously I’d like an actual debate around the methods…. And offer solutions and critical analysis. . .

The science and data has been out there for 25 years now but the less accurate forms of shooting are so far behind the times that each time someone brings up old news the trolls think we are taking there bridge away.
I doubt there are any Higgs bosun physicists posting here but there is one using a tuner in rimfire.
The methodology is available online just Google Lapua test center and you will either get Ohio or Arizona. They explain the process they use and get this they even have a test fixture for the CZ457 Bryan used in his evaluation. It takes 2-4 hours and they do exactly what I have described in several posts.
You can't see those posts because the posters who have never used a tuner and are too lazy to do a search have gotten all those threads deleted.
Everyone wants data until you give them data then they scream the data is no good.
It generally takes 2-5 years for a shooter of average intelligence to figure out that tuners work.
Ask yourself this question.
If a tuner is just a mass sitting on the end of the barrel and it doesn't work according to Bryan then why not shoot a thinner lighter profile barrel with less mass and it should improve your groups?
If according to Bryan the contour or mass has zero effect then why aren't all barrels spaghetti thin?

 

[Tokay444]

The nice thing about tuners is you can pick the velocity you want and tune the tuner to it . Can not do that without one .

Sure can.

 

[category_theory]

The science and data has been out there for 25 years now but the less accurate forms of shooting are so far behind the times that each time someone brings up old news the trolls think we are taking there bridge away.
I doubt there are any Higgs bosun physicists posting here but there is one using a tuner in rimfire.
The methodology is available online just Google Lapua test center and you will either get Ohio or Arizona. They explain the process they use and get this they even have a test fixture for the CZ457 Bryan used in his evaluation. It takes 2-4 hours and they do exactly what I have described in several posts.
You can't see those posts because the posters who have never used a tuner and are too lazy to do a search have gotten all those threads deleted.
Everyone wants data until you give them data then they scream the data is no good.
It generally takes 2-5 years for a shooter of average intelligence to figure out that tuners work.
Ask yourself this question.
If a tuner is just a mass sitting on the end of the barrel and it doesn't work according to Bryan then why not shoot a thinner lighter profile barrel with less mass and it should improve your groups?
If according to Bryan the contour or mass has zero effect then why aren't all barrels spaghetti thin?

Thanks! Will take a look.

But to the Bryan point that’s not actually what he shows or at least implies by his findings. The mass to accuracy (group size) stat seems to imply that a rigid barrel can be made more accurate by adding higher degrees of weight. I’d fathom to guess it’s dampening as does he. And damping smaller effects is easier when the effect is minimal to start. So in theory a heavy rigid barrel w a dampener should preform better. Which (I’m sure this is also a can of worms too) why structured barrels are probably a hit as well.

Either way I’ll look up the data you suggested! I take it was conducted by Lapua themselves?

 

[cameljockey230]

So they think that the mods are conspiring against them to hide tuner data?

WTF

You didn't read the post did you?
The fan boys have gotten all the tuner threads deleted by disrupting the posts.
If your not interested in using a tuner simply ignore the thread.
What happens here if we have shooters posting all kinds of nonsense about tuners only to find out they have never used a tuner.
Ask yourself why are they so interested in such a thread.

 

[Tokay444]

Set it up and I will build the gun ,but we do it my way first with a correct premise , then Brian can do any test he wants after that providing we are just showing that the tuner will tune the gun , not make it better.

“They make it better. They don’t make it better. They make it better. They don’t make it better.” - TimmyTammyTuna

 

[Tokay444]

The science and data has been out there for 25 years now

Post some. ANY at all.

 

[Asgard1]

I’m not trying to stir the pot anymore than it already is but are you saying that it’s impossible to prove that a tuner vs no tuner has no measurable effect?

Also I’m only pointing this out as I’m sure folks know it (or I’m misunderstanding you) but the point of the scientific methods isn’t to “prove” something wrong. The only thing Bryan showed was that given his experimental setup and shooting a shit ton of ammo w professional shooters that were double blind to the condition…(the gold standard) he could not show any measurable difference. The only thing he could show was that adding weight improves groups.

If there is a method however that can show it then it and measure the effect, then it should be tested by all means and even he, Bryan says this. Thats the beauty of science. If something is flawed then call it out and make it better!

The last thing I would say here is, IF the effect is in fact not measurable…. Then in all seriousness how large can the effect be? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to tune known high effect variables?

My feeling and gut here tells me that there might in fact be some effects from tuners… but the noise and stacked error from everything else in the system may dampen most of it out…. In which case repeatability goes out the door and that’s kind of the name of the game….

Anyway not trying to stir the pot just trying to understand everyone’s pov and the debate / assumptions.

Litz proved nothing .


You say he said adding weight improved accuracy? So what about finding out the exact weigh and location to optimize the added weight comment litz was talking about . Think about thst for a few minutes. I think you will find out thats exactly what a tuner does. Lol.

 

[Asgard1]

Thanks! Will take a look.

But to the Bryan point that’s not actually what he shows or at least implies by his findings. The mass to accuracy (group size) stat seems to imply that a rigid barrel can be made more accurate by adding higher degrees of weight. I’d fathom to guess it’s dampening as does he. And damping smaller effects is easier when the effect is minimal to start. So in theory a heavy rigid barrel w a dampener should preform better. Which (I’m sure this is also a can of worms too) why structured barrels are probably a hit as well.

Either way I’ll look up the data you suggested! I take it was conducted by Lapua themselves?

You want to know whats funny i had a structured barrel that shot like crap no matter what i did . Shot about 250 rounds threw it. 3 powders 2 different bullet brands and weights full ladder tests ranging seating debths from touching up to .100 off best group Was .750 worst group was 3" at 100 yards . But was able to improve group size with one of my tune brakes. once tuned shot several 5 shot groups around .500 and less. Needless to say the barrel was removed and installed a normal barrel. Did not trust the structured barrel it also suffered greatly from issues with cold bore shots vrs warm
it took about 5 shots to warm up for best group sizes .

 

[brianf]

You didn't read the post did you?
The fan boys have gotten all the tuner threads deleted by disrupting the posts.
If your not interested in using a tuner simply ignore the thread.
What happens here if we have shooters posting all kinds of nonsense about tuners only to find out they have never used a tuner.
Ask yourself why are they so interested in such a thread.

Just like the last thread you will skip the posts that make you put a solid answer on paper

Some how you skipped my previous post that asked for a yes or no answer.

Par for the course

And you wonder why people don’t just walk away.

 

[Jefe's Dope]

JHFC, enough with cryptic "The truth is out there". Just post the data. It's not a difficult ask.

 

[brianf]

JHFC, enough with cryptic "The truth is out there". Just post the data. It's not a difficult ask.

Don’t hurt your brain trying to figure this one out.

There isn’t wholesale definitive data, we all wish there was

One guys has some competition history so he thinks he’s gods gift to shooting, but others that run in the same circles press him for answers and he vanishes

The other guy is a conspiracy wacky-o who thinks a notepad and wind flags will get him some magical info..like he’s the first person to ever try and record data.

Then they’ll preach about some magical tech which confirms it works yet no one can know about it…and they won’t show the data the magic tech printed out.

It’s really just a guilty pleasure to post and reply on these tuner threads because it’s like grasping at greased lightening because they won’t stand still

All joking aside if the worlds military complex (you know trillions of money in RD) thought that a movable weight on a barrel was the be all end all of accuracy in improvement do we not think that every rifle, cannon, tank, artillery, naval gun would have a threaded portion with a actuated weight on it?

Of course they would.

The M1 Abrams has a laser that measures barrel droop and the targeting software adjusts for it. And that was 1970’s tech.

Do you not think those same guys would put a weight on the barrel if it CONSISTENTLY and CONSIDERABLY increased hit percentage…of course they would.

But noooo…a bunch of guys shooting rimfire (the cheapest , worst anmo quality, and shortest range of all shooting sports) figured it out 30 years ago and it’s a secrete.

Now if there was a test like Rio said they’ll do and it works I’d be the first to say “holy shit” and buy one no matter the cost

But until they can show it works in different weather, different cartridges, different barrels or alike …..it all washes out in the mix after a 1000 rounds. A

nd if it washes out it’s just another toy that looks cool on the rifle. That someone shoots a good group with and tells from the hill top

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

So they think that the mods are conspiring against them to hide tuner data?

WTF

First he said the zealot mods sweep in and kill the threads. Now he's saying that the anti-tuner posters just shit post to get the thread deleted.

Same M.O. as always. He says something, then when a logical counterpoint is brought up, he changes. He did the same thing last time when he said that high speed video would easily show the barrel movement prior to bullet exit. When videos were posted not showing it, he changed.

Mental Illness.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Litz proved nothing .


You say he said adding weight improved accuracy? So what about finding out the exact weigh and location to optimize the added weight comment litz was talking about . Think about thst for a few minutes. I think you will find out thats exactly what a tuner does. Lol.

And here is yet another "just think about it." Without actually saying anything.

 

[brianf]

Forgot to add

DARPA spent money on designing a 50 cal projectile that maneuvers in flight 15 years ago

Do you think they never thought of tuners or positive compensation

Nope a bunch of guys shooting rim fire in a Texas warehouse 30 years ago figured out the magic sauce and its hidden.

Maybe it’s in here lol:

 

[Taylorbok]

The fan boys have gotten all the tuner threads deleted by disrupting the posts.

I’m assuming you mean yourself resorting to name calling and irrelevant insults while providing almost nothing of benefit to the thread, that's what kills these threads.

If you’d stop with the rampant irrelevant insults maybe people would listen to what you have to say despite your lack of data. I've sorted through enough of your and Tim posts to gather some of what you are trying to say and am planning to try a tuner on my next barrel.

Edit: I also think you should look up the definition of zealot, there is one person in this thread that comes across as so.

 

[cameljockey230]

I’m assuming you mean yourself resorting to name calling and irrelevant insults while providing almost nothing of benefit to the thread, that's what kills these threads.

If you’d stop with the rampant irrelevant insults maybe people would listen to what you have to say despite your lack of data. I've sorted through enough of your and Tim posts to gather some of what you are trying to say and am planning to try a tuner on my next barrel.

Edit: I also think you should look up the definition of zealot, there is one person in this thread that comes across as so.

It's not often you will find people in the shooting sports willing to share next level advancements.
When they do it is often best to listen and ask questions rather than making demands.
I believe a couple posters here have offered free of charge to show how tuners work and have invited free of charge firsthand use of a quality rifle and how it is tuned.
I believe that offer was made to you as well?
What are you here sharing on the topic posted?

 

[Taylorbok]

What are you here sharing on the topic posted?

At this point the same amount as you have. I just came to point out that these threads get shut down because you turn them into a shit flinging frenzy instead of engaging in any meaningful conversation/ debate.

Either way I will post up my findings once I figure my stuff out.

 

[cameljockey230]

At this point the same amount as you have. I just came to point out that these threads get shut down because you turn them into a shit flinging frenzy instead of engaging in any meaningful conversation/ debate.

Either way I will post up my findings once I figure my stuff out.

I think if you look at all the tuner posts you will find those on my ignore list doing the flinging before myself but I have a question for you.

I don't know Category_theory I have never met him and wouldn't recognize him in an elevator with a total of 3 people in it. Zero nada zilch idea of who he is or his shooting experience.

I understand he lives in northern California?
I invited him to shoot with us and I invited you as well did I not?

If I was to invite him shooting with one of my guns at a local range and he has never shot nor touched this gun ever in his life what would you consider a good group for him to shoot?
Chambering will be 300WSM. 5 shots no practice not ever seeing this gun before and no railguns allowed. 300WSM McMillan fiberglass stock shot from a front and rear rest.
Would sub 0.250 be good or bad?
I would also let his wife or son/daughter give it a try so would 0.250 be good?

 

[category_theory]

Litz proved nothing .


You say he said adding weight improved accuracy? So what about finding out the exact weigh and location to optimize the added weight comment litz was talking about . Think about thst for a few minutes. I think you will find out thats exactly what a tuner does. Lol.

You do understand how science works no? I’m not trying to be a dick but science proves correlation. He didn’t even intend or set out to show what he ended up finding. He stumbled upon the correlation in the data. R^2 being 0.63 meaning not insignificant…. He admits too that he didn’t “prove” tuners don’t work. That’s not his intent or even his stated hypothesis!

What he did show was given the manufactured recommended process he could not find measurable difference in statistically sizable groups. Ie he could not prove the null hypothesis.

Honestly if you haven’t read his work you should and or at least understand the stats and the methods to be able to comment on them.

What I was intending this thread to be was a scientific debate on the methods and data and stats. Not a pissing contest. I have no skin in the game but to understand….

 

[category_theory]

I think if you look at all the tuner posts you will find those on my ignore list doing the flinging before myself but I have a question for you.

I don't know Category_theory I have never met him and wouldn't recognize him in an elevator with a total of 3 people in it. Zero nada zilch idea of who he is or his shooting experience.

I understand he lives in northern California?
I invited him to shoot with us and I invited you as well did I not?

If I was to invite him shooting with one of my guns at a local range and he has never shot nor touched this gun ever in his life what would you consider a good group for him to shoot?
Chambering will be 300WSM. 5 shots no practice not ever seeing this gun before and no railguns allowed. 300WSM McMillan fiberglass stock shot from a front and rear rest.
Would sub 0.250 be good or bad?
I would also let his wife or son/daughter give it a try so would 0.250 be good?

Hello . I thought I was being talked about! . Yes I live in NorCal but still kinda far to spot tall shot at. Takes me a lot of planning to get out that way and I have 2 kids and a wife (and it’s around Christmas) and I travel a bit for work…. That said I’m trying to get out! And I honestly appreciate the invite! We will meet and then you’ll be able to spot me on an elevator… my mom always said I was distinct!! …. Wait…oh shit, I think my mom thought I was an ugly kid! Oh fuck.

 

[Taylorbok]

@cameljockey230
I'm not sure if you offered me to shoot with you or not. I know Tim has. Which is generous but it's a long way for me to come just to try out a tuner.
The actual group size has little to no meaning.
If you can make the group bigger or smaller beyond natural dispersion would show a tuner worked. I know how I would test it

 

[MikeMiller]

If it’s about group size I once shot a 600 yard match against Stan Pate. Between our two 15 rd combined groups (30 rds total ) pair firing we had one round outside the .50 moa X ring just touching the ten ring. Our individual groups were closer to .25 moa. I beat him by that one X

My rifle was a GAP built F TR rifle. No tuner. His was a Savage F TR rifle no tuner. Scientifically that does not prove anything except we shot great that day

On Litz. One thing I know is he works his ass off to get the true results and he is a scientist. For years I shot for Lapua and knew there BCs were way off. After shooting tens of thousands of 155 Scenars I found a BC that actually worked and used it based on my recorded hard data. Litz did his testing and came up with same numbers I had. I then started using his numbers on all bullets and have not been disappointed yet

 

[category_theory]

If it’s about group size I once shot a 600 yard match against Stan Pate. Between our two 15 rd combined groups (30 rds total ) pair firing we had one round outside the .50 moa X ring just touching the ten ring. Our individual groups were closer to .25 moa. I beat him by that one X

My rifle was a GAP built F TR rifle. No tuner. His was a Savage F TR rifle no tuner. Scientifically that does not prove anything except we shot great that day

On Litz. One thing I know is he works his ass off to get the true results and he is a scientist. For years I shot for Lapua and knew there BCs were way off. After shooting tens of thousands of 155 Scenars I found a BC that actually worked and used it based on my recorded hard data. Litz did his testing and came up with same numbers I had. I then started using his numbers on all bullets and have not been disappointed yet

I don’t know the man personally (though id like to) but I have been absolutely impressed w his methods and open mindedness (when I’ve heard him speak). He really does want to get to the truth and improve systems he works on as a good scientist he address the short comings and doesn’t state things he hasn’t proven…