Barrel Tuners and Bryan Litz’s vol. 3

[MikeMiller]

I have shot with him many times. We started on rocky grounds when I was one of the US Team Captains and he was Captain of Team Michigan. I chewed his ass for a couple of his shooters crap so not the best way to get introduced. Lol

I respect his work a great deal. Plus one of the best shooters in the planet. I recommend his AB app to all my students

 

[cameljockey230]

Mike
Do you know Ed Eckoff Jim Oconnel and Jerry Tierney maybe lane buzton?

 

[brianf]

Mike
Do you know Ed Eckoff Jim Oconnel and Jerry Tierney maybe lane buzton?

@MikeMiller

Don’t let CJ off the hook

He hasn’t answered any of the hard questions about tuners.

He’s trying to change the subject again

You guys want to talk friend circles take it the PM’s

 

[cameljockey230]

@MikeMiller

Don’t let CJ off the hook

He hasn’t answered any of the hard questions about tuners.

He’s trying to change the subject again

You guys want to talk friend circles take it the PM’s

Actually he has answered every question asked of him but you don't have much shooting experience so you don't understand the answer.

And thanks daddy for letting us know your opinion on where and how we can post daddy

 

[brianf]

Actually he has answered every question asked of him but you don't have much shooting experience so you don't understand the answer.

And thanks daddy for letting us know your opinion on where and how we can post daddy

He answers just fine…i actually want to hear more from him

It’s you who keeps trying to skirt

You answered this question in 5 minutes but not the other…big surprise

 

[cameljockey230]

Ask 1 question but make it a biggie

 

[cameljockey230]

Oh and I am currently crabbing for Dungeness out of Tomales Bay so sorry my responses don't meet your time schedule daddy

 

[brianf]

Oh and I am currently crabbing for Dungeness out of Tomales Bay so sorry my responses don't meet your time schedule daddy

I have 3 times.

Not your father, and by no means important in any way shape or form. And am not deserving of an answer if you don’t want to.

It’s just obvious that you skirt the hard posts or give some answer that you hope will make people go on a tangent to keep from finding the truth that you have no definitive answers.

Again not a bad thing just admit it.


I asked and you relied 3 or more times to the same question and not one of your answers have the term headspace , jump and center fire in the same answer.

That means you skirting the issue.

Very basic question

Post 309
Post 314
Post 321

All asked the same thing…all your replies have nothing to do with it

And let’s remember…no one cares about rim fire. Rim fire is for people who can’t compete in center fire.

So giving an explanation using rimfire as part of the answer is a waste as it does not correlate in any way.

If the only answer you have needs to use rimfire as part of the explanation, just reply “rimfire” and I’ll stop asking.

 

[MikeMiller]

Actually he has answered every question asked of him but you don't have much shooting experience so you don't understand the answer.

And thanks daddy for letting us know your opinion on where and how we can post daddy

I knew Jerry Tierney well. Shot with him many times until he passed about ten years ago
Jim taught me Palma
Lane shot against me and as one of my personal picks for the 2013 US Team

I try and talk to everybody as if they were a friend these days. Agree or disagree.

 

[Tokay444]

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

They don't even look cool. They look like the designers suck dick with their assholes.

 

[cameljockey230]

I have 3 times.

Not your father, and by no means important in any way shape or form. And am not deserving of an answer if you don’t want to.

It’s just obvious that you skirt the hard posts or give some answer that you hope will make people go on a tangent to keep from finding the truth that you have no definitive answers.

Again not a bad thing just admit it.


I asked and you relied 3 or more times to the same question and not one of your answers have the term headspace , jump and center fire in the same answer.

That means you skirting the issue.

Very basic question

Post 309
Post 314
Post 321

All asked the same thing…all your replies have nothing to do with it

And let’s remember…no one cares about rim fire. Rim fire is for people who can’t compete in center fire.

So giving an explanation using rimfire as part of the answer is a waste as it does not correlate in any way.

If the only answer you have needs to use rimfire as part of the explanation, just reply “rimfire” and I’ll stop asking.

Okay I am glad nobody is asking about rimfire.

Here is what you asked in 2 posts.

…then how do they tune rim fire ammo that seating depth cannot be manipulated
Oh wait a minute YOU asked about rimfire.
So just in case someone reading this thread doesn't have cognitive issues the crush on a 22 rimfire is the more the better.
If you try and put too much crush or engravement on the bullet it will distort or push the bullet into the case. I gave 0.043 - 0.045 as what most competitive shooters are using but somehow I was accused of notanswering the question?

Next he kinda asks about centerfire seating depth.
He wants to know if we are using the tuner to make up for out of spec ammo.
The answer is seating depth from the full jam length to a huge jump is close to 5000 psi of pressure variation.
If you preload your ammunition and keep the seating depth to 0.001 variation like team Lapua does a tuner will correct for velocity variation but the reloader is responsible for the seating depth which is the second most important equation in accuracy

 

[the460guy]

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

Do you know what happened to this development?

 

[Tokay444]

Rimfire

FIFY

 

[brianf]

Do you know what happened to this development?

They didn’t say to much but what I read the cost wasn’t worth the increased accuracy they saw

The bullet did move, there a few videos out there

But it was a entire system with scope integration etc

I’m guessing it just cost way too much and they couldn’t pare it down with out losing effectiveness.

Plus as drones have come so far instead of an insanely expensive scooe/lrf etc and god knows how much per “bullet”…a 100$ drone with exponentially more firepower/explosive payload is the smart move.

 

[cameljockey230]

Brianf
Was the company your talking about out of Healdsburg California?

 

[brianf]

Okay I am glad nobody is asking about rimfire.

Here is what you asked in 2 posts.

…then how do they tune rim fire ammo that seating depth cannot be manipulated
Oh wait a minute YOU asked about rimfire.
So just in case someone reading this thread doesn't have cognitive issues the crush on a 22 rimfire is the more the better.
If you try and put too much crush or engravement on the bullet it will distort or push the bullet into the case. I gave 0.043 - 0.045 as what most competitive shooters are using but somehow I was accused of notanswering the question?

Next he kinda asks about centerfire seating depth.
He wants to know if we are using the tuner to make up for out of spec ammo.
The answer is seating depth from the full jam length to a huge jump is close to 5000 psi of pressure variation.
If you preload your ammunition and keep the seating depth to 0.001 variation like team Lapua does a tuner will correct for velocity variation but the reloader is responsible for the seating depth which is the second most important equation in accuracy

Thanks for the answer…all joking aside that was real answer (have to say I skipped the rim fire though )

Next logical question is;

will a tuner work with factory ammo?

It seems, because team lapua keeps the jump/oal to a very tight spec you believe that a tuner can tune any spec /jump they choose..correct?


If jump/oal is the primary driver …if you take factory ammo and put it in a press

Make all the lengths the same (that should have all the same jump now), will that make factory ammo tunable?

 

[brianf]

Brianf
Was the company your talking about out of Healdsburg California?

I forget I was researching it pretty hard back then. I actually forget.

I think it’s called tracking point

I remember the larger event they did, had Chris Kyle widow shoot it at 1000

 

[cameljockey230]

If the company is now owned by general dynamics I might know a few of the engineers who work there.

A tuner will work with factory ammo and all we are asking of the tuner is to make the barrel resonate or we tune it for the 3rd octave.
The problem with factory ammo is you will get 4 decent shots then a giant flyer which will ruin your data.
Do a search for the Purdy prescription by Tony Purdy or ask someone who makes wind-chimes for the math to calculated weight and length needed.
In all forms of shooting I would never discount any discipline as they might have something that will help.
I would wager that 99 and 44/100 of the posters here think I dislike Bryan because of my posts.
I actually think he must be one helluva shooter if his guns shoot 1/2 inch groups and he wins as often as he does.

 

[brianf]

Ok to star at the bottom what is the consensus of factory ammo throwing flyers?

Going to try and walk this through

Different charge weight

Loose spec on OAL affecting jump

Different neck tension (either by interference fit or crimping)

They load Berger bullets and use match primers

what else do you believe causes a thrown shot 1out of 5?

 

[cameljockey230]

Factory ammo sucks on velocity spread seating depth and inconsistency in the bullets.

I don't shoot much factory ammo so I can say about charge weight but on reloads your ammo should all weigh within a single kernel of powder.

On OAL with factory ammo your all over the map.
With reloads you have to sort bullets or your OAL length will be all over the map. For benchrest you'll need hand swaged bullets.

Neck tension just has to be the same the amount only becomes an issue with custom flat based bullets with a pressure ring.

Berger Bullets need to be sorted to work well.
Primers need to give you the lowest extreme spread so being match isn't as important.

Unfireformed brass will throw a flier

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

This is pretty comical.

"If I let you shoot a rifle for a single 5 shot group, and it shoots .250.....would that be good?"


This is flat earth talk. I want to prove something works with a severely flawed test with ridiculously low sample size.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Also (this is not a shot at anyone in particular).......

There's an open invitation to get at a minimum $200k investment in a product and/or technology. The single caveat is that we must have AB (gold standard whether you, me, or anyone else doesn't like it) give a thumbs up that the test shows statistically significant results in favor of what was tested. We pay for the testing. All you have to do is write up a general description of your product and/or technology and send it over.

If it makes sense, you get no strings free testing. Test is negative or inconclusive, everyone walks away and you don't owe a dime. Testing is positive and contracts signed beforehand kick in and we fund the agreed upon (minimum 200k) amount and get to work.

Anyone who is fairly or 100% positive their product and/or technology works should be jumping on this opportunity. As if you're positive, it's basically guaranteeing you a $200k investment.


I'll let everyone guess exactly how many PM's or emails we have received.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

If you absolutely have an issue with AB doing the testing, you can suggest a similar company/facility. If they are up to snuff, we can move forward in the same way.

However, without the AB stamp of approval, the investment amount will likely be lower. Especially if the facility isn't a household name. As the testing facility name is a big help in marketing if they are known.

 

[category_theory]

Also (this is not a shot at anyone in particular).......

There's an open invitation to get at a minimum $200k investment in a product and/or technology. The single caveat is that we must have AB (gold standard whether you, me, or anyone else doesn't like it) give a thumbs up that the test shows statistically significant results in favor of what was tested. We pay for the testing. All you have to do is write up a general description of your product and/or technology and send it over.

If it makes sense, you get no strings free testing. Test is negative or inconclusive, everyone walks away and you don't owe a dime. Testing is positive and contracts signed beforehand kick in and we fund the agreed upon (minimum 200k) amount and get to work.

Anyone who is fairly or 100% positive their product and/or technology works should be jumping on this opportunity. As if you're positive, it's basically guaranteeing you a $200k investment.


I'll let everyone guess exactly how many PM's or emails we have received.

I’ve worked in venture capital off and on throughout my career…. And I fucking love this!

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I’ve worked in venture capital off and on throughout my career…. And I fucking love this!

And it's definitely not an attempt to call anyone's bluff. I would love for us to be the first to empirically prove things like tuners and positive compensation work. And would love to make money with the people responsible for bringing it forward.

 

[brianf]

Factory ammo sucks on velocity spread seating depth and inconsistency in the bullets.

I don't shoot much factory ammo so I can say about charge weight but on reloads your ammo should all weigh within a single kernel of powder.

On OAL with factory ammo your all over the map.
With reloads you have to sort bullets or your OAL length will be all over the map. For benchrest you'll need hand swaged bullets.

Neck tension just has to be the same the amount only becomes an issue with custom flat based bullets with a pressure ring.

Berger Bullets need to be sorted to work well.
Primers need to give you the lowest extreme spread so being match isn't as important.

Unfireformed brass will throw a flier

So in theory if we

Resize /put in sizing die

Seat .002” lower in a amp press pulling out the spikes and flat liners as those will have much different neck tension

I would think match ammo is using match primers

Were down to possible

charge weight differences
Bullet malformations

That should reduce other variables considerably so the main remaining issues is velocity spread

From my knowledge factory velocity spread is the biggest compensate when that mfg uses top quality bullets

Make sense or are there larger variables not announced for still

 

[timintx]

And it's definitely not an attempt to call anyone's bluff. I would love for us to be the first to empirically prove things like tuners and positive compensation work. And would love to make money with the people responsible for bringing it forward.

So let me ask. Do you want to see :
1: tuners bring a gun in and out of tune ?
2: positive compensation ?
3: bullet stabilization through muzzle
blast propagation ?
4: all of the above ?

4 requires two different rifles .

 

[Slides]

Right.

Which is how some participants in this thread suggest that is how you should test a tuner properly.

Which goes to my point about how inconsistent the tuner advocates are. There's no consensus.

The people who tune loads without a muzzle device still need to do so with the action/stock/working constraints they use in competition. Putting the action in a vice will have an entirely different response.

 

[the460guy]

What I have said is that tune or groups will not change with a given window of 200 fps

No offense, but can you prove it on camera? I just have a hard time believing that.

 

[brianf]

The people who tune loads without a muzzle device still need to do so with the action/stock/working constraints they use in competition. Putting the action in a vice will have an entirely different response.

A vibration dampener/tuner will dampen vibration (when set and sized accordingly), that the mounting of action should be irrelevant

Tuners supposedly change the vibration node and time the barrel whip to the exiting bullet

In theory a properly sized and set tuner (possibly different tuners)

Free recoil
Trippd
Bolted to a block of cement

Tim has said he has the mathematical formula needed to size tuners squared away

So mounting should not matter. It only changes the freq not the process

 

[Slides]

A vibration dampener/tuner will dampen vibration (when set and sized accordingly), that the mounting of action should be irrelevant

Tuners supposedly change the vibration node and time the barrel whip to the exiting bullet

In theory a properly sized and set tuner (possibly different tuners)

Free recoil
Trippd
Bolted to a block of cement

Tim has said he has the mathematical formula needed to size tuners squared away

So mounting should not matter. It only changes the freq not the process

So you haven't done mechanical engineering? Changed constraints/boundary conditions/effective spring rate/orientation of loads and you are suggesting that the same muzzle device should deliver the same outcome? Sounds like more straw man one device smacked in with any load in any condition should work off the bat or it's bullshit?
If I completely change suspension geometry and spring rate I don't expect the same response from the wheel assembly.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

So you haven't done mechanical engineering? Changed constraints/boundary conditions/effective spring rate/orientation of loads and you are suggesting that the same muzzle device should deliver the same outcome? Sounds like more straw man one device smacked in with any load in any condition should work off the bat or it's bullshit?
If I completely change suspension geometry and spring rate I don't expect the same response from the wheel assembly.

No, but I still expect to see a difference when I click in more rebound damping.

If you can show the effect in a battery rest, you could assume a similar effect and principles when fired from the shoulder. You may have a different tune, but would it not be affecting the system the same way? Which is what I think he meant by:

In theory a properly sized and set tuner (possibly different tuners)

Emphasis added.

 

[timintx]

No offense, but can you prove it on camera? I just have a hard time believing that.

I understand what you are saying .I have not put it on camera but I can explain it . If you have a long smooth upswing of the barrel say for 200 fps wide , the response or rate of the upswing is the same within a single powder charge for a given loads ES and at any other load on that same upswing meaning it is still in tune . If the load that is slower and out of that upswing window meaning exiting on the downswing excessive vertical dispersion is is the result and is out of tune .

 

[tthomp302]

The amount of mental gymnastics that tuner proponents go through is absolutely insane. It has been proven over and over and will be again soon that tuners do nothing, they are not repeatable and the adjustments merely affect an accuracy change between tuner settings and not a significant change in precision.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

So let me ask. Do you want to see :
1: tuners bring a gun in and out of tune ?
2: positive compensation ?
3: bullet stabilization through muzzle
blast propagation ?
4: all of the above ?

4 requires two different rifles .

Depends what the person wants to market/sell.

In the most basic sense.......rounds impacting different than where sensors (doppler and others) predict the bullet should be going.


If we go to market and say that by either using X product or Y technology/technique.....you will have the same POI @ 1k yds (or whatever distance prescribed).....with 100fps ES (or whatever ES)......

Then we must have a real to life industry respected testing facility give their stamp of approval that it was only (or overwhelmingly mostly) because of the product and/or technology. All other variables have either been eliminated or accounted for (with modern equipment, not estimates based on wind flags and such).



There's plenty of people selling tuners and such with a "trust me it works" marketing approach. Anyone can do that and doesn't need an investor to push a product. And our company can sell those tuners and if anyone has any questions, we refer them to the maker of said tuner.

If our company is going to move forward with an original product, it will be based on reputable testing an approval of an entity we can reference as well as have data that would hold up to scientific peer review.



Basically, we will need data that most any scientist or ballistician or engineer would look at and not have substantial doubts as to what is affecting the dispersion. As the almost universal opinion amongst places such as AB, Hornady, etc.....is that there is much more noise than signal once all variables have been accounted for. And we will cover the expenses of said testing.

 

[timintx]

The amount of mental gymnastics that tuner proponents go through is absolutely insane. It has been proven over and over and will be again soon that tuners do nothing, they are not repeatable and the adjustments merely affect an accuracy change between tuner settings and not a significant change in precision.

Sure it happens on some guns but others there is a clear distinction in group size or precision .I am not saying you are wrong , I have explained why in my video .

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Let's use positive compensation in general as an example. Before we even get into products or techniques used to get there.


We will need a reputable testing facility to verify something along the lines of "given all of the data collected, round A and round B should have a dispersion of X. However, they have a dispersion of Y, and the only or most likely explanation is positive compensation due to <insert whatever technology here>"

And obviously for them to make that assessment, the data will have to be statistically significant.


That's it. And it would be the same for any product or technology. A reputable testing facility agrees that the product and/or technology is in their opinion, working and repeatable enough to sell/market.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

Sure it happens on some guns but others there is a clear distinction in group size or precision .I am not saying you are wrong , I have explained why in my video .

What factor would cause it to show on one gun but not another?

 

[CNC-Dude]

Erik Cortina would be an obvious manufacturer to pull into this analytical testing for tuners....In one of his recent podcasts he had Brian Litz on there where they discussed many topics. They ran out of time before they got to discuss tuners, but Brian asked Erik to come onto his own podcast where they could dedicate the entire discussion solely to tuners.
Erik has also mentioned in several other of his podcasts that in some of his systems(rifles), that a tuner wasn't able to improve his load. They shot incredible groups and were in such good tune it couldn't be improved. That same scenario could have been why Brian and other people haven't been able to see any difference with them in their testing, but others have. They just have an incredibly good rifle/load development that a tuner does improve them. That doesn't mean they don't work, they just didn't for them......

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Here is a very simplified way this will go:

- Party A provides RPG with a proposal for their product/technology. What they claim it does and how they feel it would be a valuable product to sell. Obviously an NDA would be in place.
- RPG researches and checks general costs to bring product to market
- Party A and RPG negotiate a contract for moving forward (pending the testing). Contracts are signed.
- RPG contracts agreed upon testing facility and presents them with the technology/product claims. Testing facility provides their recommendation for testing the technology/product.
- RPG and Party A agree on testing. If either disagrees, we look into other facilities until we agree or have exhausted options. If exhausted, everyone walks away.

- Testing facility performs their tests.
- Testing facility confirms technology/product performs as intended and we move forward with contract. Or testing facility finds either inconclusive or that the tech/product does not perform as expected....everyone walks away.


If for whatever reason we do not move forward, RPG owns all the data collected during testing. It will not be used (specified in NDA and contracts) for any product without Party A being involved or approving.

Reason for the RPG ownership is to avoid anyone just using us to fund their testing and take off. If we feel everything is in good faith, we will obviously provide the leaving party with the testing data.

 

[tthomp302]

Erik Cortina would be an obvious manufacturer to pull into this analytical testing for tuners....In one of his recent podcasts he had Brian Litz on there where they discussed many topics. They ran out of time before they got to discuss tuners, but Brian asked Erik to come onto his own podcast where they could dedicate the entire discussion solely to tuners.
Erik has also mentioned in several other of his podcasts that in some of his systems(rifles), that a tuner wasn't able to improve his load. They shot incredible groups and were in such good tune it couldn't be improved. That same scenario could have been why Brian and other people haven't been able to see any difference with them in their testing, but others have. They just have an incredibly good rifle/load development that a tuner does improve them. That doesn't mean they don't work, they just didn't for you.....

I don't know, that sounds like copium. If something works, it works. It doesn't just pick and choose which rifle and load that it works on. As found by Litz there is a correlation between added mass on the muzzle and precision, but the actual function of a tuner has no significant change in precision. It may cause an accuracy change (point of impact) but it is not causing a statistically significant change in precision.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Erik Cortina would be an obvious manufacturer to pull into this analytical testing for tuners....In one of his recent podcasts he had Brian Litz on there where they discussed many topics. They ran out of time before they got to discuss tuners, but Brian asked Erik to come onto his own podcast where they could dedicate the entire discussion solely to tuners.
Erik has also mentioned in several other of his podcasts that in some of his systems(rifles), that a tuner wasn't able to improve his load. They shot incredible groups and were in such good tune it couldn't be improved. That same scenario could have been why Brian and other people haven't been able to see any difference with them in their testing, but others have. They just have an incredibly good rifle/load development that a tuner does improve them. That doesn't mean they don't work, they just didn't for you.....

No. Erik would not. He successfully markets his tuner without any empirical testing.

This would not be a good thing for something like that. If the testing proves him right, his sales likely stay the same. If it proves him wrong, sales will stay the same, or they would decline.


It would not be a very prudent business decision for anyone selling all the tuners they can make already. Also, Erik provides very, very little empirical data in his media and such.

 

[Tokay444]

What factor would cause it to show on one gun but not another?

Whether TunaTammy is shooting it or not.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

Whether TunaTammy is shooting it or not.

Let him defend his argument - I want to see how it aligns with my test parameters/conditions. Maybe we are in agreement, but until we start getting some specifics and trends it's hard to separate the heat from the flares.

If someone can say "I have this rifle, barrel contour, length, cartridge, general accuracy, and I see X when Y" and we can be specific about it that is a better discussion than we've been having so far.

 

[category_theory]

No. Erik would not. He successfully markets his tuner without any empirical testing.

This would not be a good thing for something like that. If the testing proves him right, his sales likely stay the same. If it proves him wrong, sales will stay the same, or they would decline.


It would not be a very prudent business decision for anyone selling all the tuners they can make already. Also, Erik provides very, very little empirical data in his media and such.

This was kind of my original point way way way way back when…

 

[brianf]

So you haven't done mechanical engineering? Changed constraints/boundary conditions/effective spring rate/orientation of loads and you are suggesting that the same muzzle device should deliver the same outcome? Sounds like more straw man one device smacked in with any load in any condition should work off the bat or it's bullshit?
If I completely change suspension geometry and spring rate I don't expect the same response from the wheel assembly.

Not sure if you read the whole post.

I understand the tuner may change in size and shape but the mounting does not matter one bit if a tuner works as suggested.

It’s just different inputs to the same formula..if they have one

 

[cameljockey230]

No offense, but can you prove it on camera? I just have a hard time believing that.

Dr Geofrey Kolbe has this all in his article but every time factual data gets posted the trolls destroy the thread and the moderators remove it.

 

[cameljockey230]

So in theory if we

Resize /put in sizing die

Seat .002” lower in a amp press pulling out the spikes and flat liners as those will have much different neck tension

I would think match ammo is using match primers

Were down to possible

charge weight differences
Bullet malformations

That should reduce other variables considerably so the main remaining issues is velocity spread

From my knowledge factory velocity spread is the biggest compensate when that mfg uses top quality bullets

Make sense or are there larger variables not announced for still

Factory ammo is never going to be as good as reloads.
That is simply never going to happen.
The factories can improve the charge weight consistency but they won't ever use properly sorted bullets because it is time consuming and raises the price so that nobody would buy the ammo.
As to primers match means nothing to a reloader consistency does. If your shooting a 6BR or 6 Dasher chances are your using 3 primers. Fed 205 match CCI BR4 which is considered match or CCI 450 which is not a match primer and was used to set many world records. Most competitive shooters have every brand of primer and base there choice on extreme spread or group size.
In ELR most use Fed 215 or Fed 215 match only because in the larger volume cases the other primers will hang fire.
On bullets you can sort factory bullets to prevent fliers but most factory bullets have a grouping threshold they must meet and no attempt is made to get them to shoot into smaller groups.
At Sierra the 6mm 107 matchking can agg around 0.218 - 0.225 for 25 shots out of the box. The guy running the matchking line was Patrick Daly and he has told me personally they strive for 0.250 groups.
My information on the using of CCI 450 primers comes directly from gale Root at Nosler.
When I have questions I seek out the best advice from those in the sport and avoid the trolls as quickly as possible.
In my opinion the moderators on this forum should delete the individual posts and not the entire threads as some people want to actually learn and are not just here to be entertained.

 

[cameljockey230]

Not sure if you read the whole post.

I understand the tuner may change in size and shape but the mounting does not matter one bit if a tuner works as suggested.

It’s just different inputs to the same formula..if they have one

A rifle as most use one here is a cantilevered beam on a non fixed base.
A concrete block is a cantilevered beam on a fixed based.
For best accuracy the gun needs to move around 3/4 of an inch.
With heavyguns weighing more than 175 pounds and moving sub 1/2 inch I don't see them in the winners circle unless it is very windy.


This looks like less than 3/4 of an inch only because he is catching the gun with his shoulder.

 

[cameljockey230]

I received a pm from someone saying my offer to the original poster was disputed here and I can't see what the poster said without deleting my ignore list.
My offer is the original poster can shoot one of my guns for the first time ever seeing such gun and his first 5 shot group would be less than 0.250 inches and that a family member of his choosing could do the same test.
No railguns no 6ppc 6BR no Dashers just a 300 WSM in a MacMillan fiberglass stock.
Pictures of the 2 groups to be posted here for all to see.
This would allow for the tuner detractors to contact Category_theory and pay him to purposely shoot bad to discredit tuners.
It would also allow for anyone else to have 2 shooters test a non-tuner gun holding 70 grains of powder and doing the same test.
No pictures of the gun or tuner just the groups and the shooters can describe the gun used.

I would also like 2 posters from this thread to shoot the same gun against each other for 5 targets each in this fashion.
Brianf shoots against taylorbok.
On the first target brianf shoots with the tuner set on green paint stripe and taylorbok shoots with it on the red paint stripe.
For target 2 taylorbok shoots on the green paint stripe and brianf shoots on the red paintstripe.
This pattern continues until target 5 where they go heads up on the green paint stripe.
Pictures of all targets to be posted here just no pictures of the gun or tuner only descriptions.
I will supply the gun the range and all ammo and gear.
Edit; A moderator from this forum is also invited to shoot and can be substituted for either shooter. The moderator should be capable of banning posters here as well myself included.