-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Barrel Tuners and Bryan Litz’s vol. 3
- Thread starter category_theory
- Start date
- Status
He won’t. Haven’t you read “insert name here” from a computer model 20 years ago? Just go test yourself. Then you would understand just like he does. What a joke.
Not counting the Browning Boss very close to 1998
Then I put them on my target rifles when Bill Calfee posted about them on benchrest central
Positive. So the theory that he postulates is that the largest actual effect folks are seeing are via dampening effects. The “tuning” he concludes, is essentially ineffective, at least from a statistical sig effect.
Last edited:
I haven’t had a chance to read the entire write up but came across this on Accurateshooter. https://www.varmintal.com/aeste.htm
My world record setting gun is on Varmint Al's site if you look. He lives 30 minutes from me and he worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
1998 ? I thought you must be some old legend . Longer than most have been shooting you say ...you were still shitting mustard in your diaper when I was winning matches .
What matches were you winning?
And you asked how long I was using tuners not winning matches.
I won my first state title at 15
And you asked how long I was using tuners not winning matches.
I won my first state title at 15
That makes alot of sense.
I did hear David tubb say on a podcast that he found a muzzle brake there was one specific position that produced better groups and that he would try several different positions with a jamnut. Wonder if there is any relationship.
I wonder if anyone at the lapua test center has tested a tuner with the action bolted down...
From the engineers at Browning whatever they would know about Rifles?
What is the BOSS?
Browning's Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System (BOSS) is a patented breakthrough in rifle accuracy. When any rifle is fired, the barrel goes through a series of vibrations as the bullet leaves the muzzle. The variations of these vibrations greatly affect the accuracy of the rifle. Controlling these vibrations will greatly control the accuracy of the rifle. Browning's BOSS allows you to control the vibrations of your barrel so you can shoot groups you didn't think possible.
How the BOSS works.
The BOSS simply tunes the vibrations of your barrel. This allows the bullet to leave the barrel the split second it is stationary. Your BOSS manual has a list of settings for each caliber and bullet weight. Adjusting your BOSS to these "Sweet Spot" settings allows you to find the instant your barrel is stationary. The result is accuracy never achieved before by an out-of-the-box rifle.
What is the BOSS?
Browning's Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System (BOSS) is a patented breakthrough in rifle accuracy. When any rifle is fired, the barrel goes through a series of vibrations as the bullet leaves the muzzle. The variations of these vibrations greatly affect the accuracy of the rifle. Controlling these vibrations will greatly control the accuracy of the rifle. Browning's BOSS allows you to control the vibrations of your barrel so you can shoot groups you didn't think possible.
How the BOSS works.
The BOSS simply tunes the vibrations of your barrel. This allows the bullet to leave the barrel the split second it is stationary. Your BOSS manual has a list of settings for each caliber and bullet weight. Adjusting your BOSS to these "Sweet Spot" settings allows you to find the instant your barrel is stationary. The result is accuracy never achieved before by an out-of-the-box rifle.
Category_theory
Scroll down until you see this
Scroll down until you see this
Attachments
Seems like with modern high speed cameras you could capture this on video
LOL. Tuners aren't used by "all on the line." There were at least two rifles on Team Lapua F Class team (that set a new team record) without a tuner.
Charles Greer's 2021 1000yd BR record breaking rifle didn't have a tuner on it. He just loads his ammo to a very low SD/ES.
So, every time someone wants to point out that so and so used a tuner to win, so they must work.......make sure they are being honest and admitting plenty are winning without them. Neither winning with or without them proves anything and is just a straw man argument.
There's also many, many competitors who have a tuner, but will tell you they never touched it because their ammo performed up to their standards before adjusting so they didn't mess with it. There's always more to most things than meets the eye. No matter what subject.
Charles Greer's 2021 1000yd BR record breaking rifle didn't have a tuner on it. He just loads his ammo to a very low SD/ES.
So, every time someone wants to point out that so and so used a tuner to win, so they must work.......make sure they are being honest and admitting plenty are winning without them. Neither winning with or without them proves anything and is just a straw man argument.
There's also many, many competitors who have a tuner, but will tell you they never touched it because their ammo performed up to their standards before adjusting so they didn't mess with it. There's always more to most things than meets the eye. No matter what subject.
Last edited:
Every high speed video produced so far does not show the barrel moving upward until *after* the bullet exits.
Earlier this year, ol camel jockey above said you'd be able to easily see it. Once high speed video was added to the thread, he never mentioned it again. Tim claimed the video was fake.
From the engineers at Browning whatever they would know about Rifles?
What is the BOSS?
Browning's Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System (BOSS) is a patented breakthrough in rifle accuracy. When any rifle is fired, the barrel goes through a series of vibrations as the bullet leaves the muzzle. The variations of these vibrations greatly affect the accuracy of the rifle. Controlling these vibrations will greatly control the accuracy of the rifle. Browning's BOSS allows you to control the vibrations of your barrel so you can shoot groups you didn't think possible.
How the BOSS works.
The BOSS simply tunes the vibrations of your barrel. This allows the bullet to leave the barrel the split second it is stationary. Your BOSS manual has a list of settings for each caliber and bullet weight. Adjusting your BOSS to these "Sweet Spot" settings allows you to find the instant your barrel is stationary. The result is accuracy never achieved before by an out-of-the-box rifle.
What is the BOSS?
Browning's Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System (BOSS) is a patented breakthrough in rifle accuracy. When any rifle is fired, the barrel goes through a series of vibrations as the bullet leaves the muzzle. The variations of these vibrations greatly affect the accuracy of the rifle. Controlling these vibrations will greatly control the accuracy of the rifle. Browning's BOSS allows you to control the vibrations of your barrel so you can shoot groups you didn't think possible.
How the BOSS works.
The BOSS simply tunes the vibrations of your barrel. This allows the bullet to leave the barrel the split second it is stationary. Your BOSS manual has a list of settings for each caliber and bullet weight. Adjusting your BOSS to these "Sweet Spot" settings allows you to find the instant your barrel is stationary. The result is accuracy never achieved before by an out-of-the-box rifle.
Scroll down until you see this.
Attachments
It's moving before exit, but on a scale that is below the spatial resolution limits of most high speed cameras currently available. Eddy current sensors and laser vibrometers can capture it, but you're talking <.010 of vertical displacement prior to exit.
Given that the rearward motion of the rifle is at least an order of magnitude higher in the same timeframe it probably would pay to spend more time making sure recoil management is consistent vs twisting a tuner.
I don't disagree.
But.......people in this thread claim they can use a tuner and compensate for 100fps of extreme spread @ 1k yds. Which means the vertical displacement is more than <0.010.
(Which also means their 100yd groups are much larger angularly than 1k yds. And how long have people been sayin they could show that and never have?)
My point is if depending on wavelength, your speed and/distance linear measurement resolution may be such that additional data points are meaningless in the noise compared to an accurate target distance and time. What wavelength/frequency do these small arms units run at?
Last edited:
That you can still tune a heavy barrel for partial or full positive compensation with powder seating combination but you have a narrower barrel exit time window to work in with charge temperature. Barrel/action/ignition system consistency, user input and wind reading still matter. Noone is claiming they are magic, they are a tool that provides a wider operation range to tune loads.
Modern circuit racers use direct and port injection with 5+ fuel and ignition matrices, top fuellers use mechanical pumps and magnetos because they have a narrower operation range.
It still depends on the exact unit, but at least one major manufacturer specs 10GHz.
I think the classic example of why this can matter is Hornady's discovery of bullet tip melting. A typical 89 set up could tell you that your integrated drag over distance was lower than PRODAS/short range testing indicated. A radar can tell you that the drag curve did X until distance Y where something started changing unexpectedly.
Fundamentally it comes down to looking at instantaneous vs integrated data. There are an infinite number of functions that can be integrated to produce any one given final result. Why would you not instead want to look at the function itself?
That's worth a read, along with most of his other firearms related pages. His model is on the crude side, but his barrel motion plots are qualitatively similar to measured motion data from ARL publications.
The biggest downfall of his tuner related work is a lack of experimental data to validate it. The Esten page has one low sample size test with dubious agreement in the data and the page Lynn is so proud of displays this statement: "Assuming this model is an accurate representation of the actual rifle. This is a very lengthy calculation to come up with just two numbers that might or might not be verified".
Last edited:
IMHO, nailed it. The downfall of most existing tuner related work is the lack of validating data. Anyone that uses competition results as data that certain equipment is better is making a fallacious argument.
I've tried the 2 shot/3 shot/5 shot/dissimilar loads/group size/group shape/relative impact tuning methods, and while you could sort of draw a correlation between best/worst group size with one or two groups at each setting, that disappears once you shoot a 5x5 and the settings become interchangeable. Even more so, when you look at mean radius or overlay all groups with the same point of aim. Individual groups may show a slight edge for one setting vice another, but when you have one group left of aim and one right of aim for the same setting, has that really increased precision?
I'm not saying tuners don't or can't work. I just haven't seen compelling data that they could in any but a "narrow operating range" and I haven't been able to apply that in my own testing. I suspect that any effect is marginal, such that it's easily washed out by other variables ("the rifle isn't good enough," "your shooting wasn't good enough" "your load wasn't good enough to start with" "you needed an accuracy fixture" "you didn't use the tuner correctly" "you can't pick settings like that" ETA: "Your tuner is too small" "your barrel is too short and fat"). I'm more than willing to be convinced otherwise - I'm usually decently teachable.
Last edited:
There's a very big gap in what people claim tuners can do compared to the body of evidence to support such claims.
My experience with tuners is similar to yours. Easy to see correlations when you shoot small sample sizes, but any results quickly start looking more like statistical noise once you start shooting more groups with bigger sample sizes.
Maybe they work. Maybe they don't. Everybody seemingly has a different claim for how they work, what they can do, the process and limitations. Ask 10 different tuner advocates about the above and you'll get 10 different answers.
I have no bone in this fight, and my participation in this thread will be very limited. I'm very open to seeing data that shows how tuners "work", but tuner conversations quickly turn hostile as some here have tied up their personal identity with tuners. Any critique of tuners is somehow seen as a personal attack - and as a result there is no possibility of having an open and objective discussion around tuners.
If you read the last Litz book , where he declared tuners useless at the end of the chapter he explains how more weight on the brake/suppresor better the groups and illustrates a considerable change in a group size due to the mass on the end of the barrel. Page 105 ''effects of the muzzle mass on precision'' , kinda goes like tuners work , just not ultralight versions we were testing
But folks that are new to the tuner game, know this most of the tuners you have seen and been sold are massively underweight for effect, the original EC tuner ,EC tuner brake were absolute BS if you were not running a 32in barrel and/or a skinny one
After reading it I agree w your statement. And as others have said the lack of large enough sample sizes in controlled experiment and not anecdotal accounts is one of the cruxes that seems to be lacking from most analysis, sans Litz work.
Thanks, I've updated my list. My tested ATS weighs about what an Ezell PDT does. I'm not sure who's making them more than about 6-7 oz, but it is certainly not the norm. I also did not do any bending analysis or stiffness calculations for different contours and lengths.
That's not quite how I read that... Adding weight may decrease dispersion, but that doesn't imply benefit to moving a heavier weight slightly fore and aft.
Also interesting that there is very little change with masses up to 16(?)oz. The R^2 without the 24oz data would have an even mellower slope. Either way, another good reason to always shoot with a suppressor.
This short exchange actually lines up decently well with the VarmintAl work. If we assume that someone were to come along and validate his FEA model, the single largest takeaway from the tuner pages is that the most impactful thing you could do to induce positive compensation is increase muzzle mass without increasing barrel length. The predicted effects of moving the tuner are small relative to simply installing it. Which, to give @timintx credit, also lines up with what he has argued in other threads in terms of calling heavy, non-adjustable muzzle brakes "tuners".
As skeptical as I come across in many of my posts, the potential theory is there to explain positive compensation, I just want to see clearly organized large sample size data to back it up. (On the other hand I will say that I've never seen a good physical explanation beyond inertial effects as to how a tuner would theoretically reduce overall group size like Cortina claims, not just vertical)
There's a difference between discussing positive compensation (vertical spread reduction) and group size reduction. I don't think Litz's muzzle weight vs group size findings substantiate, disprove, or make any acknowledgement of positive compensation. It does clearly imply that movable weight tuner's don't work for group size, and increasing muzzle weight does - which sort of parallels Al.
I think the potential for positive compensation exists, I'm just not sure it isn't masked by velocity, BC, and accuracy variations. Al's model is strictly in the vertical and some of his calc's utilize muzzle velocity spreads of 200 fps or more. If we only look at the differences in POI between the shots that only have a 100 fps spread (light rifle with/without tuner), the drop between fast and slow differs as little as .1" without a tuner and .07" with. Can we see a .03" improvement on target?
Even considering the improvement of .37" across the full 381fps extreme spread, It's a monumental task to validate those sorts of differences with real rifles - but I don't think you have to. The claims being made WRT movable barrel tuners are of a much larger magnitude and therefore should be easier to prove.
And, for me, that's sort of the rub.
This is also a large issue that presents a big problem.
You have 10 different people who either sell or advocate for tuners giving 10 different ways/weights/claims/instructions……and no clear way for the average consumer to make a decision.
You have people saying to take two shot groups, then set and forget. You have people saying adjust it according to the environment. You have some saying more weight. Some saying less weight. Etc etc.
And exactly zero of them can produce anything more than anecdotal. A self proclaimed expert used a legal pad and sharpie to show his work after “researching” for 20 years.
When you bring up this disparity in tuner opinions, they all claim their way is right any the other guy is wrong. It basically turns into different religions claiming they are the one who is correct.
Most anyone who isn’t a tuner or compensation advocate doesn’t actually say they don’t think they work. They are just asking for a bit more than “trust me” and a squiggly line drawn on paper.
And then you have every testing facility with the means to prove tuners or PC always giving negative or inconclusive tests.
And the way that almost everyone explains their opinion for tuners or PC ends up with claims that are extremely easy to prove out with any testing facility in the last 20 years. Yet we are still here asking for that info.
We’ve even gone as far as using the Browning Boss System as an argument as proof they work. Which is akin to saying bottled water must be better for you because Coca-Cola sells it.
This!
I also went over to Accurate Shooter and saw folks saying that Litz was “obviously biased” and was expecting them to fail…. So even good science is looked on as being conducted in bad faith because it doesn’t align with the preconceived notion.
The major problem and is why everybody is mad is the premise of the test . To say a tuner should make the gun shoot better than without is an impossible task and guaranteed to fail . I think most are looking at this differently than most who have used tuners for years . When someone no matter how good the test is says I have no experience with tuners but you are not seeing what you have been doing for years by saying it is science and I stand behind it , but everyone who has used tuners with success says uh no been doing this for years with the same results every time . Why are you not coming up with the same results ? I mean it is easy if you can shoot good . So why are you not able to repeat this? Well because it is science. That is not going to cut it with anyone that uses tuners , but will be absolute for people that do not use tuners or have tried and failed to see a difference . Then to say science proves they don’t work when he just put the gun out of tune with it. No wonder everybody is mad . The test started out bad with a impossible premise and ended up with a answer that is wrong no matter how the test is justified and everybody knows it .
Last edited:
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.
I actually posted the range a tuner can compensate for and I told the world how to calculate the weight and its position in an earlier deleted thread.
I also posted most manufacturers of tuners just make parts and have no clue how they work much like most posting here.
It comes as no surprise that Bryan admits that adding weight to the muzzle is a plus as Vaughn said that over 20 years ago when Bryan was first starting out.
Timintx
Any of this sound familiar? We are nearing the point when the pm's start coming in and all of a sudden 25 year old tuners are the new girl in town.
I will say this , I am not here to attack Bryan or statistical analysis, I am just defending what I do . It is clear these guys will never agree . So be it but no matter what anyone says I will not back down, because it is truth and eventually everybody will learn that . If they don’t that’s fine they can take it if leave it . But the truth will eventually prevail . I damn sure am not going through this crap to lie . That does not help anybody .
What is it exactly your do? Run your mouth and draw on paper with a sharpie is all I’ve seen.
What I do is internal ballistics . And what I have done is give you facts . I would say you have contributed nothing . Good for you!!!!!
Timintx
I have the flatearthers on my ignore list as they offer nothing to the shooting community of any value that I can see.
Maybe you can ask them if Bryan wrote in his book as quoted above or is it all fiction?
A heavy muzzlebrake is better than a light one but a tuner which is just a mass is no good at all.
Ask them about that science.
Lolroflmao
I have the flatearthers on my ignore list as they offer nothing to the shooting community of any value that I can see.
Maybe you can ask them if Bryan wrote in his book as quoted above or is it all fiction?
A heavy muzzlebrake is better than a light one but a tuner which is just a mass is no good at all.
Ask them about that science.
Lolroflmao
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.
Again the test was awesome but it was simply applied with a wrong premise .Come on, use your common sense . How are you going to get a tuner to make your gun shoot better than it would without a tuner ? A tuner will put it back in tune when it goes out of tune but very rarely will it make the gun shoot better with a universal tuner with custom loaded ammo . Box ammo possibly . It is just a weight , does not fix random dispersion and fix the guns issues that causes inaccuracy such as lock time , firing pin depth , barrel issues , cracked bedding , bad crown , dirty brake , etc. . watch my video . Not one tuner manufacturer has said the gun will shoot better with custom ammo ,I have asked them all .
That's simply not true. Straight from Cortina's website (emphasis mine): "Our easily adjusted tuner allows barrel harmonics manipulation, matching your load and ensuring best possible accuracy."
Other manufacturers make similar claims, it's quite common.
How is that saying the gun will shoot better than it would without the tuner? . Any tuner will tune it but not better than it would without a tuner . He is just saying it will tune your gun MATCHING the tune that it would without a tuner. I can do that all day long but not better the tune with a tuner . If he had said it will make the rifle shoot better then he would be saying that but is only saying it will match your tune /load. Keyword is matching not bettering. What this means when the tuner is put on and it is tuned by powder say at 2800 fps, but if you want to go faster just speed it up to the velocity you want and then turn the tuner to put it back in tune .
Last edited:
The correct way to test would be with a machine rest or return to battery rest like all reputable bullet and ammunition manufacturers use.
And there is no such thing as a blind test when testing a tuner.
The gun either has a tuner on it or it doesnt unless they covered the barrel with magic pixy dust so the shooters couldn't see it.
May be so,but this was the quote he used and is what is advertised. Regardless of what he said theories are abound but Erik understands more than you think about tuners and more so now so his mind can always be changed when new data comes up . So basically you have two ways to tune, You can tune the velocity to the gun or you can tune the gun to the velocity. I prefer to tune the gun to the velocity so I can pick the highest velocity without pressure for peak accuracy for speed and tune and a tuner allows me to do so.
"Do you want the ability to squeeze that last bit of performance out of your rifle with hand-loaded or factory ammo? Then the Adaptive Tuning System (ATS) be what you’re looking for."
"They are designed to assist 'tune' your rifle/barrel to achieve greater accuracy, allowing you to shoot smaller & tighter groups."
Two more manufacturer statements. It's pretty clear what the underlying claim is, and they don't caveat it like Tim is trying to.
"They are designed to assist 'tune' your rifle/barrel to achieve greater accuracy, allowing you to shoot smaller & tighter groups."
Two more manufacturer statements. It's pretty clear what the underlying claim is, and they don't caveat it like Tim is trying to.
- Status
