Barrel Tuners and Bryan Litz’s vol. 3

[timintx]

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.

There are a few factors as to why certain guns won’t and certain guns will , due to time constraints I will list a few .
1: exit timing , if you shoot a 6 charge graph and the patter is trending flat with all powder charges , you will not see much if any change would the changes of the tuner.
Solution : change to a different weight bullet . Then re run a 6 charge graph.

2: Recoil force ratio /weight offset to dynamic flexibility ratio.
If you are shooting a 6.5 need more or 6 dasher with a truck axle barrel even if the exit time is good for a pattern the amplitude can be so small the it is hard to see any adjustment making a difference .so the barrel should be around .950 or less in diameter to see the tuner work with the lower recoil force . But with a 300 win mag the chances are much better due to the recoild forces increasing you can see more amplitude or extremes of change in poi height.

3 :Testing protocol. As was stated , no rubber feet . Ground or concrete bench and wind flags at all times . I do not care how good you are the groups will always improve with flags , I found out the hard way . Absolute 0 parallax. When you set your parallax and your crosshairs is steady , go to each end at the edge and see if the ends of your crosshair line are bending up and down .if they are you have not eliminated the parallax to 0. That alone is worth 1/8th of dispersion in your groups . These are all factors that can totally mess the test up . And last point of aim , never aim at the hole . Adjust your group to the side and pick a crosshair on the target . Line up your crosshair with the crosshair on the target to ensure the exact same cant on every shot and point of aim . These are just effecting variables that I have learned while testing to high repeatability so I am not saying everybody is wrong but this can help .also when doing graphs try to shoot in crosswinds only because tail or head winds can cause vertical dispersion even at 100 yards.

 

[brianf]

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 put 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 CCI.
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.

Not saying it’s going to happen but trying to see the variables which make factory ammo less conducive to “tuning”

Like all processes there are primary and secondary drivers

It seems you suggest charge weight and bullet sorting are primary drivers of the ability to use a tuner?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Not disputed. It's ridiculous.

Literally just keeps the argument running in circles no matter the outcome.

 

[category_theory]

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.

I’m the original poster …. I think still at least and Yes you have offered me to shoot you gun and I fully intent to take you up on it! Just may have to do holiday stuff w my family this month… but I will get out there and I truly appreciate your offer!

 

[JBoomhauer]

@category_theory
Payment sent.

 

[category_theory]

@category_theory
Payment sent.

Huh? He offered for me to shoot I’m his rifles when I head up that way next. I appreciate the offer. I ain’t getting any money, at least I don’t think I am.

 

[JBoomhauer]

Huh? He offered for me to shoot I’m his rifles when I head up that way next. I appreciate the offer. I ain’t getting any money, at least I don’t think I am.

This would allow for the tuner detractors to contact Category_theory and pay him to purposely shoot bad to discredit tuners.

 

[category_theory]

@JBoomhauer

Oh wow! Did not see that! Haha. ! I mean I’m a terrible shot to begin with sooooo….. I’m a much better engineer and scientist!

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

There are a few factors as to why certain guns won’t and certain guns will , due to time constraints I will list a few .
1: exit timing , if you shoot a 6 charge graph and the patter is trending flat with all powder charges , you will not see much if any change would the changes of the tuner.
Solution : change to a different weight bullet . Then re run a 6 charge graph.

2: Recoil force ratio /weight offset to dynamic flexibility ratio.
If you are shooting a 6.5 need more or 6 dasher with a truck axle barrel even if the exit time is good for a pattern the amplitude can be so small the it is hard to see any adjustment making a difference .so the barrel should be around .950 or less in diameter to see the tuner work with the lower recoil force . But with a 300 win mag the chances are much better due to the recoild forces increasing you can see more amplitude or extremes of change in poi height.

If I'm understanding correctly-
Even if I do not have a barrel heavier than a HV contour, I still won't know if a tuner will show on target until I shoot it. I.e, there are no physical characteristics that assure (or have a high probability that) a gun will respond to a tuner.

Stated another way, there is no way to predict that a given rifle system will respond to a tuner.

Is that correct?

If so, I think it would follow that 1. not all ammo can be tuned with a tuner and 2. not all guns can be tuned with a tuner.

 

[timintx]

If I'm understanding correctly-
Even if I do not have a barrel heavier than a HV contour, I still won't know if a tuner will show on target until I shoot it. I.e, there are no physical characteristics that assure (or have a high probability that) a gun will respond to a tuner.

Stated another way, there is no way to predict that a given rifle system will respond to a tuner.

Is that correct?

If so, I think it would follow that 1. not all ammo can be tuned with a tuner and 2. not all guns can be tuned with a tuner.

Ahhh ok , not quite . Every rifle has this bending in it but there no way to know that the bullet will exit in the ideal time of the movements without shooting it. The big guess is the bullet exit time rather than the rifle.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

Ahhh ok , not quite . Every rifle has this bending in it but there no way to know that the bullet will exit in the ideal time of the movements without shooting it. The big guess is the bullet exit time rather than the rifle.

... there is no way to predict that a given rifle system will respond to a tuner.

Not quite? I'm not seeing how these statements differ.


EDIT: Stated another way - How can we tell a rifle should react to a tuner? You said it won't show on a 1.25 straight 6mm - so we should be able to say AA caliber with BB length barrel of CC contour or smaller should measurably react to a tuner.

 

[Tokay444]

Lynn told me my groups would be better with tuner. Tim says a 1.25” 6mm won’t benefit. Which is it?

 

[timintx]

Not quite? I'm not seeing how these statements differ.


EDIT: Stated another way - How can we tell a rifle should react to a tuner? You said it won't show on a 1.25 straight 6mm - so we should be able to say AA caliber with BB length barrel of CC contour or smaller should measurably react to a tuner.

If I am understating you correctly no there is not given formula to tell how the rifle will react to a universal tuner . However there is a custom weighting formula to do so on every gun with only unpredictable part being amplitude . If that is not the answer you are looking for we can try it again until I get it right lol. Like I said to you before , I will help you get it there if you can not .

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

If I am understating you correctly no there is not given formula to tell how the rifle will react to a universal tuner . However there is a custom weighting formula to do so on every gun with only unpredictable part being amplitude . If that is not the answer you are looking for we can try it again until I get it right lol. Like I said to you before , I will help you get it there if you can not .

I'm not looking for a specific answer. I'm not trying to get you to say what I want you to say. I'm trying to understand why your experience does not match mine. If we can narrow that to an equipment configuration, that would be easy.

 

[timintx]

I'm not looking for a specific answer. I'm not trying to get you to say what I want you to say. I'm trying to understand why your experience does not match mine. If we can narrow that to an equipment configuration, that would be easy.

Why don’t you call me tonight . I might be easier . If you tell me about your set up that may help. I will help all I can .

 

[cameljockey230]

Not saying it’s going to happen but trying to see the variables which make factory ammo less conducive to “tuning”

Like all processes there are primary and secondary drivers

It seems you suggest charge weight and bullet sorting are primary drivers of the ability to use a tuner?

I am not saying a tuner won't help factory ammo I am saying a tuner will help all/any ammo but with junk ammo in a gun that shoots marginally your data will be all over the map.
A mass(tuner) on the end of the barrel dampens the amplitude which naturally broadens the tune window.
Yes it's just that simple.

Edit: If you get a gun that shoots 1 inch and ammo that shoots 1.5 inches and you shoot 500 rounds with a tuner and 500 rounds without a tuner the groups will be smaller with a proper tuner.
If however you put 4 shots into 3/4 of an inch and hang a flier out to 2 inches was it the tuner or the ammo or the gun?
With a accurate rifle and accurate ammo you can see the results without having to shoot out a barrel.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

Why don’t you call me tonight . I might be easier . If you tell me about your set up that may help. I will help all I can .

It’s not about my setup, it’s about tuners as a whole. I’m just a mid-pack nobody.

Sure it happens on some guns but others there is a clear distinction in group size or precision

The premise of the thread is ‘universal tuners’ with movable weights and Litz’s finding that adjusting them does not have a measurable effect on precision. It seems like you are asserting that they can, but only within a certain set of parameters. Is that correct? What are those parameters? How did you come to that conclusion?

If you tell me they only work sometimes, and only in one way, and you tested it with a 30-06 by shooting two 10 shot groups at 1000 yards off a SEB rest while observing airport grade wind flags, well okay I can buy that. If you just don’t want to divulge your secrets you can say that too. But a little bit of how you got to your conclusions and what you tested and how would elevate the thread quite a bit.

 

[timintx]

It’s not about my setup, it’s about tuners as a whole. I’m just a mid-pack nobody.



The premise of the thread is ‘universal tuners’ with movable weights and Litz’s finding that adjusting them does not have a measurable effect on precision. It seems like you are asserting that they can, but only within a certain set of parameters. Is that correct? What are those parameters? How did you come to that conclusion?

If you tell me they only work sometimes, and only in one way, and you tested it with a 30-06 by shooting two 10 shot groups at 1000 yards off a SEB rest while observing airport grade wind flags, well okay I can buy that. If you just don’t want to divulge your secrets you can say that too. But a little bit of how you got to your conclusions and what you tested and how would elevate the thread quite a bit.

I have never seen a gun I could not tune with a tuner,but a graph has to be run if you have your doubts. If it does not repeat there may be other issues,I have explained this already including parameters . I just do not know what else I can do to help you and diagnose your problem , now you say you tested and it did not work and you wanted to know why but you will not give me any info about your set up or test or anything and now it is not about your set up ? . I have tried to understand and help you with just about every possibility of what your problem could be to try to help. To diagnose the problem I need to have your info so if you do not provide it I do not know what to say . Tuning with or without a tuner can be frustrating. The tuner is only one way to tune. if you want help with your set up I am here anytime but I can not give you a one step fix for all tuners if they do not work for you.

 

[timintx]

Lynn told me my groups would be better with tuner. Tim says a 1.25” 6mm won’t benefit. Which is it?

still trolling ? I never said that.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

I have never seen a gun I could not tune with a tuner,but a graph has to be run if you have your doubts. If it does not repeat there may be other issues,I have explained this already including parameters . I just do not know what else I can do to help you and diagnose your problem , now you say you tested and it did not work and you wanted to know why but you will not give me any info about your set up or test or anything and now it is not about your set up ? . I have tried to understand and help you with just about every possibility of what your problem could be to try to help. To diagnose the problem I need to have your info so if you do not provide it I do not know what to say . Tuning with or without a tuner can be frustrating. The tuner is only one way to tune. if you want help with your set up I am here anytime but I can not give you a one step fix for all tuners if they do not work for you.

The bolded answers what I was asking.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not asking about my set up. I am not asking you for advice or help. Since you claim to be able to tune a rifle with a tuner, I was asking how you came to the conclusions with your rifles, and what kind of testing you did.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

still trolling ? I never said that.

You kinda did, though.

2: Recoil force ratio /weight offset to dynamic flexibility ratio.
If you are shooting a 6.5 need more or 6 dasher with a truck axle barrel even if the exit time is good for a pattern the amplitude can be so small the it is hard to see any adjustment making a difference .so the barrel should be around .950 or less in diameter to see the tuner work with the lower recoil force . But with a 300 win mag the chances are much better due to the recoild forces increasing you can see more amplitude or extremes of change in poi height.

emphasis added.

 

[timintx]

You kinda did, though.


emphasis added.

What I am saying is .950 at the crown heavy taper, i edited to clarify,the thinner barrel responds better and is easy to see with the lighter recoil forces of the 6 mm. never said it will not work.I can get the slower bullets tracking up even on bull barrels on my dasher with or without the tuner but if you are just shooting groups it is tougher to see sometimes.

 

[timintx]

The bolded answers what I was asking.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not asking about my set up. I am not asking you for advice or help. Since you claim to be able to tune a rifle with a tuner, I was asking how you came to the conclusions with your rifles, and what kind of testing you did.

it was explained in the video . I will ask again what test failed that you did ? how did you come to that conclusion?

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

it was explained in the video . I will ask again what test failed that you did ? how did you come to that conclusion?

Yeah, I’ve seen your legal pad and sharpie. I guess I’d hope you had some actual numbers. It’s increasingly clear to me that you do not, nor are we following the same line of conversation so I’ll stop asking.

@Tokay444 you’ve been right since page one. Not sure why I hoped for anything different this time.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

For anyone who hasn't figured it out, there is a huge fundamental divide that is going to be very hard to bridge.

Anyone who has an education in sciences or takes the same approach is never going to accept what people call "testing" in this thread, or in things like the Cortina interview. It doesn't pass the smell test at a very basic level of the scientific method of testing.

And the other side fully believes they are able to properly test and record data with consumer grade or worse setups.


Which basically means this argument lasts an infinite amount of time.

 

[timintx]

For anyone who hasn't figured it out, there is a huge fundamental divide that is going to be very hard to bridge.

Anyone who has an education in sciences or takes the same approach is never going to accept what people call "testing" in this thread, or in things like the Cortina interview. It doesn't pass the smell test at a very basic level of the scientific method of testing.

And the other side fully believes they are able to properly test and record data with consumer grade or worse setups.


Which basically means this argument lasts an infinite amount of time.

Figured an ambush was coming . Lol

 

[category_theory]

.

 

[cameljockey230]

.

So if you shoot a big group and you then shoot a small group you get am average.
Everyone understands this it's nothing new but he constantly repeats the same thing.



Category_theory watch this guy's videos and pay close attention as he has never owned a gun that shoots as badly as the guy you posted takes to every match.

 

[cameljockey230]

Figured an ambush was coming . Lol

Timintx
If you use your ignore list you don't even see there posts are get a notification.
The posters wanting the most scientific proof are the least equipped when it comes to understanding it.

 

[cameljockey230]

Category_theory
Watch this series of videos and watch the series he did with VihtaVouri powders which is double the amount.
He explains all the stuff Bryan told Eric he doesnt understand.

 

[Slides]

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

It absolutely matters if you are trying to use it for positive compensation as the barrel bend response won't be there or if there is compliance in the vice will likely be at a completely different frequency and magnitude to semi-free recoiling offset mass of a stock which drives the vertical whip.

If you are just talking reducing random dispersion in group size I would agree.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Figured an ambush was coming . Lol

Not sure how you’re interpreting that as an ambush.

Statement of fact. There’s a pretty deep divide in what each side considers “testing.”

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Timintx
If you use your ignore list you don't even see there posts are get a notification.
The posters wanting the most scientific proof are the least equipped when it comes to understanding it.

Typical straw/flat earth response. “I won’t give you proof because you can’t understand it.”

You can post as many videos as you want of someone explaining something. That does zero good as far as proof.

I can post a video of someone explaining how metal absorbs water because water drips off a pipe when it’s heated with a torch. Means nothing.


(Also, if you’re going to imply over and over you have me ignored, you shouldn’t mention what I typed in my post)

 

[timintx]

Not sure how you’re interpreting that as an ambush.

Statement of fact. There’s a pretty deep divide in what each side considers “testing.”

Here the the crux of the matter , my universal tuner data simply shows I managed to keep tune and held tuned baseline .not improve , so how do you think it will help to this argument? The PC data and stabilization data shows improvement over baseline but that is proprietary and will remain so because it will expose the basis for my formulas . So that is not going to happen . This was explained early in this thread . So why is everybody so worried about this crucial data ? Is this about the method more than the data?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Here the the crux of the matter , my universal tuner data simply shows I managed to keep tune and held tuned baseline .not improve , so how do you think it will help to this argument? The PC data and stabilization data shows improvement over baseline but that is proprietary and will remain so because it will expose the basis for my formulas . So that is not going to happen . This was explained early in this thread . So why is everybody so worried about this crucial data ? Is this about the method more than the data?

Data is only good if the testing protocols are properly done. Everything you have ever posted about your testing would not hold up to any type of review by professional scientists who perform research/testing for a living. You can have proprietary formulas and still show your testing protocols.

Which is why there is always going to be a divide. You think your "graphs" and explanations are data that is good enough to prove something. What they actually are is just observed results using a less than adequate testing method. Your methods are good enough to form an anecdotal opinion, which is a good start. This is pretty much universal across the board in this industry.....it's not just you.


Which is why we are offering to invest in any technology that can be proven via proper testing. We are giving the benefit of the doubt that you or others are so confident in their product for a reason. That reason being that it works. We are literally offering to cover the bill for actual testing and if the product fails, you owe nothing (testing doesn't require you show any formulas, it just consists of you telling a testing facility what the results will be and why. Then they confirm the product works as described). That's a fairly large risk on our part that can possibly end up a 5-6 figure pure loss for us.

Everything you have ever posted points to PC *possibly* being the reason for your observed data. Until you move on to more sophisticated equipment that actually takes all the other variables into account, as well as analyzing the data for proven statistical significance.....you will never be able to produce data that would be taken seriously by professional organizations.

There's a reason companies like Applied Ballistics have contracts and are all over the globe.

 

[morganlamprecht]

So if you shoot a big group and you then shoot a small group you get am average.
Everyone understands this it's nothing new but he constantly repeats the same thing.



Category_theory watch this guy's videos and pay close attention as he has never owned a gun that shoots as badly as the guy you posted takes to every match.

question on the first 2:30...that relates to my position on tuners and my experience using them...asking before i watch the rest so i dont forget...i may have already seen this video as i've watched quite a bit of Neary's stuff, always interesting/good info...

he states groups getting smaller and smaller, and "if a load change isnt made, the next group will blow up..."

so if im a mostly field, mostly steel, rarely paper outside of zeroing, shooter...from a bipod/rear squeeze bag or some other form of non front/rear rest combo like is used in BR or F-open (ie way more potential shooter influence/error)...what most of these new tuner designs are being marketed towards (and not exactly how you and tim advocate for them...you and tim seem to be in a slightly different camp)

can i or how would i expect to use/benefit from the tuner? IMO, i've not seen a way unless im missing something? (outside of the barrel simply shooting better from having the extra weight on the end)

my ammo is loaded prior, not at the bench...cant change that

im not shooting paper with impact markers...sometimes its clean steel, but that doesnt last long...no way to see exact POI to track how groups are forming

if you need to see group trends every time youre shooting (if im understanding Neary correctly) and changes have to be made to maintain that level consistent precision as conditions change...is there a way tuning a barrel one day at the range and then shooting it different days/locations over the next X amount of rounds can be beneficial?

when i have shot paper in testing, taking multiple rifles to the range...they all avg around 1/2-5/8 moa probably...but some days, one of them will pound ragged holes while the other will shoot some closer to 3/4 moa, then maybe a 1/4 moa then maybe 1/2 moa...just kind of scattered between 1/4-3/4 moa.

and changing nothing other than time, same ammo loaded from prior...those roles may switch the next time out...now the opposite rifle is pounding ragged holes while the other is showing some slight inconsistency...if i could find a tuner technique to tighten up that dispersion/inconsistency that would take those rifles from shifting between 1/4-3/4 moa and keeping them always between 1/4-3/8 moa, for example, without the need to always been shooting paper, id be all for it

but if paper and constant adjustments are needed, i just didnt see a benefit for my uses and thats where i left off with my tuner use

from this perspective, id almost think my best option would be something along the lines of taking a bunch of variable weighted muzzle attachments to the range, screw them all on the muzzle while shooting/comparing significant sample size groups, and choosing the one that shoots best with that load/batch of ammo? and just confirm that the one that shot best 1 day, also shoots best all/most days

Edit to add: my position on tuners has never been they werent applicable to the paper shooting disciplines...i was never able to make the jump to them being applicable outside of those arenas/my personal uses...when i tried them (based on how the manufacturer stated to use them), they didnt make my rifles shoot any better, or any worse...the group variations/consistency between rifles was similar to before the tuners

 

[Asgard1]

Data is only good if the testing protocols are properly done. Everything you have ever posted about your testing would not hold up to any type of review by professional scientists who perform research/testing for a living. You can have proprietary formulas and still show your testing protocols.

Which is why there is always going to be a divide. You think your "graphs" and explanations are data that is good enough to prove something. What they actually are is just observed results using a less than adequate testing method. Your methods are good enough to form an anecdotal opinion, which is a good start. This is pretty much universal across the board in this industry.....it's not just you.


Which is why we are offering to invest in any technology that can be proven via proper testing. We are giving the benefit of the doubt that you or others are so confident in their product for a reason. That reason being that it works. We are literally offering to cover the bill for actual testing and if the product fails, you owe nothing (testing doesn't require you show any formulas, it just consists of you telling a testing facility what the results will be and why. Then they confirm the product works as described). That's a fairly large risk on our part that can possibly end up a 5-6 figure pure loss for us.

Everything you have ever posted points to PC *possibly* being the reason for your observed data. Until you move on to more sophisticated equipment that actually takes all the other variables into account, as well as analyzing the data for proven statistical significance.....you will never be able to produce data that would be taken seriously by professional organizations.

There's a reason companies like Applied Ballistics have contracts and are all over the globe.

Sounds like to me you just want to get your grubby hand on technology of positive compensation for your own monetary gain . Why would anyone pair with you ? When it can be marketed by the owner.

 

[brianf]

It absolutely matters if you are trying to use it for positive compensation as the barrel bend response won't be there or if there is compliance in the vice will likely be at a completely different frequency and magnitude to semi-free recoiling offset mass of a stock which drives the vertical whip.

If you are just talking reducing random dispersion in group size I would agree.

Isn’t reducing random dispersion …what tuners are all about?

 

[brianf]

Sounds like to me you just want to get your grubby hand on technology of positive compensation for your own monetary gain . Why would anyone pair with you ? When it can be marketed by the owner.

So you expect investment with out return…

I’m sure you career as a investment analyst is really taking off

 

[Asgard1]

So you expect investment with out return…

I’m sure you career as a investment analyst is really taking off

I am sure he could hire a lab to do the test then use that test for his own marketing. And not involve a scammer nobody into his company.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Sounds like to me you just want to get your grubby hand on technology of positive compensation for your own monetary gain . Why would anyone pair with you ? When it can be marketed by the owner.

Pipe down Mark.

If the owner could market it, they would already be doing it. This is how every industry works. There's inventors and there's investors.

That's literally how capitalism works.

 

[timintx]

question on the first 2:30...that relates to my position on tuners and my experience using them...asking before i watch the rest so i dont forget...i may have already seen this video as i've watched quite a bit of Neary's stuff, always interesting/good info...

he states groups getting smaller and smaller, and "if a load change isnt made, the next group will blow up..."

so if im a mostly field, mostly steel, rarely paper outside of zeroing, shooter...from a bipod/rear squeeze bag or some other form of non front/rear rest combo like is used in BR or F-open (ie way more potential shooter influence/error)...what most of these new tuner designs are being marketed towards (and not exactly how you and tim advocate for them...you and tim seem to be in a slightly different camp)

can i or how would i expect to use/benefit from the tuner? IMO, i've not seen a way unless im missing something? (outside of the barrel simply shooting better from having the extra weight on the end)

my ammo is loaded prior, not at the bench...cant change that

im not shooting paper with impact markers...sometimes its clean steel, but that doesnt last long...no way to see exact POI to track how groups are forming

if you need to see group trends every time youre shooting (if im understanding Neary correctly) and changes have to be made to maintain that level consistent precision as conditions change...is there a way tuning a barrel one day at the range and then shooting it different days/locations over the next X amount of rounds can be beneficial?

when i have shot paper in testing, taking multiple rifles to the range...they all avg around 1/2-5/8 moa probably...but some days, one of them will pound ragged holes while the other will shoot some closer to 3/4 moa, then maybe a 1/4 moa then maybe 1/2 moa...just kind of scattered between 1/4-3/4 moa.

and changing nothing other than time, same ammo loaded from prior...those roles may switch the next time out...now the opposite rifle is pounding ragged holes while the other is showing some slight inconsistency...if i could find a tuner technique to tighten up that dispersion/inconsistency that would take those rifles from shifting between 1/4-3/4 moa and keeping them always between 1/4-3/8 moa, for example, without the need to always been shooting paper, id be all for it

but if paper and constant adjustments are needed, i just didnt see a benefit for my uses and thats where i left off with my tuner use

from this perspective, id almost think my best option would be something along the lines of taking a bunch of variable weighted muzzle attachments to the range, screw them all on the muzzle while shooting/comparing significant sample size groups, and choosing the one that shoots best with that load/batch of ammo? and just confirm that the one that shot best 1 day, also shoots best all/most days

Edit to add: my position on tuners has never been they werent applicable to the paper shooting disciplines...i was never able to make the jump to them being applicable outside of those arenas/my personal uses...when i tried them (based on how the manufacturer stated to use them), they didnt make my rifles shoot any better, or any worse...the group variations/consistency between rifles was similar to before

Data is only good if the testing protocols are properly done. Everything you have ever posted about your testing would not hold up to any type of review by professional scientists who perform research/testing for a living. You can have proprietary formulas and still show your testing protocols.

Which is why there is always going to be a divide. You think your "graphs" and explanations are data that is good enough to prove something. What they actually are is just observed results using a less than adequate testing method. Your methods are good enough to form an anecdotal opinion, which is a good start. This is pretty much universal across the board in this industry.....it's not just you.


Which is why we are offering to invest in any technology that can be proven via proper testing. We are giving the benefit of the doubt that you or others are so confident in their product for a reason. That reason being that it works. We are literally offering to cover the bill for actual testing and if the product fails, you owe nothing (testing doesn't require you show any formulas, it just consists of you telling a testing facility what the results will be and why. Then they confirm the product works as described). That's a fairly large risk on our part that can possibly end up a 5-6 figure pure loss for us.

Everything you have ever posted points to PC *possibly* being the reason for your observed data. Until you move on to more sophisticated equipment that actually takes all the other variables into account, as well as analyzing the data for proven statistical significance.....you will never be able to produce data that would be taken seriously by professional organizations.

There's a reason companies like Applied Ballistics have contracts and are all over the globe.

Ok I can show the testing protocols but only limited data , fair enough?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Ok I can show the testing protocols but only limited data , fair enough?

For the sake of this thread? Yea, I think that's fair.

If we are talking business, that depends on a lot of different things. However anything shared would be protected with an NDA that has very specific language and wouldn't be anything public.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Either way, this thread has taken up too much time just to rehash the same thing from the last 5+ years.

If anyone is interested in an investment in their product/technology, PM us or email [email protected]

Thanks and good luck.

 

[cameljockey230]

question on the first 2:30...that relates to my position on tuners and my experience using them...asking before i watch the rest so i dont forget...i may have already seen this video as i've watched quite a bit of Neary's stuff, always interesting/good info...

he states groups getting smaller and smaller, and "if a load change isnt made, the next group will blow up..."

so if im a mostly field, mostly steel, rarely paper outside of zeroing, shooter...from a bipod/rear squeeze bag or some other form of non front/rear rest combo like is used in BR or F-open (ie way more potential shooter influence/error)...what most of these new tuner designs are being marketed towards (and not exactly how you and tim advocate for them...you and tim seem to be in a slightly different camp)

can i or how would i expect to use/benefit from the tuner? IMO, i've not seen a way unless im missing something? (outside of the barrel simply shooting better from having the extra weight on the end)

my ammo is loaded prior, not at the bench...cant change that

im not shooting paper with impact markers...sometimes its clean steel, but that doesnt last long...no way to see exact POI to track how groups are forming

if you need to see group trends every time youre shooting (if im understanding Neary correctly) and changes have to be made to maintain that level consistent precision as conditions change...is there a way tuning a barrel one day at the range and then shooting it different days/locations over the next X amount of rounds can be beneficial?

when i have shot paper in testing, taking multiple rifles to the range...they all avg around 1/2-5/8 moa probably...but some days, one of them will pound ragged holes while the other will shoot some closer to 3/4 moa, then maybe a 1/4 moa then maybe 1/2 moa...just kind of scattered between 1/4-3/4 moa.

and changing nothing other than time, same ammo loaded from prior...those roles may switch the next time out...now the opposite rifle is pounding ragged holes while the other is showing some slight inconsistency...if i could find a tuner technique to tighten up that dispersion/inconsistency that would take those rifles from shifting between 1/4-3/4 moa and keeping them always between 1/4-3/8 moa, for example, without the need to always been shooting paper, id be all for it

but if paper and constant adjustments are needed, i just didnt see a benefit for my uses and thats where i left off with my tuner use

from this perspective, id almost think my best option would be something along the lines of taking a bunch of variable weighted muzzle attachments to the range, screw them all on the muzzle while shooting/comparing significant sample size groups, and choosing the one that shoots best with that load/batch of ammo? and just confirm that the one that shot best 1 day, also shoots best all/most days

Edit to add: my position on tuners has never been they werent applicable to the paper shooting disciplines...i was never able to make the jump to them being applicable outside of those arenas/my personal uses...when i tried them (based on how the manufacturer stated to use them), they didnt make my rifles shoot any better, or any worse...the group variations/consistency between rifles was similar to before the tuners

Finally a shooter who gets it.
With the small capacity case like the 6ppc that shoot fantastically small groups you can detect the minor pressure rising as the barrel heats up and becomes fouled as Mr Neary points out.

How does any of that help with longrange elr guns.
All a tuner does is to dampen the peak so it broadens the velocity window where the gun is in tune.
In essence it delays the inevitable or prolongs the accuracy.
In rimfire the window has been scientifically test at 65 or 66 fps of velocity spread by Dr Geoffrey Kolbe.
In centerfire Tim is saying 200 fps which if rimfire at 1054 fps gives 65 then at 3000 fps a tripling of the window seems about right.
Thanks for the question

 

[cameljockey230]

Isn’t reducing random dispersion …what tuners are all about?

No they are about broadening the accuracy window which is predictable if you watch the Jack Neary videos I provided links too

 

[LeftyJason]

Adding this here because we might be able to correlate multiple things if we get the right people on the same page. @John Baker recent post made me think of this thread.

Gunsmithing - Any thoughts on structured barrels?

After reading through this thread, I’m still seriously doubtful about the harmonic/“node” aspect of this design. AB/Litz found that tuners don’t have a statistically significant impact on a rifle’s performance, and a barrel does not start deflecting until after the bullet leaves the muzzle...

www.snipershide.com

 

[cameljockey230]

A structured barrel stiffens the barrel so the node moves closer to the muzzle.
A tuner correctly placed moves the node to the muzzle.
A tensioned barrel moves the node to the muzzle.
Seems like the common theme is to move the node to the muzzle?

 

[Tokay444]

Here the the crux of the matter , my universal tuner data simply shows I managed to keep tune and held tuned baseline .not improve , so how do you think it will help to this argument? The PC data and stabilization data shows improvement over baseline but that is proprietary and will remain so because it will expose the basis for my formulas . So that is not going to happen . This was explained early in this thread . So why is everybody so worried about this crucial data ? Is this about the method more than the data?

I see big austistic boy autumn is over and we are DEEPLY into Down's syndrome December.

 

[Tokay444]

Sounds like to me you just want to get your grubby hand on technology of positive compensation for your own monetary gain . Why would anyone pair with you ? When it can be marketed by the owner.

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