So you’re saying there’s no such thing as barrel harmonics? And no point in finding an accuracy node?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
EC tuner brake
- Thread starter eric1911
- Start date
- Status
Valid question and more on topic than the sidetrack we were on. I suspect that they haven’t been out there long enough to make it into any brake comparison tests.
I’m saying most techniques people use to find them are nothing more than feel better ways of randomly determining a charge weight they then call a “node.” Long term testing shows that what *most* people consider a node doesn’t perform any better or worse than other charge weights.
Just like I’m not saying tuners don’t work. But they way many employ them aren’t doing them much benefit, if any at all.
Small sample size doesn’t mean something doesn’t work. What it does mean is there is a very real possibility that you don’t have the most optimal setting. And if you’re not re-tuning fairly often, you’re also very likely not optimizing this.
We have a habit of taking some thing or some process from other disciplines, and then attempting to use it drastically different than intended.
*Real* load development isn’t a one and done thing with little or not maintenance. It’s constantly tuned throughout the life of the barrel. Even if you test and it shows nothing needs to be done since the last firing, that’s still continual load development.
As far as barrel vibrations and harmonics, that is a topic that we actually have very, very little understanding of. We *think* we know how to manipulate the end result, and in some ways we do. We however absolutely do not fully understand it, nor have we taken real measurements and such. Most everything you read, including simulations are completely theoretical on what *might* be happening.
Curious, if a barrel tuner really is a placebo, why would the results on a certain setting be repeatable?
Wouldn’t the “test” prove entirely random each time you try it then?
Wouldn’t the “test” prove entirely random each time you try it then?
Only once you’ve shot enough groups to encompass the precision capability of the rifle/shooter combo.
Search through @Ledzep posts.
You’ll see that once you fire a statistically confident amount of shots (even from a rifle without a shooter driving it), that you group size widens enough that *most* POI shifts from setting to setting are within the precision “cone” the rifle is capable off.
Therefore you wouldn’t be completely confident that the setting is repeatable until you’ve tested it thoroughly.
Obviously you then run into issues of throat erosion and such. So let’s say there was an absolute definitive test/s that proved that tuners absolutely work the way we think and are repeatable.
That still leaves us with the issue that the setting we *think* is ideal is *possibly* nothing more than standard statistical variance. There’s different ways to account for this and narrow it down to be more confident. But it’s definitely not being done by most shooters.
So, there’s a two prong issue. No one is saying something doesn’t work because the sample size is too small. They are saying the sample size is too small to be confident your end result was not “luck.”
And then there’s the second issue that we have just begun to scratch the surface on harmonics/vibrations.
A simple example:
If I took a person who had absolutely zero idea the odds of flipping a coin was 50/50 and had them flip it 5x. It lands on heads 5x.
They may think the odds are pretty good for landing on heads. It’s still 50/50. And the odds of the 5x heads is only 1/32.
Now, we make them flip it again. Most people won’t get another 5x heads. But, 1/1024 people will get heads again for 10x heads.
Now, use that example in the shooting/internet world. Most people aren’t going to test 2, 3, 4x, etc. They will just test the once. They get results that are the equivalent to the 1/32 above and then relay their “test” to the world as successful.
A few others will test a second time. And some will get the 1/1024. Definitely less than 1/32, but enough that some will go online and say it works.
Then you have the 6,7,8,9x in a row heads also telling everyone the 50/50 stat is not real based on their “testing.”
Now, it’s very easy for anyone to see it’s 50/50 because there are only two outcomes.
But, when you have an exponentially larger number of outcomes, that are also affected by the shooter, environment, etc etc……
Now the odds of most people experiencing standard statistical variance (the 1/32…..but now much less odds), us much, much, much higher. And so are the odds of people who did 2, 3, 4, 5 tests…….
So, now you can see how small sample sizes can easily take over and spread like wildfire. The Satterlee velocity flat spot method is a prime example. It perpetuated extremely fast.
Exactly.
The Satterlee method is the perfect example of the perpetuation of a ridiculous idea brought about by complete ignorance of statistics, chance & variance.
I don't think there's any getting through to some of these guys. They really do believe that no matter how few shots, if it looks favourable to them, it's all the same.
Let em think what they want. I'm over it.
I mean, I get it. Many of us thought the same thing.
And to be fair, it just doesn’t make sense to spend a ton of rounds chasing things unless you’re in a discipline requiring it.
I’ll continue to learn as well as educate. That’s the only way we advance.
And to be fair, it just doesn’t make sense to spend a ton of rounds chasing things unless you’re in a discipline requiring it.
I’ll continue to learn as well as educate. That’s the only way we advance.
I get where your coming from & no, it makes no sense to shoot a ton of ammo but, that's been part of my point.
Even for those that do the rigorous testing, it basically only counts as long as those conditions allow.
The hard facts are that there is a fundamental limit to the real world accuracy of any rifle & tinkering with loads & whatnot are nothing more than emotional distractions.
If 10 top tier PRS rifles were compared in extensive testing using one shooter, the statistical difference between them would be very difficult to determine. Do the same testing with 10 different shooters & the results would be easily separated. If the same testing were conducted with varying light winds, everything goes out the window.
It is my belief that small groups are mostly the result of favourable gaussian distribution helped along by the relatively few shooters who possess the skills to supplement the distribution curve.
As I've said before, a rifle never shoots itself & any results are always derived from the rifle/shooter combination.
So few shooters recognize the absurdity of constantly separating the shooter from the combination by looking only at results from the perspective of load development or barrel tuners or projectiles or powder or neck tension & etc.
With the exception of Bench rest & possibly F-class competition, the magnitude of the variance measured on target is weighted heavily against the shooter as the main cause but, this is rarely if ever recognised or discussed.
So for those who seriously believe that the barrel tuner can make a realistic difference over the long term, I say "think again".
With all the hype of the so called advancements we've seen in just the last 20 years, we should all be shooting in the 0.1's but, that simply isn't the case & that should give us pause as to the most probable influence of group size.
Looking into the design I see two things I really like.
1-Appears to be No upward bias, on a well set up precision rifle upward bias can be liability in my opinion.
2-a change in port angles from less severe angle at high pressure muzzle to more severe angle at low pressure end should be less blasty like the Heathen.
Repeatability would disprove your entire idea above.
It’s also the difference between a “setting” and a random event.
Can someone try this for me?
Use your "scatter" setting from your tuner test and shoot a single 10 shot group.
Then use your "node" setting on your tuner and shoot another 10 shot group after the gun has cooled.
Post your results.
I'm not a tuner denier or believer. For me personally the results of a test like this would be important to help me believe the tuner is working. I have been considering buying one and I would run this test day 1 if I bought one.
Use your "scatter" setting from your tuner test and shoot a single 10 shot group.
Then use your "node" setting on your tuner and shoot another 10 shot group after the gun has cooled.
Post your results.
I'm not a tuner denier or believer. For me personally the results of a test like this would be important to help me believe the tuner is working. I have been considering buying one and I would run this test day 1 if I bought one.
I have a new rifle and barrel to try to break in (hopefully this weekend), just mounted the EC Tuner on it. Will try to get some results like this shortly.
Hes done a lot more educating than you have with your dumb ass comments.
Im going to have to respectfully disagree on this being a relevant analogy.
To start, the result on each step/setting has 3 outcomes, not 2. It can either get better, get worse, or remain unchanged.
Similarly, your coin can either land on heads or tails, a MAJORITY of the time. It can still land on an "edge". 1/6000 odds or about that, from what I could find.
Ignoring the edge outcome, its either heads or tails. Its never landing on a varied% more head than tail on a single drop. Its just one or the other.
A shot group, on the other hand, can improve, or degrade, by a varied amount. It can improve by tightening up 10%, 15%, or more, or similarly expand to a certain % too. Or it can stay the same.
Finally, we get back to repeatability, being the key difference.
Your coin toss will always remain random, unless you modify the coin. The tuner settings bring in repeatability, so shot results would not be random.
It's obvious you've not tested coin tossing. It's relatively common to get 3 & 4 heads or tails in a row. I've been told that casinos allow for 13 in a row runs. I've thrown 11 when I did some tests on this many years ago after a guy I worked with said it was impossible to get more than 5 in a row.
At this time, your statement about tuners bringing repeatability into the system is assumption.
……no, it wouldn’t. Not until it repeated enough times to overcome the odds that it’s not within the noise.
That would be like saying “if the coin landed on heads 5x in a row, then it landed on tails 5x in a row…..we did this sequence 3x, and it repeated the same way…….that must mean I’ve “tuned” the flip to work in this sequence.”
When in fact, the odds are still 50/50 every single time, you’ve just had a rare turn of events.
Obviously that’s different than shooting groups and such. Just an overly simplified way to explain the concept “correlation does not imply causation.”
While you are correct that the pattern repeating would prove it works……what you are not factoring in is that it needs to repeat quite a few times before it is out of the weeds of noise.
I used a coin as an extremely simple example.
Your response here is why I attempted to use it. If you factor in all the additional stuff of shooting, there is exponentially more noise.
Which means you need far more shooting to prove something than you do flipping a coin.
And no, you don’t get “better” or “worse.”
Each coin toss is a separate event. And each coin toss has only two outcomes. Heads or tails. Neither is better or worse, they just are. The land on its side is just something you decided to throw in to muddy the example. As 1/6000 doesn’t hold enough significance to be factored.
Now, all things being equal, you can predict “events” such as odds of landing on one side X amount of times.
The fact that you assigned “better” and “worse” is one of the major reasons people can’t wrap their heads around probability. Emotion. You’re now already heavily biased.
The 2016 election, some polls had Trump as high as 28%. The entire country equated this to zero. When he won, the liberal side cried it was impossible. The conservative side said “see, polls and stats don’t matter.”
When in fact, both sides simply ignored that 28% is an extremely high number as far as chances go.
Emotion is no different in this discipline. As soon as people see something that supports their bias, they go with it. It’s extremely hard to keep testing and accept the results may not be what you think.
I’ve had to do it countless times and it was very hard for me to accept when something I thought was set in stone, just isn’t.
The difference is still, no matter how many times you flip the coin, it remains entirely random. You're not changing anything regardless of how many times you try for 5 of the same results.
Repeating the "settings test" on the tuner 3 times or 300 times doesnt make it become random.
The question being discussed is how many times the test needs to be repeated, to convince critics.
So what exactly determines the sample size for this to be accurate? your personal opinion? Sorry. Not buying that explanation.
We're not debating about whether buying a red car means you will get more speeding tickets (it doesnt). The fact that you'd use this example is exactly why its odd in general that you're talking about emotion (BIAS) knowing full well it doesnt apply. At this point you're being outright misleading.
The simple presence of a barrel tuner doesnt make you a better shooter. that would be correlation without causation. Shooting through the settings until you find a repeatably better one is very different from what you're suggesting.
Last edited:
Except that, a shot group CAN get better or worse (not the coin toss). You can measure better/worse performance in a shot group. Its not a feeling. We dont score competitions based on emotion either. They are scored based on measurements.
is Emotion the reason you missed the point too?
*A* shot group might or might not be tighter than another. There are so many other confounding factors that a tight group, or even a handful of tight groups, are not an indication of a tighter probability cone for the weapons system. Even a looser group might well be within the true probability cone.
The overwhelming majority of people, most of this forum included, have no intuitive sense for statistics.
Not disagreeing with you, which is why I said there are 3 possible outcomes (not 2), and the coin toss was irrelevant.
Repeatability helps bridge the gap on this one. Find the right setting. Shoot 5-10 groups, see if the average group size is better than without the tuner. same ammo, same conditions.
If its random and the tuner isnt helping, you'll know.
On my last rifle, after dialing in the setting for berger hybrid targets, 0.3 moa was easily repeatable at 100 yards. a 0.239 group was the best one that it produced.
Prior to that, it shot 0.5-0.7 no matter how many times I tried. It was a noticeable repeatable difference. That also likely covered your interpretation of the probability cone as well.
Regardless, I'm waiting on someone to present what is the "accurate" and accepted sample size for this test? Nobody seems to agree on that one (as far as the critics so far have posted).
Last edited:
So while some of you sit and circle jerk to procedures, stats and theory here are todays real world results.
Please excuse my worse than normal poor handwriting, cold front is cranking up my arthritis.
The flier in the center target was a cold wet bore mistake of an unknown setting.
The rest have appropriate setting number.
Particularly happy with the three center shots on setting number 2.
The last two targets with 3 shots are not as good but I don't hide shit.
Shoot your own shots show your results.
Please excuse my worse than normal poor handwriting, cold front is cranking up my arthritis.
The flier in the center target was a cold wet bore mistake of an unknown setting.
The rest have appropriate setting number.
Particularly happy with the three center shots on setting number 2.
The last two targets with 3 shots are not as good but I don't hide shit.
Shoot your own shots show your results.
Here is mine from a while ago, all 5 round groups at 100 yards.
This is without tuner, just my normal brake:
Then I put the tuner on and tried different settings:
Edit to add: 9 of hearts and 5 of spades were sight in targets when I put the tuner on my rifle. First shot with tuner was always way low.
As you can see, the tuner didn't do anything magical besides slightly change the POI.
This is without tuner, just my normal brake:
Then I put the tuner on and tried different settings:
Edit to add: 9 of hearts and 5 of spades were sight in targets when I put the tuner on my rifle. First shot with tuner was always way low.
As you can see, the tuner didn't do anything magical besides slightly change the POI.
Last edited:
Yeah I personally don't see anything there that screams "tuners work".
the black 3 spade looks like the setting you'd keep. 8 of diamonds is 5 shots or the black 10 of clubs?
Unless Im misunderstanding what you wrote?
8 of diamonds is 5 shots, all groups are 5 shots.
From my limited testing, the gun doesn't shoot any better with a tuner than without. I'll concede that while I shot 5-shot groups, the sample size is still small. I'm also shooting prone off concrete with bipod and rear bag, so there's certainly noise created by my imperfect shooting.
I'm personally unconvinced that tuners are the answer that many here think they are, and I think that they add more potential confusion and a potential point of error. I don't believe tuners can make a rifle with reloads tuned to that rifle any better, and I know that's the general consensus in the benchrest community. I've never tested the tuner with factory ammo, so I'm open for that use. But I've yet to see any data that's compelling enough for me to think tuners should be used for that purpose.
That said, I'm not going to tell people here they shouldn't use tuners if they find/thinks it works for them. I'm just personally very unconvinced through my own "testing" and the data that's been presented here thus far.
so did you try leaving it on any one setting, and shooting more groups with it? Just curious.
I wouldnt say a tuner had much to improve on though, if you started with 5 shots in a group that looked like one hole to begin with.
You might want to just run it in intervals of 2. I dont think you need to go in order of 14,15,16,17 etc. Unless I read that wrong and those are just your group #'s (rather than tuner settings). The tuner is setup to be run from 1-20, but recommended to go in intervals of 2, unless you find 2 similarly good series settings (like 12 and 14), then you can try the odd # in between. I watched it demonstrated by Erik in a followup video with another shooter.
I recently purged a ridiculous number of target pics. We now have a shotmarker and such in house, so data going forward will be collected that way.
Interestingly enough, you can actually sit around and think about “theory” as well as shoot quite a bit.
I’ll leave a couple pics here that I overlooked deleting on this phone. I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide what they see, if anything.
Interestingly enough, you can actually sit around and think about “theory” as well as shoot quite a bit.
I’ll leave a couple pics here that I overlooked deleting on this phone. I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide what they see, if anything.
Attachments
If you look at the first test sheet 0 - 10, I could have stopped at one or two and been a happy camper.
But some people complained about that earlier. I watched the vidio but decided to work each whole number since my reloads are fairly inexpensive. In fact I am going back and probably shoot actual groups at 1, 1.5, and 2 because I can and the range is where I relax.. Zero was kind of a scatter and three opened up.
The guys are missing the point of some of this experiment / test.
I'm 63 beat up and my gear barely qualifies as mid tier if at all.
I am not a top tier shooter.
A couple of points of interest so far on this combination.
Number 2 may be best tune on my barrel in general.
Number 2 may be best for that load.
On the second test sheet little mattered past number 13 but that is in 223 with a 52g bullet.
Different bullets and larger calibers may slide from a 2 up to a much larger number to get a tune.
This may change as barrel speeds up maybe not. There are only 61 rounds down this tube and everyone shown in this thread.
The last six rounds disappointed me but were my own doing, the cold front has swollen my hands to a point it will be days before I can shoot again.
But some people complained about that earlier. I watched the vidio but decided to work each whole number since my reloads are fairly inexpensive. In fact I am going back and probably shoot actual groups at 1, 1.5, and 2 because I can and the range is where I relax.. Zero was kind of a scatter and three opened up.
The guys are missing the point of some of this experiment / test.
I'm 63 beat up and my gear barely qualifies as mid tier if at all.
I am not a top tier shooter.
A couple of points of interest so far on this combination.
Number 2 may be best tune on my barrel in general.
Number 2 may be best for that load.
On the second test sheet little mattered past number 13 but that is in 223 with a 52g bullet.
Different bullets and larger calibers may slide from a 2 up to a much larger number to get a tune.
This may change as barrel speeds up maybe not. There are only 61 rounds down this tube and everyone shown in this thread.
The last six rounds disappointed me but were my own doing, the cold front has swollen my hands to a point it will be days before I can shoot again.
Yes, you can certainly count your previous results if you have enough of them.
If you have say 80 to 100 shots of 3 or 5 shot groups showing 0.5 to 0.7 moa then, that would be enough IMO. This could count as your control, as long as it was done the same way as your tuner testing.
If you then amass enough samples of the tuner groups say 20 x 5 shot groups & recorded carefully, I would count that as an adequate sample number to compare against your control groups. Now that I think about it, if you have plenty of control groups, 5 x 5 shot groups should be ample as a reasonable comparison.
Anyhow, it doesn't all have to be done in one day. There's nothing stopping you from testing a couple 5 shot groups when you can in-between times. This would actually give more realistic results because it allows for natural differences that every shooter encounters & would show if the tuner works regardless of temperature & etc.
This issue is, that most rifle/shooter combinations, once long term data is tracked, will be around .7 - 1moa.
Because sure, they shoot .3 moa regularly, but today it’s at 7 o’clock and tomorrow it’s a 1 o’clock.
So, now they have a .7 - 1moa overall “noise” or capability.
So, if they go shoot 5x5 with tuner setting adjustments, and the groups land anywhere inside that .7 moa, they have no idea if it’s because of the tuner or their system.
One would have to go back several times (two is not enough) to weed out the noise and establish a pattern in which the tuner is trending.
Obviously the exception is top level shooters with top level equipment and techniques that can be almost absolutely sure they are being consistent. And then then, if it’s at distance, it’s not a guarantee.
In the end, what you’re left with is the fact most of us do not shoot well enough, or have good enough equipment to exploit differences measures in the tenths of an moa.
I agree.
It was AleksanderSuave who set the terms though.
If he doesn't consistently get 0.3 MOA then the tuner is sunk.
To be fair though, I think for the sake of comparison without ringing the statistical shit out of it &, taken over a long term of say 6 months or more with 2 or 3 5 shot groups every now & again, I don't think it inappropriate as a general comparison. The way I see it, if the guy does genuinely see reasonable improvement on average then, I think it fair to conclude that the tuner has had a positive effect, for him at least.
Repeat shot group testing would give you an accurate ballpark to determine the range of accuracy for any equipment you’re using. Sampling isn’t limited to top tier shooters or top tier equipment.
A lead sled alone would help remove a majority of then “noise”, aka shooter variables, that you’re referring to.
For all the talk about statistics earlier, you’re now back pedaling pretty hard on the core methodology of it.
An “upgraded” lead sled (action mounted into concrete foundation and vice block) is exactly the method used at some of the more advanced ammo test centers.
Why would it require a professional shooter? Their employees aren’t all pro shooters either.
You’re an ammo supplier right?
Do you similarly tell your customers that if they aren’t a pro shooter they won’t realize an increase in accuracy with your product either?
Last edited:
You'll see A LOT more benefits from quality ammo than you will from a tuner.
For those trying to get their rifles more precise with a tuner, that's just a crutch. Not even the benchrest community uses tuners for that purpose.
For those trying to get their rifles more precise with a tuner, that's just a crutch. Not even the benchrest community uses tuners for that purpose.
And if the quality ammo isnt shooting well through your rifle? Then what? pull each bullet and try to reload it? Try to return it where you bought?
I have used tuners a lot and I use an ats tuner for 600 competition. I find them very similar to bullet seating in the way they function. I have noticed that though it’s very slight, they will fall out of tune as the environment changes. I always try to check my tune in similar conditions as what may be expected at the match if possible. It’s usually just a slight change in setting and it’s not a huge difference in group like going from a nickel to a dime at 200, 10 shot groups- same as in the competitions I shoot. This is a 22 creed with hardly any recoil and easy to shoot
I also see a lot of other guys using tuners at the competitions
I don’t have a dog in this fight and I do use a tuner on my RimX but if the only way to really see an improvement after tuning a hand load is with a led sled then it really means not much to me.
I mean sure if you’re an F class guy and you can shoot 1/8 groups, why not.
If you’re only shooting factory ammo and you can find a setting that obviously improves the grouping, why not.
But I doubt for most shooters there a significant gain after properly tuning a load.
I mean sure if you’re an F class guy and you can shoot 1/8 groups, why not.
If you’re only shooting factory ammo and you can find a setting that obviously improves the grouping, why not.
But I doubt for most shooters there a significant gain after properly tuning a load.
I find rifles aren't that picky given the following:
- You use a high quality barrel blank and gunsmith
- the chamber is made specifically for the type of projectile(s) you plan on shooting
- You use good quality ammo
I rarely have an issue where ammo won't shoot through a rifle, even factory ammo. I think the "need" for tuners are overstated, and so is their utility and practicality.
It's not hard to match ammo to a rifle. But maybe others really struggle with this?
In the case where the ammo isn't suited to your rifle, I've yet to see a compelling data set that demonstrates that a tuner can markedly improve this. And for this purpose, the tuner then becomes a crutch. It just seems a lot easier to feed your rifle with quality ammo than to use a crutch.
- Status
Similar threads
Accessories
EC Tuner Brake 6.5 3/4-24
