EC tuner brake

[timintx]

To all of the gents that are going to try this test. There one critical factor that needs to be present being the rest , It needs to be absolute solid under the gun. Concrete benches or solid ground only and preferably on sand bags and no matter how strong a wood bench looks it wont work either and no rubber feet on the bipod. Absolute solid guys. No solidity can completely cancel out positive compensation reducing the movments you are trying to see.

Tim in Tx

 

[brianf]

To all of the gents that are going to try this test. There one critical factor that needs to be present being the rest , It needs to be absolute solid under the gun. Concrete benches or solid ground only and preferably on sand bags and no matter how strong a wood bench looks it wont work either and no rubber feet on the bipod. Absolute solid guys. No solidity can completely cancel out positive compensation reducing the movments you are trying to see.

Tim in Tx

I was thinking along the same lines.

We know rifles shoot better with some movement under recoil.

Has anyone tried to mount a actio to a solid block that does not move under recoil?

I theory it will exasperate any barrel movement and make it more violent/ pronounced.

If a action is mounted solid and a tuner can “tune” consistently it might be the beginning of validity

Just thinking after a few glasses of wine lol

 

[_Windrider_]

I was thinking along the same lines.

We know rifles shoot better with some movement under recoil.

Has anyone tried to mount a actio to a solid block that does not move under recoil?

I theory it will exasperate any barrel movement and make it more violent/ pronounced.

If a action is mounted solid and a tuner can “tune” consistently it might be the beginning of validity

Just thinking after a few glasses of wine lol

Recoil is a necessary force

 

[Rob01]

So test it in a way it will never be shot? Makes no sense whatsoever. Who cares if it works strapped in and bolted down when you will never use it that way?

 

[brianf]

Recoil is a necessary force

I’d think so as well

But by locking down the action we are limiting a variable in testing which is what really counts for validation

 

[r.tenorio671]

....this thread went from a "discussion" of folks sharing their actual experiences with a tuner to a pissing contest between some folks trying to prove their point of view is superior/correct or others are inferior/incorrect. These detract from the core intent of folks sharing their experiences that others may benefit from. Most that read posts in threads are interested in the "proof on paper" results and how those posters arrived at that point they have shown. That info may allow them to avoid the missteps they might run up against in their own journey to find a solution that increases their success.

....I acknowledge (and appreciate) the efforts of those that expend extensive resources in researching a particular matter, especially if their intent is to further progress in that area. Their methodology is just as valid as any...that old cliché of "...more than one way to skin a cat" applies.

...some folks should just take their "discussions" offline to direct PM's between themselves as they continue their effort to prove their POV over the others. I would imagine the majority visiting this forum thread have tired of it already dominating this thread and doing nothing to share any info they might relate to.

..enjoy your weekend in a safe and satisfying manner of your choice.

 

[brianf]

So test it in a way it will never be shot? Makes no sense whatsoever. Who cares if it works strapped in and bolted down when you will never use it that way?

Just replied to dill..

That how you validate a process

Limit all variables that are “limitable” then expand.

That’s real science/testing not putting uncontrolled rounds down range

Additionally what if a tuner on a solid mount becomes the most consistent and accurate weapon system ever?

 

[_Windrider_]

I’d think so as well

But by locking down the action we are limiting a variable in testing which is what really counts for validation

Yeah but I would think that would cause all kinds of harmonic issues. That force is going somewhere

 

[Rob01]

Just replied to dill..

That how you validate a process

Limit all variables that are “limitable” then expand.

That’s real science/testing not putting uncontrolled rounds down range

Additionally what if a tuner on a solid mount becomes the most consistent and accurate weapon system ever?

What if it does? You going to carry around a big solid mount every time you want to shoot?

Science is great but sometimes not practical. I test my gear as it will be used. I don’t care how a scientist would do it.

 

[brianf]

....this thread went from a "discussion" of folks sharing their actual experiences with a tuner to a pissing contest between some folks trying to prove their point of view is superior/correct or others are inferior/incorrect. These detract from the core intent of folks sharing their experiences that others may benefit from. Most that read posts in threads are interested in the "proof on paper" results and how those posters arrived at that point they have shown. That info may allow them to avoid the missteps they might run up against in their own journey to find a solution that increases their success.

....I acknowledge (and appreciate) the efforts of those that expend extensive resources in researching a particular matter, especially if their intent is to further progress in that area. Their methodology is just as valid as any...that old cliché of "...more than one way to skin a cat" applies.

...some folks should just take their "discussions" offline to direct PM's between themselves as they continue their effort to prove their POV over the others. I would imagine the majority visiting this forum thread have tired of it already dominating this thread and doing nothing to share any info they might relate to.

..enjoy your weekend in a safe and satisfying manner of your choice.

Im on the same boat but then I actually want to know if they work lights out.

If it’s repeatable and eliminates some variable that I really can’t control..I’ll buy them for every rifle.

If it’s hit or miss and it’s based on my personal testing or ultimate “hold/group size” I’m not sure I’ll take the plunge.

 

[brianf]

Yeah but I would think that would cause all kinds of harmonic issues. That force is going somewhere

I agree

Id think it would mostly be focused in front of the “lock down “ which is the front action screw and recoil lug

So in my bird brain the barrel will be effected substantially more making and difference more visible

 

[brianf]

What if it does? You going to carry around a big solid mount every time you want to shoot?

Science is great but sometimes not practical. I test my gear as it will be used. I don’t care how a scientist would do it.

No but I’ll enter BR immediately and take home the gold lol

then contact darpa and see what they can do so we can kill more bad guys immediately

 

[r.tenorio671]

Im on the same boat but then I actually want to know if they work lights out.

If it’s repeatable and eliminates some variable that I really can’t control..I’ll buy them for every rifle.

If it’s hit or miss and it’s based on my personal testing or ultimate “hold/group size” I’m not sure I’ll take the plunge.

...I hear you, but there is one variable that is always present and that we will never control is the environment.

...because this thread started out specifically to Cortina's offering, I looked at it from a different viewpoint, it included a muzzle brake. The cost of his device when compared to similar priced brakes touting high efficiency results, I considered the dollar cost and it's worth to me. I know from my own experience that a brake improves efficiency in recoil efficiency. If the tuner aspect of Cortina's device was negligible or "snake oil", was the performance improvement of the brake portion sufficient to justify the cost? The ease of attachment and timing of the device compares better than majority of the breaks on the market, so that's a plus in itself. His vids on carbon cleaning the stainless version in CLR and no damage was informative, I see that as a "time saver" especially since the install/removal process is easy to do as designed.

So, despite the long-term usage of tuners in multiple disciplines and their corresponding reports (good or bad), that wouldn't be a guarantee that MY experience (or capabilities) would be the same, but if the brake worked and it was easier to clean, then I would still be gaining a benefit should I decide to purchase one.

 

[brianf]

...I hear you, but there is one variable that is always present and that we will never control is the environment.

...because this thread started out specifically to Cortina's offering, I looked at it from a different viewpoint, it included a muzzle break. The cost of his device when compared to similar priced brakes touting high efficiency results, I considered the dollar cost and it's worth to me. I know from my own experience that a brake improves efficiency in recoil efficiency. If the tuner aspect of Cortina's device was negligible or "snake oil", was the performance improvement of the brake portion sufficient to justify the cost? The ease of attachment and timing of the device compares better than majority of the breaks on the market, so that's a plus in itself. His vids on carbon cleaning the stainless version in CLR and no damage was informative, I see that as a "time saver" especially since the install/removal process is easy to do as designed.

So, despite the long-term usage of tuners in multiple disciplines and their corresponding reports (good or bad), that wouldn't be a guarantee that MY experience (or capabilities) would be the same, but if the brake worked and it was easier to clean, then I would still be gaining a benefit should I decide to purchase one.

Sounds good to me, it’s a plus plus if it works

 

[Seymour Fish]

So test it in a way it will never be shot? Makes no sense whatsoever. Who cares if it works strapped in and bolted down when you will never use it that way?

1) no led sled, ever 2) method works in 22 lr with tuner free-recoil or held 3) positive compensation tuning works with No Tuner in centirefire, from bipod or benchrest except in extreme design cases Discussed ad nauseum. JMHO . Ymmv. IDGAF

 

[AleksanderSuave]

I thought you wanted me to go away so you & your tuner buddies could tell each other how good they work without question. You seem intent on keeping up the argument though.
Is it because you're starting to doubt the veracity of your claims?

yawn. enjoy the ignore list. Hope that wedding goes well. Im sure by then you'll have some other excuse to not have bought it, while you continue to piss and moan and whine and bitch 18+ pages later about a product you dont even own.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

I was thinking along the same lines.

We know rifles shoot better with some movement under recoil.

Has anyone tried to mount a actio to a solid block that does not move under recoil?

I theory it will exasperate any barrel movement and make it more violent/ pronounced.

If a action is mounted solid and a tuner can “tune” consistently it might be the beginning of validity

Just thinking after a few glasses of wine lol

mount the action to a solid block...like the ammo testing centers do? I mentioned that earlier.

Its certainly the best bet towards reducing variables.

As far as shooting from a concrete bench vs wooden bench..I doubt that will make much of a difference in this test, same with the rubber feet.

You're either bolted to the ground or not. No way around it.

 

[Barelstroker]

yawn. enjoy the ignore list. Hope that wedding goes well. Im sure by then you'll have some other excuse to not have bought it, while you continue to piss and moan and whine and bitch 18+ pages later about a product you dont even own.

It don't matter if I test or not. An uneducated cock snot like you is so ignorant you have no idea how ridiculous you appear. I hope you do put me on ignore. There's absolutely nothing about tuners I or anybody else can learn from you. You're basically useless.

 

[timintx]

I was thinking along the same lines.

We know rifles shoot better with some movement under recoil.

Has anyone tried to mount a actio to a solid block that does not move under recoil?

I theory it will exasperate any barrel movement and make it more violent/ pronounced.

If a action is mounted solid and a tuner can “tune” consistently it might be the beginning of validity

Just thinking after a few glasses of wine lol

In my experience making a rigid rifle is counter productive to a tuner. Another problem is high frequency would be exaggerated with reflective frequencies that if at the muzzle when the bullet leaves is going to give you a random dispersion . Same thing happens with chassis on traditionally held rifles .

Tim in Tx

 

[kthomas]

...I hear you, but there is one variable that is always present and that we will never control is the environment.

...because this thread started out specifically to Cortina's offering, I looked at it from a different viewpoint, it included a muzzle brake. The cost of his device when compared to similar priced brakes touting high efficiency results, I considered the dollar cost and it's worth to me. I know from my own experience that a brake improves efficiency in recoil efficiency. If the tuner aspect of Cortina's device was negligible or "snake oil", was the performance improvement of the brake portion sufficient to justify the cost? The ease of attachment and timing of the device compares better than majority of the breaks on the market, so that's a plus in itself. His vids on carbon cleaning the stainless version in CLR and no damage was informative, I see that as a "time saver" especially since the install/removal process is easy to do as designed.

So, despite the long-term usage of tuners in multiple disciplines and their corresponding reports (good or bad), that wouldn't be a guarantee that MY experience (or capabilities) would be the same, but if the brake worked and it was easier to clean, then I would still be gaining a benefit should I decide to purchase one.

I will say the EC tuner seems pretty good quality and elegant.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I will say the EC tuner seems pretty good quality and elegant.

Erik definitely takes pride in his work. He should have some interesting stuff in the pipeline.

 

[badassgunworks]

In my experience making a rigid rifle is counter productive to a tuner. Another problem is high frequency would be exaggerated with reflective frequencies that if at the muzzle when the bullet leaves is going to give you a random dispersion . Same thing happens with chassis on traditionally held rifles .

Tim in Tx

You are 100% correct how ever tuners do help with rifles that people choose to build that way.

 

[timintx]

You are 100% correct how ever tuners do help with rifles that people choose to build that way.

Absolutely but the tuners effect would be very small compared to a rifle that is more flexible. As to the reflective high frequency ,If you ever see a spot where at a particular velocity the bullets all open up evenly in all directions really bad this is most likely high frequency. The simple fix is to stay away from that velocity. No big deal . Anything metal like Chassis guns and scope mounts have a potential to vibrate against each other even if bolted super tight. Bedding them to insulate the barreled action from the metal to metal contact helps . or reducing the footprint with mounting bumps Now if the high frequency is not at the muzzle this is all mute because then is does not effect the accuracy at all . High frequency traveling back and forth will hit the muzzle approx. 7 times before the bullet exits so there usually is a wide window of exit timing with no worries , however with reflective frequencies added in the window is much narrower due to the additional reflective frequencies hitting the muzzle. The cause of this high frequency is pressure lock up of all metallic parts. This is the most destructive mode and still present on every gun no matter what type of stock . As we discussed earlier Mark one way is to attack it at the source. neck size only over full length resizing reduced it significantly and in combination with using grease over oil on the lugs of the bolt reduced the high frequency to almost nothing. Another way is to shorten the barrel 1 inch. this is a bit extreme but at the time I was set on the bullet and the velocity and the high frequency was exactly at that velocity, but after shortening and re mounting the brake / tuner the high frequency was no where in the area. Threaded joints actually have a slight damping effect so there is still some damping going at the muzzle with a brake or tuner providing it is tight lol.

Tim in Tx

 

[brianf]

There is mention of mounting bumps above.

You suggest they may reduce some chassis to action vibration etc

Question, with the chassis and action having less contact with eacho” other does that allow for more action flex introducing another vibration to the equation?

Thanks

 

[badassgunworks]

There is mention of mounting bumps above.

You suggest they may reduce some chassis to action vibration etc

Question, with the chassis and action having less contact with eacho” other does that allow for more action flex introducing another vibration to the equation?

Thanks

Chassis do introduce more vibration into rifle apposed to wood stock it shows up in your scope and high scopes high mounts and high rings and bipod extensions also cause issues with vibration the above issues were noted as problems in f class many years ago.

 

[brianf]

Chassis do introduce more vibration into rifle apposed to wood stock it shows up in your scope and high scopes high mounts and high rings and bipod extensions also cause issues with vibration the above issues were noted as problems in f class many years ago.

side question

Is that why AI’s always shot lights out

The bonding material being different than chassis snd action material worked as a dampener of sorts?

A bedded chassis might shoot better but won’t shoot worse. Most believe it’s a more perfect contact yet could it be vibration transfer or reducing as well?

Have you seen a bedded chassis act differently than metal to metal. Possibly be unable to tune while a bedded can be..very generic question. We know there is always more to it.

 

[badassgunworks]

side question

Is that why AI’s always shot lights out

The bonding material being different than chassis snd action material worked as a dampener of sorts?

A bedded chassis might shoot better but won’t shoot worse. Most believe it’s a more perfect contact yet could it be vibration transfer or reducing as well?

Have you seen a bedded chassis act differently than metal to metal. Possibly be unable to tune while a bedded can be..very generic question. We know there is always more to it.

A few months ago one of the well known elr guys using one of my tuner brakes asked if i could solve a problem of the plex in his scope vibrating after each shot . I told him no. He was using a tall moa base and tall rings to see over his long barrel and was using a bipod extension. I told him the issues he was his chassis scope height and bi pod set up he wanted to argue with me. I told him it was a common issue with his set up and if he wanted proof to remove bipod extension and test it. He did and came back with a reply a few ways later and said half of it was gone i said great now get a better caliber that shoots flatter. drop your scope down and get a better stock that absorbs shock. And install hydrolics in recoil pad . If you look at the stock that was used by keith trapp that john pierce designed its lamanated basal wood wrapped with carbon fiber low center of gravity design with hydrolics. The rolex of platforms.

 

[brianf]

A few months ago one of the well known elr guys using one of my tuner brakes asked if i could solvsolve

Solvsolve?

 

[timintx]

side question

Is that why AI’s always shot lights out

The bonding material being different than chassis snd action material worked as a dampener of sorts?

A bedded chassis might shoot better but won’t shoot worse. Most believe it’s a more perfect contact yet could it be vibration transfer or reducing as well?

Have you seen a bedded chassis act differently than metal to metal. Possibly be unable to tune while a bedded can be..very generic question. We know there is always more to it.

I shoot with Dave Walls on occasion who is the owner of AI rifles and spoke with him about that very subject and you are correct ,they plastic coated their chassis to eliminate the issues discussed which I thought was a great idea, but I have not seen personally because I have not shot enough with a chassis gun but the ones I did shoot could feel the shock more so in my hands. Years ago it was noted by some shooters in benchrest that had tried metal stocks. Some had less accuracy and some did not . I was speaking with a general at Quantico during demo day and was telling him about the potential issues with the Remington chassis and the deputy director for the FBI came up and was listening in and , the general asked me how they could fix the issue, I replied to bed the stock and the FBI director kind of jumped in said their guys did it and all guns shot better, the general looked at me and smiled and said"good man!, I want all info on this and come see me in that tent before you leave" lol. My belief is chassis guns can shoot just as well as stocks with fiberglass ,etc every once in a while you might see issues. I am absolutely not saying chassis guns dont shoot. They do, I am just saying the potential is there and may not even be effecting but if it is these are the fixes. also if the action has two screws instead of three even with bedding the action can flex way from the bedding . The ultimate is gluing the action which can have a better damping effect because there is no loss of contact between the mounting screws under recoil.

Tim in Tx

 

[badassgunworks]

I shoot with Dave Walls on occasion who is the owner of AI rifles and spoke with him about that very subject and you are correct ,they plastic coated their chassis to eliminate the issues discussed which I thought was a great idea, but I have not seen personally because I have not shot enough with a chassis gun but the ones I did shoot could feel the shock more so in my hands. Years ago it was noted by some shooters in benchrest that had tried metal stocks. Some had less accuracy and some did not . I was speaking with a general at Quantico during demo day and was telling him about the potential issues with the Remington chassis and the deputy director for the FBI came up and was listening in and , the general asked me how they could fix the issue, I replied to bed the stock and the FBI director kind of jumped in said their guys did it and all guns shot better, the general looked at me and smiled and said"good man!, I want all info on this and come see me in that tent before you leave lol. My belief is chassis guns can shoot just as well as stocks with fiberglass ,etc every once in a while you might see issues. I am absolutely not saying chassis guns dont shoot. They do, I am just saying the potential is there and may not even be effecting but if it is these are the fixes. also if the action has two screws instead of three even with bedding the action can flex way from the bedding . The ultimate is gluing the action which can have a better dampening effect because there is no loss of contact between the mounting screws under recoil.

Tim in Tx

The very reason this works so well full epoxy incapacitated and cant get any lower center of gravity also bo needfor bipod extension

 

[badassgunworks]

The very reason this works so well full epoxy incapacitated and cant get any lower center of gravity also no need for bipod extension

 

[badassgunworks]

Solvsolve?

Solve

 

[Barelstroker]

So tell me, with all this completely unproven theory, why does does the chassis or stock have much to do with the tuner? If the tuner can simply nullify or dampen the muzzle movement, why does the relative difference matter.
You commented on this before & I had trouble with it then but, this is an entirely new scenario that has never been proposed.
If you have the relevant data, I'm all ears.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

So tell me, with all this completely unproven theory, why does does the chassis or stock have much to do with the tuner? If the tuner can simply nullify or dampen the muzzle movement, why does the relative difference matter.
You commented on this before & I had trouble with it then but, this is an entirely new scenario that has never been proposed.
If you have the relevant data, I'm all ears.

I would imagine we are now talking about tuning the entire system vibrations and not solely the barrel.

It’s a topic that comes up when discussing positive compensation with different rifle components and such.

I’m not commenting either way. Just that it’s been talked about before on other forums and topics and such.

 

[Barelstroker]

I would imagine we are now talking about tuning the entire system vibrations and not solely the barrel.

It’s a topic that comes up when discussing positive compensation with different rifle components and such.

I’m not commenting either way. Just that it’s been talked about before on other forums and topics and such.

Well may it have been talked about but, I want to see the statistical relevance of the theory.
Anyone can propose anything. I can say tuners don't work but, where is the statistical proof?

 

[timintx]

So tell me, with all this completely unproven theory, why does does the chassis or stock have much to do with the tuner? If the tuner can simply nullify or dampen the muzzle movement, why does the relative difference matter.
You commented on this before & I had trouble with it then but, this is an entirely new scenario that has never been proposed.
If you have the relevant data, I'm all ears.

In simple terms a stiff stock keeps a barrel from bending. I have a patented mechanism that uses the stock and makes the system stiff which turns off the positive compensation for short range and turns it on for extreme ranges. As to high frequency ,while adjusting a tuner with straight up and down shots one day I was going through the differing powder charges checking the width of the window of exit timing. Right in the middle of the window there was a area in which the differing loads no longer hit vertically. The shots were scattering all directions and the tuner would not fix it , but 1 grain difference either direction then the shots went back to straight up and down and the tuner adjusted them perfectly. These are some of the problems I ran in to when working with tuners that were a problem so much so that I had to stop the tuner research for almost a year and concentrated on just the high frequency vibrations research. I found the cause and the remedy by assuming it was high frequency then methodically went through the different possible fixes and through trial and error found what worked and what did not work. I fixed it and reduced it to nothing based on my assumption that is was high frequency. I have talked with vibration engineers about this to gain some ideas how to fix this issue and they were very helpful as well.

Tim in Tx

 

[nealm66]

I’ve used limbsaver barrel harmonic dampeners a lot with excellent success on hunting rifles. Ugly though.

 

[badassgunworks]

Well may it have been talked about but, I want to see the statistical relevance of the theory.
Anyone can propose anything. I can say tuners don't work but, where is the statistical proof?

I am extremely reluctant to even speak on the subject especially with you because you are stubborn and bullheaded and can't see past the nose on your face however I will once attempt to make things really simple so that perhaps you might understand. First of all the person that desires to have a rifle that functions as a Swiss watch. There are many things that have to be taken into consideration. The last thing you want to do is build a rifle platformer that causes your Barrel to be a tuning fork. Some of it is unavoidable. Some of the issues have nothing to do with accuracy. As far as harmonic dampening and the dreaded and much debated word canceling. It is used and many Industries Automotive and Aviation just to start. Even in Industries like nuclear. when the turbines are out of balance they create a resonant vibration that can be felt and heard over the entire plant. How is it solved weight is added and specific locations so that council out the harmonics some harmonic tuners are even designed to shift and move during the function of movement. I am not going to argue with you on this and I do not have to prove anything to you when dozens of Industries and engineers have been using harmonic dampening and tuning for many many years if you cannot understand and believe that then I am at a loss. Even a person who plays a guitar understand that frequencies are affected by essentially changing the oscillation and vibration to speed up and slow down hormonic vibration to create a different results.

 

[Shooter71]

Damping, not “dampening”.

 

[badassgunworks]

Damping, not “dampening”.

Correct.

 

[Snuby642]

Damn it, I was soaking mine down.

 

[Barelstroker]

I am extremely reluctant to even speak on the subject especially with you because you are stubborn and bullheaded and can't see past the nose on your face however I will once attempt to make things really simple so that perhaps you might understand. First of all the person that desires to have a rifle that functions as a Swiss watch. There are many things that have to be taken into consideration. The last thing you want to do is build a rifle platformer that causes your Barrel to be a tuning fork. Some of it is unavoidable. Some of the issues have nothing to do with accuracy. As far as harmonic dampening and the dreaded and much debated word canceling. It is used and many Industries Automotive and Aviation just to start. Even in Industries like nuclear. when the turbines are out of balance they create a resonant vibration that can be felt and heard over the entire plant. How is it solved weight is added and specific locations so that council out the harmonics some harmonic tuners are even designed to shift and move during the function of movement. I am not going to argue with you on this and I do not have to prove anything to you when dozens of Industries and engineers have been using harmonic dampening and tuning for many many years if you cannot understand and believe that then I am at a loss. Even a person who plays a guitar understand that frequencies are affected by essentially changing the oscillation and vibration to speed up and slow down hormonic vibration to create a different results.

Why are you reluctant to speak?
Is there something you don't want us to know?
Explaining harmonics & damping in very general terms doesn't answer the question.

If Lou Murdica were to speak about some results of his testing, I would be far more inclined to take him at face value because I know how Lou tests things. Lou understands the principals of statistical testing & allows the very considerable number of samples he uses to tell the story.

You & Timintx have made some claims along with explanations of the causal mechanisms of those claims & I am simply asking for some details about what was tested, how those tests were conducted & the statistical data collected.
Asking for such information doesn't mean that I doubt the initial claims & that was not my motivation however, in light of the fact that much of the tuner "testing" spoken about on this thread has been far from statistically relevant, I am reluctant to accept the validity of the claims in the absence of detail.
I think it is rather arrogant of you to expect people to simply believe every word you speak without question.

 

[badassgunworks]

Why are you reluctant to speak?
Is there something you don't want us to know?
Explaining harmonics & damping in very general terms doesn't answer the question.

If Lou Murdica were to speak about some results of his testing, I would be far more inclined to take him at face value because I know how Lou tests things. Lou understands the principals of statistical testing & allows the very considerable number of samples he uses to tell the story.

You & Timintx have made some claims along with explanations of the causal mechanisms of those claims & I am simply asking for some details about what was tested, how those tests were conducted & the statistical data collected.
Asking for such information doesn't mean that I doubt the initial claims & that was not my motivation however, in light of the fact that much of the tuner "testing" spoken about on this thread has been far from statistically relevant, I am reluctant to accept the validity of the claims in the absence of detail.
I think it is rather arrogant of you to expect people to simply believe every word you speak without question I bet you'll

I bet you lou uses tuners. And I am also willing to bet that you're part of the flat-earth group? It would be my guess that you tried a tuner and it did not seem to make a difference on your specific build perhaps the tuner that you used was not efficient enough to make a difference on your platform. Or perhaps you have no clue on how to operate a tuner and you yourself did not take the time to test it Beyond 100 yards. Perhaps your rifle is accurate enough that you can't see a difference at 100 yards.. your personal experience tells you that they don't work there for you demand statistics. Perhaps you should go learn a little bit about tuners how to test them oh, how to adjust them, and do further testing distance. Before you come on to a forum and demand statistical proof they work. I am reluctant because I'm dealing with a narrow minded person it doesn't understand physics

 

[Barelstroker]

I bet you lou uses tuners. And I am also willing to bet that you're part of the flat-earth group

I don't know if Lou uses tuners or not.
Instead of the childish insults, you could elaborate on the details of the testing.
It looks to me as though you don't understand physics or statistics & have convinced yourself that your theories are real without proving any of them. You don't seem to understand how to perform proper testing or to achieve an unbiased result.
You've had ample opportunity to present some detail. What should I or anyone else conclude?

 

[Barelstroker]

And that was the problem I had with my tuner and why I simply removed it. It seems like you should be able to tune using less ammo than just performing load development. But that wasn't my experience. I'm willing to bet you expend just as much components tuning, the tuner. Especially since half of load development is figuring out your charge weight, desired velocity, and pressure. Which a tuner won't solve for you. It's all a matter of seating depth test or shooting 3 shot groups every indexed line on the tuner. Potato = potato

You can kind of test with 3 shot groups but, it might be a true indicator or, it might not either &, that can work both ways meaning, you could just as easily dismiss a good setting because 1 errant shot makes the group look bad. There's probably as much chance as the group showing a good setting as a bad setting but, if the group looks good on a particular setting with 3 shots, all you have to do is verify with a couple 5 shot groups or 1 x 10 shot group.
Unfortunately, there's nothing I'm aware of which can compensate for a reasonable sample number if you want an unbiased result. It's just the way it is.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

So, here’s an interesting question.

I don’t think anyone here disagrees that the rifle moves from recoil before the bullet exits the bore.

I also don’t think anyone disagrees that we cannot control recoil perfectly. Meaning we will influence the launch angle of the bore (in any direction) before the bullet exits. This is just bare basic Newton’s third law.

So, since this site/forum is mainly for practical shoooting, the standard setup is a bipod and rear bag.

Does anyone disagree with the assumption that setup is not stable enough to eliminate muzzle movement do to shooter input? Something like an neo rest and rear bag that needs zero human interaction to control rifle would be the minimum setup to avoid this.

Also, does anyone think the muzzle rise from shooter input is not greater than any launch angle difference due to vibrations?

I don’t believe most any shooter can control recoil enough with a practical setup that the induced muzzle rise would be less than harmonic rise. You can’t visually see the harmonic muzzle movement on the highest frame rate cameras. But you can see rise from recoil.

With these parameters, I have a simple question:


If the shooter induced muzzle rise is greater than the harmonic induced muzzle rise, how can the shooter exploit load development and/or tuners that are used to tune that small of a muzzle launch angle difference?

 

[Barelstroker]

So, here’s an interesting question.

I don’t think anyone here disagrees that the rifle moves from recoil before the bullet exits the bore.

I also don’t think anyone disagrees that we cannot control recoil perfectly. Meaning we will influence the launch angle of the bore (in any direction) before the bullet exits. This is just bare basic Newton’s third law.

So, since this site/forum is mainly for practical shoooting, the standard setup is a bipod and rear bag.

Does anyone disagree with the assumption that setup is not stable enough to eliminate muzzle movement do to shooter input? Something like an neo rest and rear bag that needs zero human interaction to control rifle would be the minimum setup to avoid this.

Also, does anyone think the muzzle rise from shooter input is not greater than any launch angle difference due to vibrations?

I don’t believe most any shooter can control recoil enough with a practical setup that the induced muzzle rise would be less than harmonic rise. You can’t visually see the harmonic muzzle movement on the highest frame rate cameras. But you can see rise from recoil.

With these parameters, I have a simple question:


If the shooter induced muzzle rise is greater than the harmonic induced muzzle rise, how can the shooter exploit load development and/or tuners that are used to tune that small of a muzzle launch angle difference?

Yes, I have mentioned shooter input previously.
When the tuner test accounts are read, there's never any recognition of shooter input as part of the result. Everything is looked at as if tuners are the only input in the system.
Another reason why statistically significant testing is important.
I don't think any of the guys promoting tuners really care about the truth of the matter. It suits their interests for there to be no scrutiny at all.
I'll conduct my own testing in due course & then I'll know.

 

[Barelstroker]

What's more interesting is the high-speed video footage from the FBI ballistics testing Lab that shows the bullet exits far before any visible barrel harmonics or whip occurs (from high speed video). That's not to say that the entire idea behind barrel harmonics is a myth but whatever harmonics do occur or do have an effect aren't even visible to high speed video footage

Yes, I think all the footage I've seen shows the bullet exit before any discernible barrel movement but, there is one study where they used a new method to capture very small muzzle movement. I've been trying to find that study however, although I believe the measurement method seemed sound, I believe they had some difficulty with synchronizing the muzzle movement to the IB process. I can't recall exactly the issue but, I do remember deciding that the experiment was less than convincing at the time.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

The video I saw presented by Mr Boone who was the head of the ballistics Lab at the time that he made the video had a dial indicator on the tip of the barrel to also demonstrate movement in .0001". The dial indicator never moved before the bullet was out of the barrel.

Most every test or study I’ve heard of isn’t able to identify harmonic movement before bullet exit.

Plenty of recoil movement if the rifle isn’t on something that allows it to track perfectly straight back.

Which makes the explanations for some things seen on target a tougher hill to climb.


I’m completely open to the idea and logic behind said explanations. But haven’t found anyone who’s been able to actually observe or validate it.

 

[badassgunworks]

A lot of these issues people may say these problems don't exist are they cannot be demonstrated or measured to make a difference I beg to differ. When comparing modern action of today at the Precision level that they're being made a lot of these problems have been eliminated by Design. Take for example a pierce or Borden action where you can adjust the pinfall. develop loads. Shoot a group on a bench at 100 yards then increase your Penn fall. 050 longer and see what happens a lot of the issues that were experienced in the past have been remedied now in the future. A highly respected person in the industry it has been doing testing on both interior and exterior ballistics has made comments like. Turning case neck does it make a difference deburring flash holes does not make a difference adjusting primer seating depth does not make a difference. When you're doing stuff like this to brass it is made by companies like Lapua. In some cases you're not going to see a difference but compared those steps and procedures on Winchester brass and they actually do make a difference. Just about everything is miserable if you stock enough tolerances