EC tuner brake

[Snuby642]

I can tell you what you get.

MOA = minute of ass

 

[nealm66]

It would sure be nice if the bullet left before any effects from recoil, but only takes a few rounds out of a light magnum rifle to see the truth

 

[_Windrider_]

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.

Tuners help control the "whip" not eliminate it. We are effectively changing the whip and where the bullet exits in that oscillation to the most prudent point.

Muzzle rise during recoil isnt caused by recoil directly. recoil goes straight back. muzzle rise and its severity is caused by multiple factors
- Poor fundamentals
- improper bipod loading
- less than optimal shooting position.
- the shooter themselves. effectively the shooter is acting like a backstop, the recoil force isnt done when it hits the shooters shoulder and since we are effectivly bouncing it back forward, it doesnt go back perfectly straight, hence the muzzle rise because its deflected at an angle. Put a gun on a recoil sled with a 40 foot track, the gun goes straight back after firing and stops when the recoil force is overcome by the mass. the muzzle doesnt rise. When we hold instead of dial, this can actually be compounded do to changing the position of our body in the hold.

 

[timintx]

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

I have heard they work but never tested it my self. To damp the vibration at the mid barrel area is something I have not tried. but with tuners I have found if they are on a rubber mounting and not solid mounted they can trow a shot periodically.

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?

Good question , only a opinion here since the rifle is rotating around its mass muzzle rise is probably a split between the rear moving down so I would think a vertical hydraulic damper sleeve in the butt of the rifle may help keep the rotation at bay. Small gyroscopes in the rifle will help.




Tim in Tx

 

[timintx]

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

I have seen the footage and the dial indicator doesn't move but he has it on a node of the barrel, all nodes are usually 2.5-3.25 inches from the end of the barrel , that is the point in which there is no lateral movement but has the highest angular movements , They were only able to measure the lateral movement the the indicator . I have 20 years in making barrels bend aiming bullets differently. Theirs may not bend due to the parameters of the gun . How about this? I will do the same test but off of the node but with three 1/10,000th indicators and lets see what happens. I bet the results will be different.

Tim in Tx

 

[nealm66]

From my experience, the limbsaver is every bit as effective as any of the three types of tuners I have used although I’ve only used them on sporter type barrels.

 

[_Windrider_]

@TacticalDillhole you're trying to tell me a person is going to manage recoil differently when holding 2.3mrad at 500yds than dialing 2.3mrad at 500yds? Across all positions?

I hate to outright refute things I hear the first time I hear them because you can always learn something, but that sounds like propaganda. I hold 70% of the time. I'll hold on 1100yd targets and then dial 1100yd targets. I'll zero my rifle at 300yds by dialing .9 mrad in on a 100yd zero and then hold an entire match. Not once have I seen a consistent elevational POI/ Data change from holding to dialing. That is an outright outlandish claim.

I see people have elevational data/ zero changes from shooting prone vs off barricades or tripods. Loading the bipod vs reverse loading or neutral load. Forward loading on a barricade stop vs shooting neutral off a bag. Even elevational changes from shooting 5 targets in relative low to no inclination angle and then transitioning to a target high up on a slope without adjusting their bipods higher and trying to sink their bag and buttstock super low and craning with their neck, effectively not having their eyeball centered in the ocular lens and having elevational shifts.

But there is no changing your body or position from holding center vs holding over 1 or 3 or 5 mrads. If you are, you're doing it wrong.

Nothing is absolute. But if I’m holding, I’m no longer straight back. There is an angle that is now introduced

 

[timintx]

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.

First rule of thumb on forums, dont believe anyone , second rule validate them yourself. So try it already !!! Get all the statistics you need to succeed yourself. It sounds as if you just want everybody to do the work for you , every gun is different. I have 7 years of statistics just on one tuner with over 5000 rds that is too much data to put on here so not gonna happen. They work and they help so get out and try it . I gave you the tools , then you say I am ignorant. That's not helping much.

Tim in Tx

 

[Leadrain22]

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.

I will add that this is done on tall biulding to minimize swaying and in some case to dampen the effect of earthquake. Extremely heavy weight are hung at certain location (mostly at the top) in the biulding.

 

[_Windrider_]

@TacticalDillhole you're trying to tell me a person is going to manage recoil differently when holding 2.3mrad at 500yds than dialing 2.3mrad at 500yds? Across all positions?

I hate to outright refute things I hear the first time I hear them because you can always learn something, but that sounds like propaganda. I hold 70% of the time. I'll hold on 1100yd targets and then dial 1100yd targets. I'll zero my rifle at 300yds by dialing .9 mrad in on a 100yd zero and then hold an entire match. Not once have I seen a consistent elevational POI/ Data change from holding to dialing. That is an outright outlandish claim.

I see people have elevational data/ zero changes from shooting prone vs off barricades or tripods. Loading the bipod vs reverse loading or neutral load. Forward loading on a barricade stop vs shooting neutral off a bag. Even elevational changes from shooting 5 targets in relative low to no inclination angle and then transitioning to a target high up on a slope without adjusting their bipods higher and trying to sink their bag and buttstock super low and craning with their neck, effectively not having their eyeball centered in the ocular lens and having elevational shifts.

But there is no changing your body or position from holding center vs holding over 1 or 3 or 5 mrads. If you are, you're doing it wrong.

It won’t change your dope. That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is the muzzle rise is more because of the angles. It should fall back down you know follow through and all.

 

[timintx]

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.

Be glad to all you got to do is show up and bring your trigger finger.

 

[Leadrain22]

Nothing is absolute. But if I’m holding, I’m no longer straight back. There is an angle that is now introduced

Whether you dial it or hold for it, the angle is the same.

 

[timintx]

I don't think you understand the description. After the bullet left the barrel that point on the barrel where the dial indicator was placed moved. A lot. The video didn't show that the dial indicator didn't move. It showed that the bullet left the barrel before any part of the barrel moved at all.

And Im wondering how you know which video I'm referring to

I have met the person I understand what you are saying but the whole point is the barrel does move before the bullets exits. otherwise guns would not go out of tune. it moves rearward .150 or so before the bullet leaves and during that movement bends he says it does not and claims that is the absolute proof when I have proof showing otherwise.

 

[Leadrain22]

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.

Well I hope this video finally convinces you that tuners work. You say you trust Murdica, well here you have it. It's ironic that he's speaking with the creator of the EC tuner Erik Cortina. Can't make this shit up.

Now can we move on to something else like how we each use and tune with our tuner?

 

[_Windrider_]

Whether you dial it or hold for it, the angle is the same.

Whether you dial it or hold for it, the angle is the same.

I’ll backtrack my statement a little. As I said it’s not absolute. If I dial for 300 then say hold for 1000 without fixing my body position there are angles. I’m not saying this is causing like 50 cal worth of muzzle rise, I’m just saying it’s a game of angles. The more you introduce the worse it is.

 

[Leadrain22]

I’ll backtrack my statement a little. As I said it’s not absolute. If I dial for 300 then say hold for 1000 without fixing my body position there are angles. I’m not saying this is causing like 50 cal worth of muzzle rise, I’m just saying it’s a game of angles. The more you introduce the worse it is.

You're going to either drop the butt of the stock or raise the barrel. You're going to do this whether you're holding or dialing creating the same angle. In relation to the ground.
Now if your argument is that you need to reposition everytime you change distance, to maintain proper body, shoulder position now that's a discussion.
If your shooting from the same location, and position the angle is the same whether you hold or dial.

 

[_Windrider_]

You're going to either drop the butt of the stock or raise the barrel. You're going to do this whether you're holding or dialing creating the same angle. In relation to the ground.
Now if your argument is that you need to reposition everytime you change distance, to maintain proper body, shoulder position now that's a discussion.
If your shooting from the same location, and position the angle is the same whether you hold or dial.

That’s kind of what I was getting at if you read the original post where I said it

 

[_Windrider_]

Now you're conflating adjusting one's natural point of aim when transitioning targets with holding.

Read the post again. It all ties together. Yes I’m not being very detailed. But I said body position specifically. Less than optimal shooting position. You are taking one piece out of the whole as if they aren’t all related. I’m typing fast on a phone. I’ll just stop. I think you get the point though of what I was trying to get across. Bottom line,in my meaningless opinion, tuners don’t do shit for recoil. Thats not their job.

 

[Leadrain22]

That’s kind of what I was getting at if you read the original post where I said it

Ok, however in my experience for whats worth.
Reposition (not talking about aiming) is based on what position you're in to start with and the amount of change in distance between the targets.
If you're standing leaning on a barracade, if you can simply bend your knees to get required results. There's not much you have to change in how you're holding the rifle.

Now with PRS going the way of F-Class and bench rest with rifles in the 20 plus pounds. There's more shooters free firing, in certain positions the only body part touching the rifle is the trigger finger.

 

[_Windrider_]

So you admit there is absolutely zero difference between dialing and holding in recoil mitigation and angle of inclination?

When all other factors are taken out not getting in the weeds with all the what ifs and barricades blah blah blah for the sake of this discussion, yes. I wasn’t specific and clear so that’s on me.

And I’m admitting nothing, I was wrong in the sense of my post. Nothing to admit and happy to agree I was incorrect.

 

[_Windrider_]

Ok, however in my experience for whats worth.
Reposition (not talking about aiming) is based on what position you're in to start with and the amount of change in distance between the targets.
If you're standing leaning on a barracade, if you can simply bend your knees to get required results. There's not much you have to change in how you're holding the rifle.

Now with PRS going the way of F-Class and bench rest with rifles in the 20 plus pounds. There's more shooters free firing, in certain positions the only body part touching the rifle is the trigger finger.

Im not even considering free recoil.

 

[_Windrider_]

Okay.....

Don't let your borrowed hate for Todd Hodnett and the Tremor reticle get you to tellin lies

Guilty

 

[Snuby642]

Free recoilers is that like the flat earth society?

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Well, after all this…….my question is still here.

That was a page of debate over shooter induced error. And everyone seems to be more or less on same page. That we as a shooter induced a lot of error. Or at least a lot of inconsistent error.

So, if we have that much error, how does one exploit a tuner that has smaller benefit that said error?

This isn’t a gotcha or an argument for or against the tuner. It’s a serious question.

As a practical shooter who may shoulder the rifle differently in different positions, up to and including free recoil variations……how can one benefit?

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Tuners help control the "whip" not eliminate it. We are effectively changing the whip and where the bullet exits in that oscillation to the most prudent point.

Muzzle rise during recoil isnt caused by recoil directly. recoil goes straight back. muzzle rise and its severity is caused by multiple factors
- Poor fundamentals
- improper bipod loading
- less than optimal shooting position.
- the shooter themselves. effectively the shooter is acting like a backstop, the recoil force isnt done when it hits the shooters shoulder and since we are effectivly bouncing it back forward, it doesnt go back perfectly straight, hence the muzzle rise because its deflected at an angle. Put a gun on a recoil sled with a 40 foot track, the gun goes straight back after firing and stops when the recoil force is overcome by the mass. the muzzle doesnt rise. When we hold instead of dial, this can actually be compounded do to changing the position of our body in the hold.

Yes, but now you are saying we as humans must manage recoil perfectly *and* the same way every time.

Not happening. There’s almost always going to be muzzle rise due to shooter error. We can do our best to minimize it. But you won’t eliminate it……at least to the point that the shooter induced muzzle rise is less than the harmonic rise.

Also, you only change the angle when holding wind if you don’t establish a proper natural point of aim to your wind hold.

If doing it “right” you will establish a natural point of aim to the wind hold just like you would with a non hold.



Regardless, my question still exists. If we can’t eliminate all the shooter induced muzzle rise on most every shot……how do you exploit a tuner?

 

[Barelstroker]

Well I hope this video finally convinces you that tuners work. You say you trust Murdica, well here you have it. It's ironic that he's speaking with the creator of the EC tuner Erik Cortina. Can't make this shit up.

Now can we move on to something else like how we each use and tune with our tuner?

I'll believe the way Lou would tune he would get it set properly but, you sure won't with 2 shots per setting &, that's been my point the entire time.
I'll get around to testing myself & I'll show a lot of things about what happens when you don't use an adequate sample number.
So whether tuners work or they don't, you won't discern anything from 2 or 3 shots per setting.

 

[Barelstroker]

I have seen the footage and the micrometer doesn't move but he has it on a node of the barrel, all nodes are usually 2.5-3.25 inches from the end of the barrel , that is the point in which there is no lateral movement but has the highest angular movements , They were only able to measure the lateral movement the the indicator . I have 20 years in making barrels bend aiming bullets differently. Theirs may not bend due to the parameters of the gun . How about this? I will do the same test but off of the node but with three 1/10,000th indicators and lets see what happens. I bet the results will be different.

Tim in Tx

Don't you mean 1000/10,000 th indicator.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Be glad to all you got to do is show up and bring your trigger finger.

Either myself or my partner and I would love to schedule something in the spring or so.

Always up for seeing how someone else does things.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I'm a lot of things your buddy isn't one of them. The fact you shoot a rifle and your groups are random, look like shotgun patterns and take thousands of shots to show you can't shoot isn't interesting fodder. Shotgun pellet groups are random, rifle groups are not. A 1/2 MOA rifle is just that. If you shoot 2 shots and they are 1.5 inches a part then you know the desired results are not acceptable. The fact moderators allow you here is amazing. Since you apparently can't read, the title of the thread is EC Tuner. NOT "do tuners work". "What's your opinion on tuners". "How many shots does it take to get to the center of a tuner roll". You should go start a thread like that so all of the intellectuals chime n there.

So, here is a basic example of what “random” means in this context.

Most rifle/shooter combos are *not* .2 or .3 “all day.” Once you take long term results, and get rid of abnormal “flyers” (something obviously screwed up like a bag moving or something), most really good shooters and rifles are around .6moa.

Obviously there are exceptions. The best in the world and very stable rests, etc etc.

So, let’s say you do enough testing to know a rifle/shooter is a .6 gun.

Then you take 3 shots on a tuner setting. Change the setting and take 3 more shots.

If those two groups are *anywhere* inside of .6, the data is questionable at the very best.

Is it the tuner? Possibly

Is it just a good or average group that fell inside of the .6? Possibly.

This is what people mean by “random” as small sample sizes don’t have the confidence needed in which to distinguish “random” from tuned.

Just like 3 coin flips don’t show anything confident when they land on heads three times.



Here is an illustration which shows “random dispersion. The control group was say 30 rounds.

The two tuner setting groups can be found inside that control group.

The last pic is what you would need to verify the tuner setting actually worked.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

only addition id be curious of is once the tuner setting is found...repeat the 30 shot process a couple times apart, in variable weather/time of day if possible

couple years ago a guy (not a bad shooter at all, far better than most) had for sure found his load one day...sent me pics with 3 - 10 shot groups, he said he shot round robin...he was comparing the best 3 jumps or something from a jump test or some window he liked...in the pics, there was a clear winner...the 2 outside groups were 5/8-3/4", but the middle group iirc was completed covered with a dime or penny...it was clearly way smaller. I said cool, next time you go to the range, shoot that same "good" load 2-3 more times for a 10 shot group...after 2 more trips, he quit shooting the groups because he had 2- 10 shot groups that were 5/8-3/4", just like the others...idk how or what made that 1 single group in the middle of the round robin so good that one day, but it didnt hold up in short order

when the tuners were originally explained to me by a maker of them, the method was...

-do all regular load work w/ tuner on but not adjusted...it was stressed, they were not a replacement for load work up and prep clearly
-after load is found, adjust tuner to find HOW it affects groups...some settings should reduce/increase vertical spread...others should relate to horizontal
- if/when you change days/locations/weather conditions etc...and you see your groups/spread deviating, adjust the tuner to the setting that corrected what you saw...say you shoot and are seeing vertical, turn to the setting that made groups flat, etc

this angle seemed plausible for a paper shooter, which he was, but for myself...when im shooting day to day, its at steel and on the clock so it would be hard for me to differentiate anything and adjust, didnt really interest me

recently, once a lot of people i know who believed their 10 shot load tests gave them their best load ever found out about tuners, they quickly became the magic trick to 1 hole groups with any ammo...interesting

This is typically my findings as well.

The benefit for shooting steel/practical stuff is limited.

And with small sample sizes, the equivalent to spinning a wheel and hoping you land on the best tuner setting. Some will randomly land on a good setting and will misinterpret this for small sample sizes being valid.

Others won’t land on it and will insist they don’t work.

When the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[nealm66]

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink

 

[Leadrain22]

So whether tuners work or they don't, you won't discern anything from 2 or 3 shots per setting.

Yup if you haven't done the proper prep work (load development and got you rig properly setup) and you can't shoot worth a darn.

The better the shooter you are and more confident you are on your equipment and the more knowledgeable you are on the process. The easier and quicker you'll be able to tune with a tuner.
If you're groups look like a shotgun pattern because you can't shoot consistent groups, you're going to have a more difficult time, unless the improvements with the tuner is significant enough to be seen despite your inability to shoot groups.

 

[Barelstroker]

This is typically my findings as well.

The benefit for shooting steel/practical stuff is limited.

And with small sample sizes, the equivalent to spinning a wheel and hoping you land on the best tuner setting. Some will randomly land on a good setting and will misinterpret this for small sample sizes being valid.

Others won’t land on it and will insist they don’t work.

When the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle.

You could explain a dozen different ways & you won't get through. They have no idea what you're talking about because they've never done statistical analysis. They don't know what any of it means.
This isn't the 1st thread where this subject has come up & it's the same story.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

Well I hope this video finally convinces you that tuners work. You say you trust Murdica, well here you have it. It's ironic that he's speaking with the creator of the EC tuner Erik Cortina. Can't make this shit up.

Now can we move on to something else like how we each use and tune with our tuner?

$100 says hardly anyone watched the video since you shared it. Its easier to continue arguing instead.

Plus you know everyone who supports the product must absolutely be a paid shill.

/s

 

[badassgunworks]

$100 says hardly anyone watched the video since you shared it. Its easier to continue arguing instead.

Plus you know everyone who supports the product must absolutely be a paid shill.

/s

$100 says hardly anyone watched the video since you shared it. Its easier to continue arguing instead.

Plus you know everyone who supports the product must absolutely be a paid shill.

/s

I watched the full video I had already seen it long before this post came out. That is how I knew that Lou uses tuners. Plus he's a bench rest shooter and has been for many many years as we all know that tuners are very prominent in benchrest

 

[timintx]

You could explain a dozen different ways & you won't get through. They have no idea what you're talking about because they've never done statistical analysis. They don't know what any of it means.
This isn't the 1st thread where this subject has come up & it's the same story.

You know the same can be said for you about tuners . Nobody is going to test a tuner just holding and shooting the gun.
you have said everybody does not know what your talking about
You have said everybody is ignorant including me then you say it is a great way to test so which is it ?
You have said two shots wont do anything
You have continually disrupted this thread throughout
You make sure you talk down to people.
you have never tried anything we are discussing while making nothing but excuses and the rant continues with no data offered.
You said you were going to leave and did not.
Why are you still here?


I know statistics matter but you have said it so much it is as interesting as watching plants grow',
Everybody knows statistics matter but you dont get statistics until the gun is set up first which is what we are discussing , for that reason two shots will tell the exact state of tune , not a group , with same point of aim on all shots you are relating point of impact to velocity , we are not going to use statistics for relating point of impact to velocity. That is not the way to do it at all ,and that is coming from 20 years of experience not ignorance on the subject . I came on here to help the shooters ,spent time here instead of making money to help everybody learn how tuners work . No person alive has expressed the views I hold and have tested and have perfected so it is natural to be called out if no one else can do what I am doing. But this is going to be settled one way or another because my livelihood is on the line now. So If you want to learn great I am here for you every step but if you are here to attack my views and hard earned research and statistics then we have a problem. I will tell you now I will defend my views and data to the bone only because I know what physically works. I have actually done it , you are the one who has not a clue what we are doing only because you are so blinded by your self righteous points that you can not see or do or understand the most basic test I have outlined for the shooters . You should know what the graphs mean , you should know why we are shooting two different loads , But you do not. I bet the shooters do , So start a statistical thread on your own because you have pretty much burned all of the bridges here or stay and learn I dont care but test it first then call me out on this and I will help you get it figured out.

Tim in Tx

 

[r.tenorio671]

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink

......unless you drown the SOB...

...and the horse in this thread has already given up the ghost and left the body that folks just keep flogging needlessly

 

[Feniks Technologies]

You know the same can be said for you about tuners . Nobody is going to test a tuner just holding and shooting the gun.
you have said everybody does not know what your talking about
You have said everybody is ignorant including me then you say it is a great way to test so which is it ?
You have said two shots wont do anything
You have continually disrupted this thread throughout
You make sure you talk down to people.
you have never tried anything we are discussing while making nothing but excuses and the rant continues with no data offered.
You said you were going to leave and did not.
Why are you still here?


I know statistics matter but you have said it so much it as interesting as watching plants grow',
Everybody knows statistics matter but you dont get statistics until the gun is set up first which is what we are discussing , for that reason two shots will tell the exact state of tune , not a group , with same point of aim on all shots you are relating point of impact to velocity , we are not going to use statistics for relating point of impact to velocity. That is not the way to do it at all ,and that is coming from 20 years of experience not ignorance on the subject . I came on here to help the shooters ,spent time here instead of making money to help everybody learn how tuners work . No person alive has expressed the views I hold and have tested and have perfected so it is natural to be called out if no one else can do what I am doing. But this is going to be settled one way or another because my livelihood is on the line now. So If you want to learn great I am here for you every step but if you are here to attack my views and hard earned research and statistics then we have a problem. I will tell you now I will defend my views and data to the bone only because I know what physically works. I have actually done it , you are the one who has not a clue what we are doing only because you are so blinded by your self righteous points that you can not see or do or understand the most basic test I have outlined for the shooters . You should know what the graphs mean , you should know why we are shooting two different loads , But you do not. I bet the shooters do , So start a statistical thread on your own because you have pretty much burned all of the bridges here or stay and learn I dont care but test it first then call me out on this and I will help you get it figured out.

Tim in Tx

Haven’t read through all the replies yet.

But just so I’m clear, you seem to have a lot of data and I would imagine that puts you in the “different” category. As far as being able to know what your rifle is doing in 2 rounds and such.

I think I’ve clarified, but just to make sure for anyone reading. If you know your equipment extremely well, and are pretty consistent in your shooting….. you don’t necessarily need long shot strings.

As you’ve already put in those long shot strings in the past. So you can glean a lot more information from small sample sizes. There’s always a chance you were in the “random” area. However, it’s much lower chance than usual.


My posts on sample sizes are generally for most shooters. As are most any posts I make. The top 10% of shooters generally will know what they need to know or will be learning it on their own already.

It’s the other 90% we focus on. And attempt to help them not go down a path which ends up giving poor results or confusion.

 

[Leadrain22]

I watched the full video I had already seen it long before this post came out. That is how I knew that Lou uses tuners. Plus he's a bench rest shooter and has been for many many years as we all know that tuners are very prominent in benchrest

If you watched the video you would have not said that he's a BR guy. Insinuating, that's all he does.
By his own admission he shoots all types. With the exception thaf It must not require running for obvious reasons.

 

[badassgunworks]

If you watched the video you would have not said that he's a BR guy. Insinuating, that's all he does.
By his own admission he shoots all types. With the exception thaf It must not require running for obvious reasons.

Yes he shoots other types but he is primarily a BR guy thats what he is known most for. He is also getting ready to start Elr matches soon

 

[Barelstroker]

You know the same can be said for you about tuners . Nobody is going to test a tuner just holding and shooting the gun.
you have said everybody does not know what your talking about
You have said everybody is ignorant including me then you say it is a great way to test so which is it ?
You have said two shots wont do anything
You have continually disrupted this thread throughout
You make sure you talk down to people.
you have never tried anything we are discussing while making nothing but excuses and the rant continues with no data offered.
You said you were going to leave and did not.
Why are you still here?


I know statistics matter but you have said it so much it as interesting as watching plants grow',
Everybody knows statistics matter but you dont get statistics until the gun is set up first which is what we are discussing , for that reason two shots will tell the exact state of tune , not a group , with same point of aim on all shots you are relating point of impact to velocity , we are not going to use statistics for relating point of impact to velocity. That is not the way to do it at all ,and that is coming from 20 years of experience not ignorance on the subject . I came on here to help the shooters ,spent time here instead of making money to help everybody learn how tuners work . No person alive has expressed the views I hold and have tested and have perfected so it is natural to be called out if no one else can do what I am doing. But this is going to be settled one way or another because my livelihood is on the line now. So If you want to learn great I am here for you every step but if you are here to attack my views and hard earned research and statistics then we have a problem. I will tell you now I will defend my views and data to the bone only because I know what physically works. I have actually done it , you are the one who has not a clue what we are doing only because you are so blinded by your self righteous points that you can not see or do or understand the most basic test I have outlined for the shooters . You should know what the graphs mean , you should know why we are shooting two different loads , But you do not. I bet the shooters do , So start a statistical thread on your own because you have pretty much burned all of the bridges here or stay and learn I dont care but test it first then call me out on this and I will help you get it figured out.

Tim in Tx

hard earned research and statistics

If you have stats, wouldn't it be in your interests to publish some of them?
Tuners are no different in their application than any other system which can be measured. If anything is changed within that system, it then requires a reasonable sample number to see if any or, how much the result has changed &, that CANNOT be accomplished with 2 or 3 shots no matter how well you have the rifle & load sorted. The smaller the change to the result, the worse the scenario gets & a lot more samples are needed to distinguish between the normal distribution & the new variation.
When I mention statistics, I'm not suggesting that a full analysis is required. I'm referring to the number of samples required to be meaningful.
Next time you do a tuner test, try shooting the 2 shots, record the rough position & group size then fire another 8 on the same target with that same setting. See how much the 2 shots mean after that.

 

[r.tenorio671]

 

[giumau1]

playing with distance from the lands and using a tuner is exactly the same process involving a human and a ton of other factors. so purely qualitative output. maths, statistics and in general quantitative analysis has no meaning in this scenario

 

[Feniks Technologies]

playing with distance from the lands and using a tuner is exactly the same process involving a human and a ton of other factors. so purely qualitative output. maths, statistics and in general quantitative analysis has no meaning in this scenario

Well, that’s just not true. Lol

 

[Feniks Technologies]

playing with distance from the lands and using a tuner is exactly the same process involving a human and a ton of other factors. so purely qualitative output. maths, statistics and in general quantitative analysis has no meaning in this scenario

Here’s a very simple example how that just doesn’t work.

Take a look at this. The top group is your control or “zero” setting on the tuner. The rest are moving through settings and very typical of what you will see.

I’ll post another pic, in a while that will change the entire scenario. With basic quantitative data.

 

[giumau1]

Well, that’s just not true. Lol

Well I am a rookie and will highly respect both your fact evidence and even your opinions. Moreover I am a firm believer that a tuner will shrink your groups, mine and the one of alL the others willing to use them in the proper way but again it’s a qualitative effect.
Tuner in a 22LR PRS scenario? True Gamechanger
PRS with commercial ammo? Again perfect for the job.
Handloading for PRS? Well, someone might say ‘there’s not a single way of skinning a cat’ or even ‘diminishing returns‘ here. I love it because I can simplify my handloading up to three single stages process
1. pick the powder you have and see if it gives you the speed you want with no pressure
2. seat your bullet for perfect mag feed
3 play with the tuner for a good group

change whatever component ( bullet, powder, brass) and just repeat. this works for me.
Beyond that, you tell me…

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Well I am a rookie and will highly respect both your fact evidence and even your opinions. Moreover I am a firm believer that a tuner will shrink your groups, mine and the one of alL the others willing to use them in the proper way but again it’s a qualitative effect.
Tuner in a 22LR PRS scenario? True Gamechanger
PRS with commercial ammo? Again perfect for the job.
Handloading for PRS? Well, someone might say ‘there’s not a single way of skinning a cat’ or even ‘diminishing returns‘ here. I love it because I can simplify my handloading up to three single stages process
1. pick the powder you have and see if it gives you the speed you want with no pressure
2. seat your bullet for perfect mag feed
3 play with the tuner for a good group

change whatever component ( bullet, powder, brass) and just repeat. this works for me.
Beyond that, you tell me…

Now, take my above picture where you shot a 3 round control group.

Shoot 20 or 30. Your dispersion will now look more like this picture.

Now, tell me how you would choose your tuner setting?

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Well I am a rookie and will highly respect both your fact evidence and even your opinions. Moreover I am a firm believer that a tuner will shrink your groups, mine and the one of alL the others willing to use them in the proper way but again it’s a qualitative effect.
Tuner in a 22LR PRS scenario? True Gamechanger
PRS with commercial ammo? Again perfect for the job.
Handloading for PRS? Well, someone might say ‘there’s not a single way of skinning a cat’ or even ‘diminishing returns‘ here. I love it because I can simplify my handloading up to three single stages process
1. pick the powder you have and see if it gives you the speed you want with no pressure
2. seat your bullet for perfect mag feed
3 play with the tuner for a good group

change whatever component ( bullet, powder, brass) and just repeat. this works for me.
Beyond that, you tell me…

The fact they may or may not shrink groups is an entirely different discussion. And it has a ton of things to consider.


But, for this conversation, we are going to assume they work perfectly fine.


But, if you use a 2 or 3 shot method for choosing your tuner setting……well, now you can see from the two examples I posted, it’s more of a crap shoot.

 

[Barelstroker]

The fact they may or may not shrink groups is an entirely different discussion. And it has a ton of things to consider.


But, for this conversation, we are going to assume they work perfectly fine.


But, if you use a 2 or 3 shot method for choosing your tuner setting……well, now you can see from the two examples I posted, it’s more of a crap shoot.

All they have to do is test with 10 shot groups & see if they can differentiate between sequential settings after first firing 2 shots, making a determination based on those 2 shots then, continue with 8 more shots. It won't take many 10 shot groups to see the problem we're trying to explain.

 

[nealm66]

If I’m seeing a flyer in a 10 shot group I’m looking for something mechanical or reloading. Not barrel harmonics. Has it occurred to you 2 that you may not helping those less experience with your knowledge