Start putting rounds down range and keep good notes. You’ll see the patterns. A cheap and easy way is 22lr. 5,000 rounds for $1000-1500 and you’ve got a lot of knowledge on those boxes if you pay attention
EC tuner brake
- Thread starter eric1911
- Start date
- Status
I agree, he probably shouldn’t waste his time arguing with people who reject the concept of “book learning.”And you’re still arguing about something using only book learning and a fixation on statistics instead of actually shooting and learning just an itsy-bitsy little bit about what the hell you’re talking about.
So, there’s that…
I'm not arguing, I'm trying to get you to see that you haven't thought about this subject at all.And you’re still arguing about something using only book learning and a fixation on statistics instead of actually shooting and learning just an itsy-bitsy little bit about what the hell you’re talking about.
So, there’s that…
If by "fixation" you mean that I comprehend that statistics is the "ONLY" method of objective evaluation as opposed to your subjective predisposition & inevitable baseless assumptions then, I must be fixated.
So there's that.......
Last edited:
Absurd exaggeration & rhetoric are the hallmarks of defiance in the face of defeat.
I gotta know!
Why do you care?
Is it your ego that makes you engage in these threads and argue? If someone screws a tuner on and shrinks groups you pop up and “ah bull shit”! Was you there? if the fucking groups shrink for the guy you should be happy for them. Why the fuck do you want to argue with them about it? Everyone here has heard your response and they don’t care. They are still buying tuners. You act like fuckin orkan and think you’re preaching gospel but no one is listening.
Where’s the exaggeration or rhetoric? Are you unable to find good match ammo? Or shoot it? Or just unable to draw a conclusion?
So is my information wrong or, do you take offense at me saying that you're wrong?
Is it really so outrageous & selfish of myself & others on this thread to expect correct & reliable answers to pertinent questions?
The alternative that you are suggesting by the definition of your complaint is basically that anyone can make any claim they like with no basis in reality so long as that person has others who agree with his claims.
If that situation were to flourish, this site would be essentially useless to those wanting to find facts about shooting & firearms. Is that what you want?
Well egostroker, everyone offers up proof but you. That’s your problem. You’re trying to make people believe your rebuttal is the gospel by only offering a hypothesis. You don’t show anything but your ass.
You so conceited, you can’t even just quietly go away.
You can’t stand it can you?
Well, you would be wrong. How could we not have thought about it if we’ve bothered reading this thread? In believe you have posted exactly the same argument already in this thread alone roughly 100 times.
Contrary to your simplified exaggeration of us as ignorant people who have no knowledge about not care about statistics, I spent a good part of my career showing people who inaccurately use statistics how to apply them while building auto parts. Many of them also didn’t understand the application of the pure theories they learned in college.
What we all know by now, is that you and a couple of your most avid fans would rather think of anyone not following your credo as simple folk who don’t know nuttin’.
On the other hand, I’ve been trying to get you to see that actual application of shooting principles and repetition of practice does build a body of knowledge. However, you continue to choose to completely ignore that, so there’s no helping you.
If you would climb down from your ivory tower for a bit and do as Geno suggested (a very practical suggestion I would add), you might actually learn something and then would not have to find another 100 ways to say the same thing that you keep saying until people stop posting out of sheer frustration with your inability to see anything unless it parrots exactly what you said.
I didn’t post on here for a month or two for that reason and shame on me for being stupid enough to do so again. You’d think I’d would learn that some people don’t actually shoot. They just argue on Gun forums.
On the same note, if all you're interested in is subjective information then you're better off looking at advertising or listening to the manufacturers. You'll get all the subjective analysis you can take.
If you want objective information, you'll need to take an entirely different approach.
Actual objective information for me would contain hard proof. You’re the weatherman telling me the sun is shining while I’m standing in the rain.
None of which is supplied by the tuner advocates hence the ridiculous arguments.
Again, why do you care?
Most guys are happy with the results, even some award winning shooters.
The most ridiculous argument is you telling guys what they’re seeing isn’t what they’re seeing.
Oh don't be obtuse Lash, you know as well as I do that 2 samples per setting signifies virtually nothing from a statistical stand point.
So why do you care that myself & others disagree with the testing methodology used to support your claims?
Is it because you believe our arguments have no basis in reality?
Could it be that you recognise that there are weaknesses in your arguments & you are embarrassed because of your previous boastings?
Maybe there's some considerable discomfort due to personal or other affiliation with particular manufacturers?
Why do you care so much that I disagree?
So just got through installing new scope, checking square of flat top, handgaurd and EC tuner along with a 20 moa rail riser.
Dang dogs bumping my plumb bob !
Ended up being a decent looking package.
ol
Dang dogs bumping my plumb bob !
Ended up being a decent looking package.
Well was going to show my little tack driver but put it up.
Shots fired down the street a block and a half away. Sounded like 7 9mm rounds, people running in street and a car hauling ass away.
Popo looking for casings. Don't come around my corner much, a bad element living there keeps running towards them instead of away.
I wish they would quit screwing around I need to exchange my defense rounds in a couple of mags.
Popo found the casings where we said they would be.
Shots fired down the street a block and a half away. Sounded like 7 9mm rounds, people running in street and a car hauling ass away.
Popo looking for casings. Don't come around my corner much, a bad element living there keeps running towards them instead of away.
I wish they would quit screwing around I need to exchange my defense rounds in a couple of mags.
Popo found the casings where we said they would be.
I caught them one day trying to hang up tennis shoes on my corner in the telephone lines.
Got my shotgun in broad daylight out and shot the shoes down right in front of them and told them it was my fucking corner.
Guess it's finaly worn off and time to ventilate something again.
Tactical shotgun back in livingroom again. Got to love the city life.
Got my shotgun in broad daylight out and shot the shoes down right in front of them and told them it was my fucking corner.
Guess it's finaly worn off and time to ventilate something again.
Tactical shotgun back in livingroom again. Got to love the city life.
The funny thing about tuners is i when litz made his brain dead comment with out having any prior experance . He basicly told people that are much better shooters then he is that they are fools.. and people swallow the koolaid . Statistics will prove what ever you want them to. I dont need Statistics to prove that tuners work. can and will the average guy use one properly? devlops loads properly? adjust it propely? . Get one designed properly for his rifle. Barrel weight and conture caliber and barrel length? To blindly believe that litz is correct is a ignorant. to believe that the average guy can design and build a tuner pulled out of his ass to be optomized for every rifle is ignorant. And to argue with some one week after week who demands statistics is ignorant.
Last edited:
This is true, but then how often is this really a necessary requirement to perform well? At the simplest level, we ask children to perform math functions like addition, subtraction, division and multiplication. We tell them that zero exists and that adding or subtracting it doesn’t do anything and that multiplying by zero equals zero?
They must take this on faith, the same as when they move to algebra and are given formulas that they must believe without having the proof that these formulas work. Proof of these basic math functions can only be done much later in advanced applied calculus in many cases.
Similarly, a race car driver does not necessarily need to be a mechanic in any way nor a pilot know exactly why his jet does what it does on a deep mechanical way. Yet each can perform his job functions flawlessly.
There are those that are driven to understand the most minute details of why and how and we need those people. However, not everyone needs to be that person in order to know what works when they are proficient at their tasks/hobbies/functions/jobs.
Do your tuner testing exactly the way I say they must be done to be worth anything. Then when you have, I will tell you there are many thousands of rifles with tuners and countless millions without. That your one test is insignificant and statistically irrelevant.
Tuners work, or they don't. That's a 50/50 chance.
Besides, 75% off all statistics are made up anyway.
Tuners work, or they don't. That's a 50/50 chance.
Besides, 75% off all statistics are made up anyway.
What’s hilarious is that you don’t see how this cartoon supports barrelstroker’s side of the argument and undermines yours.
No, he may not have been wrong but, he certainly didn't show a passion for his chosen profession.
He absolutely had no idea how the system worked. That’s the point.
No matter which side of a debate someone is on “so and so uses/does it and they are at the top” is in and of itself not a valid point.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/thoughtCo_pin_img_default-58a21e1638e9b32984d5b865.png)
Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Authority: A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is...
I will also note that this logical fallacy is the favored "argument" of the bootlicking left. If you love being ruled and told what to do this is your life's-blood.
What’s actually hilarious is that you’re wrapped so tight that you don’t see that I am trolling you the same way that you statistidiots are this thread. You really have no idea and thanks for your contribution to a thread that went off the rails months ago. You keep being you, you’re special and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Things like this make my backwards brain get curious for useless science. I keep thinking about barrel harmonics and if it works both ways. If you mounted the rifle to some giant immovable fixture by the muzzle only and had the rest of the barrel and action hanging free, what would it do? How much would the back end move up and down and how would it shoot? You wouldn't learn much of any real value, but it doesn't stop me from wondering.
If one of you would be kind enough to buy me a $100K Phantom, I'd do the test myself and put it on my Utoob channel.
If one of you would be kind enough to buy me a $100K Phantom, I'd do the test myself and put it on my Utoob channel.
Doing something because you know it works, not needing to know how it works, isn’t a bad idea. Condemning something that you have no idea how it works, is a dumbass idea though.
- Status
