I'll probably do some more testing on it but with a proper front rest, this was off a bipod. Also these rounds were made with brand new Hornady brass with only a mandrel run down the necks. I waiting for my AMP to come in then I'll do another ladder to make sure it's still good for this barrel now that it's got 900 rounds through it. Still for PRS work any of these groups are sub-moa and should be fine.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
EC tuner brake
- Thread starter eric1911
- Start date
- Status
I imagine it will only get better with a real front rest or bag. I shot all of mine off a bipod too, I really enjoy the atlas and dont want to go back to a front bag. Its too much fun in its current setup.
EC tuner brake update 300 PRC:
So I settled on a load in a velocity load with low es/sd numbers. I went a shot today and used the tuner. The first was the load at 0 on the brake. About 3/4” CTC. Turned the tuner to “1” (which is two marks) then to 2 and so on. You can see as I turned the 2 shot groups consistently shrunk. For those guys that are “well you have to have 3 or 5 shot groups”. Read the directions.
#5 needs explained. I was waiting on the barrel to cool a bit before I shot. I read a work email… bad choice. I know when I shot those 2 circled they were bad pulls as my brain was still thinking about the email. Seeing the tightening consistency of the prior shots. I re-shot that setting.
Then number 6 is 2 shots 1 hole.I decided to stop there. I am convinced this thing tunes! And felt like the brake would really well for recoil reduction.
Side note I didn’t worry about zeroing before shooting.
So I settled on a load in a velocity load with low es/sd numbers. I went a shot today and used the tuner. The first was the load at 0 on the brake. About 3/4” CTC. Turned the tuner to “1” (which is two marks) then to 2 and so on. You can see as I turned the 2 shot groups consistently shrunk. For those guys that are “well you have to have 3 or 5 shot groups”. Read the directions.
#5 needs explained. I was waiting on the barrel to cool a bit before I shot. I read a work email… bad choice. I know when I shot those 2 circled they were bad pulls as my brain was still thinking about the email. Seeing the tightening consistency of the prior shots. I re-shot that setting.
Then number 6 is 2 shots 1 hole.I decided to stop there. I am convinced this thing tunes! And felt like the brake would really well for recoil reduction.
Side note I didn’t worry about zeroing before shooting.
He does say in the video "you can use 2 shots if you're really good". based on your group 6, I'd say you fit that criteria..
I have 3 ec tuners and i can say with 100% confidence they work really well
It's like horse people, get three of 'em together and two will be telling the third that they're doing it wrong.
Another method that makes sense to me is to do a ladder test to find OCW with the tuner set at 10, then get seating depth handled and finally fine tune with the tuner.
Pretty much. But I was hoping EC would chime in on this.It's like horse people, get three of 'em together and two will be telling the third that they're doing it wrong.
Another method that makes sense to me is to do a ladder test to find OCW with the tuner set at 10, then get seating depth handled and finally fine tune with the tuner.
Factory ammo starting at zero I get. Established load I get.
One premise I got was conserving your time and round count on your barrel .
email him and ask. he answered me within an hour of my email, asking about the range of the tuner's settings (1-20) and if there's any benefit going past that.
glad to hear. Please share your findings once you do the test.
I haven't seen anyone really test any kind of tuner yet.
Everything I've seen so far has been 2 maybe 3 shots & it's called good.
I'd like to see some 10 shot groups tested.
Everything I've seen so far has been 2 maybe 3 shots & it's called good.
I'd like to see some 10 shot groups tested.
10 shot groups, with 20 settings on a tuner, moving in increments of 2, would be 100 rounds of ammo. I dont think you're going to find many people looking to voluntarily spend $250-$300 on that test (assuming factory match ammo costs). Its fair and valid to say that a 10 shot group is a more accurate sample size, but if you are at the point where you shoot consistent enough with your gear, you shouldnt need 10 shots at each setting to see the change per interval. 2-3 (as per the instruction) should be good enough to determine your nodes.
I don't think anyone needs to go to that extent.
A 10 shot verification of the chosen setting should be enough to settle it.
If I shoot 5 shots into one hole after tuning I don’t think I need to shoot another 5.
That same logic has already been applied to 2 & 3 shot groups.
A 10 shot group is a substantially more reliable statistical indicator than a 3 shot group.
I'm not suggesting that tuners don't work but, I haven't seen any data that convinces me that they do either. That isn't to say that someone hasn't done some statistically significant testing, just that I haven't seen it yet.
It is possible to use 3 shot groups comparing back to back samples of a "bad" setting & a "good" setting but, there would have to be 3 groups of each. If the bad setting stays bad & the good setting stays good, you have some reasonably reliable indicators.
So then the next guy say “10 isn’t enough. Has to be at least 20”. Just random numbers. Guys say don’t shoot 3 shot groups. Shoot 5 shot. Now they do that with a tuner and it’s not enough. Lol
Don’t think they work then don’t get one. I know they work and use one with my factory ammo. Personal choices. Not my job to convince you.
The way that tuner settings are found in statistical terms is via a "Null Hypothesis" because there are no valid results to compare to. In order to prove or disprove a Null Hypothesis, the result must be verified against a particular result(s).
So you want a controll group or two. A signed affidavit from the rso and serial numbers from the ammo.
Probably every shot should go over a chrono and time stamped slow motion video of impact.
I have some ammo loaded up but a doctors appointment and brisket to smoke tomorrow but will get right on it asap.
Probably every shot should go over a chrono and time stamped slow motion video of impact.
I have some ammo loaded up but a doctors appointment and brisket to smoke tomorrow but will get right on it asap.
Yes I get the same type of thing .
I have a barrel that I will use in my test that shoots ok with the brake adapter and sometimes better with the can depending on load.
I have a 6.5 grendel that hates anything more than a birdcage on it. That's another story.
Since I have a few hundred of my plinking load ready for my ar that will be used.
A group with and one without can for a reference point and remove the adapter.
Shoot the two shot drill and pick best for the group with the tuner.
Range getting buisy due to hunting season and you know the drill with that going on. So my shooting may be slightly distracted, hard to concentrate with some of the ass hattery that ensues each fall.
Making sure the rso is still breathing and dodging swinging barrels ect. And this is a semi private range. Lol
I have a barrel that I will use in my test that shoots ok with the brake adapter and sometimes better with the can depending on load.
I have a 6.5 grendel that hates anything more than a birdcage on it. That's another story.
Since I have a few hundred of my plinking load ready for my ar that will be used.
A group with and one without can for a reference point and remove the adapter.
Shoot the two shot drill and pick best for the group with the tuner.
Range getting buisy due to hunting season and you know the drill with that going on. So my shooting may be slightly distracted, hard to concentrate with some of the ass hattery that ensues each fall.
Making sure the rso is still breathing and dodging swinging barrels ect. And this is a semi private range. Lol
Thank you reubenski for your considered reply.
You're testing shows some careful honest analysis &, that's what I'm asking for.
From most of what I've seen on this thread & others, most seem to think that a comparison of 3 shot groups is sufficient & it isn't. As I've said previously, I am not saying tuners don't work. I am asking for some statistically valid data which is as simple as a 10 shot verification of a chosen setting, at least. An even more substantial verification would be a another 10 shot group of what a bad setting is perceived to be.
For anyone interested in giving this thread some much needed credibility, 20 shots as stated above would go along way toward including some statistically convincing results.
I'd be happy to do it myself but I don't got a tuner.
A tuner is not for every application. If you have a perfectly worked up load it’s not going to make it better or will only slightly if that. But if shooting factory ammo or needing to get a generic load to work better the tuner will help. Again I am not here to prove anything to you. Don’t want one then don’t buy one but if you are a super scientist then buy one and do all your analysis and fact finding yourself.
No problems.
I suspect that they probably do work but, I find it a little suspicious that a certain guy(s) who, are not in this thread, haven't used some 10 shot verification of the tuner in order to arrest the doubts.
Since I don't own this particular tuner, I can't test it but, it would be a simple & relatively inexpensive undertaking to confirm either way. As you stated, any results will be more noticeable with a factory rifle with a non target type barrel &, that would be equally as relevant & easier to see results.
My suspicion is that it will probably transpire that the anecdotal accounts do have merit however, there's nothing like a robust scientific approach to quell the naysayers & set the doubts & arguments aside, either way.
The robust scientific approach would also focus on removing any factors that would skew results so the approach you are suggesting is not entirely true or “scientific”.
a human shooter being involved means there is always going to be a margin of error that is not easily quantifiable.
you want to remove anecdotal results?
Remove the human shooter, put it in a vice, a lead sled, or any other stricter controls. Isolate as much of the external factors as possible. Conduct a lab test.
Unless someone plans on conducting a true scientific test, then insisting that a 10 shot group accomplishes what you’re looking for in terms of a controlled test is simply not true.
regarding 2-3 shot groups not being accurate, the man who puts his name on the product determined that criteria, and based on the investment he made into equipment just to make these things, I doubt he would risk his reputation and brand on promoting half-truths or snake oil.
E C has a lot of credibility behind him. I waited a long time till I could get the black nitride tuner brake since it may be used for hunting.
A delay in shooting test and today babysitting a 16 lb brisket in the smoker.
I have yet to "boil off" the rockset on my can adapter. Guess I will use the fire box on the smoker to heat the water. Lol
A delay in shooting test and today babysitting a 16 lb brisket in the smoker.
I have yet to "boil off" the rockset on my can adapter. Guess I will use the fire box on the smoker to heat the water. Lol
It's not that complex an issue.
A 2 or 3 shot shot group is so poor an indicator that almost any number of shots more than that is significant.
Since the general consensus of statisticians that 10 samples of anything is far superior to 2 or 3, I think it reasonable to keep it as simple as 2 x 5 or 1 x 10.
Anyhow, you don't have to do any testing if you don't want to. If you're content to believe what someone tells you that's none of my business.
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and get off the wannabe fence.
Your opinion of a product you have not tested is compleate shit buddy. Your thoughts of how testing should be done are worthless to the process.
You want results to your satisfaction buy one and test it on your platform because it will differ between barrels.
Put up or shut up.
Your opinion of a product you have not tested is compleate shit buddy. Your thoughts of how testing should be done are worthless to the process.
You want results to your satisfaction buy one and test it on your platform because it will differ between barrels.
Put up or shut up.
Last edited:
But I don't have an opinion either way buddy. That's the whole idea of statistically validating the claims.
If someone were to claim that the EC tuner didn't work, I'd respond with the very same questions.
Performing some tests is simple, straight forward, unbiased & non prejudicial.
What's the problem buddy?
I got to reply I was skeptical But the before and after results with my rifles prove to me they are awesome look good as well,I will post some 25 5 shot groups after tuning so you nay sayers might change your opinions I now have 3 rifles with them mounted on and really happy.I want to put them on all my rifles in time,I will try to post pictures in a couple days when I get it figured out.
I think he's making a fair and valid comment.
For someone who may want to get into tuners, there isn't much data available to sway those on the fence to get a tuner. It's mostly anecdotal comments with the odd 2-3 round groups. I understand that individuals don't want to waste precious ammo and barrel life to prove to the world that tuners work. Especially if they find that it works for them, then it works for them and who cares what others think. I personally think that if tuners are as effective as some suggest, it would behoove some tuner manufacturers to spend a little time and money gathering the data to make such a compelling statement to potential consumers - they have everything to gain if the claims are correct.
I've personally tested a tuner on my rifle with reloads, and a tuner certainly didn't make my reloads shoot any better. I've never tested factory ammo, so I'll trust others when they say it works for their rifles. Personally, I think the benefits of a tuner are a bit hyped up, and people seem dismissive of the potential downsides of a tuner - there's no free lunch.
Anyways, I personally don't care either way, no dog in the fight. I'm happy that some are finding utility in tuners - I think that's great. I do think it would behoove tuner manufacturers to perform testing to provide more data to potential consumers. It would be fairly easy and inexpensive for a manufacturer to do. Seeing 2-3 round groups and people telling anecdotal tales is not very compelling, at least not to people like me.
You do realize every barrel will show different reaults.
Same as hanging any different muzzle device on it. You can only get results one barrel at a time and can't judge it for untested barrels.
For a fact if I was intentionally trying to make it look bad I would hang it on my grendel. That barrel hates anything more than a birdcage on it reguardless of load used.
If I did that at least half you pissy people would argue the test was done wrong because the one constant around here is people are here to argue not much else.
Same as hanging any different muzzle device on it. You can only get results one barrel at a time and can't judge it for untested barrels.
For a fact if I was intentionally trying to make it look bad I would hang it on my grendel. That barrel hates anything more than a birdcage on it reguardless of load used.
If I did that at least half you pissy people would argue the test was done wrong because the one constant around here is people are here to argue not much else.
It seems as though vaunted reputations don't mean as much to me as they do to most guys. Since the only other choice is graduated testing on the strength of three shot groups, I'll continue to argue, if you think that's what I'm doing, even though I'm not.
Tests can easily be done with multiple barrels.
For an individual the requirements for testing are expensive and rigorous, I wouldn't expect any individual to take that on. But I'm surprised that manufacturers of tuners are still relying on 2-3 round groups and anecdotal tales to sell their products.
But there are so many “antidotal” tales of them working that had to say something. If they didn’t work no one would use them or speak highly about them. I don’t use the EC but use the Kinetic Security Solution ATS tuner and have tested it with multiple lots of factory ammo and got them to tune. One lot I got a literal one hole 5 shot group but not 10 rounds so doesn’t count. So boils down to if you want to try one then try it. Don’t expect someone else to do your leg work and waste their time, money, ammo and barrel life to prove to anyone they work. Tuners have been used for many years and they work. The newer ones just make it a little easier.
Some idiots still claim the earth if flat and no amount of testing will convenience them otherwise. So dont bother. Let the dumbs be dumb.
If you are speaking to me, I've already done the "leg work". I have a tuner. Didn't do anything special for me and my reloads. And for the record, I don't expect any individual to take on this testing. It's too onerous in time, money and resources.
I don't think anyone here is saying that "tuners don't work", but there is a lot of opportunity for tuner manufacturers to make a compelling argument for potential consumers sitting on the fence. Yes, tuners have been used for many years. Decades. But not for the application that PRS shooters and the like are adopting them for.
Anyways, I'm out. I have no dog in this fight. I just think there is a huge opportunity here for tuner manufacturers. If they can provide more data to back up the anecdotal tales, then they have the potential to sell a lot more tuners. It really wouldn't be that difficult for a manufacturer to do, and they would have a lot to gain from it.
No it was a general comment. And yes they are new to the PRS style shooting and are one of the better new tools especially for factory ammo users.
I also have no dog in this. Use it, don’t use it. I don’t care but the fact is they do work. Say the you need to see more testing is akin to saying they don’t and it has to be proven to you. Some people will never be happy with any results so again use it or don’t. I don’t care.
I also have no dog in this. Use it, don’t use it. I don’t care but the fact is they do work. Say the you need to see more testing is akin to saying they don’t and it has to be proven to you. Some people will never be happy with any results so again use it or don’t. I don’t care.
Well the Earth's pretty darn flat right where I am & you won't convenience me otherwise.
If an idiot is not blindly following a "pro shooter" or being convenienced by 3 shot groups, I don't mind staying dumb either.
One pro shooter on YouTube just recently went from espousing CLR for carbon cleaning to, "always using Iosso"
But it’s not just one person or “pro shooter”. It’s many and not just 3 shot groups. Best you don’t try one I think at this point. I am sure the maker can do tons of tests and you would say it’s just advertising. Lol
That's true, there's always a segment that will never be happy.
However, this is a huge opportunity for manufacturers to tell a compelling story with actual data. We as consumers love data. We love knowing which scopes track and which scopes don't track as well. We love knowing how much suppressors actually suppress. And on and on.
Gathering quantitative and qualitative data is only going to help them sell more tuners. Especially for those that want to improve groups with factory ammo. And that data will sell the story to much broader audience, then those just following PRS shooters on social media. If they work as well as some suggest, then showing actual data would make waves in a much broader segment of the market then jersey shooter wannabes.
There's a plethora of shooters using factory ammo that don't follow jersey shooters on social media, that would eat this product up if it made their rifles and ammo shoot better.
Yup manufacturers should do tests as there would be a lot more shooters seeing the positive results and with an open mind try them. I was on the fence and just tried one and after I saw the results I bought another.
I've seen vids where the results were far from conclusive & in my opinion were more negative than positive but, the testing was done with 2 & 3 shot groups so I wasn't convinced against them on either occasion. I apply the same rules to both outcomes. I don't seek for the answer I want to see.
You're not really making a compelling argument here.
Chemicals change over time, hoppes #9 doesnt even include the original 9 ingredients anymore.
Cleaning is quite arguably the most debated subject in history. You can gather 10 individuals (all pro shooters or even barrel makers) and not get consistent answers on what chemicals to use, what produces best results, how often you should clean, etc.
https://www.accurateshooter.com/technical-articles/barrel-cleaning-debate/ maybe give this a read even?
- Status
Similar threads
Accessories
EC Tuner Brake 6.5 3/4-24
