EC tuner brake

[AleksanderSuave]

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.

In Erik's case..he doesnt need to produce any more data to sell them. Im not sure if you've seen the demand for this product, but it stays sold out, lead times are long, and it sells out every time he makes another batch of them.

Many of us would LOVE more data, absolutely, but there's a certain point where the cost to conduct more testing doesnt benefit him in any way. He's already got more than enough demand for the product. Whats he stand to gain?

 

[AleksanderSuave]

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?

On the contrary, you cant "not have an opinion", yet keep coming back and insisting that more testing is necessary to prove to you that it works.

Your opinion is obviously that they dont work, unless proven otherwise. Let it rest on that and stop arguing. If its not for you, then dont buy one.

 

[Snuby642]

Ya put up or shut up.

You have no opinion, that is useful is what is clear.

 

[Barelstroker]

On the contrary, you cant "not have an opinion", yet keep coming back and insisting that more testing is necessary to prove to you that it works.

Your opinion is obviously that they dont work, unless proven otherwise. Let it rest on that and stop arguing. If its not for you, then dont buy one.

My focus has always been that the testing methods I have seen are not robust. When I determine if a product works or not it is from my own testing or testing of others that has some validity. It's not about hero worship.
I'm sure that point has been made abundantly clear in my previous posts so, I can only conclude that your true problem is that I dare to question your hero. I presume you find it awkward & embarrassing when others don't join you in bowing to his god-like status.
To clarify my position, I'd rather that some robust testing supports all the claims. It would be great if these things worked because it's a relatively easy fix to what can be an otherwise lengthy process.
If you're happy to buy products on the strength of recommendation only, that's your prerogative, but don't expect others to validate your decisions.

 

[Barelstroker]

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?

Don't worry about it.
I think there are others that will read my post & know what I'm getting at.

 

[Bandit320]

Buy a brake and test it with your robust testing methods, then brief us on the results. Or don’t. We’ve heard plenty from you about the lack of adequate testing. Consider it your scientific contribution to the advancement of the shooting sports. In layman’s terms; shit or get off the pot.

 

[Barelstroker]

Buy a brake and test it with your robust testing methods, then brief us on the results. Or don’t. We’ve heard plenty from you about the lack of adequate testing. Consider it your scientific contribution to the advancement of the shooting sports. In layman’s terms; shit or hit of the pot.

Here's another hero worshiper all ass hurt that others don't blindly follow the leader.

 

[Bandit320]

I’m not ass hurt. You can’t find data that meets your requirements. Everyone reading this thread knows your opinion on the subject since you go on and on and on about it. Either do the testing that you think is required or quit bitching about it like a old woman. Unless your not capable of doing the testing you want; then quit bitching about it.

 

[Snuby642]

You are an incredible ass barrel sucker.
Put up your own test or shut the fuck up.

Were was that turd flushing button? Oh here it is.

 

[Barelstroker]

I’m not ass hurt. You can’t find data that meets your requirements. Everyone reading this thread knows your opinion on the subject since you go on and on and on about it. Either do the testing that you think is required or quit bitching about it like a old woman. Unless your not capable of doing the testing you want; then quit bitching about it.

No, you're not ass hurt..........perish the thought.

 

[Barelstroker]

You are an incredible ass barrel sucker.
Put up your own test or shut the fuck up.

Where was that turd flushing button? Oh here it is.

"Ass barrel sucker" that's a new one.

"Put up your own test or shut the fuck up"
Would that I could but it would do nothing to change your mind. You've already swallowed his load.

 

[Bandit320]

Just what I thought, you’re a troll.

 

[Barelstroker]

Just what I thought, you’re a troll.

Obviously you can't tell the difference from a troll & someone who's fed up with Muppets like you.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

.
I'd be happy to do it myself but I don't got a tuner.

So buy one and prove us all wrong. return the product if it doesn’t work as promised. Document your scientific testing and show us all how it’s done.

Or get a life and stop acting like a child that wasn’t breast fed enough.

Your opinion on this isn’t changing anyone’s mind on the subject of barrel tuners.

 

[37L1]

 

[Barelstroker]

So buy one and prove us all wrong. return the product if it doesn’t work as promised. Document your scientific testing and show us all how it’s done.

Or get a life and stop acting like a child that wasn’t breast fed enough.

Your opinion on this isn’t changing anyone’s mind on the subject of barrel tuners.

Well I'm not surprised. You made up your mind it worked before you new it worked. After that, it's a simple matter of applying the usual dose of positive affirmation & presto, it works.
Not a bad way to be really. At least you're rarely disappointed.

 

[Rob01]

So buy one and prove us all wrong. return the product if it doesn’t work as promised. Document your scientific testing and show us all how it’s done.

Or get a life and stop acting like a child that wasn’t breast fed enough.

Your opinion on this isn’t changing anyone’s mind on the subject of barrel tuners.

Not worth it. He acts like none of us did any research before purchasing and only did so for some hero worship which is BS. He’s just trolling at this point as this keeps going over and over. We all who have them know they work and he doesn’t have one and thinks they don’t but wants all of us to prove it to him. I don’t care if he believes it or not or buys one or doesn’t. Lol

 

[Barelstroker]

Not worth it. He acts like none of us did any research before purchasing and only did so for some hero worship which is BS. He’s just trolling at this point as this keeps going over and over. We all who have them know they work and he doesn’t have one and thinks they don’t but wants all of us to prove it to him. I don’t care if he believes it or not or buys one or doesn’t. Lol

Haha, you make me laugh.
So I "ACT" like none of you did any research.
Not one of you sorry four flushers has produced anything that convinces that you did. Be honest, the full extent of the "research" was watching a couple YouTube vids & believing everything you heard from "the guru".
C'mon, be honest.

 

[Barelstroker]

Not worth it. He acts like none of us did any research before purchasing and only did so for some hero worship which is BS. He’s just trolling at this point as this keeps going over and over. We all who have them know they work and he doesn’t have one and thinks they don’t but wants all of us to prove it to him. I don’t care if he believes it or not or buys one or doesn’t. Lol

Anyhow, one thing I'm not is a troll.
I make some valid comments & it always seems to get to this ridiculous rubbish.

 

[Rob01]

Haha, you make me laugh.
So I "ACT" like none of you did any research.
Not one of you sorry four flushers has produced anything that convinces that you did. Be honest, the full extent of the "research" was watching a couple YouTube vids & believing everything you heard from "the guru".
C'mon, be honest.

Lol you see what you want to see. Never watched a you tube video and don’t even have a EC tuner. As I said I have a ATS. I talked to multiple people who used them and the guy who designed them and the guy who makes them and without having to be spoon fed all my info I bought one and tested it myself. I found they work and bought another. But you keep complaining about others not doing for you. Lol

 

[Rob01]

Anyhow, one thing I'm not is a troll.
I make some valid comments & it always seems to get to this ridiculous rubbish.

And no you might not be a troll but just indecisive and wanting others to do your work.

 

[Barelstroker]

Lol you see what you want to see. Never watched a you tube video and don’t even have a EC tuner. As I said I have a ATS. I talked to multiple people who used them and the guy who designed them and the guy who makes them and without having to be spoon fed all my info I bought one and tested it myself. I found they work and bought another. But you keep complaining about others not doing for you. Lol

So you twist the narrative around to me complaining about others not doing the testing for me?
This is the ridiculous rubbish I was referring to.
My 1st post was about the lack of robust testing being referred to & used to infer that tuners work as advertised. The fact that one 3 shot group is statistically inadequate isn't my determination. It is the determination of all statistical analytical hypothesis. It's not my opinion, it is mathematical, statistical fact.
This has been my focus & remains as such.
I don't care if you don't want to do any statistically valid testing but, the testing that has been shown shouldn't be accepted as statistically valid either.
You're welcome to trust in 3 shot groups, opinion & verbal recommendation but, I'd rather not.
Anyhow, it don't matter. I'll get to truth eventually, just not in this thread.

 

[Rob01]

Man you are hung up on this 3 shot group thing. Missed the part that I did my own testing with more than 3 shots? Or conveniently do so? lol always missing the part that people have done their own testing and happy with results but not good enough for old Al Einstein here. Lol

This cracks me up. Lol

 

[Bandit320]

Anyhow, one thing I'm not is a troll.
I make some valid comments & it always seems to get to this ridiculous rubbish.

Let’s see, you make comments and it ALWAYS turns to RUBISH. I see the problem. It’s because you’re a troll.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

Well I'm not surprised. You made up your mind it worked before you new it worked. After that, it's a simple matter of applying the usual dose of positive affirmation & presto, it works.
Not a bad way to be really. At least you're rarely disappointed.

Only thing I've genuinely made up my mind about at this point is that you're an idiot, with envy of another man's brand, following, and ability, and obviously dont have $250 to your name, to buy the part and try it yourself.

 

[Barelstroker]

Let’s see, you make comments and it ALWAYS turns to RUBISH. I see the problem. It’s because you’re a troll.

You still ass hurt?
Can't understand why, I didn't slap his cock out your mouth.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

Anyhow, one thing I'm not is a troll.
I make some valid comments & it always seems to get to this ridiculous rubbish.

Use your scientific method, and figure out the common element then chief.

 

[Barelstroker]

Only thing I've genuinely made up my mind about at this point is that you're an idiot, with envy of another man's brand, following, and ability, and obviously dont have $250 to your name, to buy the part and try it yourself.

You've been happy in complete ignorance till I caused you to doubt yourself so, please, forget all about what I said & return to your contented ignorance. Vanessa just doesn't suit you.

 

[Barelstroker]

Use your scientific method, and figure out the common element then chief.

I've got a fair idea what the common element is.
It has a lot to do with ignorance. The less one actually knows, the more confident they are with what they think they know. Everything seems to be ok until they realize that they may not know as much as they thought they knew. At this point, they usually take any & all comments directed at them as a personal attack.
Their next strategy is to garner support from like minded participants in an attempt to denigrate their perceived attacker.
The common root cause is usually a lower than median IQ or dysfunctional upbringing or both.
In your particular case, it appears to be both.

 

[Ledzep]

Rob01, I've missed it in the "excitement" if you posted it, but could you expound on what you've done that's larger than 3-shot groups? I'm curious to see because up to this point most all I've seen is 3-shot stuff.

Upbringing and IQ aside, I'm also optimistically skeptical of these, and intend to test them out this winter, but don't have the time for it right now.

FWIW, and you can call me a troll or whatever you want, but the true (meaningful) evaluation of dispersion begins at 18-20 rounds with POI/POA correlation. By that I mean that is the minimum sample size necessary to make definitive claims of changes in the ~.1 MOA scale or larger and have some confidence in the test results. Much less than that and you start getting to the point that repetition of the "same" test does not yield the same results within a margin of error that exceeds the resolution you're looking at/for. YMMV, do what makes you happy, etc....

 

[Snuby642]

FFS

Thier breeding.

 

[Ledzep]

FFS

Thier breeding.

They're. A conjunction of "They" and "are".

Their denotes possession of a plural entity.

I don't have any personal beef with you, and we don't need to change that.

 

[Snuby642]

Thanks for the grammar lesson.

It's just sarcasm. Not personal.

I intend to do a fairly long test on EC's tuner brake as soon as I can get my can adapter off my barrel.

Damn thing is stuck but my son put it on and said no rocksett was used. Boiling failed.
Maybe grandpa is running out of ass?

 

[nealm66]

I have an ats tuner and a tmb tuner. I feel if someone thinks tuners don’t work that maybe they’re rifle is already tuned as good as they’re shooting skills allow which may give them the idea the tuner isn’t improving anything. I’d guess it’s probably harder to see the difference on a high end setup than a mediocre.

 

[spife7980]

Anyhow, one thing I'm not is a troll.
I make some valid comments & it always seems to get to this ridiculous rubbish.

Youre a troll. Its only to yourself that the comments seem valid.

 

[Barelstroker]

Youre a troll. Its only to yourself that the comments seem valid.

Ahh, here he is, one of the "IF IT WORKS FOR YOU BRIGADE"
When you turn up throwing piss ant little comments it's a sure sign that unscientific personal wisdom is being challenged.
You remind me of a dung beetle, the more bullshit there is, the harder you roll.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

I've got a fair idea what the common element is.
It has a lot to do with ignorance. The less one actually knows, the more confident they are with what they think they know. Everything seems to be ok until they realize that they may not know as much as they thought they knew. At this point, they usually take any & all comments directed at them as a personal attack.
Their next strategy is to garner support from like minded participants in an attempt to denigrate their perceived attacker.
The common root cause is usually a lower than median IQ or dysfunctional upbringing or both.
In your particular case, it appears to be both.

Yawn. Lets compare IQs and upbringing. Next, bank account size, follow by push up contest. Pose off too? Do you prefer to lube or do the lubing?

 

[Rob01]

Rob01, I've missed it in the "excitement" if you posted it, but could you expound on what you've done that's larger than 3-shot groups? I'm curious to see because up to this point most all I've seen is 3-shot stuff.

I have done multiple 5 shot groups with ammo that I knew what it was capable of before the tuner and saw what it was doing afterwards. Also not just 100 yards but shot on steel at 930 yards also. Used the tuner to tune in multiple lots of factory ammo. Some took more adjustments than others. Tuners do work.

 

[Barelstroker]

Yawn. Lets compare IQs and upbringing. Next, bank account size, follow by push up contest. Pose off too? Do you prefer to lube or do the lubing?

Not much to compare in your case, they're both rock bottom.

 

[Barelstroker]

I have done multiple 5 shot groups with ammo that I knew what it was capable of before the tuner and saw what it was doing afterwards. Also not just 100 yards but shot on steel at 930 yards also. Used the tuner to tune in multiple lots of factory ammo. Some took more adjustments than others. Tuners do work.

Hey, they may well work & my guess is that they do. You don't have to set up with scientific gear to get good meaningful results. Just a reasonable number of 5 shot groups with some good comparisons go a long way. What you've explained above tells me that you've probably fired enough shots & groups to see patterns & be able to compare if something is consistent or inconsistent. Basically, you've confirmed results with a series of 5 shot groups &, in my opinion, that's perfectly valid.
My beef is mainly with the way people have been told they can tune. I believe one 3 shot group can indicate a very poor load. I use that myself. The problem comes when there is only one 3 shot group per adjustment when tuning. In effect, there is only ever one 3 shot sample which is erroneously believed shows valid results. Unless the group is an outlier, the chances/probability that the group has verified what you see is something in the order of 10%. In other words, a 1/2" group is the same as a 1/4" group using only 3 shots because the probability that the 1/4" group will grow is 90%.
Another way to look at it is to put a % value on each shot. 1 shot is 100%. 2 shots are 50% each. 3 shots 33% each. 10 shots 10% each. 20 shots 5% each. From this scenario, we can see that ES & in particular SD are very heavily governed by the % weight each shot carries. This is why it is absolutely necessary for anyone interested in the truth of how the rifle will more than likely perform in the future, to shoot at least 2 x 5 shot groups on THE setting they have chosen. This is by no means a comprehensive test but, it is orders of magnitude more robust than walking away from the last 3 shot group in the tuner test & calling it good.
I hope this has clarified things.

 

[nealm66]

I use 2 shot groups and only shoot 3 if I think I have something or if I think I might have pulled a shot. It would depend on your confidence as a shooter. If I get 3 that are satisfactory, then I’ll shoot 2 more for a total of 5. I see where another guy says a proof of a good tune can be raised or dropped by 1/10 of a grain and groups will still hold. I haven’t tried this but it sounds like a good thing to test

 

[MarinePMI]

Not much to compare in your case, they're both rock bottom.

You want to tone it down? This isn't the Pit.

 

[Snuby642]

Well gave up trying to remove my adapter using a clamshell upper device to hold it, too much torque involved.

While my gunsmith was eating a brisket sandwich I explained that I needed this back soon so I could do a relevant test for the deplorables.

He occasionally shoots prs events and reminded me I was behind in ammo assembly.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

Not much to compare in your case, they're both rock bottom.

Yet you keep losing this argument..so insulting yourself must be some next level big brain logic.

 

[Ledzep]

Yet you keep losing this argument..so insulting yourself must be some next level big brain logic.

The guy might be snarky and this whole thread smells a little like shit, but there's no arguing with the statistics. I'd like that to be kept clear.

A single 3-shot group evaluation at each adjustment is not a viable test, it's reading white noise.

I've shot and documented thousands of rounds in an indoor range with acoustic targets and hard-wired in chronographs specifically looking for what makes accuracy happen or not. From the shoulder, from fixtures, powder ladders, seating ladders, satterlee tests, annealing, neck turning, graphite, sorting, you name it. Tuners on the list but I haven't made it there just yet.

I can say, though, with confidence-- with no fear of my e-penis getting anywhere close to chopped off-- that 3 rounds in a test produces data so noisy it's uninterpretable without significant follow-on repetition or cross comparison. I'm happy to explain the trends I've seen and WHY this is the case, and as it turns out after some research I'm not the only one that comes to the same conclusion.

In the precision shooting world, there is a lot of... artistic interpretation... of small sample data sets. Some people find outstanding load combinations-- don't get me wrong I'm not saying that nobody produces good shit... But the methods that get people where they end up, and the beliefs of capabilities are often dubious.

Now if you shot and recorded multiple 3 shot groups before and after a tuner without manipulating variables along the way and you see stark changes in performance you may be on to something. It might be hard to quantify without breaking down and plugging many rounds in a dedicated test-- but I think at the end of the day that's what many people want to know. They want to know the quantified difference a tuner can/will make. I have not seen that data produced. That doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference. That doesn't mean the data isn't out there. I just haven't seen it, and I think that's the point that barelstroker is getting at.

 

[rydah]

The guy might be snarky and this whole thread smells a little like shit, but there's no arguing with the statistics. I'd like that to be kept clear.

A single 3-shot group evaluation at each adjustment is not a viable test, it's reading white noise.

I've shot and documented thousands of rounds in an indoor range with acoustic targets and hard-wired in chronographs specifically looking for what makes accuracy happen or not. From the shoulder, from fixtures, powder ladders, seating ladders, satterlee tests, annealing, neck turning, graphite, sorting, you name it. Tuners on the list but I haven't made it there just yet.

I can say, though, with confidence-- with no fear of my e-penis getting anywhere close to chopped off-- that 3 rounds in a test produces data so noisy it's uninterpretable without significant follow-on repetition or cross comparison. I'm happy to explain the trends I've seen and WHY this is the case, and as it turns out after some research I'm not the only one that comes to the same conclusion.

In the precision shooting world, there is a lot of... artistic interpretation... of small sample data sets. Some people find outstanding load combinations-- don't get me wrong I'm not saying that nobody produces good shit... But the methods that get people where they end up, and the beliefs of capabilities are often dubious.

Now if you shot and recorded multiple 3 shot groups before and after a tuner without manipulating variables along the way and you see stark changes in performance you may be on to something. It might be hard to quantify without breaking down and plugging many rounds in a dedicated test-- but I think at the end of the day that's what many people want to know. They want to know the quantified difference a tuner can/will make. I have not seen that data produced. That doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference. That doesn't mean the data isn't out there. I just haven't seen it, and I think that's the point that barelstroker is getting at.

I’m your opinion what would this test look like to finally put this to rest and who would have to do it? I’m assuming if a manufacturer did it people would disregard it as marketing.

 

[kthomas]

The guy might be snarky and this whole thread smells a little like shit, but there's no arguing with the statistics. I'd like that to be kept clear.

A single 3-shot group evaluation at each adjustment is not a viable test, it's reading white noise.

I've shot and documented thousands of rounds in an indoor range with acoustic targets and hard-wired in chronographs specifically looking for what makes accuracy happen or not. From the shoulder, from fixtures, powder ladders, seating ladders, satterlee tests, annealing, neck turning, graphite, sorting, you name it. Tuners on the list but I haven't made it there just yet.

I can say, though, with confidence-- with no fear of my e-penis getting anywhere close to chopped off-- that 3 rounds in a test produces data so noisy it's uninterpretable without significant follow-on repetition or cross comparison. I'm happy to explain the trends I've seen and WHY this is the case, and as it turns out after some research I'm not the only one that comes to the same conclusion.

In the precision shooting world, there is a lot of... artistic interpretation... of small sample data sets. Some people find outstanding load combinations-- don't get me wrong I'm not saying that nobody produces good shit... But the methods that get people where they end up, and the beliefs of capabilities are often dubious.

Now if you shot and recorded multiple 3 shot groups before and after a tuner without manipulating variables along the way and you see stark changes in performance you may be on to something. It might be hard to quantify without breaking down and plugging many rounds in a dedicated test-- but I think at the end of the day that's what many people want to know. They want to know the quantified difference a tuner can/will make. I have not seen that data produced. That doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference. That doesn't mean the data isn't out there. I just haven't seen it, and I think that's the point that barelstroker is getting at.

My short lived stint with RDF's agree exactly with your sentiment

I shot some amazing 3 shot groups with those projectiles, and doing only 3 shot tests with bullet seating depth for those really had me wasting a lot of time and money on projectiles that weren't worth a shit.

 

[DellaDog]

A single 3-shot group evaluation at each adjustment is not a viable test, it's reading white noise.

Unless that 3 shot group is absolute crap. I’d think you can be certain it’s not an ideal setting. (Or seating depth if you‘re looking for it.) No?

 

[Barelstroker]

Yet you keep losing this argument..so insulting yourself must be some next level big brain logic.

I’m your opinion what would this test look like to finally put this to rest and who would have to do it? I’m assuming if a manufacturer did it people would disregard it as marketing.

As I've stated previously, it is as simple as loading another 10 rounds & shooting 2 x 5 shot groups at the tuner setting you believe showed the best results with the 3 shot group. Simple, straight fwd 10 shot verification.
If you really wanted know the truth about the final chosen setting, you'd do a 10 shot verification, not for me or anybody else, you'd do it for you & your results. If you don't verify, you're not doing yourself any favours.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

As I've stated previously, it is as simple as loading another 10 rounds & shooting 2 x 5 shot groups at the tuner setting you believe showed the best results with the 3 shot group. Simple, straight fwd 10 shot verification.
If you really wanted know the truth about the final chosen setting, you'd do a 10 shot verification, not for me or anybody else, you'd do it for you & your results. If you don't verify, you're not doing yourself any favours.

So then buy one and shut us all up with your sound data.

Do you need a gofundme?