EC tuner brake

[Barelstroker]

were you not breastfed enough as a child? Sounds like you’ve got some deep seated issues buddy.

Need a hug? Maybe step away from the computer for a while if you take things this personally.

I’m not arguing in favor of any statistics in this thread you inbred, nor am I asking anyone else to prove to me why I should buy this product. I asked why the critics in here can’t agree on a testing method that they all approve of, and you must have had an aneurysm, or choked on your drool in the process?

In the mean time, enjoy the ignore list, maybe you can bitch and whine some more about something else you don’t own too.

Take a deep breath Aleksander. I wasn't attacking you &, I haven't got you on ignore. I have yet to put anyone on ignore on this or any other site that I have ever been on.
I think you should slow down a little when reading posts. The fact that you seem to be upset with me tells me that you have taken that post in entirely the wrong way. Please read it again & calm down dude. Life's too short to be angry all the time.
As I said, it might be a good time for us all to calm down & reset. It's pointless denigrating each other.

 

[kthomas]

The absolute best defense against things like Applied Ballistics is data that meets or exceeds their testing with results showing the contrary.

Not a few three round groups on paper here and there.

So, if people are going to invoke that places such as AB are incorrect, I’d encourage them to post the data here.

Anyone care to post anything other than a few groups on paper?

This is the crux of it all.

People swear up and down that tuners work to shrink groups (and maybe they do), yet there's no compelling data set that supports that postulation.

The "evidence" that gets posted here in support of tuners reminds me a lot of my bullet seating tests with RDF bullets when they were first released. Based off of that limited data (that's very similar to what's posted here with tuners), I thought I had a big time winner in RDF's. Boy was I wrong...

 

[Feniks Technologies]

This is the crux of it all.

People swear up and down that tuners work to shrink groups (and maybe they do), yet there's no compelling data set that supports that postulation.

The "evidence" that gets posted here in support of tuners reminds me a lot of my bullet seating tests with RDF bullets when they were first released. Based off of that limited data (that's very similar to what's posted here with tuners), I thought I had a big time winner in RDF's. Boy was I wrong...

We are compiling data on several things. With shotmarker and such.

Probably be a few months before it’s cataloged and such. As well as needing significant amounts of data.

I’d actually love to be able to provide some really good data showing it works amazing and predictable. As I’ve said, I know Erik and will support his business.

 

[badassgunworks]

We are compiling data on several things. With shotmarker and such.

Probably be a few months before it’s cataloged and such. As well as needing significant amounts of data.

I’d actually love to be able to provide some really good data showing it works amazing and predictable. As I’ve said, I know Erik and will support his business.

Erik is not the only one several of us are working togather to prove the point . Applied Ballistics is doing some test as well but comments should have never have been made prior to the tests being preformed some of us see it as a attack. Truth is my sales have picked up sence his personal openions came out. But there is alway a agenda behind stuff . I personally could care less i have many years testing . 20 plus round shot strings. And can shift shot strings vertically up or down with a tuner at will. Prooving that a tuner does what its designed to do.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Erik is not the only one several of us are working togather to prove the point . Applied Ballistics is doing some test as well but comments should have never have been made prior to the tests being preformed some of us see it as a attack. Truth is my sales have picked up sence his personal openions came out. But there is alway a agenda behind stuff . I personally could care less i have many years testing . 20 plus round shot strings. And can shift shot strings vertically up or down with a tuner at will. Prooving that a tuner does what its designed to do.

Being completely genuine here. Everyone would love to see the testing along with the parameters, controls, etc etc.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

As far as some taking someone giving their opinion as attacks, I’d suggest thicker skin.

If the testing is out there and readily proves they work, then someone giving an opinion shouldn’t matter.

As I said, the best way to counter a place like AB is to post data on par with their quality showing a different outcome. While it may take some time, AB typically posts their testing (sometimes in cliff note form) along with how they went about it.

Also, most of the time places like this use words like “likely” “possibly” etc etc. Rarely will they say that something absolutely does and doesn’t work unless there’s pretty credible data to back it up.

 

[badassgunworks]

Being completely genuine here. Everyone would love to see the testing along with the parameters, controls, etc etc.

I can appreciate that my testing was not recorded and was done many many years ago. And now one guy makes a comment that tuners dont work and now some one has to jump threw hoops to prove they do??? Nothing aginst you buddy but its kind of ridiculous. Dont you think so?? Especially when some of the best shooter in the world in f class and bench rest use them and know they work. I understand thats how this crazy world works. Dishonest people make it hard for others so. So do liers and scammers and people with agendas so now we have to proove somthing .

 

[Seymour Fish]

I will eventually get around to some testing. I don't have the time at the moment.
I think we could all take a breath & reset as this has spiralled into something that none us wanted.
I'll try to explain as best I can why I like to see robust statistical testing conducted. To be clear, I haven't singled out barrel tuners. I look at every device & the claims about those devices from the same perspective.
I don't know how much you know about statistics but, I'll try to put some perspective on why stats are used. If you're unfamiliar with stats, particularly stats involved with rifle accuracy testing, I suggest you look up some info on Google.
With regard to the questions & answers pertaining to this very thread, stats are used to test individual rifles used by armies world wide. For example, the Chinese commissioned a bunch of their own scientists who conducted a huge test which was primarily focussed on working out the minimum number of test samples required to accuracy test all their rifles while maintaining statistically robust data. This is quite important because the Chinese military hierarchy would need to substantiate the massive expenditure in time & ammunition to test millions of rifles. If memory serves, the Chinese scientists came up with 5 x 8 shot groups ( don't quote me) to determine a rifles "cone of fire" while maintaining statistical relevance.
The statistical relevance or robustness of any test is dependent upon the SD of the variation measured.
Grubbs conducted very similar experiments with a total of 10,000 shots fired by army marksmen. The position of each & every shot was plotted using Bivariate coordinates & the centre of the POI of the combined shots calculated.
To cut a long story, Grubbs test was ground breaking in that it provided a sound scientific & statistical basis for the information Grubbs & others have since used to determine the future probability of an outcome.
All I can assure is that statistics, when properly applied, do matter. Statistics are employed in just about every business & Government to help & guide outcomes from manufacturing QC to population demographics to market stock speculation & everything else imaginable.
Statistics isn't just a word used to demoralize & confuse those who disagree with us in their tracks. Stats are a very real, analytical, verifiable, repeatable, mathematical systems with rules & boundaries. It is usually the misapplication & or misuse of stats which are the cause if misunderstanding or outright distrust.
It was the past British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli who has been attributed to the famous quip; "There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics" the philosophical truth of which can be vigorously debated because, it is not statistics in their pure form which lie but, the application & mathematical rigidity adhered to which is the lie.
We see this kind of statistical skulduggery, misapplication & outright lies, in news polls which try to convince the mostly ignorant masses that everyone around them possesses a particular political or other view. How do these polls twist the truth & create the narrative?
I'm glad you asked. The most common method is to use very small sample numbers, focussed in a particular area or demographic. The small sample number helps to ensure that the answers to the poll questions will be held within the requirements of the narrative &, the demographic or area is chosen with the previous knowledge of a certain concentration of view points, in the case of political polling.
Accuracy testing can be undertaken in much the same way whereby, a small sample number, focussed in a particular way, reinforces a pre-existing belief.
For example; Tuner testing 2 or 3 shot group then changing the setting then, another 2 or 3 shot group & etc assumes that a minute change in the centre of mass of the barrel WILL reveal a measurable change. So, right from the outset, the results will be skewed with the assumption driving the result, rather than allowing the raw data to be interpreted as it stands. So, it's not only the sample number which is a problem but also, the way in which a test is conducted which, can & usually will impact the results or, the interpretation of those results.
In conclusion, statistical testing must have a logical, repeatable focus in concert with a resolution of the variance which can be measured & plotted & an appropriate sample number calculated to achieve a stable standard deviation (SD) with which to use as the basis of the required statistical calculations.
If you want to extrapolate into the future by shooting a sample of groups then, rigid statistical analysis is THE only way we have of reaching a reliable outcome. Everything else is just noise, twisted to appear realistic.

Sounds like you might be familiar with “The Science of Coertion” by Stephens, or the concepts within. This is a good sign

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I can appreciate that my testing was not recorded and was done many many years ago. And now one guy makes a comment that tuners dont work and now some one has to jump threw hoops to prove they do??? Nothing aginst you buddy but its kind of ridiculous. Dont you think so?? Especially when some of the best shooter in the world in f class and bench rest use them and know they work. I understand thats how this crazy world works. Dishonest people make it hard for others so. So do liers and scammers and people with agendas so now we have to proove somthing .

No, I don’t think any type of recorded testing is ridiculous. Nor do I think asking for it when it’s cited is ridiculous.

Also, citing the best shooters doesn’t hold up. As 50 years ago the best shooters were doing things they don’t do now and in another 50 years they will be doing something different from now.

Some of the top NFL players don’t change their socks on a winning streak. Using the above logic we would assume that if we don’t change our socks we will perform better.

I live by the same rules. If I make a claim, especially an absolute one, I expect people to ask for the data to back it up. That’s called accountability.

 

[Barelstroker]

Sounds like you might be familiar with “The Science of Coertion” by Stephens, or the concepts within. This is a good sign

This will probably make no sense to you but, I look & listen to what's being said & pay no attention to who's saying it.
Don't give a rats ass if it EC or some other famous character. It either is or isn't a proven, statistically tested fact.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

To be clear, the best shooters might very well be using something that works exactly as stated.

But they very well may not be. Some of the best shooters subscribe to muzzle velocity flat spots.

So, it’s a pointless argument as it can be used from both sides of an opinion equally.

 

[badassgunworks]

No, I don’t think any type of recorded testing is ridiculous. Nor do I think asking for it when it’s cited is ridiculous.

Also, citing the best shooters doesn’t hold up. As 50 years ago the best shooters were doing things they don’t do now and in another 50 years they will be doing something different from now.

Some of the top NFL players don’t change their socks on a winning streak. Using the above logic we would assume that if we don’t change our socks we will perform better.

I live by the same rules. If I make a claim, especially an absolute one, I expect people to ask for the data to back it up. That’s called accountability.

Superstition is very different. I undetstand what your stating. The shooters of today have a much greater understand of reloading. Super advanced equipment. And technology's available and they still choose to use tuners . I guess i will if others cant . Proove that tuners work and what they do. But will wait till Ab is done . And for good reasons.

 

[Leadrain22]

If you're using a tuner successfully, you are under no obligation to prove anything to anyone here.
The only people who may have a need to prove anything are the folks selling them. However If they are catering to people who have used tuners in the past, they may not feel the need to prove anything to people that are the fence.
I'm welling to bet, that a lot of tuner buyers didn't buy a tuner based on reviews or threads on a firearm forum. I feel a good portion were bought, because of a friend, buddy or a shooting partner that has one.
It would certainly help if these manufactures provided some proof of concept data, however there will be those that will claim it's corrupt and won't believe it either

 

[Feniks Technologies]

If you're using a tuner successfully, you are under no obligation to prove anything to anyone here.
The only people who may have a need to prove anything are the folks selling them. However If they are catering to people who have used tuners in the past, they may not feel the need to prove anything to people that are the fence.
I'm welling to bet that a lot of tuner buyers didn't buy a tuner based on reviews or threads on a firearm forum. I feel a good portion were bought, because of a friend, buddy or a shooting partner that has one.
It would certainly help if these manufactures provided some proof on concept data, however there will those that will claim it's corrupt and won't believe it either

Completely agree.

 

[kthomas]

If you're using a tuner successfully, you are under no obligation to prove anything to anyone here.
The only people who may have a need to prove anything are the folks selling them. However If they are catering to people who have used tuners in the past, they may not feel the need to prove anything to people that are the fence.
I'm welling to bet that a lot of tuner buyers didn't buy a tuner based on reviews or threads on a firearm forum. I feel a good portion were bought, because of a friend, buddy or a shooting partner that has one.
It would certainly help if these manufactures provided some proof on concept data, however there will those that will claim it's corrupt and won't believe it either

That's absolutely true.

On the same token, no one is under obligation to believe dubious claims such as tuners reduce group sizes without good data sets that support that supposition.

It would behoove tuner manufacturers to put out compelling data sets that really tell the story, if they do in fact obviously reduce group sizes as some suggest.

We all know they are used in benchrest and f-class disciplines. However, they are using them for different purposes and marginal gains (in disciplines where marginal gains matter). However, in those communities there's no consensus that tuners are necessary, nor is there even a consensus on how to actually use tuners. That in itself is telling.

A lot of people also bought into the hype of reloading using the Satterlee method (present company included).

 

[Barelstroker]

If you're using a tuner successfully, you are under no obligation to prove anything to anyone here.
The only people who may have a need to prove anything are the folks selling them. However If they are catering to people who have used tuners in the past, they may not feel the need to prove anything to people that are the fence.
I'm welling to bet, that a lot of tuner buyers didn't buy a tuner based on reviews or threads on a firearm forum. I feel a good portion were bought, because of a friend, buddy or a shooting partner that has one.
It would certainly help if these manufactures provided some proof of concept data, however there will be those that will claim it's corrupt and won't believe it either

If you're using a tuner successfully

But that sentence right there is the issue we are talking about.
How do you define "successfully"?
Two or 3 shot groups per setting does not prove anything about tuners.
So if that's the basis for "successful" then there's a problem.

 

[Leadrain22]

That's absolutely true.

On the same token, no one is under obligation to believe dubious claims such as tuners reduce group sizes without good data sets that support that supposition.

It would behoove tuner manufacturers to put out compelling data sets that really tell the story, if they do in fact obviously reduce group sizes as some suggest.

We all know they are used in benchrest and f-class disciplines. However, they are using them for different purposes and marginal gains (in disciplines where marginal gains matter). However, in those communities there's no consensus that tuners are necessary, nor is there even a consensus on how to actually use tuners. That in itself is telling.

A lot of people also bought into the hype of reloading using the Satterlee method (present company included).

A marginal gain is a gain and might be you clipping the edge of that plate at distance or missing it altogether. Then blaming it on a gust of wind.
LOL

 

[Seymour Fish]

A Paradigm Shift, comprised of clearly recognizable stages, is great fun to watch. The last stage is naysayers claiming it was their idea all along. Watch for it.

 

[Leadrain22]

But that sentence right there is the issue we are talking about.
How do you define "successfully"?
Two or 3 shot groups per setting does not prove anything about tuners.
So if that's the basis for "successful" then there's a problem.

Successful means whatever it means to the user.
Some won't think its worth it, if it doesn't improve or tightens their group, by let's say 50%. (Example) While others are excited with any improvement, regardless of how marginal it maybe.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

A Paradigm Shift, comprised of clearly recognizable stages, is great fun to watch. The last stage is naysayers claiming it was their idea all along. Watch for it.

The really interesting part is that someone could read all this and interpret it as naysaying.

Unless it’s further back than the last 5+ pages, no one has even remotely claimed they don’t work.

 

[Barelstroker]

Successful means whatever it means to the user.
Some won't think its worth it, if it doesn't improve or tightens their group, by let's say 50%. (Example) While others are excited with any improvement, regardless of how marginal it maybe.

I agree with you fundamentally however, without serious testing, the gains people think they are getting are just that, they think they are gains. You see, I'm not disagreeing with you & I'm not trying to be an ass about this but, without statistically relevant testing, any perceived gains are just that.......perceived.

 

[badassgunworks]

So this is the test i will do. Let me know if it will be worthy.... first i will take a factory rifle threaded for a muzzle brake shoot 3 different brands of ammo all the same grain weight bullets . Shoot 8 shot groups at 100 yards. Then tune for each brand and shoot 8 shots after tuning. Then take a custom rifle with a brake devlope loads and shoot a 8 shot group at 100 yards producing one hole groups then remove the brake install a tuner brake tune it to shoot one whole considering it wont have the same impact poi due to the extra weight. Then tune it out then tune it back in. To one hole groups at 100 yards. All while shooting 8 shot groups. Then will move to 500 yards shoot 2. 8 shot groups. With out adjusting from the last tight group at 100 yards. Then will tune the already tuned rifle to shoot tighter groups. At 500 yards proving that a great shooting rifle can be made to shoot even better. After tuning the alread tuned rifle at 500 yards. Then i will prove can change vertical point impact by moving the tuner. To adjust for enviromental changes.... Any thoughts???

 

[Feniks Technologies]

So this is the test i will do. Let me know if it will be worthy.... first i will take a factory rifle threaded for a muzzle brake shoot 3 different brands of ammo all the same grain weight bullets . Shoot 8 shot groups at 100 yards. Then tune for each brand and shoot 8 shots after tuning. Then take a custom rifle with a brake devlope loads and shoot a 8 shot group at 100 yards producing one hole groups then remove the brake install a tuner brake tune it to shoot one whole considering it wont have the same impact poi due to the extra weight. Then tune it out then tune it back in. To one hole groups at 100 yards. All while shooting 8 shot groups. Then will move to 500 yards shoot 2. 8 shot groups. With out adjusting from the last tight group at 100 yards. Then will tune the already tuned rifle to shoot tighter groups. At 500 yards proving that a great shooting rifle can be made to shoot even better. After tuning the alread tuned rifle at 500 yards. Then i will prove can change vertical point impact by moving the tuner. To adjust for enviromental changes.... Any thoughts???

If using a test to “prove” then you’ll need a few things first.

The rifle and ammo being tested will first need to be run through enough rounds to show the general POI as well as the total group dispersion.

I.E. rifle A’s POI is at X point. And rifle A is capable of .6 moa (you’ll need a hammer of a rifle + some pretty stable rests to have dispersion at an honest .3 or something small like that).

Then you can move into the tuner. Which will he two part testing.

- POI
- dispersion

You’ll need to then proceed with shooting enough rounds to show long term repeatable results.

And then you’ll need those results to not fall inside the test rifle’s already shown parameters.


I.E. if testing show that your group dispersion is .6moa, then you’ll need a statistically confident number of shots that fall are significantly smaller.

So, if you took a load and shot 30 rounds for a total group dispersion of .6moa

You’d now need 30 rounds shot with the tuner that shows say a .3moa group dispersion.

As something like 3 shots, 5 shots, 10shots could easily group smaller due to plain statistical variance.

Then you would need to do the same test on different days in different environment. To show the tuner either will do the same to the load regardless, or that the tuner needs to be re-tuned in different conditions.



The exact same would need to be done at distance.

30 rounds or so at say 500yds to establish the POI for the test rifle.

Then 30 rounds with the tuner. Note the change in POI.

Then rinse and repeat on different days.




And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Testing a few 8 round groups won’t get it done. We’d still be back to the same spot we are already in.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

At this point, I think a good starting test would be at say 300yds.

Far enough away to get and easier to see dispersion and not far enough to be completely ruined via the environment.

Minimum a front rest similar to SEB neo and a large rear bag. Something extremely stable.

Load ammo as consistent as possible. Shoot 30 rounds.

Now do whatever tuner test you like to decide on the setting.

30 more rounds @ 300yds.



Ideally either a shooter who shoots very well and has no interest either way if the tuner works or not. Or a rest with remote trigger. This will alleviate any subconscious bias. Which could easily lead to a shooter concentrating harder on the shots that suit their opinion.


Then look at POI and Dispersion on both 30 round groups.


That would be a good start to begin finding signal in the noise.

 

[Leadrain22]

I agree with you fundamentally however, without serious testing, the gains people think they are getting are just that, they think they are gains. You see, I'm not disagreeing with you & I'm not trying to be an ass about this but, without statistically relevant testing, any perceived gains are just that.......perceived.

I understand, you're a data driven individual. So am I. However sometimes in the absence of clinical/analytical data there's data in another form, such as personal experience. Evidence in a trail is not just physical but witness as well. Although less reliable its still counts.
You don't trust the folks currently running tuners on this forum. So you may only find the proof one way or the other by testing a tuner yourself.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

If the data in the above test looks promising…..take the tuner off or screw it all the way in and out a few times.

Return it to the setting from the chosen tune.

Another 30 rounds.

See how the POI and dispersion compare to the 30 from the original tune.

 

[Barelstroker]

I understand, you're a data driven individual. So am I. However sometimes in the absence of clinical/analytical data there's data in another form, such as personal experience. Evidence in a trail is not just physical but witness as well. Although less reliable its still counts.
You don't trust the folks currently running tuners on this forum. So you may only find the proof one way or the other by testing a tuner yourself.

Well, I've been trying for 2 days to find a solid study of tuners with no results accept for one guy on Indiana gun owners.com https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/my-introduction-to-barrel-tuners-do-they-work.330619/
This guy is the only one I can find so far that has applied any kind of descent sample numbers & testing regime.
His finding didn't seem too promising for the advocates but, I'm not willing to draw a firm conclusion just yet.
As for witness accounts, I'm far more willing to believe accounts from F-class or BR shooters, simply because they record most if not all of their shots on target which is basically testing the entire population & not just a sample. Even with this level of sample rate, the testing must be repeatable & there must be a control & verification of both unimproved & improved group sizes.

 

[Leadrain22]

Well, I've been trying for 2 days to find a solid study of tuners with no results accept for one guy on Indiana gun owners.com https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/my-introduction-to-barrel-tuners-do-they-work.330619/
This guy is the only one I can find so far that has applied any kind of descent sample numbers & testing regime.
His finding didn't seem too promising for the advocates but, I'm not willing to draw a firm conclusion just yet.
As for witness accounts, I'm far more willing to believe accounts from F-class or BR shooters, simply because they record most if not all of their shots on target which is basically testing the entire population & not just a sample. Even with this level of sample rate, the testing must be repeatable & there must be a control & verification of both unimproved & improved group sizes.

You might find this video interesting. This individual doesn't use one because he doesn't feel he needs one. So he agrees with you on that.

 

[Barelstroker]

You might find this video interesting. This individual doesn't use one because he doesn't feel he needs one. So he agrees with you on that.

So he agrees with you on that.

For the sake of clarity, what have I said which gives you the impression that I am in any way negative toward tuners?

 

[Leadrain22]

For the sake of clarity, what have I said which gives you the impression that I am in any way negative toward tuners?

I didn't assume you were against tuner.

Based on what you've posted. I was under the impression that you felt they may not work as advertised and may only provide marginal improvement and not worth the investment.

I agree in the thought that's its not a magical cure or a substitute to extensive and careful load development.
I'm only saying that they do work, and its a personal decision on whether the improvement is worth spending the time and money on one.

So I'm not on one side of this discussion or the other, relating to having one or not. My belief is that they work, you as everyone else reading these post have to decide if it's right for them.

That's all. If I misunderstood your stance, my bad.

 

[iceng]

It also doesn’t mean anything unless it’s absolutely repeatable. Which would mean statistically confident groups shot day in and day out.

My main PRS rifle is 0.78" moa. People have a melt down when i say that. Its all "my gun shoots a 0.5" group at 300m". Ive yet to see anyone back up their claim. Maybe a lucky day, but not constantly.

I can hold sub moa prone, on a bench, on a stable baracade, tank trap, etc. I know its sub moa when it counts.

I run a tuner. I have NO evidence they work, however i can not disprove them either.

The single biggest observation ive had is the decreased size of fliers.

Know when you put 4 in the one hole, and then one shot opens your group from 0.4" to a 0.55" or whatever ? Of shooting 10 shots @ 200m, and you get 8 shots nicely under 1", and one or 2 just seem stray ? Still on group size, just seem to be out there a bit ?

A tuner "seems" to reduce those "walkers". They still happen, but less frequently. Maybe from one in 10 or 15, to one in 15 to 20.

Is it a mental game or something else. Is is the barrel running a different temp / enviro conditions, or is the barrel throat erroding to a "sweeter spot". Who knows. Ive not burning out a barrel entirely on one yet, but will within 2 months. And thats still not enough data points.

 

[brianf]

Most rifle manufactures can sell you a rifle without a scope rail and the cheapest stock possible.

That’s called making money. They don’t need to “add value” if their product already sells for the price they want in the first place.

Products aren’t sold at the price “they” want.

You design a product with a margin as a target not the answer.

Some of my sales people are given a standard/minimum to sell a product at. With that they get a standard commission.

If they are able to get a higher ring for that product they get a much higher percentage of the “extra”…that’s called making money not doing the bare minimum.

As for selling a tuner your missing it.

The idea of a tuner is possibly creating a more accurate weapon system (its not a rifle it’s a system of parts) from a current weapon system.

If I’m able to create a more accurate weapon than my competition for a slightly higher dollar OR the same sale price but that allows me to reduce production and cogs…I’m taking market share.

More market share at my targeted margin…that’s making money.

Then dive into the fixed costs stay relatively the same if I have additionally capacity like starting a third shift and the margin on the “new market share “ is much higher…again…that’s making money.

That’s business 101

 

[nealm66]

So this is the test i will do. Let me know if it will be worthy.... first i will take a factory rifle threaded for a muzzle brake shoot 3 different brands of ammo all the same grain weight bullets . Shoot 8 shot groups at 100 yards. Then tune for each brand and shoot 8 shots after tuning. Then take a custom rifle with a brake devlope loads and shoot a 8 shot group at 100 yards producing one hole groups then remove the brake install a tuner brake tune it to shoot one whole considering it wont have the same impact poi due to the extra weight. Then tune it out then tune it back in. To one hole groups at 100 yards. All while shooting 8 shot groups. Then will move to 500 yards shoot 2. 8 shot groups. With out adjusting from the last tight group at 100 yards. Then will tune the already tuned rifle to shoot tighter groups. At 500 yards proving that a great shooting rifle can be made to shoot even better. After tuning the alread tuned rifle at 500 yards. Then i will prove can change vertical point impact by moving the tuner. To adjust for enviromental changes.... Any thoughts???

I think it’s above and beyond. If what your planning doesn’t prove a tuner’s success than I’d give up. I’ll only shoot 2 shot strings sometimes doing a ladder if I’m confident in the rifle and a tuner speeds up the process. This whole 30 rounds to prove a tune, wth? Just shoot out further to prove it’s good and may require slight tune adjustments for environmentals but if it takes 30 shots someone is baked

 

[Seymour Fish]

I think it’s above and beyond. If what your planning doesn’t prove a tuner’s success than I’d give up. I’ll only shoot 2 shot strings sometimes doing a ladder if I’m confident in the rifle and a tuner speeds up the process. This whole 30 rounds to prove a tune, wth? Just shoot out further to prove it’s good and may require slight tune adjustments for environmentals but if it takes 30 shots someone is baked

Analagous to determining good pussy. How many sessions does that take ? Statistician says 30, lacking the ability to discriminate.

 

[Barelstroker]

Analagous to determining good pussy. How many sessions does that take ? Statistician says 30, lacking the ability to discriminate.

So that's the problem. Lacking the ability to discriminate.
So you take 2 shots per setting & the second shot lands an inch to the left of the 1st. Was that shot a 1 in 500 flyer caused possibly by a faulty projectile or, will the rifle system continue to spray all over the target or, might that shot be the only one that doesn't continue to shoot within 0.5 MOA of the 1st shot for 8 more shots, if you were to keep shooting that is.
Using your powers of discrimination, you would turn the tuner thinking the setting was not suitable. Firing more samples & using statistics calculations would tell you that the setting was actually very good but one shot was a true outlier & not indicative of future shot placement.
Anyhow, have at it, & good luck, you're going to need it. Matter of fact, luck is all you have.

 

[nealm66]

Man, it doesn’t have to be so complicated. Get off the keyboard and go shoot. It will be ok

 

[Barelstroker]

Man, it doesn’t have to be so complicated. Get off the keyboard and go shoot. It will be ok

It's as complicated as it has to be & not as you or I want it to be.
It's a system with rules & boundaries just like everything else in this universe.

 

[lash]

It's as complicated as it has to be & not as you or I want it to be.
It's a system with rules & boundaries just like everything else in this universe.

 

[badassgunworks]

I will be preforming the test as per my orig plan . There is no venue that sends 30 rounds at the same target . Even f open is 20 rounds and at that there is vertical issues.problem with 30 shots it induces to much heat and other variables that dont reflect the rifles potential for accuracy. Just how the build or cartridge handles heat and vertical I can how ever do several 8 shot groups with adequate cool down between groups and that will prodice the same end results. All that is needed is consecutive proofing groups that chance is weeded out. My objective is not to get every one to swallow every defined claim of tuners. Its to proove thay will produce the ability to improve accuracy. And that reguardless of quality of devloped loads there is always room for improvements at distance beyond quality tuned devloped loads as extrapolated distance variance can be improved to a fine degree. This will be done after x companies finish there public results. With this comment i am done this thread has gone way to far and is going in circles.

 

[timintx]

Already quite a bit out there.

I have yet to see one that visually shows the muzzle moving *before* the bullet exits.

I believe the only ones I have seen involve large diameter barrels. But that’s what most here use.

The counter argument is the movement is too small to see visually, which may be a valid argument.


If anyone has links or videos that show something, would be interested in seeing them posted here.

There is one way to measure barrel movements that has been used for many years but in different manners being called a ladder test. The ladder testing manner is the most reliable way to test precise movements under recoil and while the bullet is in the barrel. My particular methods entail specific scales or spacing designed to see even the smallest barrel movements that have been repeated for twenty years or so . Brian has offered no evidence to the contrary at this time. I have done exhaustive research specifically in the area of internal ballistics and intermediate ballistics through my company Sellars Ballistic technologies and is what we do . I am only here to help shooters learn the basics of tuners and not to get in to a pissing match. And please test everything I say that is doubted after all that is your only real proof anyway. Here is a small sample of a ladder test : This is a rifle that is full out of tune, and the wrong weight. I have hundreds of charts on just about every combination of barrel contours and proportionate weighting possible.

Tim In Tx

 

[Feniks Technologies]

There is one way to measure barrel movements that has been used for many years but in different manners being called a ladder test. The ladder testing manner is the most reliable way to test precise movements under recoil and while the bullet is in the barrel. My particular methods entail specific scales or spacing designed to see even the smallest barrel movements that have been repeated for twenty years or so . Brian has offered no evidence to the contrary at this time. I have done exhaustive research specifically in the area of internal ballistics and intermediate ballistics through my company Sellars Ballistic technolgies and is what we do . I am only here to help shooters learn the basics of tuners and not to get in to a pissing match. And please test everything I say that is doubted after all that is your only real proof anyway. Here is a small sample of a ladder test :

That doesn’t actually test barrel movement.

We are working with the theory that it’s barrel movement. Obviously something is happening. But no one has confirmed exactly what is the cause.

Ladder tests show POI and such. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[timintx]

That doesn’t actually test barrel movement.

We are working with the theory that it’s barrel movement. Obviously something is happening. But no one has confirmed exactly what is the cause.

Ladder tests show POI and such. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually the ladder test shows the barrels angular position with differing exit times. The differences of 38 fps should only be only around .030 change in height, but it is much more, why? The barrel aimed it there .

 

[flounderv2]

Guys,

I dont really get on here any more but there have been a number of people ping me about this particular thread asking me to say a few things. I will preface my comments with the fact that I am the developer of the Adaptive Tuning System (ATS) barrel Tuner which by the way has more PRS Wins and Top 10 than any comparable tuning device. It also allows you to use your existing muzzle brake, or suppressor of choice and does not require any added gunsmithing in order to use it.

Onto answering a few things here and hopefully providing some general food for thought.

• Can you handload and get great groups - Yes
• Can you use a tuner and get great groups - Yes
• The average user of the ATS tuner will have their groups dialed in within 20-30 shots with 20 being average. How many rounds does it take you with handloading? - All Im saying here is that from a loading perspective, you will use a lot less components using a tuner than what you will with handloading techniques. My load technique these days is to pick the powder charge that gets me the speed I want, seat my bullets at 75k and then I use the ATS tuner 100% for groups.
• If you travel for events where you may fly, or drive long distances to get there, there will be environmental changes that affect your rifles performance. They may be minor, they could be major. A tuner allows you to dial the rifle back in at the event where you otherwise could not. There have been a significant amount of ATS installed at the range, the day before a PRS match because a competitors rifle was not performing the same as it was when they left home.
• If you use factory ammo, tuners are a godsend as you can have the ability to improve group sizes you otherwise could not.
• Here is a simple mental visual I use for describing how tuners function. - If you have a rope and you crack it like a whip, you will see the waveform it makes. Now if you were to tie a tennis ball to the end and do it again, how is that waveform affected, what if you tied a softball, etc. Now what if you tied the softball 1ft back from the end, 2 ft back, etc. This is an easy way to think about how tuners function.

Onto tuner weights.

• I think everyone would agree that adding weight to your rifle can affect its performance both good or bad so what is a good weight? Clearly a sticker adds weight but isnt going to do anything from a tuning perspective but we dont want to add pounds either.
• Every barrel will be different but the weight needs to be able to have a noticeable impact when moving during tuning. Go too light and you'll have inconsistencies in tuning and inconsistencies in the rifle performance day to day. Go too heavy and you can see similar issues.
• You also have both static weight and dynamic weight. i.e. movable and non movable weights. A muzzlebrake would be static, the rotating tuner weight would be the dynamic weight. Both are good but if the movable weight is too light, then expect inconsistencies. It may allow you to tune it that day at the range but you should expect inconsistencies day to day and to be retuning frequently. A 1oz weight imo isnt going to do much for consistency.

IMO, a tuner should allow you to clearly see on paper a pronounced change in point of impact relative to aim point as well as shape. This can typically be done with 2 shots per tune setting with the ATS. You are not just looking for whether a group gets bigger or smaller but your looking for patterns. I pride myself on the fact that every ATS user has been able to user our tuning approach with almost identical pattern results. Some other tuner mfgs have even tried to copy our tuning approach but just tell you to look for groups opening or closing. That doesnt work because not all tuners have the same weight, tuning weight thread pitch, design, etc so 2 settings on one tuner may move the weight a different amount than 2 settings on another and that doesnt even account for weight or other design differences.

If you dont believe in tuners then feel free to continue use your current method but most that question them probably dont have experience with them to make an informed decision one way or another. Yes tuners work on Airguns, 22's, Gas Guns, Centerfire, etc. We have tested the ATS on all of them with great success. There will always be those random barrels that just dont shoot well and a tuner probably wont help them either. With that being said, Ive tracked the performance of the ATS and with 99.998% user success rate, and the # of Wins and Top 10's the ATS Tuner has under its belt, Im pretty comfortable saying the ATS tuner works as do tuners in general!

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Actually the ladder test shows the barrels angular position with differing exit times. The differences of 38 fps should only be only around .030 change in height, but it is much more, why? The barrel aimed it there .

Again, you’re making an assumption/theory as to why.

You have an end result:

38fps should = .030 change. It doesn’t in your testing.

That’s all your testing shows. It doesn’t answer “why?”. You filled that part in with a theory (and it’s a logical theory). Which is not to take anything away from it. It’s good testing.

Which is why words like “could” “possibly” should be used when testing shows an outcome but doesn’t shed light on the actual why.

 

[timintx]

That doesn’t actually test barrel movement.

We are working with the theory that it’s barrel movement. Obviously something is happening. But no one has confirmed exactly what is the cause.

Ladder tests show POI and such. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here is that same barrel the vertical bending had been modified, notice the slower rounds hitting higher? That is only possible by the barrel aiming it there.Please do not tell me that is is just a fluke. I have done this too many times in precisely controlled conditions and have 20 years of statistics to show it .

 

[timintx]

Again, you’re making an assumption/theory as to why.

You have an end result:

38fps should = .030 change. It doesn’t in your testing.

That’s all your testing shows. It doesn’t answer “why?”. You filled that part in with a theory (and it’s a logical theory). Which is not to take anything away from it. It’s good testing.

Which is why words like “could” “possibly” should be used when testing shows an outcome but doesn’t shed light on the actual why.

The reason is there is more weight below the barrel than above the barrel ,when the recoil impulse forces the rifle back the barrel will bend according to that weigh offset. A tuner just speeds up and slows down the bending that is created from the recoil force and offset of weight above and below the barreled action. Fair enough?

Tim in Tx

 

[Feniks Technologies]

The reason is there is more weight below the barrel than above the barrel ,when the recoil impulse forces the rifle back the barrel will bend according to that weigh offset. A tuner just speeds up and slows down the bending that is created from the recoil force and offset of weight above and below the barreled action. Fair enough?

Tim in Tx

Again, that’s a logical *theory* and it may very well be what’s happening.

Until we have the equipment to measure where the barrel is “aimed” then it will remain a theory.

That’s why we always need to keep pushing and digging. If we stop at what logically might be happening, we never figure it out fully and don’t continue to advance.

The world being flat was a logical theory with the information we had at the time.. But we didn’t stop there.

 

[Rob01]

 

[timintx]

Again, that’s a logical *theory* and it may very well be what’s happening.

Until we have the equipment to measure where the barrel is “aimed” then it will remain a theory.

That’s why we always need to keep pushing and digging. If we stop at what logically might be happening, we never figure it out fully and don’t continue to advance.

The world being flat was a logical theory with the information we had at the time.. But we didn’t stop there.

I can assure you my company is well beyond theory. I have data on every caliber from 22 RF to 375 . I can shape a specific vibration to benefit every rifle and more importantly to gain an infinite tune. Tested for 7 years in competition and over 5000 rounds just on 1 tuning system.

Tim in Tx

 

[oso1]

While I get what the statisticians are saying to a point, this is out of control already. Anyone who has tested or is going to test, it will never be enough for the statisticians, you must test day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year. Then maybe after 100k rds. you might have enough data, but most likely not, it will never be enough. There had to variables you didn't control will testing. If you like tuners use them, if you don't, well don't use them, but how long are you going to beat this dead horse ?