EC tuner brake

[nealm66]

Interesting. I’ve just been shooting for groups at 200. I’ve been adjusting 2 notches for each group with the TMB tuner ( Aaron’s) and there’s a spread of about 6 notches that all shoot excellent and then they fall apart so I stick it in the middle. With the ATS, it’s a smaller window which makes sense if im understanding you correctly?

 

[Barelstroker]

I here there are companies that for money will I've you all the stats you can afford.

Yes there are &, yes, obtaining faithful, reliable data is time consuming & uses a lot more materials than any of us prefer but unfortunately, if we use too few samples, the statistical robustness drops off a cliff making the entire exercise a complete waste of time & materials & worse, we then think we have a particular outcome when we probably don't. I understand the frustration because I get frustrated as well &, because gear is getting harder to get & more expensive, I've slowed way down on my testing for that reason.
To be clear, I have tested 3 shot groups against 10 shot groups for myself & 3 shot groups are all but a complete waste time & materials. I've got quite a number of 0.2x & 0.3x five shot groups from my heavy barrelled 243 but, I'm yet to shoot a 10 shot group under 1/2". Now that could be me & probably is but, that makes no difference. I either can or can't, it is or it isn't & my 10 shot groups are all very similar in size but my 5 shot groups are usually smaller.
What's the point besides bragging rights of test results giving a false impression?

 

[timintx]

I'll repeat it again.
Two shots cannot tell you anything. 70% confidence is 7 of ten shots & 50% error means you could just as equally see 50% smaller or larger, higher or lower. The problem isn't what you're testing for whatever reason. The problem is that 2 shots is only a tiny % representation of what possible outcomes could be. Furthermore, it doesn't only show you a good vs bad or unacceptable outcome. You could & definitely have thrown a good outcome away because 2 shots have misrepresented a more probable outcome.
It does no good to argue your merits with me as I'm not making the rules. If you want to make a determination of an outcome from any change in any system, there is a calculated minimum number of samples that must be measured depending on the calculated probability that you choose. This is scientifically derived & not opinion.

Two shots with 2 different powder charges is only for setting up the rifle, I can repeat it over and over to a precise degree and it comes out the same. if you dont think it is possible then you are seriously under estimating the shooter. If you shoot two shots and the slower round is low, by 1 inch, then you adjust the tuner and the slower bullet hits lower but only by half , then one more adjustment they are hitting level . This is when you go to ONE powder charge ammo that is the same speed as the fast round in the test do your statistic on group size. 50 shot groups what ever . I can assure you if the two rounds are level then when you go to one powder charge the gun will group well. By this method you can actually see the adjustment working on the tuner. if I want to check it to see if it is tune the same i just fire the differing rounds to make sure they are still hitting level to each other.

Tim in Tx

 

[Barelstroker]

Two shots with 2 different powder charges is only for setting up the rifle, I can repeat it over and over to a precise degree and it comes out the same. if you dont think it is not possible then you are seriously under estimating the shooter. If you shoot two shots and the slower round is low, by 1 inch, then you adjust the tuner and the slower bullet hits lower but only by half , then one more adjustment they are hitting level . This is when you go to ONE powder charge ammo that is the same speed as the fast round in the test do your statistic on group size. 50 shot groups what ever . I can assure you if the two rounds are level then when you go to one powder charge the gun will group well. By this method you can actually see the adjustment working on the tuner. if I want to check it to see if it is tune the same i just fire the differing rounds to make sure they are still hitting level to each other.

Tim in Tx

At this time I have to give the benefit of the doubt but, your description runs contrary to every test I've done with everything I've tested.
I'll get round to testing a tuner &, I'll remember the way you say you use the 2 powder charges. That actually sounds like a good way to set things up which I haven't heard before, provided the results are actual & not assumed.

 

[badassgunworks]

Yes there are &, yes, obtaining faithful, reliable data is time consuming & uses a lot more materials than any of us prefer but unfortunately, if we use too few samples, the statistical robustness drops off a cliff making the entire exercise a complete waste of time & materials & worse, we then think we have a particular outcome when we probably don't. I understand the frustration because I get frustrated as well &, because gear is getting harder to get & more expensive, I've slowed way down on my testing for that reason.
To be clear, I have tested 3 shot groups against 10 shot groups for myself & 3 shot groups are all but a complete waste time & materials. I've got quite a number of 0.2x & 0.3x five shot groups from my heavy barrelled 243 but, I'm yet to shoot a 10 shot group under 1/2". Now that could be me & probably is but, that makes no difference. I either can or can't, it is or it isn't & my 10 shot groups are all very similar in size but my 5 shot groups are usually smaller.
What's the point besides bragging rights of test results giving a false impression?

The 5 shot groups could represent what your rifle is capable of on any given day and your 10 shot groups represent what your rifles is capable of on a 10 shot string conditions being equal on both groups. There are many things that happen whem You start shooting more rounds. Heat being one of them . Not to mention human error . The more rounds you shoot those odds increase . But dont reflect what your rifle is capable of. I guess what i am tring to say is a 5 shot group can and will represent what a rifle is capable of and so will it proove if your possibly in a better place with your tuner. I can take my 6mm pps out on any given day shoot 5 shot groups at 100 yards less then 1/4 " and do it every day over and over and over again year after after year. And it is 100% representation of what that rifle is capelable of. That same rifle shoots 10 shot groups day on and day out in the .350 range at 100 yards. so is it a .200 moa group rifle or a .350 moa group rifle? The take away on my comment is you dont need large shot strings to prove your tuner works or is set properly . If it can be verified 100% repeatable. large samples prove nothing other then your rifle build does not like large samples tuning your loads or your tuner brake wont change that . I dont know about you i dont need to try eating somthing i dont like several times to determine i dont like somthing . Your rifle is no different. I believe applied Ballistics will find out that tuners do work and in some cases when designed properly work very well. But the out come could be detrimental Considering the military would have no need to use any thing else besides factory ammo in a standard rifle and just tune it. We shall see where it goes.

 

[Barelstroker]

The 5 shot groups could represent what your rifle is capable of on any given day and your 10 shot groups represent what your rifles is capable of on a 10 shot string conditions being equal on both groups. There are many things that happen whem You start shooting more rounds. Heat being one of them . Not to mention human error . The more rounds you shoot those odds increase . But dont reflect what your rifle is capable of. I guess what i am tring to say is a 5 shot group can and will represent what a rifle is capable of and so will it proove if your possibly in a better place with your tuner. I can take my 6mm pps out on any given day shoot 5 shot groups at 100 yards less then 1/4 " and do it every day over and over and over again year after after year. And it is 100% representation of what that rifle is capelable of. That same rifle shoots 10 shot groups day on and day out in the .350 range at 100 yards. so is it a .200 moa group rifle or a .350 moa group rifle? The take away on my comment is you dont need large shot strings to prove your tuner works or is set properly . If it can be verified 100% repeatable. large samples prove nothing other then your rifle build does not like large samples tuning your loads or your tuner brake wont change that . I dont know about you i dont need to try eating somthing i dont like several times to determine i dont like somthing . Your rifle is no different. I believe applied Ballistics will find out that tuners do work and in some cases when designed properly work very well. But the out come could be detrimental Considering the military would have no need to use any thing else besides factory ammo in a standard rifle and just tune it. We shall see where it goes.

That same rifle shoots 10 shot groups day on and day out in the .350 range at 100 yards. so is it a .200 moa group rifle or a .350 moa group rifle?

The way you've explained your take on testing is pretty much the same way most guys see it & I get that.
I would say that there's kinda 2 answers. The 1st one about the question quoted above. Obviously the rifle is really a 0.350 MOA rifle. Not because that figure is just worse but because that larger sample of 10 is far more likely to REVEAL shot diversion we wouldn't otherwise get to see.
The other factor which is an "elephant in the room" deal, is the aggregate of all those 5 shot groups.
We could legitimately view a 10 shot group as the aggregate of 2 x 5 shot groups. See where this is heading?
So you go out the next day to do some testing with the exact same loads, enviro's, winds, all else equal &, you shoot say 5 x 5 shot groups of 0.23 to 0.31 MOA. If you take the positional aggregate of each of those 5 shot groups plus those of the day before, what has the rifle really shot?
When we talk about what kind of repeatability a rifle has with a particular load, the true figure must be the aggregate & not each individual group taken on it's own.
EC himself mentions this about his "mentor" saying "oh that won't agg" talking about a particular cartridge or rifle.
Individual groups are not the entire story.
If you can take any far left shot of one group & place it with any far right shot of any other group & those two shots are further apart than your usual 5 shot group spread, the rifle isn't what you thought it was. All else being equal, the true repeatability of the rifle is the aggregate of every group it ever shoots, with that same load. ( in reality, it is every group the rifle ever shoots regardless of the load but, we'll leave that subject alone).

So, does that make a little more sense?
Can you appreciate why I keep commenting on this subject?

 

[badassgunworks]

That same rifle shoots 10 shot groups day on and day out in the .350 range at 100 yards. so is it a .200 moa group rifle or a .350 moa group rifle?

The way you've explained your take on testing is pretty much the same way most guys see it & I get that.
I would say that there's kinda 2 answers. The 1st one about the question quoted above. Obviously the rifle is really a 0.350 MOA rifle. Not because that figure is just worse but because that larger sample of 10 is far more likely to REVEAL shot diversion we wouldn't otherwise get to see.
The other factor which is an "elephant in the room" deal, is the aggregate of all those 5 shot groups.
We could legitimately view a 10 shot group as the aggregate of 2 x 5 shot groups. See where this is heading?
So you go out the next day to do some testing with the exact same loads, enviro's, winds, all else equal &, you shoot say 5 x 5 shot groups of 0.23 to 0.31 MOA. If you take the positional aggregate of each of those 5 shot groups plus those of the day before, what has the rifle really shot?
When we talk about what kind of repeatability a rifle has with a particular load, the true figure must be the aggregate & not each individual group taken on it's own.
EC himself mentions this about his "mentor" saying "oh that won't agg" talking about a particular cartridge or rifle.
Individual groups are not the entire story.
If you can take any far left shot of one group & place it with any far right shot of any other group & those two shots are further apart than your usual 5 shot group spread, the rifle isn't what you thought it was. All else being equal, the true repeatability of the rifle is the aggregate of every group it ever shoots, with that same load. ( in reality, it is every group the rifle ever shoots regardless of the load but, we'll leave that subject alone).

So, does that make a little more sense?
Can you appreciate why I keep commenting on this subject?

I understand agg that was never the point on my comment . My point was pointing out That from a tuner position it does not require shit piles of shots to determin if there is improvements as long as those improvements are repeatable improvements. if you have done due diligence on load devlopment and proven a consistant 5 inch group at lets say 600 yards then adjust your tuner and your groups then avrage 3 inches repearable then the tuner works will it stay this way ? No environmental changes, throat eroation etc dictate a need for future changes somthing you cant do on the fly like you can with a tuner . But that requires knowing what your adjustments do

 

[flounderv2]

Show or copy the links.
I've read the "Varmint AI page some time ago. The software he uses is very good but, it can only give simulations on the info you give it. There have been quite a few other studies on barrel harmonics using LS dyna which show different results.
This has nothing at all to with the issue. Even if the theory is correct, it doesn't change the fact that 2 shots per tuner setting tells you nothing & that's been the point all along.
It's safe to say that tuners definitely change POI when screwed on the barrel but, that doesn't prove they make the cone of fire smaller at any setting.
Here's some super slow Mo vid of the bullet exiting. Notice how there is absolutely no barrel movement before or after the bullet exits. The barrel movement will have happened after the videos but not during.

Look ill be direct here. You've seen the effects of a barrel tuner and have been all for them and even use them yourself. Not sure why youre questioning other than what I assume is to play the relationship game or try and get views. Cut it out, its getting old. Simulation software is used daily in all walks of engineering life and yes different sim software will show slightly different results. However almost all of them show the barrel moves before the bullet leaves. If you want to argue that applying weight in different locations to a barrel prior to the bullet exit doest affect exit timing which affects the "cone of fire" as you put it then you've shown the extent of your "knowledge" on the subject. Your slow mo vid link is garbage for the context you are trying to show. It doesnt have the resolution required to answer anything. You need sensors with the correct measurement resolution. We are talking about micro-movements. Quit trying to be the expert on something youre not. Conversation is good, arguing something you dont have the experience/expertise with, is not. By the way. Vamit Al actually used LS-Dyna which shows exactly what is being discussed here so please reference the other software or tests which show otherwise because you clearly made a mistake here. Instead of trying to argue something you dont have the experience/expertise to do, how about you work to engage positively with people. You may be trying to make a name for yourself in ELR but trying to discount things that dont align to your way of thinking is not the way to do it. Invite conversation and thought, not arguments because you dont know what you dont know. Yeah 2 shots is not designed to find the absolute best tuning spot. Its a method to get to a result faster by eliminating the obvious non-performinig spots.. No one is going to spend 300 rounds to tune. This is no different than how people approach jump testing, charge weight testing etc. Start broad and fine tune. Why you would try and use this as a basis for your argument is just silly to be honest.
When I got my pilots license years ago the examiner told me the following - "The day you think you know it all is the day you need to stop flying" This applies to all walks of life. The day you stop listening to others is really the day others should stop listening to you. There is always something to be learned even if it doesnt align to your current view. You have 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason. Listen more than you talk. Ive found those that talk the most online tend to know the least because those that actually know typically dont say much anymore because they are sick of dealing with rebuttals from those that dont who just want to increase their post count and views.

 

[lash]

Look ill be direct here. Jessie you've seen the effects of a barrel tuner and have been all for them and even use them yourself. Only after you joined AB have you started questioning it in what I assume is to play the relationship game or try and get views. Cut it out, its getting old. Simulation software is used daily in all walks of engineering life and yes different sim software will show slightly different results. However almost all of them show the barrel moves before the bullet leaves. If you want to argue that applying weight in different locations to a barrel prior to the bullet exit doest affect exit timing which affects the "cone of fire" as you put it then you've shown the extent of your "knowledge" on the subject. Your slow mo vid link is garbage for the context you are trying to show. It doesnt have the resolution required to answer anything. You need sensors with the correct measurement resolution. We are talking about micro-movements. Quit trying to be the expert on something youre not. Conversation is good, arguing something you dont have the experience/expertise with, is not. By the way. Vamit Al actually used LS-Dyna which shows exactly what is being discussed here so please reference the other software or tests which show otherwise because you clearly made a mistake here. Instead of trying to argue something you dont have the experience/expertise to do, how about you work to engage positively with people. You may be trying to make a name for yourself in ELR but trying to discount things that dont align to your way of thinking is not the way to do it. Invite conversation and thought, not arguments because you dont know what you dont know. Yeah 2 shots is not designed to find the absolute best tuning spot. Its a method to get to a result faster by eliminating the obvious non-performinig spots.. No one is going to spend 300 rounds to tune. This is no different than how people approach jump testing, charge weight testing etc. Start broad and fine tune. Why you would try and use this as a basis for your argument is just silly to be honest.
When I got my pilots license years ago the examiner told me the following - "The day you think you know it all is the day you need to stop flying" This applies to all walks of life. The day you stop listening to others is really the day others should stop listening to you. There is always something to be learned even if it doesnt align to your current view. You have 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason. Listen more than you talk. Ive found those that talk the most online tend to know the least because those that actually know typically dont say much anymore because they are sick of dealing with rebuttals from those that dont who just want to increase their post count and views.

Thank you for that. He’s pretty much ruined what was a decent discussion with his incessant blather that didn’t offer anything to the discussion after the first 50 times he said it.

 

[morganlamprecht]

Two shots with 2 different powder charges is only for setting up the rifle, I can repeat it over and over to a precise degree and it comes out the same. if you dont think it is not possible then you are seriously under estimating the shooter. If you shoot two shots and the slower round is low, by 1 inch, then you adjust the tuner and the slower bullet hits lower but only by half , then one more adjustment they are hitting level . This is when you go to ONE powder charge ammo that is the same speed as the fast round in the test do your statistic on group size. 50 shot groups what ever . I can assure you if the two rounds are level then when you go to one powder charge the gun will group well. By this method you can actually see the adjustment working on the tuner. if I want to check it to see if it is tune the same i just fire the differing rounds to make sure they are still hitting level to each other.

Tim in Tx

interesting...what distance do you run this at? ive got a few tuner brakes at home i wouldnt mind trying this method out on

 

[Barelstroker]

Look ill be direct here. Jessie you've seen the effects of a barrel tuner and have been all for them and even use them yourself. Only after you joined AB have you started questioning it in what I assume is to play the relationship game or try and get views. Cut it out, its getting old. Simulation software is used daily in all walks of engineering life and yes different sim software will show slightly different results. However almost all of them show the barrel moves before the bullet leaves. If you want to argue that applying weight in different locations to a barrel prior to the bullet exit doest affect exit timing which affects the "cone of fire" as you put it then you've shown the extent of your "knowledge" on the subject. Your slow mo vid link is garbage for the context you are trying to show. It doesnt have the resolution required to answer anything. You need sensors with the correct measurement resolution. We are talking about micro-movements. Quit trying to be the expert on something youre not. Conversation is good, arguing something you dont have the experience/expertise with, is not. By the way. Vamit Al actually used LS-Dyna which shows exactly what is being discussed here so please reference the other software or tests which show otherwise because you clearly made a mistake here. Instead of trying to argue something you dont have the experience/expertise to do, how about you work to engage positively with people. You may be trying to make a name for yourself in ELR but trying to discount things that dont align to your way of thinking is not the way to do it. Invite conversation and thought, not arguments because you dont know what you dont know. Yeah 2 shots is not designed to find the absolute best tuning spot. Its a method to get to a result faster by eliminating the obvious non-performinig spots.. No one is going to spend 300 rounds to tune. This is no different than how people approach jump testing, charge weight testing etc. Start broad and fine tune. Why you would try and use this as a basis for your argument is just silly to be honest.
When I got my pilots license years ago the examiner told me the following - "The day you think you know it all is the day you need to stop flying" This applies to all walks of life. The day you stop listening to others is really the day others should stop listening to you. There is always something to be learned even if it doesnt align to your current view. You have 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason. Listen more than you talk. Ive found those that talk the most online tend to know the least because those that actually know typically dont say much anymore because they are sick of dealing with rebuttals from those that dont who just want to increase their post count and views.

You've got me confused with someone else pal. If you did some reading before hand instead of prancing on the thread like a hero, you might know what was going on.
I've never said tuners don't work about a dozen times now.
I have said that everyone who tests using 2 or 3 shots per setting has no idea what they are doing & wouldn't know if tuners worked or not. Two shot tests tells everyone fuck all.
I've done thousands of rounds of statistical testing & it works exactly as Grubbs said it did & not the way these guys think it does.

 

[Barelstroker]

Thank you for that. He’s pretty much ruined what was a decent discussion with his incessant blather that didn’t offer anything to the discussion after the first 50 times he said it.

A decent discussion.
A whole lot of assumption based on ineffectual testing is all I read.

 

[lash]

A decent discussion.
A whole lot of assumption based on ineffectual testing is all I read.

Okay, I’ll reply one last time. I think that by now, after you’ve posted about 100 times (see attached chart showing excessive redundancy) about statistical requirements, that even the slowest dough head would get what you’re saying. My point is that you just end up sounding exactly like @flounderv2 said, like you don’t have anything more to contribute, so you repeat the same thing ad nauseam until people walk away just to stop your incessant blather. However, knowing your past post history, you will never walk away until you’ve totally killed this subject and beaten it into submission. In other words, everyone else will walk away while you are still listening to your own golden voice ringing in your ears.

 

[Leadrain22]

Tuners work...
To be honest how exactly they work is irrelevant to me.
I'll take any improvement to the groups my rifle shoots, regardless how marginal it maybe.
Those that are unconvinced by the claims of those that do. They can buy a tuner and test one themselves. Hell they're not all that expensive.
I won't spend my components (especially at current prices and availability) to prove to a skeptic that tuners work. I have nothing to gain and nothing to prove.

I'm amazed that this thread is 18 pages deep. Don't get me wrong I've been entertained through most of it.

 

[flounderv2]

You've got me confused with someone else pal. If you did some reading before hand instead of prancing on the thread like a hero, you might know what was going on.
I've never said tuners don't work about a dozen times now.
I have said that everyone who tests using 2 or 3 shots per setting has no idea what they are doing & wouldn't know if tuners worked or not. Two shot tests tells everyone fuck all.
I've done thousands of rounds of statistical testing & it works exactly as Grubbs said it did & not the way these guys think it does.

If I have you confused with someone else, then I truly apologize. With that being said, if you agree tuners work, then lets move on. Theres no reason to argue with everyone on the how. The more technical one has to get to prove a how, the more difficult it will be to present it to the audience in a consumable manner. i.e. Thats party of why the arguments ensue and why you see those with experience saying less and less to avoid arguments that cant or wont be able to get to an agreement. I doubt ill say anything else in this thread and may not even continue to follow it but happy to try and answer questions if someone asks.
For those that want to test it for personal experience, I think thats great as you are continuing to learn new things and will find new ways to challenge ideas.
#ContinousLearning

 

[AleksanderSuave]

Show or copy the links.

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/ec-tuner-brake.7049680/post-10052296

on page 14, was my original post to the Varmint testing data, we're now on page 18. Now find something else to whine about.

Or maybe after 10 pages of bitching later - literally the entirety of your posts in here, using the same circular arguments and insults when others disagree with you. https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...[users]=Barelstroker,&c[thread]=7049680&tab=0, you just buy one and conduct your own testing to prove us wrong?

Should I start you a gofundme to cover the costs?

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Look ill be direct here. You've seen the effects of a barrel tuner and have been all for them and even use them yourself. Not sure why youre questioning other than what I assume is to play the relationship game or try and get views. Cut it out, its getting old. Simulation software is used daily in all walks of engineering life and yes different sim software will show slightly different results. However almost all of them show the barrel moves before the bullet leaves. If you want to argue that applying weight in different locations to a barrel prior to the bullet exit doest affect exit timing which affects the "cone of fire" as you put it then you've shown the extent of your "knowledge" on the subject. Your slow mo vid link is garbage for the context you are trying to show. It doesnt have the resolution required to answer anything. You need sensors with the correct measurement resolution. We are talking about micro-movements. Quit trying to be the expert on something youre not. Conversation is good, arguing something you dont have the experience/expertise with, is not. By the way. Vamit Al actually used LS-Dyna which shows exactly what is being discussed here so please reference the other software or tests which show otherwise because you clearly made a mistake here. Instead of trying to argue something you dont have the experience/expertise to do, how about you work to engage positively with people. You may be trying to make a name for yourself in ELR but trying to discount things that dont align to your way of thinking is not the way to do it. Invite conversation and thought, not arguments because you dont know what you dont know. Yeah 2 shots is not designed to find the absolute best tuning spot. Its a method to get to a result faster by eliminating the obvious non-performinig spots.. No one is going to spend 300 rounds to tune. This is no different than how people approach jump testing, charge weight testing etc. Start broad and fine tune. Why you would try and use this as a basis for your argument is just silly to be honest.
When I got my pilots license years ago the examiner told me the following - "The day you think you know it all is the day you need to stop flying" This applies to all walks of life. The day you stop listening to others is really the day others should stop listening to you. There is always something to be learned even if it doesnt align to your current view. You have 2 ears and 1 mouth for a reason. Listen more than you talk. Ive found those that talk the most online tend to know the least because those that actually know typically dont say much anymore because they are sick of dealing with rebuttals from those that dont who just want to increase their post count and views.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

Thank you for that. He’s pretty much ruined what was a decent discussion with his incessant blather that didn’t offer anything to the discussion after the first 50 times he said it.

I wouldnt give him all that credit on his own. There have been at least 2-3 others in here, whining about "statistics", from day one, expending more energy to argue than if they just bought one and tried it out. Meanwhile, the lot of them still cannot come together and agree on what is considered valid for testing.

Buy it, try it, and return it if it does nothing for you. Easy enough to figure out on your own, without needing a whole propaganda campaign on the subject.

There wouldnt be people buying them if they didnt work, thats pretty simple to see by now.

 

[Leadrain22]

Wish I would have read all 18 pages on this thread before ordering another placebo. I guess I'll just have to deal with it. At least its going to look great attached to the end of the barrel.

Thanks Erik the machining and finish is outstanding as always.

 

[Barelstroker]

If I have you confused with someone else, then I truly apologize. With that being said, if you agree tuners work, then lets move on. Theres no reason to argue with everyone on the how. The more technical one has to get to prove a how, the more difficult it will be to present it to the audience in a consumable manner. i.e. Thats party of why the arguments ensue and why you see those with experience saying less and less to avoid arguments that cant or wont be able to get to an agreement. I doubt ill say anything else in this thread and may not even continue to follow it but happy to try and answer questions if someone asks.
For those that want to test it for personal experience, I think thats great as you are continuing to learn new things and will find new ways to challenge ideas.
#ContinousLearning

Apology accepted. I get why you think I may have been someone else.
I didn't say I think tuners worked either.
What myself & a couple others have said is for those that say they work to show some statistically relevant data.
If a guy posted on here that tuners definitely don't work, you'd want to see the proof wouldn't you?
You'd want to know how he came to that conclusion, wouldn't you?
If that guy used the same inadequate testing as the guys who say they do work, I wouldn't believe that either.
Some time ago, a guy on the hide recommended tuners & said they worked as advertised & I thought great, I'll get me one of those & I won't have to waste so much time & components. After a while, I decided to search for legitimate tests which would confirm that tuners do impart a statistically significant improvement. The problem is, I can't find a single stat significant test.
After all the hype & claims I've read about tuners, I was very surprised that it appears no relevant testing has been done or, the results not published or even mentioned.
I'm not interested in recommendations or anecdotal accounts. If you have some significant data or know anyone that has done some real testing, I'm happy to look at that.
I've no problem either way whether tuners work or they don't but, I'm not going to blindly accept that they do or they don't based on the ridiculous testing accounts I've read on this thread.
Since there are so many offended bitches, I'll step away & allow the circle jerk to continue uninterrupted.

 

[timintx]

At this time I have to give the benefit of the doubt but, your description runs contrary to every test I've done with everything I've tested.
I'll get round to testing a tuner &, I'll remember the way you say you use the 2 powder charges. That actually sounds like a good way to set things up which I haven't heard before, provided the results are actual & not assumed.

That is all one could ask . Remember , tuners just adjust vertical dispersion . so induce vertical then see if the tuner will adjust it out . There are certain factors in the gun that have to be present for any tuner to work. [1] weight offset ratio of 2 to 1,no ultra light stock with a heavy scope [2] flex , no super stiff stocks and no straight full bull barrels .Use a tapered barrel for best results. If you test with two loads adjust the tuner and see how far you can make them spread apart with same point of aim . this will give you an idea if the guns flex and offset is enough to work with a tuner. Good luck in your testing .

Tim in Tx

 

[timintx]

interesting...what distance do you run this at? ive got a few tuner brakes at home i wouldnt mind trying this method out on

I do all graphing and testing at 100 yards , cuts back on chance of getting blown out. but on occasion 1000yds to set the tuner.

Tim in Tx

 

[Leadrain22]

Apology accepted. I get why you think I may have been someone else.
I didn't say I think tuners worked either.
What myself & a couple others have said is for those that say they work to show some statistically relevant data.
If a guy posted on here that tuners definitely don't work, you'd want to see the proof wouldn't you?
You'd want to know how he came to that conclusion, wouldn't you?
If that guy used the same inadequate testing as the guys who say they do work, I wouldn't believe that either.
Some time ago, a guy on the hide recommended tuners & said they worked as advertised & I thought great, I'll get me one of those & I won't have to waste so much time & components. After a while, I decided to search for legitimate tests which would confirm that tuners do impart a statistically significant improvement. The problem is, I can't find a single stat significant test.
After all the hype & claims I've read about tuners, I was very surprised that it appears no relevant testing has been done or, the results not published or even mentioned.
I'm not interested in recommendations or anecdotal accounts. If you have some significant data or know anyone that has done some real testing, I'm happy to look at that.
I've no problem either way whether tuners work or they don't but, I'm not going to blindly accept that they do or they don't based on the ridiculous testing accounts I've read on this thread.
Since there are so many offended bitches, I'll step away & allow the circle jerk to continue uninterrupted.

If you had a tuner and used it successfully to reduce the size of your groups and I haven't had any luck with one. I would ask for help to figure it out or to see if I'm going about it the wrong way. But I certainly won't ask you to prove they do.
If I were sure they didn't work, I would just make that claim and move on.
I'm shocked that folks have volunteered to spend their hard earned coin to prove to you and a few others that these things actually work.
This thread would be alot more useful to the readers if it were about our experience with tuners, both good and bad.
At the end of the day there's nothing wrong with not running a tuner as much as there's nothing wrong running one.
You the end user has to decide if it's worth it to you.
You know that It really doesn't matter what each side of this decision has to say, if your personal experience tells you otherwise. If your experience says tuners don't work or dont provide enough of a benifit or improvement to justify the cost. No matter what anyone else says, youre not going to change you're mind. So just make that claim and move on. This applies to both side of this discussion.

For what it's worth, if you're on the fence. I would suggest just buy one, and try it out yourself.

 

[Barelstroker]

If you had a tuner and used it successfully to reduce the size of your groups and I haven't had any luck with one. I would ask for help to figure it out or to see if I'm going about it the wrong way. But I certainly won't ask you to prove they do.
If I were sure they didn't work, I would just make that claim and move on.
I'm shocked that folks have volunteered to spend their hard earned coin to prove to you and a few others that these things actually work.
This thread would be alot more useful to the readers if it were about our experience with tuners, both good and bad.
At the end of the day there's nothing wrong with not running a tuner as much as there's nothing wrong running one.
You the end user has to decide if it's worth it to you.
You know that It really doesn't matter what each side of this decision has to say, if your personal experience tells you otherwise. If your experience says tuners don't work or dont provide enough of a benifit or improvement to justify the cost. No matter what anyone else says, youre not going to change you're mind. So just make that claim and move on. This applies to both side of this discussion.

For what it's worth, if you're on the fence. I would suggest just buy one, and try it out yourself.

I will get around to testing a tuner, just not in the near future. We have a daughters wedding coming up next month as well as all the other bills, a new kitchen, car tyres. It's going to be a busy & expensive 3 to 4 months ahead so not for at least that long. I've got a new barrel going on my 308 next week & I'll be using the little spare time I have to run up an initial load for it. It's a straight no taper so a tuner won't do much for it anyhow I think.
When I do test, it will be a very comprehensive test & I'll get to bottom of all this assumption.
I'll be using grid square targets to plot each shot & aggregate every group to get the entire picture, not just stand alone groups. The winters here are relatively mild so I'll wait till then I reckon, provided nothing else imposes.
At the moment, I think I'll set the confidence interval at 80% because very few are good enough riflemen to better 8 out of 10 shots on there good days. I'll set a 20% margin of error which should average out to roughly +/- 0.3" (although it could be more but I doubt less) or thereabouts which is a good realistic margin of error without the overbearing sample rate.

 

[spife7980]

Dude. No one fucking cares.

 

[Styger]

It's crazy. How forums allow this is bed bath and way beyond.

 

[Barelstroker]

It's crazy. How forums allow this is bed bath and way beyond.

Buddy, if you all you're chasing is product reinforcement, go to the advertising. This is a forum. It's purpose is discussion from thought.
This obviously isn't the place for you.

 

[Seymour Fish]

Apology accepted. I get why you think I may have been someone else.
I didn't say I think tuners worked either.
What myself & a couple others have said is for those that say they work to show some statistically relevant data.
If a guy posted on here that tuners definitely don't work, you'd want to see the proof wouldn't you?
You'd want to know how he came to that conclusion, wouldn't you?
If that guy used the same inadequate testing as the guys who say they do work, I wouldn't believe that either.
Some time ago, a guy on the hide recommended tuners & said they worked as advertised & I thought great, I'll get me one of those & I won't have to waste so much time & components. After a while, I decided to search for legitimate tests which would confirm that tuners do impart a statistically significant improvement. The problem is, I can't find a single stat significant test.
After all the hype & claims I've read about tuners, I was very surprised that it appears no relevant testing has been done or, the results not published or even mentioned.
I'm not interested in recommendations or anecdotal accounts. If you have some significant data or know anyone that has done some real testing, I'm happy to look at that.
I've no problem either way whether tuners work or they don't but, I'm not going to blindly accept that they do or they don't based on the ridiculous testing accounts I've read on this thread.
Since there are so many offended bitches, I'll step away & allow the circle jerk to continue uninterrupted.

Bye

 

[Seymour Fish]

That is all one could ask . Remember , tuners just adjust vertical dispersion . so induce vertical then see if the tuner will adjust it out . There are certain factors in the gun that have to be present for any tuner to work. [1] weight offset ratio of 2 to 1,no ultra light stock with a heavy scope [2] flex , no super stiff stocks and no straight full bull barrels .Use a tapered barrel for best results. If you test with two loads adjust the tuner and see how far you can make them spread apart with same point of aim . this will give you an idea if the guns flex and offset is enough to work with a tuner. Good luck in your testing .

Tim in Tx

Your method is exactly what most do tuning a 22 LR Benchrest setup. I wonder if the ensuing million rounds fired this way in registered competition the past 25 years or so would lend sufficient statistical relevance to silence the posers.

 

[Rob01]

Your method is exactly what most do tuning a 22 LR Benchrest setup. I wonder if the ensuing million rounds fired this way in registered competition the past 25 years or so would lend sufficient statistical relevance to silence the posers.

You know it won’t. You got guys who haven’t put round one through a tuner telling people how to test them and what should happen. It’s pretty comical. Some expect people with them to waste components and time to prove to them they work. Lol You can’t make this stuff up. Lol

 

[Seymour Fish]

Buddy, if you all you're chasing is product reinforcement, go to the advertising. This is a forum. It's purpose is discussion from thought.
This obviously isn't the place for you.

To design an experiment you must control for variables, implying knowledge of all of them. You have consistently demonstrated a narrow-minded willful failure in this regard. Without this broad knowledge which many have spoon-fed to you, your blah-blah does not meet criteria for Thought. AMF

 

[brianf]

That is all one could ask . Remember , tuners just adjust vertical dispersion . so induce vertical then see if the tuner will adjust it out . There are certain factors in the gun that have to be present for any tuner to work. [1] weight offset ratio of 2 to 1,no ultra light stock with a heavy scope [2] flex , no super stiff stocks and no straight full bull barrels .Use a tapered barrel for best results. If you test with two loads adjust the tuner and see how far you can make them spread apart with same point of aim . this will give you an idea if the guns flex and offset is enough to work with a tuner. Good luck in your testing .

Tim in Tx

question for you,

if the barrel is "whipping all over"..
left
right
up
down
sine-wave
corkscrew etc
at such a high vibration rate

how can we say it only works on the vertical while the tuner is following the barrel-corkscrew?

does it eliminate the left and right movement of the barrel?

thanks

 

[badassgunworks]

question for you,

if the barrel is "whipping all over"..
left
right
up
down
sine-wave
corkscrew etc
at such a high vibration rate

how can we say it only works on the vertical while the tuner is following the barrel-corkscrew?

does it eliminate the left and right movement of the barrel?

thanks

Very good question Brian. There are two different things happening here. one is a whip Barrel from Contour, recoil from your shoulder or bag, the law of physics this is what causes the vertical the other issue is introduced harmonic vibrations caused by some of the above items but yet Amplified by stock configuration, firing pin fall locking lug surfaces ignition engagement Etc Shifting the position or placement of the tuner weight is designed to counter balance harmonic vibration that that can and will reduce those vibrations . we see examples of this in many Industries for example harmonic strobe-light balancing Shifting the position of a certain weight and in a specified location will counteract the felt vibrations and it changes based on the RPM. There used to be a statement that I made but I believe applies. I can balance a brick but you can't make it roll. I think the same thing goes for barrels you can tune one but you can't make a shity barrel shoot good perhaps better but not good

 

[brianf]

Very good question Brian. There are two different things happening here. one is a whip Barrel from Contour, recoil from your shoulder or bag, the law of physics this is what causes the vertical the other issue is introduced harmonic vibrations caused by some of the above items but yet Amplified by stock configuration, firing pin fall locking lug surfaces ignition engagement Etc Shifting the position or placement of the tuner weight is designed to counter balance harmonic vibration that that can and will reduce those vibrations . we see examples of this in many Industries for example harmonic strobe-light balancing Shifting the position of a certain weight and in a specified location will counteract the felt vibrations and it changes based on the RPM

so your thinking..

the l/r part of the corkscrew is what the tuner can help mitigate because that is mostly initial ignition, timing of the rifle components

so adding weight slows down/dampens the "little vibrations"

proper load development and properly driving the rifle will 70/30 mitigate vertical



example (using unrealistic numbers for easy math):

"little" harmonic vibrations are 1 moa L,R,U, D

recoil, bag riding is 2 moa biased toward vert

that group has a 3 moa vert and 1 moa l/r

tuner reduces the harmonic by half from 1 to .5 moa

with no further load development the group has gone from 3 x1 moa to 2.5 x .5 moa

correct or i went to far

 

[badassgunworks]

so your thinking..

the l/r part of the corkscrew is what the tuner can help mitigate because that is mostly initial ignition, timing of the rifle components

so adding weight slows down/dampens the "little vibrations"

proper load development and properly driving the rifle will 70/30 mitigate vertical



example (using unrealistic numbers for easy math):

"little" harmonic vibrations are 1 moa L,R,U, D

recoil, bag riding is 2 moa biased toward vert

that group has a 3 moa vert and 1 moa l/r

tuner reduces the harmonic by half from 1 to .5 moa

with no further load development the group has gone from 3 x1 moa to 2.5 x .5 moa

correct or i went to far

I could not begin to tell you the difference is in percentages as to what affects what cuz every rifle and every shooter and every load developer is different. action designs,and action quality and equipment. rifle setup in-stock design will affect the overall results. A tuner it's just a tool that will help compensate for what is a
left if you've done everything properly to the best of your ability. Although tuners are quite often used as a patch the intent of the designers and original use whs to have every tool in Your Arsenal. like I have said before I can take just about anybody's rifle no matter how much time they have spent on development and reduce their group sizes at distance. Some way more than others.

 

[Snuby642]

All this discussion of induced harmonics from the stock / shooter .

Maybe changing a scope and mount?

Yesterday upgraded my stock to a better bag rider than I had. It is now a prs lite. Oddly without any adjustments it matched my current desired lop (may be long for some folks wearing plate carriers).

It weighs twice what was on there.

It should be an improvement for me but as groups shrink improvement is harder to see.

I may be close to my performance capacity.

Will it knock me out of my tune?
How much adjustment will it take to re-tune?

Anyway looks better than the fde that was on there.

I have some physical issues that would effect group size so I have to wait some or med up till I can't feel it.

 

[badassgunworks]

The things that can cause harmonics and your rifle build a very stiff dense stock. Not being low center of gravity otherwise action and Barrel up high in relation to stock. Hardware that raises your scope higher from center line of bore and the cheek rest to accommodate that. Bipod extensions. Hard rifle rear bag being too hard also causes vertical issues. Internal issues like for example too much pin fall . Off center throat. Lug timming issues. Chamber size issues . And the list goes on ....

 

[timintx]

Your method is exactly what most do tuning a 22 LR Benchrest setup. I wonder if the ensuing million rounds fired this way in registered competition the past 25 years or so would lend sufficient statistical relevance to silence the posers.

Yep many years ago Bill Calfee used two different lots to set his tuners . Best damn idea ever!!!!!! lol. Then when I started relating velocity to to POI, a whole new world opened up for me, like graphing where I am able to see some pretty cool stuff with barrel movements . This I owe much thanks to him.

Tim in Tx

 

[Styger]

Buddy, if you all you're chasing is product reinforcement, go to the advertising. This is a forum. It's purpose is discussion from thought.
This obviously isn't the place for you.

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

 

[timintx]

question for you,

if the barrel is "whipping all over"..
left
right
up
down
sine-wave
corkscrew etc
at such a high vibration rate

how can we say it only works on the vertical while the tuner is following the barrel-corkscrew?

does it eliminate the left and right movement of the barrel?

thanks

The main indications were every time I tested the two differing loads in the 100 yd test tunnel they hit straight up and down every single time . but this is in a benchrest format, but outside on a bipod they may hit to the side a bit if the wind is up a bit but torque is the main culprit usually if the wind is down. Just disregard your windage for the moment when you are testing with two loads. Torque is hard to control on some guns and not so much on others but because of this effect it can throw bullets out the side if not held in a consistent manner. Here is a test trace of a actual gun movement along with torque trace from static to 6 inches total travel with RH 1-11 twist. The rifle had arms that extended 6 inches out from the side that draw a trace on paper walls on each side of the gun. The rifle was fired free recoil. As you can see the torque starts the instant the gun starts to move rearward before the bullet leaves the barrel. The gun will move and average of .150 before the bullet exits at which point the rifle snaps back reversing direction and settling down to the non firing tracking line or datum line. In some cases the snap back was harder than the torque up.

Tim in Tx

 

[Snuby642]

Not sure I understand.

As you dialed in the tuner all shots went vertically?
Was that on all the same barrel?

I found mine switched vertical to horizontal with each number and the test gun / loads used.
52g / 223 / 20 inch 1/8 tw.

Or is this the 2 different powder loads same setting test that I am still trying to grasp.

It seems you are tuning the barrel in general but not to a specific load?

Are you trying to isolate top dead center of movement?

I am going to re-read your posts on that again when I'm not tired.

 

[timintx]

Not sure I understand.

As you dialed in the tuner all shots went vertically?
Was that on all the same barrel?

I found mine switched vertical to horizontal with each number and the test gun / loads used.
52g / 223 / 20 inch 1/8 tw.

Or is this the 2 different powder loads same setting test that I am still trying to grasp.

It seems you are tuning the barrel in general but not to a specific load?

Are you trying to isolate top dead center of movement?

I am going to re-read your posts on that again when I'm not tired.

Sorry should have said it , yes two different powder charges and they would hit straight up and down in a no wind condition with numerous barrels. Use your normal load and 1 grain less for the two shot test. Not trying to have the exit time at the top of the peak but more if in the middle of the upswing, that is when to two loads hit level to each other. even if they are off to the side a bit watch your vertical more then anything. Make the two powder charges hit level. Then go back to the normal load and watch it shoot.

Tim in Tx

 

[Barelstroker]

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

I'm a lot of things your buddy isn't one of them.

Ohh, c'mon Stygsy, don't be like that.
I reckon we'd be good mates if you knew WTF you were talking about. Pity, I reckon you'd really like me.

 

[Snuby642]

Well that is clear this morning.
I can try that on next load development.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

I will get around to testing a tuner, just not in the near future. We have a daughters wedding coming up next month as well as all the other bills, a new kitchen, car tyres. It's going to be a busy & expensive 3 to 4 months ahead so not for at least that long. I've got a new barrel going on my 308 next week & I'll be using the little spare time I have to run up an initial load for it. It's a straight no taper so a tuner won't do much for it anyhow I think.
When I do test, it will be a very comprehensive test & I'll get to bottom of all this assumption.
I'll be using grid square targets to plot each shot & aggregate every group to get the entire picture, not just stand alone groups. The winters here are relatively mild so I'll wait till then I reckon, provided nothing else imposes.
At the moment, I think I'll set the confidence interval at 80% because very few are good enough riflemen to better 8 out of 10 shots on there good days. I'll set a 20% margin of error which should average out to roughly +/- 0.3" (although it could be more but I doubt less) or thereabouts which is a good realistic margin of error without the overbearing sample rate.

If you're that hard up for cash, maybe spend less time bitching in here, and use the free time to do something productive. doordash, uber?

https://www.shootsmallgroups.com/product/ec-tuner-brake-ss-5-8-24-thread/

https://www.gofundme.com/

You've been arguing this for over 6 months and still have excuses to not buy one? Nobody cares about your new kitchen, or your car tires, or the wedding.

I think you should set your confidence interval to "shut the fuck up" until you actually buy the product and try it first hand. Nobody is taking you seriously at this point, you've become the Karen of the forum with your attempts to derail a product discussion, over a product you cannot even afford.

 

[Barelstroker]

If you're that hard up for cash, maybe spend less time bitching in here, and use the free time to do something productive. doordash, uber?

https://www.shootsmallgroups.com/product/ec-tuner-brake-ss-5-8-24-thread/

https://www.gofundme.com/

You've been arguing this for over 6 months and still have excuses to not buy one? Nobody cares about your new kitchen, or your car tires, or the wedding.

I think you should set your confidence interval to "shut the fuck up" until you actually buy the product and try it first hand. Nobody is taking you seriously at this point, you've become the Karen of the forum with your attempts to derail a product discussion, over a product you cannot even afford.

I thought you wanted me to go away so you & your tuner buddies could tell each other how good they work without question. You seem intent on keeping up the argument though.
Is it because you're starting to doubt the veracity of your claims?

 

[Snuby642]

Nobody is taking you seriously at this point, you've become the Karen of the forum with your attempts to derail a product discussion, over a product you cannot even afford

I have came to figure that the EC Tuner Brake will pay for itself very quickly in an ar platform.

If trying to save money you could tune any ammo that was acquired on sale to an acceptable level of performance.

Then there is the custom loads using expensive hard to acquire components that just won't work well with the powder you got hold of.

Stick a tune to it and shoot.

 

[Leadrain22]

I have came to figure that the EC Tuner Brake will pay for itself very quickly in an ar platform.

If trying to save money you could tune any ammo that was acquired on sale to an acceptable level of performance.

Then there is the custom loads using expensive hard to acquire components that just won't work well with the powder you got hold of.

Stick a tune to it and shoot.

You got a point there. I never gave that position a thought. But in today's market where it's becoming a game of dice to locate your favorite powder or bullets (Varget, H4350) and you have to use what you can get on that particular day. A tuner may be a GOD sent.

 

[Snuby642]

I have a gallon of the H335 I could not get a load worked up with 52g or 55g bullets.

Better yet I have a bunch of shity hornady sp bullets, I wonder if you can tune those. Lol

 

[Leadrain22]

I have a gallon of the H335 I could not get a load worked up with 52g or 55g bullets.

Better yet I have a bunch of shity hornady sp bullets, I wonder if you can tune those. Lol

I dont think You can make bad bullets (inconsistent) shoot great. You can make them possibly shoot better by sorting them by ogive.