EC tuner brake

[AleksanderSuave]

I have a tuner.

You have a tendency to go to extremes. I'm neither advocating that tuners "work" or "don't work". They obviously do something, but to what extent and what the practicality is is where the real discussion lays.

Personally, I think the last things newer shooters need is a tuner. There are many things that newer shooters should put their effort into before trying a tuner.

And you have a tendency to back pedal and try to change the subject when being called out for being wrong.

Still waiting on you to show us where tuners were marketed towards new shooters.

 

[kthomas]

And you have a tendency to back pedal and try to change the subject when being called out for being wrong.

Still waiting on you to show us where tuners were marketed towards new shooters.

Just a few posts before mine there's a comment about how any critical views/conversations around tuners will be a disservice to newer shooters.

On top of that, the posts in here focus on using tuners as a crutch, to better mate up ammo and rifle, generally through factory ammo, non-optimized reloads, and/or through a factory gun. All of which the largest demographic of owners would be newer(ish) shooters.

Obviously, people are free to do what they want. But adding another variable to the ballistics equation is not what I would personally recommend for a newer(ish) shooter to do.

 

[Barelstroker]

Just a few posts before mine there's a comment about how any critical views/conversations around tuners will be a disservice to newer shooters.

On top of that, the posts in here focus on using tuners as a crutch, to better mate up ammo and rifle, generally through factory ammo, non-optimized reloads, and/or through a factory gun. All of which the largest demographic of owners would be newer(ish) shooters.

Obviously, people are free to do what they want. But adding another variable to the ballistics equation is not what I would personally recommend for a newer(ish) shooter to do.

I don't understand that now tuners apparently can't fix loads that aren't tuned for the rifle.
If tuners work on the principals that have been described, wouldn't poorly tuned factory ammo get the most benefit?
I'm not advocating that a tuner can get 0.2 MOA out of particularly poor ammo but, surely it should be able to take 2 MOA down to say 1 MOA or something along those lines otherwise, what's the point?
Now we're told that the stock can't be too rigid or to sloppy. The barrel can't be too thin or too thick.
Tuners may work but, nobody on this thread or anywhere else that I can find has done the testing to prove it &, things are getting awfully murky around here.

 

[37L1]

I don't understand that now tuners apparently can't fix loads that aren't tuned for the rifle.
If tuners work on the principals that have been described, wouldn't poorly tuned factory ammo get the most benefit?
I'm not advocating that a tuner can get 0.2 MOA out of particularly poor ammo but, surely it should be able to take 2 MOA down to say 1 MOA or something along those lines otherwise, what's the point?
Now we're told that the stock can't be too rigid or to sloppy. The barrel can't be too thin or too thick.
Tuners may work but, nobody on this thread or anywhere else that I can find has done the testing to prove it &, things are getting awfully murky around here.

You could have stopped after the first three words.

 

[Barelstroker]

You could have stopped after the first three words.

So tell us all oh knowledgeable one.

 

[37L1]

So tell us all oh knowledgeable one.

I never claimed to know it all or even anything.

That's the difference.

I just read what you wrote and the conclusion was obvious.

 

[Barelstroker]

I never claimed to know it all or even anything.

That's the difference.

I just read what you wrote and the conclusion was obvious.

Well why don't you ask the guys that are telling us all that tuners definitely work (IF) the barrel is not too thick or thin, (IF) the stock is not too rigid or flexible, (IF) the load is already tuned &, apparently we can all test settings with 2 shots even though that doesn't work out for anything else.
It's impossible to understand bullshit which, I was being diplomatic about but, there you have it.

 

[37L1]

Well why don't you ask the guys that are telling us all that tuners definitely work (IF) the barrel is not too thick or thin, (IF) the stock is not too rigid or flexible, (IF) the load is already tuned &, apparently we can all test settings with 2 shots even though that doesn't work out for anything else.
It's impossible to understand bullshit which, I was being diplomatic about but, there you have it.

Because it doesn't matter to me?
If shooters, who are using tuners, get the results they want on target, "adequate statistical analysis" is not as important to them as it is to you.

 

[Barelstroker]

Because it doesn't matter to me?
If shooters, who are using tuners, get the results they want on target, "adequate statistical analysis" is not as important to them as it is to you.

get the results they want on target,

That's been the issue the entire time.
Guys claiming that tuners work with no empirical data to verify their claims but, they get the results THEY WANT.

 

[kthomas]

Because it doesn't matter to me?
If shooters, who are using tuners, get the results they want on target, "adequate statistical analysis" is not as important to them as it is to you.

And in that vein "if it works", then it "works".

Just like how for me for a period of time that the Satterlee method "worked", or how RDF's "worked" for 3 round groups (though never 5).

 

[37L1]

And in that vein "if it works", then it "works".

Just like how for me for a period of time that the Satterlee method "worked", or how RDF's "worked" for 3 round groups (though never 5).

RDF, Random Damn Flyers.

 

[kthomas]

RDF, Random Damn Flyers.

Yup.

I saw a lot of promise initially with RDF's when I shot 3 round groups for testing with them. Shot some ragged one holes.

Once that data set got opened up to a larger sample size, I found out that I was drawing faulty conclusions from sample sizes that were too small. Same thing with the Satterlee Method.

Small sample sizes may lead you to draw conclusions that aren't correct. I know from personal experience.

 

[timintx]

Well why don't you ask the guys that are telling us all that tuners definitely work (IF) the barrel is not too thick or thin, (IF) the stock is not too rigid or flexible, (IF) the load is already tuned &, apparently we can all test settings with 2 shots even though that doesn't work out for anything else.
It's impossible to understand bullshit which, I was being diplomatic about but, there you have it.

Just listing the reasons why tuners effects vary from gun to gun . Non flexible heavy gun 55 lbs , thick, very hard to see the effects , light gun ,much easier to see the effects meaning as I said before ,regular stocked rifles are the perfect candidates. See pics for clarity. Stiff is on the left and light is on the right just in case you do not understand the difference I am speaking about . Here lets repeat it, just in case you dont understand. Heavy and thick dont do dick, flexible and thin then your in. Even with a heavy varmint tapered barrel which is a light gun.

Tim in Tx

 

[Barelstroker]

Just listing the reasons why tuners effects vary from gun to gun . Non flexible heavy gun 55 lbs , thick, very hard to see the effects , light gun ,much easier to see the effects meaning as I said before ,regular stocked rifles are the perfect candidates. See pics for clarity. Stiff is on the left and light is on the right just in case you do not understand the difference I am speaking about . Here lets repeat it, just in case you don't understand. Heavy and thick don't do dick, flexible and thin then your in. Even with a heavy varmint tapered barrel which is a light gun.

Tim in Tx

I wasn't pinning everything on you. You did state that you think longer barrels were more reactive to the effects of tuners.

 

[Barelstroker]

Yup.

I saw a lot of promise initially with RDF's when I shot 3 round groups for testing with them. Shot some ragged one holes.

Once that data set got opened up to a larger sample size, I found out that I was drawing faulty conclusions from sample sizes that were too small. Same thing with the Satterlee Method.

Small sample sizes may lead you to draw conclusions that aren't correct. I know from personal experience.

Although I had plenty of previous test data with numbered shot positions & coinciding velocity data, I conducted a dedicated test anyway. I found absolutely no correlation of "velocity flat spots" with 10 shot strings of each load. Every shot & velocity was recorded & graphed &, aside from an expected gradual average increase in velocity, the so called flat spots turned up all over the place with 0.2 grain graduations in charge weight.
Just as an aside, I also get very little correlation with testing 0.003" incremental change of seating depth as well.
I'm far from sold on the popular merits of small seating depth variation to tune loads.

 

[Barelstroker]

I put the EC tuner/brakes on my 6BR and 308. Straightforward process, very much the lines of a tuning powder or seating depth

How many shots did you use to judge the difference between tuner settings?

 

[timintx]

I wasn't pinning everything on you. You did state that you think longer barrels were more reactive to the effects of tuners.

Uh no ,I did not state that. I did state however that length does not matter but diameter and relative stiffness does matter.

 

[timintx]

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

You are absolutely right , I tested the extremes of 3 lots which were .016 variance at 1000 yards averaged 10 inches of vertical dispersion . repeated it a few times on 4-5 different weekends . The point in which I could not detect the vertical anymore was .003. I still sort them to .001 for competition anyway especially for my score ammo. This process also helps to maintain a consistent seating depth . When not sorting I was seating the bullets and I was having heck getting the same seating depth , I had to fix each one and that was a pain but the first time I sorted I noticed every seating depth out of the die was holding within .001 and very rarely had to fix it any more . Just my experiences

Tim in Tx

 

[Barelstroker]

You are absolutely right , I tested the extremes of 3 lots which were .016 variance at 1000 yards averaged 10 inches of vertical dispersion . repeated it a few times on 4-5 different weekends . The point in which I could not detect the vertical anymore was .003. I still sort them to .001 for competition anyway especially for my score ammo. This process also helps to maintain a consistent seating depth . When not sorting I was seating the bullets and I was having heck getting the same seating depth , I had to fix each one and that was a pain but the first time I sorted I noticed every seating depth out of the die was holding within .001 and very rarely had to fix it any more . Just my experiences

Tim in Tx

Yeah, when I went to a Wilson seating die, all my seating frustrations disappeared when the on press seating die went in the drawer.
Getting an exact BTO measurement is another story which I've pretty much given up on.

 

[Leadrain22]

Just listing the reasons why tuners effects vary from gun to gun . Non flexible heavy gun 55 lbs , thick, very hard to see the effects , light gun ,much easier to see the effects meaning as I said before ,regular stocked rifles are the perfect candidates. See pics for clarity. Stiff is on the left and light is on the right just in case you do not understand the difference I am speaking about . Here lets repeat it, just in case you dont understand. Heavy and thick dont do dick, flexible and thin then your in. Even with a heavy varmint tapered barrel which is a light gun.

Tim in Tx

I was looking over your photos and thought to myself. Why aren't there more stock manufacturers out there that clamp the barrel rather than bed the action.
When chassis started to become a thing for compitetion rifle back in the late 90s and early 2000s. There's was a manufacturer who made actions and chassis. He was ahead of his time. (Gilkes Ross was the company) Hope I didn't butcher the name. I meet Mike a few times, super smart guy. Reminds me of an older version of Ted from ARC.
Once and a while one of his actions come up for sale. Rare to see a stock and even more rare to see a complete rig for sale.

 

[Barelstroker]

I was looking over your photos and thought to myself. Why aren't there more stock manufacturers out there that clamp the barrel rather than bed the action.
When chassis started to become a thing for compitetion rifle back in the late 90s and early 2000s. There's was a manufacturer who made actions and chassis. He was ahead of his time. (Gilkes Ross was the company) Hope I didn't butcher the name. I meet Mike a few times, super smart guy. Reminds me of an older version of Ted from ARC.
Once and a while one of his actions come up for sale. Rare to see a stock and even more rare to see a complete rig for sale.

I agree with your opinion on clamping the barrel instead of bedding actions & having 6 or 7Lb barrel hanging out of it. I don't know for sure why they don't but, it may be to do with magazine feeding & keeping the action in exactly the correct position & low enough in the stock.
Can you get a link to a pic of the chassis or stock you were referring to?

 

[Leadrain22]

I agree with your opinion on clamping the barrel instead of bedding actions & having 6 or 7Lb barrel hanging out of it. I don't know for sure why they don't but, it may be to do with magazine feeding & keeping the action in exactly the correct position & low enough in the stock.
Can you get a link to a pic of the chassis or stock you were referring to?

He never created a repeater, they were prone LR rifles. Switch barrel and bolt heads. The individual that wrote the attached article is the indivudual that introduced me to Mike and to the rifle system.

Edit: I wanted to add that Mike Ross didn't invent the concept of clamping barrels. It's been done for decades in small bore. It wasn't seem much in centerfire LR or at all. At least I didn't see it in practice until I saw it in a Gilkes Ross chassis.

You are being redirected...

 

[pyrotechnic]

So I bought a Kinetic Security Solutions adaptive tuner system around a year ago as I was primarily shooting factory ammo and it seemed like it would allow me to tune my rifle to shoot factory ammo. After a frustrating range day of trying to interpret two shot "groups" without seeing any benefits I took it off and forgot about it.

After reading the last bit of this thread I figured I'd put it on and do some "testing". I recently put together a .223 trainer and am just shooting handloads that I share with my AR. So again this should be an excellent tool to tune my rifle to a load.

Load data:
75gr hornady hpbt seated to 2.25" or so
21.7gr h322 measured by volume
Assorted brass.

Rifle:
ARC Archimedes
PVA prefit
KMW Sentinel Stock

I had been shooting it bare muzzle and used a .338 Sidwinder brake I had lying around to mount the tuner.

I shot a few rounds to adjust the POI to be slightly high and went into the tuner adjustment test as outlined here:

Tuner Instruction Guide

PATENTED KINETIC SECURITY SOLUTIONS - ADAPTIVE TUNING SYSTEM INSTALLATION & TUNING - PLEASE READ NOTE: If you install 3 set screws, the unit will be more likely to vibrate loose. ONLY USE 1 SET SCREW! - One (1) spare set screw has been provided. Prior to installing the...

www.kineticsecuritysolutions.com

Tuner settings are written below the targets.

I picked the first setting 4 as my "best" as it "grouped nicely" and seemed to be in the middle of a "node" with similar POI. I used 21 as my "worst" setting as both 20 and 22 "grouped poorly" and seemed to have some different in POI.

I then shot 6, 5 shot groups. 2 groups per target (essentially 10 shot group). All of setting 4 was shot first and setting 21 shot next.

I then removed the tuner and did the same with just the brake. I did make a zero correction on my last target to zero as I think I will leave it on there considering how fun it was to shoot with no recoil.

Make of this what you will. The tuner will be moving along out of my life.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

While there is a discussion to be had about using it the “right” way, interpreting the target, as well as if the data is significant (it’s a start, but doesn’t conclude the tuner doesn’t work)…..

The pics (especially the one I’m copying) is a perfect example of larger sample size dispersion.

Two shots will inadvertently work sometimes just because the math/odds say it will work (broken clock tight 2 times a day scenario), there’s a far greater chance it won’t work unless the shooter has a very intimate knowledge of the rifle/ammo being tested (in which case it’s really not two shots as they fired many more beforehand).

There’s a very, very strong possibility had the shooter above shot 10 round groups at all settings, their overall dispersion would look very much the same for every group.

I also marked it up with the exact same circle on each one from more or less the average group size. As you can see, 5/6 groups were extremely close in dispersion.


Excellent example of dispersion with long shot strings regardless of its implications for or against a tuner. Thanks for posting.

 

[pyrotechnic]

As mentioned above. The only thing that can be reliably concluded from my results is that 2 shot groups don't provide the data required to determine a setting.

I was surprised that the "without tuner" groups appear smaller, but I'm betting that if I had shot all 30 rounds at 1 target the difference would have been indecernable.

ETA: the reason I'll be nixing the tuner is not because it doesn't work (I don't know that) but the amount of components and time I would have to put into finding that out is beyond anything that I have the desire to put into it. Dicking around with one more variable that may or may not provide a tangible benefit isn't my idea of fun.

 

[morganlamprecht]

Ive had 2-3 sitting on top of my safe for years after similar tests

 

[Barelstroker]

As mentioned above. The only thing that can be reliably concluded from my results is that 2 shot groups don't provide the data required to determine a setting.

I was surprised that the "without tuner" groups appear smaller, but I'm betting that if I had shot all 30 rounds at 1 target the difference would have been indecernable.

ETA: the reason I'll be nixing the tuner is not because it doesn't work (I don't know that) but the amount of components and time I would have to put into finding that out is beyond anything that I have the desire to put into it. Dicking around with one more variable that may or may not provide a tangible benefit isn't my idea of fun.

The only thing that can be reliably concluded from my results is that 2 shot groups don't provide the data required to determine a setting.

Excellent to see you have the fortitude to seek the truth of the matter &, your statement above is the truth.
As you've shown, testing doesn't require anything more than a reasonable sample number & in my own testing, I've found similar results with most of the load development changes commonly used, i.e.; seating depth, small powder charge incremental changes, neck tension. I have noticed significant difference with projectile weight & type in my 308 & 243 along with case brand which reflect case volume consistency.
After comparing the target results you've posted, the take-away is a no-brainer & the difference is significant IMHO.
With the 10 shot groups you've tested, you can reliably & confidently draw a conclusion &, that's the whole idea.
In addition, had the tuner results been more favourable, how much improvement could have been achieved over that of the non-tuner groups?
Now it's probably fair to assume that a different rifle with a thinner or longer barrel may produce more favourable results with a tuner but, unless the test sample numbers are adequate, the results are nothing more than reinforced bias.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

Imagine being so upset about this discussion, that you have to try to derail other completely unrelated threads with it.

@kthomas

Is your ass seriously that chaffed?

 

[Feniks Technologies]

 

[kthomas]

Imagine being so upset about this discussion, that you have to try to derail other completely unrelated threads with it.

@kthomas

Is your ass seriously that chaffed?

, you are way too emotional about this topic.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

, you are way too emotional about this topic.

says the guy derailing other threads with comments about barrel tuners.

 

[kthomas]

says the guy derailing other threads with comments about barrel tuners.

And humorless too apparently...

Lets not wreck this thread. At this point I would rather continue to hear peoples experience with this product and other tuners as they gain in popularity.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

And humorless too apparently...

Lets not wreck this thread. At this point I would rather continue to hear peoples experience with this product and other tuners as they gain in popularity.

Says the guy who’s literally wrecking other threads.

Believe me, the humor is not lost on me, you’re certainly being laughed at by a few us. You just seem to be confused about us laughing with you.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Says the guy who’s literally wrecking other threads.

Believe me, the humor is not lost on me, you’re certainly being laughed at by a few us. You just seem to be confused about us laughing with you.

You’re basically the barrelstroker on the tuner side.

Pretty entertaining.

 

[kthomas]

Says the guy who’s literally wrecking other threads.

Believe me, the humor is not lost on me, you’re certainly being laughed at by a few us. You just seem to be confused about us laughing with you.

LOL, okay man.

 

[rydah]

So I bought a Kinetic Security Solutions adaptive tuner system around a year ago as I was primarily shooting factory ammo and it seemed like it would allow me to tune my rifle to shoot factory ammo. After a frustrating range day of trying to interpret two shot "groups" without seeing any benefits I took it off and forgot about it.

After reading the last bit of this thread I figured I'd put it on and do some "testing". I recently put together a .223 trainer and am just shooting handloads that I share with my AR. So again this should be an excellent tool to tune my rifle to a load.

Load data:
75gr hornady hpbt seated to 2.25" or so
21.7gr h322 measured by volume
Assorted brass.

Rifle:
ARC Archimedes
PVA prefit
KMW Sentinel Stock

I had been shooting it bare muzzle and used a .338 Sidwinder brake I had lying around to mount the tuner.

I shot a few rounds to adjust the POI to be slightly high and went into the tuner adjustment test as outlined here:

Tuner Instruction Guide

PATENTED KINETIC SECURITY SOLUTIONS - ADAPTIVE TUNING SYSTEM INSTALLATION & TUNING - PLEASE READ NOTE: If you install 3 set screws, the unit will be more likely to vibrate loose. ONLY USE 1 SET SCREW! - One (1) spare set screw has been provided. Prior to installing the...

www.kineticsecuritysolutions.com

View attachment 7827072
Tuner settings are written below the targets.

I picked the first setting 4 as my "best" as it "grouped nicely" and seemed to be in the middle of a "node" with similar POI. I used 21 as my "worst" setting as both 20 and 22 "grouped poorly" and seemed to have some different in POI.

I then shot 6, 5 shot groups. 2 groups per target (essentially 10 shot group). All of setting 4 was shot first and setting 21 shot next.
View attachment 7827076

I then removed the tuner and did the same with just the brake. I did make a zero correction on my last target to zero as I think I will leave it on there considering how fun it was to shoot with no recoil.
View attachment 7827088

Make of this what you will. The tuner will be moving along out of my life.

Perfect example of why two round groups suck. We don’t use two round groups for load development so why anyone thought this would be the way to go using a tuner is beyond me.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Perfect example of why two round groups suck. We don’t use two round groups for load development so why anyone thought this would be the way to go using a tuner is beyond me.

It’s a rough subject. And as with a lot of things, it’s the consumer demands that mess it up.

Barrel break in is a perfect example. Companies list procedures on their site because a large number of shooters believe in it and if they didn’t post the process, they would get 100 phone calls a day asking for the process. So they give them what they want.

That’s why the Satterlee single shot method is so popular. Consumers want so bad to have simple and low round count load development that they will believe something that has zero plausible explanation or logic.

People don’t want to shoot 150 rounds to dial in a tuner (and that’s a reasonable wish). So, if you want to sell tuners and also not spend 8hrs a day on the phone, you have to give a simple process.

My only issue is if someone tries to insist that it’s the proper or best way. Just do like barrel manufacturers do and don’t get into a discussion about it.


Now, I think *in some cases* you can get things working with 2 shot groups. But *only* if you short a before and after tuning group of ~ 10 shots each or more.

You get a good idea what dispersion looks like before tuning. Do your 2 shot thing. Pick a setting and do another dispersion group.

If the before and after groups are almost the same, or if they basically encompass all the 2 shot groups, then you accomplished nothing via the tuner (shooters would find a surprising amount of time this is the case).

Then you would need to pick another setting and do another dispersion group.

You may get lucky and it’s done after the first dispersion group. And you may get unlucky and spend 100 rounds to get the right setting (assuming that such a setting exists at all).

 

[rydah]

It’s a rough subject. And as with a lot of things, it’s the consumer demands that mess it up.

Barrel break in is a perfect example. Companies list procedures on their site because a large number of shooters believe in it and if they didn’t post the process, they would get 100 phone calls a day asking for the process. So they give them what they want.

That’s why the Satterlee single shot method is so popular. Consumers want so bad to have simple and low round count load development that they will believe something that has zero plausible explanation or logic.

People don’t want to shoot 150 rounds to dial in a tuner (and that’s a reasonable wish). So, if you want to sell tuners and also not spend 8hrs a day on the phone, you have to give a simple process.

My only issue is if someone tries to insist that it’s the proper or best way. Just do like barrel manufacturers do and don’t get into a discussion about it.


Now, I think *in some cases* you can get things working with 2 shot groups. But *only* if you short a before and after tuning group of ~ 10 shots each or more.

You get a good idea what dispersion looks like before tuning. Do your 2 shot thing. Pick a setting and do another dispersion group.

If the before and after groups are almost the same, or if they basically encompass all the 2 shot groups, then you accomplished nothing via the tuner (shooters would find a surprising amount of time this is the case).

Then you would need to pick another setting and do another dispersion group.

You may get lucky and it’s done after the first dispersion group. And you may get unlucky and spend 100 rounds to get the right setting (assuming that such a setting exists at all).

I understand the desire to want it to be that easy but it just isn’t and you need to set the expectation otherwise what happened above is the likely outcome. Wasted a whole bunch of ammo and time, nothing was achieved and most likely thinks tuners and dumb and not for them. Which is totally understandable given the experience.

The only way to do it while trying to save ammo at the same time is, per each tuner setting (be it one or two adjustments per group) shoot two rounds, if the first two rounds touch, shoot another, if those three are touching then keep going until you reach five or you get a flier. Repeat this for a few groups until you get a group you’re happy with. (No need to shoot 10-20 groups if you get a 1/4 inch 5 shot group on setting three.)
Then choose your best group, shoot another five round group to confirm the setting works. Go back to your original setting and shoot a group to compare and if it’s better than you achieved improving your group size.

This isn’t how I use a tuner but I don’t shoot factory ammo and I do have the time to do proper load development before I use the tuner to tighten it up that last little bit. But I understand why the need and desire to do it that way exists, people just need to do it the right way, otherwise nothing will be achieved. Like all aspects of load development. You cut corners instead of doing something properly and you’ll achieve nothing, waste rounds and just be pissed off because your gun doesn’t shoot.

 

[kthomas]

I understand the desire to want it to be that easy but it just isn’t and you need to set the expectation otherwise what happened above is the likely outcome. Wasted a whole bunch of ammo and time, nothing was achieved and most likely thinks tuners and dumb and not for them. Which is totally understandable given the experience.

The only way to do it while trying to save ammo at the same time is, per each tuner setting (be it one or two adjustments per group) shoot two rounds, if the first two rounds touch, shoot another, if those three are touching then keep going until you reach five or you get a flier. Repeat this for a few groups until you get a group you’re happy with. (No need to shoot 10-20 groups if you get a 1/4 inch 5 shot group on setting three.)
Then choose your best group, shoot another five round group to confirm the setting works. Go back to your original setting and shoot a group to compare and if it’s better than you achieved improving your group size.

This isn’t how I use a tuner but I don’t shoot factory ammo and I do have the time to do proper load development before I use the tuner to tighten it up that last little bit. But I understand why the need and desire to do it that way exists, people just need to do it the right way, otherwise nothing will be achieved. Like all aspects of load development. You cut corners instead of doing something properly and you’ll achieve nothing, waste rounds and just be pissed off because your gun doesn’t shoot.

It also doesn't help that some tuners are being billed as a shortcut to reloading and precision, by some tuner manufacturers and advocates.

So there are certainly a group of people that are buying tuners with the intent and expectation of doing less work - not more.

 

[badassgunworks]

It also doesn't help that some tuners are being billed as a shortcut to reloading and precision, by some tuner manufacturers and advocates.

So there are certainly a group of people that are buying tuners with the intent and expectation of doing less work - not more.

Anyone who purchases a tuner as a shortcut for load development is a retard. I am not aware of anyone that has purchased one for that reason. Tried and proven method install your tuner brake on your rifle develop loads as normal 1/2 grain increments ladder then finalize with seating depth adjustments. After you fine the optimized load and have fully tested then you tune with tuner it's pretty simple it's not rocket science the tuner is not a patch or fix all it is a fine adjustment tuning device.

 

[phlegethon]

Anyone who purchases a tuner as a shortcut for load development is a retard.

I guess tuners have no role in rimfire then…

 

[spife7980]

I guess tuners have no role in rimfire then…

You reload rimfire?

 

[Feniks Technologies]

You reload rimfire?

He saying that no one loads Rimfire and tuners are essentially used in place of that. Which is at odds with statements that it can’t replace load development.

I guess one could argue lot testing and sorting is the “load development” of rimfire.

 

[spife7980]

He saying that no one loads Rimfire and tuners are essentially used in place of that. Which is at odds with statements that it can’t replace load development.

I guess one could argue lot testing and sorting is the “load development” of rimfire.

Ahhhh, reading it like that isn’t nearly as radical lol

 

[badassgunworks]

I guess tuners have no role in rimfire then…

Excluding rimfire as it is not typically reloaded but sorted . Many people think a tuner will fix all there problems. It will make factory ammo shot better in your rifle but its not a substitute for quality load devlopment. If you reload and cant get your rifle to shoot good your doing somthing wrong or there is somthing wrong with your rifle. A tuner is not a patch its a fine tune tool in addition to doing your part. Doing your part on rim fire is getting a accurate rifle and finding what ammo it likes.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

The other interesting part (and also another fact that supports that we haven’t got this all figured out)…….

Even the people who make and/or sell tuners can’t agree on what they do or don’t do. Or how little or large effect they have.

This thread has at least four different opinions/methods from tuner proponent/manufacturers.

Some of the opinions are at direct odds.

 

[kthomas]

The other interesting part (and also another fact that supports that we haven’t got this all figured out)…….

Even the people who make and/or sell tuners can’t agree on what they do or don’t do. Or how little or large effect they have.

This thread has at least four different opinions/methods from tuner proponent/manufacturers.

Some of the opinions are at direct odds.

Even in the benchrest crowd.

There was a very extended argument on accurateshooter between a world record setting BR shooter, and a tuner manufacturer, on how that specific tuner is supposed to be used.

So even the crowd that's been using them for decades can't agree on how they should be used/work.

 

[Barelstroker]

In reality though, the vast majority of the Benchrest crowd would have even less of an idea of the statistical significance of any perceived changes due to the fact that the smaller the deviation to be measured, the more samples that are required, into the many hundreds of samples in order to determine a statistical difference or confidence.

 

[badassgunworks]

Even in the benchrest crowd.

There was a very extended argument on accurateshooter between a world record setting BR shooter, and a tuner manufacturer, on how that specific tuner is supposed to be used.

So even the crowd that's been using them for decades can't agree on how they should be used/work.

I can assure you several things one I designed make and build tuners. I also use tuners. I use them for several different applications and you will find the same thing in competition. I use my tuner break to fine-tune accuracy at distance. I also used it for extreme swings in conditions. And last but not least I use it when accuracy starts to be affected by throat erosion. The problem is there is a few of us their experience and the use and Design of tuners and what they do. Then there are some the never used tuners prior to deciding to get into the manufacturing for the purpose of sales. One in specific was claiming that a tuner would improve his standard deviation proof that the guy has no clue as to what he is doing. Just trying to make a buck. This entire post has-been convoluted by the same people trying to teach people to use a tuner the wrong way go about adjusting and setting it and testing it the wrong way. It has created confusion and lots of false ideas and opinions. Those who have tested them the wrong way fall into that category

 

[nealm66]

Do you have a tuner that you sell?