-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Harrell Tuner on a Vudoo MTU tapered barrel
- Thread starter Jeffb27
- Start date
Yes you can use a tuner on a tapered barrel no problem if the fit is right. Ideally it will just fit snugly at the rear as the muzzle butts up at the front of the tuner recess. Thoroughly degrease the barrel and tuner and use something like rosin to help keep it from slipping under recoil while testing. Once mounted I take a pencil and draw a ring around the barrel at the back of the tuner so I can tell if any slippage occurs. Do not over tighten the tuner, you can actually restrict the bore if you get hamfisted. On rifles that I have tuned and intend on leaving the tuner on permanently I use a little Loctite 222 (purple low strength) on the barrel instead of rosin. It holds it on with very little screw tension but can be removed later if required.
I had a Harrel tuner and had it bored out to .860" for a CZ 457 MTR. Since I had a bunch of guns that I wanted to try a tuner on,
I had a false muzzle brake made with a 1/2-28 thread and an .860" OD. That allowed me to screw the false brake onto any
threaded barrel and clamp the tuner to it. The reason that I had the holes stopped short of going through the brake was to prevent
the muzzle blast from destroying the tuner finish. A shorter adapter with no holes may even be better, I just liked the look.
A guy on eBay ( 163036765515 ) ( Ruger 10/22 Muzzle Brake/Compensator .920" O.D ) did it for me from a simple sketch. The
last photo is from his page so all you would need do is tell him a diameter and a length which could be the same as the depth
that Harrel bores their tuner.
I had a false muzzle brake made with a 1/2-28 thread and an .860" OD. That allowed me to screw the false brake onto any
threaded barrel and clamp the tuner to it. The reason that I had the holes stopped short of going through the brake was to prevent
the muzzle blast from destroying the tuner finish. A shorter adapter with no holes may even be better, I just liked the look.
A guy on eBay ( 163036765515 ) ( Ruger 10/22 Muzzle Brake/Compensator .920" O.D ) did it for me from a simple sketch. The
last photo is from his page so all you would need do is tell him a diameter and a length which could be the same as the depth
that Harrel bores their tuner.
Attachments
Had I even seen a 1/16" improvement with the tuner I would have called it a success but I didn't see that with the MTR.
I have a lot of guns that can group .38 ctc at 50 yards so maybe it's my expectations to some degree. I even have a 275.00
Zastava MP22 that grouped .32" at 50 yards recently when I feed it the ammo that it liked. I would suggest to anyone that they
have worked out the ammo first. 18 months ago I had my Vudoo sent for lot testing and it preferred Center X over Midas Plus
and I have had other guns that like cheaper SK red box better than Center X. I feel like the biggest contributor to my accuracy
is consistent hold on the gun. Your shoulder pressure, cheek weight on the stock, hand pull on the grip, etc. Only on occasion when I may hear a different shot sound do I blame the ammunition and in that case I ignore that shot. When I have a gun that has proven that it can shoot,
and then it stops.... I always look at myself first. Even that Zastava that has a multi-pound rudimentary trigger shoots well when I
am doing what I should.
I have a lot of guns that can group .38 ctc at 50 yards so maybe it's my expectations to some degree. I even have a 275.00
Zastava MP22 that grouped .32" at 50 yards recently when I feed it the ammo that it liked. I would suggest to anyone that they
have worked out the ammo first. 18 months ago I had my Vudoo sent for lot testing and it preferred Center X over Midas Plus
and I have had other guns that like cheaper SK red box better than Center X. I feel like the biggest contributor to my accuracy
is consistent hold on the gun. Your shoulder pressure, cheek weight on the stock, hand pull on the grip, etc. Only on occasion when I may hear a different shot sound do I blame the ammunition and in that case I ignore that shot. When I have a gun that has proven that it can shoot,
and then it stops.... I always look at myself first. Even that Zastava that has a multi-pound rudimentary trigger shoots well when I
am doing what I should.
I just got a harrel tuner for my VODOO.
The instructions state measure 1" from the end of muzzle and take that measurement.
The last inch should be straight, usually at the muzzle it's fairly straight.
If a little loose I have used brass shims against the barrel and the clamping area of the tuner.
But talk to Harrel he will set you straight. He is one of the good guys.
The instructions state measure 1" from the end of muzzle and take that measurement.
The last inch should be straight, usually at the muzzle it's fairly straight.
If a little loose I have used brass shims against the barrel and the clamping area of the tuner.
But talk to Harrel he will set you straight. He is one of the good guys.
I'm not saying that the Harrel tuner has any problem clamping to the barrel, either straight or tapered. My MTR bbl. measures .8595" and as I recall the guy's at Harrel bore them .005" over the dimension you supply them with. Still that is no problem because the tuner will collapse about .020" smaller than the bored size. Easy, peasy!! In fact the product seems to be well made in all respects. Can't imagine why shims would be needed. I simply didn't realize any significant improvement in group size. On the other hand.... I have sent four rifles in for LOT testing. My my Vudoo can shoot .32" with the correct Center X but it will shoot an Inch with the wrong Center X. So until your close with the ammo, I feel like your chasing your tail. I in no way meant to condem any gun or any tuner for that matter.
Air,
I have other tuners for different guns and have switched some tuners around and sometimes they don't fit snug on other guns.
The last harrels fit like a glove.
Another thing to remember is a lot of people don't have much bucks. So sending a rifle to lapua or eley to find the lot and then buy a few cases is very difficult for them.
The tuner affords a lot of shooters to buy some ammo and do a good job of matching the ammo to their rifle.
Also by doing the work yourself instead of sending it out. You will get a better understanding of of what you need todo to make it work.
I have other tuners for different guns and have switched some tuners around and sometimes they don't fit snug on other guns.
The last harrels fit like a glove.
Another thing to remember is a lot of people don't have much bucks. So sending a rifle to lapua or eley to find the lot and then buy a few cases is very difficult for them.
The tuner affords a lot of shooters to buy some ammo and do a good job of matching the ammo to their rifle.
Also by doing the work yourself instead of sending it out. You will get a better understanding of of what you need todo to make it work.
Last edited:
Sounds like the Harrel tuner didn’t improve your MTR group sizes much. Question I have are they all pretty much the same or will some see that 0.062” improvement?
Looking at trying an Ezell instead of Harrels
OFG
From purely a mechanical point of view, I cant see how any tuner would be better than any other. The device is affixed to your barrel.
It has a certain mass to it. You have the ability to move that mass forward or rearward influencing the harmonics. With the Harrel and it's micrometer like design, once you have mounted it, you can adjust it's location by very small increments. From memory it probably moves
in .001" increments per click. The tuner is graduated in two different ways so in theory, after you tuned your gun you could record the
data that you extended the tuner to for that rifle and that ammo. You could then use the tuner on another gun and record it's data.
IE: Gun one was extended by .275" and gun two by .425". You could then put the tuner back on the first gun and set the tuner back to it's
dimension of .275" and the gun should be tuned just as it had been before. That is my interpretation of how it should work. The device
allows for the movement of mass to a repeatable location from the muzzle face. I feel like any kind of slip on device the the rubber
damper would be a huge step backwards IF tuning requires any kind of precision. The location may be something that has a
tolerance of .50"... who knows? The original query was about the Harrel and my MTR that has a 21" bbl that has a diameter of .860"
Personally I saw no improvement. Since were just talking.... would you try and tune a Ruger Mk 3 pistol with a 6" bbl. even if it were
mounted in a machine?
It has a certain mass to it. You have the ability to move that mass forward or rearward influencing the harmonics. With the Harrel and it's micrometer like design, once you have mounted it, you can adjust it's location by very small increments. From memory it probably moves
in .001" increments per click. The tuner is graduated in two different ways so in theory, after you tuned your gun you could record the
data that you extended the tuner to for that rifle and that ammo. You could then use the tuner on another gun and record it's data.
IE: Gun one was extended by .275" and gun two by .425". You could then put the tuner back on the first gun and set the tuner back to it's
dimension of .275" and the gun should be tuned just as it had been before. That is my interpretation of how it should work. The device
allows for the movement of mass to a repeatable location from the muzzle face. I feel like any kind of slip on device the the rubber
damper would be a huge step backwards IF tuning requires any kind of precision. The location may be something that has a
tolerance of .50"... who knows? The original query was about the Harrel and my MTR that has a 21" bbl that has a diameter of .860"
Personally I saw no improvement. Since were just talking.... would you try and tune a Ruger Mk 3 pistol with a 6" bbl. even if it were
mounted in a machine?
Tune a 6” pistol bbl? Huh no. Apples & oranges. Ezell‘s uses PDT vs Harrel‘s solid mass. Make a difference? Don’t know but will find out.
OFG
I just took a look at the Ezell and the thesis..... WOW !
I have no dog in the race so I see a inner tube that clamps to the bbl. An outer tube that is threaded and graduated and screws for and aft.
From an outward appearance, conceptually they are the same thing to my eye. They both move mass for and aft relative to the muzzle.
As for the thesis..... they describe it as " Partical impact damping in the horizontal plane" Well... if you look at page 24 you will note an arrow
with the letter G next to it. That is indicating ground or gravity. The title and experiment are set up for displacement in the HORIZONTAL plane.
For the shooter purpose, that is windage. I'm not saying that that the " cantilever beam " which is our barrel and can be 6" or 60" doesn't move in all directions because it does.
I have no dog in the race so I see a inner tube that clamps to the bbl. An outer tube that is threaded and graduated and screws for and aft.
From an outward appearance, conceptually they are the same thing to my eye. They both move mass for and aft relative to the muzzle.
As for the thesis..... they describe it as " Partical impact damping in the horizontal plane" Well... if you look at page 24 you will note an arrow
with the letter G next to it. That is indicating ground or gravity. The title and experiment are set up for displacement in the HORIZONTAL plane.
For the shooter purpose, that is windage. I'm not saying that that the " cantilever beam " which is our barrel and can be 6" or 60" doesn't move in all directions because it does.
Shawn, I got your email, in the wee hours of the morning a couple of days ago.. asking for a quick reply., so here it is. I've openly discussed tuners on most every site without hiding much. You can find pertinent info with a quick search. Your email was, lets say, direct. I don't recall you questioning me as much as a thesis written at Texas A&M university, based on a thorough study on particle dampening done there.
It wasn't done by me but rather offered as supportive evidence to the theory behind it that I've tested using vibration analysis and have verified to my own satisfaction as being how and what is going on, as best we could....which is far and beyond what any other tuner maker that I'm aware of has gone to support OR prove wrong, their product and ideas behind them. I appreciate you inquisitiveness on the subject but maybe a different approach is needed.
I think if you read and re-read the thesis, it answers many of your questions.
And NO, I'm not going to share a CAD file of my tuner design with you. Sorry about that.
AYFK???--Mike Ezell
It wasn't done by me but rather offered as supportive evidence to the theory behind it that I've tested using vibration analysis and have verified to my own satisfaction as being how and what is going on, as best we could....which is far and beyond what any other tuner maker that I'm aware of has gone to support OR prove wrong, their product and ideas behind them. I appreciate you inquisitiveness on the subject but maybe a different approach is needed.
I think if you read and re-read the thesis, it answers many of your questions.
And NO, I'm not going to share a CAD file of my tuner design with you. Sorry about that.
AYFK???--Mike Ezell
Last edited:
Hello Mike,
I'm not sure why you didn't write me back first on email for a private chat but that was your decision.
I was not questioning the Texas A&M thesis in any way, shape or form. That group of people are much smarter than I am.
As for the request for a CAD file, I have been in mechanical design for thirty years and drawings and CAD files show me
what's going on in an instant. They also have the benefit of being very truthful in nature. When words are used any
polished orator can make even the bad seem OK. I'm not that guy.... I just like to see the facts be they good or bad.
I have read some of your other posts "I spent the time testing, both in a lab with an accelerometer and on the range"
Why would you guess that TA&M didn't use an accelerometer?
Below is a copy of my email to you and my most pressing request is still unanswered.
That is..... ""could you please dumb down"" the thesis so that the average lay person could understand not the thesis but how
you applied it to your tuner. To use the thesis you must have a fairly good grasp on it or it would be impressive and lofty but
useless information.
To me the thesis looks absolutely spot on for their application. That said, I'm not getting my masters and my major
isn't in aerospace engineering. .
I'm not even suggesting that your tuner doesn't work. I suspect that you ""have verified to my own satisfaction""
that your tuner does something. I simply don't see how you are claiming to be supported by PDT.
So I guess my only recourse is to purchase your 200.00 tuner and take it apart to see how it differs from the others.
I should remind everyone that I had a Harrel and although simple and well made, I realized no significant benefit from it.
That is also how this post got started. I was asked what I thought of the Harrel? The other poster brought the Ezell into
the conversation claiming it was far better due to it's use of PDT. As soon as I saw the nomenclature on page VI it
was clear to me that the poster was sold on an idea and he knew nothing about.
Your right on one point when you state.... ""to support OR prove wrong, their product and ideas behind them.""
Without someone like Texas A&M , nobody could prove or disprove the benefit from any tuner. Saying that a top
shooter is taking first place and he happens to be using a tuner doesn't prove or disprove anything. I placed in
the worlds in 1993 and my brass muzzle brake likely had nothing to do with it. I will say that perception is a
wonderful and powerful sales tool.
Until I get some other data that gets me to feel otherwise, my feeling is the your marriage of your tuner and
thesis is a clever bit of marketing. It is certainly nothing that I would ever try and do to explain my product.
I would prefer to say that it works but I'm not exactly sure how or why. Just like the pyramids of Giza. We have no idea.
I had to look up AYFK... NO, I was not kidding. I ask simple questions in the hope of getting simple, clear answerers!
I thought it a simple way for you to quickly, clearly convey the requested information.
It cant be big deal since you have product in the market place. I used to weld and machine before I got into mechanical design
so I suspect that I see things a little different than most people.
Currently I see two pieces of 6061 that have been machined
and polished. Some SHCS, hi-collar lock washers, nylon tipped set screws. And likely a purchased spring plunger.
None of it is black magic..... I know people are very fond and protective of ""their designs"" but....AYFK! LoL
Most people wouldn't even understand a CAD file. All they would see is the pretty colors.
Shawn Carroll
COMAU
design /check
Hello Mike,
Could you please relate to me how you applied the thesis data to your tuner.
I was asked about the Harrel and how it worked for me?
I was then told how your tuner used PDT and was far superior to the Harrel because of it. I looked at your rimfire tuner, read the write up about how it clamps to the barrel like the Harrel and superficially and conceptually they look to be the same. Maybe an added elastomer or some weight inserts that cant be seen???
After a quick review of the published thesis I'm wondering what you could have done to apply their findings?
The entire paper is impressive looking and a great sales tool but I must confess that cant connect the dots.
I meant I could not connect the dots between the thesis and it's use in the tuner.
Upon the initial read of your article and the way the thesis is referenced in it, it gives the impression that the data is somehow directly related to your tuner and not just an abstract.
The paper mentions Viscoelastic materials and cryogenic environments and although impressive filler, practically speaking it's meaningless. Cryogenics starts at about -295F.
It seems further complicated by the fact that the tests were done only on the horizontal plane and the results were at 90 degrees to the cantilever beam.
Could you please dumb things down for me before I respond to the guy's query on Snipers Hide.
Hope you have time to respond soon. 07/25/2021
Shawn Carroll
PS. any CAD file would probably explain everything just fine.
I'm not sure why you didn't write me back first on email for a private chat but that was your decision.
I was not questioning the Texas A&M thesis in any way, shape or form. That group of people are much smarter than I am.
As for the request for a CAD file, I have been in mechanical design for thirty years and drawings and CAD files show me
what's going on in an instant. They also have the benefit of being very truthful in nature. When words are used any
polished orator can make even the bad seem OK. I'm not that guy.... I just like to see the facts be they good or bad.
I have read some of your other posts "I spent the time testing, both in a lab with an accelerometer and on the range"
Why would you guess that TA&M didn't use an accelerometer?
Below is a copy of my email to you and my most pressing request is still unanswered.
That is..... ""could you please dumb down"" the thesis so that the average lay person could understand not the thesis but how
you applied it to your tuner. To use the thesis you must have a fairly good grasp on it or it would be impressive and lofty but
useless information.
To me the thesis looks absolutely spot on for their application. That said, I'm not getting my masters and my major
isn't in aerospace engineering. .
I'm not even suggesting that your tuner doesn't work. I suspect that you ""have verified to my own satisfaction""
that your tuner does something. I simply don't see how you are claiming to be supported by PDT.
So I guess my only recourse is to purchase your 200.00 tuner and take it apart to see how it differs from the others.
I should remind everyone that I had a Harrel and although simple and well made, I realized no significant benefit from it.
That is also how this post got started. I was asked what I thought of the Harrel? The other poster brought the Ezell into
the conversation claiming it was far better due to it's use of PDT. As soon as I saw the nomenclature on page VI it
was clear to me that the poster was sold on an idea and he knew nothing about.
Your right on one point when you state.... ""to support OR prove wrong, their product and ideas behind them.""
Without someone like Texas A&M , nobody could prove or disprove the benefit from any tuner. Saying that a top
shooter is taking first place and he happens to be using a tuner doesn't prove or disprove anything. I placed in
the worlds in 1993 and my brass muzzle brake likely had nothing to do with it. I will say that perception is a
wonderful and powerful sales tool.
Until I get some other data that gets me to feel otherwise, my feeling is the your marriage of your tuner and
thesis is a clever bit of marketing. It is certainly nothing that I would ever try and do to explain my product.
I would prefer to say that it works but I'm not exactly sure how or why. Just like the pyramids of Giza. We have no idea.
I had to look up AYFK... NO, I was not kidding. I ask simple questions in the hope of getting simple, clear answerers!
I thought it a simple way for you to quickly, clearly convey the requested information.
It cant be big deal since you have product in the market place. I used to weld and machine before I got into mechanical design
so I suspect that I see things a little different than most people.
Currently I see two pieces of 6061 that have been machined
and polished. Some SHCS, hi-collar lock washers, nylon tipped set screws. And likely a purchased spring plunger.
None of it is black magic..... I know people are very fond and protective of ""their designs"" but....AYFK! LoL
Most people wouldn't even understand a CAD file. All they would see is the pretty colors.
Shawn Carroll
COMAU
design /check
Hello Mike,
Could you please relate to me how you applied the thesis data to your tuner.
I was asked about the Harrel and how it worked for me?
I was then told how your tuner used PDT and was far superior to the Harrel because of it. I looked at your rimfire tuner, read the write up about how it clamps to the barrel like the Harrel and superficially and conceptually they look to be the same. Maybe an added elastomer or some weight inserts that cant be seen???
After a quick review of the published thesis I'm wondering what you could have done to apply their findings?
The entire paper is impressive looking and a great sales tool but I must confess that cant connect the dots.
I meant I could not connect the dots between the thesis and it's use in the tuner.
Upon the initial read of your article and the way the thesis is referenced in it, it gives the impression that the data is somehow directly related to your tuner and not just an abstract.
The paper mentions Viscoelastic materials and cryogenic environments and although impressive filler, practically speaking it's meaningless. Cryogenics starts at about -295F.
It seems further complicated by the fact that the tests were done only on the horizontal plane and the results were at 90 degrees to the cantilever beam.
Could you please dumb things down for me before I respond to the guy's query on Snipers Hide.
Hope you have time to respond soon. 07/25/2021
Shawn Carroll
PS. any CAD file would probably explain everything just fine.
Shawn, I got your email, in the wee hours of the morning a couple of days ago.. asking for a quick reply., so here it is. I've openly discussed tuners on most every site without hiding much. You can find pertinent info with a quick search. Your email was, lets say, direct. I don't recall you questioning me as much as a thesis written at Texas A&M university, based on a thorough study on particle dampening done there.
It wasn't done by me but rather offered as supportive evidence to the theory behind it that I've tested using vibration analysis and have verified to my own satisfaction as being how and what is going on, as best we could....which is far and beyond what any other tuner maker that I'm aware of has gone to support OR prove wrong, their product and ideas behind them. I appreciate you inquisitiveness on the subject but maybe a different approach is needed.
I think if you read and re-read the thesis, it answers many of your questions.
And NO, I'm not going to share a CAD file of my tuner design with you. Sorry about that.
Attachments
CAD files are intellectual property. If you’d ever CREATED intellectual property yourself, I’m sure you would understand the unwillingness to share, the risk of theft, and the boon to competitors that could be. Buy the tuner or don’t. It’s not like you’re mortgaging your house to do so.
In thirty years of creating things starting from a blank sheet of paper, and having only the requested outcome given to me, I can say that I have never felt unwilling to share my ideas with other people. Legally, all of my ideas became the property of COMAU but they were my idea's.
I also never called it, intellectual property.... that's much too lofty for my limited, simple, pea brain.
Mike's unwillingness to share simply created a puzzle for me to solve.
I'm going to buy his tuner out of idle curiosity. I did some more research and I was mistaken on one point.... You don't need Texas A&M to determine if Mike has in fact attempted to incorporate PID / PDT into his unit. It comes down to him having one simple feature and if he has it then he may be on the right track. Conversely, If he doesn't have it, than it's.... lets call it.... clever marketing.
The thesis is a very impressive read but very few people can get a handle on it. I could give you an example of it's use and you would
be shocked at the apparent simplicity of PID / PDT. You wouldn't understand the thesis but you could see and feel it's results.
The results from the example are so pronounced that It would probably increase his sales dramatically. It would take PDT
from the overwhelming theoretical BS into the realm of reality for mortal men. Would I share this with Mike, sure I would, I
don't have a dog in the race.
A person can search and even read every thesis ever written about a subject but that doesn't mean a person will understands it.
Then you need to marry the concept to a product that your trying to create. His tests were anecdotal.
Sharing "HIS DESIGN" cant be that big of a deal since his units are out in the field. Anyone that has bought one of his
units and read the thesis likely still cant connect the dots between theory and practice. With my example, the night lite
over their heads would turn on, their eye's would widen with understanding and their jaw would go slack.
I would like to note that I have withheld my example up to this point because it alone would make it clear to all of Mike's
competitors what they need to do to actually incorporate PDT.
Even if Mike's tuner has PDT theoretically incorporated, that wont mean that it has any practical value in the real world.
When you start talking about theory and you take measurements in microns or nanometers, it starts to become a lot like
smoke and mirrors. It will only make a difference if you clamp his tuner onto your gun and it makes a difference to your
group size.
I was asked my opinion and I'm still on the fence as to the superiority of the Ezell over the Harrel. I'm looking to see if the Ezell
tuner has the mechanical facility to utilize PDT and not if it actually functions better because of it.
I will offer up, that one of Mike's photo's of unfinished parts leads me to believe that his tuner may have the capacity to incorporate
what he needs for PID /PDT
Shawn Carroll
It will be my pleasure to post results of any increased performance. I will however give Mike the first opportunity to
hear or use my example of PDT. That is if he has actually incorporated said technology into his tuner. As I stated,
once I let the genie out, there is no stuffing it back in the bottle. I know that sounds cryptic but any machinist, Mike's
competitors... attempting to dampen the vibrations would instantly understand the example. Once explained it becomes
laughably simple to grasp.
Shawn
hear or use my example of PDT. That is if he has actually incorporated said technology into his tuner. As I stated,
once I let the genie out, there is no stuffing it back in the bottle. I know that sounds cryptic but any machinist, Mike's
competitors... attempting to dampen the vibrations would instantly understand the example. Once explained it becomes
laughably simple to grasp.
Shawn
Shawn, while I totally know better than to fuel your desire to call me out without you having any idea how much testing we've actually done on my design, well...
Above, you mentioned seeing a picture of my tuners before completion and you added that it appears that they might have whatever you're alluding to. I'm the one that shared the pic you're talking about and I've made numerous posts in regard to my tuner design, for years, including references to our vibration analysis testing and to the fact that we even tested several different media for the particles. You simply haven't tried very hard to find what I've put out there, yet it appears that you still ASSuME I must have overlooked your laughably simple explanation for its value. I haven't been disrespectful, except to emphatically reject your request for my studies and CAD drawings. Frankly, that's what's laughable here! I find it hard to believe that you don't see it the same way. Why on earth would I tell you the details of what I've spent thousands of hours and dollars testing and designing, only to give it to you? Are You F'n Kidding Me seemed like a justifiable response, both then and now. If you can't grasp that...I just don't know what else to say to you!!
As to your veiled threat to let a genie out of the bottle to other machinists, well...others have come before you, sir. I have a very low opinion of those types that will blatantly copy others' work. Is that where you fit in or not...I'm not sure. But it sure sounds like you have grossly underestimated me and how much testing I have done with tuner design and dampening. I'm not sleeping on that either and I keep other things in the design/testing pipeline, always trying to improve. Just so you know, I've had input from multiple mechanical engineers, one of which is a professor at the University of Cincinnati who was formerly an advisor at Los Alamos National Laboratory. You can ASSuME all you want but please leave the ME out of it. I have zero desire to work with you in any capacity moving forward. I hope you understand. --Mike
Last edited:
The purple is a portion of an email sent to Mike. I choose not to share any photo's or examples except with him.
Hello Mike,
I think you misunderstand me a great deal. I am simply used to people that over stating them selves, their ability or their product.
From your last post on Snipers Hide, and photo's of your unfinished tuner, I'm confident that you have incorporated PID / PDT into your tuner.
In your last post, you said just the right word for me to believe that your on the right track and I'm certainly willing to say as much and to apologize on SH. I will however leave it to you to share or not share my simple example. Nothing shown in red below will go in the SH post.
****************
Mike.... I did grossly underestimate the work you have done and worse still, your ability to understand and conceptualize
the work in the thesis. For that I am truly sorry. I hope that you will try and understand my skeptical view of most people.
I'm also sorry if it sounded like I was suggesting that you have overlooked something simple. That was not my message. I was trying to say
that when given a tangible example, any theory often becomes laughably simple. Think of a magic trick.... once you know how it's done, it's boring! I have given Mike the example and it is up to him if he cares to share it. Although it would make it much simpler for the purchaser to understand, it would also make it much easier for his competition to understand.
I offered no vailed threat. It was my opinion that if I posted the example, ( the genie ) any other tuner builder could understand the theory of what you have worked so hard to achieve. They would not know the science but it would be enough for them to vault foreword in your direction with great confidence. Now having seen the example, you can probably see my point of view.
Originally I had attached the your photo that lead me to believe your going in the right direction. I decided to take it down because it alone gives people idea's and direction that they may not pursue on their own. If I tell someone that a particular photo has special value, they may take a closer look at it. That was something I wanted to avoid.
I no longer need a CAD file or any other data. I can see with the one photo of yours, that I sent back to you and one word in your last post
#22, that you clearly are applying PID / PDT to your tuner. For me the downside is that the puzzle has been solved..... where is the fun in that.
My offer to give you the example first was just that and nothing more. If you had PDT than I would be happy to share it with you to use at your discretion. It wasn't looking to work with you or anyone else.
To be candid, this just became a curiosity for me to see if you selling the truth or a lie.
Your also correct in that I didn't do an exhaustive search on you or your product. First, if it was all BS, than I have wasted
countless hours looking at anecdotal evidence. Second.... I'm only motivated by my mild curiosity.
I hope that this sounds like the apology that it is meant to be. Just in case it is not enough.... Mike Ezell
is applying a technology that no other tuner manufacture is even close to offering!
Sincerely
Shawn Carroll
A clamp on tuner such as a Harrels will work fine on tapered barrels provided it is bored to the correct diameter of your barrel. I have often used shim material to try a tuner bored for a larger barrel on a smaller diameter barrel. I don't recommend this but it will work. The problem with trying to tune a Voodu barrel is that most are short and heavy. 18 to 20in seems to be the most common with some 22in. Short heavy barrels don't respond well if at all to a stock weight Harrels or any other brand Barrel tuner. The easiest barrels to tune are .750 to .850 straight taper 23 to 24in or longer. I am currently trying to tune a 22in Kukri taper which is not responding to a standard Harrels. I'll try adding weights next but I have my doubts.
For different type of tuner contact,
www.pappasrimfireproducts.com
It's now run by James daughter Jessica
Default Parallels Plesk Panel Page
I haven't got my 22 inch Kukri yet but I have wondered how tuning will go. One way of looking at this is that a lighter barrel whips/oscilates more and is therefore more conducive to tuning but also more in need of control/correction.
How much did the Harrel depress your POI? I have ordered a second set of weights so that I can experiment to find out what it takes to bend that stout little barrel. Keep us posted as to how it goes.
I have not seen any improvement in vertical spread with the stock Harrels tuner vs plain barrel groups. I did see POI movement with different tuner settings which is normal. I need to add that this Vudoo barrel is a shooter. It's not showing a lot of vertical anyway and the better a barrel shoots the less effect a tuner will have. Having said that, I haven't seen many barrels that didn't improve with the right tuner setting other than some short barreled benchrest 10/22s. My testing is being done at 40yds with Midas+.
In his book Steve Boelter suggested that tuners works best if they depress the POI approximately half an inch.
That isn't anything I see referenced these days but I have my reasons for keeping track of it when I am tuning.
That isn't anything I see referenced these days but I have my reasons for keeping track of it when I am tuning.
Everyone has their own system for tuning. I like to tune at shorter distances trying to lessen the effects of wind and mirage. I don't have access to an indoor range. Your system is certainly working for you. I would really like to know your barrel contour and length.
This may or may not help you but for what its worth, I've spent the week working with this Vudoo 22in Kukri taper barrel. As I said before. It would not respond to a stock weight Harrrels tuner. Today I added the 3oz weight and started all over. At the 400 setting what vertical stringing I had completely went away. 1or 2 clicks either side of 400 made very little if any difference. I have found that if you have a true tune setting this is the case I'll shoot again tomorrow to see if this tune will repeat. My advise would be that if you're wanting to try a Harrels tuner on one of the short fat Vudoo barrels you'll probably need the weight kit also.
That is very encouraging. Thanks for posting the news. My Vudoo is still a ways off I expect but I will have a weight set for the Harrel.
Looked at the Harrells Webb site but was unable to find the weight set. Would appreciate any help.
OFG
try this for the Harrell's weight: https://www.killoughshootingsports.com/147-benchrest-rifle-tuners
Thank you. Just what I think I need. One more question: how do they attach to the tuner?
OFG
Last edited:
There is a step and an o-ring, they screw into the front, there are bloop tubes that screw in as well.
Thanks.There is a step and an o-ring, they screw into the front, there are bloop tubes that screw in as well.
OFG
Good Lord dude. What a joke. The great shawn has determined the product to be in fact what they say it is... now we can all sleep easy. Glad you don’t need a CAD file anymore lmao!!!
I have an Ezell tuner... purchased about a year ago after have an informative long talk with Mike Ezell via phone. It is THREAD ON rather than bored to a specific diameter for clamp-on. That way, I can easily move it between rifles! Of course I have to determine the preferred setting for a particular rifle and ammo combination, but then I make note of it. I haven't "needed" the tuner on the Vudoo, but I've used it on a CZ 457 and Ruger American Rimfire that I also compete with (with the tuner on different settings for each), and it moved me from "middle of the pack" in match results, to usually being in the top few spots within their competition class.
I think it makes sense to use a *threaded* Ezell PDT if you have a threaded barrel on your rifle(s).
I think it makes sense to use a *threaded* Ezell PDT if you have a threaded barrel on your rifle(s).
I have a Vudoo w/threaded barrel coming but only 18". Is there any point in a tuner on that length barrel?
All barrels have some whip… if you’re experiencing vertical stringing, it will probably help. If you’re already making 50-yard 5-shot groups that are one ragged hole, then don’t bother
My Vudoo 360 Ravage with 20” Kukri barrel doesn’t need one at this point.
Thanx for the response. We shall see. I was quoted September delivery.All barrels have some whip… if you’re experiencing vertical stringing, it will probably help. If you’re already making 50-yard 5-shot groups that are one ragged hole, then don’t bother
My Vudoo 360 Ravage with 20” Kukri barrel doesn’t need one at this point.
Similar threads
