Hornady on tuners.

[Taylorbok]

Just saw this pop up, just turned it on to listen to, should be interesting.
thought some of you would like to watch (or hate LOL)
Hopefully this thread doesn't divulge into name calling and personal insults

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

Just stumbled across this on the youtube and came looking for the thread - watching it now.

Let's get the zealots in here to tell us how we just don't understand what it's supposed to do and just haven't tested it right.

 

[cas6969]

One video is statistically irrelevant.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

One video is statistically irrelevant.

Is that based on stdev.s or stdev.p ?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Fuck......

 

[Im2bent]

 

[JBoomhauer]

LOL @ 1:10:00

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

Here's Jeff Siewert's paper referenced at 59:37ish.

"It appears that so called “muzzle tuners” are only able to reduce dispersion in limited situations, namely when the static maximum bore centerline deflection is vertically below the centerline of the straight line defined by the center of the bore at the origin of rifling and the center of the bore at the muzzle. In this situation, the mass of the muzzle tuner, combined with the effects of gravity tends to make the bore centerline closer to perfectly straight, helping to reduce the interaction between variations in bullet initial position, in-bore forcing function and the resulting barrel motion in a direction perpendicular to the bore at muzzle release. For other orientations of the bore maximum deviations, the expected dispersion is larger, and small movements of the tuner mass are expected to result in only minor changes in true dispersion."

I appreciate that this addresses dispersion (which most tuner proponents advertise) directly, rather than vertical POI across a velocity range (varmint al's oft quoted simulations).

I also thought Mile's test of adding weight to a muzzle device was interesting.

I still fully expect this podcast to be cast aside because tHeY DiDnT tEsT dEm RiGhT!!!1

 

[JBoomhauer]

Here's Jeff Siewert's paper referenced at 59:37ish.

"It appears that so called “muzzle tuners” are only able to reduce dispersion in limited situations, namely when the static maximum bore centerline deflection is vertically below the centerline of the straight line defined by the center of the bore at the origin of rifling and the center of the bore at the muzzle. In this situation, the mass of the muzzle tuner, combined with the effects of gravity tends to make the bore centerline closer to perfectly straight, helping to reduce the interaction between variations in bullet initial position, in-bore forcing function and the resulting barrel motion in a direction perpendicular to the bore at muzzle release. For other orientations of the bore maximum deviations, the expected dispersion is larger, and small movements of the tuner mass are expected to result in only minor changes in true dispersion."

I appreciate that this addresses dispersion (which most tuner proponents advertise) directly, rather than vertical POI across a velocity range (varmint al's oft quoted simulations).

I also thought Mile's test of adding weight to a muzzle device was interesting.

I still fully expect this podcast to be cast aside because tHeY DiDnT tEsT dEm RiGhT!!!1

They tested with Hornady Bullets, Factory ammunition, production guns, proof prefit, and a computer simulation!

Must use benchrest or rail gun!

Rimfire!

Reeeeee.

Varmint al.

 

[timintx]

Great video , enjoyed it much .

 

[Macht]

That was interesting. I've been wanting to see BALANS results for a tuner. It always seemed like an excellent tool for looking at tuner effects, albeit ridiculously expensive.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

No bashing meant here. That presentation is going to be a tough one for anyone to refute.

 

[st1650]

No bashing meant here. That presentation is going to be a tough one for anyone to refute.

I didn’t watch the whole thing yet, did they address the whole “positive compensation” thing ?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I didn’t watch the whole thing yet, did they address the whole “positive compensation” thing ?

Honestly, I need to watch it a few more times to be completely sure. Lots of info covered here.

@Ledzep

 

[Ledzep]

I didn’t watch the whole thing yet, did they address the whole “positive compensation” thing ?

I don't think we got very deep into that on the podcast but from my AR tests and looking through the powder ladder test results I did a couple years ago (AR shouldered, ladder from rail gun), I haven't seen anything yet that's an "Ahah!!". Very mild negative compensation shows up sometimes in the AR, the rail gun is pretty evenly 50/50 vertical vs. Velocity. I can make some graphs/plots when I'm back in the office next week.

Theoretically it's possible, I just question how one goes about it, the scale of things, and shot to shot consistency to take advantage of it.

 

[timintx]

I don't think we got very deep into that on the podcast but from my AR tests and looking through the powder ladder test results I did a couple years ago (AR shouldered, ladder from rail gun), I haven't seen anything yet that's an "Ahah!!". Very mild negative compensation shows up sometimes in the AR, the rail gun is pretty evenly 50/50 vertical vs. Velocity. I can make some graphs/plots when I'm back in the office next week.
Theoretically it's possible, I just question how one goes about it, the scale of things, and shot to shot consistency to take advantage of it.

I will be glad to help you get positive compensation if needed . Just give me a shout . I have talked with Jeff a bit via emails and he has been very helpful with some great suggestions on testing precise launch angles in which I will certainly try . As far as clocking barrels , the testing I have done have shown up or down shot the same . To the side is where things changed but they were very small. But these were extremely crooked barrels made by Barney Lawton he sent to me to test.( .060 runout at the muzzle ). And might add the most crooked barrel turned out to be a hummer but I can not define exactly why. Years ago a rimfire guy named Mike Ross did a ton of testing on rimfire that showed the same results on clocking barrels . Good luck in your testing .

 

[Dogtown]

"It appears that so called “muzzle tuners” are only able to reduce dispersion in limited situations, namely when the static maximum bore centerline deflection is vertically below the centerline of the straight line defined by the center of the bore at the origin of rifling and the center of the bore at the muzzle. In this situation, the mass of the muzzle tuner, combined with the effects of gravity tends to make the bore centerline closer to perfectly straight, helping to reduce the interaction between variations in bullet initial position, in-bore forcing function and the resulting barrel motion in a direction perpendicular to the bore at muzzle release. For other orientations of the bore maximum deviations, the expected dispersion is larger, and small movements of the tuner mass are expected to result in only minor changes in true dispersion."

This guy Physics!

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

This guy Physics!

Meh, he probably divides by N.

 

[orkan]

No bashing meant here. That presentation is going to be a tough one for anyone to refute.

To be fair, there's not really anything to refute. As was emphasized many times, "this is just what was seen by us." That doesn't mean that's all there is... it just means that's all they found. Secondly, I'd like to point out that trying to do tuner work with rifles/ammo that are only capable of 2-3" groups at 300yds is not adding anything to the discussion. If a tuner provider is claiming their product will provide a measurable effect for systems shooting that large, then they are absolutely wrong.

Yet people get so wrapped up trying to disprove anyone that has anything to say, that they don't realize the significance of the information provided.

Some of the info presented in that video tracks exactly with my findings. For instance, hanging a suppressor on the muzzle almost universally improves the group sizes. All of my rifles over the last couple decades shoot better with suppressors than without. So rather than get sucked into the natural drama trying to figure out if tuners work, people would do well to understand that merely having the tuner or suppressor on the end will likely result in a net positive. So if we're wanting to hang something on the muzzle, if not a tuner, and not a suppressor, what are we supposed to hang?

The natural next evolution of testing would be rather than focus on moving the tuner settings... to change the tuner weight and the material the tuners is made of, as well as tuner design variations.

The video might also conclusively prove that they lack the ability to prove why tuners work, rather than prove they don't work. (at present anyway)

There is no question at this point that they work. Tuners absolutely do work and this can be demonstrated pretty readily, and it is not all just confirmation bias or small samples either.

I have not been able to conclusively prove that adjusting tuner settings work on centerfires, but I have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they work on 22LR. Dozens of different rifles I've done tuning sessions on have demonstrated a very distinct change in performance across the range of tuner settings. My sample sizes when doing this work made those used in the video look comically small. A typical ammo lot testing phase and subsequent tuning phase on a single rifle consists of 1,500 to 2,000rnds, minimum. My personal rifle was somewhere around 4,000-4,500rnds. Simply hanging the tuner on that rifle pulled roughly a tenth of an inch out of my avg group size at 50yds. Those that were here when I was doing the 6x5 stuff may recall that being documented with video evidence in real time. The rifle was shooting in the high .2's and low .3's without the tuner... but shoots consistent .1's and .2's with the tuner dialed in. Well at least it did. I haven't shot it seriously on paper for a year. I've been strictly in centerfire mode the past year. I had it on paper when I let a customer shoot it a few months ago and it cut tiny little bug holes still, so I'm sure it's fine.

Yet trying to prove tuner functionality on a 22lr that was shooting .6's and .7's at 50yds would be a fools errand. Also, completely converse to centerfire... hanging a suppressor on a rimfire almost universally damages its performance.

So just because they aren't currently seeing the effect, or are able to explain the effect, does not mean the effect does not exist. I'm only 8hrs from hornady... so if they'd like me to bring some high end rimfire stuff and do a pod on it, we can make that happen. Personally I'd rather do a pod on primer seating and ignition... but I'd be happy to contribute to the community good on the subject of tuners.

It's my contention that tuners work. I've seen them improve shooting, and I've personally witnessed the different settings on the tuners improving performance. The video leaves me with more questions than answers in that regard. Clearly there is much more to uncover.


-----------
Follow on Instagram
Subscribe on YouTube
Amazon Affiliate

 

[orkan]

I knew I had video evidence of this somewhere. Had to jump in the "way back" machine to find it.

The rifle referenced above:

This represents the absolute apex of where I could get this rifle to shoot without the tuner. Six 5-shot groups in the prone position with an average size of 0.233” at 50yds off a bipod and rear bag.


Here is where I ended up with the rifle after settling in on my tuner setting, and my final 6x5 submission on this site since. Avg group size - 0.128" along with one of the smallest 5 shot groups I've ever shot. Measured 0.009" (nine thousandths) ... but to honest I start losing the ability to even accurately measure groups when they get down that low. You'll also notice how the groups took on a more rounded shape. The gun simply demonstrated a significant reduction of flyers from the moment I put the tuner on, and then I was able to get it performing progressively better through subsequent tuner setting adjustment.





-----------
Follow on Instagram
Subscribe on YouTube
Amazon Affiliate

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

Secondly, I'd like to point out that trying to do tuner work with rifles/ammo that are only capable of 2-3" groups at 300yds is not adding anything to the discussion. If a tuner provider is claiming their product will provide a measurable effect for systems shooting that large, then they are absolutely wrong.

I see this line of reasoning often. I would like someone to clearly delineate under what rifle configuration (barrel contour, lengths, and precision) is required to see a tuner affect performance.

There is no question at this point that they work. Tuners absolutely do work and this can be demonstrated pretty readily, and it is not all just confirmation bias or small samples either.

I'd disagree with this statement, given this podcast, Litz book, and the fact it comes up regularly. Points back to point 1 of this post, and point 2 of my first...

 

[orkan]

I see this line of reasoning often. I would like someone to clearly delineate under what rifle configuration (barrel contour, lengths, and precision) is required to see a tuner affect performance.

I would say its not necessarily about rifle configuration that's required, as it is about having the system shoot small enough for the addition of a tuner to not get lost in the white noise. Two inches plus, at 300yds, is nothing but noise. Nearly nothing meaningful can be tested there. However, it appears that argument is moot, because the other rifles were shooting 0.8 inches at 300yds (if I understand their numbers correctly)... which that is certainly small enough to see the effect, and they didn't. Which is why I raised rimfire into the discussion, because I too haven't been able to find conclusive results with centerfires and tuners. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it means I haven't found them.

I attribute part of that to simply spending too much time shooting suppressed, so I would defer to more experienced guys with tuners that aren't using suppressors.

I'd disagree with this statement, given this podcast, Litz book, and the fact it comes up regularly. Points back to point 1 of this post, and point 2 of my first...

With respect, I've stated my findings, and provided at least some video evidence of it. Real world, demonstrable affect right where the rubber meets the road in this discipline. On target, uncut, unedited. I don't automatically assume that other people are providing correct information on every topic, just because they have provided great contributions in other topics in other areas of the discipline. I have no intention of having a discussion based on the authority or lack thereof of someone else's name.

Do you yourself, have any work with easily provable documentation of those efforts, to contribute to the discussion?


-----------
Follow on Instagram
Subscribe on YouTube
Amazon Affiliate

 

[Dogtown]

oh boy..."unwatch"..."unwatch"..."unwatch"

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

I would say its not necessarily about rifle configuration that's required, as it is about having the system shoot small enough for the addition of a tuner to not get lost in the white noise. Two inches plus, at 300yds, is nothing but noise. Nearly nothing meaningful can be tested there.

And how small is small enough?

 

[timintx]

oh boy..."unwatch"..."unwatch"..."unwatch"

I deleted it ,just unproductive to argue .

 

[Csafisher]

I would say its not necessarily about rifle configuration that's required, as it is about having the system shoot small enough for the addition of a tuner to not get lost in the white noise. Two inches plus, at 300yds, is nothing but noise. Nearly nothing meaningful can be tested there. However, it appears that argument is moot, because the other rifles were shooting 0.8 inches at 300yds (if I understand their numbers correctly)... which that is certainly small enough to see the effect, and they didn't. Which is why I raised rimfire into the discussion, because I too haven't been able to find conclusive results with centerfires and tuners. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but it means I haven't found them.

I attribute part of that to simply spending too much time shooting suppressed, so I would defer to more experienced guys with tuners that aren't using suppressors.



With respect, I've stated my findings, and provided at least some video evidence of it. Real world, demonstrable affect right where the rubber meets the road in this discipline. On target, uncut, unedited. I don't automatically assume that other people are providing correct information on every topic, just because they have provided great contributions in other topics in other areas of the discipline. I have no intention of having a discussion based on the authority or lack thereof of someone else's name.

Do you yourself, have any work with easily provable documentation of those efforts, to contribute to the discussion?


-----------
Follow on Instagram
Subscribe on YouTube
Amazon Affiliate

If 2in at 300yds is nothing but noise, what do you consider 3/4-1” at 100yds with a 22lr?

 

[Capitol5868]

The problem I have with Tuners is you have to retune constantly.

Change in temperature= retune
Change in altitude= retune

Change the tuner off my barrel= no more tuning.

Seems like a gimmick thats been marketed really well by a very well known shooter. Until Eric Cortina started selling tuners they weren’t all that popular.

 

[Ronws]

Just saw this pop up, just turned it on to listen to, should be interesting.
thought some of you would like to watch (or hate LOL)
Hopefully this thread doesn't divulge into name calling and personal insults

To quote William Axl Rose (formerly Bill Bailey);

"You know where you are?

You're in the jungle, baby.

You're gonna die............."

 

[Old Man with Gun]

One video is statistically irrelevant.

Edit, didn't catch the sarcasm- ignore.
Ignoring SMEs who state quantitative evidence does not support a theory does not invite dismissal of the claim, but a need for a counter argument. Do you disagree or choose not to consider arguments you do not agree with?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Ignoring SMEs who state quantitative evidence does not support a theory does not invite dismissal of the claim, but a need for a counter argument. Do you disagree or choose not to consider arguments you do not agree with?

Pretty sure it was a joke.

 

[Ronws]

Edit, didn't catch the sarcasm- ignore.
Ignoring SMEs who state quantitative evidence does not support a theory does not invite dismissal of the claim, but a need for a counter argument. Do you disagree or choose not to consider arguments you do not agree with?

There you go being smart again. Then, again, do we have an agreed upon definition of a subject matter expert? Is there a list of qualifications? I find Jayden Quinlan to be highly knowledgable, certainly more in this subject than I am.

Granted, that is not saying a lot and is not much of a compliment. It's like saying I am better at single variable differential calculus than my dog was.

Though I could be wrong. Maybe he could do calculus. We just never discussed it. But I digress.

There is still debate going on with their podcasts on sample size in a grouping.

They know what they have found which may not be the end all. But they present evidence that they have found. And the samples they used for analysis were not computer generated models. They shot bullets down range at targets.

Or does being an SME require that one does NOT work for an ammo company?

I am not smart enough to figure that out. I barely know how to wipe my own ass and that took years of study.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

There you go being smart again. Then, again, do we have an agreed upon definition of a subject matter expert? Is there a list of qualifications? I find Jayden Quinlan to be highly knowledgable, certainly more in this subject than I am.

Granted, that is not saying a lot and is not much of a compliment. It's like saying I am better at single variable differential calculus than my dog was.

Though I could be wrong. Maybe he could do calculus. We just never discussed it. But I digress.

There is still debate going on with their podcasts on sample size in a grouping.

They know what they have found which may not be the end all. But they present evidence that they have found. And the samples they used for analysis were not computer generated models. They shot bullets down range at targets.

Or does being an SME require that one does NOT work for an ammo company?

I am not smart enough to figure that out. I barely know how to wipe my own ass and that took years of study.

There is more or less an agreed upon definition.....where experts are concerned. What we see on forums and such isn't on that level. It's made up almost solely of hobbyists that don't make their living designing or testing weapon systems and ammunition. Mostly bickering back and forth over their opinions and/or anecdotal observations they make in their spare time.

Take something like stargazing.....you'll find all kinds of people on the forums and such giving their opinions. But they aren't sitting down in meetings with Astrophycisists designing things.

It's just a simple fact, the guy doing wildcats in his garage isn't in the same conversation with ballisticians and engineers for major weapons and/or ammunition companies in the real world. Only on forums where anyone and everyone can post whatever they want does it appear they are part of the conversation. The mostly hobbyist shooter, no matter how many matches or titles they have......isn't by default qualified to be in that conversation. It's only on forums that people put them there.


What we have going on in the firearms community is no different than the guy who has a consumer telescope he uses after work and on the weekend arguing with Neil Degrasse Tyson.

And these same hobbyists would lose their shit if someone tried telling them how to do their actual full time job.....if the person telling them wasn't in the profession. They would be the first to cite that person isn't in the profession.

 

[brianf]

And these same hobbyists would lose their shit if someone tried telling them how to do their actual full time job.....if the person telling them wasn't in the profession. They would be the first to cite that person isn't in the profession.


Above, is probably the best explanation of the hide I’ve ever read

Can we put it somewhere that everyone can see it every day.

 

[timintx]

What this comes down to is that tuners will equal a tune with verses without and the statistics have proven just that . No improvement but close to the same verses without . The Hornady guys have been honest and stated that is just their results and are by no means across the board. To see a difference with a tuner the pattern must be there and certain weights will change that .A tuner just puts the gun in to tune by moving the phase of the movement produced by the weight so if there is no movement there is nothing to adjust . .if the tune goes away the tuner will bring it back in . it is just a tool to aid in that . Everybody wants to argue about what ?tuners or tune ? I think the root of the argument is some here think a gun does not go out of tune because they lack the precision and or have random dispersion issues as to not see the effect and are basing any tuner results is just confirming their beliefs. It is real simple here ,if your barrel is parallel during exit times then no loss of tune is the result and tuners will have no effect.you are just left with fighting random dispersion . Argue away guys but in the end if you do not believe then just let it go . Don’t stay and insult everybody’s personal results and claiming Zealot , not full time , beginners , etc . That is just ridiculous and not helping at all especially when tuner users are trying to help . The 1000 yard data I posted shows both weight and adjustment improved over baseline but is still discounted and ignored which I expected and insults still followed . So everybody can get differing results .

 

[timintx]

The problem I have with Tuners is you have to retune constantly.

Change in temperature= retune
Change in altitude= retune

Change the tuner off my barrel= no more tuning.

Seems like a gimmick thats been marketed really well by a very well known shooter. Until Eric Cortina started selling tuners they weren’t all that popular.

I went through the same thing and was irritating as hell . I found the reason was that particular weight produced small windows during that particular exit time for your rounds , by changing weights I now have a much wider window and do not have to adjust at all now .

 

[Ronws]

@orkan

It somehow showed up in my YT auto-suggest. I have been watching your driving dissertation on "Is Hornady stupid now?"

At time stamp 05:07, rifle versus prairie dog, I would like to invoke the phrasing of Filter and say "Hey man, nice shot."

 

[secondofangle2]

And these same hobbyists would lose their shit if someone tried telling them how to do their actual full time job.....if the person telling them wasn't in the profession. They would be the first to cite that person isn't in the profession.


Above, is probably the best explanation of the hide I’ve ever read

Can we put it somewhere that everyone can see it every day.

well, this is mostly true, but some exceptions must be noted.

Carl Sagan (or NDT) would not be the person to tell you what is the best commercial telescope for stargazing
The dude building the aircraft engine is not the one who should be flying the plane
And in medicine, I have learned to not too readily dismiss patients' intuitions about what is wrong with them

However, I readily dismiss stuff like "I started taking ginseng and my rash got better" and I think tuners fall more in that category: mountebanks and their snake oil

 

[brianf]

well, this is mostly true, but some exceptions must be noted.

Carl Sagan (or NDT) would not be the person to tell you what is the best commercial telescope for stargazing
The dude building the aircraft engine is not the one who should be flying the plane
And in medicine, I have learned to not too readily dismiss patients' intuitions about what is wrong with them

However, I readily dismiss stuff like "I started taking ginseng and my rash got better" and I think tuners fall more in that category: mountebanks and their snake oil

I’ve been in a few of the tuner threads going at it lol

But I’ve trued to hope beyond hope that there’s some magic .

If AB says there is no noticeable correlation and Hornady is kind of mimicking the same results. No matter how many shots I put through one I won’t equal their round count.

My gut says if they do work it’s very..very specific set of parameters and environmentals that have to align.

And truthfully in the “modern age” of cheap prefits that all shoot .5, if it takes sending my rifle away for 3-4 weeks and a few hundred bucks. I’ll “lose” the extra .1 (if that) and keep shooting.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

well, this is mostly true, but some exceptions must be noted.

Carl Sagan (or NDT) would not be the person to tell you what is the best commercial telescope for stargazing
The dude building the aircraft engine is not the one who should be flying the plane
And in medicine, I have learned to not too readily dismiss patients' intuitions about what is wrong with them

However, I readily dismiss stuff like "I started taking ginseng and my rash got better" and I think tuners fall more in that category: mountebanks and their snake oil

Agreed. I was mostly just making a point that we regularly see things like machinists claiming someone like Litz is doing XYZ wrong. Or that Hornady Ballisticians are doing ABC wrong.

But if either Litz or Hornady showed up to tell Cecil B. Machinist what he was doing wrong, they'd lose their shit or laugh at someone who's not a machinist attempting to tell them what they are doing right or wrong in their profession. They would never extend the same courtesy they expect of their non professional opinion.




(No offense to any machinists, I just had to pick a profession for an example, they aren't the only ones)

 

[iceng]

I watched the video, had to rewind it a few times to make sure i understood what they were saying.

I mostly agree with things they said, as i dont have any way of refuting it. They have clearly spent many hours and rounds checking and rechecking data.

They checked most guns with a suppressor on, and the tried tuning. They also claim (or say, not claim ?) That as long as there is a weight on thr barrel, it tends to help. Sooooo having a suppressor on the barrel.. is a weight ?

Thats about the only part which i didnt understand. Otherwise, thanks to them for the video.

 

[Taylorbok]

I watched the video, had to rewind it a few times to make sure i understood what they were saying.

I mostly agree with things they said, as i dont have any way of refuting it. They have clearly spent many hours and rounds checking and rechecking data.

They checked most guns with a suppressor on, and the tried tuning. They also claim (or say, not claim ?) That as long as there is a weight on thr barrel, it tends to help. Sooooo having a suppressor on the barrel.. is a weight ?

Thats about the only part which i didnt understand. Otherwise, thanks to them for the video.

From what I understood they shot bare muzzle, then suppressed, then took suppressor off and put a tuner on.

 

[secondofangle2]

One of these days I'm going to go and literally hang a brick from the muzzle using paracord

 

[JBoomhauer]

One of these days I'm going to go and literally hang a brick from the muzzle using paracord

If the gun shoots like shit, just flip it over and see if it shoots better groups.

 

[secondofangle2]

the brick?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I watched the video, had to rewind it a few times to make sure i understood what they were saying.

I mostly agree with things they said, as i dont have any way of refuting it. They have clearly spent many hours and rounds checking and rechecking data.

They checked most guns with a suppressor on, and the tried tuning. They also claim (or say, not claim ?) That as long as there is a weight on thr barrel, it tends to help. Sooooo having a suppressor on the barrel.. is a weight ?

Thats about the only part which i didnt understand. Otherwise, thanks to them for the video.

It's a lot to take in. I'm still watching a few more times.

The takeaway I got was that in cases of fairly bad bore to centerline alignment in a barrel, a weight can help.....but something like 10% increase in precision or less. If the bore to centerline is good, the weight has more of a chance to hurt than to help.

This was concerning dispersion only. Not positive compensation which they didn't really get into much.

 

[JBoomhauer]

the brick?

May be more effective at reducing group size than the tuners we see!

 

[morganlamprecht]

One of these days I'm going to go and literally hang a brick from the muzzle using paracord

buddy of mine is a machinist and we made the joke years ago when tuners first started taking off that he should make shroud that just mimics external threads on the barrel near the muzzle. Then make varied weight stacks where the user could just add weights 1 at a time until it shot the best...similar to how weight is added to bow stabilizers in archery to fit the archer/bow hold

we laughed at it then....but seems like it may be comin around sooner than later lol

 

[JB.IC]

Jim Boatright had research on weight on the muzzle device. Only issue is you need to be a physicist to understand his papers. He used to post on the Hide years ago.

 

[secondofangle2]

what were his conclusions?

 

[msgriff]

They wouldn't work with free-float handguards, but the adjustable Tac Sac handguard tuner has been around for a few years.