-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Hornady on tuners.
- Thread starter Taylorbok
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for that. Not being an expert in statistics, I actually understood that.
Me, I am just a simple caveman electrician. Years ago, your scientists thawed me out of a glacier...
I agree Ledzep. I loaded up 100 rounds with bullets given to me that I don't really use. Did the testing with 10 charge weights 0.3 grn apart. started with 10 shots in charge ascending order, then another 10 in the same order & etc, plotting all the vel's as I went. Long story short after statisting the shit out of everything in the excel sheet & no flat spots to be found at the end of it all. Plenty of flat spots at the start, dwindling to zero at the finish. Did that test some years back.
Admittedly it was only one test so not absolutely conclusive by any means but, it proved my suspicions which was the tyranny of basing decisions on low sample numbers.
I don't believe Grubbs was a world beating statistician but, he did do a lot in the area of small arms statistical analysis which I think served to square away statistical theory with regard to minimum sample number calcs in relation to the different testing formats such as CEP, Mean Radius, RSD & etc.
The reason I like to bring Grubbs into conversations is because Grubbs focussed specifically on rifle accuracy &, formulated tables which allow extrapolation from low sample numbers utilizing multiplication factors. Although I will agree that Grubbs tables do not replace robust initial analysis where the all important real world data is established however, these tables are formulated from that real world data & have been accepted as "fit for purpose" in establishing rifle accuracy & repeatability within the bounds of a particular application.
Although I can't speak for Grubbs, I believe one of his goals was to formulate a system which could faithfully extrapolate, within the bounds of realistic confidence & error levels that, would be "fit for purpose" as well as statistically sound within the chosen application framework.
It is my belief that the tables Grubbs formulated are fit for purpose with regard to the average punter & even the average F class & long range shooter to establish a far more worthy & realistic base than the hated, useless single 3 shot group. Even 2 groups of 7 is far superior than a single 3 shot group.
Watching guys on YouTube completely trash a 5K rifle taking single 3 shot groups of different cartridges, proudly displaying their utter ignorance, for all the world to see, not to mention the damage to the rifle builders business & reputation is, simply criminal.
Although I'm not affected personally, I hate injustice & the abhorrent thought that some guys business hangs in the balance based on the words & actions of fools.
Surely the shooting fraternity can do better than this fuckery &, in stating that, I believe Grubbs has brought a balanced compromise, if it is possible to educate these dunces.
Last edited:
You guys are still shooting load development ladders?
Ive moved on to the patented DThomas method - list out ten charge weights and ten seating depths and have a friend pick one of each through a random number generator.
Ive moved on to the patented DThomas method - list out ten charge weights and ten seating depths and have a friend pick one of each through a random number generator.
Be careful. That method dropped 9 shots out of 190 over the course of two matches.
This isn't far from truth.
For everything I reload for, I can pick a random charge weight and seating depth, and I will have a load that shoots.
I've done it plenty with my 6BRA. Just did it with my .300NM.
Oh I just have a random number generator generated seating depths and powder weights between 1 and 50. Only blown up 5 rifles so far
Try adjusting the tuner “down and out” for the lower charge weights…
Here's one study from Arrow Technologies which delves into the area of random dispersion factors, most of which cannot be influenced by the use of a toooooner.
I'm wondering why I can't get a toooooner with audible & tactile clicks as well as a rev indicator
Because they don’t work to begin with and people will argue that the clicks are too far apartI'm wondering why I can't get a toooooner with audible & tactile clicks as well as a rev indicator
Insert screen name of
“internet self important, non data driven, 1/4 moa all day, 1 SD, flat earther”:
“This new 400$ tuner brake, the clicks are great but I just don’t like the feel of them. And I’m between click 22 and 23, it would be great if there was a 22.5.
I can’t seem to get the perfect mix of recoil reduction, positive compensation, reducing SD, magical node, pressure sign reduction”
…and every other snake oil that has been spit out about tuners
I don't see why you had to lump flat earthers in with these nut cases
Poor flat earthers, everyone knows deep down the *globe* is *flat*I don't see why you had to lump flat earthers in with these nut cases
Don't worry about the flat earthers, Toooooner turners think they can adjust their toooooners in or out 0.001" at a time & convince themselves it makes a difference
is there still a problem with ES/SD with todays good brass, good bullets, good barrels, good primers, A&D scale, mandrells, custom dies...; even for ELR?
No but, what has that to do with toooooners & grossly insufficient data?
The point is that whatever they focus on be it projectiles, jump to the lands, powder charge, case volume, shoulder bump, neck tension & etc, they see the same order of dispersion due directly to insufficient sample numbers in their testing.
- Status
