Hornady on tuners.

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I was saying that to my buddies who just wouldn’t believe me. To Scott’s credit, I don’t believe he claimed it to be scientific. I recall him always saying that it was just what he did and had a chill demeanor about it.

Yea, he would go back and forth. In one video he literally said he was observing positive compensation at 100yds when he was analyzing target.

The whole method was just terrible from start to finish as was his delivery of it (I don't mean that offensively, he means well).

 

[JB.IC]

Yea, he would go back and forth. In one video he literally said he was observing positive compensation at 100yds when he was analyzing target.

The whole method was just terrible from start to finish as was his delivery of it (I don't mean that offensively, he means well).

Definitely. It’s a case study on how someone wanted to share their information in a non-authoritative manner versus say that one guy who sells red primer seating presses and acts like everyone is an idiot. He definitely takes it personally.

 

[Ronws]

Engineers get to have all the fun. Talking numbers is only interesting to a point.

I’m going back to college to get either a mechanical or aerospace engineering degree or something in another science. Statistics & data science just isn’t that interesting anymore.

Four out of five engineers agree with this statement.

 

[JB.IC]

Four out of five engineers agree with this statement.

That’s not even a sampling issue. The other one is on the ground from the destructive test that went wrong.

 

[Taylorbok]

Ya my load dev has gotten stupid simple. I do still use a ladder test but that's basically just to find over pressure as I am often playing with combo's I can't find data on. Then I basically pick a speed and send it.

 

[Tokay444]

No, he has posted actual data on that site for over a decade. I've seen and read a lot of those discussions and seen his results. There's literally hundreds of threads he's been involved with in that time. I'd have to do a search to find some of the good ones just like you'd have to do over there as well. But, i'll see what I can find...

Anxiously awaiting your return.

 

[Haney]

Anxiously awaiting your return.

Does your Perma-Ban prevent you from looking for them yourself ?

 

[Tokay444]

Does your Perma-Ban prevent you from looking for them yourself ?

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

 

[CNC-Dude]

I have nothing to prove or claim. Mr. Ezell has made tuners for over 20 years and he has set many records with them and so have other record setting shooters. Nobody that makes tuners cares if you believe they work or not, and don't have to beg or justify with a scientific paper or explanation how or why they work. There is over 2 decades of evidence, records and proof that they do work. There are many forums where they are discussed regularly by past and present World Champion, National Champions and Olympic Champions as well as thousands of YouTube videos by Erik Cortina, Harrel Tuners and many others that demonstrate, explain and test their products. So the info is out there if you want it.....But the best proof is to test one for yourself and not take the word of people like Litz or Hornady that have stated they have no experience with tuners, have never used tuners, don't know how they work so they aren't going to be able to competently test one given their lack of knowledge about them....

 

[Tokay444]

I have nothing to prove or claim. Mr. Ezell has made tuners for over 20 years and he has set many records with them and so have other record setting shooters. Nobody that makes tuners cares if you believe they work or not, and don't have to beg or justify with a scientific paper or explanation how or why they work. There is over 2 decades of evidence, records and proof that they do work. There are many forums where they are discussed regularly by past and present World Champion, National Champions and Olympic Champions as well as thousands of YouTube videos by Erik Cortina, Harrel Tuners and many others that demonstrate, explain and test their products. So the info is out there if you want it.....But the best proof is to test one for yourself and not take the word of people like Litz or Hornady that have stated they have no experience with tuners, have never used tuners, don't know how they work so they aren't going to be able to competently test one given their lack of knowledge about them....

What evidence? Show some.
People who make and promote turners can’t even agree on how they work. How are Litz and Hornady doing it wrong when there is no consensus of what is right?

 

[JB.IC]

I have nothing to prove or claim. Mr. Ezell has made tuners for over 20 years and he has set many records with them and so have other record setting shooters. Nobody that makes tuners cares if you believe they work or not, and don't have to beg or justify with a scientific paper or explanation how or why they work. There is over 2 decades of evidence, records and proof that they do work. There are many forums where they are discussed regularly by past and present World Champion, National Champions and Olympic Champions as well as thousands of YouTube videos by Erik Cortina, Harrel Tuners and many others that demonstrate, explain and test their products. So the info is out there if you want it.....But the best proof is to test one for yourself and not take the word of people like Litz or Hornady that have stated they have no experience with tuners, have never used tuners, don't know how they work so they aren't going to be able to competently test one given their lack of knowledge about them....

“Test one for yourself…” But you just said my lack of knowledge and experience with tuners will mean I can’t completely test one.

It’s a paradox I can’t test my way out of.

I’m surprised how civil this discussion has been. I believe most people here want to find the evidence because if tuners actually work, that would be extremely cool.

I suspect the act of adding weight to the muzzle is what’s showing improvements and not actually using a tuner for its different settings. Which is not the same as saying tuners work. Two different mechanisms.

 

[mrcheesemoose]

I have nothing to prove or claim. Mr. Ezell has made tuners for over 20 years and he has set many records with them and so have other record setting shooters. Nobody that makes tuners cares if you believe they work or not, and don't have to beg or justify with a scientific paper or explanation how or why they work. There is over 2 decades of evidence, records and proof that they do work. There are many forums where they are discussed regularly by past and present World Champion, National Champions and Olympic Champions as well as thousands of YouTube videos by Erik Cortina, Harrel Tuners and many others that demonstrate, explain and test their products. So the info is out there if you want it.....But the best proof is to test one for yourself and not take the word of people like Litz or Hornady that have stated they have no experience with tuners, have never used tuners, don't know how they work so they aren't going to be able to competently test one given their lack of knowledge about them....

in the Olympics before the 1980s, ski jumpers didn’t use the technique of leaning forward and putting your skis in a V. There was some Swedish jumper who started doing it, and suddenly started beating everyone. Just because people are good competitors, doesn’t make them right about everything in their sport.

 

[JB.IC]

in the Olympics before the 1980s, ski jumpers didn’t use the technique of leaning forward and putting your skis in a V. There was some Swedish jumper who started doing it, and suddenly started beating everyone. Just because people are good competitors, doesn’t make them right about everything in their sport.

MMA is a prime example of poor technique being used at the highest levels and yet they can pull off division wins and win title belts. They’re just good at a lot of things even when they’re bad at somethings.

 

[Ronws]

in the Olympics before the 1980s, ski jumpers didn’t use the technique of leaning forward and putting your skis in a V. There was some Swedish jumper who started doing it, and suddenly started beating everyone. Just because people are good competitors, doesn’t make them right about everything in their sport.

This reminds me of the cut roast story. Old man story alert! Old man story alert!

This newlywed couple finally settled into a regular home life and have an actual home cooked meal. One of the gifts was a 13" x 9" roasting pan, big enough for a turkey.

The wife unwraps the roast from the cellophane and the cuts a bit off of each end and then places it on the foil in the roasting pan. Her husband asks why. She says, "My mom always did that."

Curious, she went to her mother and asked why she did. Her mother replied, "My mother always did that."

So, she went to her grandmother, who was still alive and quite lucid and asked her about cutting the ends off of the roast. The explanation was simple.

"When your grandfather and I got married, the only pan I had was 8 inches by 8 inches and I had to cut the roast to make it fit. Then I would take the tips and shred them and make a gravy."

The solution to one problem became a generalization.

Same with skiers.

And possibly the same with shooters. Really good shooters who do something a certain way and believe that is the way to do it.

What Hornady was trying to say is that there was no way to tell if the tuner helped more than another device on the barrel and changing the setting did not help. Then, again, they were not shooting a 2 inch or 3 inch group and getting the one they liked and pronouncing it done.

Discussed earlier, you could have variances in mass and center of gravity and there is not yet a way to know where that moment arm is going to be and marked so that you could load it facing up, for example. There will always be some variances and that is larger groups are more helpful. Otherwise, it is easy to assume an influence that may be nothing more than coincidental noise.

They are getting the same results if they have just a brake or even a suppressor on it, in a large enough group. And they have an ammo factory at their disposal, by golly.

A device can have a coincidental input to group size. I have a brake on the rifle to tame recoil. Redirected recoil impulse results in a softer push on the shoulder, which avoids pain and flinching. Therefore, my shooting mechanics flow better because I am not anticipating pain. So, by relaxing, I could say that the brake is improving accuracy but only because it is making the rifle more shootable. And possibly the weight, too.

Full disclosure, I tried one of those Limbsaver donuts. It successfully brought me from a .61 inch group to a 3 inch group. By the time I took the hint, the barrel was hot, I was at a range and not enough time to wrestle the brake off so I cut it off with my knife. Others may like those but they do not work for me. Cost was not the issue. It was an experiment. And judging what I can see from others getting the more solid tuners, I don't think I need one.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

MMA is a prime example of poor technique being used at the highest levels and yet they can pull off division wins and win title belts. They’re just good at a lot of things even when they’re bad at somethings.

Google "Keith Mcready pool player."

One of the best examples how performance doesn't equal good technique all the time.


You wouldn't ask Michael Jordan to explain the physics of the flight path of basketball and how spin affects the success rate of baskets. However, for some reason in shooting sports, the top performers are looked to for technical knowledge.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

What Hornady was trying to say is that there was no way to tell if the tuner helped more than another device on the barrel and changing the setting did not help.

That's the crux of most of this. Almost no one is saying that unequivocally they don't work......just that the data presented and the testing methodologies are not valid and tell us almost nothing.

The downside to that is when a scientist says "in our testing" or "maybe XYZ does do something, we just didn't see it".......they will always say that about most everything as there is always a chance, no matter how slim, they could be wrong.....and a good scientist will always freely admit that.

The problem with the other side of the coin, they almost never admit they could be wrong or have missed something......and they almost always jump on the "it could work" statements from scientists.


One side is open minded that either them working or not working is possible and would like to see proper data/testing. While the other side is black and white....they work, regardless of how incomplete or downright wrong the way data is presented. And they also are black and white insisting they can do the testing in their garage or back yard.

 

[CNC-Dude]

Here is a pretty good tuner demonstration that F-Class John does. Erik had some really good ones but he's moved them over to Patreon and you have to pay to view them.

 

[JB.IC]

Anyone who is a talented group shooter, can you provide your data on your group sizes?

Say you shoot three shot groups, list all the three shot group sizes. Or 10 shot groups, list all your 10 shot group sizes.

Whatever you define as a group (three, five, ten, 20, etc.), specify that. Also, specify your measurement method (edge to edge, mean radius, etc.).

Groups should be for the same load, same muzzle device, same tuner setting, and same supporting equipment.

 

[Tokay444]

“I’ve got some really good data here.” Proceeds to display a dozen 3 shot groups.
*facepalm*

 

[JB.IC]

“I’ve got some really good data here.” Processes to display a dozen 3 shot groups.
*facepalm*

I’m working on shedding some light on why or why not it’s troublesome. I’m not a BR or F-class shooter so I don’t have any groups laying around to make some estimations.

The one point that is worth mentioning is the definition of a group size. If someone defines a competition to be of only three shots, then that’s the standard. If it’s 20 shots, then that’s the standard. Either way, we need a definition. Once we have a definition, we can collect samples.

Now, some will say, for instance, three shots isn’t enough. I would agree and if three shots is not enough, then we should have a lot of variation around the group’s center POI regardless of the group size but also in group size. There’s a variation of the group size itself and a variation where the center of the group is on target. This is the precision VS accuracy distinction irrespective of the scope’s zero. If people don’t track the variation about the group’s center POI, it would be hard to provide any evidence for or against.

I’m willing to bet a highly precise rifle is at least repeatable in its POI at low number of shots per group, but I wouldn’t maintain that assumption as precision gets worse. Since I doubt anyone has data that follows their group’s center about the POI, it’s an assumption I’m willing to accept.

 

[Ronws]

“I’ve got some really good data here.” Proceeds to display a dozen 3 shot groups.
*facepalm*

 

[Ledzep]

Eta: these are all at 200yd

6mm ARC, 110gr A-tip, 28.0gr Varget. These weighed to .02gr on charge wt. Fed 205m, 2.350" COAL 24" Bartlein 5r 1:7.5, Accuracy fixture. Cases were weight and volume sorted, neck turned, neck honed, bullets graphited for seating.

MV, X, Y

2742​				-12.51​	9.00​
2759​				-12.17​	9.49​
2751​				-12.57​	9.39​
2748​				-12.32​	9.37​
2755​				-12.87​	9.61​
2752​				-12.76​	9.19​
2751​				-12.36​	9.13​
2757​				-12.26​	9.16​
2761​				-13.13​	8.71​
2757​				-12.72​	9.63​
2759​				-12.55​	9.30​
2754​				-12.91​	9.66​
2743​				-12.63​	9.50​
2755​				-12.23​	9.17​
2775​				-12.75​	9.43​
2770​				-12.15​	9.42​
2749​				-12.96​	8.75​
2757​				-12.51​	8.99​
2766​				-13.05​	9.05​
2758​				-12.99​	9.31​

6mm ARC, 110gr A-tip, 28.0gr Varget. Fed 205m, 2.350" COAL. These charges from a thrower, +/- 0.35gr usually, accuracy fixture Bartlein. Virgin cases grabbed at random from a bulk box.

MV, X, Y

2723​				-6.42​	5.47​
2740​				-6.82​	5.76​
2747​				-6.81​	5.46​
2764​				-7.02​	5.7​
2754​				-6.94​	5.8​
2748​				-6.96​	5.74​
2758​				-6.63​	5.59​
2755​				-6.76​	5.87​
2753​				-6.54​	6.23​
2742​				-7.11​	5.06​
2754​				-6.63​	5.13​
2756​				-6.32​	5.66​
2760​				-6.52​	5.61​
2735​				-6.99​	6.47​
2740​				-6.25​	5.58​
2760​				-6.69​	6.12​
2739​				-6.97​	6.01​
2761​				-6.66​	5.81​
2761​				-7.06​	5.86​
2757​				-7​	5.62​

Different barrel (28" HS precision), 27.5gr Varget, 109 ELD-M, fed 205m, 2.350 COAL. 3-port Area 419 6.5mm Brake, from the shoulder bag+Bipod

2750​				-16.92​	-1.64​
2779​				-16.35​	-0.85​
2767​				-16.45​	-1.5​
2764​				-16.41​	-1.28​
2761​				-16.91​	-1.52​
2761​				-16.4​	-1.81​
2760​				-16.56​	-1.36​
2751​				-16.51​	-0.95​
2751​				-16.13​	-1.71​
2747​				-16.52​	-2.61​
2737​				-16.26​	-1.42​
2748​				-16.61​	-1.6​
2748​				-16.2​	-2.26​
2755​				-16.07​	-1.07​
2759​				-17.49​	-1.95​
2778​				-16.43​	-2.11​
2739​				-16.41​	-1.98​
2737​				-16.19​	-1.58​
2741​				-16.76​	-1.68​
2749​				-16.54​	-2.39​

Same as the last one with a 4-port .308 Area 419 brake, shoulder bag+bipod

2742​				-17.83​	-2.54​
2736​				-17.29​	-2.66​
2764​				-17.25​	-3.01​
2766​				-16.53​	-3.02​
2776​				-17.08​	-2.28​
2772​				-17.44​	-2.99​
2736​				-17.26​	-2.83​
2760​				-17.22​	-2.57​
2757​				-17.77​	-2.84​
2769​				-16.68​	-3.26​
2731​				-16.62​	-2.72​
2757​				-17.15​	-2.88​
2768​				-16.96​	-3.26​
2739​				-16.85​	-3.07​
2752​				-16.63​	-2.89​
2749​				-16.76​	-2.75​
2750​				-16.46​	-2.77​
2754​				-16.82​	-2.52​
2748​				-16.5​	-3.3​
2748​				-16.57​	-2.84​

The Oehler system prints out group size and MR. I have excel and MatLab programs that will calculate them, also, for when I composite multiple Oehler's together or when I simply use shotmarkers for longer strings.

For Shits and giggles, here's 100 rounds of 108 factory ELDM.

2835​				3.17​	6.86​
2842​				3.29​	7.04​
2843​				3.54​	7.28​
2840​				2.83​	7.64​
2852​				3.39​	6.83​
2846​				3​	7.64​
2847​				3.35​	7.85​
2843​				3.18​	7.21​
2823​				3.02​	7.47​
2849​				3.45​	7.48​
2849​				2.53​	7.25​
2835​				2.91​	7.22​
2851​				2.96​	7.62​
2841​				3.17​	7.56​
2849​				3.01​	7.85​
2852​				2.61​	7.75​
2839​				3.4​	7.73​
2850​				2.85​	6.73​
2873​				3.54​	7.23​
2851​				3.38​	7.45​
2839​				2.21​	7.11​
2843​				3.43​	7.22​
2827​				3.24​	7.01​
2830​				3.23​	7.7​
2849​				2.26​	7.4​
2847​				2.55​	8.04​
2867​				2.77​	7.72​
2851​				3.73​	7.45​
2839​				2.99​	7.17​
2847​				2.55​	6.89​
2863​				3.35​	7.41​
2843​				3.21​	7.33​
2835​				4.03​	7.2​
2869​				2.85​	6.95​
2849​				3.67​	7.19​
2846​				2.57​	6.67​
2862​				3.25​	6.97​
2853​				2.96​	6.95​
2843​				3.5​	6.96​
2846​				3.55​	6.7​
2823​				3.43​	6.68​
2839​				2.88​	7.12​
2822​				3.15​	7.36​
2864​				2.31​	7.87​
2850​				3.3​	7.37​
2872​				3.38​	7.69​
2851​				3.19​	7.41​
2850​				3.45​	6.95​
2839​				3.16​	7.97​
2847​				2.6​	7.62​
2842​				2.66​	7.93​
2849​				3.02​	7.89​
2823​				3.46​	7.07​
2847​				3.44​	7.01​
2835​				2.94​	6.75​
2818​				3.05​	7.49​
2839​				3.34​	7.44​
2829​				3.7​	7.12​
2821​				3.14​	7.18​
2843​				3.43​	7.06​
2826​				3.07​	7.07​
2875​				2.3​	6.99​
2843​				3.24​	6.68​
2857​				1.95​	6.98​
2847​				1.87​	6.82​
2856​				2.91​	7.5​
2810​				3.7​	6.74​
2837​				2.56​	7.27​
2853​				2.41​	7.38​
2847​				3.04​	6.27​
2843​				3.2​	7.7​
2841​				3.13​	7.76​
2845​				2.89​	7.74​
2839​				3.46​	7.24​
2833​				2.61​	8.56​
2846​				2.62​	7.83​
2850​				3.45​	6.54​
2845​				2.29​	7.48​
2856​				2.82​	7.4​
2821​				3.35​	6.98​
2847​				2.6​	6.37​
2839​				2.9​	6.23​
2860​				3.39​	7.39​
2855​				2.86​	7.55​
2856​				3.51​	7.76​
2844​				3.31​	6.59​
2830​				3.22​	7.08​
2826​				2.95​	7.24​
2831​				2.43​	6.54​
2831​				3.52​	6.96​
2819​				3.11​	7.06​
2844​				3.06​	7.28​
2839​				2.84​	7.13​
2850​				2.78​	7.26​
2856​				2.72​	6.82​
2831​				3.59​	6.86​
2853​				2.25​	7.64​
2828​				3.56​	6.86​
2838​				3.06​	7.07​
2819​				3​	6.28​

That's kind of the factory in a custom rifle through what I'd call "pretty solid" hand loading. You can get better than what I've posted, but I'd bet 80% of PRS shooters fall within the realm of these data sets. A few better a few worse.

 

[Ledzep]

I’m working on shedding some light on why or why not it’s troublesome. I’m not a BR or F-class shooter so I don’t have any groups laying around to make some estimations.

The one point that is worth mentioning is the definition of a group size. If someone defines a competition to be of only three shots, then that’s the standard. If it’s 20 shots, then that’s the standard. Either way, we need a definition. Once we have a definition, we can collect samples.

Now, some will say, for instance, three shots isn’t enough. I would agree and if three shots is not enough, then we should have a lot of variation around the group’s center POI regardless of the group size but also in group size. There’s a variation of the group size itself and a variation where the center of the group is on target. This is the precision VS accuracy distinction irrespective of the scope’s zero. If people don’t track the variation about the group’s center POI, it would be hard to provide any evidence for or against.

I’m willing to bet a highly precise rifle is at least repeatable in its POI at low number of shots per group, but I wouldn’t maintain that assumption as precision gets worse. Since I doubt anyone has data that follows their group’s center about the POI, it’s an assumption I’m willing to accept.

MPOI doesn't get repeatable within ~.15MOA (less than half a click) until you get about 15 rounds in the group. I'm fairly comfortable normalizing 20+ shot groups and laying them on top of each other based on each group's MPOI, but there is still some error possible.

You can mull through the data above and see what you think. You can randomize order or random draw 3-shot, 5-shot, 10-shot etc.. groups out of it and see what metrics look like for repeatability. Moral of the story is it's all BS until 16-18 rounds and at that point it's very foggy. It comes together at 35-50 rounds, but for really small differences you may need hundreds of rounds. I think for most people "practical" information can be obtained with 20-shot strings, and that's typically what I use anymore for my personal load development/checks.

 

[Ledzep]

Here's the same 4-port .30 cal Area 419 setup with 27.5gr Varget and 109s at 305yd outdoor. This will be what I run for PRS this year.

 

[Ronws]

Well, results can only be as good as the data.

Now, we need to learn from Erik's means of getting MV.

Enjoy...

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Here is a pretty good tuner demonstration that F-Class John does. Erik had some really good ones but he's moved them over to Patreon and you have to pay to view them.

And this is a huge reason there is such a divide. One side thinks this is a worthwhile demonstration. The other knows it's inconclusive at best.


Now, what ends up happening (possibly) is guys like F Class John shoot so much of the same cartridge/ammo over long periods of time, they may be able to get something out of their overall data. But the small samples they show in videos such as this literally show nothing.

And I mean that in the most neutral way possible. It doesn't help nor does it hurt tuner arguments. It's basically a nothing burger.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Well, results can only be as good as the data.

Now, we need to learn from Erik's means of getting MV.

Enjoy...

That was an entertaining one. His barrel break in is a good one too.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I’m working on shedding some light on why or why not it’s troublesome. I’m not a BR or F-class shooter so I don’t have any groups laying around to make some estimations.

The one point that is worth mentioning is the definition of a group size. If someone defines a competition to be of only three shots, then that’s the standard. If it’s 20 shots, then that’s the standard. Either way, we need a definition. Once we have a definition, we can collect samples.

Now, some will say, for instance, three shots isn’t enough. I would agree and if three shots is not enough, then we should have a lot of variation around the group’s center POI regardless of the group size but also in group size. There’s a variation of the group size itself and a variation where the center of the group is on target. This is the precision VS accuracy distinction irrespective of the scope’s zero. If people don’t track the variation about the group’s center POI, it would be hard to provide any evidence for or against.

I’m willing to bet a highly precise rifle is at least repeatable in its POI at low number of shots per group, but I wouldn’t maintain that assumption as precision gets worse. Since I doubt anyone has data that follows their group’s center about the POI, it’s an assumption I’m willing to accept.

So, let's say F class......they use 20 shot strings. But they might have three relays. PRS, average of 10 rnd stages, but might have 10-20 stages.

Would you define group size as 20 for F class and 10 for PRS? Or something else?

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

MPOI doesn't get repeatable within ~.15MOA (less than half a click) until you get about 15 rounds in the group. I'm fairly comfortable normalizing 20+ shot groups and laying them on top of each other based on each group's MPOI, but there is still some error possible.

I don't have the same extensive data, but this seems to be in line with what I've been seeing lately- that is, it is common for a 5 round group to have a mean POI wander .1 or .2 inches at 100yds. I have been overlaying 4 or 5, 5 round groups to composite them into one 20 or 25 round group for analysis (and help refine zero).

Without a shotmarker system, I haven't found a good way to get X,Y or other meaningful metrics (other than edge to edge) from a 20 round group on paper, so the overlaying 5 round groups and accepting some MPOI variation is my best compromise. If someone has a better way, I'm all ears.

Thanks for the data.

 

[JBoomhauer]

So, let's say F class......they use 20 shot strings. But they might have three relays. PRS, average of 10 rnd stages, but might have 10-20 stages.

Would you define group size as 20 for F class and 10 for PRS? Or something else?

PRS is tricky because it can be 1-10 shots per target at 1-10 different ranges.

I just go by 10 one shot groups… haha

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

PRS is tricky because it can be 1-10 shots per target at 1-10 different ranges.

I just go by 10 one shot groups… haha

Yea, I just figured that a 10 shot group would be as close to representative to a string of fire as possible.

 

[JB.IC]

So, let's say F class......they use 20 shot strings. But they might have three relays. PRS, average of 10 rnd stages, but might have 10-20 stages.

Would you define group size as 20 for F class and 10 for PRS? Or something else?

What we really want to know is the population group size is, but no one in their right might is going to just shoot out a barrel up to some predetermined cutoff points (I suspect the last few hundred rounds of a barrel isn’t reliable due to mechanical failures in rifling and the first one hundred ish aren’t as reliable due to barrel speed up).

So the question becomes, what sample size would be representative? The sample size that converges onto the population, whatever that size is. 50 shots per group would probably be the right number to be absolutely sure. But no one is going to do that. I definitely wouldn’t.

When I was shooting PRS, I just did double of the typical stage which as you said is 10 rounds. So I would shoot two groups of 10 at the same POA. I don’t think many surprises will occur after 20 shot groups. But one can watch multiple 3 shot groups walk around an average POI, which is why I was hoping someone had some BR or F-class data on that.

The shooting discipline really dictates the use. BR doesn’t care about accuracy the same way F-class does, but both care about precision. What I do believe the case would be is if a 3 shot group isn’t representative of the population group size, then there should be a lot of walking around some average POI. I think BR & F-class rifles have been getting away with small sample sizes because they are really precise due to the gear used. If that’s the case, then it might be hard to discern any impact of a tuner on group size. You need variation to find an effect. If the variation is already low, then we’d be splitting hairs and I’m not sure the system is able to find an effect with low sample sizes even though experimental variation is low. If between and within variation are both low and no shift in the mean, nothing will be statistically different.

 

[Ledzep]

Without a shotmarker system, I haven't found a good way to get X,Y or other meaningful metrics (other than edge to edge) from a 20 round group on paper, so the overlaying 5 round groups and accepting some MPOI variation is my best compromise. If someone has a better way, I'm all ears.

You can use the Group Analysis feature on 4DoF like the one I screen shotted above, it will tell you the distance from the MPOI to the aim point in X and Y ("offsets" in the pic above), and will give you the X and Y of each shot relative to the aim point as well (the individual shot metrics that start in the bottom side of the pic).

 

[JB.IC]

You can use the Group Analysis feature on 4DoF like the one I screen shotted above, it will tell you the distance from the MPOI to the aim point in X and Y ("offsets" in the pic above), and will give you the X and Y of each shot relative to the aim point as well (the individual shot metrics that start in the bottom side of the pic).

You guys did a good job with that feature. Really saves a lot of time.

 

[Macht]

The Oehler system prints out group size and MR.

How repeatable have you found that to be vs paper?

 

[Ledzep]

How repeatable have you found that to be vs paper?

Oehler 85 acoustic system and the Shot markers are both within about .020-.040" on an individual shot location vs. the same group shot on paper if everything is calibrated correctly. The shot marker system is probably more susceptible to errors depending on how far apart you have the mics, how rigid the frame is, etc... I'm speaking for our use of these systems. The 100yd and 200yd indoor tunnel arrays are guarded, rigidly mounted, and never messed with. The shot markers are on semi-mobile frames and exposed to heating/cooling/wind, but we've made a habit of verifying/correcting/calibrating them for each setup.

In fact if you scale the mean radius for the 4-port 30 cal at 200yd (believe it was .44-.45", I forget) to 305 it's an exact match with the Group Analysis mean radius (.68"). We see that trend repeat regularly when we do 100, 200, and 305yd testing of the same systems. The acoustic systems have been an absolute game changer for data collection. Very good tools.

In speaking with some other folks that know what they're doing, there are some optical systems that are more precise, but are also an order of magnitude more expensive. Bang for your buck we've been pretty happy with the acoustics.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

You can use the Group Analysis feature on 4DoF like the one I screen shotted above, it will tell you the distance from the MPOI to the aim point in X and Y ("offsets" in the pic above), and will give you the X and Y of each shot relative to the aim point as well (the individual shot metrics that start in the bottom side of the pic).

I'm scanning targets into my PC and using TARAN, which does similar things. The issue is delineating individual bullet holes in a 20 round group shot at 100 yards, which is what I have conveniently available. For example, I can't pull a lot more detail from these 20 round groups, other than outside to outside.

By aggregating 5 shoters, I know it's not quite the same, but I can at least pull X,Y somewhat reliably.

 

[Ledzep]

I'm scanning targets into my PC and using TARAN, which does similar things. The issue is delineating individual bullet holes in a 20 round group shot at 100 yards, which is what I have conveniently available. For example, I can't pull a lot more detail from these 20 round groups, other than outside to outside.

View attachment 8348299

By aggregating 5 shoters, I know it's not quite the same, but I can at least pull X,Y somewhat reliably.
View attachment 8348308
View attachment 8348311

As long as you correlate POA on all of them, it's the same thing. I suggest doing so to anyone that can't get individual bullet-hole resolution for whatever reason (rifle shoots too good, not enough range, etc..). The only thing that can screw you on this approach is data taken over large time periods with changing conditions can artificially inflate dispersion... but maybe that's good to know the level to which that's happening, too.

 

[memilanuk]

What we really want to know is the population group size is, but no one in their right might is going to just shoot out a barrel up to some predetermined cutoff points (I suspect the last few hundred rounds of a barrel isn’t reliable due to mechanical failures in rifling and the first one hundred ish aren’t as reliable due to barrel speed up).

So the question becomes, what sample size would be representative? The sample size that converges onto the population, whatever that size is. 50 shots per group would probably be the right number to be absolutely sure. But no one is going to do that. I definitely wouldn’t.

When I was shooting PRS, I just did double of the typical stage which as you said is 10 rounds. So I would shoot two groups of 10 at the same POA. I don’t think many surprises will occur after 20 shot groups. But one can watch multiple 3 shot groups walk around an average POI, which is why I was hoping someone had some BR or F-class data on that.

The shooting discipline really dictates the use. BR doesn’t care about accuracy the same way F-class does, but both care about precision. What I do believe the case would be is if a 3 shot group isn’t representative of the population group size, then there should be a lot of walking around some average POI. I think BR & F-class rifles have been getting away with small sample sizes because they are really precise due to the gear used. If that’s the case, then it might be hard to discern any impact of a tuner on group size. You need variation to find an effect. If the variation is already low, then we’d be splitting hairs and I’m not sure the system is able to find an effect with low sample sizes even though experimental variation is low. If between and within variation are both low and no shift in the mean, nothing will be statistically different.

I think you *might* start seeing a little more 'aggregate' target data going forward, at least from BR shooters, as I've been hearing of more ranges starting to use e-targets either for sighters (600-1k BR, where shooting at an e-target gives a little more precise feedback than shooting at clay pigeons on the berm) or to replace the moving paper target backers for short range aka 'point blank' 100-200yd BR. The little bit of short range BR I ever shot was 'score', so one shot per bull, no moving backer, but from what I've heard from the people shooting group... the moving paper backers were a continual PITA for the folks running the match. E-targets are relatively self-contained, showing not only the shot location and time, but the yaw angle, making it (relatively) easy to tell if a shot came from a different bench i.e. cross-fire. But with people obsessing over group sizes to the third decimal place... almost nobody is trusting open-mic acoustic targets for actual match scores at this point.

F-class... there probably *are* plenty of strings stored away that a person could dig up if they wanted to. But speaking from experience... there's usually enough 'stuff' going on down range, between wind, mirage, etc. that it'd be very difficult to separate out what you're looking for from the usual range 'noise', without actually knowing what was going on that particular day, on that particular string, on that particular range. I think there's a tendency - right or wrong - in that particular group, to 'tune' using smaller groups (3-5 rds), then proof test the more promising candidates with longer strings - maybe multiple 5 rd groups, maybe a couple 10rd groups, or if they happen to luck out and get a time-slot on the range with consistent conditions, a 20 shot. But given how rare that can happen, vs. when most people can manage to get range time... has a lot to do with why most people tend to test with smaller groups and then try to extrapolate the results as best they can. Ideal? No. Statistically valid? Almost certainly not. Does it get the job done... surprisingly, a lot of the time, yes. Does it also result in the occasional "WTF?!?" when things don't pan out as expected? Also yes.

 

[memilanuk]

But with people obsessing over group sizes to the third decimal place... almost nobody is trusting open-mic acoustic targets for actual match scores at this point.

On a bit of a tangent... I've been following a couple threads on e-targets in BR over on AS... along with the usual arguing over whether e-targets are accurate enough for F-class. I swear, I'm the only person that, as a some-times match director, sleeps a whole lot better with people *not* in the pits with bullets zipping overhead, blowing up spotters and spraying fragments onto the folks pulling targets on 'manual' paper target frames - the relative accuracy is very low on my give-a-shit list, in that context.

But watching people argue over whether the e-targets are as accurate as people manually measuring bullet holes in paper, out to three decimal places, for a 5 shot group... and understanding the relative variability of 5 shot groups in general... I've been biting my lip til it's bloody hamburger! It's all very serious to them, and to be fair, I'd love to take a turn at it myself at some point, but I'm not sure I'll ever be able to keep a straight face

 

[mrcheesemoose]

Eta: these are all at 200yd

6mm ARC, 110gr A-tip, 28.0gr Varget. These weighed to .02gr on charge wt. Fed 205m, 2.350" COAL 24" Bartlein 5r 1:7.5, Accuracy fixture. Cases were weight and volume sorted, neck turned, neck honed, bullets graphited for seating.

MV, X, Y

2742​				-12.51​	9.00​
2759​				-12.17​	9.49​
2751​				-12.57​	9.39​
2748​				-12.32​	9.37​
2755​				-12.87​	9.61​
2752​				-12.76​	9.19​
2751​				-12.36​	9.13​
2757​				-12.26​	9.16​
2761​				-13.13​	8.71​
2757​				-12.72​	9.63​
2759​				-12.55​	9.30​
2754​				-12.91​	9.66​
2743​				-12.63​	9.50​
2755​				-12.23​	9.17​
2775​				-12.75​	9.43​
2770​				-12.15​	9.42​
2749​				-12.96​	8.75​
2757​				-12.51​	8.99​
2766​				-13.05​	9.05​
2758​				-12.99​	9.31​

6mm ARC, 110gr A-tip, 28.0gr Varget. Fed 205m, 2.350" COAL. These charges from a thrower, +/- 0.35gr usually, accuracy fixture Bartlein. Virgin cases grabbed at random from a bulk box.

MV, X, Y

2723​				-6.42​	5.47​
2740​				-6.82​	5.76​
2747​				-6.81​	5.46​
2764​				-7.02​	5.7​
2754​				-6.94​	5.8​
2748​				-6.96​	5.74​
2758​				-6.63​	5.59​
2755​				-6.76​	5.87​
2753​				-6.54​	6.23​
2742​				-7.11​	5.06​
2754​				-6.63​	5.13​
2756​				-6.32​	5.66​
2760​				-6.52​	5.61​
2735​				-6.99​	6.47​
2740​				-6.25​	5.58​
2760​				-6.69​	6.12​
2739​				-6.97​	6.01​
2761​				-6.66​	5.81​
2761​				-7.06​	5.86​
2757​				-7​	5.62​

Different barrel (28" HS precision), 27.5gr Varget, 109 ELD-M, fed 205m, 2.350 COAL. 3-port Area 419 6.5mm Brake, from the shoulder bag+Bipod

2750​				-16.92​	-1.64​
2779​				-16.35​	-0.85​
2767​				-16.45​	-1.5​
2764​				-16.41​	-1.28​
2761​				-16.91​	-1.52​
2761​				-16.4​	-1.81​
2760​				-16.56​	-1.36​
2751​				-16.51​	-0.95​
2751​				-16.13​	-1.71​
2747​				-16.52​	-2.61​
2737​				-16.26​	-1.42​
2748​				-16.61​	-1.6​
2748​				-16.2​	-2.26​
2755​				-16.07​	-1.07​
2759​				-17.49​	-1.95​
2778​				-16.43​	-2.11​
2739​				-16.41​	-1.98​
2737​				-16.19​	-1.58​
2741​				-16.76​	-1.68​
2749​				-16.54​	-2.39​

Same as the last one with a 4-port .308 Area 419 brake, shoulder bag+bipod

2742​				-17.83​	-2.54​
2736​				-17.29​	-2.66​
2764​				-17.25​	-3.01​
2766​				-16.53​	-3.02​
2776​				-17.08​	-2.28​
2772​				-17.44​	-2.99​
2736​				-17.26​	-2.83​
2760​				-17.22​	-2.57​
2757​				-17.77​	-2.84​
2769​				-16.68​	-3.26​
2731​				-16.62​	-2.72​
2757​				-17.15​	-2.88​
2768​				-16.96​	-3.26​
2739​				-16.85​	-3.07​
2752​				-16.63​	-2.89​
2749​				-16.76​	-2.75​
2750​				-16.46​	-2.77​
2754​				-16.82​	-2.52​
2748​				-16.5​	-3.3​
2748​				-16.57​	-2.84​

The Oehler system prints out group size and MR. I have excel and MatLab programs that will calculate them, also, for when I composite multiple Oehler's together or when I simply use shotmarkers for longer strings.

For Shits and giggles, here's 100 rounds of 108 factory ELDM.

2835​				3.17​	6.86​
2842​				3.29​	7.04​
2843​				3.54​	7.28​
2840​				2.83​	7.64​
2852​				3.39​	6.83​
2846​				3​	7.64​
2847​				3.35​	7.85​
2843​				3.18​	7.21​
2823​				3.02​	7.47​
2849​				3.45​	7.48​
2849​				2.53​	7.25​
2835​				2.91​	7.22​
2851​				2.96​	7.62​
2841​				3.17​	7.56​
2849​				3.01​	7.85​
2852​				2.61​	7.75​
2839​				3.4​	7.73​
2850​				2.85​	6.73​
2873​				3.54​	7.23​
2851​				3.38​	7.45​
2839​				2.21​	7.11​
2843​				3.43​	7.22​
2827​				3.24​	7.01​
2830​				3.23​	7.7​
2849​				2.26​	7.4​
2847​				2.55​	8.04​
2867​				2.77​	7.72​
2851​				3.73​	7.45​
2839​				2.99​	7.17​
2847​				2.55​	6.89​
2863​				3.35​	7.41​
2843​				3.21​	7.33​
2835​				4.03​	7.2​
2869​				2.85​	6.95​
2849​				3.67​	7.19​
2846​				2.57​	6.67​
2862​				3.25​	6.97​
2853​				2.96​	6.95​
2843​				3.5​	6.96​
2846​				3.55​	6.7​
2823​				3.43​	6.68​
2839​				2.88​	7.12​
2822​				3.15​	7.36​
2864​				2.31​	7.87​
2850​				3.3​	7.37​
2872​				3.38​	7.69​
2851​				3.19​	7.41​
2850​				3.45​	6.95​
2839​				3.16​	7.97​
2847​				2.6​	7.62​
2842​				2.66​	7.93​
2849​				3.02​	7.89​
2823​				3.46​	7.07​
2847​				3.44​	7.01​
2835​				2.94​	6.75​
2818​				3.05​	7.49​
2839​				3.34​	7.44​
2829​				3.7​	7.12​
2821​				3.14​	7.18​
2843​				3.43​	7.06​
2826​				3.07​	7.07​
2875​				2.3​	6.99​
2843​				3.24​	6.68​
2857​				1.95​	6.98​
2847​				1.87​	6.82​
2856​				2.91​	7.5​
2810​				3.7​	6.74​
2837​				2.56​	7.27​
2853​				2.41​	7.38​
2847​				3.04​	6.27​
2843​				3.2​	7.7​
2841​				3.13​	7.76​
2845​				2.89​	7.74​
2839​				3.46​	7.24​
2833​				2.61​	8.56​
2846​				2.62​	7.83​
2850​				3.45​	6.54​
2845​				2.29​	7.48​
2856​				2.82​	7.4​
2821​				3.35​	6.98​
2847​				2.6​	6.37​
2839​				2.9​	6.23​
2860​				3.39​	7.39​
2855​				2.86​	7.55​
2856​				3.51​	7.76​
2844​				3.31​	6.59​
2830​				3.22​	7.08​
2826​				2.95​	7.24​
2831​				2.43​	6.54​
2831​				3.52​	6.96​
2819​				3.11​	7.06​
2844​				3.06​	7.28​
2839​				2.84​	7.13​
2850​				2.78​	7.26​
2856​				2.72​	6.82​
2831​				3.59​	6.86​
2853​				2.25​	7.64​
2828​				3.56​	6.86​
2838​				3.06​	7.07​
2819​				3​	6.28​

That's kind of the factory in a custom rifle through what I'd call "pretty solid" hand loading. You can get better than what I've posted, but I'd bet 80% of PRS shooters fall within the realm of these data sets. A few better a few worse.

This is awesome data. Thanks for posting! I got a jupyter notebook that can give me CEP50, CEP95, and mean radius from the X/Y data from the app. (side note, it can be super tedious having to copy from the app, would be awesome if you guys had an export to excel feature or something). I prefer CEP over mean radius since its more resilient to fliers

 

[memilanuk]

I don't suppose you have that notebook somewhere shareable?

As an aside... if anyone is into using R, there is a package called 'shotgroups' that can do some pretty interesting number crunching / visualization.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I think you *might* start seeing a little more 'aggregate' target data going forward, at least from BR shooters, as I've been hearing of more ranges starting to use e-targets either for sighters (600-1k BR, where shooting at an e-target gives a little more precise feedback than shooting at clay pigeons on the berm) or to replace the moving paper target backers for short range aka 'point blank' 100-200yd BR. The little bit of short range BR I ever shot was 'score', so one shot per bull, no moving backer, but from what I've heard from the people shooting group... the moving paper backers were a continual PITA for the folks running the match. E-targets are relatively self-contained, showing not only the shot location and time, but the yaw angle, making it (relatively) easy to tell if a shot came from a different bench i.e. cross-fire. But with people obsessing over group sizes to the third decimal place... almost nobody is trusting open-mic acoustic targets for actual match scores at this point.

F-class... there probably *are* plenty of strings stored away that a person could dig up if they wanted to. But speaking from experience... there's usually enough 'stuff' going on down range, between wind, mirage, etc. that it'd be very difficult to separate out what you're looking for from the usual range 'noise', without actually knowing what was going on that particular day, on that particular string, on that particular range. I think there's a tendency - right or wrong - in that particular group, to 'tune' using smaller groups (3-5 rds), then proof test the more promising candidates with longer strings - maybe multiple 5 rd groups, maybe a couple 10rd groups, or if they happen to luck out and get a time-slot on the range with consistent conditions, a 20 shot. But given how rare that can happen, vs. when most people can manage to get range time... has a lot to do with why most people tend to test with smaller groups and then try to extrapolate the results as best they can. Ideal? No. Statistically valid? Almost certainly not. Does it get the job done... surprisingly, a lot of the time, yes. Does it also result in the occasional "WTF?!?" when things don't pan out as expected? Also yes.

This is where I think many get over confident in thinking they "know" the what, why, and how. People vastly underestimate all the variables that happen/change everywhere from the loading bench all the way to the final impact location on target on a particular day.

People absolutely are able to load very good ammo and are absolutely able to shoot very tiny groups.


However, its almost impossible under normal conditions (non laboratory and/or with consumer equipment) to be able to narrow down exactly what/why/how to be adjusting things at the micro adjustment level like many people claim.

 

[Maurygold]

Tuners work and I use the ezell . You guys claim no one could test them enough to work yet all the top shooters in f class and benchrest use one?? How is that possible?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

 

[Maurygold]

View attachment 8348700

Hello again. Here’s some small groups from the tuner community. Enjoy - but I’m sure you know more than all of us and are shooting even smaller groups

 

[brianf]

Tuners work and I use the ezell . You guys claim no one could test them enough to work yet all the top shooters in f class and benchrest use one?? How is that possible?

View attachment 8348695

Is that your last comp?

Where what’s it?

 

[JB.IC]

Hello again. Here’s some small groups from the tuner community. Enjoy - but I’m sure you know more than all of us and are shooting even smaller groups


View attachment 8348707

Shooting small groups does not equal understanding the mechanism of why a tuner may or may not work. I don’t think anyone is out to say what y’all do does not work. Some just want to understand it and gain evidence that it’s repeatable under some condition.

As Jim has concluded, the act of putting extra mass at the end of a barrel can effectively shrinks groups under the right conditions. If that is true, the presence of extra mass is the assignable cause. Then a tuner’s functionality isn’t the cause. The mass of a tuner is the cause. Those two mechanisms are completely different.

Nice groups though. I’d be proud of those.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Definitely not "all" top F class and BR shooters uses tuners. At least two members on the Lapua Team don't run tuners. The world record holder for 1k yds BR didn't use a tuner....etc etc. And that's just off the top of my head.

As usual, when it comes to things like this, something a person believes in requires almost zero proof. And what they don't believe in needs an impossible amount of proof. This same user was recently arguing against annealing being beneficial. Even though more top shooters anneal than use a tuner.

People can't even agree with themselves on what facts/points are valid enough for an argument. Some top shooters using a tuner means it works, but some top shooters annealing doesn't mean it works.



There's no conversation to be had when someone can't even be consistent with their own points.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Shooting small groups does not equal understanding the mechanism of why a tuner may or may not work. I don’t think anyone is out to say what y’all do does not work. Some just want to understand it and gain evidence that it’s repeatable under some condition.

As Jim has concluded, the act of putting extra mass at the end of a barrel can effectively shrinks groups under the right conditions. If that is true, the presence of extra mass is the assignable cause. Then a tuner’s functionality isn’t the cause. The mass of a tuner is the cause. Those two mechanisms are completely different.

Nice groups though. I’d be proud of those.

This brings up a good point. Many people report they saw a positive change when adding the tuner to the rifle. And either they didn't feel the need to adjust it, or they did and it didn't improve past initial installation improvement.

Which would fall in line with under the right conditions (bore alignment and such) that adding the weight can help. Doesn't mean it does, just another observation to add to the pile.