Hornady on tuners.

[TheBigCountry]

Yea, there's just too many things that can go "wrong" to be eliminating ammo the way most do.

I just ran a sample of 1k shots with a 7sd and a 5sd and used 3 shot samples for SD. The 5sd ammo had 252 groups with a 5sd or less. The 7sd had 151 groups with a 5sd or less. With the way most people look for the "best," that's a lot of overlap which results in a very high % chance of low sample sizes causing you to believe the worse ammo is actually better than the best ammo.

Change it to a 10sd and you still have around 100 of those three shot groups that will register in at 5sd or less.

So, you can have literally twice the SD, and still at a very high % of the time, have data from 3 shot groups showing as good or better SD than the twice as good ammo.

Is that ammo you made as Feniks?

 

[Ronws]

Yea, there's just too many things that can go "wrong" to be eliminating ammo the way most do.

I just ran a sample of 1k shots with a 7sd and a 5sd and used 3 shot samples for SD. The 5sd ammo had 252 groups with a 5sd or less. The 7sd had 151 groups with a 5sd or less. With the way most people look for the "best," that's a lot of overlap which results in a very high % chance of low sample sizes causing you to believe the worse ammo is actually better than the best ammo.

Change it to a 10sd and you still have around 100 of those three shot groups that will register in at 5sd or less.

So, you can have literally twice the SD, and still at a very high % of the time, have data from 3 shot groups showing as good or better SD than the twice as good ammo.

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...

 

[Barelstroker]

I've repeated Satterlee tests for 35 cycles and Jeff Siewert has done 100 cycles.

When you plot them out it's a gigantic mess of criss-crossed lines. The individual Satterlee plot bounces around within the true average +/- ES for any given charge weight and any "node" that appears in an individual test is a "pattern" that your mind is tricking you into believing in.

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.

 

[Barelstroker]

I don’t want to sound like a snob, but anyone who has studied statistical theory at the graduate level would have came to similar conclusions in a short amount of time as what’s mentioned in that link. I even showed a round about application of it except I made it multivariate distribution and I’ve never read his work. I guess he might have been the first to apply it to firearms?

Edit: I acknowledge I’ve had the benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants so it’s not really fair to compared now VS then.

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.

 

[LeftyJason]

You put a target in each rung and when your slow bullets hit the higher targets and your fast bullets hit the lower ones, you’ve complete a positive compensation ladder.

To do a ladder correctly you should be listening to this song.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

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.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

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.

Be careful. That method dropped 9 shots out of 190 over the course of two matches.

 

[kthomas]

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.

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.

 

[mrcheesemoose]

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.

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

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

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…

 

[Barelstroker]

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.

https://dsiac.org/articles/random-error-in-small-caliber-dispersion/

 

[Barelstroker]

Try adjusting the tuner “down and out” for the lower charge weights…

I'm wondering why I can't get a toooooner with audible & tactile clicks as well as a rev indicator

 

[brianf]

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 apart

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

 

[Barelstroker]

Because they don’t work to begin with and people will argue that the clicks are too far apart

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

 

[mrcheesemoose]

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*

 

[Barelstroker]

Poor flat earthers, everyone knows deep down the *globe* is *flat*

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

 

[MarkyMark007]

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?

 

[Barelstroker]

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.