I am now officially a Tuner convert

[JAS-SH]

I never thought about using tuners. I did do some research on them but could not find anything to fully explain how they worked.

Lately though I started seeing more information on YouTube and websites so I was intrigued. I found that everyone at the top competing in ARA .22 LR is using them. Most Open F-Class folks at the top are using them. I’ve seen some in PRS now using tuner brakes.

So, without any expectations, I bought one from Erik Cortina – the V2 version, and installed it yesterday on my PRS rifle, which came threaded with an 11-degree crown. It’s a 6mm ARC and using Hornady factory ammo – the 108s.

Today I took it to the 100-yard line for some tests. Here’s what it looks like now. This is also to show that I used a bench rest setup to narrow down the variables.

I shot three different lots of ammo totaling 60-rounds.

For brevity, these images below are the highlights. The first thing noticed was that my zero changed quite a bit - .3~.4 Mils low. I adjusted .3 mils for the second lot test. It is very important to note that so called "fliers" are gone. There were zero wide or low "flier" shots out of 60.

This first image is from my most accurate Lot. The numbers represent the tuner settings (0-25). The second row is for repeatability. Setting 5 is the most accurate, although I only had 2 shots left they went in the same hole!

The third lot tested is also very good. By then I was just testing random settings - on all three lots Setting #5 was the best. Interesting that all the groups shot at the same settings look very similar to the first Lot tested. There is repeatability. Setting 5 on this lot was 3-shots (not 2-shots like the first lot.) Still one ragged hole.

SOLD!

 

[Capitol5868]

Go run the same test with a 20 degree temp change +\- and tune again and again.
Problem is your constantly tuning for weather and altitude changes.

 

[JAS-SH]

Go run the same test with a 20 degree temp change +\- and tune again and again.
Problem is your constantly tuning for weather and altitude changes.

This is precisely one of the selling points of tuners. You can adjust for altitude, temperature etc. My example: I live in FL. Today when the testing took place the temperature was stable. It went from 77 to 81 degrees. That's a good thing. And I recorded all environmentals in my little book.

Now, back in the 1980's I hunted deer in the Washington eastern Cascades. Reloaded all the ammo I was taking here in Fl. The rifle (.308) was zeroed and tack driving. Got on a plane and went hunting. Well, not quite. I was now in -2 to +22 degrees, 6000 foot altitude. Went to the range to check zero and the rifle shot like shit, even after re-zeroed.

And that, according to the rifle shooting winners in this world is one of the main reasons why they use tuners.

 

[ma smith]

+1 The critque of tuners is you just spend tons of time and ammo (er, money) re-setting them all the time. They DO appear to work in large part simply as dead-weight on the end of your barrel, which is lowr cost strategy, ie not resetting them. But then you can get into a debate about the cost of a tuner vs a dummy weight or just a different profile barrel, etc.

 

[kthomas]

Out of curiosity:

How many here consider it practical to "retune" your ammo any time the temp, DA or other environmental condition changes?

 

[JAS-SH]

..... They DO appear to work in large part simply as dead-weight on the end of your barrel, which is lowr cost strategy, ie not resetting them. But then you can get into a debate about the cost of a tuner vs a dummy weight or just a different profile barrel, etc....

I was just like you, even more negative on tuners. Matter of fact when I bought it I went in with full bore negative expectations. Just wanted to get that question out of my system so to speak.

Now I know it's not dead weight. The groups change as the settings change. And all of a sudden I get small ragged holes on paper, with one specific setting. And no "fliers" on the rest all with factory ammo? What's not to love?

Yes, ammo costs are the highest costs by far when shooting, bullets especially. Now, the questions are: How many rounds do I send downrange trying to fix average or worse results? What if I stick a tuner at the end of the barrel and it starts shooting tight with repeatable bugholes thrown in? And all that with factory ammo and for just $250 bucks?

I've been knocking tuners for decades. And there's a saying for that - starts with "don't knock it...". I went out to prove tuners didn't work and I was wrong. How many of us have the testicular virility to admit that?

All the best ma!

 

[kthomas]

I was just like you, even more negative on tuners. Matter of fact when I bought it I went in with full bore negative expectations. Just wanted to get that question out of my system so to speak.

Now I know it's not dead weight. The groups change as the settings change. And all of a sudden I get small ragged holes on paper, with one specific setting. And no "fliers" on the rest all with factory ammo? What's not to love?

Yes, ammo costs are the highest costs by far when shooting, bullets especially. Now, the questions are: How many rounds do I send downrange trying to fix average or worse results? What if I stick a tuner at the end of the barrel and it starts shooting tight with repeatable bugholes thrown in? And all that with factory ammo and for just $250 bucks?

I've been knocking tuners for decades. And there's a saying for that - starts with "don't knock it...". I went out to prove tuners didn't work and I was wrong. How many of us have the testicular virility to admit that?

All the best ma!

It would be interesting if you shot a 5x5 with that tuner on setting #5 and a 5x5 without tuner, over multiple days (and differing conditions).

It would be interesting to see if the tuner aggregate was also better than non-tuner, and by how much. It would also be interesting to see if tuner setting #5 consistently shot small groups, if it changes with environmental conditions, or what you experienced with your 2 and 3 shot group is not indicative of true performance when a larger sample size is accounted for.

Not enough data presented here to conclude anything. But I think there's an opportunity for some interesting tests.

 

[JAS-SH]

It would be interesting if you shot a 5x5 with that tuner on setting #5 and a 5x5 without tuner, over multiple days (and differing conditions).

It would be interesting to see if the tuner aggregate was also better than non-tuner, and by how much. It would also be interesting to see if tuner setting #5 consistently shot small groups, if it changes with environmental conditions, or what you experienced with your 2 and 3 shot group is not indicative of true performance when a larger sample size is accounted for.

Not enough data presented here to conclude anything. But I think there's an opportunity for some interesting tests.

I don't disagree with you one bit. But I sure as hell not going to spend $1.50 a round to prove that to you. I would gladly do that study for you if you pay for it. The would be +/- $1K. Let me know if you want to do it. I'm good at this, and even better at analysis (my profession). Or, you could do it yourself....

That was more of a joke. There is a short cut. There are a lot of top shooters that have already done the work and published. And they are still using tuners. Research. Pay attention. Results served on a silver platter are few and far between.

I pay attention, not to what people write here, but to results, in competition, by the top shooters. And that, is the shortcut. They are mostly willing and able to share the wealth, and I'm paying attention, even if it takes over an hour to watch a podcast.

I went out today to prove that tuners did not work. I was wrong and admitting it here. That's all I'm doing. I have never ever, in the multiple times I've shot 60-rounds straight out of that rifle, seen that level of precision. Not ever. Everything was tight, aggregate easily around 1/2 MOA or less, including everything, stuff visibly out of tune and all. And then, multiple bugholes when in tune.

I do have a pretty precise rifle to begin with....

The most important part for me was: I can repeat it at least for today - and at will - no guessing! I tested that.

 

[Baron23]

Just a different take on tuners by a guy I respect for his quantitative and analytical approach. I don't mean to say he's right and everybody should do as Keith does, but he does at least clearly articulate why he doesn't use them anymore in F-open

 

[kthomas]

I don't disagree with you one bit. But I sure as hell not going to spend $1.50 a round to prove that to you. I would gladly do that study for you if you pay for it. The would be +/- $1K. Let me know if you want to do it. I'm good at this, and even better at analysis (my profession). Or, you could do it yourself....

That was more of a joke. There is a short cut. There are a lot of top shooters that have already done the work and published. And they are still using tuners. Research. Pay attention. Results served on a silver platter are few and far between.

I pay attention, not to what people write here, but to results, in competition, by the top shooters. And that, is the shortcut. They are mostly willing and able to share the wealth, and I'm paying attention, even if it takes over an hour to watch a podcast.

I went out today to prove that tuners did not work. I was wrong and admitting it here. That's all I'm doing. I have never ever, in the multiple times I've shot 60-rounds straight out of that rifle, seen that level of precision. Not ever. Everything was tight, aggregate easily around 1/5 MOA or less, including everything, stuff visibly out of tune and all. And then, multiple bugholes when in tune.

I do have a pretty precise rifle to begin with....

The most important part for me was: I can repeat it at least for today - and at will - no guessing! I tested that.

I don't expect you to do anything for me. I just think such a thing would be much more interesting and informative.

I've shot bullet seating depth tests that showed really promising sub 1/10 MOA groups, but once I started shooting 5 round groups it became clear that load in actuality was a 1+ MOA load. Pretty easy to get lucky with a couple of 2 and 3 round groups. Pretty extreme example (RDF's), but it was also illuminating to me how small data sets can really distort your perceptions.

I personally need a much bigger sample size to draw any conclusions. I don't expect it to come from you, but the sample size shown here is not conclusive or dispositive of anything. It's too easy to make definitive conclusions from small data sets that don't line up with reality when you draw out the sample size.

 

[diggler1833]

I am NOT a tuner convert...yet. maybe someday I will be. I've always said that I'm not married to any practice or process.

That being said, I can see the merits behind their use...and will go so far to say that I would be willing to bet you can adjust harmonics to better suit a load (factory etc...).

I certainly do that now with charge weight and OAL, so why wouldn't a tuner work too?

I can also see where one might have to fiddle with them on the firing line each separate range session (conditions), and that is less appealing to me since I'm not an F-class guy.

I also said that Glocks were crap, Tupperware etc... Then one day I rented a G17 at an indoor range just so I could crap on them having had some experience at least. I ran the target back to 25 yards as proceeded to shoot a group as good as I ever had with an M9 (and I shot service pistol with those). I promptly bought a G17.

 

[JAS-SH]

I don't expect you to do anything for me. I just think such a thing would be much more interesting and informative.

I've shot bullet seating depth tests that showed really promising sub 1/10 MOA groups, but once I started shooting 5 round groups it became clear that load in actuality was a 1+ MOA load. Pretty easy to get lucky with a couple of 2 and 3 round groups. Pretty extreme example (RDF's), but it was also illuminating to me how small data sets can really distort your perceptions.

I personally need a much bigger sample size to draw any conclusions. I don't expect it to come from you, but the sample size shown here is not conclusive or dispositive of anything. It's too easy to make definitive conclusions from small data sets that don't line up with reality when you draw out the sample size.

I don't disagree with you at all. On the contrary, large datasets are very valuable, but that's for averages. The levels at where the top shooters are running their guns is a whole different territory. They are not us, they are not concerned about averages. Averages don't mean shit to them because averages don't win championships. Their hardware is the absolute best that money can buy. Still, they use tuners. We can learn from that.

These guys/gals are/were the best shooters in the world - period. They all have put in the time, have the ability, have done the testing themselves, and they are consequently winners. And they have no qualms about communicating and helping others. Why? Their strata is so intensively competitive that there very few secrets, if any. Too many people involved for secrets. These days Open F-Class and F/TR championships for example are often won by one or two points!

They use the best of the best equipment, and they use tuners. Why?

And that is where we can all benefit. Learn from the pros. The mantra in F-Class, as in all the other disciplines is: "watch the top shooters, and do what they do." They call them "mentors". No simpler truth exists. If anyone of us should ever get there (I won't - too old), then I'm sure it would be easier to understand.

I didn't believe in tuners forever. Now I think there is something there (pretty obvious) and I now believe they can tighten groups. And the "small" 60-round trial shows that. 60-rounds from a known gun and ammo.... Is that too small a sample? Not for me.

 

[JAS-SH]

I am NOT a tuner convert...yet. maybe someday I will be. I've always said that I'm not married to any practice or process.

That being said, I can see the merits behind their use...and will go so far to say that I would be willing to bet you can adjust harmonics to better suit a load (factory etc...).

I certainly do that now with charge weight and OAL, so why wouldn't a tuner work too?

I can also see where one might have to fiddle with them on the firing line each separate range session (conditions), and that is less appealing to me since I'm not an F-class guy.

I also said that Glocks were crap, Tupperware etc... Then one day I rented a G17 at an indoor range just so I could crap on them having had some experience at least. I ran the target back to 25 yards as proceeded to shoot a group as good as I ever had with an M9 (and I shot service pistol with those). I promptly bought a G17.

Open mind..... Open mind..... Always. Until proven otherwise.

 

[Rob01]

Out of curiosity:

How many here consider it practical to "retune" your ammo any time the temp, DA or other environmental condition changes?

I don’t think you do as I didn’t have to with my ATS. I tuned it in NC at 100 yards and went to WV at a totally different temp and altitude and it shot the same at 100 and stayed tight at 900 also. Do people work up a different handload in their rifle when they change temp and altitude? If the load is good you shouldn’t have to.

On a different note, @JAS-SH what velocity you getting with the 108 factory and what barrel length? Putting together and ARC myself now.

 

[CK1.0]

Just a different take on tuners by a guy I respect for his quantitative and analytical approach. I don't mean to say he's right and everybody should do as Keith does, but he does at least clearly articulate why he doesn't use them anymore in F-open

I tend to agree with that dude's take... they may work but the last thing I need is more variables to keep track of.

It's not my ammo that holds me back, IMO 3 rounds touching at 100 yards has more to do with the dumbass pulling the trigger or maybe what he had for breakfast, and somehow it still happens semi-regularly for most of us without the use of a tuner.

 

[kthomas]

I don't disagree with you at all. On the contrary, large datasets are very valuable, but that's for averages. The levels at where the top shooters are running their guns is a whole different territory. They are not us, they are not concerned about averages. Averages don't mean shit to them because averages don't win championships. Their hardware is the absolute best that money can buy. Still, they use tuners. We can learn from that.

These guys/gals are/were the best shooters in the world - period. They all have put in the time, have the ability, have done the testing themselves, and they are consequently winners. And they have no qualms about communicating and helping others. Why? Their strata is so intensively competitive that there very few secrets, if any. Too many people involved for secrets. These days Open F-Class and F/TR championships for example are often won by one or two points!

They use the best of the best equipment, and they use tuners. Why?

And that is where we can all benefit. Learn from the pros. The mantra in F-Class, as in all the other disciplines is: "watch the top shooters, and do what they do." They call them "mentors". No simpler truth exists. If anyone of us should ever get there (I won't - too old), then I'm sure it would be easier to understand.

I didn't believe in tuners forever. Now I think there is something there (pretty obvious) and I now believe they can tighten groups. And the "small" 60-round trial shows that. 60-rounds from a known gun and ammo.... Is that too small a sample? Not for me.

To be fair, F-class and BR shooters use tuners for a very different purpose then what is being proposed here or elsewhere on the hide. They don't use it to make factory ammo shoot better. They don't make it to even make their reloads shoot better. How tuners are being used in our disciplines on the 'Hide is very different then the conventional use that have been prescribed to tuners for decades in other disciplines.

 

[DangerRanger]

It would be interesting if you shot a 5x5 with that tuner on setting #5 and a 5x5 without tuner, over multiple days (and differing conditions).

It would be interesting to see if the tuner aggregate was also better than non-tuner, and by how much. It would also be interesting to see if tuner setting #5 consistently shot small groups, if it changes with environmental conditions, or what you experienced with your 2 and 3 shot group is not indicative of true performance when a larger sample size is accounted for.

Not enough data presented here to conclude anything. But I think there's an opportunity for some interesting tests.

X2

Because changing with chasing random small sample size noise is extremely easy to just wave off as any given day being “different conditions”

There is almost never large sample sizes in anything related to tuners. And then people say Br guys use them but Br guys also spin in circles and say Hail Mary before they get out of the truck and everything else. That argument works only to show the thing they are using didn’t actively make it shit, not proves it made it better

I would love to see it though(statistical proof they work) as it would be interesting and I don’t really care if they work or don’t.

 

[ZombieMonkey]

Just a different take on tuners by a guy I respect for his quantitative and analytical approach. I don't mean to say he's right and everybody should do as Keith does, but he does at least clearly articulate why he doesn't use them anymore in F-open

I have watched a number of his videos and honestly tend to agree with him, including this particular video. It is just another variable that I would not want to have to fool with as things change from day to day or due to the device setting changing and not realizing it until later on. Many of us try to work on eliminating variables and tuners seem like they run counter to that idea. Just my view though, but I certainly can see why some really like them as they certainly do work.

 

[Haney]

To be fair, F-class and BR shooters use tuners for a very different purpose then what is being proposed here or elsewhere on the hide. They don't use it to make factory ammo shoot better. They don't make it to even make their reloads shoot better. How tuners are being used in our disciplines on the 'Hide is very different then the conventional use that have been prescribed to tuners for decades in other disciplines.

Nailed it , tuners are a wonderful tool if used for the right shooting discipline .

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

3 shot groups don't tell you anything. Go shoot some 20 shot groups and compare the results. Heavier the barrel the less effect tuners ( harmonic tuning) effect it.

Guys shooting fclass or br will do anything under the sun for so much as a percieved increase in accuracy. Most of us don't need to shoot to that level and will waste more time and ammo than it's worth trying to chase something that may or may not even exist.

If tuners which have been around for like 60 years were some miracle cure...they would be on every rifle and would not have been relegated to obscurity over the last couple decades. Just another fad that will blow over soon.

Since a top guy (cortina) is winning with one( that may or may not even be tuned) with a huge social media following all the Chad's coming out wanting tuners. You be better of spending more on ammo and learning to shoot and reload.

 

[JAS-SH]

To be fair, F-class and BR shooters use tuners for a very different purpose then what is being proposed here or elsewhere on the hide. They don't use it to make factory ammo shoot better. They don't make it to even make their reloads shoot better. How tuners are being used in our disciplines on the 'Hide is very different then the conventional use that have been prescribed to tuners for decades in other disciplines.

How about rimfire benchrest competition?

 

[Haney]

How about rimfire benchrest competition?

Nailed it . Not many guys loading their own ammo in Rimfire BR . Tuners win matches .

 

[JAS-SH]

I don’t think you do as I didn’t have to with my ATS. I tuned it in NC at 100 yards and went to WV at a totally different temp and altitude and it shot the same at 100 and stayed tight at 900 also. Do people work up a different handload in their rifle when they change temp and altitude? If the load is good you shouldn’t have to.

On a different note, @JAS-SH what velocity you getting with the 108 factory and what barrel length? Putting together and ARC myself now.

My 6 ARC is shooting through a 26-inch barrel with an MTU contour tied to a defiance machine action. 1.25 inches at the action down to .935 inches at the muzzle. Rifle weighs in at 18.5 pounds without the tuner.

Chronograph shows a running average of 2737 with all the different ammo Lot #s. Lot #s included in that average show a max spread +/- 20 fps from said average

Fastest Lot# averaged~+20 with a one shot max of 2770. The slowest Lot# averaged ~-20 with a one shot minimum of 2707.

 

[Rob01]

My 6 ARC is shooting through a 26-inch barrel with an MTU contour tied to a defiance machine action. 1.25 inches at the action down to .935 inches at the muzzle. Rifle weighs in at 18.5 pounds without the tuner.

Chronograph shows a running average of 2737 with all the different ammo Lot #s. Lot #s included in that average show a max spread +/- 20 fps from said average

Fastest Lot# averaged~+20 with a one shot max of 2770. The slowest Lot# averaged ~-20 with a one shot minimum of 2707.

Good info. Thanks. I am just trying to get velocity info from people who have shot the factory ammo through 26" barrels to give me an idea of what to expect. Appreciate it.

Must be a very low recoiling rifle with that set up. I am thinking of going with a Comp Contour, which is a little heavier than the MTU, or even a straight 1.25" both with a spiral fluting so would probably end up about the same weight as the MTU.

 

[JAS-SH]

3 shot groups don't tell you anything. Go shoot some 20 shot groups and compare the results. Heavier the barrel the less effect tuners ( harmonic tuning) effect it.

Guys shooting fclass or br will do anything under the sun for so much as a percieved increase in accuracy. Most of us don't need to shoot to that level and will waste more time and ammo than it's worth trying to chase something that may or may not even exist.

If tuners which have been around for like 60 years were some miracle cure...they would be on every rifle and would not have been relegated to obscurity over the last couple decades. Just another fad that will blow over soon.

Since a top guy (cortina) is winning with one( that may or may not even be tuned) with a huge social media following all the Chad's coming out wanting tuners. You be better of spending more on ammo and learning to shoot and reload.

Ever heard of aggregates?

20 shots tests are fine - I've done them. But, for precision testing they quickly hide the very important POA. I find it a lot easier to shoot 60 shot tests (which I did for this tuner test) and I can easily aggregate all of them for the total if I wanted to - which I don't because all three shot group tests have different settings.

That was not the point of this test. For this test the important variable being tested was group size and PIA drift for EACH tuner setting while using different LOT#s. The last part of each subtest was repeatabily of the settings...
"

Heavier the barrel the less effect tuners ( harmonic tuning) effect it.

This is not correct. The critical component of harmonics is LENGTH, not thickness.

 

[JAS-SH]

Must be a very low recoiling rifle with that set up.

Recoil is so light there is no need for a brake. Brakes are needed for larger calibers to quickly acquire vapor trails on longer downrange shots. Not needed in my configuration. Blast concussion from brakes is also a big factor in shooter fatigue.

 

[DangerRanger]

Ever heard of aggregates?

That was not the point of this test. For this test the important variable being tested was group size and PIA drift for EACH tuner setting while using different LOT#s. The last part of each subtest was repeatabily of the settings...
"

You tested aggs of that variable change?

 

[notacos4u]

This is not correct. The critical component of harmonics is LENGTH, not thickness.

That's not what she said... sorry had to... I'll return to the corner now

 

[JAS-SH]

3 shot groups don't tell you anything. Go shoot some 20 shot groups and compare the results. Heavier the barrel the less effect tuners ( harmonic tuning) effect it.

Guys shooting fclass or br will do anything under the sun for so much as a percieved increase in accuracy. Most of us don't need to shoot to that level and will waste more time and ammo than it's worth trying to chase something that may or may not even exist.

If tuners which have been around for like 60 years were some miracle cure...they would be on every rifle and would not have been relegated to obscurity over the last couple decades. Just another fad that will blow over soon.

Since a top guy (cortina) is winning with one( that may or may not even be tuned) with a huge social media following all the Chad's coming out wanting tuners. You be better of spending more on ammo and learning to shoot and reload.

I'm not in those groups mentioned in your last paragraph. I DO pay attention to detail - borderline OCD analyst by profession.

I love to compete! In shooting, I've competed in other disciplines - last one was sporting clays, when in some years I reloaded 25K shells plus. PRS is pretty similar in tournament format to Sporting Clays. All of them are really tough to win. We have a lot of great shooters in this country. Incredible competition, especially at the highest levels.

I've realized after trying it that I'm getting to old to do PRS. So, next I'm going to try to compete where all the old guys go to compete - benchrest.

That said, about "learning how to shoot and reload", I'm way past that. I was shooting and reloading before most of the people here were too young to own a gun. And, I've been responsible and done quite well in business as an analyst. So, I don't have any kind of monetary constraints at this point when it comes to shooting.

I would much prefer to have monetary constraints than being old! But that's not how it works and I'm just happy that I can do it competitively at this point in my life and not have to worry about how much it costs.

Oh, and tuners do work - at least the Cortina V2. I know enough about testing and analyzing results to say that, and even though that was not what I expected, I'm man enough to admit it.

 

[Jareth Cutestory]

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

I am an analyst by trade as well and you would not belive me if I told you the dollar level I am responsible for. Tuners have come in and out of fashion. If it wasn't for social media about 1/100th of the people would even know it existed. Eric just happens to be a great shooter who can turn his success into dollars. Thats it. Guys will win without tunners same as they always have. There may be some validity to benchrest and fclass because they guys will prey to zulu gods if they think it will give them any sort of edge and their game is predicated entirely on accuracy.

For the vast majority of shooters including us PRS guys, they are a waste of time and money. No one is winning or loosing matches due to tuners.

 

[JAS-SH]

Better than what you drink . I can do bullshit memes too.

 

[JAS-SH]

I am an analyst by trade as well and you would not belive me if I told you the dollar level I am responsible for. Tuners have come in and out of fashion. If it wasn't for social media about 1/100th of the people would even know it existed. Eric just happens to be a great shooter who can turn his success into dollars. Thats it. Guys will win without tunners same as they always have. There may be some validity to benchrest and fclass because they guys will prey to zulu gods if they think it will give them any sort of edge and their game is predicated entirely on accuracy.

For the vast majority of shooters including us PRS guys, they are a waste of time and money. No one is winning or loosing matches due to tuners.

I will get to you later. I have more pressing things to do tonight....

 

[Jareth Cutestory]

this fool drank the kool-aid

 

[Threadcutter308]

"I am an analyst by trade as well and you would not belive me if I told you the dollar level I am responsible for".

Relevance to the subject at hand ?

You're sounding a little like PapaRocks. I'm hoping so anyway.......

 

[168BTHPM]

"I am an analist by trade as well and you would not believe me if I told you the dollar level I perform for".

FIFY, and.............................

 

[Baron23]

"I am an analyst by trade as well and you would not belive me if I told you the dollar level I am responsible for".

Relevance to the subject at hand ?

You're sounding a little like PapaRocks. I'm hoping so anyway.......

LOL

 

[supercorndogs]

I don't expect you to do anything for me. I just think such a thing would be much more interesting and informative.

I've shot bullet seating depth tests that showed really promising sub 1/10 MOA groups, but once I started shooting 5 round groups it became clear that load in actuality was a 1+ MOA load. Pretty easy to get lucky with a couple of 2 and 3 round groups. Pretty extreme example (RDF's), but it was also illuminating to me how small data sets can really distort your perceptions.

I personally need a much bigger sample size to draw any conclusions. I don't expect it to come from you, but the sample size shown here is not conclusive or dispositive of anything. It's too easy to make definitive conclusions from small data sets that don't line up with reality when you draw out the sample size.

Were you sorting your RDFs BTO at the time and was it when that bullet first dropped? I had some pretty bad results with them, but after measuring some I found out they were pretty inconsistent. I never tried sorting them and seeing if they shot when put in similar groups.

 

[lash]

Were you sorting your RDFs BTO at the time and was it when that bullet first dropped? I had some pretty bad results with them, but after measuring some I found out they were pretty inconsistent. I never tried sorting them and seeing if they shot when put in similar groups.

I believe that’s what he was implying. But then I could be off my meds too.