Positive compensation and its explanations .

[badassgunworks]

K thomas is waiting for litz to tell him tuners work. Sounds k thomes obviously did not devlops his loads with his tuner installed . Sounds like a litz test. All wrong cause he has plans to prove tuners dont work. Do you have a ammo contract as well.? Are you buddies with some one who wants a ammo contract?

 

[carbonbased]

Now, speaking as someone who doesn’t know a hill of beans about tuners and frankly has no idea if they work or not…but is casually interested and stumbled upon this thread…all of this weird defensiveness from the tuner-lovers seems to be either because:

A) Relentlessly criticized in the past, overly suspicious they are & so info they are slow to share (for laffs, sound it out like yoda)

B) They don’t want to give away some secret sauce

C) They are from the same group that thinks speaker cable makes an acoustic difference but refuse to submit to a double-blind test for proof

D) They just don’t like people

E) ???

I am going with A, I think. The reactions are like dogs that have been beaten, all flinchy and stuff.

Similarly, reactions to this post will probably be something like, “THAT DUDE HATES TUNERS” lol

 

[kthomas]

K thomas is waiting for litz to tell him tuners work. Sounds k thomes obviously did not devlops his loads with his tuner installed . Sounds like a litz test. All wrong cause he has plans to prove tuners dont work. Do you have a ammo contract as well.? Are you buddies with some one who wants a ammo contract?

No relationship to Litz or ammo companies.

Just a curiosity for the world, including things shooting.

 

[cameljockey230]

Now, speaking as someone who doesn’t know a hill of beans about tuners and frankly has no idea if they work or not…but is casually interested and stumbled upon this thread…all of this weird defensiveness from the tuner-lovers seems to be either because:

A) Relentlessly criticized in the past, overly suspicious they are & so info they are slow to share (for laffs, sound it out like yoda)

B) They don’t want to give away some secret sauce

C) They are from the same group that thinks speaker cable makes an acoustic difference but refuse to submit to a double-blind test for proof

D) They just don’t like people

E) ???

I am going with A, I think. The reactions are like dogs that have been beaten, all flinchy and stuff.

Similarly, reactions to this post will probably be something like, “THAT DUDE HATES TUNERS” lol

There is nothing new here as Tim and Lynn went through this 20 years ago on benchrest central along with Bill Calfee.
You guys don't even scratch the surface as to what was posted back then.
Next Tim should post about tensioned barrels and this will start all over again.

Now to those who want to actually give a tuner a try here is a picture of a Stiller tuner on a 6mm-06 with a 30 inch #17 contour barrel.
The tuner is only 6 ounces. The mounting tube has been extended to get the extra leverage needed because the tuner is on the lightside.
I took the picture from the back so you can see how it is marked with Testors model paint.
If you can expand the picture there are paint dots and lines.
There are 3 nodes between one dot and one line that will shrink and open up your groups.
If your moving the weight half an inch your shooting in the dark

 

[carbonbased]

There is nothing new here as Tim and Lynn went through this 20 years ago on benchrest central along with Bill Calfee.
You guys don't even scratch the surface as to what was posted back then.

Literally almost anything someone says to you…you think is a criticism…

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[cameljockey230]

Carbonbased
Your not even close. You guys on this forum could never handle 2 years on a benchrest forum comprised of engineers and doctors at retirement age or beyond.
This is like the Dallas cowboys taking on the boy scouts.
Now for those wanting to learn something here are 3 more tuner types.
The black tuner is a Harrells/Hoehn tuner most commonly seen on rimfires. They work well on centerfires but due to the click spacing they are harder to tune. The Stiller is held in place with an o-ring and the Harrell/Hoehn has a click detent so it's less precise.
Next is a VonAherns that is made of aluminum and stainless sections that are all interchangeable except the very front piece. It has thousands of possible combinations.
The 3rd tuner Is a patent pending RAS tuner for a 50BMG where the muzzlebrake sits out in front. It is infinitely adjustable but is to light for the 2 inch barrels seen on most 50 bench guns.
It works best for the lightgun class rifles.

 

[kthomas]

Speaking of BR forums, my favorite post on a BR forum was a world record BR shooter arguing with a tuner manufacturer on how tuners work and how you are supposed to use them.

So even on BR forums there's a lot of contention around tuners. Was pretty eye opening to see a tuner manufacturer and a world record BR shooter get into it about tuners.

Ask 10 different people how tuners work, what they can do, and how you are supposed to do them, and you will get 10 different answers.

 

[cameljockey230]

I have shot a world record and won a national championship and think most tuner manufacturers don't have a clue as to what they are doing.
So we agree on something.

 

[kthomas]

I have shot a world record and won a national championship and think most tuner manufacturers don't have a clue as to what they are doing.
So we agree on something.

You have to admit that for someone on the outside looking in on this subject, that it's a bit conspicuous how no one seemingly agrees on how tuners work.

 

[cameljockey230]

Most manufactures just make products and have no idea how it works.
There are manufacturers who do but the vast majority just want to sell you stuff.
I try and avoid muzzlebrake threads for that very reason.
Most tuners are too close to the muzzle and don't weigh enough.
On the manufacturers end you really can't blame them as the shooters who get the biggest benefit Most likely make them themselves and there are way too many combinations to use a single fixed weight.
The Harrels\Hoehn tuners and VonAherns allow the shooter to stack weights.

 

[carbonbased]

Carbonbased
Your not even close. You guys on this forum could never handle 2 years on a benchrest forum comprised of engineers and doctors at retirement age or beyond.
This is like the Dallas cowboys taking on the boy scouts.

Lol? No one is saying you are wrong. I, a pure unadulterated fool in these matters, have not one intelligent thought on tuners. You have no opponent in me. Hell I am not even an engineer or similar.

It’s not like the Cowboys vs the Boy Scouts, it’s like…like…watching Muhammad Ali, undisputed heavyweight champion of the world, vs. his own imagined arch-enemy, his shadow!

So can we tone it down? I’ll stop making jokes if you stop reflexively thinking that we’re calling you an idiot that has never shot a rifle? (because we’re not). One guy is merely asking for some data and this guy (me) is merely perplexed at the very odd back-and-forth.

I have been making a communication-style observation, not a fact-based critique.

Now for those wanting to learn something here are 3 more tuner types.
The black tuner is a Harrells/Hoehn tuner most commonly seen on rimfires. They work well on centerfires but due to the click spacing they are harder to tune. The Stiller is held in place with an o-ring and the Harrell/Hoehn has a click detent so it's less precise.
Next is a VonAherns that is made of aluminum and stainless sections that are all interchangeable except the very front piece. It has thousands of possible combinations.
The 3rd tuner Is a patent pending RAS tuner for a 50BMG where the muzzlebrake sits out in front. It is infinitely adjustable but is to light for the 2 inch barrels seen on most 50 bench guns.
It works best for the lightgun class rifles.

Now this, above, is interesting. I would need to read up to even ask an intelligent question on what you wrote.

And btw I am still slogging through the video posted by the OP. Here’s a question for you.

Why do you think the elite end of the “firearms community” (engineers, physicists, ballistic experts, aerodynamicists, top shooters, whomever) still do not appear to know what exactly is happening in that magic hole of wonder? As in, from trigger press to bullet hitting the target.

Maybe they do know and I am ignorant, but it doesn’t seem that an almost total understanding is at hand.

One example, far from this tuner discussion: even barrel makers seem perplexed why one barrel shoots a certain bullet well but another barrel will not. And cleaning?

This is not an attack! It is a seeking of knowledge.

In other words, to shrink the question down, what is still unknown in the “tuner-verse”, and why?

 

[cameljockey230]

Most forms of shooting don't require a tuner to be competitive so there is not much interest in how or if they work. The same holds true for tensioned barrels.
Brownings engineers think they work.
The grandfather of aeroballistic flight dynamics for nuclear based ordnance at Sandia national laboratory thinks they work.
The guy who shot the smallest group ever fired Mike Stinnett thinks they work.
The problem with getting a consensus is even built wrong they show an improvement on the target for most shooters.
The browning boss tuner worked well with factory ammo.

 

[carbonbased]

Thanks for that.

So these three groups below…

Brownings engineers think they work.

The grandfather of aeroballistic flight dynamics for nuclear based ordnance at Sandia national laboratory thinks they work.

The guy who shot the smallest group ever fired Mike Stinnett thinks they work.

…do they agree on why tuners work?

If yes, then what is the answer? Positive Compensation (PS)? Or PS + other stuff?

If no agreement is to be had on why tuners work, then what are the general disagreements and competing theories?

 

[morganlamprecht]

What i find interesting is, to me, it sounds like most of Camel's points about how much weight is required for a profile of barrel and where/how far off the muzzle it is placed dont really jive at all with many of the current/more popular tuner designs out today (ATS/EC type)...ive also not looked at tuners for a year or so so if anything newer came out with additional features, i havent seen it

they are screwed right onto/behind the muzzle and theres no options for adding weight. just small rotation adjustments

i dont think anyone who is suspect of most shooters tuner test/claims using these types of tuners (this excludes what Camel is referencing) would suggest that screwing ANY type of weight onto the end of you barrel CANT affect group size, in a positive or negative way, it doesnt even have to be a tuner...and Camel alludes to that saying X weight can make groups worse, and Y weight can make them better...anyone who has experimented with muzzle brakes or suppressors can clearly see that is a real thing.

if im understanding Camel's points correctly, i 100% believe that adding various weights at different locations on a barrel would alter groups sizes and testing in that nature could find the golden ticket

the rub is when someone claims to screw on one random sized tuner weight onto the end of all these various barrels, shooting a couple rounds...1,3,5...and then turning it some more and shooting some more and they land on the magic mark with tiny sample sizes and a ton of speculation.

edited to add: I have experimented with tuners going by the manufacturers instructions...i found if i shot small sample sizes of 3-5 rounds, i could find "winner" settings. if i went to larger 10 round groups, the results got a lot harder to differentiate, and anything above 10 rounds groups mostly looked the same regardless of setting. I removed the tuners and never bothered with them again as my groups without them were never an issue to begin with and the tuner was just another variable i didnt need without seeing a definitive improvment.

 

[carbonbased]

I hope someone with the knowledge answers my last question above (I understand nobody “owes” me an answer).

I did finish @timintx ’s interview vid with Erik Cortina. That was pretty cool!

For other noobs like me who happen upon this thread, here’s my summary:

Positive compensation means adjusting the rifle and ammo so the bullet exits the bore when the muzzle is flexing upwards. ​

​

This way, if you have a variation in bullet velocity (typical), at a certain distance any slower bullets will impact in the same spot as the faster bullets. ​

​

To realize any tuner benefits, one needs a very accurate gun to begin with plus the skills to shoot very very accurately. Otherwise all is for naught. ​

Then I’d briefly explain how to ascertain the correct tune (either via the tuner, by chopping the barrel, adjusting stock/barrel/scope weighting, using different bullets, or thinning the barrel, etc.) by shooting about six shots, each with a different powder charge. And then, after you’ve done that, there’s more about shooting two shots with vastly different fps at the range to ascertain…something. Need more coffee.

I couldn’t explain that last paragraph in detail without re-watching the video again.

Let me know if I got it wrong or if caveats are needed.

@timintx my only suggestion are to develop some simple illustrations showing barrel movement correlated with different powder charges and tuning adjustments.

An animation would really help…I noticed EC getting a bit puzzled as he tried to imagine the graph you made dynamically changing due to tuning.

Anyway, thanks for your hard work.

 

[timintx]

I hope someone with the knowledge answers my last question above (I understand nobody “owes” me an answer).

I did finish @timintx ’s interview vid with Erik Cortina. That was pretty cool!

For other noobs like me who happen upon this thread, here’s my summary:

Positive compensation means adjusting the rifle so the bullet exits the bore when the muzzle is flexing upwards. ​

​

This way, if you have a variation in bullet velocity (typical), at a certain distance any slower bullets will impact in the same spot as the faster bullets. ​

​

To realize any tuner benefits, one needs a very accurate gun to begin with plus the skills to shoot very very accurately. Otherwise all is for naught. ​

Then I’d briefly explain how to ascertain the correct tune (either via the tuner, by chopping the barrel, adjusting stock/barrel/scope weighting, using different bullets, or thinning the barrel, etc.) by shooting about six shots, each with a different powder charge. And then, after you’ve done that, there’s more about shooting two shots with vastly different fps at the range to ascertain…something. Need more coffee.

I couldn’t explain that last paragraph in detail without re-watching the video again.

Let me know if I got it wrong or if caveats are needed.

@timintx my only suggestion are to develop some simple illustrations showing barrel movement correlated with different powder charges and tuning adjustments.

An animation would really help…I noticed EC getting a bit puzzled as he tried to imagine the graph you made dynamically changing due to tuning.

Anyway, thanks for your hard work.

You are most welcome . I agree I needed better illustrations. I was extremely nervous as well which did not help .

 

[Oldloser]

All shots bend out of all firearms it's called trajectory.
Your explanation would be do all groups fired with the same powder charge produce the same size group?
In ELR if we loaded 5 shots each at 90 92 94 96 and 98 grains would they all shoot the same size groups with just a small variation in point of impact?
The answer is no one weight would consistently shoot better than all the others.

I dont think you have any knowledge of statics, dynamics, mechanics of material, or mechanical vibrations. Much less the mathematical tools used by them. Or statistics. Much less Causality.

I do understand what you have seen but connecting the seen to what is really occurring is a complicated process and I dont see any repeatable rigorous methodology tied to actual physical parts of the rifle shooter system.

A perfect barrel sufficiently braced with no deviations and a perfect bullet fired in a vacuum will put the bullet through the same hole plus or minus a few fps every single time.

Now change the bullet. Add in air. Add in wind. Add in mirage and bifringence and parallax. Take off the brace and add in a rifle with moment of interia not on the barrel and the shooter. Add in case differences.. add in bolt tolerances and bolt movement and spring movement . You dont need so called barrel vibrations to explain the variances we see. You have to account for all the above first. And do it on a double blind basis.

The fact a .005 inch movment at the butt stock causes a 1 inch change at the zero board makes all this a moot discussion!!!

 

[kthomas]

I dont think you have any knowledge of statics, dynamics, mechanics of material, or mechanical vibrations. Much less the mathematical tools used by them. Or statistics. Much less Causality.

I do understand what you have seen but connecting the seen to what is really occurring is a complicated process and I dont see any repeatable rigorous methodology tied to actual physical parts of the rifle shooter system.

A perfect barrel sufficiently braced with no deviations and a perfect bullet fired in a vacuum will put the bullet through the same hole plus or minus a few fps every single time.

Now change the bullet. Add in air. Add in wind. Add in mirage and bifringence and parallax. Take off the brace and add in a rifle with moment of interia not on the barrel and the shooter. Add in case differences.. add in bolt tolerances and bolt movement and spring movement . You dont need so called barrel vibrations to explain the variances we see. You have to account for all the above first. And do it on a double blind basis.

The fact a .005 inch movment at the butt stock causes a 1 inch change at the zero board makes all this a moot discussion!!!

This is my hang-up with a lot of this.

It appears that a lot of conclusions are being drawn from testing and data sets that don't allow for such conclusions to be made.

There are literally hundreds of factors influencing internal ballistics - from the time the trigger is pulled and the ignition system starts to when the projectile leaves the barrel.

How are all of these variables being controlled? To what precision are these variables being controlled? How are the being isolated? How can we make the conclusion that the downrange results are directly the result of the tuner and a tuner setting, and not the hundreds of other variables?

I've never seen this adequately addressed. There's a lot of assumptions being made, and from my viewpoint, a lot of factors not being controlled and isolated.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

What i find interesting is, to me, it sounds like most of Camel's points about how much weight is required for a profile of barrel and where/how far off the muzzle it is placed dont really jive at all with many of the current/more popular tuner designs out today (ATS/EC type)...ive also not looked at tuners for a year or so so if anything newer came out with additional features, i havent seen it

they are screwed right onto/behind the muzzle and theres no options for adding weight. just small rotation adjustments

i dont think anyone who is suspect of most shooters tuner test/claims using these types of tuners (this excludes what Camel is referencing) would suggest that screwing ANY type of weight onto the end of you barrel CANT affect group size, in a positive or negative way, it doesnt even have to be a tuner...and Camel alludes to that saying X weight can make groups worse, and Y weight can make them better...anyone who has experimented with muzzle brakes or suppressors can clearly see that is a real thing.

if im understanding Camel's points correctly, i 100% believe that adding various weights at different locations on a barrel would alter groups sizes and testing in that nature could find the golden ticket

the rub is when someone claims to screw on one random sized tuner weight onto the end of all these various barrels, shooting a couple rounds...1,3,5...and then turning it some more and shooting some more and they land on the magic mark with tiny sample sizes and a ton of speculation.

edited to add: I have experimented with tuners going by the manufacturers instructions...i found if i shot small sample sizes of 3-5 rounds, i could find "winner" settings. if i went to larger 10 round groups, the results got a lot harder to differentiate, and anything above 10 rounds groups mostly looked the same regardless of setting. I removed the tuners and never bothered with them again as my groups without them were never an issue to begin with and the tuner was just another variable i didnt need without seeing a definitive improvment.

And this is why no one can ever provide actual data showing anything remotely consistent or repeatable. It's always "it works, you're stupid" or "you just have to mess with it until you figure out what your rifle likes."

Litz has had an open invitation for longer than I can remember for anyone to come out and use his test equipment and show him what he and everyone else has been missing. Even Alex Wheeler says "I'm too busy to be bothered to prove what I know works." And the only ones who have ever taken Litz up on it are unable to show anything and never speak of their experience with the test equipment when it didn't paint a picture they wanted.

The makers of tuners who post on the hide either give very small sample data, or claim they have tested extensively but never show their work.

And even the OP of this thread who has had a company for 20+ years researching this stuff.....literally used a yellow legal note pad and sharpie to show his data.



This isn't a knock on the OP or anyone else, as I believe they are well meaning and believe they are properly testing. But no one has been able to show their work beyond small 3-5 shot groups and never any long term testing. As well as no proponents of these things has ever shown even a general understanding of dispersion and basic statistics.

(Also, using browning or anyone else selling a tuner to make a point they "believe" in it.....isn't a good idea. Companies sell things all the time they realize aren't doing much good for customers, but the customer wants what they want).

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

It's also pretty important to not skip over the part where Erik admitted that in the data he presented to Litz (that Erik believed showed that tuners work)......that in every sample that was positive for the tuner....all the velocity spreads were smaller than the other samples.

 

[kthomas]

It starts to sound like a religion when the argument boils down to "just trust us".

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

It starts to become a religion when the argument boils down to "just trust us".

I have no horse in this race and we sell tuners to customers who want them.

I'd love to see some actual long term data (not drawn on paper or some plotted points on excel) that conclusively shows they work.

 

[kthomas]

I have no horse in this race and we sell tuners to customers who want them.

I'd love to see some actual long term data (not drawn on paper or some plotted points on excel) that conclusively shows they work.

I have no horse either. Whether tuners "work" or not really doesn't effect me.

Maybe the "work". Maybe they don't. Maybe they kind of "work".

I find it a really interesting subject, I just wish the data in support of tuners wasn't so dubious.

 

[badassgunworks]

The largest sample ever produced is the 100's of shooters that have used them for over 25 years winning 100's of matchest firing 1000's of rounds. In order to prove that tuners dont work you first must prove that barrels dont move prior to bullet exiting. And they do there is proof of that. And has been known and proven prior to litz tring to prove they dont. Then you would have to prove that shifting weight on barrel does not change the amplitude and rate of movement . And it does. Basic laws of physics prove that. So now keep the same mv while change the amplitude or rate with the same mv you have a different exit location in a vertical plane. Is there other virtation? Yes can a tuner change that? yes the same way hormonic resonance is changed in strobe balance cancelation By shifting of weight changing the resonance vibrations. All this aside you cant do a test tring to prove that they dont work because even litz with his improper preformed test that was a large sample in his own ignorance proved that they do work by stating some of the groupes got worse. If they did not work. Then there would have been no change in group sizes. Every thing i just stated is not new information . But sence repetition is the price of knowledge I said it again . Now you have the answers as to how tuners work and now also how positive compensation can be utilized. Are there other factors yes shitty loads producing large standards deviations and or shooters abilities or conditions. please note that litz stated he is a .600 group size shooter. And i am sure that his test was not preformed. In a controlled environment. So what did litz test prove other then noise.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

The largest sample ever produced is the 100's of shooters that have used them for over 25 years winning 100's of matchest firing 1000's of rounds. In order to prove that tuners dont work you first must prove that barrels dont move prior to bullet exiting. And they do there is proof of that. And has been known and proven prior to litz tring to prove they dont. Then you would have to prove that shifting weight on barrel does not change the amplitude and rate of movement . And it does. Basic laws of physics prove that. So now keep the same mv while change the amplitude or rate with the same mv you have a different exit location in a vertical plane. Is there other virtation? Yes can a tuner change that? yes the same way hormonic resonance is changed in strobe balance cancelation By shifting of weight changing the resonance vibrations. All this aside you cant do a test tring to prove that they dont work because even litz with his improper preformed test that was a large sample in his own ignorance proved that they do work by stating some of the groupes got worse. If they did not work. Then there would have been no change in group sizes. Every thing i just stated is not new information . But sence repetition is the price of knowledge I said it again .

That's not how any of this works and only solidifies the point of most of the "proof" is just "believe me."

This entire line of logic that someone needs to disprove barrel movement along with the rest of this paragraph is completely nonsensical and is the same logic flat earthers use.

I can rest a barrel on a tree branch and change the POI and group size. Using this logic, I could say that tuning a rifle via a tree "works" because my test showed a change in POI and group size.


No one here is even attacking tuners working or not. Just the nonsensical way "data" is provided.

 

[badassgunworks]

That's not how any of this works and only solidifies the point of most of the "proof" is just "believe me."

This entire line of logic that someone needs to disprove barrel movement along with the rest of this paragraph is completely nonsensical and is the same logic flat earthers use.

I can rest a barrel on a tree branch and change the POI and group size. Using this logic, I could say that tuning a rifle via a tree "works" because my test showed a change in POI and group size.


No one here is even attacking tuners working or not. Just the nonsensical way "data" is provided.

I'm pretty sure that you are kthomas why do you have multiple profiles.? Every thing you stated just keeps going in circles. Admit it you dont want tuners to work but down deep inside you know they do . And just cant figure out how to tell 100's of people there wrong . Who are you paired with what do you have to gain having tuners not work.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I'm pretty sure that you are kthomas why do you have multiple profiles.? Every thing you stated just keeps going in circles. Admit it you dont want tuners to work but down deep inside you know they do . And just cant figure out how to tell 100's of people there wrong . Who are you paired with what do you have to gain having tuners not work.

LOL. If you look at the above, I said we sell tuners. I would gain even more from solid data proving they work and how they do. I have the ability to objectively separate myself from what people want and actual data that proves something.

The rest of your post is some really weird conspiracy theorist type stuff. I'm not even going to begin to address. You apparently think another user is paying for a commercial account to post about tuners?

I'll go ahead and exit on this one. There's no moving forward when this is the logic being used.

GL

 

[Taylorbok]

IF I cared to prove tuners work here's what I would do.
I'd build a rail gun and tune a load for it.
Then I'd establish a baseline accuracy for that load. 20x 5 shot groups for a total 100 rounds.
Now I'd shoot through tuner settings with 5 shot groups.
Should be able to find a big group and a small group.
Now shoot 20x 5 shot groups of tuner setting for small group and big group.
compare average group size for those 2 tuner settings to your baseline from before.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

IF I cared to prove tuners work here's what I would do.
I'd build a rail gun and tune a load for it.
Then I'd establish a baseline accuracy for that load. 20x 5 shot groups for a total 100 rounds.
Now I'd shoot through tuner settings with 5 shot groups.
Should be able to find a big group and a small group.
Now shoot 20x 5 shot groups of tuner setting for small group and big group.
compare average group size for those 2 tuner settings to your baseline from before.

Been done by more than one person.

The results weren't favorable for tuners. In the end, the groups always end up inside the dispersion caused by/explained by other things. That's the short version.

 

[badassgunworks]

IF I cared to prove tuners work here's what I would do.
I'd build a rail gun and tune a load for it.
Then I'd establish a baseline accuracy for that load. 20x 5 shot groups for a total 100 rounds.
Now I'd shoot through tuner settings with 5 shot groups.
Should be able to find a big group and a small group.
Now shoot 20x 5 shot groups of tuner setting for small group and big group.
compare average group size for those 2 tuner settings to your baseline from before.

Hows his for a test i have over the year built many ultralite mountain rifles most shot very well but there were 3 that i could not get it shoot tried several bullet manufactors dozens of powders every seating depth from touching lands to .100 off 1.250" groups were at best on all three. installed my tuner brakes and was able to get all three to shoot sub .5 inch groups and they shot that way there whole barrel life.
But your logic would be a good test to prove what i already know.

 

[kthomas]

Been done by more than one person.

The results weren't favorable for tuners. In the end, the groups always end up inside the dispersion caused by/explained by other things. That's the short version.

This is how I would imagine it would play out, though I'm personally not privy to those tests that you infer.

I can convince myself of almost anything if I only do a test on one day. Powder charge, neck tension, annealing settings, primer seating depth, bullet seating depth, etc.

Over one day of testing, there will be a winner of what the best powder charge, primer seating depth, etc. is for performance. ~3 min of testing and there's your conclusion.

Perform that same test over two days, and the results become less clear. Over 3, 4, 5+ days - that conclusion made on day #1 is clearly not an actual conclusion that can be made.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

This is how I would imagine it would play out, though I'm personally not privy to those tests that you infer.

I can convince myself of almost anything if I only do a test on one day. Powder charge, neck tension, annealing settings, primer seating depth, bullet seating depth, etc.

Over one day of testing, there will be a winner of what the best powder charge, primer seating depth, etc. is for performance. ~3 min of testing and there's your conclusion.

Perform that same test over two days, and the results become less clear. Over 3, 4, 5+ days - that conclusion made on day #1 is clearly not an actual conclusion that can be made.

We've done it locally and others have done it elsewhere. Wasn't just relegated to tuners. Lots of things in general. Rail guns as well as cradle type rests with remote triggers were used.

The general idea is to show how dispersion actually works. Once you establish baseline group sizes and velocity numbers with fairly significant data sets (which are then extrapolated with things such as confidence intervals)......you then test a single variable (the best you can) with the same significant data sets.

And in the end, most things fall inside the dispersion and bell curves in the data you gathered without the claimed beneficial adjustment (tuner, different neck treatments, lube, etc etc).

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

When data has been presented (not just ours) to people who want to believe XYZ works (not just tuners).....they would all argue something different.

When rail gun was used, they said it needed to be regular rifle. We used a cradle, they said it needed to be fired from shoulder. We fired from shoulder, and then others said it needed to be a rail gun or a cradle.

In the end, anyone who had an inherently subjective PoV.....always wanted the data to disprove their belief to have an impossible and unattainable metric. But tests/data that they believe proved their beliefs had almost no requirements at all.

Just look above at the gentleman that just tried to say that he had some random rifles that wouldn't shoot, and he made them shoot with a tuner. He said that is the equivalent of a test involving rail guns and such. It just has zero basis in reality.


I'll post the link to a very cool article, as well as a snapshot of a quote that sums up a lot of what we see in any type of testing in this industry.

Fighting flat-Earth theory – Physics World

Rachel Brazil explores ways in which the physics community can best combat unscientific thinking, such as the belief the Earth is flat

physicsworld.com

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Here's a good video with proper testing overall. Take note that his method of use are significantly different than how most use tuners.

 

[timintx]

Before this thread gets out of hand I want to thank JAS SH for showing willingness to learn including Ledzep and others. And for anyone reading this , the people that argue instead of trying what I have discussed are the ones with other agendas. And it appears they are not here to learn. So for all who want to learn, try anything I have discussed during the last year here and on this video. Then please give your feedback and if it did not work , I will help anyway I can to rectify the matter. The sole intent is to show how tuners work and how to use them,not to prove anything. The only real proof is on the target.

Timintx

 

[kthomas]

Before this thread gets out of hand I want to thank JAS SH for showing willingness to learn including Ledzep and others. And for anyone reading this , the people that argue instead of trying what I have discussed are the ones with other agendas. And it appears they are not here to learn. So for all who want to learn, try anything I have discussed during the last year here and on this video. Then please give your feedback and if it did not work , I will help anyway I can to rectify the matter. The sole intent is to show how tuners work and how to use them,not to prove anything. The only real proof is on the target.

Timintx

Do you consider the test performed in post #38 to be adequate? What conclusions can be drawn from it? Should others model their testing procedure around that test?

 

[timintx]

Do you consider the test performed in post #38 to be adequate? What conclusions can be drawn from it? Should others model their testing procedure around that test?

I have already explained what JAS SH needed to do privately.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

I watched the video a third time, and tried to take good notes. I think I’m making headway…

I had a chance to shoot and do some tuning today. I had some normal loads already made, and loaded a few with one grain less powder to try tuning out the vertical like Tim suggested in the interview. I would think that the best way to tune would be with rounds that are +.5gn and -.5gn from the normal load. I'm not sure how much that matters. For me, this looks promising. I’m going to try it a couple more days/times as we go into fall and conditions start changing.

When shooting the fast/slow rounds on waterline – there was some vertical POI movement relative to the waterline (aka the center of some pairs was higher/lower than the adjacent pairs). Should I consider that in selecting a tune, either in trend or position, or just focus on vertical spread in a fast/slow pair?

I also should have coloured the bullet ogives for the slow rounds. Not that it was hard to track in the moment, but I keep my targets in a binder and this would have made it a better reference for later (and as they're sitting in the ammo box).

 

[timintx]

I watched the video a third time, and tried to take good notes. I think I’m making headway…

I had a chance to shoot and do some tuning today. I had some normal loads already made, and loaded a few with one grain less powder to try tuning out the vertical like Tim suggested in the interview. I would think that the best way to tune would be with rounds that are +.5gn and -.5gn from the normal load. I'm not sure how much that matters. For me, this looks promising. I’m going to try it a couple more days/times as we go into fall and conditions start changing.

When shooting the fast/slow rounds on waterline – there was some vertical POI movement relative to the waterline (aka the center of some pairs was higher/lower than the adjacent pairs). Should I consider that in selecting a tune, either in trend or position, or just focus on vertical spread in a fast/slow pair?

I also should have coloured the bullet ogives for the slow rounds. Not that it was hard to track in the moment, but I keep my targets in a binder and this would have made it a better reference for later (and as they're sitting in the ammo box).

Just focus on the vertical poi between the two Shots not the trend and you should be good .

 

[kthomas]

I have already explained what JAS SH needed to do privately.

Was hoping that we could all benefit from that test that was posted publicly.

 

[RRW]

Was hoping that we could all benefit from that test that was posted publicly.

Give it a rest man. You got a dead horse somewhere you could go beat.

 

[timintx]

Was hoping that we could all benefit from that test that was posted publicly.

Badassgunworks and cameljocky have tried to help you understand from their tuner experience to no avail but it appears you are not interested in anything but proof rather than trying it for yourself .

 

[kthomas]

Badassgunworks and cameljocky have tried to help you understand from their tuner experience to no avail but it appears you are not interested in anything but proof rather than trying it for yourself .

You think I'm some sort of adversary but I'm really not.

Neither Badassgunworks nor cameljockey have cared to be helpful in regards to discussions around post #38.

I do honestly find that test really interesting. That's not a typical way to test tuners. I would love to see more tests like that and the results. I would love to see discussions around those results and what conclusions we think we can draw as a community. These would be productive discussions.

 

[timintx]

You think I'm some sort of adversary but I'm really not.

Neither Badassgunworks nor cameljockey have cared to be helpful in regards to discussions around post #38.

I do honestly find that test really interesting. That's not a typical way to test tuners. I would love to see more tests like that and the results. I would love to see discussions around those results and what conclusions we think we can draw as a community. These would be productive discussions.

Unfortunately your past history indicates otherwise as this is the same retoric you have created for the past year by ignoring links and info that has been presented many times before.

 

[Taylorbok]

I'd like to have a look at these links if you can provide them.

 

[kthomas]

Unfortunately your past history indicates otherwise as this is the same retoric you have created for the past year by ignoring links and info that has been presented many times before.

I actually am very open to the concept of tuners.

But I do remain skeptical in the absence of data. I would love to see more people post tests, so we can all figure out together what is (or isn't) going on. And have discussions about what conclusions can and can't be made. That also requires people to be open to critique.

Any hypothesis is required to undergo scrutiny and critique in order to move forward.

 

[timintx]

I'd like to have a look at these links if you can provide them.

Varmint Al's Eclectic Web Pages

Using barrel vibrations to tune a barrel

Harold Vaughn Rifle accuracy facts .

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspl.1901.0052

Defense Technical Information Center

apps.dtic.mil

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214914716301234

Influence of Barrel Vibration on the Barrel Muzzle Position at the Moment when Bullet Exits Barrel | Advances in Military Technology

aimt.cz

 

[Taylorbok]

That also requires people to be open to critique.

Any hypothesis is required to undergo scrutiny and critique in order to move forward.

This, everyone in this thread advocating for tuners seems to have their guard up like they are being personally attacked.
I'm planning to put a tuner on my next ELR build and do some testing myself but it's getting harder and harder to find time.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

I would love to see more people post tests, so we can all figure out together what is (or isn't) going on. And have discussions about what conclusions can and can't be made. That also requires people to be open to critique.

As I see it, this about sums up the forum tuner problem. No matter what is posted, someone will take issue with it and it will be 'unconvincing.' The statistical insufficiency of the sample sizes dominates the conversation because someone wants 30 round groups, someone wants 5x5s, and everyone wants you to shoot 100 rounds a day over five different days with different weather or it's not proof that it works. They just want to point out that your test was done wrong. No one wants to share in a hostile setting like that. This thread derailed just like every other tuner thread. Some load development threads here are trending the same way thanks to that hornaday podcast.

I appreciate people sharing what they've tried. I also understand why sharing is so limited.

 

[kthomas]

As I see it, this about sums up the forum tuner problem. No matter what is posted, someone will take issue with it and it will be 'unconvincing.' The statistical insufficiency of the sample sizes dominates the conversation because someone wants 30 round groups, someone wants 5x5s, and everyone wants you to shoot 100 rounds a day over five different days with different weather or it's not proof that it works. They just want to point out that your test was done wrong. No one wants to share in a hostile setting like that. This thread derailed just like every other tuner thread. Some load development threads here are trending the same way thanks to that hornaday podcast.

I appreciate people sharing what they've tried. I also understand why sharing is so limited.

It's okay for people to disagree.

It's also okay for people to point out flaws in testing methodology. Our knowledge will never advance if we don't allow open discussions or critique.

I've never said anywhere in this thread that tuners "don't work". Nor have I been adversarial in any way.

I truly believed there could've been interesting discussion around the test in post #38. Instead, this thread got turned into a "believer" vs "non-believer" religious type BS. I want to talk about the tests and data presented thus far. Why can't we do that?