Positive compensation and its explanations .

[brianf]

Well it appears he is trying to help but you want to call him out instead of trying what he had tried to relay . Why is that?

Telling me what he thinks I should agree with is not helping. That’s narcissistic.

Providing the information asked for …you know exactly what was ask for several times by almost a dozen members by now….that’s helping.

Please help me..provide testing data on how you prove tuners work.

If this has been going in for 20 years I hope there is more than 20 targets with 5 holes each.

If that’s all there is ..just say that’s all there is.

I’ll say thanks and move on

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I was keeping that one in the chamber for later. Lynn has had a habit of going around the forums all over the internet telling people he gets single digit ES with his ammo.

That would mean he has an SD of sub 2.0fps. Which would basically make it the best ammo ever produced on the planet.

If one is capable of such great ammo, it completely invalidates the need for compensating.

 

[msgriff]

What I can say is yes all variables are taken to account. A full can of carbon adds 3 ounces . No doubt it will change tune but the patterns and is why these patterns can be curtailed to come on to tune better as the can fills up or can be at least made to have the same pattern as much as possible within the predicted weight gain .

You had me right up until you mentioned tuning a suppressed "military demo gun". I do believe in barrel harmonics and the potential benefits of tuners. However, just like everyone else, you are unable to provide any scientific data, only your results, and refuse to answer some very basic and direct questions. Good luck.

 

[brianf]

You had me right up until you mentioned tuning a suppressed "military demo gun". I do believe in barrel harmonics and the potential benefits of tuners. However, just like everyone else, you are unable to provide any scientific data, only your results, and refuse to answer some very basic and direct questions. Good luck.

So I’m not crazy …they won’t answer you either.

Whew, thought I was loosing it for a minute

 

[timintx]

You had me right up until you mentioned tuning a suppressed "military demo gun". I do believe in barrel harmonics and the potential benefits of tuners. However, just like everyone else, you are unable to provide any scientific data, only your results, and refuse to answer some very basic and direct questions. Good luck.

May be it is just me but you really think I am going to give all company data including proprietary to a stranger with a screen name and not a real name . I gave you the tools but you do not want to take the time to try it . I answered your questions and have answered any questions asked. There is no attempt to side step anything . The way you and others act tells me you just want to benefit from my hard work with out even so much as a thank you. Watch the video take it as just my techniques to adjust a tuner and how tuners work. Even though the suppressor stuff is proprietary I still answered your questions which is the result of real long term testing . Test it then call me out but do not screem data as a excuse to call it wrong.

 

[JBoomhauer]

So I’m not crazy …they won’t answer you either.

Whew, thought I was loosing it for a minute

Its all in “the video” and “the 500 page book”

 

[cameljockey230]

If we are to assume that once a bullet is on it's exit vector, it is on it's exit vector and that vector doesn't change...
*Caveat*
I'm not saying this is what happens. This is an assumption for the sake of discussion. There are some things that can happen down range that will push a bullet off of this vector but we're ignoring them for a moment.

Then, when we take my rifle, details as follows:

6mm ARC 26" long 1:8 twist Proof Research Modified Competition Contour (1.0" dia. section at muzzle)
109gr Hornady ELD-M
27.6gr Varget
2723fps Avg
ES: ~45fps
SD: 9fps
30-shot group ES: 0.65 MOA, 0.189 Mil (mind you this is a round, circular group-- and mean radius is a better tool for measuring dispersion, but for the sake of looking at the worst case... )

Assume equally distributed MV (+/- 22.5 fps from average)

Vel_Fast: 2745fps
Vel_Slow: 2700fps

Using 4DoF solver, keep conditions the same.
Altitude: 2000ft
Temp: 65 deg F
Humidity: 50%
Pressure: 27.82 inHg
Wind: 0 mph

Force 1000yd zero with fastest and slowest expected velocities

Vel_Slow Impact at 100yd: 9.20 mil high
Vel_Fast Impact at 100yd: 8.83 mil high

Delta: 0.37 mil

Expected Vertical group at 100yd with proper 1000yd compensation: 0.37+0.189 = 0.559 mil
Expected Horizontal group at 100yd: 0.189 mil

So if we assume that drag variability is perfect (false with all bullets, better with some than others.. but we're assuming for the sake of argument), and once a bullet leaves on it's exit vector it is not coerced away from it except by wind (be it vertical or horizontal)... and we assumed zero wind.

Then the system must produce .559 mil tall and .189 mil wide groups at 100yd AND it must trend that the faster shots go low and the slower shots go high to produce .189 mil dispersion patterns down range.

That is a perfect system that should win 1000yd BR (provided good wind calls) disproportionately. Worst case is about a 6-7" group at 1000yd with the bulk of everything else being well under that, especially 5-shot groups.

Realistically, let's argue we can get a 50-60% trend for compensation, so even so I'd expect to see upper .3mil to .4mil vertical, a 2:1 ratio vertical to horizontal at 100yd. Additionally, we can expect because of drag variability to see some loss of precision down-range (again, variable depending on bullet+barrel+powder).

Am I way off base?

Your not way off base your just doing it backwards.
Picture a graph with a tall wave and a short wave with the peaks of both waves at the same point.
The only difference is the amplitude.
And yes this is the hardest part for most to understand.
The vertical part of the graph is the muzzle.
The horizontal is time.
Time in this scenario can be measured as velocity.
If you can grasp that we can continue?

 

[timintx]

Telling me what he thinks I should agree with is not helping. That’s narcissistic.

Providing the information asked for …you know exactly what was ask for several times by almost a dozen members by now….that’s helping.

Please help me..provide testing data on how you prove tuners work.

If this has been going in for 20 years I hope there is more than 20 targets with 5 holes each.

If that’s all there is ..just say that’s all there is.

I’ll say thanks and move on

And you think demanding that we bow down to data is helping? Helping a company? or helping the shooters ?

 

[timintx]

Your not way off base your just doing it backwards.
Picture a graph with a tall wave and a short wave with the peaks of both waves at the same point.
The only difference is the amplitude.
And yes this is the hardest part for most to understand.
The vertical part of the graph is the muzzle.
The horizontal is time.
Time in this scenario can be measured as velocity.
If you can grasp that we can continue?

Camel if you would not mind , can you please start another thread if you want to help these guys, I want to keep this thread about the video where the testers can show their work and ask questions specific to this video without fear of reprisal from these guys.

 

[cameljockey230]

10-4 but I don't think anyone will want to post with this kind of company

 

[timintx]

At what Distance?

it does not matter point being it would still be inside of what a normal gun tuned to 100yds would be at ALL distances,

 

[timintx]

If we are to assume that once a bullet is on it's exit vector, it is on it's exit vector and that vector doesn't change...
*Caveat*
I'm not saying this is what happens. This is an assumption for the sake of discussion. There are some things that can happen down range that will push a bullet off of this vector but we're ignoring them for a moment.

Then, when we take my rifle, details as follows:

6mm ARC 26" long 1:8 twist Proof Research Modified Competition Contour (1.0" dia. section at muzzle)
109gr Hornady ELD-M
27.6gr Varget
2723fps Avg
ES: ~45fps
SD: 9fps
30-shot group ES: 0.65 MOA, 0.189 Mil (mind you this is a round, circular group-- and mean radius is a better tool for measuring dispersion, but for the sake of looking at the worst case... )

Assume equally distributed MV (+/- 22.5 fps from average)

Vel_Fast: 2745fps
Vel_Slow: 2700fps

Using 4DoF solver, keep conditions the same.
Altitude: 2000ft
Temp: 65 deg F
Humidity: 50%
Pressure: 27.82 inHg
Wind: 0 mph

Force 1000yd zero with fastest and slowest expected velocities

Vel_Slow Impact at 100yd: 9.20 mil high
Vel_Fast Impact at 100yd: 8.83 mil high

Delta: 0.37 mil

Expected Vertical group at 100yd with proper 1000yd compensation: 0.37+0.189 = 0.559 mil
Expected Horizontal group at 100yd: 0.189 mil

So if we assume that drag variability is perfect (false with all bullets, better with some than others.. but we're assuming for the sake of argument), and once a bullet leaves on it's exit vector it is not coerced away from it except by wind (be it vertical or horizontal)... and we assumed zero wind.

Then the system must produce .559 mil tall and .189 mil wide groups at 100yd AND it must trend that the faster shots go low and the slower shots go high to produce .189 mil dispersion patterns down range.

That is a perfect system that should win 1000yd BR (provided good wind calls) disproportionately. Worst case is about a 6-7" group at 1000yd with the bulk of everything else being well under that, especially 5-shot groups.

Realistically, let's argue we can get a 50-60% trend for compensation, so even so I'd expect to see upper .3mil to .4mil vertical, a 2:1 ratio vertical to horizontal at 100yd. Additionally, we can expect because of drag variability to see some loss of precision down-range (again, variable depending on bullet+barrel+powder).

Am I way off base?

Without going over the numbers I would say that is generally correct.

 

[brianf]

And you think demanding that we bow down to data is helping? Helping a company? or helping the shooters ?

Company…I might not know if tuners work but “company” is something I’m pretty versed in

you do know that only about 150-250 “snipers” graduate is army sniper school each fiscal year. And that’s much more than the marines and navy. England only has about 250 (depending on year, budget eyc) in the whole military complex.

I’d suggest, if your actually looking to turn a profit you sell to the civilian population which means not berating the hide “just trust me”

Additionally (I’ve posted this before on this site) , Ronnie barrett has said the his company could not stay in business on mil /le contracts and volume alone. He needs civilian sales.

A 40 year old company which owned a certain market space for 30 years needs civilian sale to grow and turn a profit yet a screw on weight and some 3-4 variable math equation which can be done in excel is getting a private jet?

So…if you just want to say your in talks with the mil that’s pretty cool, but if you think you’ll make some serious money you just haven’t done enough market research yet.

I’m my previous life we were invited..yes invited to come down to Benning with the 375 Swiss cartridge as we were the first people in the US to have the reamer print and the first case of ammo that came to the US. In fact I still have it. So touting that you in talks with the “military” is nothing new and happens all day every day.

But it would have been a waste of a trip because they would just use our show and tell for fact finding and then contract the big dogs and go around us..that’s what they do.

Now, toss in that a can full of “carbon” which adds a few ounces may matter. Again you should do some research of what snipers do and what their equipment goes through.

10 layers of spray paint and a burlap wrap, veil and all kinds of other crap. Weight more than 3 ounces.

Never mind that their gear (like all military issue) changes all the time. Mismatched, new supplier, secondary suppliers on contract (especially small dollar items). The more high “high speed” the unit the more latitude they have with gear.

When they go to offsite training they have a expense card (used to be white) that allows them to buy the gear they like and leave with it. So if the “super” matching of products is paramount that’s out the window too.

And after all that, the big guys like FN will find a way around any patent you think you have (as if a movable weight on threads is special), make it better and cheaper (because that is what they do with a engineering department all day), and you’ll loose out to them in real trials.

Just like sako and Ai lost to rem in the large sniper contract several years ago. Rem wasnt the best but they are in the military complex already.

Then AFTER all that, if it even works…which we will never know because no one will even show more than 2 targets from 20 years ago…they bring outside consultants like Bryan litz to verify results.

So the same guy you curse and his gear will see the magic sauce..will be there testing your equipment if that day ever comes.

So to circle back, if you want to make money sell to the hide because there are 1,000 of members who will buy anything if you can show it works.

Or continually think the whole is s giant conspiracy theory out to steal your threaded weight and not create revenue off a 20 year patient.

side note
Led zep laid out a large post with numbers and data…you have a one line answer…and you wonder why people want data.

I’d you gave a coherent respectful reply and possibly discussed why he may or may not grasp the entire concept..you would get a lot less flack.

But I’ve been wrong before so who knows

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Company…I might not know if tuners work but “company” is something I’m pretty versed in

you do know that only about 150-250 “snipers” graduate is army sniper school each fiscal year. And that’s much more than the marines and navy. England only has about 250 (depending on year, budget eyc) in the whole military complex.

I’d suggest, if your actually looking to turn a profit you sell to the civilian population which means not berating the hide “just trust me”

Additionally (I’ve posted this before on this site) , Ronnie barrett has said the his company could not stay in business on mil /le contracts and volume alone. He needs civilian sales.

A 40 year old company which owned a certain market space for 30 years needs civilian sale to grow and turn a profit yet a screw on weight and some 3-4 variable math equation which can be done in excel is getting a private jet?

So…if you just want to say your in talks with the mil that’s pretty cool, but if you think you’ll make some serious money you just haven’t done enough market research yet.

I’m my previous life we were invited..yes invited to come down to Benning with the 375 Swiss cartridge as we were the first people in the US to have the reamer print and the first case of ammo that came to the US. In fact I still have it. So touting that you in talks with the “military” is nothing new and happens all day every day.

But it would have been a waste of a trip because they would just use our show and tell for fact finding and then contract the big dogs and go around us..that’s what they do.

Now, toss in that a can full of “carbon” which adds a few ounces may matter. Again you should do some research of what snipers do and what their equipment goes through.

10 layers of spray paint and a burlap wrap, veil and all kinds of other crap. Weight more than 3 ounces.

Never mind that their gear (like all military issue) changes all the time. Mismatched, new supplier, secondary suppliers on contract (especially small dollar items). The more high “high speed” the unit the more latitude they have with gear.

When they go to offsite training they have a expense card (used to be white) that allows them to buy the gear they like and leave with it. So if the “super” matching of products is paramount that’s out the window too.

And after all that, the big guys like FN will find a way around any patent you think you have (as if a movable weight on threads is special), make it better and cheaper (because that is what they do with a engineering department all day), and you’ll loose out to them in real trials.

Just like sako and Ai lost to rem in the large sniper contract several years ago. Rem wasnt the best but they are in the military complex already.

Then AFTER all that, if it even works…which we will never know because no one will even show more than 2 targets from 20 years ago…they bring outside consultants like Bryan litz to verify results.

So the same guy you curse and his gear will see the magic sauce..will be there testing your equipment if that day ever comes.

So to circle back, if you want to make money sell to the hide because there are 1,000 of members who will buy anything if you can show it works.

Or continually think the whole is s giant conspiracy theory out to steal your threaded weight and not create revenue off a 20 year patient.

side note
Led zep laid out a large post with numbers and data…you have a one line answer…and you wonder why people want data.

I’d you gave a coherent respectful reply and possibly discussed why he may or may not grasp the entire concept..you would get a lot less flack.

But I’ve been wrong before so who knows

You forgot, he's solving a "problem" that military snipers find themselves in dozens of times in a century. Maybe less.

The ol "my life depends on this shot, but I'm not sure about my velocity" scenario.


Oh, and BTW, by 2024, the Marine Corps plans to have zero seats available for the Basic Scout Sniper Course. Meaning there will be even less official snipers in the military going forward. Not exactly the best time to be marketing such a niche idea without looking to the civilian market heavily.

 

[pyrotechnic]

If we are to assume that once a bullet is on it's exit vector, it is on it's exit vector and that vector doesn't change...
*Caveat*
I'm not saying this is what happens. This is an assumption for the sake of discussion. There are some things that can happen down range that will push a bullet off of this vector but we're ignoring them for a moment.

Then, when we take my rifle, details as follows:

6mm ARC 26" long 1:8 twist Proof Research Modified Competition Contour (1.0" dia. section at muzzle)
109gr Hornady ELD-M
27.6gr Varget
2723fps Avg
ES: ~45fps
SD: 9fps
30-shot group ES: 0.65 MOA, 0.189 Mil (mind you this is a round, circular group-- and mean radius is a better tool for measuring dispersion, but for the sake of looking at the worst case... )

Assume equally distributed MV (+/- 22.5 fps from average)

Vel_Fast: 2745fps
Vel_Slow: 2700fps

Using 4DoF solver, keep conditions the same.
Altitude: 2000ft
Temp: 65 deg F
Humidity: 50%
Pressure: 27.82 inHg
Wind: 0 mph

Force 1000yd zero with fastest and slowest expected velocities

Vel_Slow Impact at 100yd: 9.20 mil high
Vel_Fast Impact at 100yd: 8.83 mil high

Delta: 0.37 mil

Expected Vertical group at 100yd with proper 1000yd compensation: 0.37+0.189 = 0.559 mil
Expected Horizontal group at 100yd: 0.189 mil

So if we assume that drag variability is perfect (false with all bullets, better with some than others.. but we're assuming for the sake of argument), and once a bullet leaves on it's exit vector it is not coerced away from it except by wind (be it vertical or horizontal)... and we assumed zero wind.

Then the system must produce .559 mil tall and .189 mil wide groups at 100yd AND it must trend that the faster shots go low and the slower shots go high to produce .189 mil dispersion patterns down range.

That is a perfect system that should win 1000yd BR (provided good wind calls) disproportionately. Worst case is about a 6-7" group at 1000yd with the bulk of everything else being well under that, especially 5-shot groups.

Realistically, let's argue we can get a 50-60% trend for compensation, so even so I'd expect to see upper .3mil to .4mil vertical, a 2:1 ratio vertical to horizontal at 100yd. Additionally, we can expect because of drag variability to see some loss of precision down-range (again, variable depending on bullet+barrel+powder).

Am I way off base?

Without going over the numbers I would say that is generally correct.

I'm reading this as a proper tune for distance will result in increased vertical dispersion at 100 yds.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I'm reading this as a proper tune for distance will result in increased vertical dispersion at 100 yds.

Yea, I think it was a .559 mil tall group at 100yd and .189 mil tall group at 1k. Unless I read it wrong.

There was 0.37 mil worth of vertical dispersion that needs to be compensated for if your goal is prefect compensation for 1k yds.


And realistic expectation is .3 -.4 mil vertical at 100yds to accomplish a 50-60% tune at 1k yds.

 

[JBoomhauer]

Yea, I think it was a .559 mil tall group at 100yd and .189 mil tall group at 1k. Unless I read it wrong.

There was 0.37 mil worth of vertical dispersion that needs to be compensated for if your goal is prefect compensation for 1k yds.


And realistic expectation is .3 -.4 mil vertical at 100yds to accomplish a 50-60% tune at 1k yds.

So we are talking a 1.1-1.4” group at 100. This seems to directly conflict with the previous statements made.

As was stated in the video the convergence point is down range will benefit dispersion at all ranges not just one distance . Watch the video .

The measurement of barrel vibrations in the way demonstrated will be a very quick and positive method of tuning a rifle, requiring very few shots and very little time. Moreover, there is no ambiguity or uncertainty about the result. When the barrel is tuned for complete positive compensation, no further improvement is possible.

 

[cameljockey230]

Company…I might not know if tuners work but “company” is something I’m pretty versed in

you do know that only about 150-250 “snipers” graduate is army sniper school each fiscal year. And that’s much more than the marines and navy. England only has about 250 (depending on year, budget eyc) in the whole military complex.

I’d suggest, if your actually looking to turn a profit you sell to the civilian population which means not berating the hide “just trust me”

Additionally (I’ve posted this before on this site) , Ronnie barrett has said the his company could not stay in business on mil /le contracts and volume alone. He needs civilian sales.

A 40 year old company which owned a certain market space for 30 years needs civilian sale to grow and turn a profit yet a screw on weight and some 3-4 variable math equation which can be done in excel is getting a private jet?

So…if you just want to say your in talks with the mil that’s pretty cool, but if you think you’ll make some serious money you just haven’t done enough market research yet.

I’m my previous life we were invited..yes invited to come down to Benning with the 375 Swiss cartridge as we were the first people in the US to have the reamer print and the first case of ammo that came to the US. In fact I still have it. So touting that you in talks with the “military” is nothing new and happens all day every day.

But it would have been a waste of a trip because they would just use our show and tell for fact finding and then contract the big dogs and go around us..that’s what they do.

Now, toss in that a can full of “carbon” which adds a few ounces may matter. Again you should do some research of what snipers do and what their equipment goes through.

10 layers of spray paint and a burlap wrap, veil and all kinds of other crap. Weight more than 3 ounces.

Never mind that their gear (like all military issue) changes all the time. Mismatched, new supplier, secondary suppliers on contract (especially small dollar items). The more high “high speed” the unit the more latitude they have with gear.

When they go to offsite training they have a expense card (used to be white) that allows them to buy the gear they like and leave with it. So if the “super” matching of products is paramount that’s out the window too.

And after all that, the big guys like FN will find a way around any patent you think you have (as if a movable weight on threads is special), make it better and cheaper (because that is what they do with a engineering department all day), and you’ll loose out to them in real trials.

Just like sako and Ai lost to rem in the large sniper contract several years ago. Rem wasnt the best but they are in the military complex already.

Then AFTER all that, if it even works…which we will never know because no one will even show more than 2 targets from 20 years ago…they bring outside consultants like Bryan litz to verify results.

So the same guy you curse and his gear will see the magic sauce..will be there testing your equipment if that day ever comes.

So to circle back, if you want to make money sell to the hide because there are 1,000 of members who will buy anything if you can show it works.

Or continually think the whole is s giant conspiracy theory out to steal your threaded weight and not create revenue off a 20 year patient.

side note
Led zep laid out a large post with numbers and data…you have a one line answer…and you wonder why people want data.

I’d you gave a coherent respectful reply and possibly discussed why he may or may not grasp the entire concept..you would get a lot less flack.

But I’ve been wrong before so who knows

Some of us knew your end game all along.
thanks for ruining 2 threads before finally admitting it.

 

[timintx]

So I give up a whopping 3/4 inch at 100 yds to reduce it by ten inches at 1000 yds and at 500 yards it would the same dispersion with a given ES with a standard tune except inverted .That is the reality of it .

 

[timintx]

So we are talking a 1.1-1.4” group at 100. This seems to directly conflict with the previous statements made.

Those numbers are wrong , way less . .7 moa at 100 yards is what you are giving up . To gain a reduction of 10 inches at 1000 yds.

 

[timintx]

Company…I might not know if tuners work but “company” is something I’m pretty versed in

you do know that only about 150-250 “snipers” graduate is army sniper school each fiscal year. And that’s much more than the marines and navy. England only has about 250 (depending on year, budget eyc) in the whole military complex.

I’d suggest, if your actually looking to turn a profit you sell to the civilian population which means not berating the hide “just trust me”

Additionally (I’ve posted this before on this site) , Ronnie barrett has said the his company could not stay in business on mil /le contracts and volume alone. He needs civilian sales.

A 40 year old company which owned a certain market space for 30 years needs civilian sale to grow and turn a profit yet a screw on weight and some 3-4 variable math equation which can be done in excel is getting a private jet?

So…if you just want to say your in talks with the mil that’s pretty cool, but if you think you’ll make some serious money you just haven’t done enough market research yet.

I’m my previous life we were invited..yes invited to come down to Benning with the 375 Swiss cartridge as we were the first people in the US to have the reamer print and the first case of ammo that came to the US. In fact I still have it. So touting that you in talks with the “military” is nothing new and happens all day every day.

But it would have been a waste of a trip because they would just use our show and tell for fact finding and then contract the big dogs and go around us..that’s what they do.

Now, toss in that a can full of “carbon” which adds a few ounces may matter. Again you should do some research of what snipers do and what their equipment goes through.

10 layers of spray paint and a burlap wrap, veil and all kinds of other crap. Weight more than 3 ounces.

Never mind that their gear (like all military issue) changes all the time. Mismatched, new supplier, secondary suppliers on contract (especially small dollar items). The more high “high speed” the unit the more latitude they have with gear.

When they go to offsite training they have a expense card (used to be white) that allows them to buy the gear they like and leave with it. So if the “super” matching of products is paramount that’s out the window too.

And after all that, the big guys like FN will find a way around any patent you think you have (as if a movable weight on threads is special), make it better and cheaper (because that is what they do with a engineering department all day), and you’ll loose out to them in real trials.

Just like sako and Ai lost to rem in the large sniper contract several years ago. Rem wasnt the best but they are in the military complex already.

Then AFTER all that, if it even works…which we will never know because no one will even show more than 2 targets from 20 years ago…they bring outside consultants like Bryan litz to verify results.

So the same guy you curse and his gear will see the magic sauce..will be there testing your equipment if that day ever comes.

So to circle back, if you want to make money sell to the hide because there are 1,000 of members who will buy anything if you can show it works.

Or continually think the whole is s giant conspiracy theory out to steal your threaded weight and not create revenue off a 20 year patient.

side note
Led zep laid out a large post with numbers and data…you have a one line answer…and you wonder why people want data.

I’d you gave a coherent respectful reply and possibly discussed why he may or may not grasp the entire concept..you would get a lot less flack.

But I’ve been wrong before so who knows

I was asked by the military to solve a list of problems and I did . It is as simple as that . You and others are only ones that is berating . I have heard this for a year while you guys are pounding your chest I will keep progressing in my technologies .

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

So we are talking a 1.1-1.4” group at 100. This seems to directly conflict with the previous statements made.

I mean......now we are getting into larger groups at closer distances and smaller groups further out.

Not gonna touch that with a 10ft pole.

 

[kthomas]

I was asked by the military to solve a list of problems and I did . It is as simple as that . You and others are only ones that is berating . I have heard this for a year while you guys are pounding your chest I will keep progressing in my technologies .

Honest question, and this isn't to berate.

Is the military using your "solutions" currently?

 

[timintx]

I mean......now we are getting into larger groups at closer distances and smaller groups further out.

Not gonna touch that with a 10ft pole.

That is with huge velocity variance , your rifle with the same variance would be much worse. With smaller normal standard deviations it is way less and way better at longer ranges where it really hurts you . A barrel can be tuned as well to be parallel but as long as you have good es and as you are good . But that rarely happens.Watch the video instead of making assumptions .

 

[kthomas]

Does EC upload his podcasts to any device that plays podcasts - like Spotify, Google Podcasts, etc?

It would make it way easier to listen to the podcast this way...

 

[timintx]

Honest question, and this isn't to berate.

Is the military using your "solutions" currently?

The original project was cancelled and because people are talking trash that don’t know what they are talking about so I am forced to defend what I do to get back in on the projects . This year I worked my ass off to do demos and the results have been enlightening but that does not mean a damn thing . I know there are no guarantees . But I am not giving up. These technologies are not just limited to small arms but can benefit any barrels weapon systems such as artillery so there is no telling . I hope to hear back soon from the military. The us military deserves the best we can offer and that is the main goal .

 

[kthomas]

The original project was cancelled and because people are talking trash that don’t know what they are talking about so I am forced to defend what I do to get back in on the projects . This year I worked my ass off to do demos and the results have been enlightening but that does not mean a damn thing . I know there are no guarantees . But I am not giving up. These technologies are not just limited to small arms but can benefit any barrels weapon systems such as artillery so there is no telling . I hope to hear back soon from the military. The us military deserves the best we can offer and that is the main goal .

I know you consider me an adversary for whatever reason, but I truly do think that you are sincere in your beliefs on your process.

And I do hope that you can find success with your process, it's clear you're passionate about it.

To @brianf's point - I wouldn't forget the civilian side. If you can clearly demonstrate the virtues of tuners, there is a lot of market potential there. Even PRS is getting into it (and I think most of the current tuner manufacturers for that crowd don't even know what they are selling). And if a solution finds a lot of success in the civilian world, the military really starts to listen. Just a thought.

Best of luck, and absolutely no hard feelings or ill will on my end.

 

[timintx]

I know you consider me an adversary for whatever reason, but I truly do think that you are sincere in your beliefs on your process.

And I do hope that you can find success with your process, it's clear you're passionate about it.

To @brianf's point - I wouldn't forget the civilian side. If you can clearly demonstrate the virtues of tuners, there is a lot of market potential there. Even PRS is getting into it (and I think most of the current tuner manufacturers for that crowd don't even know what they are selling). And if a solution finds a lot of success in the civilian world, the military really starts to listen. Just a thought.

Best of luck, and absolutely no hard feelings or ill will on my end.

That is why I did the video , to help shooters understand the basics of tuning and the use of tuners . The civilian shooter can keep their Es and adjust at bay through seating depth adjustment the military can not . A tuner is not needed to achieve Positive compensation but it sure helps to get there quick with less rounds down the tube .

 

[brianf]

Some of us knew your end game all along.
thanks for ruining 2 threads before finally admitting it.

Ruining..I’m actually trying to help you

Unlike you and Tim who refuse to give advice.

I’ll forward emails if needed and willing to talk on phone for advice.

And believe me if tubers were such a big market and revenue generator…the Kay’s out the bag already.

It’s like reading yesterdays Wall Street journal looking for stock tips.

Again…another post by you with no information

 

[MarinePMI]

Gentlemen,

Can we drop the bickering and move on?

 

[cameljockey230]

Gentlemen,

Can we drop the bickering and move on?

There have been 2 threads posted about tuners and one has already been removed after several posters ruined it and no moderators stepped in to stop them.
They claim they need data and statistics and they have been given several 500+ page books hundreds of articles from Phd's and engineers and they base their counterargument on a CZ457 and 5 shot groups done once.
It's hard to get knowledgeable posters on a forum willing to share knowledge when they are bombarded with nonsense by nonshooters without any achievements.m
It's detrimental to your forum

 

[timintx]

Ruining..I’m actually trying to help you

Unlike you and Tim who refuse to give advice.

I’ll forward emails if needed and willing to talk on phone for advice.

And believe me if tubers were such a big market and revenue generator…the Kay’s out the bag already.

It’s like reading yesterdays Wall Street journal looking for stock tips.

Again…another post by you with no information

Give me a break here , me and camel have bent over backwards to help you understand but you insist we are not and refusing to answer your questions . You need to learn ? Test it for yourself . You want others to do your work for you like even asking everybody else to find the winners of matches for you so you can research what ? You need to chill and just walk away like you said you would if you want everybody do your work . Or stay and learn but just stop the BS about us refusing to answer your questions . We have answered all questions asked .

 

[timintx]

Gentlemen,

Can we drop the bickering and move on?

Amen!!!!!!

 

[brianf]

Give me a break here , me and camel have bent over backwards to help you understand but you insist we are not and refusing to answer your questions . You need to learn ? Test it for yourself . You want others to do your work for you like even asking everybody else to find the winners of matches for you so you can research what ? You need to chill and just walk away like you said you would if you want everybody do your work . Or stay and learn but just stop the BS about us refusing to answer your questions . We have answered all questions asked .

I have no horse in the race.

Personally I hope they work so well that they can fix cheap bull ammo into BR ammo.

And they look cool as well..I like chunky “brakes” so it’s right up my ally.

What you and Lynn keep getting confused…

No one wants to steal your product

There are other similar products on the market that have the same form factor and design criteria within reason

Tne EC tuner is selling like hot cakes…good or bad. So you already missed the boat on being first “mass produced” tuner to market.

If you would step back and see what everyone including myself are asking for…it’s a marketing gold mine if you play ball

You and Lynn could have become the original tuner confirmation team to the masses.

But you pissed that away by being obstinate and combative rather then sharing a portion of data which we all know is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the product.

Why is you tuner or any tuner not special;
Your tuner has threads
Your tuner attached to a barrel
Your tuner can be adjusted
You tuner is made out of metal
So do the other 20 on the market

From a 20,000 foot view it’s another accessory less than 1000$ that everyone would try at least once.

But you are making it too hard with a poor attitude towards customers who ask for information.

The firearms industry is about

Looks
Cool factor
Performance
And
Just as important …a story why I’m using it

In my previous life there were entire websites and forums eating out of someone’s hands putting money down sight unseen…and he knew nothing but how to search google.

Why do builders give a test target

We all know any modern cartridge will shoot .5 with a properly chambered barrel

The test target is for the customer to show his friends why it costs 2k more than a “savage”

That is the part you refuse to see or admit, nothing is this industry is special or difficult. It’s a pipe screwed to a pipe screwed to a piece of wood or plastic. If you do it right it shoots light out.

Elon musk puts all his products out to market with out patent protection…why..because it doesn’t matter

Customer will buy what they want to buy. And in this industry it’s about customer relationships

Everyone has their “smith” who answers all their questions because one day that customer will order again. And they will order from the smith who does quality work at a competitive price and who is available for questions and confirmation of opinion.

I suggest you do some market research about how firearms are sold especially repeat sales as that’s where the profit is.

Being argumentative to a whole forum is not doing you any favors when there are competitive alternate products available.

Let me say it again…I’m not trying to steal your product.

If I wanted to sell a tuner I would approach EC make 2 cosmetic changes and put my name on it with in a week…just like 8 of 10 “custom” actions are a defiance.

Again I could be wrong…but not every time.

 

[timintx]

I have no horse in the race.

Personally I hope they work so well that they can fix cheap bull ammo into BR ammo.

And they look cool as well..I like chunky “brakes” so it’s right up my ally.

What you and Lynn keep getting confused…

No one wants to steal your product

There are other similar products on the market that have the same form factor and design criteria within reason

Tne EC tuner is selling like hot cakes…good or bad. So you already missed the boat on being first “mass produced” tuner to market.

If you would step back and see what everyone including myself are asking for…it’s a marketing gold mine if you play ball

You and Lynn could have become the original tuner confirmation team to the masses.

But you pissed that away by being obstinate and combative rather then sharing a portion of data which we all know is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the product.

Why is you tuner or any tuner not special;
Your tuner has threads
Your tuner attached to a barrel
Your tuner can be adjusted
You tuner is made out of metal
So do the other 20 on the market

From a 20,000 foot view it’s another accessory less than 1000$ that everyone would try at least once.

But you are making it too hard with a poor attitude towards customers who ask for information.

The firearms industry is about

Looks
Cool factor
Performance
And
Just as important …a story why I’m using it

In my previous life there were entire websites and forums eating out of someone’s hands putting money down sight unseen…and he knew nothing but how to search google.

Why do builders give a test target

We all know any modern cartridge will shoot .5 with a properly chambered barrel

The test target is for the customer to show his friends why it costs 2k more than a “savage”

That is the part you refuse to see or admit, nothing is this industry is special or difficult. It’s a pipe screwed to a pipe screwed to a piece of wood or plastic. If you do it right it shoots light out.

Elon musk puts all his products out to market with out patent protection…why..because it doesn’t matter

Customer will buy what they want to buy. And in this industry it’s about customer relationships

Everyone has their “smith” who answers all their questions because one day that customer will order again. And they will order from the smith who does quality work at a competitive price and who is available for questions and confirmation of opinion.

I suggest you do some market research about how firearms are sold especially repeat sales as that’s where the profit is.

Being argumentative to a whole forum is not doing you any favors when there are competitive alternate products available.

Let me say it again…I’m not trying to steal your product.

If I wanted to sell a tuner I would approach EC make 2 cosmetic changes and put my name on it with in a week…just like 8 of 10 “custom” actions are a defiance.

Again I could be wrong…but not every time.

For someone that had no horse in this race you are the most argumentative person in all of the tuner threads . You just like to argue. I do not sell tuners but am defending them against the naysayers only because it is the truth. Guns do go out of tune . You need to come to grips with that . I have posted targets , graphs and torque graphs over the past year and it is just not good enough for you and others . I will say again you will argue with a tree. Just let it go because you a ruining this thread with your incessant arguing. Just let it go man.

 

[MarinePMI]

I have no horse in the race.

Personally I hope they work so well that they can fix cheap bull ammo into BR ammo.

And they look cool as well..I like chunky “brakes” so it’s right up my ally.

What you and Lynn keep getting confused…

No one wants to steal your product

There are other similar products on the market that have the same form factor and design criteria within reason

Tne EC tuner is selling like hot cakes…good or bad. So you already missed the boat on being first “mass produced” tuner to market.

If you would step back and see what everyone including myself are asking for…it’s a marketing gold mine if you play ball

You and Lynn could have become the original tuner confirmation team to the masses.

But you pissed that away by being obstinate and combative rather then sharing a portion of data which we all know is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the product.

Why is you tuner or any tuner not special;
Your tuner has threads
Your tuner attached to a barrel
Your tuner can be adjusted
You tuner is made out of metal
So do the other 20 on the market

From a 20,000 foot view it’s another accessory less than 1000$ that everyone would try at least once.

But you are making it too hard with a poor attitude towards customers who ask for information.

The firearms industry is about

Looks
Cool factor
Performance
And
Just as important …a story why I’m using it

In my previous life there were entire websites and forums eating out of someone’s hands putting money down sight unseen…and he knew nothing but how to search google.

Why do builders give a test target

We all know any modern cartridge will shoot .5 with a properly chambered barrel

The test target is for the customer to show his friends why it costs 2k more than a “savage”

That is the part you refuse to see or admit, nothing is this industry is special or difficult. It’s a pipe screwed to a pipe screwed to a piece of wood or plastic. If you do it right it shoots light out.

Elon musk puts all his products out to market with out patent protection…why..because it doesn’t matter

Customer will buy what they want to buy. And in this industry it’s about customer relationships

Everyone has their “smith” who answers all their questions because one day that customer will order again. And they will order from the smith who does quality work at a competitive price and who is available for questions and confirmation of opinion.

I suggest you do some market research about how firearms are sold especially repeat sales as that’s where the profit is.

Being argumentative to a whole forum is not doing you any favors when there are competitive alternate products available.

Let me say it again…I’m not trying to steal your product.

If I wanted to sell a tuner I would approach EC make 2 cosmetic changes and put my name on it with in a week…just like 8 of 10 “custom” actions are a defiance.

Again I could be wrong…but not every time.

If you have no horse in this, then stop replying. I have asked nicely twice now.

 

[brianf]

If you have no horse in this, then stop replying. I have asked nicely twice now.

Noted…

 

[Long Range 338]

@timintx

I've been watching the video and still not finished but am intrigued to say the least. At a minimum, Thank you for posting the video and taking the time to stick around for those with genuine interest.

I've lots of questions but not certain any of them are very intelligent...

I believe you stated in the podcast that using a tuner is very similar to tuning a load thru a traditional reloading process if one were to take into account the muzzle oscillations. Did you stumble upon the graph style testing reloading processes or specifically testing tuners? What would you do different if you were going to use barrel timing without a tuner and just develop the best load?

I stumbled across the other thread first and did not understand the hostility but am getting a sense of the frustration that must be overwhelming after the constant screams for "data".

To those that are desiring more data, what exactly are you looking for? The bar is being set so high that national labs could not produce the data being requested as the variables are not known, let alone able to be isolated individually... Here we have a pair of successful shooters with many years of experience under their belts providing their experience and impressions. Their conclusions may be non scientific but that does not take away the value of lessons learned from thousands of rounds documented. And at what point could an individual even afford the testing being requested? Even the constantly mentioned testing done by Litz was fairly low budget and with his doppler radar, high speed cameras, and other tools would be able to do testing not available to others outside government entities.

We are in a golden age of technology that has allowed us to understand more aspects of ballistics than ever before, but until we have the methodology to isolate and test every variable to the n-th degree we are going to have to accept the results on the target and try to make the best sense of them that we can.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

To those that are desiring more data, what exactly are you looking for? The bar is being set so high that national labs could not produce the data being requested as the variables are not known, let alone able to be isolated individually...

This is not true at all. A company as small as Applied Ballistics could easily test this.

They have zero data over readily available systems like Lidar. There are plenty of small labs over the entire country capable since they (understandably so) wouldn't want AB to do the testing.


And, at the very minimum, you can let a research scientist working on their graduate degree to look over your testing protocols and shore them up.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I'm not going to make this an argument. But, for example's sake......

A page or two earlier @Ledzep gave a very good example of the dispersion necessary at close distances to achieve compensation at longer. This is incredibly easy to test via an independent facility.

Just using his example.....you will have shoot through screens at closer distances and the entire trajectory will be monitored via lidar and other systems.


If the compensation is valid, you will now show a larger group closer and smaller group further away......with velocity and a BC type profile for the entire flight of the bullet.

Which will show that the slower bullets should have impacted lower and vice versa at distance based on the velocity and profile of the flight. You will be able to confidently rule out things such as BC variation, and other effects that affect a bullet in flight.


If the compensation is not valid, you will have bullets that with chrono data only "should" not have impacted where they did.....but once you have all the extra data provided by the other systems, you'll see that it was actually something else which caused the phenomenon.




Very, very simple. And this is why I jokingly always refer to people testing in their "back yard" as they are not testing with equipment capable of showing the entire picture and are forced to make assumption with limited data (this in no way means they are doing anything wrong....they are just confined to the data they are able to capture).



If this stuff is serious and they believe it will help XYZ entity, this is the type of *minimum* testing that will be required. That's how real research works. You sign NDA's and have experts review your testing protocols.....you sign more NDA's and have independent laboratories run tests with you.....you sign even more NDA's and have experts review your results and compile the data properly.

 

[kthomas]

@timintx

I've been watching the video and still not finished but am intrigued to say the least. At a minimum, Thank you for posting the video and taking the time to stick around for those with genuine interest.

I've lots of questions but not certain any of them are very intelligent...

I believe you stated in the podcast that using a tuner is very similar to tuning a load thru a traditional reloading process if one were to take into account the muzzle oscillations. Did you stumble upon the graph style testing reloading processes or specifically testing tuners? What would you do different if you were going to use barrel timing without a tuner and just develop the best load?

I stumbled across the other thread first and did not understand the hostility but am getting a sense of the frustration that must be overwhelming after the constant screams for "data".

To those that are desiring more data, what exactly are you looking for? The bar is being set so high that national labs could not produce the data being requested as the variables are not known, let alone able to be isolated individually... Here we have a pair of successful shooters with many years of experience under their belts providing their experience and impressions. Their conclusions may be non scientific but that does not take away the value of lessons learned from thousands of rounds documented. And at what point could an individual even afford the testing being requested? Even the constantly mentioned testing done by Litz was fairly low budget and with his doppler radar, high speed cameras, and other tools would be able to do testing not available to others outside government entities.

We are in a golden age of technology that has allowed us to understand more aspects of ballistics than ever before, but until we have the methodology to isolate and test every variable to the n-th degree we are going to have to accept the results on the target and try to make the best sense of them that we can.

Experience is great, but experience brought us the "Satterlee method". And lots of other reloading "truths" that are completely false.

A waterline test just doesn't have the precision/resolution to map barrel movements, especially with small sample sizes.

Is that difference in POI due to MV vs where the bore is at in it's oscillation? Was it caused by the shooter? Is the dispersion within the statistical pattern of your ammo? From the ignition system of the rifle? Maybe the shoulder was bumped back on that specific round, or primer seating not to total depth, and that threw the timing off?

Shooting a waterline doesn't isolate any of the variables above, and more. I just don't see how you can make any conclusions about MV vs barrel position when there is so many more variables influencing the outcome.

That's my opinion, since you asked. Nothing against Tim or Cameljockey. I just can't reconcile the claims with the current level of evidence presented - I've been fooled too many times by reloading "truths" to trust anything with relatively little evidence. This doesn't mean they are wrong, but I just can't make the same conclusions they do if we have to rely on tests like in post #38.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

The above will be my last post on the "requirements."


If anyone thinks that is asking too much, there's just no resolution to the disagreement. It's not as if people have plopped down pages and pages of lidar and professionally executed, organized, and analyzed data and people are saying that's not enough. That would be an understandable objection to asking for more.

The "trash talking" is literally engineers and rocket scientists who are in firearms and/or weaponry professions as their entire living and way of life. That's what's holding up these things as "trash talk."

The only way to silence the "trash talk" is to have your tests, data, and reports at a minimum, peer reviewed by engineers and scientists in the field which you are attempting to enter. You really want professionals such as this to be involved at every level. But minimally, your tests and data to be reviewed by these types of professionals.


Nothing else I can add to that, so, that'll be it. TYGL

 

[Long Range 338]

Experience is great, but experience brought us the "Satterlee method". And lots of other reloading "truths" that are completely false.

A waterline test just doesn't have the precision/resolution to map barrel movements, especially with small sample sizes.

Is that difference in POI due to MV vs where the bore is at in it's oscillation? Was it caused by the shooter? Is the dispersion within the statistical pattern of your ammo? From the ignition system of the rifle? Maybe the shoulder was bumped back on that specific round, or primer seating not to total depth, and that threw the timing off?

Shooting a waterline doesn't isolate any of the variables above, and more. I just don't see how you can make any conclusions about MV vs barrel position when there is so many more variables influencing the outcome.

That's my opinion, since you asked. Nothing against Tim or Cameljockey. I just can't reconcile the claims with the current level of evidence presented - I've been fooled too many times by reloading "truths" to trust anything with relatively little evidence. This doesn't mean they are wrong, but I just can't make the same conclusions they do if we have to rely on tests like in post #38.

The above will be my last post on the "requirements."


If anyone thinks that is asking too much, there's just no resolution to the disagreement. It's not as if people have plopped down pages and pages of lidar and professionally executed, organized, and analyzed data and people are saying that's not enough. That would be an understandable objection to asking for more.

The "trash talking" is literally engineers and rocket scientists who are in firearms and/or weaponry professions as their entire living and way of life. That's what's holding up these things as "trash talk."

The only way to silence the "trash talk" is to have your tests, data, and reports at a minimum, peer reviewed by engineers and scientists in the field which you are attempting to enter. You really want professionals such as this to be involved at every level. But minimally, your tests and data to be reviewed by these types of professionals.


Nothing else I can add to that, so, that'll be it. TYGL

Thank you both for your input, I believe I learned more about testing in the last few posts than the entire previous thread. The constant disagreement has taken away from the learning value of these threads. My mind is open to as much learning as can be absorbed, as limited as that may be.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Thank you both for your input, I believe I learned more about testing in the last few posts than the entire previous thread. The constant disagreement has taken away from the learning value of these threads. My mind is open to as much learning as can be absorbed, as limited as that may be.

It's an unfortunate reality. We all like to think we can do this stuff with what we have at our disposal as normal consumers. Everyone here is passionate about some aspect of shooting, and wants to contribute and be as involved as we can.

Unfortunately though, we all have limitations. In this case, its the equipment and (sometimes) the knowledge. I was being trolling/smartass a lot once I figured out camel was lynn and when no one would actually answer questions. Which is childish of me.

But, through the sarcasm, I truly meant the points I was attempting to make. When you need something done properly, you call or contract the proper experts.


If I need someone to pull a trigger, I'm going to find an upper echelon shooter. If I need testing or analysis done, I'm going to call a scientist or a statistician.

What we as a group make the mistake of correlating, is that because someone excels in shooting and winning, that makes them qualified to correctly analyze why things happen. This is rarely the case.



And, we have to be realistic. If you're shooting paper and such, with equipment that tops out at some of the higher end oehlar equipment.....you're just out gunned so to speak against those who are doppler and other pieces of equipment that are upwards of seven figures to purchase.

You're also at a disadvantage to someone who has been formally educated as a scientist or other similar profession.



Look at extremely successful people. They don't try to do things on their own they aren't experts at. Shaquille O'Neil is a perfect example. He owns part or all of tons of extremely successful companies. But he's not out there trying to do the design or analyst work that is required. He hire or partners with those people.




These guys should be looking to partner with people and companies like Applied Ballistics who have the education and resources they don't. However, the requires one to set aside their ego and admit you're not as good at testing and analyzing as someone who owns or works for a company like AB.

Ego is likely the biggest reason otherwise very gifted individuals fail to live up to their potential. They weren't able to admit to themselves they can't do what's required alone.

 

[timintx]

Unfortunately these two gentleman have felt the need to stress scientific methods mixed with insults when they do not know how I test and try to suggest that I am some kind of beginner and seem to think I owe them data and not just results. My methods of testing are held to scientific standards and to suggest they are not is just false. This video is not for proof , it is merely a tutorial on tuning and how tuners function with information from many years of testing . Moreover they seem to think that I am wrong by not heeding their suggestions. The equipment I use will test out well beyond what the radar is capable of and to suggest for me to go to some other to test is redundant. It appears they do not know the real limitations of what they are suggesting because they do not use the equipment on a regular basis as I do. I also might add that my equipment is equally as accurate as radar if not more. My systems can show point of impact at the target and the radar can not and gain BC measurements well beyond transonic when the radar can not. So a non dod style radar will only measure the velocity towards and away from the receiver within roughly 2500 yards with no point of impact indicated which does not help with data I need. I have camera systems that I record with as well and to keep certain records and have posted some of those records but that does not seem to be enough. My short ,mid, long and extreme range measurements have been held to exacting standards to determine exactly what is happening with barrel movements . Unfortunately there is no way to measure precise barrel movements other than graphs or ladder tests followed by multiple distance target confirmation with two different velocities.


As to your questions:
Quote: I believe you stated in the podcast that using a tuner is very similar to tuning a load thru a traditional reloading process if one were to take into account the muzzle oscillations. Did you stumble upon the graph style testing reloading processes or specifically testing tuners? What would you do different if you were going to use barrel timing without a tuner and just develop the best load?




Both with and without would be done exactly the same . I later modified ladder testing to my present version with graphs developing a standard spacing to have for a standard of lateral muzzle speed for comparative measurements, movement trends and point of impact verses velocity to gain extremely accurate measurements of barrel movements. At first the graphs were for standard tuning , and when I started to trying to find out what tuners do specifically the graphs were invaluable in seeing how the tuners moved the phase of the pattern. So a tuner is not needed to tune with the graphs as I tune exactly the same way but, the tuner is just a mechanical tune phase adjustment when the exit timing changes due to ambient temperature. In the morning I turn the tuner out and in the afternoon I turn he tuner in to keep it perfect phase with the optimal exit timing or tune. If you need any more questions answered feel free to ask.

 

[Long Range 338]

Tuners are being specifically questioned for effectiveness but I don't see that anybody has been asking for data about positive compensation. Is positive compensation then an accepted technique or is it being questioned as well?

 

[kthomas]

Unfortunately these two gentleman have felt the need to stress scientific methods mixed with insults when they do not know how I test and try to suggest that I am some kind of beginner and seem to think I owe them data and not just results. My methods of testing are held to scientific standards and to suggest they are not is just false. This video is not for proof , it is merely a tutorial on tuning and how tuners function with information from many years of testing . Moreover they seem to think that I am wrong by not heeding their suggestions. The equipment I use will test out well beyond what the radar is capable of and to suggest for me to go to some other to test is redundant. It appears they do not know the real limitations of what they are suggesting because they do not use the equipment on a regular basis as I do. I also might add that my equipment is equally as accurate as radar if not more. My systems can show point of impact at the target and the radar can not and gain BC measurements well beyond transonic when the radar can not. So a non dod style radar will only measure the velocity towards and away from the receiver within roughly 2500 yards with no point of impact indicated which does not help with data I need. I have camera systems that I record with as well and to keep certain records and have posted some of those records but that does not seem to be enough. My short ,mid, long and extreme range measurements have been held to exacting standards to determine exactly what is happening with barrel movements . Unfortunately there is no way to measure precise barrel movements other than graphs or ladder tests followed by multiple distance target confirmation with two different velocities.


As to your questions:
Quote: I believe you stated in the podcast that using a tuner is very similar to tuning a load thru a traditional reloading process if one were to take into account the muzzle oscillations. Did you stumble upon the graph style testing reloading processes or specifically testing tuners? What would you do different if you were going to use barrel timing without a tuner and just develop the best load?




Both with and without would be done exactly the same . I later modified ladder testing to my present version with graphs developing a standard spacing to have for a standard of lateral muzzle speed for comparative measurements, movement trends and point of impact verses velocity to gain extremely accurate measurements of barrel movements. At first the graphs were for standard tuning , and when I started to trying to find out what tuners do specifically the graphs were invaluable in seeing how the tuners moved the phase of the pattern. So a tuner is not needed to tune with the graphs as I tune exactly the same way but, the tuner is just a mechanical tune phase adjustment when the exit timing changes due to ambient temperature. In the morning I turn the tuner out and in the afternoon I turn he tuner in to keep it perfect phase with the optimal exit timing or tune. If you need any more questions answered feel free to ask.

Please don't mischaracterize my posts.

I'm not at all making any claims about how you do things on your own time, nor what testing you've done. Such speculation is a waste of my time. Though that methodology and data would be awesome to see.

I can only comment on what's been presented to us. And performing waterline tests like in post #38 simply cannot draw the conclusions that you are asking us to make.

So we can either turn this into a religion and unquestionably believe you, or be a skeptic.

I appreciate you attempting to share some knowledge, and please don't take offense to those of us not in the believer camp. With what's been presented so far, there's no real way of reconciling the claims being made with the evidence.

 

[kthomas]

Tuners are being specifically questioned for effectiveness but I don't see that anybody has been asking for data about positive compensation. Is positive compensation then an accepted technique or is it being questioned as well?

Personally, it's something I would like to see tested more to validate.

Most of our knowledge/ideas on barrel movements seems to be based on models performed decades ago.

It's a big underlying assumption behind a lot of tuner hypothesis'. It would be really interesting to see how the real world actually lines up with those models - and that new understanding would only help progressing tuners.

 

[timintx]

Tuners are being specifically questioned for effectiveness but I don't see that anybody has been asking for data about positive compensation. Is positive compensation then an accepted technique or is it being questioned as well?

They are both related to each other and is the reason that tuners work on some guns and not so much on others ..

 

[timintx]

Personally, it's something I would like to see tested more to validate.

Most of our knowledge/ideas on barrel movements seems to be based on models performed decades ago.

It's a big underlying assumption behind a lot of tuner hypothesis'. It would be really interesting to see how the real world actually lines up with those models - and that new understanding would only help progressing tuners.

Yea we got it . You say that same statement about almost every post for a year now . If you can contribute to the tuner with your testing then by all means please do so . But if you are going to repeat the same posts over and over , then that is not helping .. the intent is to help shooters adjust tuners , not to discuss your version of testing .