Tuner Data

[cameljockey230]

I think I’m still with you.

You not only want to launch the bullet as the muzzle is rising, but you also want to create a situation in which the muzzle is not rising too fast. That way, you have a larger window of “optimal” time to launch the bullet.

All this is still in service to launch slower bullets when the muzzle is pointed higher and faster bullets when the muzzle is pointed lower (in both situations the muzzle is rising). This way, they hopefully land near the same spot at a certain known distance.

Is this correct?

Winner winner chicken dinner!!!!!!!
Exactly correct.
On a rimfire rifle at 1054 fps we can compensate for 65 fps of extreme spread with a properly weighted and positioned tuner.
On a centerfire we are running 3 times that velocity.
Timntx is shooting multiple velocities to see how much he can co.pensate for using his arrangement.
This stuff has potential for military contracts so whenever you start a thread like this the various factions try and discredit anything posted or the actual shooters just dont understand the damped down wave.
This stuff is readily available to the masses online but as seen here most won't take the time to look anything up.
They prefer to read posts by guys who mean well but have never won a match then regurgitate it over and over again asking for data and statistics.
Most metals websites and online engineering videos show this stuff if you want to verify it.
The peer review is over a hundred years old and gets larger everyday.
Notice how only one of them left after I asked him to post his brass rat.
Anyways it's late we can continue monday

 

[carbonbased]

Winner winner chicken dinner!!!!!!!
Exactly correct.
On a rimfire rifle at 1054 fps we can compensate for 65 fps of extreme spread with a properly weighted and positioned tuner.
On a centerfire we are running 3 times that velocity.
Timntx is shooting multiple velocities to see how much he can co.pensate for using his arrangement.
This stuff has potential for military contracts so whenever you start a thread like this the various factions try and discredit anything posted or the actual shooters just dont understand the damped down wave.
This stuff is readily available to the masses online but as seen here most won't take the time to look anything up.
They prefer to read posts by guys who mean well but have never won a match then regurgitate it over and over again asking for data and statistics.
Most metals websites and online engineering videos show this stuff if you want to verify it.
The peer review is over a hundred years old and gets larger everyday.
Notice how only one of them left after I asked him to post his brass rat.
Anyways it's late we can continue monday

I’m just focused on helping you more clearly state what you hypothesize. I am trying to ignore what others think of you, and what you think of others.

This is where (I think) we’ve left off.

***​

SUMMARY​

A common problem in certain shooting sports that value extreme accuracy is that accuracy suffers due to the fact that no matter how carefully one reloads, individual bullet velocity and bullet B.C. will inevitably vary from shot to shot.

Below is a proposal using rifle tuners to help mitigate (but not wholly eliminate) these issues for targets at a known distance.

The method involves a well-made and adjusted tuner placed in front of the muzzle, a proper powder charge, and proper bullet selection all working in concert.

In short, the idea is to slow and flatten the barrel’s vibration amplitude so both slower and faster bullets exit the muzzle while the muzzle is traveling straight upwards. Faster bullets are timed to launch at a lower trajectory, and slower bullets are timed to launch at a higher trajectory. The two trajectories intersect at a known distance and thus, improve the shooter’s score by working with (instead of fighting against) the vagaries of bullet velocities and B.C.

DETAILED HYPOTHESIS​

I, @cameljockey230, hypothesize that tuners may work in the following manner:

1. Firstly, it is known that bullet velocity and bullet B.C. changes from shot to shot, even at the highest level of competition.
2. I posit that after a shot is fired, the barrel vibrates up and down before the bullet leaves the muzzle. Call this vertical vibration the third mode. Ignore any other vibrations for now.
3. A properly adjusted tuner that is attached in front of the muzzle slows the amplitude of the vibrating barrel, making the peaks and valleys of the vertical vibration broader and flatter.
4. (Will have to state hypothesis why a tuner in front of muzzle works better)
5. A broader and flatter vertical amplitude of the barrel helps accuracy in this way: One not only wants to launch the bullet as the muzzle is rising, but one also wants to create a situation in which the muzzle is not rising too fast. This way, there is a larger window of “optimal” bullet launch time.
6. The combination of a well-made and well-adjusted tuner, proper bullet selection, and an ideal powder charge will ideally result in:
   1. Slower bullets launching when the muzzle is pointed higher
   2. Faster bullets launching when the muzzle is pointed lower
7. It is critical to note that in both the faster & slower bullet situations the shooter must time the sequence so the muzzle is still rising. (method to be explained later i.e. bullet selection, powder charge, tuner settings, etc.)
8. This way, if weather conditions allow, the bullets’ trajectories will intersect very near the same spot on the target at a certain known distance.

***​

(Stuff to talk about: quality of rifle and shooter, barrel profile & material, and probable degree of improvement possible. Prob more stuff too)

 

[cameljockey230]

Don't worry about me I've been doing this for over 20 years as has timntx.
I am only here to share Intel when I have it.
Once we remove the deadwood and trolls then we can have serious discussions

 

[cameljockey230]

The Book is roughly 500 pages and was published over a decade ago.
This is only news here

 

[cameljockey230]

On your question 4
A gun barrel is just a cantilever beam with a node back from its end.
Take a fishing pole and shake it vigorously and you will setup what is called a standing wave. Several inches back from the tip the fishing pole will appear to be stationary. To move that point to the tip you need to lengthen the pole.
This is the same as backboring a sporter barrel.

 

[carbonbased]

On your question 4
A gun barrel is just a cantilever beam with a node back from its end.
Take a fishing pole and shake it vigorously and you will setup what is called a standing wave. Several inches back from the tip the fishing pole will appear to be stationary. To move that point to the tip you need to lengthen the pole.
This is the same as backboring a sporter barrel.

Hmmm interesting. While you were writing that, I updated other part of your hypothesis above. Will continue tomorrow and add to #4.

 

[brianf]

Posting for anyone interested. No particular goal. Just an interesting video.

Just catching up on the regular tuner argument lol

Not sure if I saw a response to this video?

@cameljockey230
@Rio Precision Gunworks

If this is a actual video which I’m guessing it is; not cgi etc

The barrel looks pretty damn still

Now we don’t know if the bore is changing shape etc but if there isn’t any “real” movement in the video then a tuner wouldn’t do much until after the bullet leaves…and that’s not the common argument.

Are there more videos that actually show a barrel whipping around before the bullet leaves?

If we have a wet noodle video…we’ll… then it really gets serious.

Academic arguments aside, if the barrel doesn’t move on camera or the movement is so small that it’s almost impossible to see or measure , then the effect of a tuner while possible is minute/very specific/ random and not worth arguing over lol

A picture is worth a “thousand posts” I’m my opinion.

 

[Tokay444]

......that's not a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL

He doesn’t know what science is or how it works. He’s made that much obvious.

 

[Tokay444]

But let's get back to tuners.
They dampen the upward moment of the barrel broadening the area under the curve.

Prove it.

 

[Tokay444]

Just catching up on the regular tuner argument lol

Not sure if I saw a response to this video?

@cameljockey230
@Rio Precision Gunworks

If this is a actual video which I’m guessing it is; not cgi etc

The barrel looks pretty damn still

Now we don’t know if the bore is changing shape etc but if there isn’t any “real” movement in the video then a tuner wouldn’t do much until after the bullet leaves…and that’s not the common argument.

Are there more videos that actually show a barrel whipping around before the bullet leaves?

If we have a wet noodle video…we’ll… then it really gets serious.

Academic arguments aside, if the barrel doesn’t move on camera or the movement is so small that it’s almost impossible to see or measure , then the effect of a tuner while possible is minute/very specific/ random and not worth arguing over lol

A picture is worth a “thousand posts” I’m my opinion.

And a video is worth a thousand pictures.

 

[kthomas]

Posting for anyone interested. No particular goal. Just an interesting video.

Really interesting video.

The muzzle doesn't appear to be moving at all. Any more details about this video?

Doesn't AB/Litz have high speed footage of a .338LM barrel firing?

 

[brianf]

Really interesting video.

The muzzle doesn't appear to be moving at all. Any more details about this video?

Doesn't AB/Litz have high speed footage of a .338LM barrel firing?

That’s kind of what I’m thinking.

Maybe fat barrel short actions don’t need a tuner or can’t be tuned

Or

Magnum with a longer barrel like 30” is long enough that if there is movement it gets there before the bullet leaves

…exactly why I reposted it

If people on either side have different videos or instrument measured data, we can still have a useful discussion

If this is the only reliable, clear, footage then the jury is out on how they work if they do and I’ll unfollow the thread

 

[kthomas]

That’s kind of what I’m thinking.

Maybe fat barrel short actions don’t need a tuner or can’t be tuned

Or

Magnum with a longer barrel like 30” is long enough that if there is movement it gets there before the bullet leaves

…exactly why I reposted it

If people on either side have different videos or instrument measured data, we can still have a useful discussion

If this is the only reliable, clear, footage then the jury is out on how they work if they do and I’ll unfollow the thread

This is the stuff that's interesting.

Ideas and hypothesis ' are cute and all - but what's been verified? What's been separated as fact from just an idea/hypothesis or fiction?

Ideas and hypothesis' are important - but all they are is an idea until proven/verified. We can read all the textbooks we want, but at some point we need to verify those ideas or move into the next one.

 

[carbonbased]

This is the stuff that's interesting.

Ideas and hypothesis ' are cute and all - but what's been verified? What's been separated as fact from just an idea/hypothesis or fiction?

Ideas and hypothesis' are important - but all they are is an idea until proven/verified. We can read all the textbooks we want, but at some point we need to verify those ideas or move into the next one.

All I’m driving towards is just trying to understand this particular tuner hypothesis.

Once there exists in this world a (somewhat) concise hypothesis about this proposed phenomenon, it will become easier for proponents to explain, and easier for the curious to try to replicate and test.

And I won’t have to puzzle my damn way through this stuff…I can just link others to it and go, “There you go, pal.” Plus it’ll be there when I forget how exactly it all went lol.

 

[kthomas]

All I’m driving towards is just trying to understand this particular tuner hypothesis.

Once there exists in this world a (somewhat) concise hypothesis about this proposed phenomenon, it will become easier for proponents to explain, and easier for the curious to try to replicate and test.

And I won’t have to puzzle my damn way through this stuff…I can just link others to it and go, “There you go, pal.” Plus it’ll be there when I forget how exactly it all went lol.

Oh I agree. I think you're asking good questions.

The first thing that needs to get established if the OP truly wants an answer to his question in the OP is to develop/present a testable hypothesis.

From there, all the variables that can influence the outcome need to be established, and a testing methodology can be developed.

The barrel videos are interesting, because the whole premise of any tuner hypothesis is the big assumption that the barrel is undergoing movement during the internal ballistics phase - if high speed cameras and other devices demonstrate that this isn't actually the case, then all tuner hypothesis' are dead on arrival.

 

[timintx]

Oh I agree. I think you're asking good questions.

The first thing that needs to get established if the OP truly wants an answer to his question in the OP is to develop/present a testable hypothesis.

From there, all the variables that can influence the outcome need to be established, and a testing methodology can be developed.

The barrel videos are interesting, because the whole premise of any tuner hypothesis is the big assumption that the barrel is undergoing movement during the internal ballistics phase - if high speed cameras and other devices demonstrate that this isn't actually the case, then all tuner hypothesis' are dead on arrival.

Lol that is funny right there . Actually no the video appears to be doctored . And again you can not visually see a .002 angle change in any video . Physically the gun will move rearward just from recoil force which indicates it is clamped in a hard jig restricting any movement. And lastly is the biggie , no gasses are exiting before the bullet . Videos will not measure angular measurements to any real degree. Not even close to proof of anything lol.

 

[kthomas]

Lol that is funny right there . Actually no the video appears to be doctored . And again you can not visually see a .002 angle change in any video . Physically the gun will move rearward just from recoil force which indicates it is clamped in a hard jig restricting any movement. And lastly is the biggie , no gasses are exiting before the bullet . Videos will not measure angular measurements to any real degree. Not even close to proof of anything lol.

I'm not making claims that this video is "proof" for any conclusions.

But using tools to measure what the barrel is ACTUALLY doing during the internal ballistics sequence would be pretty helpful to establish or dispel assumptions that are currently being made in those regards.

High speed cameras could be one such tool, and I'm sure there are others that could map barrel movements to a very precise level over such a short time period.

 

[timintx]

I'm not making claims that this video is "proof" for any conclusions.

But using tools to measure what the barrel is ACTUALLY doing during the internal ballistics sequence would be pretty helpful to establish or dispel assumptions that are currently being made in those regards.

High speed cameras could be one such tool, and I'm sure there are others that could map barrel movements to a very precise level over such a short time period.

Uh. No cameras can not . It is funny all of the tools you claim will not measure barrel movements .

 

[kthomas]

Uh. No cameras can not . It is funny all of the tools you claim will not measure barrel movements .

I'm not making definitive statements about what tools should be used to take such measurements. In fact, I was pretty ambiguous and left it open.

 

[Tokay444]

Uh. No cameras can not . It is funny all of the tools you claim will not measure barrel movements .

Do you have any tools that prove they do?

 

[timintx]

Do you have any tools that prove they do?

The target . It is pretty simple .

 

[Tokay444]

I shoot tiny groups without a tuner. Is that irrefutable evidence that they DON’T work?
There’s a 40 page thread of Mike from Tacops doing the same…
The scientific method really isn't all that hard either, but it seems to have eluded you both.

 

[kthomas]

The target . It is pretty simple .

It's not though, because there are a plethora of factors influencing the precision and POI that aren't being accounted for and isolated.

Scientifically, this is completely flawed.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Uh. No cameras can not . It is funny all of the tools you claim will not measure barrel movements .

Mr. Lynn claimed earlier in the thread that if you take a high speed camera, you will see the barrel move vertically before the bullet exits.

So, in this thread, he is the only person who has made claims a video can capture the movement.

I suggest you guys sit down and decide what can and can't be measured before you pick and choose what you like and don't like after the fact.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Lol that is funny right there . Actually no the video appears to be doctored . And again you can not visually see a .002 angle change in any video . Physically the gun will move rearward just from recoil force which indicates it is clamped in a hard jig restricting any movement. And lastly is the biggie , no gasses are exiting before the bullet . Videos will not measure angular measurements to any real degree. Not even close to proof of anything lol.

As per usual, anything that doesn't fit your narrative, you claim to be fraud. The only thing added to the video were some reference lines.

Since this was expected, here is another video with the rearward movement and gas escaping before bullet exit.


It's not a yellow legal pad after 20 years of research level of professional I know, but it'll have to do.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Again, I'm making no claims what is or isn't measurable. Nor what I believe the video does or does not show.

I'm just amused when everyone has a different theory on how tuners work and what can be measured by what. And subsequently all the inconsistent statements after something is posted that is at odds with those theories and statements.

 

[brianf]

As per usual, anything that doesn't fit your narrative, you claim to be fraud. The only thing added to the video were some reference lines.

Since this was expected, here is another video with the rearward movement and gas escaping before bullet exit.


It's not a yellow legal pad after 20 years of research level of professional I know, but it'll have to do.

Because the first video has caused some questions..

I’ll just re post the same questions.

Thanks


Just catching up on the regular tuner argument lol

Not sure if I saw a response to this video?

@cameljockey230
@Rio Precision Gunworks

If this is a actual video which I’m guessing it is; not cgi etc

The barrel looks pretty damn still

Now we don’t know if the bore is changing shape etc but if there isn’t any “real” movement in the video then a tuner wouldn’t do much until after the bullet leaves…and that’s not the common argument.

Are there more videos that actually show a barrel whipping around before the bullet leaves?

If we have a wet noodle video…we’ll… then it really gets serious.

Academic arguments aside, if the barrel doesn’t move on camera or the movement is so small that it’s almost impossible to see or measure , then the effect of a tuner while possible is minute/very specific/ random and not worth arguing over lol

A picture is worth a “thousand posts” I’m my opinion.

 

[Tokay444]

All you're likely to see the remainder of the thread is, "trust me bro".

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Video is from publicly available videos.

These two were from Applied Ballistics (queue up the "they are doctored to steal military contracts" claim).

All I did was add some reference lines and provide some slower frame by frame.

 

[kthomas]

Because the first video has caused some questions..

I’ll just re post the same questions.

Thanks


Just catching up on the regular tuner argument lol

Not sure if I saw a response to this video?

@cameljockey230
@Rio Precision Gunworks

If this is a actual video which I’m guessing it is; not cgi etc

The barrel looks pretty damn still

Now we don’t know if the bore is changing shape etc but if there isn’t any “real” movement in the video then a tuner wouldn’t do much until after the bullet leaves…and that’s not the common argument.

Are there more videos that actually show a barrel whipping around before the bullet leaves?

If we have a wet noodle video…we’ll… then it really gets serious.

Academic arguments aside, if the barrel doesn’t move on camera or the movement is so small that it’s almost impossible to see or measure , then the effect of a tuner while possible is minute/very specific/ random and not worth arguing over lol

A picture is worth a “thousand posts” I’m my opinion.

And if a barrel is moving so minimally that a high speed camera can't measure that movement - how is adding a shooter to the equation and shooting targets going to resolve and demonstrate that difference in barrel movement?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

All you're likely to see the remainder of the thread is, "trust me bro".

These threads are what I would picture Ashton Kutcher punking research scientists with.

 

[cameljockey230]

Because the first video has caused some questions..

I’ll just re post the same questions.

Thanks


Just catching up on the regular tuner argument lol

Not sure if I saw a response to this video?

@cameljockey230
@Rio Precision Gunworks

If this is a actual video which I’m guessing it is; not cgi etc

The barrel looks pretty damn still

Now we don’t know if the bore is changing shape etc but if there isn’t any “real” movement in the video then a tuner wouldn’t do much until after the bullet leaves…and that’s not the common argument.

Are there more videos that actually show a barrel whipping around before the bullet leaves?

If we have a wet noodle video…we’ll… then it really gets serious.

Academic arguments aside, if the barrel doesn’t move on camera or the movement is so small that it’s almost impossible to see or measure , then the effect of a tuner while possible is minute/very specific/ random and not worth arguing over lol

A picture is worth a “thousand posts” I’m my opinion.

You can see finite element analysis of the many waveshapes of a barrel being fired on Varmint Al's website.
You won't do that but those actually interested and not trolling can also do it.
It will show what The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory engineer can demonstrate.

 

[cameljockey230]

These threads are what I would picture Ashton Kutcher punking research scientists with.

We have never met but I am going to take a Crack at what I would find at Rio.
30-40 pounds overweight and working In a small shop shed behind your residence at night after work with virtually no match competition experience at all?

 

[timintx]

These threads are what I would picture Ashton Kutcher punking research scientists with.

You guys need to watch the video and try what I speak of instead of whining about proof and acting like you are the only guys with statistical knowledge . It is obvious rio and d Thomas have not watched it .

 

[cameljockey230]

And if a barrel is moving so minimally that a high speed camera can't measure that movement - how is adding a shooter to the equation and shooting targets going to resolve and demonstrate that difference in barrel movement?

Grab a barrel in a safe area while someone fires the gun.
Report back your real world findings.

 

[kthomas]

You can see finite element analysis of the many waveshapes of a barrel being fired on Varmint Al's website.
You won't do that but those actually interested and not trolling can also do it.
It will show what The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory engineer can demonstrate.

These are models and assumptions.

It's a bit concerning that you don't understand all the limitations behind such.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

You guys need to watch the video and try what I speak of instead of whining about proof and acting like you are the only guys with statistical knowledge . It is obvious rio and d Thomas have not watched it .

Oh we aren't the only ones with "statistical knowledge".......you just have zero education or experience with any type of actual testing which would hold up to any rigorous review.

In 20 years of posting, you've provided a few excel sheets, a rifle with a pencil taped to the butt, and a yellow legal pad on a podcast. Oh and two patents that no one uses.


Otherwise, you'd have put this all to rest long ago with actual data and proved Litz and the rest of the scientific community wrong.

 

[kthomas]

Oh we aren't the only ones with "statistical knowledge".......you just have zero education or experience with any type of actual testing which would hold up to any rigorous review.

In 20 years of posting, you've provided a few excel sheets, a rifle with a pencil taped to the butt, and a yellow legal pad on a podcast. Oh and two patents that no one uses.


Otherwise, you'd have put this all to rest long ago with actual data and proved Litz and the rest of the scientific community wrong.

And this is the divide between the two camps.

The people making the claims about tuners seemingly have no idea how to properly get to such a conclusion.

The other camp, which isn't anti-tuner btw, is just asking how they came to that conclusion. What's the specific testable hypothesis? What are all the variables? What sort of scientific testing was conducted to verify your claims?

 

[cameljockey230]

These are models and assumptions.

It's a bit concerning that you don't understand all the limitations behind such.

Actually your most likely very young and haven't been around guns all that much so I don't want to discourage you if you actually shoot.
BUT
Anybody here can click on your name and look at your thousands of posts.
Don't worry that only 10 pages come up because after you read page 10 it allows you to view kthomas older posts as well.
NOW
If someone was to do that what would they actually see?
Paraphrasing here they would see you responding in all tuner threads with exactly the same mantra.
We need statistics we need data and in each and every case it has been linked or provided.
We will then see your next rant that there multiple variables not taken into account by the engineers doing the testing at some of the most prestigious national laboratories on planet earth.
We will then see where your tuner testing didn't show you anything while most here don't believe you even own a tuner.
Next we will see that lowlights whomever that is used a tuner and you where as giddy as a school girl over it.
How am I doing so far?

 

[cameljockey230]

And this is the divide between the two camps.

The people making the claims about tuners seemingly have no idea how to properly get to such a conclusion.

The other camp, which isn't anti-tuner btw, is just asking how they came to that conclusion. What's the specific testable hypothesis? What are all the variables? What sort of scientific testing was conducted to verify your claims?

You are probably the most disingenuous poster on this forum and I have only read 3 years of your comments so far.

 

[kthomas]

Actually your most likely very young and haven't been around guns all that much so I don't want to discourage you if you actually shoot.
BUT
Anybody here can click on your name and look at your thousands of posts.
Don't worry that only 10 pages come up because after you read page 10 it allows you to view kthomas older posts as well.
NOW
If someone was to do that what would they actually see?
Paraphrasing here they would see you responding in all tuner threads with exactly the same mantra.
We need statistics we need data and in each and every case it has been linked or provided.
We will then see your next rant that there multiple variables not taken into account by the engineers doing the testing at some of the most prestigious national laboratories on planet earth.
We will then see where your tuner testing didn't show you anything while most here don't believe you even own a tuner.
Next we will see that lowlights whomever that is used a tuner and you where as giddy as a school girl over it.
How am I doing so far?

Why do you keep making this about me

If you want to convince people in this argument, you need to do the following:

- Develop a specific testable hypothesis
- Identify all the variables
- Design a test using the scientific method to test your hypothesis'
- Share it and let others replicate it

Attacking and mocking others with your condescending remarks isn't turning anyone that's skeptical of your claims into believers.

 

[cameljockey230]

Oh we aren't the only ones with "statistical knowledge".......you just have zero education or experience with any type of actual testing which would hold up to any rigorous review.

In 20 years of posting, you've provided a few excel sheets, a rifle with a pencil taped to the butt, and a yellow legal pad on a podcast. Oh and two patents that no one uses.


Otherwise, you'd have put this all to rest long ago with actual data and proved Litz and the rest of the scientific community wrong.

Rio
Can you list the rest of the scientific community for us?
I think every shooter knows of harold vaughn and Sandia National laboratory.
I think every ri.fire shooter worldwide knows of Bill Calfee even the confused ones such as yourself.
I think most Americans with the exception of kthomas and yourself trust the finite element analysis performed at the Livermore National Laboratoty by Al Harrell.

I think some shooters might know about government ammo contracts and who would like to keep them. Notice I didn't me tion any names?

 

[cameljockey230]

Why do you keep making this about me

If you want to convince people in this argument, you need to do the following:

- Develop a specific testable hypothesis
- Identify all the variables
- Design a test using the scientific method to test your hypothesis'
- Share it and let others replicate it

Attacking and mocking others with your condescending remarks isn't turning anyone that's skeptical of your claims into believers.

Actually we had led you to that drinking hole many many times now but we can't get you to drink

 

[timintx]

It's not though, because there are a plethora of factors influencing the precision and POI that aren't being accounted for and isolated.

Scientifically, this is completely flawed.

Nope , that just you , not me .

 

[timintx]

Oh we aren't the only ones with "statistical knowledge".......you just have zero education or experience with any type of actual testing which would hold up to any rigorous review.

In 20 years of posting, you've provided a few excel sheets, a rifle with a pencil taped to the butt, and a yellow legal pad on a podcast. Oh and two patents that no one uses.


Otherwise, you'd have put this all to rest long ago with actual data and proved Litz and the rest of the scientific community wrong.

Wrong again Rio, I have already proved many times what I can do on target in front of military and civilian shooters . And everyday more and more shooters are doing what I can demonstrate simply because that watched the video.The big difference between me and you is I can do what I say , you can only speculate and say it was in inconclusive lol.

 

[brianf]

You can see finite element analysis of the many waveshapes of a barrel being fired on Varmint Al's website.
You won't do that but those actually interested and not trolling can also do it.
It will show what The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory engineer can demonstrate.

Problem with Al is that it’s all FEA.
I’ve paid for FEA and then had actual results differ.

Which is great for a theory but there needs to be experimental data etc.

That’s why I like the video..very simple

 

[cameljockey230]

Nope , that just you , not me .

I looked up 3 years of tuner posts by kthomas and that is his common theme.

Here is another one.Harold Vaughn

The author, who spent his career studying trajectories of nuclear missles and artillery shells, wrote this work after becoming dissatisfied with the accuracy of commercial rifles. Through years of research, he examined a variety of gunsmithing and handloading issues in search of the ultimate in rifle accuracy, including barrel-receiver joint motion, barrel vibration and rigidity, chamber and throat design, case neck tension, and bullet imbalance.

That guy working on this stuff for years at Sandia National Laboratory didn't test it right

 

[timintx]

Oh we aren't the only ones with "statistical knowledge".......you just have zero education or experience with any type of actual testing which would hold up to any rigorous review.

In 20 years of posting, you've provided a few excel sheets, a rifle with a pencil taped to the butt, and a yellow legal pad on a podcast. Oh and two patents that no one uses.


Otherwise, you'd have put this all to rest long ago with actual data and proved Litz and the rest of the scientific community wrong.

Wrong again Rio, I offered AB 1000.00 yes I would pay them to prove what I do . I have already proved many times what I can do on target in front of military and civilian shooters . And everyday more and more shooters are doing what I can demonstrate simply because that watched the video.The big difference between me and you is I can do what I say , you can only speculate and say it was in inconclusive lol

 

[kthomas]

Wrong again Rio, I have already proved many times what I can do on target in front of military and civilian shooters . And everyday more and more shooters are doing what I can demonstrate simply because that watched the video.The big difference between me and you is I can do what I say , you can only speculate and say it was in inclusive lol.

Many people, including shooters of prestigious backgrounds, believed for years in the "Satterlee method" for reloading.

Every day shooters perform "tests" and convince themselves of certain conclusions - but that doesn't mean those conclusions actually exist. It's easy to come to flawed conclusions if your methodology and analysis is flawed - which is the vast majority of shooters.

 

[cameljockey230]

Problem with Al is that it’s all FEA.
I’ve paid for FEA and then had actual results differ.

Which is great for a theory but there needs to be experimental data etc.

That’s why I like the video..very simple

Yes the engineers at Lawrence Livermore national laboratory are in this giant conspiracy to spread false data and statistics about tuners.
Let us all get some tinfoil hats.