Tuner Data

[cameljockey230]

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.

Yes the engineers at two of the most prestigious trajectory laboratories on planet earth are out to lie about tuners.
Sandia national laboratory and Lawrence Livermore you should be ashamed of yourselves.
And by the way you never responded to me paraphrasing 3 years of your posts.

 

[cameljockey230]

Kthomas does lowlight use a tuner?
What did you tell him about tuners?
I can post it for ya

 

[kthomas]

Yes the engineers at two of the most prestigious trajectory laboratories on planet earth are out to lie about tuners.
Sandia national laboratory and Lawrence Livermore you should be ashamed of yourselves.
And by the way you never responded to me paraphrasing 3 years of your posts.

No one is questioning Vaughn's intelligence, knowledge or professional background. And not a single person here has stated or inferred that Vaugh is lying about tuners.

Most of his work was conducted in the theoretical realm. How much of it has been actually verified through scientific testing?

Models are great, but they are imperfect and generally full of assumptions. They can't always predict complex systems. And they need to be verified.

 

[cameljockey230]

No one is questioning Vaughn's intelligence, knowledge or professional background. And not a single person here has stated or inferred that Vaugh is lying about tuners.

Most of his work was conducted in the theoretical realm. How much of it has been actually verified through scientific testing?

Models are great, but they are imperfect and generally full of assumptions. They can't always predict complex systems. And they need to be verified.

The fact that you can't answer your own question and his work is free and online answers many a question about you

 

[timintx]

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.

Fact of the matter it works , every time , every demo I did this year , every time I test . So again you are just speculating . I am not.

 

[kthomas]

Fact of the matter it works , every time , every demo I did this year , every time I test . So again you are just speculating . I am not.

The Satterlee Method "works" every time anyone tries it as well.

Doesn't mean that the conclusions you are making are correct ones.

 

[JBoomhauer]

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

Holy fuck. This is what you do with retirement?!? LOL

 

[timintx]

The Satterlee Method "works" every time anyone tries it as well.

Doesn't mean that the conclusions you are making are correct ones.

When the velocity variance is large snd it shoots dots at 1800 yards yes .

 

[kthomas]

When the velocity variance is large snd it shoots dots at 1800 yards yes .

There are many, many variables that are contributing to that outcome.

Great, you believe in your process. I'm not saying that it doesn't work. But the lack of scientific methodology is just not a convincing argument for those that understand testing.

 

[timintx]

There are many, many variables that are contributing to that outcome.

Great, you believe in your process. I'm not saying that it doesn't work. But the lack of scientific methodology is just not a convincing argument for those that understand testing.

That’s just it there is no lack of scientific methods . You just keep saying there is . You have done nothing but say it don’t work. And constantly insult my methods . Your not fooling any one. Again I know what works and you are speculating . The military sure was satisfied with my scientific methods . That’s all that matters.

 

[cameljockey230]

Holy fuck. This is what you do with retirement?!? LOL

Who is retired?

 

[cameljockey230]

There are many, many variables that are contributing to that outcome.

Great, you believe in your process. I'm not saying that it doesn't work. But the lack of scientific methodology is just not a convincing argument for those that understand testing.

So you understand testing but Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory doesn't?

 

[JBoomhauer]

Who is retired?

Sorry, I had made an assumption based on things you have posted in here.

You keep mentioning things like rimfire, rimfire benchrest ( In a thread that you started in an ELR section) books that came out a long ass time ago, keep referencing Varmint Al which hasnt been updated since 2015, having the time to read 3 years of somebody’s posts, and seem unable to answer a question without asking another question.

 

[Ebar48]

Does anyone have any data to refute the thousands of rounds AB shot showing that tuners do not have a statistically significant effect on various rifles including rimfire and CF? This is the only statistically significant test that was actually conducted using the scientific method that I know of. “The target is my proof” doesn’t prove that tuners work. I’m here with an open mind as well, but making a claim about positive compensation with no actual data to back it up does nothing to make a point.

 

[cameljockey230]

Sorry, I had made an assumption based on things you have posted in here.

You keep mentioning things like rimfire, rimfire benchrest ( In a thread that you started in an ELR section) books that came out a long ass time ago, keep referencing Varmint Al which hasnt been updated since 2015, having the time to read 3 years of somebody’s posts, and seem unable to answer a question without asking another question.

I'm not retired and yes I read alot.
The stuff I am referring to is indeed old news everywhere but here apparently

 

[brianf]

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.

Absolutely not.

But are suggesting that we take one persons web page as gospel?

Are we not supposed to ask fir actual field trials and data?

Can he be wrong in his calculations?

Or is he the be all and end all of simulations from 10 years ago.

If engineers were always right we wouldn’t need test flights… and every nasa and military product would work first time out which we know is not the case.

Would you put your kids in a jet without boring testing it? Of course not.

Don’t get twisted, I wish tuners were a easy button to gain .2 on groups, but from everything posted and read off the hide it’s anything but.

And even the ones who agree they work have different theories how/why and how to adjust.

Side note, and ideas or comments on the video?

Thanks

 

[cameljockey230]

Does anyone have any data to refute the thousands of rounds AB shot showing that tuners do not have a statistically significant effect on various rifles including rimfire and CF? This is the only statistically significant test that was actually conducted using the scientific method that I know of. “The target is my proof” doesn’t prove that tuners work. I’m here with an open mind as well, but making a claim about positive compensation with no actual data to back it up does nothing to make a point.

You mean the test where they shot 25 round aggregates with a gun shooting 1+ inch groups at 50 yards that didn't repeat?
You can read the 500 page book Team Calfee The Book which refutes it all.
And Bryan Litz was posting on benchrest central the entire time this debate was hashed out and never had a word to say. Why not?
Does he have or want a military ammo contract?
If tuners work what happens to any contract he may or may not have?

 

[cameljockey230]

Absolutely not.

But are suggesting that we take one persons web page as gospel?

Are we not supposed to ask fir actual field trials and data?

Can he be wrong in his calculations?

Or is he the be all and end all of simulations from 10 years ago.

If engineers were always right we wouldn’t need test flights… and every nasa and military product would work first time out which we know is not the case.

Would you put your kids in a jet without boring testing it? Of course not.

Don’t get twisted, I wish tuners were a easy button to gain .2 on groups, but from everything posted and read off the hide it’s anything but.

And even the ones who agree they work have different theories how/why and how to adjust.

Side note, and ideas or comments on the video?

Thanks

Time for you to read what's posted on a more accu racy minded forum.
And yes I would get on a jet it's first time out but only if it was built by those same engineers and not the lowest bidder trying to make money off of inferior parts and cheap labor

 

[brianf]

Does anyone have any data to refute the thousands of rounds AB shot showing that tuners do not have a statistically significant effect on various rifles including rimfire and CF? This is the only statistically significant test that was actually conducted using the scientific method that I know of. “The target is my proof” doesn’t prove that tuners work. I’m here with an open mind as well, but making a claim about positive compensation with no actual data to back it up does nothing to make a point.

No and that’s the whole damn problem!

Im numbers guy, that’s all that counts when running a company. Gut calls means there is a lack of data or discipline to process. And when employee review time comes your reviewed on measurables not gut calls.

If everyone who says tuners work or don’t work actually had data, this back and forth BS would be settled by a few spreadsheets.

The math and numbers line up over a few thousand rounds or it doesn’t.

All joking aside if my R&D personnel/department came to a meeting with the lack of data shown about tuners they wouldn’t have a job.

Yet I still want them to work lol

 

[cameljockey230]

No and that’s the whole damn problem!

Im numbers guy, that’s all that counts when running a company. Gut calls means there is a lack of data or discipline to process. And when employee review time comes your reviewed on measurables not gut calls.

If everyone who says tuners work or don’t work actually had data, this back and forth BS would be settled by a few spreadsheets.

The math and numbers line up over a few thousand rounds or it doesn’t.

All joking aside if my R&D personnel/department came to a meeting with the lack of data shown about tuners they wouldn’t have a job.

Yet I still want them to work lol

The problem here is its all already been done in rimfire and benchrest 20 years ago.
You guys are 20 years behind the times.
Your stuck with the sound barrier while the rest of the world has moved past it decades ago and your not willing to read what has already been hashed out.
You want your employees to come to a meeting and explain how a ball point pen works and why a wheel is round and not square then wonder why your company is suffering

 

[brianf]

Time for you to read what's posted on a more accu racy minded forum.
And yes I would get on a jet it's first time out but only if it was built by those same engineers and not the lowest bidder trying to make money off of inferior parts and cheap labor

I’m sorry but your taking this thread personal and it’s warping your views or opinions.

I suggest you regroup and come back strong .

 

[cameljockey230]

I’m sorry but your taking this thread personal and it’s warping your views or opinions.

I suggest you regroup and come back string.

This isn't upsetting or warping my views as I did this 23 years ago for over 2 years straight.
I actually feel sorry for the r-d team working for you.
It's hard to develop product with a boss who is living 20 years in the past and refuses to read up on the subject.

 

[brianf]

This isn't upsetting or warping my views as I did this 23 years ago for over 2 years straight.
I actually feel sorry for the r-d team working for you.
It's hard to develop product with a boss who is living 20 years in the past and refuses to read up on the subject.

Anyone who says they will fly on a plane with out test flights isnt thinking clearly.

As for day jobs, I suggest we leave that alone

 

[kthomas]

That’s just it there is no lack of scientific methods . You just keep saying there is . You have done nothing but say it don’t work. And constantly insult my methods . Your not fooling any one. Again I know what works and you are speculating . The military sure was satisfied with my scientific methods . That’s all that matters.

First off, none of what I'm saying is meant to be an insult to you. Nor am I saying that it doesn't work.

However, there's no way to reconcile your conclusions with the very limited data and methodology that's been posted. There's so many variables in play that aren't being controlled & isolation, and so many assumptions that haven't been proven, that there's no way with what's been presented that a conclusion can be made. Maybe they "work" - I'm sure tuners do in some fashion. I think it's great that people like you are playing with this stuff, but there's still apparently a lot of work to be done.

And that's great that you are having the results you want, I'm happy for you. What is the military doing with the tests that you've shown them?

 

[cameljockey230]

We want to congratulate Bryan Litz and his talented team at Applied Ballistics LLC. We have followed Bryan’s career as a bullet designer, ballistician, author, software product developer, and ELR pioneer. His team leads the world in advancing the science of long range shooting. And it looks like all the hard work has paid off — Applied Ballistics has secured a major contract to develop extreme long-range sniper capability for the U.S. Military.

Applied Ballistics LLC, a Michigan-based tech company, has been awarded a $1,300,000 contract by the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO) to execute Phase 1 of the Extreme Sniper Strike Operations (ESSO) project.

Phase 1 of the ESSO project is focused on advancing the predictive capabilities of modern ballistic solvers by performing Doppler radar measurement and modeling of current service rounds at Extreme Long Range (ELR) as a function of gyroscopic stability, and refining the models of secondary ballistic effects such as spin rate decay and spin drift at ELR. Phase 1 will conclude with the ballistic modeling enhancements being integrated into the existing Applied Ballistics ecosystem of electronic devices which are currently deployed by numerous U.S. and allied armed forces around the world. Phase 1 is scheduled for completion in late 2018.

Phase 2 of the ESSO project is a potential follow on (2019) that focuses on the development and fielding of an advanced ELR sniper rifle system designed to drastically increase first-round hit probability at ELR on man-sized targets. The Applied Ballistics Weapons Division is currently conducting research and development on weapons platforms, as well as new cartridge and bullet options, that will maximize ELR ballistic performance from lightweight, practical, magazine-fed systems.


What happens to a contract like this if cheap ammo and a tuner would produce the same or better results?

 

[Ebar48]

The problem here is its all already been done in rimfire and benchrest 20 years ago.
You guys are 20 years behind the times.
Your stuck with the sound barrier while the rest of the world has moved past it decades ago and your not willing to read what has already been hashed out.
You want your employees to come to a meeting and explain how a ball point pen works and why a wheel is round and not square then wonder why your company is suffering

If this was settled 20 years ago, how come it couldn’t be repeated by AB in 900 rounds in 22LR and almost a thousand rounds in multiple F-TR rifles. I too want tuners to work, and I’m basically begging someone to prove to me they do. So much playful banter in this thread but no actual data.

And to be fair, if you say that you don’t have the data, but you BELIEVE they work that’s fair. I’ll accept that, but if there is any actual data please share it.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Claim: You set and forget tuner. Also the proof is in all the people winning.

Counter: here's a video of the 2022 Benchrest shooter of the year showing data that rifles with a tuner lose tune with change in pressure (remember, the proof is the winning players).

Response: no.....thats wrong.


Claim: If you use a high speed camera you will see the barrel moving vertically before the bullet exits

Counter: here's a high speed video

Response: that video must be fake. There should be more rear movement and gas before the bullet exits

Counter: funny you should say that, here's a video that shows all that

Response: .......well, you can't see it in a camera anyway


Claim: I've done 20 years of testing

Response: you literally have only ever posted biased excel sheets, a picture of a rifle with a pencil taped to it, and when you went on one of the biggest podcasts in the industry.....you just moved your hands in circles and drew some stick figure like lines on a piece of paper

Counter: nuh uh.....I've done all these demos for people who never talk about it and it works all the time....every time. Trust me.


Claim: I have tons of test data

Response: you refuse to post said data, and a rocket scientist with a budge of more than you make in a lifetime has data that says you're likely wrong

Counter: the rocket scientist is wrong. Trust me brah





The only thing I've been able to get out of this thread is that Brian Litz must have been sick on "tape a pencil to the butt of the rifle" day when he was studying to be a rocket scientist.

 

[kthomas]

We want to congratulate Bryan Litz and his talented team at Applied Ballistics LLC. We have followed Bryan’s career as a bullet designer, ballistician, author, software product developer, and ELR pioneer. His team leads the world in advancing the science of long range shooting. And it looks like all the hard work has paid off — Applied Ballistics has secured a major contract to develop extreme long-range sniper capability for the U.S. Military.

Applied Ballistics LLC, a Michigan-based tech company, has been awarded a $1,300,000 contract by the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO) to execute Phase 1 of the Extreme Sniper Strike Operations (ESSO) project.

Phase 1 of the ESSO project is focused on advancing the predictive capabilities of modern ballistic solvers by performing Doppler radar measurement and modeling of current service rounds at Extreme Long Range (ELR) as a function of gyroscopic stability, and refining the models of secondary ballistic effects such as spin rate decay and spin drift at ELR. Phase 1 will conclude with the ballistic modeling enhancements being integrated into the existing Applied Ballistics ecosystem of electronic devices which are currently deployed by numerous U.S. and allied armed forces around the world. Phase 1 is scheduled for completion in late 2018.

Phase 2 of the ESSO project is a potential follow on (2019) that focuses on the development and fielding of an advanced ELR sniper rifle system designed to drastically increase first-round hit probability at ELR on man-sized targets. The Applied Ballistics Weapons Division is currently conducting research and development on weapons platforms, as well as new cartridge and bullet options, that will maximize ELR ballistic performance from lightweight, practical, magazine-fed systems.


What happens to a contract like this if cheap ammo and a tuner would produce the same or better results?

Why wouldn't AB utilize a tuner in their system if it was beneficial?

From almost everything I've read (minus the PRS crowd and tuners), tuners require good (great) ammo to be really beneficial and optimized - at least that's what those from the BR and F-class disciplines state. These disciplines never suggest that you should start with bad ammo and use a tuner to get slightly better results.

If AB could use a tuner to make their system even better - there would be zero reason for them not to.

 

[Ebar48]

We want to congratulate Bryan Litz and his talented team at Applied Ballistics LLC. We have followed Bryan’s career as a bullet designer, ballistician, author, software product developer, and ELR pioneer. His team leads the world in advancing the science of long range shooting. And it looks like all the hard work has paid off — Applied Ballistics has secured a major contract to develop extreme long-range sniper capability for the U.S. Military.

Applied Ballistics LLC, a Michigan-based tech company, has been awarded a $1,300,000 contract by the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO) to execute Phase 1 of the Extreme Sniper Strike Operations (ESSO) project.

Phase 1 of the ESSO project is focused on advancing the predictive capabilities of modern ballistic solvers by performing Doppler radar measurement and modeling of current service rounds at Extreme Long Range (ELR) as a function of gyroscopic stability, and refining the models of secondary ballistic effects such as spin rate decay and spin drift at ELR. Phase 1 will conclude with the ballistic modeling enhancements being integrated into the existing Applied Ballistics ecosystem of electronic devices which are currently deployed by numerous U.S. and allied armed forces around the world. Phase 1 is scheduled for completion in late 2018.

Phase 2 of the ESSO project is a potential follow on (2019) that focuses on the development and fielding of an advanced ELR sniper rifle system designed to drastically increase first-round hit probability at ELR on man-sized targets. The Applied Ballistics Weapons Division is currently conducting research and development on weapons platforms, as well as new cartridge and bullet options, that will maximize ELR ballistic performance from lightweight, practical, magazine-fed systems.


What happens to a contract like this if cheap ammo and a tuner would produce the same or better results?

Complete conjecture

 

[brianf]

We want to congratulate Bryan Litz and his talented team at Applied Ballistics LLC. We have followed Bryan’s career as a bullet designer, ballistician, author, software product developer, and ELR pioneer. His team leads the world in advancing the science of long range shooting. And it looks like all the hard work has paid off — Applied Ballistics has secured a major contract to develop extreme long-range sniper capability for the U.S. Military.

Applied Ballistics LLC, a Michigan-based tech company, has been awarded a $1,300,000 contract by the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO) to execute Phase 1 of the Extreme Sniper Strike Operations (ESSO) project.

Phase 1 of the ESSO project is focused on advancing the predictive capabilities of modern ballistic solvers by performing Doppler radar measurement and modeling of current service rounds at Extreme Long Range (ELR) as a function of gyroscopic stability, and refining the models of secondary ballistic effects such as spin rate decay and spin drift at ELR. Phase 1 will conclude with the ballistic modeling enhancements being integrated into the existing Applied Ballistics ecosystem of electronic devices which are currently deployed by numerous U.S. and allied armed forces around the world. Phase 1 is scheduled for completion in late 2018.

Phase 2 of the ESSO project is a potential follow on (2019) that focuses on the development and fielding of an advanced ELR sniper rifle system designed to drastically increase first-round hit probability at ELR on man-sized targets. The Applied Ballistics Weapons Division is currently conducting research and development on weapons platforms, as well as new cartridge and bullet options, that will maximize ELR ballistic performance from lightweight, practical, magazine-fed systems.


What happens to a contract like this if cheap ammo and a tuner would produce the same or better results?

And you suggest I take off my tin foil hat.

If tuners “worked” he would just add to his current contract 2 years from now and take more money because he can add a tuner.

If he’s smart enough to hide tuners he’s smart enough to fence them again down the road…so why would he publish contradicting data?

Again I suggest you calm down and think clearly.

 

[Tokay444]

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.

FEA is still theoretical. Everything processed through FEA still needs to be proven with real world testing. Other than, “trust me bro”, is there any actual real world testing?

 

[cameljockey230]

If this was settled 20 years ago, how come it couldn’t be repeated by AB in 900 rounds in 22LR and almost a thousand rounds in multiple F-TR rifles. I too want tuners to work, and I’m basically begging someone to prove to me they do. So much playful banter in this thread but no actual data.

And to be fair, if you say that you don’t have the data, but you BELIEVE they work that’s fair. I’ll accept that, but if there is any actual data please share it.

Bryan was posting 20 years ago on benchrest central as bsi135 and he didn't say a word back then.
Fast forward 20 years and he tests a cz457 that's grouping over an inch at 50 yards with sks ammo.
On his first tuner test the 1 plus inch gun shoots 0.327 inches.
Ask yourself how that is possible and why the 20 year wait?

 

[Tokay444]

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?

Ah yes. The mark of someone who’s lost an argument. Personal insults.

 

[cameljockey230]

Why wouldn't AB utilize a tuner in their system if it was beneficial?

From almost everything I've read (minus the PRS crowd and tuners), tuners require good (great) ammo to be really beneficial and optimized - at least that's what those from the BR and F-class disciplines state. These disciplines never suggest that you should start with bad ammo and use a tuner to get slightly better results.

If AB could use a tuner to make their system even better - there would be zero reason for them not to.

Because he doesn't know anything about tuners

 

[kthomas]

We want to congratulate Bryan Litz and his talented team at Applied Ballistics LLC. We have followed Bryan’s career as a bullet designer, ballistician, author, software product developer, and ELR pioneer. His team leads the world in advancing the science of long range shooting. And it looks like all the hard work has paid off — Applied Ballistics has secured a major contract to develop extreme long-range sniper capability for the U.S. Military.

Applied Ballistics LLC, a Michigan-based tech company, has been awarded a $1,300,000 contract by the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO) to execute Phase 1 of the Extreme Sniper Strike Operations (ESSO) project.

Phase 1 of the ESSO project is focused on advancing the predictive capabilities of modern ballistic solvers by performing Doppler radar measurement and modeling of current service rounds at Extreme Long Range (ELR) as a function of gyroscopic stability, and refining the models of secondary ballistic effects such as spin rate decay and spin drift at ELR. Phase 1 will conclude with the ballistic modeling enhancements being integrated into the existing Applied Ballistics ecosystem of electronic devices which are currently deployed by numerous U.S. and allied armed forces around the world. Phase 1 is scheduled for completion in late 2018.

Phase 2 of the ESSO project is a potential follow on (2019) that focuses on the development and fielding of an advanced ELR sniper rifle system designed to drastically increase first-round hit probability at ELR on man-sized targets. The Applied Ballistics Weapons Division is currently conducting research and development on weapons platforms, as well as new cartridge and bullet options, that will maximize ELR ballistic performance from lightweight, practical, magazine-fed systems.


What happens to a contract like this if cheap ammo and a tuner would produce the same or better results?

Lets frame this another way:

If the claim that "cheap ammo and a tuner would produce the same or better results" (than AB's system) - why is the military going with AB over Timintx? Apparently he's done a bunch of testing with the military, so I assume that they are aware of what tuners can do (per what Tim has said).

So if the results are truly that impressive, why go with AB's system that doesn't have a tuner?

 

[brianf]

FEA is still theoretical. Everything processed through FEA still needs to be proven with real world testing. Other than, “trust me bro”, is there any actual real world testing?

I forgot…aren’t you involved in CNC equipment which makes the actual product?

Almost like you might have a idea about R&D …just a guess

 

[cameljockey230]

Ah yes. The mark of someone who’s lost an argument. Personal insults.

So you mean my guess was correct!!!
I'm now a clairvoyant

 

[brianf]

Lets frame this another way:

If the claim that "cheap ammo and a tuner would produce the same or better results" (than AB's system) - why is the military going with AB over Timintx? Apparently he's done a bunch of testing with the military, so I assume that they are aware of what tuners can do (per what Tim has said).

So if the results are truly that impressive, why go with AB's system that doesn't have a tuner?

Because it’s big government trying to screw the littke guy with great ideas.

Like all the guys who make a car run on water and wind up dead

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Wait.....cheap ammo?

The last time this forum was going round and round about this.....it was made painfully clear that you need properly load developed ammo. And that a tuner will not fix ammo that isn't already really good.

Get the pencils and the tape back out boys. Gotta run that test again.

 

[cameljockey230]

FEA is still theoretical. Everything processed through FEA still needs to be proven with real world testing. Other than, “trust me bro”, is there any actual Timintx? Apparently he's done a bunch of testing with the military, so I assume that they are aware of what tuners can do (per what Tim has said

So your stating the work done at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is wrong?

 

[cameljockey230]

Wait.....cheap ammo?

The last time this forum was going round and round about this.....it was made painfully clear that you need properly load developed ammo. And that a tuner will not fix ammo that isn't already really good.

Your lack of comprehending the written word astonished me.

 

[Ebar48]

Bryan was posting 20 years ago on benchrest central as bsi135 and he didn't say a word back then.
Fast forward 20 years and he tests a cz457 that's grouping over an inch at 50 yards with sks ammo.
On his first tuner test the 1 plus inch gun shoots 0.327 inches.
Ask yourself how that is possible and why the 20 year wait?

Over 1800 rounds fired, 4 different rifles, and 4 different tuners.

And as far as the 0.327” group with the tuner, that could not be repeated. Another 5x5 agg put that setting at 0.946” compared to the 0.951” agg without a tuner. And then the “worst” tuner setting actually produced a better agg than the setting that shot the one 0.327” group. However none of them were statistically significant.

And what is wrong with a semi custom cz-457 with a straight 24” bartlein in an ACC chassis that negates the testing done?

 

[cameljockey230]

Wait.....cheap ammo?

The last time this forum was going round and round about this.....it was made painfully clear that you need properly load developed ammo. And that a tuner will not fix ammo that isn't already really good.

So if I cut copy and paste the data and statistics from Bryan Litz on his tuner test please rank his equipment into this list.
Calfee rifle.
Anschutz rifle
Bleiker rifle
Gorhman rifle
Cz 457 rifle

Eley ammo
Lapua ammo
Sks ammo

It's a shame your picking on Bryan for using a 1 inch rifle and sks ammo.
Lolroflmao

 

[kthomas]

Wait.....cheap ammo?

The last time this forum was going round and round about this.....it was made painfully clear that you need properly load developed ammo. And that a tuner will not fix ammo that isn't already really good.

This is one of the issues with the tuner topic - no one can agree on exactly what tuners do and how they work.

Even our own tuner advocates in this section of the forum, TiminTX, Cameljockey and badassgunworks - all have different ideas/uses for tuners and different tuner procedures.

 

[Tokay444]

Does anyone have any data to refute the thousands of rounds AB shot showing that tuners do not have a statistically significant effect on various rifles including rimfire and CF? This is the only statistically significant test that was actually conducted using the scientific method that I know of. “The target is my proof” doesn’t prove that tuners work. I’m here with an open mind as well, but making a claim about positive compensation with no actual data to back it up does nothing to make a point.

“Trust me bro.”

 

[cameljockey230]

Over 1800 rounds fired, 4 different rifles, and 4 different tuners.

And as far as the 0.327” group with the tuner, that could not be repeated. Another 5x5 agg put that setting at 0.946” compared to the 0.951” agg without a tuner. And then the “worst” tuner setting actually produced a better agg than the setting that shot the one 0.327” group. However none of them were statistically significant.

And what is wrong with a semi custom cz-457 with a straight 24” bartlein in an ACC chassis that negates the testing done?

I agree the rifle shot a 0.327 group then it went back to 1 inch groups. I accept his word that the group size tripled.
Why did the group size triple?
Do your groups triple in size?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Over 1800 rounds fired, 4 different rifles, and 4 different tuners.

And as far as the 0.327” group with the tuner, that could not be repeated. Another 5x5 agg put that setting at 0.946” compared to the 0.951” agg without a tuner. And then the “worst” tuner setting actually produced a better agg than the setting that shot the one 0.327” group. However none of them were statistically significant.

And what is wrong with a semi custom cz-457 with a straight 24” bartlein in an ACC chassis that negates the testing done?

I'd personally like to see even more data than that from AB. Though I know they have tested much more than what's in the book.

There's always an open invitation from AB for anyone to come out and show Litz what he's missing. They either all stop short at posting online why he's wrong....or the ones that do show up never speak of their failure once the lidar is out and tracking ever bullet in the air.

 

[cameljockey230]

This is one of the issues with the tuner topic - no one can agree on exactly what tuners do and how they work.

Even our own tuner advocates in this section of the forum, TiminTX, Cameljockey and badassgunworks - all have different ideas/uses for tuners and different tuner procedures.

Actually we all agree. Is your real name Theiss?

 

[brianf]

So your stating the work done at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is wrong?

Sorry I had to, your too high strung

I guess they don’t need experiments either, because their engineering is so perfect…maybe I’m missing it.

"We’ve learned a lot through those experiments, and we’re very confident we’ll get back above that threshold,” Budil told reporters at an event at the lab Monday celebrating December’s breakthrough. "But it’s still very much an R&D project at this point.”

Fusion breakthrough hits hurdles as five experiments fail

The U.S. government lab that made a long-awaited breakthrough in fusion energy late last year has run five similar experiments since then without being able to replicate the results.

www.japantimes.co.jp

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Its very, very simple.

Lidar tracks the bullet the entire time its in flight. And you show them bullets making impacts on target where the velocity data shows that's not possible. And do it consistently.

That's literally how easy it is to prove this.


Funny how the bullets stop doing cool shit when lidar is out and about.

That's my new theory. Bullets are scared of lidar. As evidenced that all this stuff works for these guys in their backyards, but doesn't once the lidar is turned on.

I'm calling this "Scared bullet syndrome" or SBS for the military contracts.