Tuner Question
- Thread starter Harronek
- Start date
Should. Your precision cannot get better. Bullets don't "go to sleep", period.
I tune my rimfire and centerfire at 100 and they do well out past that. I know some people like to tune for a specific distance if shooting a game that allows that but mine doesn't so once I get it tuned I leave it.
It may or may not, I run 2 EC V2 tuners on 2 B14R. I start at 50yds. with the tuner flush with muzzle and shoot 3 shot groups, "if the first 2 shot don't touch move on" and move on 5 marks into the shooter until it stops. you will see the groups open and close. You are looking for the lack of vertical in the group. I take the best settings and go to 200yds and fine tuning just a mark or 2 looking for vertical only, don't worry about wind. I have made fine adjustments at 400yds in very good conditions.
When you get a new lot of ammo, start over. you should get the new lot shooting like the old lot. I have done it with 3 lots of SK Long Range.
When you get a new lot of ammo, start over. you should get the new lot shooting like the old lot. I have done it with 3 lots of SK Long Range.
It may be like religion -- it depends on what you believe.
If tuners work by achieving positive compensation, which helps faster and slower rounds have a POI closer together than otherwise, the answer is that settings are for a certain distance. The rounds with different MVs can converge only once.
If tuners work by establishing a node -- a point of no movement -- at the muzzle, then target distance ought not to matter.
Of course, there may be other faiths involved.
Interesting take. I haven’t thought about it like this.
If I were to use a tuner, I would think that I would do load development, same as normal, and the addition of a tuner would improve/decrease group size of a load that already has a small SD.
Didn’t you also claim your gun shot easy 1/2 moa groups at 200yds? Lol…. The only legitimate tuner test I’ve seen has been done by Bryan litz…. We know how that turned out. I think they probably work. However, most people don’t grasp the fact that 22s have so much variance built into the ammo. They shoot a 5 shot group and see it’s smaller but that’s not statistically significant. Not even close. If your gun shoots groups from .2s to a .5 at 50 then good luck picking the right setting….
The take is with regard to rimfire, which unlike centerfire doesn't involve "load development." Shoot the best factory-made ammo available.
I know what you are asking, but didnt ask it correctly, ish....
A given tune on a tuner will be valid for all distances in the way you ask.... however.
From technical (physics) point, its the antinode you tune, not the node, but saying "node" is easy and gets the point across, and is still sort of correct.
The VERY simple explanation of a tuner is this. You want the velocity of the antinode to be zero at a given point in time.
What this means is when the barrel crown is bouncing up and down (the muzzle is the middle of the antinode, thus it moves up and down in this example, live a skipping rope), you want the velocity of the muzzle to be zero as the bullet exits.
As the barrel muzzle vibrates, it goes up, it has to stop for a short time (about 0.058ms), and then start coming back down.. so think in ultra slow motion. Muzzle points up, bullet comes flying out, barrel starts pointing down.
Look at a guitar string. It vibrates and does its thing. When a finger is presses on the fret board, it shortens the freqency potential (stored -> dissipated energy loss), and as the finger is moved up and down the fret, it vibrates differently, moving the nodes and antinodes. You are not adding or removing energy, you are changing how that stored energy is being used (making sound, how long, heat, duration).
The time for a bullet to travel a barrel is fixed in this example (why we all want low ES and SD). The tuner moves the node position, so when the bullet exits the muzzle on the antinode, the muzzle should be stationary, thus no more fliers.
Now add in lots more variables and you wont know a fraction of this witch craft which got people burned alive during the dark ages.
Im to lazy to do drawings tonight, but if you want, ill try to break it down visually and give some basic concepts. Been a few years since ive studied (physics), but apparently it doesnt change much, just our understanding of it.
A given tune on a tuner will be valid for all distances in the way you ask.... however.
From technical (physics) point, its the antinode you tune, not the node, but saying "node" is easy and gets the point across, and is still sort of correct.
The VERY simple explanation of a tuner is this. You want the velocity of the antinode to be zero at a given point in time.
What this means is when the barrel crown is bouncing up and down (the muzzle is the middle of the antinode, thus it moves up and down in this example, live a skipping rope), you want the velocity of the muzzle to be zero as the bullet exits.
As the barrel muzzle vibrates, it goes up, it has to stop for a short time (about 0.058ms), and then start coming back down.. so think in ultra slow motion. Muzzle points up, bullet comes flying out, barrel starts pointing down.
Look at a guitar string. It vibrates and does its thing. When a finger is presses on the fret board, it shortens the freqency potential (stored -> dissipated energy loss), and as the finger is moved up and down the fret, it vibrates differently, moving the nodes and antinodes. You are not adding or removing energy, you are changing how that stored energy is being used (making sound, how long, heat, duration).
The time for a bullet to travel a barrel is fixed in this example (why we all want low ES and SD). The tuner moves the node position, so when the bullet exits the muzzle on the antinode, the muzzle should be stationary, thus no more fliers.
Now add in lots more variables and you wont know a fraction of this witch craft which got people burned alive during the dark ages.
Im to lazy to do drawings tonight, but if you want, ill try to break it down visually and give some basic concepts. Been a few years since ive studied (physics), but apparently it doesnt change much, just our understanding of it.
I don't see tuner tested on youtube, I do them. A lot of guy don't like tuners, but have they tried them, have they done it correctly?
Both of my B14R have shot many sub moa groups out to 400yds and many 1/2 moa at 200yds. in very good conditions. There is a big difference between a 0.2" group and a 0.5" group at 50yds.. while tuning I shoot 3 shot groups. If the first 2 are not touching, I move on. it's not hard to pick out the one hole groups to take long range. I take the one hole groups to test at 200yds. looking for vertical, you can take out as much vertical as you can. TUNERS WORK
I think you missed the point about variance….. You should post up 8-10 5 shot groups and prove my point.
You can search my name. Many groups out there. All my long range groups are on steel. If i posted all of them. guy are just going to say "prove you shot them at 200yds". So why should I post them
Here is 2 400yds group shot back to back https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/final-tuning-b14r-at-long-range.7168870/
Here is 2 400yds group shot back to back https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/final-tuning-b14r-at-long-range.7168870/
I know, I just like to help guys when I can. others just want to hate. I just can't help it sometimes.
Yup I am the same. I only started to use tuners when I got my first ATS a few years back and using factory ammo in the rifle I was amazed at how well you can get it to shoot when tuned. I find most of the haters have never even tried one or use a single test by Litz as their bedrock or say you need to shoot 10,000 rounds to prove it works to them. Guess believing one test that says they don't work is fine but not believing tons of people who use them and know they work is kind of a hypocritical view when they think you need to shoot thousands of rounds to prove it and not just a single good group. 
This.
It depends on which specific denomination you belong to in the religion of tuners.
Sir, I'd like to hear more of what you have to say on this subject and I'd also like to see any drawing you would like to share.
Whenever you can find the time of course.
Thanks!!
(I apologize for quoting you.....the post isn't directed to you. Just using to make a point)
Not getting into whether tuners work or don't work. Just pointing out how there's very different views on how to utilize them.
The latest tuner discussion before this centered around claims of using a tuner in relation to positive compensation. The claim was on a centerfire rifle they could tune out up to 100fps ES on a 1k target. This would require the group size at 100yds to be angularly larger than the group size at 1k yds. The theory being the tuner keeps the barrel moving upward for all shots.....hence allowing the compensation.
Now, the post quoted above is almost the exact opposite of that method. The tuner is now being used to allow the ammunition to exit the barrel as it's basically completely still (that pause before moving back down). In this method, we would be a slave to our ammo velocity......since there is zero positive compensation happening.
Let's just assume both methods work as described. For a rimfire that is a slave to factory ammo, the first method might be more beneficial. You'd want that compensation to help decrease the angular dispersion due to velocity. You would calculate a distance where the ammo converges.....and gives you the most overlap in front of and behind the target in which you used to compensate.
If you're making ammo yourself and getting very low SD's you'd likely want the antinode method. As your ammo velocity is so close shot to shot, that you don't wan't any positive compensation changing the angular dispersion as your velocity keeps you well inside where you want to be.
So, the answer is......there really is no answer. There is not enough evidence for us to confidently declare exactly how a tuner works.....and which method is best.
I’m not hating at all. There is a tuner on my gun…. I drank the koolaid. I just have a basic grasp of statistics. And mr mark has been known to make some outlandish claims. The problem with variation and group sizes is exactly the problem litz had…. Bigger sample sizes wash out the noise… Yall are out here claiming you shoot several groups and figure it out. Oh and then let’s tune at 200yds where wind and aerodynamic jump comes into play big time. I’m simply saying it’s not nearly that simple.
Fight me...
Also... BINGO !... exactly this. We dont actuslly know. (And i make the damn things).
Ill add here that there is no physical (physics) example i know of which alters the interior ballistics, and ANY claim that says it does, or "trues" your velo, SD, whatever, has no idea and a contaminated data set.
I know about what ive learnt thru education, which was years ago, but try to keep up from time to time on the latest proofs, discoveries, etc.
If you really wanna get confused... the barrel stretches when firing. It increases length. Barrel contour and calibre effect this elasticity, as does pressure (the powder going kaboom).
Remember thr old tensioned barrel technique ? Same thing. Controlling the growth modulus to accomodate for velocity issues.
Because hand loads are more precise than and previous time in history, that method has no where near as much effect... but a lump of weight on the muzzle ? Thats why we are here.
If you have the time, and want to experiment, go get some big red rubber bands, put a big knot (maybe 2 bands) 1" back from the muzzle, and another 2 about 1/3rd the length of the barrel from the muzzle. Report back you results.
Not even sorry when you get confused. (This works better for some barrels than others, and factory ammo better again, but it does effect something).
I’d be interested in knowing what percentage of the top performing Bench Rest and F Class shooters are using tuners ?
To my uneducated view , tuners are put in the almost compulsory equipment column when it comes to those disciplines .
I seriously wonder “ Why “ ?
To my uneducated view , tuners are put in the almost compulsory equipment column when it comes to those disciplines .
I seriously wonder “ Why “ ?
Not as many as you think. BR shooters are renouned for altering their load at the range. They have fully prepped brass and proj, and then take an arbour press and portable scales, and build a load for that specific range and weather.
Least thats my experience. Fudd class are slowly moving back to tuners it seems.
Least thats my experience. Fudd class are slowly moving back to tuners it seems.
Not that simple but they work. You have one and know. That's what it comes down to. Not about jumping down some rabbit hole and geeking out on statistics. Bet "with a bigger sample size" of almost anything we do in shooting it will "wash out the noise" so does that mean nothing works and we should just give up? lol Or does it mean that things work in situations and might not in others? If that's the case it does not negate anyone's experiences in their testing.
Are we talking philosophy now? Lol. I have one but I’m not convinced they work… And no, bigger sample sizes will not wash other stuff out if it works…. Litz also tests “other” stuff. I refer to him because their testing is actually scientific.
Nope not philosophy. LOL Are you sure it won't wash others? I'm not. Maybe you should go do huge tests on a bunch of stuff people take as gospel and spend tons of money to prove they work to everyone. Or you can see from your experience that they do work and stick with them. See it works for more than tuners.
Except I don’t need to prove anything. Small sample size statistics already do… You’re just mad that someone is calling out a belief based on “feelings.” Nobody on here or otherwise has a test (even a basic one) showing tuners (in the context of 22s) are repeatable. Yet people are claiming they are just short of Gods gift to us.Nope not philosophy. LOL Are you sure it won't wash others? I'm not. Maybe you should go do huge tests on a bunch of stuff people take as gospel and spend tons of money to prove they work to everyone. Or you can see from your experience that they do work and stick with them. See it works for more than tuners.
LOL I am just replying like a tuner doubter telling people with them that they don't work and they need to be proved they do. I am not basing anything on feelings. I am basing my knowledge that they do work by my use with them on multiple rifles and calibers and in my use. Actual rounds down range. No feelings involved. Like most things it comes down to if you find they work then use them and if you don't then don't.
No they aren’t a religion. They are a piece of equipment used on rifles. They are just one of those that brings people into far separated camps.
If I told you that something you use and know that works on your rifles doesn’t work because some guy did a test and says it doesn’t what would you say? Would you stop using it? Honest question.
There's s going to be a big divide here just based on personal approach.
As someone who bases decisions on data (and by that, I mean data that would hold up to scrutiny), if mine and other's testing didn't show convincing evidence, I'd personally stop or phase that piece of equipment out. I was personally using tuners for prs type matches as far back as 2019. Both rimfire and centerfire. I have discontinued the use as I haven't seen anything personally or professionally that shows they make any difference for that kind of shooting/competitions.
The divide will be what people consider proper data. Citing many people winning with them or people using 2-3 shot strings to tune and subsequently show they work will definitely not be considered data to anyone with experience and/or education in any research or data based approach. Others will consider the people winning matches or the 2 and 3 shot tests perfectly fine data for their use.
So, yes, if the data provided by people I respect test along the scientific method mostly say that something isn't conclusive or doesn't work....I'm going to take that over 100 people in their back yard citing must less meaningful tests (again, in my opinion).
We still sell tuners and also install them when a customer wishes. But, when using the scientific method approach....there is almost no data that would suggest they work consistently or how they work.
Yes if there was repeatable evidence. Especially if it made shooting/reloading more convenient. Problem is you have no examples of that. And there is a scientific example showing them not to work lol.
Yes I do. LOL That is my personal experience using them. Seeing my results. That is my evidence. That is what you don't get. You think the only evidence is when someone like Litz spends tens of thousands of dollars on a "scientific" test but it's not. How many times has what is seen as science was found not to be true? Hmmm. When someone uses something for years and sees it work through thousands of rounds in multiple states and different elevations, temps and distances that is my evidence and all I need. I don't need approval. Whether you believe it or not I don't care but I will put it out for people to see and make their decision with. I am not going to go out of my way to prove something to you. Sorry you or anyone here is not that important to me to gain their acceptance. LOL But just saying there is no evidence except for one test so they must not work is very short sighted with the history of the use of tuners. I wonder what would happen if Litz proclaimed the earth was flat again. LOL
Back to what I said before. You don't like them then don't use them.
That was about the time I started also. I had shot PRS matches for 16 years prior to starting to use a tuner and could use that experience to gauge the tuner on. With handloaded ammo I see no use but with factory ammo it is a huge help. You didn't see them helping and stopped using them. So what makes your experience worth more than mine? Again I am not telling anyone to use a tuner but I am saying in my experience they work.
No the divide is not proper data but what some consider proper data. People who get hung up on "science" will hang their hat on Litz but what if his test was skewed in some way? And assuming it's 100 people in their backyard isn't really fair is it? As I said my data comes from multiple states, elevations, distances(out to a mile) and environmental conditions. Not a backyard. But yup I am not Litz so my info is a turd. LOL
Lol. Sorry to offend you. This is just a discussion about tuners. Now you’re talking about flat earthers and bad science. Apples to oranges and no data….. The only scientific data shows they did not work. I don’t think that test is the be all end all but it points to certain direction lol. And even if they do work, if it’s the case where you have to tune at a certain distance then they are basically worthless for PRS style events….
In his 2022 book Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting Volume III Bryan Litz describes and discusses his .22LR tuner testing. There's a practical reason why it ended in failure. His testing was done with a random lot of SK Long Range. When testing a tuner it's necessary to use ammo that is consistently consistent. That's usually not a characteristic of SK ammos.
Not offended at all. The flat earth was a joke obviously. And no you don't have to tune them at a certain distance. A little story about my first use with it. I tuned it at my 100 yard range, which was all I had at the time, in NC before going to WV to shoot a match. I shot it at 100 there on the range day before match and was as tight as at home near sea level and I was much higher elevation in WV and a different temp, about 15 degrees cooler. I then went over and shot it on steel at 930 yards and took three shots and the spotter said the three shots were almost touching. Did similar with my rimfire after tuning at 100 and then testing at my home range to 400 and then going to a match in VA at about 1500 feet ASL and also cooler. I shot on their farthest target at 227 yards and the shots were right near each other so good. I know not Litz brand testing but having many more experiences like that since then I am happy to say they work. How about you? What are your experiences? How have you tested your tuner?
So then you’re not in the positive compensation camp?
I’ve tested 2 vudoos with center x and sk lr. Both EC tuners V1. 50-200 yards. Originally tested by 5 shot groups at 50. Would not shoot all 5 if a group was big off the get go. Found the “best” groups and repeated at 100 and 200 yards. Shot a 6x5 at 100 and 200. Didn’t seem any different than before the tuner. Turned the tuner to the “worst” setting and shot another 6x5 at 100 and 200. The 100yd average was only slightly more and the 200yd average was slightly better actually lol. So basically inconclusive leaning to it doesn’t work. That gun was threaded for a suppressor or muzzle device so I had shot it plenty before I had bought the tuner/thread adapter. My other vudoo is an MTU profile with direct tuner threads. This one I shot 10 round groups with center x at 50 and found the best. Then shot a 6x5 at 50 and turned tuner to the worst setting and shot another 6x5. Same deal. No notable difference. I believe in this instance the “best” setting averaged .04” better than the worst. Which is not significant enough to conclude anything based upon the sample size….
My findings basically match that of Litz. It gets washed out in the inherent noise of 22 ammo. The Center x usually has an SD around 8-10 and es of 20-30 on 10 shot strings. The SK LR was slightly worse.
I have one on my 6GT that I’ve not been able to test as much as I’d like.
I’ve tested 2 vudoos with center x and sk lr. Both EC tuners V1. 50-200 yards. Originally tested by 5 shot groups at 50. Would not shoot all 5 if a group was big off the get go. Found the “best” groups and repeated at 100 and 200 yards. Shot a 6x5 at 100 and 200. Didn’t seem any different than before the tuner. Turned the tuner to the “worst” setting and shot another 6x5 at 100 and 200. The 100yd average was only slightly more and the 200yd average was slightly better actually lol. So basically inconclusive leaning to it doesn’t work. That gun was threaded for a suppressor or muzzle device so I had shot it plenty before I had bought the tuner/thread adapter. My other vudoo is an MTU profile with direct tuner threads. This one I shot 10 round groups with center x at 50 and found the best. Then shot a 6x5 at 50 and turned tuner to the worst setting and shot another 6x5. Same deal. No notable difference. I believe in this instance the “best” setting averaged .04” better than the worst. Which is not significant enough to conclude anything based upon the sample size….
My findings basically match that of Litz. It gets washed out in the inherent noise of 22 ammo. The Center x usually has an SD around 8-10 and es of 20-30 on 10 shot strings. The SK LR was slightly worse.
I have one on my 6GT that I’ve not been able to test as much as I’d like.
How many marks did you move between groups? Did you go a full rotation or more with the tuners? How long are your barrels? Just curious. I use ATS tuners on my centerfire and my 22" MTU Vudoo and the EC V2 on the 23" 1.2" barrel.
And yes the nature of the beast in rimfire ammo is flyers/velocites but the groups can usually be tightened for the vast majority or the rounds fired. I left my Magnetospeed on my rifle for a whole box of my case lot of SKLR and the SD was 8 so you can't ask for much better in rimfire.
And yes the nature of the beast in rimfire ammo is flyers/velocites but the groups can usually be tightened for the vast majority or the rounds fired. I left my Magnetospeed on my rifle for a whole box of my case lot of SKLR and the SD was 8 so you can't ask for much better in rimfire.
5 marks each and at least 1.5 rotations. I think 2 rotations. First gun was 20” kukri. Second gun is 24” MTU. My 2nd gun with the 24” barrel shoots great. 50 and 100yd groups are typically pretty round with not many flyers at all. Average 6x5s around .7-.8” at 100yds. The proper way to measure would be group mean radius but I can’t really do that with larger sample size groups. Maybe at 200 yards but then wind takes a large effect. But at least at 200 yds you can see the dispersion a little more clear. My 200 yd tuner groups didn’t show any improvements.
Surprised the 20" Kukri didn't show any real improvement with that much movement but yeah in your situation I wouldn't continue with a tuner either. You aren't getting any real advantage with them and those lots of ammo.
First off, I'm not telling anyone here that they work or they don't work. I'm pretty agnostic on that.
My point is that tuners have become a bit of a religion, you have to unquestionably follow and believe in them, or you get casted as a blasphemous heretic. When anyone asks for evidence, it turns into a "just trust us, we have ~20 years experience with tuners" - sorry, but that's much more religious than it is scientific. And every denomination of the tuner religion has a different answer as to what they do, how they work, and what the process is to use them.
If I saw valid evidence that something I was using or a process I utilize may not be producing the results I think it does, I would be interested. Honestly, the more I learn, the simpler my process in reloading becomes, for example. People can be made to believe almost anything with relatively little testing. Like that there's a velocity "node" when you conduct the "Satterlee method". Or that a simple bullet seating depth test will determine the most precise seating depth. Or that there's an optimal primer seating depth. Or neck tension. Tuner settings. Etc.
A lot of conclusions are drawn from faulty and flawed testing and analysis - especially in the world of shooting. It's why the "Satterlee method" caught fire and was pushed by a lot of very well respected and knowledgeable shooters, even though the process is demonstrable garbage. Most shooters find conclusions where they don't exist, but because most ammo and reloads are pretty good these days, we are able to shoot good groups despite what our conclusions lead us to believe, not because of it.
So why are you posting here if you don't believe they work or don't work?
Some are like that and just say trust me but some actually use them and have run them through their paces. Not Litz "scientific" testing but that's not the only testing that shows results and from what was posted above it seems like he didn't even follow it correctly. You heard my experiences. I just started using them after not and with factory ammo and not handloads.
The OP wanted people's experiences on distant specific when using a tuner and the crew of tuner don't work crowd comes in. This isn't about handloading or Saterlee method, which I always thought was flawed, but tuners. And if you are insinuating that tuner users find something where it doesn't exist or despite due to ammo then that's just trying to muddy the waters and BS. I watch rounds come together from no tuner groups to tuner and adjusting it. Am I just seeing a mirage as it's not happening because I just want to see it? LOL Come on man!(in my best Biden voice)
What? So you have a process that works and someone says it doesn't so you doubt your own experiences?!? Don't even know what to say to that. Or are you saying you think it's doing something and it's not? Is that what you think tuners are doing? I agree with handloading as a lot of people do a lot of stuff and over my 30 years I have done over anal stuff but now my loading is streamlined and produces great ammo as well. That can happen but seeing a tuner work is not a mirage.
I'm just pointing out that there's many different schools of thoughts on tuners. Ask 10 different tuner advocates how they work and what they do, and you get 10 different answers. There is no one singular answer to the question for which the OP seeks.
I'm not going to argue with you over tuners. But I do think what you present as evidence is a perfect demonstration of how people draw flawed conclusions in this world of shooting.
Thanks. I will take your non experience with the grain of salt that it's worth. LOL
LOL, I have a couple of tuners.
Anyways, back to the OP. There are many different answers to the question he seeks. Best of luck in your quest OP.
