Tuners and Barrel Harmonics

[JAS-SH]

Hi All,

I am putting this out here and it might create controversy, although it is not my intent to do so at all.

I am an analyst by profession, and as such strongly believe in the scientific method. I recently read the article on this site by Jim Fisher titled “Barrel Tuning Factory Ammo?” with great interest. Still, I am not convinced of the validity of tuners, nor if the effects of harmonics (a bad term) are even important. I do know that there are very good ways to prove the harmonics theory once and for all. High speed video and optical shock wave imaging are two of them.

These days digital video can be pushed to 100,000 frames per second! and the Shock wave imaging is also very revealing.

Enter the slo-mo guys. Below is a link to an interesting video. Not because of the video's premise, but because it shows some really interesting things. In the video they shot an AK and a Barrett 50 Cal. The AK barrel flexed like a wet noodle, while the Barret's flex with a heavy, fluted barrel is imperceptible. Heavy barrels? Fluting? Is that's all that's needed? If the AK always spits out the bullet with the same flex is a tuner needed?

Then I saw something that caught my eye. In the video they also shot 9mm and .45ACP handguns. The .45 1911 was the only subsonic firearm in the video. If you watch really close during the frame by frame portion, the explosion shock wave catches up with the bullet (the explosion shock wave is many times supersonic) and literally changes the angle of the bullet! I now see clearly that when a bullet exits the barrel it is basically "uncapping" an explosion and once uncapped, albeit for a short distance, it is allowing the explosive shock wave to expand very rapidly - at supersonic speeds, overtaking the subsonic projectile....

The links:,

Slo-Mo Guys Video:



In another link below there is some really interesting high speed high-speed shadow and schlieren images of gunshots (bottom of the article). Does this happen to all subsonics? 22 LR? Short barrels worse? Are suppressors and muzzle brakes better than tuners? They might be for subsonics if they slow down or deflect the explosion shock wave.
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/high-speed-imaging-of-shock-waves-explosions-and-gunshots

All the best!

JAS

 

[spife7980]

If barrel tuners didnt work then they wouldnt be so widely used in benchrest.

Barrel Tuner « Daily Bulletin

Content tagged with Barrel Tuner.

bulletin.accurateshooter.com

 

[glefos]

Snipped from another article on the same web site.

"In centerfire benchrest competition, the vast majority of competitors do not use tuners, though a few short-range shooters such as Gene Bukys and Jackie Schmidt have enjoyed considerable success."

 

[LawnMM]

 

[TRG65]

I recently got one of the kinetic security solutions tuners strictly to see if there was anything to it. I had been having some consistency issues with my 338 WM. I tested 2 revolutions. The changes in group size and location were obvious. I ended up getting an improvement in both group size and consistency. I will likely order another.

 

[Steel head]

View attachment 7352820

 

[Maurygold]

Second the comment on benchrest. These guys look for real world data not theory and a majority of benchrest shooter I know run tuners

 

[BLKWLFK9]

I can tell you right now. I got one strictly for my 6cm that i only shoot factory ammo through. It took a normal .4 moa average grouping down to a .25-.3 averaging grouping with the hornady 108edlm ammo. It is very apparent to see it work when turning the tuner. One setting, 1st and 2nd shots will be .75 apart, then 2 turns later, they're in 1 hole, and the 3rd, 4th, and 5th follow suit. To say they aren't necessary is one thing, to say they dont work is incorrect.

 

[Diver160651]

Really long story on why I continue to shoot a blown out barrel on my 6CM. I have extra barrels all spun up, but continue to push this barrel. The throat is all fire cracked and it’s lost a ton of velocity. I can no longer work with seating depth. I was shooting mostly 2” groups and some 3” and I continue to shoot matches.

Anyway, in front of several Hide guys, including someone that shot the gun with the same results, I put on my Magnetospeed and shot 5 consecutive groups under 1.” Of course, the joke was “Use the bayo in the match.” Anyway, I put the Kinetic tuner, I did not spend much time and it is not as good as the bayo but the groups are 1.5”; so I’m going to use this barrel for one more match.

This was my best group, funny how shitty can look so great after you’ve had ultra shitty.

@Swoodhouse19 ‘s region series qualifier will be this barrels final day. Again, I have barrels, but a reason to try to keep this eating ammo.

For me there is no question that tuners change things.

Before everyone goes crazy and says you can’t hit targets with a scatter gun, here is this morning running 7 coyote stage + 3 targets using left over latter test ammo from 38.5- 4o.5 grains. This was just a speed drill (set the timer to 60 sec.) for me on 10 targets 400- just under 600 - I did miss- shot 8 and really blew shot 10, forgot to hold.

FYI Marc from Spartan Scoped the barrel and was surprised how bad the barrel was.

FYI I am not saying tuners should be used in this fashion, not even sure how it’s possible to help a burned out barrel; but it and the Magnetospeed (MS -Opposite of what I normally see) seem to.

Edited to add:Yes, @LawnMM I do feel like the dude in your image with that tuner on the end, but not as funky as if I kept the Magnetospeed speed attached

I bet I am the only one bragging about their 1.5moa groups. Lol

 

[Steel head]

I’ve always been able to get some more life chasing velocity, my current 7SAUM barrel needs another half grain To get the same velocity and I clean it a bit more often now.

 

[300Norma1959]

Here's my amateur theory, barrel tuners act like custom loads. Different loads exit the barrel at different positions in the barrel whip. Customizing the load will change the timing with a hope of exiting the barrel when its moving the least. I think turners do the same thing, they change the whip.

Thoughts from those more experienced than I?

 

[Mordamer]

A high speed camera costs a lot more than a barrel tuner and some ammo and it still won't tell you where the shots are going to land. I suggest the OP do his own test with actual ammo and a barrel tuner and report back.

 

[Changed]

I have been thinking about this subject, and it occurs to me that you can get the same results you get with a tuner with a muzzle brake that has left hand threads and tightens to the shoulder of the muzzle. In theory this should work.

In my case, I have a few PVA muzzle brakes that would allow you to gradually increase the length of the muzzle brake with out running into timing issues.

I plan to test this during my next range trip. The goal is not to tune ammo (I've already done that with my reloading process). The goal is to prove that adjusting the muzzle brake out in incremental groups will indeed change group size.

Thoughts?

 

[Rob01]

I will have one of the Kinetic Security Solutions tuners coming in soon. After talking with people I trust who have used it and talking with Aaron last weekend I feel it will do well when shooting factory ammo. Will be putting it on my 6.5 Creedmoor first and seeing what it will do. Then I will try it on the 6 creed and my .308 too.

I am a meme makers dream. Driving my Honda Ridgeline to matches to shoot my 6.5 creedmoor with a tuner on it. Though memes only hurt if you give a shit what other people think which I don’t.

 

[1moaoff]

I will have one of the Kinetic Security Solutions tuners coming in soon. After talking with people I trust who have used it and talking with Aaron last weekend I feel it will do well when shooting factory ammo. Will be putting it on my 6.5 Creedmoor first and seeing what it will do. Then I will try it on the 6 creed and my .308 too.

I am a meme makers dream. Driving my Honda Ridgeline to matches to shoot my 6.5 creedmoor with a tuner on it. Though memes only hurt if you give a shit what other people think which I don’t.

No tuner can make a 308 accurate

 

[JAS-SH]

A high speed camera costs a lot more than a barrel tuner and some ammo and it still won't tell you where the shots are going to land. I suggest the OP do his own test with actual ammo and a barrel tuner and report back.

Wholeheartedly agree on the cost. That said, someone has to do it because putting a tuner on the end of the barrel does NOT prove the "harmonics" theory. And cameras can be rented. Anecdotal information is by definition not science. This tuner thing has to be proven scientifically and there is only one way to do it - set up a real world experiment and prove it.

Anecdotal results (buying a tuner and shooting with it) could, in scientific circles be quoted as precision gained "between the ears", or tuners could actually work, I do not know. But, I am not going to buy into this until I see the theory proven. No human interaction at all if possible.

Seeing the video above it is a fact that the barrel flex of the Barret with a heavy barrel and longitudinal flutes is imperceptible. Not so with the AK 47, which is not known for it's accuracy. That tells me a LOT right there . Still not science but possibly a step in the right direction.

Einstein had theories that had to wait for years and years to be proven correct. Just doing something because some people who shoot really well regardless of tuners and are doing it successfully, but with lack of scientific or even logical evidence has a name - herd mentality. No offense meant by the way, it's just the way all of our minds work....

All the best,

JAS

 

[Diver160651]

Wholeheartedly agree on the cost. That said, someone has to do it because putting a tuner on the end of the barrel does NOT prove the "harmonics" theory. And cameras can be rented. Anecdotal information is by definition not science. This tuner thing has to be proven scientifically and there is only one way to do it - set up a real world experiment and prove it.

Anecdotal results (buying a tuner and shooting with it) could, in scientific circles be quoted as precision gained "between the ears", or tuners could actually work, I do not know. But, I am not going to buy into this until I see the theory proven. No human interaction at all if possible.

Seeing the video above it is a fact that the barrel flex of the Barret with a heavy barrel and longitudinal flutes is imperceptible. Not so with the AK 47, which is not known for it's accuracy. That tells me a LOT right there . Still not science but possibly a step in the right direction.

Einstein had theories that had to wait for years and years to be proven correct. Just doing something because some people who shoot really well regardless of tuners and are doing it successfully, but with lack of scientific or even logical evidence has a name - herd mentality. No offense meant by the way, it's just the way all of our minds work....

All the best,

JAS

Ok don’t hand load or run ladder tests until you get a high speed camera, the better results are just in your head.

 

[1moaoff]

 

[Dthomas3523]

Tagged purely for entertainment.

 

[Seymour Fish]

Wholeheartedly agree on the cost. That said, someone has to do it because putting a tuner on the end of the barrel does NOT prove the "harmonics" theory. And cameras can be rented. Anecdotal information is by definition not science. This tuner thing has to be proven scientifically and there is only one way to do it - set up a real world experiment and prove it.

Anecdotal results (buying a tuner and shooting with it) could, in scientific circles be quoted as precision gained "between the ears", or tuners could actually work, I do not know. But, I am not going to buy into this until I see the theory proven. No human interaction at all if possible.

Seeing the video above it is a fact that the barrel flex of the Barret with a heavy barrel and longitudinal flutes is imperceptible. Not so with the AK 47, which is not known for it's accuracy. That tells me a LOT right there . Still not science but possibly a step in the right direction.

Einstein had theories that had to wait for years and years to be proven correct. Just doing something because some people who shoot really well regardless of tuners and are doing it successfully, but with lack of scientific or even logical evidence has a name - herd mentality. No offense meant by the way, it's just the way all of our minds work....

All the best,

JAS

JAS, you are showing your ass

 

[Tiger_Shilone]

Anecdotal information is by definition not science. This tuner thing has to be proven scientifically and there is only one way to do it - set up a real world experiment and prove it.

Anecdotal results (buying a tuner and shooting with it) could, in scientific circles be quoted as precision gained "between the ears", or tuners could actually work, I do not know. But, I am not going to buy into this until I see the theory proven. No human interaction at all if possible.

Will this work? Field testing results. Full info in 6x5 thread posts #501, # 505 . https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/6x5-thread-v4-0-new-1-1-20.6253073/page-11#post-7801509

Benchrest initial tuner testing, 5 shot groups, rifle normally shoots in the .3-.5" range with bare barrel@50


Final tune settings, again 5 shot groups @50


The research/theory side has all ready been done by varmint Al (one of those funny FEA scientist types working at government testing centers like Lawrence Livermore) and is available on his website: http://www.varmintal.comwww.varmintal.com/asite.htm Biggest take-away for me is: what is in tune at one distance is not necessarily in tune at other distances. Plenty of info on this site about harmonics/tuning if you search for it.

EDIT ADD: link to 6x5 thread

 

[stello1001]

Ok, so I know tuners can help get smaller groups to appear and make your rifle shoot better overall if you can find the right setting. However, do you "find a node" with the tuner like you would with load development?

There are two ways I might go about this and these could somewhat fall under OCW methods one could argue.

1. Find a setting where you have decent SD & ES but if you go +/- a tuner setting or two on both sides, you will have a very similar ES with minimal change to your numbers.

2. Find a setting you have great group sizes and if you go +/- a tuner setting or two on both sides, you will have very similar group sizes and POI.

I wanna say that if you find either an amazing group or amazing numbers (SD & ES) on a specific setting, then that's great. However, it's not so great when environmentals change and now you are "out of that node" so your tuner isn't doing much at that point.

I hope this makes sense. I'm really interested to hear about those who have been using a tuner and what your opinions are on my thoughts. I'm really not trying to create an argument as I am truly curious about this.

Since I am only shooting factory ammo at the moment and do not reload, this is appealing to me because it's the next best step to fine tuning my ammo I guess.

 

[Dthomas3523]

Ok, so I know tuners can help get smaller groups to appear and make your rifle shoot better overall if you can find the right setting. However, do you "find a node" with the tuner like you would with load development?

There are two ways I might go about this and these could somewhat fall under OCW methods one could argue.

1. Find a setting where you have decent SD & ES but if you go +/- a tuner setting or two on both sides, you will have a very similar ES with minimal change to your numbers.

2. Find a setting you have great group sizes and if you go +/- a tuner setting or two on both sides, you will have very similar group sizes and POI.

I wanna say that if you find either an amazing group or amazing numbers (SD & ES) on a specific setting, then that's great. However, it's not so great when environmentals change and now you are "out of that node" so your tuner isn't doing much at that point.

I hope this makes sense. I'm really interested to hear about those who have been using a tuner and what your opinions are on my thoughts. I'm really not trying to create an argument as I am truly curious about this.

Since I am only shooting factory ammo at the moment and do not reload, this is appealing to me because it's the next best step to fine tuning my ammo I guess.

Things dealing with harmonics (tuners, seating depth) do not affect SD/ES. You have separate things going on. Ignition (powder, primer, brass) that affect SD/ES. Then you have harmonics which affect your group size.

In a perfect world you are in a seating depth node which allows for changes like throat erosion. And your tuner should be in a node that keeps group size acceptable for similar changes.

To keep your rifle working throughout the barrel life, you need to be diagnosing seating/tuning throughout the life of the barrel. That could be every 300 rounds, 500, etc. Just depends on your discipline and required accuracy.

 

[Trx498r]

 

[Greg Langelius *]

IMHO; Tuners, Handloads, and Barrel Harmonics are all aspects of the same relationship. It's about barrel whip and bore time.

A given load will traverse a given bore in a specific time period. Simultaneously, barrel whip is also progressing. Add to this that the muzzle end is engaged in nearly constant motion. It's this word "nearly" that holds a key. The muzzle sways, and as it does; it reaches a point where it may even come to a very brief rest. In that instant the muzzle is closest to stationary.

Correspondingly, a sequence of bullets' emergence during that brief instant is likeliest to be headed downrange pointed in a direction that results in least dispersion.

Nothing is absolute about this, because the smaller "Background Noise" inconsistencies are always present. Hence, there will always be a small discrepancy in the correlations including whether barrel whip occurs in one dimension or two, and whether the load's own consistency will deliver a truly tight series of bore transit times.

It is a marriage of transit time and barrel whip frequency that dictates the potential for POI consistency. We can do some things about this.

Scientific method insists that if we alter more than one aspect in the marriage simultaneously; we lose control concerning which aspect's effects are achieving which, or any, change (I.e., the two alterations could either amplify, minimize, or totally cancel out each other's influence; or even result in a harmonic pattern which derives an oblique and expected consequence). In other words, KISS.

Altering the load's transit time, or increasing its consistency can better match the emergence instant to better synchronicity with the barrel's instant of least harmonic motion. Handloading is an accepted method for doing such. Shooters who avoid handloading are sentenced to accept the performance results of the component assembly skills of others. This can actually produce excellent results; but inconsistencies can create performance sags that are essentially outside any control the Shooter can exercise.

I have been doing the Handloading shtick for going on 30 years. Its benefits depend greatly on lead development, which can be tedious and plagued with outside influences, like lockdowns, etc. The outcomes demand diligence. I learned my handloading from (family) Bench Rest Shooters; and it's been a long, slow, and often brilliant process. It works very well, but again; nothing delivers perfection.

Briefly, more than a decade ago; I tried making homemade barrel tuners. I learned a lot, got some downright amazing improvements, and met with more frustration than I was willing to engage with on a constant basis. I was only able to produce a clumsy approximation of the refined implements in wider use today. Still, they were more than adequate to produce convincing conclusions.

First, they work. Oh, my; but yes, they do. Some work so well that I was prompted to withhold the specifics. I deemed it likely that nobody would believe the numbers; and I was downright committed to avoiding a potential flame war. Maybe mine simply worked too well.

Second, unless some parameters are adjusted properly; they don't work all the time, and maybe none are unassailably consistent with this regard. I can't say for sure, because I was prompted to step back, shake my head, and recognize that I was preparing to do the kind of shooting that destroys barrels in order to produce an acceptably large data set capable of powering a reliable overall conclusion. In my case, the hard truth was that they can be susceptible to environments changes. Possibly, the parameters that my setup was based upon were amplifying those outcomes so much that I was compelled to choose between wearing out an expensive custom barrel, or finding something that could be as elusive as one of those compelling Holy Grails.

It is entirely likely that my clumsy setup was totally at fault. This the likeliest conclusion, given the successes of others in this pursuit. I'll simply observe that their implements are a lot smaller than mine was. Leave it to me to start out in my quest by hunting mosquitoes with sledge hammers. If I liked brakes themselves better; I'd be in hot pursuit of this one...

The Video above is exquisitely fascinating. It demonstrates interesting things. One could be that the AK's stupendously huge barrel whip may be generated by the gas system as much as, or more than, barrel harmonics.

It can't help me, because I'm beyond help; I'm one of those Hand..., Loaders...

Greg

 

[LawnMM]

I'd never do this to just anybody, but a friend for sure, give his tuner a turn when he's not looking

 

[Swoodhouse19]

added some gorilla tape to my barrel...but its very precise to 4.21 wraps around it....

 

[Steel head]

I'd never do this to just anybody, but a friend for sure, give his tuner a turn when he's not looking

A windage/tuner one two punch might be interesting

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

Well I just found the OP and his friends having a meeting on this subject.....

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[LawnMM]

This just in, from the Bureau of Memes & Humor:

 

[jrsnell]

Hi All,

I am putting this out here and it might create controversy, although it is not my intent to do so at all.

I am an analyst by profession, and as such strongly believe in the scientific method. I recently read the article on this site by Jim Fisher titled “Barrel Tuning Factory Ammo?” with great interest. Still, I am not convinced of the validity of tuners, nor if the effects of harmonics (a bad term) are even important. I do know that there are very good ways to prove the harmonics theory once and for all. High speed video and optical shock wave imaging are two of them.

These days digital video can be pushed to 100,000 frames per second! and the Shock wave imaging is also very revealing.

Enter the slo-mo guys. Below is a link to an interesting video. Not because of the video's premise, but because it shows some really interesting things. In the video they shot an AK and a Barrett 50 Cal. The AK barrel flexed like a wet noodle, while the Barret's flex with a heavy, fluted barrel is imperceptible. Heavy barrels? Fluting? Is that's all that's needed? If the AK always spits out the bullet with the same flex is a tuner needed?

Then I saw something that caught my eye. In the video they also shot 9mm and .45ACP handguns. The .45 1911 was the only subsonic firearm in the video. If you watch really close during the frame by frame portion, the explosion shock wave catches up with the bullet (the explosion shock wave is many times supersonic) and literally changes the angle of the bullet! I now see clearly that when a bullet exits the barrel it is basically "uncapping" an explosion and once uncapped, albeit for a short distance, it is allowing the explosive shock wave to expand very rapidly - at supersonic speeds, overtaking the subsonic projectile....

The links:,

Slo-Mo Guys Video:



In another link below there is some really interesting high speed high-speed shadow and schlieren images of gunshots (bottom of the article). Does this happen to all subsonics? 22 LR? Short barrels worse? Are suppressors and muzzle brakes better than tuners? They might be for subsonics if they slow down or deflect the explosion shock wave.
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/high-speed-imaging-of-shock-waves-explosions-and-gunshots

All the best!

JAS

 

[jrsnell]

See my notebook for an LS-DYN network analysis of a barrel tuner.
there is also a lot of info on related stuff.

Snell's Notebook

 

[JAS-SH]

Funny memes! Helpful to an adult discussion, think not.

One point to make about barrel flex. A thought experiment. No physical experimentation needed to make the point but at some time a hands on experiment would be needed to validate.

Make a 4 inch diameter barrel and shoot a .22 LR subsonic through it. Does anyone here really believe that the barrel would flex?

Best,

JAS

 

[LawnMM]

Funny memes! Helpful to an adult discussion, think not.

 

[Diver160651]

Wholeheartedly agree on the cost. That said, someone has to do it because putting a tuner on the end of the barrel does NOT prove the "harmonics" theory. And cameras can be rented. Anecdotal information is by definition not science. This tuner thing has to be proven scientifically and there is only one way to do it - set up a real world experiment and prove it.

Anecdotal results (buying a tuner and shooting with it) could, in scientific circles be quoted as precision gained "between the ears", or tuners could actually work, I do not know. But, I am not going to buy into this until I see the theory proven. No human interaction at all if possible.

Seeing the video above it is a fact that the barrel flex of the Barret with a heavy barrel and longitudinal flutes is imperceptible. Not so with the AK 47, which is not known for it's accuracy. That tells me a LOT right there . Still not science but possibly a step in the right direction.

Einstein had theories that had to wait for years and years to be proven correct. Just doing something because some people who shoot really well regardless of tuners and are doing it successfully, but with lack of scientific or even logical evidence has a name - herd mentality. No offense meant by the way, it's just the way all of our minds work....

All the best,

JAS

putting a camera on the barrel, most-likely will not capture the differences in only the steel

Funny memes! Helpful to an adult discussion, think not.

One point to make about barrel flex. A thought experiment. No physical experimentation needed to make the point but at some time a hands on experiment would be needed to validate.

Make a 4 inch diameter barrel and shoot a .22 LR subsonic through it. Does anyone here really believe that the barrel would flex?

Best,

JAS

It isn't said to be the kind of whip or flex you are describing.

+ The thicker the barrel, always the tuning window is wider. Take your classic high-end Bartlin #2 sporter 1.2-0.8 barrel vs. a simple MTU 1.2.5-.93, and they are a world apart in terms of the ladder windows. The MTU is magnitudes more forgiving in terms of load development; I am talking about the same barrel maker, the same twist and same reamer and smith. I do this with my hunting guns, have two profiles spun up.

To further give you some food for thought, there have been a couple of people who have experimented with converging micro fluting and found that while super expensive, it does much the same thing as increasing the barrel thickness. If you step back and think more of a very shallow and fast shock wave and less about drastic flex, you'll be less enamored with your idea of seeing it over all the other noise, via a camera. Strain gauges have been used to verify much of this already, on the actions and barrels. Quick-load has been used successfully based on the science of BT. And yes, other things like a bad crown, can, brake can also have adverse effects on accuracy. But they are two very different things.

 

[spife7980]

Which mode are you hoping to capture on camera? https://www.varmintal.com/amode.htm
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

 

[JAS-SH]

Which mode are you hoping to capture on camera? https://www.varmintal.com/amode.htm

You are referring to computer models and modeling, something that I know much more about than shooting. I prefaced the post by saying I'm an analyst, and will now add, with over 40 years of experience.

All models must be validated with real world results - period. Models for gun barrels must be VALIDATED with gun barrels - period. And gun barrels and explosions therein cannot be validated by modeling ".5 inch cantilever beams with a square cross section".

And the camera was a relatively inexpensive suggestion. Any accurate measuring methodology will do. If the tuners are verified I'll b e the first person to hang them on my barrels.

Sorry.

Best,

JAS

 

[JAS-SH]

putting a camera on the barrel, most-likely will not capture the differences in only the steel

It isn't said to be the kind of whip or flex you are describing..........

Thank you! At least now we are getting some intelligent thoughts. I purposely did not include a description of the perceived problem. That is of course critical, and falls in the realm of a theoretical statement.

Someone, and I would be glad to start, has to posit a formal theory to first state, that an accuracy problem does indeed exist with barrel twisting, flexing, whipping, and/or harmonics, etc. Then a test of the theory must be offered to prove or disprove it, Then, and only then, a solution can be offered in the guise of barrel tuners for example, while at the same time proving that they indeed solve the problem and show how they do it.

As we all know there are a huge numbers of variables involved here. But, both a solid theoretical statement and a proposed test to the theory will lead to a great start in resolving this issue once and for all.

As a side note I would like to mention that in the strictest definition, harmonics is not a term to be used here. This because first, Harmonics implies MULTIPLE harmonic waves (plural of harmonic), and worse harmonic waves are by definition periodical and repeatable. So, if a barrel exhibited a harmonic wave, it would repeat every time and would be therefore inconsequential to accuracy. I can hear the first comment on that being that deviations in velocity will change the "harmonics". Well, then at that point that is no longer "harmonics" problem is it? And then we go back to reloading, a time proven and tested method to minimize, not eliminate, said velocity deviation effects.

Thanks again,

JAS

 

[Rob01]

 

[Tiger_Shilone]

y

 

[1moaoff]

Which mode are you hoping to capture on camera? https://www.varmintal.com/amode.htm
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Is this a porn video?

 

[1moaoff]

You are referring to computer models and modeling, something that I know much more about than shooting. I prefaced the post by saying I'm an analyst, and will now add, with over 40 years of experience.

All models must be validated with real world results - period. Models for gun barrels must be VALIDATED with gun barrels - period. And gun barrels and explosions therein cannot be validated by modeling ".5 inch cantilever beams with a square cross section".

And the camera was a relatively inexpensive suggestion. Any accurate measuring methodology will do. If the tuners are verified I'll b e the first person to hang them on my barrels.

Sorry.

Best,

JAS

Verify by putting on YOUR barrel and testing the difference...

I would post funny gif or meme of just put it on the tip to add further insight but I am a grown up

 

[1moaoff]

Jas

On further reflection ask this question on accurate shooter

 

[1moaoff]

 

[LawnMM]

I would post funny gif or meme of just put it on the tip to add further insight but I am a grown up

 

[McMillan]

Thank you! At least now we are getting some intelligent thoughts. I purposely did not include a description of the perceived problem. That is of course critical, and falls in the realm of a theoretical statement.

Someone, and I would be glad to start, has to posit a formal theory to first state, that an accuracy problem does indeed exist with barrel twisting, flexing, whipping, and/or harmonics, etc. Then a test of the theory must be offered to prove or disprove it, Then, and only then, a solution can be offered in the guise of barrel tuners for example, while at the same time proving that they indeed solve the problem and show how they do it.

As we all know there are a huge numbers of variables involved here. But, both a solid theoretical statement and a proposed test to the theory will lead to a great start in resolving this issue once and for all.

As a side note I would like to mention that in the strictest definition, harmonics is not a term to be used here. This because first, Harmonics implies MULTIPLE harmonic waves (plural of harmonic), and worse harmonic waves are by definition periodical and repeatable. So, if a barrel exhibited a harmonic wave, it would repeat every time and would be therefore inconsequential to accuracy. I can hear the first comment on that being that deviations in velocity will change the "harmonics". Well, then at that point that is no longer "harmonics" problem is it? And then we go back to reloading, a time proven and tested method to minimize, not eliminate, said velocity deviation effects.

Thanks again,

JAS

Can you even measure movement in thousands of an inch on a high speed camera on an already moving platform. It seems like you are trying to suggest a less accurate test to disprove something that has been shown in results thousands of times over. Do you actually genuinely beleive a placebo effect has anything to do with bench rest shooting

 

[1moaoff]

I prescribe placebo toners to my patients. Their made in china

 

[Dthomas3523]

Best that comes from this is we learn tuners work for different reasons than we think. As it’s been shown to work time and time again.

The precision rifle side of the industry (all precision disciplines) is too small to warrant such testing just to show the fine details of why they work. Zero financial incentive to go further than we already have. It’s been shown time and time again that tuners and seating depth adjustments have similar results.

Hell, I’ve never seen a video from any respectable source that shows them adjusting a tuner *without* seeing a change in group size as it’s moved.

The supposition that they don’t work because no one has gone to the nth degree to show exactly why is flawed from the onset. I could get on board with “tuners work, but I am not convinced they work the way we think.” But not “tuners don’t work because someone hasn’t shown me how.”

 

[jarredsc]

There are some barrel tuner suppressors made in South Africa called next level silencer that changes the balance of the barrel quit a nice thing to change bad groups into quit accurate ones by changing your nodes to suit the load

 

[Rob01]

My KSS tuner showed up in the mail today. I got it mounted up and hopefully be at the range tomorrow. Looking forward to seeing the results. Fit perfect with my PVA Jet4 mounted in front of it. That's a med palma contour barrel for anyone wondering.