Look closer at Vaughn's work where he determines the barrel harmonics based on the target from shooting a charge weight ladder; the frequencies he reports range from around 6-10,000 cycles per second! I have used his procedure to analyze targets from charge weight ladders I have shot and find the same. Many shooters rely on the Audette charge weight ladder as a primary method of tuning. These frequencies are very special!
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Tuners in question ?
- Thread starter badassgunworks
- Start date
Without a tuner, the barrel frequency of resonance is fixed, what changes is the amplitude based on the load and of course accuracy is partly based on where the crown is in its axis of movement at the moment the slug parts contact. Obviously the other parts of the “load information” you mention have to do the most with reducing the velocity deviation shot to shot.
If your “perfect load” still falls in the wrong portion of barrel harmonics, you will still not reap the full rewards of your labor.
Enter the tuner…..
How exactly does Brian Litz benefit financially from showing that tuners don’t work?
It’s easy to see the financial interests of those who sell tuners, but what you are saying is hard to understand.
If someone could prove to him that they do work he could then manufacture his own version. Whether there is proof that they do or they don't the test and debate produce publish conversations that people pay to read. Either way he still makes money. Not that difficult
I think if he wanted to make money off of tuners he would've already built and sold them.
People will buy them, regardless of whether they "work" or not...
Hype sells books , you can not see that? And why would you think he proved anything . From what I hear it was more speculative than anything . I have much larger samples than 1400 Rds and I could prove they work as well as many many other shooters . So why can he not prove it ? Because he will not listen to the shooters that do know and that is ok by me .
timintx
Last edited:
In my files, they are not public. I could put some together though but is primarily reserved for the military use only.
timintx
This is not purely based on this thread etc.
But I have never seen a industry like the firearms industry that looks down on other people in the industry making money.
It’s like @Frank Green not saying how many grooves he has in a barrel to pva even though he has more sales then he can handle.
It never makes sense to me.
Edit…had to drag you back in lol
But I have never seen a industry like the firearms industry that looks down on other people in the industry making money.
It’s like @Frank Green not saying how many grooves he has in a barrel to pva even though he has more sales then he can handle.
It never makes sense to me.
Edit…had to drag you back in lol
No biggie! I was trying to lighten the mood a little bit.
If I see the need to respond to something in particular…I’ll speak up!
statisticaly meaning sample of shots is at least 30.
how many shots is recommended to see if tuners work and if there is some mystical 'node'?
in every iteration you see 'nodes' on different spot, but you didnt consider that this could be bullshit?
how many shots is recommended to see if tuners work and if there is some mystical 'node'?
in every iteration you see 'nodes' on different spot, but you didnt consider that this could be bullshit?
It's very difficult to make money selling books. Generally one is lucky to break even unless the book is selling in very high quantities, think NYTimes bestseller list. And as noted above there is no barrier to making tuners if one wanted to do that. The thing is that Brian Litz has an understanding of how to do a valid experiment. No one who claims tuners work is willing to say anything to demonstrate the most basic understanding of math, statistics, experimental design etc.
There is always more to learn in my case about statistics but I have demonstrated the concept and highly detailed explanations on here and many others have as well, ladders , computer simulations and has been done for years this way . The problem is here it seems to be a statistic contest to see who can discount each other’s data that is presented Instead of trying the same techniques that have been used for years by scientists and shooters alike . Shooting a lot of shots with the same exit timing with small adjustments can contain a lot of noise in itself simply by the structure of the test .Not controlling variables like barrel temp and wind (no flags )and it means a lot so large statistics does not mean it was applied in a way that will show anything definitive especially when it has happened so many times already .. When a measurement is taken of a particular movement large statistics can cloud the movements by not controlling the variables properly which is more important by far. I have shot many ladder tests over the years that did not repeat , why ? Simply because the barrel temp changed the repeatability . So once the temp was repeated so did the patterns . If Bryan or anybody does not take that to heart then the test is void 100% just because of that one variable alone .What needs to be implemented is focus on variables more than statistics .
That has not been done .
timintx
Last edited:
reading what you wrote i think that is what gets confusing to many good or bad..even my opinion has wavered on this thread alone
we think we know what variables there are
we know variables change
some variables we cannot really account for
some we can account for but can not quantify
some variables coincide only come times
thats where confidence interval comes in
for some a belief or opinion is at a 100% confidence or its wrong/bad
for others 70-30 is good enough
just outside looking in
personally id sell the shit out of them because this industry is always clawing to buy new/ cool stuff it if works or not
how many different scope bases and rail manufactures are there..100's if not more, and they are all making money and a living
cut the bullshit and THINK !!
more and more pople test ladders with a lot of shots, and see that every time nodes are on different spots. what does this tell to you?
even you admit that you didnt manage to repeat the ladder. THINK why is that !!!
because if you can't repeat it, or it is every time on different spot, is this still the 'node'? is the node thing realy the truth ??
you can test your load with 'not node' charge and node charge for at least 20 shots. people who done this, tells that those charges shoot the same, if there is not a big difference in charge weight.
so what is realy going on you must ask yourself !
if those 3 shots are statistical lie and you get every time different result, what is the reality ?
and more and more people say that precision is driven by different things than this 0.2gr charge difference and 0.003' difference in seating depth...
Last edited:
You are not reading , it is always repeatable if the variables held tight . That is the main reason why it does not repeat .No one says 3shot groups are absolute , most shooters change powder more like .5 grains not .2 .variables !!!! Read before you start your rants !!!!
timintx
Better barrels produce better groups with adequate development. It's not so much about the quality of barrel because it is the Contour the size in relation to or diameter the bedding the Fire Control mechanism the cartridge and volume of powder that you're using the weight of the projectile Etc. Every barrel can benefit from a tuner in some form or fashion. A lot of it depends on what you're using the tuner for. Even your structured barrels was self proclaimed harmonically dead benefit from a tuner. Most quality barrels and builds don't have difficulty showing accuracy at 100 yards. And Tuners don't really shine at those distances in order to finally tune what you cannot do adequately with loads a tuner reveals improvements at 500 to 700 yards
Precision Rifle Gear - Adaptive Tuner - Kinetic Security Solutions
I am jumping into the Tuner World, which I think is an awesome direction, Grabbed a few to give them a try, for a guy like me who uses factory ammo, this should be a nice improvement. I know we have a bunch of other tuner threads, didn't see a dedicated Adaptive ones.www.snipershide.com
Lowlight pretty much sums up that good barrels aren't going to see a big improvement and I agree. Maybe someone can do a video that shows its repeatable over a number of rounds?
Actually they can but only due to positive compensation. It has been tested time and time again . But mainly when the wind is down as a slower bullet will drift down wind more . Vertical dispersion can be reduced . When it is increased that is due to negative compensation in which a barrel will aim a slower bullet lower increasing vertical dispersion.
timintx
Really you don't understand what I'm getting at. I did not say that groups improve at distance. It's easier to adjust and see Improvement at 500 to 700 yd with a tuner versus 100 yd
Let me put it this way , my barrel will aim a slower Bullet(36fps ) higher at 100 yards which is tough to do , in which they will hit the same height down range , any velocity variance within that range will do the same . I can demonstrate it anytime .let’s stick to tuners for now to keep this thread on track .Range Report - How can a rifle shoot poorly at 100 but well at 1000?
Are you still Jaw Jacking ... Serious, you showed your ass, pretending to find ways to make a group smaller at distance, Laughable, Your choices on posting are gonna get really limited really quick if you keep it up, You're the new Jim Acosta of SH, spreading Fake News cause you got...
This thread says otherwise and I believe it was Bryan litz that shot at a clear board at 100 and rounds past that proved that a 1moa gun at 100 yards was the same at 300.
Can you post any links to your test that have been shown time and time again?
timintx
Yessss!!!!
Screw tuners…now on to a real debate
POSITIVE COMPENSATION
Popcorn deer time baby.
I think the only topics in shooting argued more than politics is positive compensation and flat spots.
Let’s save flat spots after the compensation debate…give the thread more legs
Screw tuners…now on to a real debate
POSITIVE COMPENSATION
Popcorn deer time baby.
I think the only topics in shooting argued more than politics is positive compensation and flat spots.
Let’s save flat spots after the compensation debate…give the thread more legs
Scientist/mathematician person 1: i did an experiment and found this data set. Very interesting..
Sci/math 2: hmm, can you show me your method and data set, ill try to reproduce it. (2 weeks later). Hmm, i somewhat disagree with you. Heres what i found..
Sci/math 1: oh, ok. I see what you did there. That is weird. Ok, ill try again with your method and see if thats reproducible.
Sci/math 3: hey guys, i was reading about your experiments, and a colleague and I can do it this way, which reliably gets result X.
Sci/math 1+2: oh, that makes sense. Wanna help us publish this finding ?
-------------
Prs guy 1: i predict X, because i feel thats the right answer.
Prs guy 2: i disagree, because i dont like, or know you
Prs guy 3: you are both idiots. I read a single page from a huge book, about something that wasnt peer reviewed, and he said result X is true, so im right, and you both can eat a giant bag of dicks.
Prs guy 1: i am doubling down with what i feel is the right answer, with no evidence or proof. You also hurt my feelings and thats not ok.
Frank green: this the the worlds biggest kindergarten, and im gonna sit over here, but keep a close eye on this, just in case someone get kicked in the ballsack by lowlight.
Sci/math 2: hmm, can you show me your method and data set, ill try to reproduce it. (2 weeks later). Hmm, i somewhat disagree with you. Heres what i found..
Sci/math 1: oh, ok. I see what you did there. That is weird. Ok, ill try again with your method and see if thats reproducible.
Sci/math 3: hey guys, i was reading about your experiments, and a colleague and I can do it this way, which reliably gets result X.
Sci/math 1+2: oh, that makes sense. Wanna help us publish this finding ?
-------------
Prs guy 1: i predict X, because i feel thats the right answer.
Prs guy 2: i disagree, because i dont like, or know you
Prs guy 3: you are both idiots. I read a single page from a huge book, about something that wasnt peer reviewed, and he said result X is true, so im right, and you both can eat a giant bag of dicks.
Prs guy 1: i am doubling down with what i feel is the right answer, with no evidence or proof. You also hurt my feelings and thats not ok.
Frank green: this the the worlds biggest kindergarten, and im gonna sit over here, but keep a close eye on this, just in case someone get kicked in the ballsack by lowlight.
Want proof of what I'm saying it's really simple forget what distance you shot at before and what your group size was. Shoot two five shot groups at 700 yards let's say your average group size between both of those groups for example is 5 inches if you're still not happy confirm that with two more five shot groups again the results wasn't average of approximately 5 in now you're satisfied that it was not a fluke so now you adjust your tuner and close your groups to be tighter than the other four groups that you shot. This is why you tune at distance not 100 yards because the distance due to extrapolation shows what's your tuner actually does. Now if you cannot understand that then I'll explain it another way. Let's say you own a factory remington 700 Sendero in 308. You buy brand new Remington Corelock ammo 168 grain you get very familiar with the rifle and you've confirmed that you can shoot a consistent 15-in group at 500 yards. Do you not believe that if you try different brands of ammo different grain weights that you might be able to shoot a much tighter group at the same distance? This is what the word "tuner"means
Last edited:
@phlegethon @timintx
Phleg I know you’ve been to foxtrot for elr…and you seem level headed.
I’ll split travel costs if you go and give a honest write up. Dave would prob meet you there as well.
Let’s goooo!
Phleg I know you’ve been to foxtrot for elr…and you seem level headed.
I’ll split travel costs if you go and give a honest write up. Dave would prob meet you there as well.
Let’s goooo!
Damn Foxtrot is a 6 hr drive but what the heck at least it may be warmer down there . I am game.
timintx
I know that you know that this is pure bullshit. you are smart enough.
than another logical question: if you can't repeat those variables, that EVERY time 'node' is in different place, why at the first place do a ladder test? if you cant repeat it and you will never have optimal charge in 'node'?
THINK!
I think that is a good thread . After reading through I think there is a slight misconception and is totally understandable . Bad seating depth causes 2 problems , increases velocity variance in which a tuner will correct for and sometimes causes random dispersion which a tuner will not correct , for that reason some may not see an improvement due to the random dispersion caused by seating depth with factory ammo . I could be wrong but with Frank it could be the reason because I know he is a good shooter..Precision Rifle Gear - Adaptive Tuner - Kinetic Security Solutions
I am jumping into the Tuner World, which I think is an awesome direction, Grabbed a few to give them a try, for a guy like me who uses factory ammo, this should be a nice improvement. I know we have a bunch of other tuner threads, didn't see a dedicated Adaptive ones.
Lowlight pretty much sums up that good barrels aren't going to see a big improvement and I agree. Maybe someone can do a video that shows its repeatable over a number of rounds?
timintx
Last edited:
Every one is ignoring you due to the fact that your a stupid ass. Its people like you that hinder the advancements of the shooting sports..
Dont waste yout time on people who dont have ears to hear. Dont waste your breath on stupid ass people. There are lots of people who want to learn and are intrested. Point of this post was and still is no book on tuners dont work. No published shitty test will change the fact that 100s of the best shooters in benchrest and f class will continue to use them.
I think the shooting sports are more hindered by those who bring insults instead of data to discussions.
In mature fields of engineering, there are well described principles. There are theories that line up with experiment. You can get books on how to design an engine, an aircraft, an electronic circuit. There aren’t people arguing online about their feelings about Bernoulli’s principle or the relationship between resistance and capacitance. PV = nRT every time it’s measured, not just sometimes with some people if you throw out the samples that didn’t work. Does any of this sound like the situation with tuners?
What the fuck are “velocity platoes”? Is English your second langauge?Yes, when Bryan Litz in his new book modern-advancements-long-range-shooting volume 3 find out that tuners didnt work for him like everybody are aimnimg for, he made such a stir...
all snake oil of tuner sellers are raving about how his test is bullshit, how they can find a node with 2 shots, they are experts in reading 3 shot groups, they can find velocity platoes with one shot where Bryan cant find those platoes with 10 shots, and Bryan didnt find that with only 1° of turn your gun will become world champion...
all comunity is in delirium, because Bryan didnt see that tuners work. it is just the same if i say to some retarded chatolic that there is no god... anger everywhere!
but those retarded people cant read what corelation Bryan DID find: heavier object on the muzzle produce smaller groups!
so those snake oil producers, youtube 2 shot groups experts, velocity platoes gurus only need to hange something heavy on their barrel and they will shoot smaller groups!! no stupid turns of tuners, no retarder interpreting 2 shot POI, no nice rounded 3-shot groups. just something heavy at the end of the barrel!!!
have fun retards!
Sorry I missed that comment , but will answer it the best I can . Statistics being already done for accuracy . When testing a movement ,I must control certain variables in a differing fashion than most . I do not want the average of all of the differing movements with no regard for certain variables .I want to see the actual movement but will still shoot 5 shots per charge but not in succession to control barrel temperature and then see the change of the movement after adjustment of weight at the muzzle . These are critical variables that I have already determined that are effecting by many years of past testing . When something changes unexpectedly I will stop and find the variable before I continue . With that said , when I ran ladder patterns , the patterns changed , why ?barrel temp . Every ladder I test with the exact same barrel temp . When I shoot the ladder I am shooting 1 shot of each powder charge side by side with each shot logged in with the barrel temperature .Then the barrel is cooled completely to maintain the exact same temp throughout the next ladder . Once done I will overlay all 5 graphs for and average to gain confidence in my test with low round counts . The next variable is when I test for vertical components in shots , I never test in a tail wind or head wind . The next is wind in general , I will test with a wind flag every 20 yards in my scopes view to insure the validity of the testing as well at 100 yards or I shoot in a test tunnel . I also make sure the sand bag I am shooting on is settled perfectly before testing as well . Not going to trust a bipod or any variant there of . Absolute solidity and tracking is paramount . When I do not see these variables controlled in any way I will question the validity of any tuner test , even Bryan’s .
timintx
Last edited:
Phiegethon here is a example of too much weight on the barrel and heat on the barrel as well , the first graph shows a sharp downswing of the barrel which will cause excessive vertical because the barrel is moving sharply down as the bullets exit. Most guns have this negative compensation. We want to reverse that movement at minimum level it out , after a weight change on graph 2 we have positive compensation where the slower bullets are exiting higher at a specific rate , the normal load exit time is at 71 grains which remains unchanged with a hot barrel indicated on graph 3 ,but the slower end or right side of the pattern flattens out. if I were exiting at 69-68 grains area setting a tuner it would have changed after 8 shots or so depending on the ambient temp which determines how fast the barrel will heat up in a given amount of shots, so I do not shoot back to back groups ,instead I will shoot 5 graphs with one shot in each column to manage the heat factor .The barrel is cooled between the graphs and they do repeat now I know how they change which helps and I know that my normal exit time or load is not effected by this change.
Timintx
Timintx
Attachments
Last edited:
Throught this post mr marky mark it the only one that has been insulting any one go back and read.
are you now saying that tuner can correct internal ballistic?
first: positive compensation does not exists. second: our best commercial chronograph (labradar) is ±0.1% precise = ±! 3 fps at 3000fps MV. ~6 fps interval in which you dont know what is REAL velocity.
exactly. and we must prevent that people wont learn from those who repeat old lies, like you.
ok. lets pretend that we are at local match. you need to shot 20 shots. so barrel temperature will go up, and you said that your ladder test is wrong because temperature of the barrel changed.
why did you choose to do a ledder test in the first place, if it wont work for more than 1 shot? and you even can't repeat it to have same 'nodes' - never.
what is the point of ladder test, if you are sure that it is repeatable in only 1 condition, but this condition wont NEVER repeat again?
I agree but to compare that to electrical formulas is a little different , wind is ever changing , heat and wear and friction is ever changing . Resistance and capacitance and the relationship are a constant if they were not it too would be argued, this is more like trying to calculate amps or ohms in a circuit with constantly changing volts(variables ). Marky Mark seems to want to wreck this thread and every other thread to satisfy his moral obligation he states . He is the main reason for the arguments and Badass guns is just tired of it and I don’t blame him , I am too . I suspect he was barrelstroker , everybody thinks we do not notice a change in screen name but the same writing style gives them away . If everybody had to use their real name there would be much less arguments.
timintx
Last edited:
I may be late in this conversation but Sir, this is the best argument I’ve read so far regarding tuners. Thank you…
