Tuners in question ?

[Greg Langelius *]

I did some initial experiments with home brew tuners. I concur with the issues of multiple harmonics and the benefit of larger mass. There are likely a multitude of issues I never got near to addressing.

The thing that sunk my ship was repeatability. On a "good" day, the system would provide groups small enough to outright scare me. The next day, they'd be significantly different. I never did pin down the active variable, but it was clearly environmental.

I concluded that the issue related largely to propellent temperature variations altering barrel times day-to-day, and that as such, my overall goal was in perpetual jeopardy. I concluded that the number of shots needed to "retune" the system (I.e. rematch the tuner setup to match the new barrel time. This can be a moving target as conditions change through the shooting day.) ate excessively into overall bore life, and abandoned the goal in favor of settling for an arbitrary average group size, and not a tiny one, either.

I think the question of whether they "work" is totally a question of what one defines "works" to be. For me, that definition resolved as achieving a good F Class score at 1Kyd. Some days I met the goal, many others, I did not. It also meant that the significant factor affecting the system's performance in my own case was not the hardware, but the shooter. The wind ate my lunch on many days.

In the end, it's the shooter who gets to decide how well the tuner works; and there will be as many answers as there are users.

Greg

 

[timintx]

3 shot groups isn’t good enough, but hang a piece of medal on your barrel and 2 shot groups prove everything

I did some initial experiments with home brew tuners. I concur with the issues of multiple harmonics and the benefit of larger mass. There are likely a multitude of issues I never got near to addressing.

The thing that sunk my ship was repeatability. On a "good" day, the system would provide groups small enough to outright scare me. The next day, they'd be significantly different. I never did pin down the active variable, but it was clearly environmental.

I concluded that the issue related largely to propellent temperature variations altering barrel times day-to-day, and that as such, my overall goal was in perpetual jeopardy. I concluded that the number of shots needed to "retune" the system (I.e. rematch the tuner setup to match the new barrel time. This can be a moving target as conditions change through the shooting day.) ate excessively into overall bore life, and abandoned the goal in favor of settling for an arbitrary average group size, and not a tiny one, either.

I think the question of whether they "work" is totally a question of what one defines "works" to be. For me, that definition resolved as achieving a good F Class score at 1Kyd. Some days I met the goal, many others, I did not. It also meant that the significant factor affecting the system's performance in my own case was not the hardware, but the shooter. The wind ate my lunch on many days.

In the end, it's the shooter who gets to decide how well the tuner works; and there will be as many answers as there are users.

Greg

One thing that might help,if your velocities speed up then turn the tuner towards the rear to put it back in tune as it will speed up your pattern if the exit times speed up .

Timintx

 

[oneshot.onehit]

Tuners?
I’m only one person with my own opinion and to some I probably didn’t do something right and to some it was valid, each to his own.

I’m on the road and away from home and my notes but I can still relate what we seen.
weather - calm and overcast
Range 1000 yards
416 pushing 550s
At 100 yards pretty much a one egged out hole target - 5 rounds with an average extreme spread of 3 to 5 fps at 3020 fps with tuner set on zero and close to brake. All load development was done at the original 0 setting

As the settings increased the brake moved closer to the chamber for a direction reference
Still set at zero
first 5 round group had a ES of 2 or 3 fps which is good
print on paper reflected a vertical shape triangle around 10” in height
we went down and measured group, taped holes and ran a sharpie marker from hole to hole

set the tuner at 0.5
5 round group now had a ES of 6 fps
print on paper was a almost perfect horizontal line but 10” across
went down measured group, taped holes and marked the pattern

set tuner at 1.0
5 round group had a tight ES again
5 round group shifted to a vertical triangle pattern again but smaller maybe 8” now
went down measured, taped and marked

set tuner at 1.5
ES of 4 or 5 from memory
5 round group went to a horizontal line again as well as smaller here again 6” to 8” across
went down and measured, taped and marked

set the tuner at 2.0
ES again were tight maybe 2 or 3 fps
and again it shifted to a triangular pattern in the 3” area - getting tight
went down and measured taped and marked

we pulled the target at that point - used up what ammo I had with me.


interesting patterns, Ed and I learned a lot about how it really did change the print on target.

All groups were in the same zone on the target. Rifle was always given a chance to cool some between 5 shoot intervals while marking target.

Afterwards I shot at 100 to confirm my zero didn't change and I really didn’t like the 5 round print, it seemed to open a bit so for the hell of it I turned the tuner to 2.5 and it looked good after that. I left it as is and went to a event.

This is very close to what actually happened due to being away from home and my notes.

JH

 

[timintx]

Tuners?
I’m only one person with my own opinion and to some I probably didn’t do something right and to some it was valid, each to his own.

I’m on the road and away from home and my notes but I can still relate what we seen.
weather - calm and overcast
Range 1000 yards
416 pushing 550s
At 100 yards pretty much a one egged out hole target - 5 rounds with an average extreme spread of 3 to 5 fps at 3020 fps with tuner set on zero and close to brake. All load development was done at the original 0 setting

As the settings increased the brake moved closer to the chamber for a direction reference
Still set at zero
first 5 round group had a ES of 2 or 3 fps which is good
print on paper reflected a vertical shape triangle around 10” in height
we went down and measured group, taped holes and ran a sharpie marker from hole to hole

set the tuner at 0.5
5 round group now had a ES of 6 fps
print on paper was a almost perfect horizontal line but 10” across
went down measured group, taped holes and marked the pattern

set tuner at 1.0
5 round group had a tight ES again
5 round group shifted to a vertical triangle pattern again but smaller maybe 8” now
went down measured, taped and marked

set tuner at 1.5
ES of 4 or 5 from memory
5 round group went to a horizontal line again as well as smaller here again 6” to 8” across
went down and measured, taped and marked

set the tuner at 2.0
ES again were tight maybe 2 or 3 fps
and again it shifted to a triangular pattern in the 3” area - getting tight
went down and measured taped and marked

we pulled the target at that point - used up what ammo I had with me.


interesting patterns, Ed and I learned a lot about how it really did change the print on target.

All groups were in the same zone on the target. Rifle was always given a chance to cool some between 5 shoot intervals while marking target.

Afterwards I shot at 100 to confirm my zero didn't change and I really didn’t like the 5 round print, it seemed to open a bit so for the hell of it I turned the tuner to 2.5 and it looked good after that. I left it as is and went to a event.

This is very close to what actually happened due to being away from home and my notes.

JH

Great post Jeff, that goes to what Badassguns stated , you can see the smaller changes in the tuner at longer ranges a lot of times. Thanks for the post .

Timintx

 

[memilanuk]

Tuners?
I’m only one person with my own opinion and to some I probably didn’t do something right and to some it was valid, each to his own.

I’m on the road and away from home and my notes but I can still relate what we seen.
weather - calm and overcast
Range 1000 yards
416 pushing 550s
At 100 yards pretty much a one egged out hole target - 5 rounds with an average extreme spread of 3 to 5 fps at 3020 fps with tuner set on zero and close to brake. All load development was done at the original 0 setting

As the settings increased the brake moved closer to the chamber for a direction reference
Still set at zero
first 5 round group had a ES of 2 or 3 fps which is good
print on paper reflected a vertical shape triangle around 10” in height
we went down and measured group, taped holes and ran a sharpie marker from hole to hole

set the tuner at 0.5
5 round group now had a ES of 6 fps
print on paper was a almost perfect horizontal line but 10” across
went down measured group, taped holes and marked the pattern

set tuner at 1.0
5 round group had a tight ES again
5 round group shifted to a vertical triangle pattern again but smaller maybe 8” now
went down measured, taped and marked

set tuner at 1.5
ES of 4 or 5 from memory
5 round group went to a horizontal line again as well as smaller here again 6” to 8” across
went down and measured, taped and marked

set the tuner at 2.0
ES again were tight maybe 2 or 3 fps
and again it shifted to a triangular pattern in the 3” area - getting tight
went down and measured taped and marked

we pulled the target at that point - used up what ammo I had with me.


interesting patterns, Ed and I learned a lot about how it really did change the print on target.

All groups were in the same zone on the target. Rifle was always given a chance to cool some between 5 shoot intervals while marking target.

Afterwards I shot at 100 to confirm my zero didn't change and I really didn’t like the 5 round print, it seemed to open a bit so for the hell of it I turned the tuner to 2.5 and it looked good after that. I left it as is and went to a event.

This is very close to what actually happened due to being away from home and my notes.

JH

I'm sorry... I must be missing something... maybe a lot. I'm generally in the 'pro' tuner camp, but... if you literally stopped, got off the gun, drove all the way to the target (1000yds) between each group... there's so much else that could have been going on that trying to read *anything* out of those groups as being attributed to the tuner... well, good luck to ya.

 

[badassgunworks]

I'm sorry... I must be missing something... maybe a lot. I'm generally in the 'pro' tuner camp, but... if you literally stopped, got off the gun, drove all the way to the target (1000yds) between each group... there's so much else that could have been going on that trying to read *anything* out of those groups as being attributed to the tuner... well, good luck to ya.

Not if conditions, environmentals and barrel temps were helt to same levels for each group . Shooting groups at 100 yards tuning becomes very difficult it see improvements when your loads are tuned and every thing on paper is tight determing what is you and tune becomes very difficult some times

 

[timintx]

I'm sorry... I must be missing something... maybe a lot. I'm generally in the 'pro' tuner camp, but... if you literally stopped, got off the gun, drove all the way to the target (1000yds) between each group... there's so much else that could have been going on that trying to read *anything* out of those groups as being attributed to the tuner... well, good luck to ya.

Monte I understand completely but sometimes the tuning process has time constraints as I am sure you know and if you knew Jeff , he is a extremely experienced shooter and very methodical in his set up . Not your average shooter .I have tuned the exact same way many times and the results were stellar .

Timintx

 

[memilanuk]

Okey dokey. I just know my experience, and frustration, having done load development precisely like that, before e-targets. Hell, even *with* e-targets, shit changes from one string to the next. That's what we call 'relay roulette' in matches.

 

[kthomas]

My favorite part about tuners is how even those that shoot tuners and make tuners can't even agree on how tuners should be used, how they work, and what they can actually do.

 

[timintx]

Okey dokey. I just know my experience, and frustration, having done load development precisely like that, before e-targets. Hell, even *with* e-targets, shit changes from one string to the next. That's what we call 'relay roulette' in matches.

Yes but he had stated the load development was already done with the tuner set at 0, he was just tweaking the tuner from there to see if he could get the groups tighter at 1000. And he did. I certainly would not have left it at 0 if the groups went from 10 to 3 inches .

Timintx

 

[timintx]

My favorite part about tuners is how even those that shoot tuners and make tuners can't even agree on how tuners should be used, how they work, and what they can actually do.

Yes we can , they work just fine and everybody has their own way . There is no one way of testing and yes we know what tuners do. So what if they are used in differing ways , it does not mean we can not agree on the methods . That is like saying gun builders can not agree on the best way to build a gun just because they are different .

Timintx

 

[kthomas]

Yes we can , they work just fine and everybody has their own way . There is no one way of testing and yes we know what tuners do. So what if they are used in differing ways , it does not mean we can not agree on the methods . That is like saying gun builders can not agree on the best way to build a gun just because they are different .

Timintx

I've seen some pretty comical exchanges between world record setting BR shooters and tuner manufacturers, some that got pretty heated.

And all the tuner manufacturers state different things on what tuners can and can't do. The difference between what @badassgunworks will tell you versus Eric Cortina/Aaron Hipp versus what Mike Ezell would say is very different.

There is no consensus on tuners.

 

[timintx]

I've seen some pretty comical exchanges between world record setting BR shooters and tuner manufacturers, some that got pretty heated.

And all the tuner manufacturers state different things on what tuners can and can't do. The difference between what @badassgunworks will tell you versus Eric Cortina/Aaron Hipp versus what Mike Ezell would say is very different.

There is no consensus on tuners.

Well I think we can all agree that tuners have the potential to better groups . The methods used to get there will always be debated . That is why I got involved in this , I have shown exactly what they do through many years of testing the specific function of tuners in the hopes to have a better understanding of what tuners do such as using graphs to know what you are actually adjusting and relating point of impact to velocity (exit timing )rather than random turning until it shoots well .. funny thing though they still work with all of the differing methods.

Timintx

 

[timintx]

I might add that Jeff has ran graphs on his guns. So he knows exactly what he is adjusting which makes for a more informed decision to adjust and shoot. I know of very few people that will do that .

Timintx

 

[badassgunworks]

I've seen some pretty comical exchanges between world record setting BR shooters and tuner manufacturers, some that got pretty heated.

And all the tuner manufacturers state different things on what tuners can and can't do. The difference between what @badassgunworks will tell you versus Eric Cortina/Aaron Hipp versus what Mike Ezell would say is very different.

There is no consensus on tuners.

One thing is for sure that every one who builds tuners agree on is that they can be used to shrink groups, and they can be adjusted for changes in barrel and environmental changes. One thing is for sure down deep inside you wish litz was correct. But you also know thats not true eather. So why do you keep this up. I can appreciate your openions but facts still remain 100s of the best shooters in the world use them. Litz is wrong about a great many things . He needs to stick with external ballistics as his internal ballistics studies will destroy his value in the industry and he is valued just wrong .

 

[M H]

There is no consensus on tuners.

I’m new to tuners. Just keep trying for the past few weeks… AFAIK tuners are not that new, why do you think still there is no consensus till today?!!

From my brief experience, tuner settings does change group size

 

[brianf]

I’m new to tuners. Just keep trying for the past few weeks… AFAIK tuners are not that new, why do you think still there is no consensus till today?!!

From my brief experience, tuner settings does change group size

consensus is;

1. tuners do something but its not set and forget

2. 99.9% of the shooting community wants to shoot better by spending money and never touching it again, nothing wrong with that its just the way it is

3. just like someone who has a "pet load"; there is no such thing. it s a combination of components that work well enough most of the time for a particular cartridge, but that "formula" is not the best for all or the most accurate possible for that particular rifle compared to the last rifle/barrel


biggest hurdles for tuners is.. the shooter

most people dont shoot enough or shoot well enough to exploit the minute differences over a long period of time
if you are a .6 wobble and you think that a tuner will make you shoot less than .6 over a long period of time..not happening

this is the only sport that "players" blame everything but themselves, unless you call every shot and every flyer.. you are lying to yourself and that screws up the data in your head.

everyone walks around with the smallest group they shot that day, how about the worst your shot..oh not showing that one huh.

same ammo, same day you shoot a bunch of .3's and bunch of .9's "getting warmed up", you are a .6 shooter

 

[Tx_Aggie]

consensus is;

1. tuners do something but its not set and forget

2. 99.9% of the shooting community wants to shoot better by spending money and never touching it again, nothing wrong with that its just the way it is

3. just like someone who has a "pet load"; there is no such thing. it s a combination of components that work well enough most of the time for a particular cartridge, but that "formula" is not the best for all or the most accurate possible for that particular rifle compared to the last rifle/barrel


biggest hurdles for tuners is.. the shooter

most people dont shoot enough or shoot well enough to exploit the minute differences over a long period of time
if you are a .6 wobble and you think that a tuner will make you shoot less than .6 over a long period of time..not happening

this is the only sport that "players" blame everything but themselves, unless you call every shot and every flyer.. you are lying to yourself and that screws up the data in your head.

everyone walks around with the smallest group they shot that day, how about the worst your shot..oh not showing that one huh.

same ammo, same day you shoot a bunch of .3's and bunch of .9's "getting warmed up", you are a .6 shooter

And folks talking about a rifle shooting consistently in the .2s and .3s, and then being able to differentiate between tuner settings at that level of precision based solely on groups of 2-3 shots.

 

[JustSendit]

Sorry does anyone have the figures for Litz test?

I heard* it was Francis colon and another PRS guy who shot a handful of tuners like not in the most controlled situation.

If it’s already posted or even if not can someone link the test or some of figures involved? I kind of got the just of the argument why they don’t work - just curious which tuners, and what conditions they were tested under.

I sat through a seminar Litz spoke at and a few of his “tests” didn’t seem exceedingly through. Now I’ve subscribed to his theories dozens of times but doesn’t meant I think he’s right and does the best test all the time.

 

[JustSendit]

consensus is;

1. tuners do something but its not set and forget

2. 99.9% of the shooting community wants to shoot better by spending money and never touching it again, nothing wrong with that its just the way it is

3. just like someone who has a "pet load"; there is no such thing. it s a combination of components that work well enough most of the time for a particular cartridge, but that "formula" is not the best for all or the most accurate possible for that particular rifle compared to the last rifle/barrel


biggest hurdles for tuners is.. the shooter

most people dont shoot enough or shoot well enough to exploit the minute differences over a long period of time
if you are a .6 wobble and you think that a tuner will make you shoot less than .6 over a long period of time..not happening

this is the only sport that "players" blame everything but themselves, unless you call every shot and every flyer.. you are lying to yourself and that screws up the data in your head.

everyone walks around with the smallest group they shot that day, how about the worst your shot..oh not showing that one huh.

same ammo, same day you shoot a bunch of .3's and bunch of .9's "getting warmed up", you are a .6 shooter

I could be wrong but I thought a lot of the tuner testing by people swearing to them was done on a bench, with a super light trigger, in a rest. Or at least did their testing i the prone. If you got a .6 wobble prone, you’re probably shooting on a sail boat or something.

 

[brianf]

I could be wrong but I thought a lot of the tuner testing by people swearing to them was done on a bench, with a super light trigger, in a rest. Or at least did their testing i the prone. If you got a .6 wobble prone, you’re probably shooting on a sail boat or something.

i could be wrong but from almost all the pics i have seen of set ups..none belong at a f class or BR match

the .6 comment was for the regular guy who is looking at a tuner, buys one then comments on their effectiveness

ill go back to another thing i posted, shooting a really accurate cartridge and making it shoot really accurate but still not equaling the "best" that cartridge has done shows nothing. its still in its cone

thats why i think the testing should be done with a inherently/ historically inaccurate cartridge

season aggs are in the .2's for BR, so shooting a BR cartridge and tuning it to shoot .2, shows nothing.

there are rifles out there doing it for a whole season over several barrels not for a weekend test

tuning a BR cartridge that is shooting .4 and is now shooting .2 only shows that the original load/set up was sub par

if you can take a cartridge that has never shot .5 and shoot .3 every time its taken out from safe, something is going on and its worth looking at

let it be known, i want them to work more than anyone so i can spend money on more crap that looks cool..

 

[JustSendit]

i could be wrong but from almost all the pics i have seen of set ups..none belong at a f class or BR match

the .6 comment was for the regular guy who is looking at a tuner, buys one then comments on their effectiveness

ill go back to another thing i posted, shooting a really accurate cartridge and making it shoot really accurate but still not equaling the "best" that cartridge has done shows nothing. its still in its cone

thats why i think the testing should be done with a inherently/ historically inaccurate cartridge

season aggs are in the .2's for BR, so shooting a BR cartridge and tuning it to shoot .2, shows nothing.

there are rifles out there doing it for a whole season over several barrels not for a weekend test

tuning a BR cartridge that is shooting .4 and is now shooting .2 only shows that the original load/set up was sub par

if you can take a cartridge that has never shot .5 and shoot .3 every time its taken out from safe, something is going on and its worth looking at

let it be known, i want them to work more than anyone so i can spend money on more crap that looks cool..

Yeah I agree with you here.

I think one aspect I am uncertain of is that harmonics have no effect. I personally did a test using a MRAD over a considerable amount of rounds with a tuner.. I didn’t see much. But suppressed vs not, I think it was pretty obvious that the can had a positive effect. So it’s not harmonics… for science purposes I’d like to know what then.

I showed the results to a guy who is essentially a disciple of Litz. I shot 250rds in this test and he said it was too small of a sample.. 25, 10 shoot strings. But the expert said the sample was too small..

I dunno lol

I’d just like to learn what litz tests was to be so conclusive.

 

[brianf]

Yeah I agree with you here.

I think one aspect I am uncertain of is that harmonics have no effect. I personally did a test using a MRAD over a considerable amount of rounds with a tuner.. I didn’t see much. But suppressed vs not, I think it was pretty obvious that the can had a positive effect. So it’s not harmonics… for science purposes I’d like to know what then.

I showed the results to a guy who is essentially a disciple of Litz. I shot 250rds in this test and he said it was too small of a sample.. 25, 10 shoot strings. But the expert said the sample was too small..

I dunno lol

I’d just like to learn what litz tests was to be so conclusive.

Truthfully what needs to be figured out first is why a rifle that is strapped down does not shoot as well as a rifle that recoils.

We all think it’s vibration and it probably is but I have never seen a real serious sensor and camera, sensors on the mount /stock set up with poi and poa etc..the whole ball of wax

Until we get the core difference and can show its repeatable of those 2 set ups anything after that using vibration as a variable is not significant.

It falls into the voodoo/ opinions matter..let’s argue

Will most likely not happen because it’s not worth the money

 

[jl937]

Yeah I agree with you here.

I think one aspect I am uncertain of is that harmonics have no effect. I personally did a test using a MRAD over a considerable amount of rounds with a tuner.. I didn’t see much. But suppressed vs not, I think it was pretty obvious that the can had a positive effect. So it’s not harmonics… for science purposes I’d like to know what then.

I showed the results to a guy who is essentially a disciple of Litz. I shot 250rds in this test and he said it was too small of a sample.. 25, 10 shoot strings. But the expert said the sample was too small..

I dunno lol

I’d just like to learn what litz tests was to be so conclusive.

If you read Litz's findings, you'll see that the only thing he's conclusive about is that many of the marketing claims by various tuner companies were not substantiated in this test, under these conditions, with these rifles/shooters. And same as you saw when you add a suppressor vs testing 250-rounds with of tuner setting tests, his results shows a more significant correlation in group size from just adding mass to the end of the barrel than what could be realized from small adjustments of the tuner. Any real effects from tuner adjustment were buried by the noise present in the rest of the systems they tested. (Here's where my direct reply ends, the rest is just my caffeine fueled ranting at the sky)

What's frustrating to me about the whole tuner discussion is the widescale lack of rigorous data analysis methods. Hypothesis testing based on observed samples (i.e. does tuner setting 1.0 perform better than tuner setting 1.5?) absolutely requires consideration of the level of statistical confidence in the data, usually presented as a confidence interval. We can certainly make predictions based on small sample size statistics, but they are almost always low confidence. Unfortunately almost all of the defense of tuners in this thread is just anecdotal from a statistical standpoint. The poor bloke from a few posts above who beat up his shoulder with 50 rounds worth of 5 shot groups from a 416 just to find that the perceived magical setting at 1000 yds didn't repeat it's performance at 100 yds. Why is that? Could it be a result of the natural dispersion pattern of his rifle system and the actual effect of tuner adjustment was overwhelmed by uncontrolled variables within his so called experiment? *gasp* Nope, must be that the tuner isn't quite tuned in just yet, give it another twist and let her buck. Perfect example of a low confidence conclusion.

The rifle-shooter system is inherently a complex system. Complex systems operating in the real world are almost always noisy from a data standpoint. Believe it or not there's well established methods for determining how confident we are that the trend we're seeing in the data from a complex system is in fact real, it's called statistics and the scientific method. What the AB crew continues to do is apply those sound principles to hypotheses and present complete results, including confidence intervals of their data. AB stuck their necks out on this topic IMO and provided the community with cold hard data from which certain conclusions can be drawn about the original hypothesis.

I'd love to see some statistically significant sample size test data that refute the AB conclusions, complete with confidence levels, especially targeted at PRS-style rifle systems. Not lying, I honestly would because that's how real science works. Can the AB test be disproven using equivalently rigorous methods and analysis?

 

[JustSendit]

If you read Litz's findings, you'll see that the only thing he's conclusive about is that many of the marketing claims by various tuner companies were not substantiated in this test, under these conditions, with these rifles/shooters. And same as you saw when you add a suppressor vs testing 250-rounds with of tuner setting tests, his results shows a more significant correlation in group size from just adding mass to the end of the barrel than what could be realized from small adjustments of the tuner. Any real effects from tuner adjustment were buried by the noise present in the rest of the systems they tested. (Here's where my direct reply ends, the rest is just my caffeine fueled ranting at the sky)

What's frustrating to me about the whole tuner discussion is the widescale lack of rigorous data analysis methods. Hypothesis testing based on observed samples (i.e. does tuner setting 1.0 perform better than tuner setting 1.5?) absolutely requires consideration of the level of statistical confidence in the data, usually presented as a confidence interval. We can certainly make predictions based on small sample size statistics, but they are almost always low confidence. Unfortunately almost all of the defense of tuners in this thread is just anecdotal from a statistical standpoint. The poor bloke from a few posts above who beat up his shoulder with 50 rounds worth of 5 shot groups from a 416 just to find that the perceived magical setting at 1000 yds didn't repeat it's performance at 100 yds. Why is that? Could it be a result of the natural dispersion pattern of his rifle system and the actual effect of tuner adjustment was overwhelmed by uncontrolled variables within his so called experiment? *gasp* Nope, must be that the tuner isn't quite tuned in just yet, give it another twist and let her buck. Perfect example of a low confidence conclusion.

The rifle-shooter system is inherently a complex system. Complex systems operating in the real world are almost always noisy from a data standpoint. Believe it or not there's well established methods for determining how confident we are that the trend we're seeing in the data from a complex system is in fact real, it's called statistics and the scientific method. What the AB crew continues to do is apply those sound principles to hypotheses and present complete results, including confidence intervals of their data. AB stuck their necks out on this topic IMO and provided the community with cold hard data from which certain conclusions can be drawn about the original hypothesis.

I'd love to see some statistically significant sample size test data that refute the AB conclusions, complete with confidence levels, especially targeted at PRS-style rifle systems. Not lying, I honestly would because that's how real science works. Can the AB test be disproven using equivalently rigorous methods and analysis?

I agree with you.

I actually wrote up a fairly long reply stating my experiences. I decided they’re better discussed in person lol.. my ultimate conclusion is that: Guys need to test themselves, seek their own results, feeding solely off others is bush league. And that’s definitely not saying I believe tuners work or don’t work..

 

[oneshot.onehit]

If you read Litz's findings, you'll see that the only thing he's conclusive about is that many of the marketing claims by various tuner companies were not substantiated in this test, under these conditions, with these rifles/shooters. And same as you saw when you add a suppressor vs testing 250-rounds with of tuner setting tests, his results shows a more significant correlation in group size from just adding mass to the end of the barrel than what could be realized from small adjustments of the tuner. Any real effects from tuner adjustment were buried by the noise present in the rest of the systems they tested. (Here's where my direct reply ends, the rest is just my caffeine fueled ranting at the sky)

What's frustrating to me about the whole tuner discussion is the widescale lack of rigorous data analysis methods. Hypothesis testing based on observed samples (i.e. does tuner setting 1.0 perform better than tuner setting 1.5?) absolutely requires consideration of the level of statistical confidence in the data, usually presented as a confidence interval. We can certainly make predictions based on small sample size statistics, but they are almost always low confidence. Unfortunately almost all of the defense of tuners in this thread is just anecdotal from a statistical standpoint. The poor bloke from a few posts above who beat up his shoulder with 50 rounds worth of 5 shot groups from a 416 just to find that the perceived magical setting at 1000 yds didn't repeat it's performance at 100 yds. Why is that? Could it be a result of the natural dispersion pattern of his rifle system and the actual effect of tuner adjustment was overwhelmed by uncontrolled variables within his so called experiment? *gasp* Nope, must be that the tuner isn't quite tuned in just yet, give it another twist and let her buck. Perfect example of a low confidence conclusion.

The rifle-shooter system is inherently a complex system. Complex systems operating in the real world are almost always noisy from a data standpoint. Believe it or not there's well established methods for determining how confident we are that the trend we're seeing in the data from a complex system is in fact real, it's called statistics and the scientific method. What the AB crew continues to do is apply those sound principles to hypotheses and present complete results, including confidence intervals of their data. AB stuck their necks out on this topic IMO and provided the community with cold hard data from which certain conclusions can be drawn about the original hypothesis.

I'd love to see some statistically significant sample size test data that refute the AB conclusions, complete with confidence levels, especially targeted at PRS-style rifle systems. Not lying, I honestly would because that's how real science works. Can the AB test be disproven using equivalently rigorous methods and analysis?

The caffeine kicked in good it seems, all is good here

Just a few things here that I want to pass along, this really wasn’t a special experiment we were just trying to squeeze any additional performance in accuracy out of the rifle setup. It actually kicks about as much as a 20 gauge shotgun so the recoil is not bad and more of a push versus snapping hard into the shoulder, maybe it would be different off a bench but we shoot everything prone here.
The round count when testing that day was 25 rounds as stated above as well. The rotation mention was in the area of rotating the tuner about a 1/4” at a time.
Two weeks later we were able to water line very well on a 2400 yard target at a event here we were only allowed 5 rounds when it was our turn and the clock timer was ticking away so there was no waiting for those perfect conditions you just had to get it done.

Did the tuner make a big difference, prior to verifying things at 1000, the rifle had a respectable 5 round group at a 100 with a very low ES on the speed. Then the fact that we seen the overall group size change and in this case shrink was in a way a confidence booster I just get a little picky with stuff and yes turned it another 1/4”

I just posted the stuff above a few posts so folks could see what we seen, right or wrong but its working for us

Cheers
JH

 

[TripleBull]

So, I can only talk to the physics of harmonics within constraints but I think there is a broad misconception that would probably be worth addressing. There is not a single harmonic in a barrel when a shot is fired and it isn't in a single plane. The base harmonic frequency of a barrel is quite low around 500 hertz for most of the barrels that we are talking about here. After the bullet exits, that is the dominant harmonic but during the transit of the bullet/powder forces a faster harmonic on top of it. Since a barrel is not constrained to a single plane of motion, it will tend to vibrate at multiple frequencies at once and probably all in slightly different directions.

Can you tune the largest amplitude one with a heavy enough mass? Yes. Can you tune all of them to be in an optimal position? No.

Litz points out that a mass at the end of the barrel by itself improves accuracy and this makes sense as it would essentially reduce the harmonic amplitude.

Does the success of some people using tuners demonstrate their worth? Not really. It just says they probably aren't hurting anything. People buy and build based upon follow the leader and there are cycles of "X thing is the cats ass" followed by, "X thing is pointless". Look at how many people went to moly coated bullets only to decide it was crap a few years later

-Alex.

I agree with much of that fundamentally, but also realize that with the pulse of firing a cartridge, you are loading a resonant system. The behavior is not linear over time. A gun is not like a guitar string, per se, but there are some similarities in that the energy is dissipated over time and the frequency distribution is also changing over time. You know this because if you put your finger on the barrel and fire it (not over the muzzle!) you will feel the resonance, and feel it ring down. The frequency distribution changes over time. Tuners interact with and alter the resonant energy dissipation.

 

[brianf]

The frequency does change over time like all non constant energy inputs, but the speed things are happening there may be little decay.

For example by the time your finger registers the frequency and send it to your brain the bullet is out of the barrel.

Speed of decay calculations will show us what’s happening.

Has anyone measured the amplitude and freq at a few positions on the barrel.

 

[timintx]

The frequency does change over time like all non constant energy inputs, but the speed things are happening there may be little decay.

For example by the time your finger registers the frequency and send it to your brain the bullet is out of the barrel.

Speed of decay calculations will show us what’s happening.

Has anyone measured the amplitude and freq at a few positions on the barrel.

Harold Vaughn rifle accuracy facts.

Timintx

 

[6.5SH]

Harold Vaughn rifle accuracy facts.

Timintx

Need to re-read my copy, has been nearly 25 years.
R.I.P. Precision Shooting magazine and publishing.

 

[timintx]

Need to re-read my copy, has been nearly 25 years.
R.I.P. Precision Shooting magazine and publishing.

There is a lot to take in for sure , I borrowed the book many years ago and only had it for a few days lol, but now I can reread it on the book websites.

Timintx

 

[TripleBull]

The frequency does change over time like all non constant energy inputs, but the speed things are happening there may be little decay.

For example by the time your finger registers the frequency and send it to your brain the bullet is out of the barrel.

Speed of decay calculations will show us what’s happening.

Has anyone measured the amplitude and freq at a few positions on the barrel.

I expect you'd agree that the initial pulse of resonant energy reaches the muzzle before the bullet? Energy transfer through a barrel and decay begin simultaneously. It's not like energy is transferred and a barrel goes into steady-state resonance, only to disengage from that steady state at a later time.

 

[obx22]

Starting to sound like the arguments from 20 years ago on BRC, barrel tuners vs barrel weights.
I repeated a comment from that era, on a thread similar to this on FB, “if (a then well known, winning shooter) showed up at a match with a pool noodle on his barrel and won, next match the line would be full of guns with pool noodles…”
We all want to shoot to our limitations without being fettered by equipment effects, I get that,
but I’ll ask you, if you’ve tried one: How fast do you get bored shooting a laser gun?
As humans, do we insist on a variable besides ourselves in what we pursue, so we have something else to blame?

 

[cameljockey230]

Timntx I shoot with a match director in California named Lynn and he said to say hello.

My favorite part about tuners is how even those that shoot tuners and make tuners can't even agree on how tuners should be used, how they work, and what they can actually do.

Just like everything in shooting those that manufacture stuff just manufacture stuff and it doesn't mean they are mechanical engineers or fully understand how everything works.
Start a thread on muzzlebrakes and only allow manufacturers to post and you will get the same amount of gibberish.
Very few elr shooters use commonplace equipment so tuners can be made to optimize the rifle they are using.
In rimfire benchrest the barrel length and diameter fits in a much narrower range and optimum tuner mass and location is easier to achieve.
The 100/200 yard crowd comes in a close 2nd with equipment commonality and the smallest group ever fired used a tuner and will never be beat.
The hurdle in elr is getting the weight right and then using up enough of the barrels life to get the gun properly tuned.

 

[gwood]

Someone needs to update Vaughn's work. Has anyone ever built another recoil isolator?

 

[brianf]

Someone needs to update Vaughn's work. Has anyone ever built another recoil isolator?

problem is there isnt enough money to be made to cover expenses

Litz is prob the only person in the industry who makes money off data

spend time and money accumulating info, then have someone who failed 8th grade math start arguing statistics with you online

we have members on the hide that are ammunition lot testers for major ammo MFG's
we have members on the hide that supply the test barrels
yet members will totally disregard their findings and go about telling us their "pet load" is always .25 all day

thats why top guys in the industry dont post on forums like they did 10-15 years ago


i also personally believe there isnt much "juice in the orange"

the physical form factors and dimensions have now become the limit of innovation

it might be a better mouse trap, but if its not a 700 drop in its very..very hard to get a foothold in the market


additionally, we are to the point of almost all differences and new product advances are lost in the noise which means every answer is correct which also means every answer is incorrect as well

 

[timintx]

Timntx I shoot with a match director in California named Lynn and he said to say hello.



Just like everything in shooting those that manufacture stuff just manufacture stuff and it doesn't mean they are mechanical engineers or fully understand how everything works.
Start a thread on muzzlebrakes and only allow manufacturers to post and you will get the same amount of gibberish.
Very few elr shooters use commonplace equipment so tuners can be made to optimize the rifle they are using.
In rimfire benchrest the barrel length and diameter fits in a much narrower range and optimum tuner mass and location is easier to achieve.
The 100/200 yard crowd comes in a close 2nd with equipment commonality and the smallest group ever fired used a tuner and will never be beat.
The hurdle in elr is getting the weight right and then using up enough of the barrels life to get the gun properly tuned.

I agree totally, it is up to the shooter to figure out the best and most beneficial way to adjust their tuner . The manufactures methods are mainly suggestions that can help for sure but in the end do what works for you. Tell Lynn I miss our talks , he has Been major supporter of tuners for many years and I would not be where I am at without his advice and knowledge .

Timintx

 

[cameljockey230]

So, I can only talk to the physics of harmonics within constraints but I think there is a broad misconception that would probably be worth addressing. There is not a single harmonic in a barrel when a shot is fired and it isn't in a single plane. The base harmonic frequency of a barrel is quite low around 500 hertz for most of the barrels that we are talking about here. After the bullet exits, that is the dominant harmonic but during the transit of the bullet/powder forces a faster harmonic on top of it. Since a barrel is not constrained to a single plane of motion, it will tend to vibrate at multiple frequencies at once and probably all in slightly different directions.

Can you tune the largest amplitude one with a heavy enough mass? Yes. Can you tune all of them to be in an optimal position? No.

Litz points out that a mass at the end of the barrel by itself improves accuracy and this makes sense as it would essentially reduce the harmonic amplitude.

Does the success of some people using tuners demonstrate their worth? Not really. It just says they probably aren't hurting anything. People buy and build based upon follow the leader and there are cycles of "X thing is the cats ass" followed by, "X thing is pointless". Look at how many people went to moly coated bullets only to decide it was crap a few years later

-Alex.

Do you think improving one or more of those harmonics would help or hurt accuracy?
Does a tuner have to improve 10 different harmonics in order to work? Or can you just adjust one or 2 and get better accuracy?
In the rimfire world barrels are thinner than in ELR and most use Harrells/Hoehn Von Aherns or other tuners generally in the 6-8 ounce range.
In the 100-200 yard game barrels rarely exceed 24 inches and most of the tuners weigh 8-12 ounces.
In 600-1000 yard benchrest we see 6-12 ounces in lightgun meaning 0.930 muzzles and 48-53 ounces on the 1.450 and larger diameter barrels.
What weights are the ELR shooters using? Any idea on barrel length and diameter?
I think TimnTx has a pretty good idea on this but I'd like to hear what others are using and how much tuning is required to see it on the target.

 

[White Mamba]

Call up Lupuas rimfire testing centers and ask them if tuners work. Im sure they see more than anyone else.

 

[brianf]

Call up Lupuas rimfire testing centers and ask them if tuners work. Im sure they see more than anyone else.

Best post so far on this thread

 

[kthomas]

Call up Lupuas rimfire testing centers and ask them if tuners work. Im sure they see more than anyone else.

I would be very interested to hear what they say. Not that I think it would be dispositive any way, but would be a good indicator.

 

[Sigma]

Latest testing done by Bryan Zolnikov shows in favor of tuners.

check out the part 2 to this video as well.

 

[kthomas]

Latest testing done by Bryan Zolnikov shows in favor of tuners.

check out the part 2 to this video as well.

I've been meaning to follow up on his testing.

 

[Sigma]

I've been meaning to follow up on his testing.

pretty crazy stuff, he would fall out of tune based on barometric pressure, tuner was able to put it back in tune.

 

[morganlamprecht]

I didn’t think that part of tuners was ever in question

What I’ve Seen in question is the latest push (last few years) to go shoot a few 3 shot groups with any ammo, lock the tuner down, and go shoot ragged holes from then on

 

[kthomas]

I didn’t think that part of tuners was ever in question

What I’ve Seen in question is the latest push (last few years) to go shoot a few 3 shot groups with any ammo, lock the tuner down, and go shoot ragged holes from then on

This is what I'm most skeptical about. This newest use prescribed to tuners for the PRS crowd.

To put it bluntly, it seems like snake oil. All the "evidence" presented to date has been extremely uncompelling.

 

[Sigma]

I didn’t think that part of tuners was ever in question

What I’ve Seen in question is the latest push (last few years) to go shoot a few 3 shot groups with any ammo, lock the tuner down, and go shoot ragged holes from then on

agreed

 

[badassgunworks]

Do you think improving one or more of those harmonics would help or hurt accuracy?
Does a tuner have to improve 10 different harmonics in order to work? Or can you just adjust one or 2 and get better accuracy?
In the rimfire world barrels are thinner than in ELR and most use Harrells/Hoehn Von Aherns or other tuners generally in the 6-8 ounce range.
In the 100-200 yard game barrels rarely exceed 24 inches and most of the tuners weigh 8-12 ounces.
In 600-1000 yard benchrest we see 6-12 ounces in lightgun meaning 0.930 muzzles and 48-53 ounces on the 1.450 and larger diameter barrels.
What weights are the ELR shooters using? Any idea on barrel length and diameter?
I think TimnTx has a pretty good idea on this but I'd like to hear what others are using and how much tuning is required to see it on the target.

There is no simple answer. It all depends on barrel length , conture, how long and large the shank is. bore diamiter. In relation to barrel size . Where your weight is. (behind muzzle or in front of muzzle) how heavy the brake is in relation barrel . A custom built tuner is more effective then a genecic manufactored one.

 

[cameljockey230]

There is no simple answer. It all depends on barrel length , conture, how long and large the shank is. bore diamiter. In relation to barrel size . Where your weight is. (behind muzzle or in front of muzzle) how heavy the brake is in relation barrel . A custom built tuner is more effective then a genecic manufactored one.

From my experience 99+% of rimfire benchrest rifles are using tuners. Those guys could save $200 a rifle if tunerless guns shot better.

The only shooters that hate tuners seem to be the shooters that have never used a tuner or those using a rifle that isn't shooting well with or without a tuner.

The biggest hurdle in using a tuner for ELR purposes is getting someone to make one that fits your barrel and is weighted correctly.

I have used Harrell/Hoehn Von Aherns Stiller and Fudd tuners and they all worked at reducing my group size.

Ordering a 51 ounce tuner for a 1.450 barrel diameter at the muzzle using a 9 inch barrel block and keeping the center of mass at 2.750 inches in front of the muzzle cost me around $450 15 years ago. Does anybody still offer such a service?

TimnTx is being very humble in his posting here because he and a friend of mine took on the centerfire world 15+ years ago when Bill Calfee was letting the cat out of the bag on determining the correct weight and distance from the muzzle for a proper tuner. My friend had a piano tuner show him how to ring a barrel looking for the 3rd octave and Scott "Fudd" Hamilton built him a tuner to those specs.
Al from Varmint AL still has that gun on his website and after modeling the gun said it still could have shot better even though it was the record holder at that time.
This was before tuner brakes.

 

[jl937]

My friend had a piano tuner show him how to ring a barrel looking for the 3rd octave and Scott "Fudd" Hamilton built him a tuner to those specs.

Can you expound on the significance of the 3rd octave?