Tuners in question ?

[kthomas]

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.

1. Since when has anything in the precision rifle hobby been about saving money? People gladly spend hundreds to thousands in this hobby to gain every perceivable (and imperceivable) advantage they can get. There are very, very few people that try to maximize their precision at the lowest possible cost.

2. You missed a category: those that have tuners and have tested them, and have found that there's no perceivable gain in precision.

And I wouldn't call myself a tuner "hater", not by any stretch. I'm open to the idea of them "working", I find the topic very interesting. I've however yet to see any compelling data sets that truly shows an increase in precision, and my own testing (which I'll fully admit isn't dispositive on its own) has had less than impressive results. People in the firm "pro tuner" camp can't even describe adequately the 'how' & 'why' they work, let alone produce compelling evidence to suggest such.

My mind is open and looking forward to more data and testing being conducted on the subject (if it ever does). But I'm a skeptic until I see adequate testing conducted and shared. Shooters & reloaders are notorious for coming to their own dispositive conclusions using data sets in which such a conclusion can't be made.

 

[kthomas]

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

Also curious as to how relevant a "3rd octave" is to a projectile traveling down a barrel, and how that "3rd octave" influences the projectiles behavior in a way that shows a statistically relevant result as to precision.

What is the hypothesis behind this "3rd octave" as it relates to precision rifles? How did one know to look for a "3rd octave" to increase precision? Where's the testing on all the different octaves and their effect on precision?

 

[cameljockey230]

The 3rd octave let's one know that the barrel blank is resonating.
That is then used to determine the point on the barrel back from the muzzle where there is a node and then that distance from the node back to the muzzle determines how much weight is needed and its location.
The naysayers tend to use generic tuners made for a specific barrel profile on a poorly shooting gun expecting it to cure a bad bedding job and poor reloading practices.
I don't shoot precision rifles this is how those that successfully use tuners in the various disciplines are setting them up.
I don't have the time currently to draw a picture and photograph it for you then post it here but picture this in your mind.
Take two identical barrels and send a bullet down both of them.
One has a tuner one doesn't have a tuner.
They both vibrate but one of them has less amplitude because the added mass damped the amplitude.
So overlay two sine waves with identical nodes and anti nodes but with different amplitudes.
If your still with me let me know

 

[cameljockey230]

As to the saving money comment why would any shooter in a very demanding sport where fractions of an inch changes everything add a $200 ornament to the muzzle?
Especially one that doesn't work?

 

[kthomas]

The 3rd octave let's one know that the barrel blank is resonating.
That is then used to determine the point on the barrel back from the muzzle where there is a node and then that distance from the node back to the muzzle determines how much weight is needed and its location.
The naysayers tend to use generic tuners made for a specific barrel profile on a poorly shooting gun expecting it to cure a bad bedding job and poor reloading practices.
I don't shoot precision rifles this is how those that successfully use tuners in the various disciplines are setting them up.
I don't have the time currently to draw a picture and photograph it for you then post it here but picture this in your mind.
Take two identical barrels and send a bullet down both of them.
One has a tuner one doesn't have a tuner.
They both vibrate but one of them has less amplitude because the added mass damped the amplitude.
So overlay two sine waves with identical nodes and anti nodes but with different amplitudes.
If your still with me let me know

1. Is this sine wave pattern purely in the Y-axis, or is this sine pattern acting in a corkscrew type pattern?
2. Is this sine wave pattern demonstrable on a high speed camera? Or is this purely hypothetical?
3. Is this decrease in sine wave amplitude by tuner demonstrable by means of using a high speed camera (or other method), or is this purely hypothetical?

ETA:
4. What is the relationship between mass and amplitude? Is there an exact/optimal mass? What does a mass of differing value (than to the optimal mass) of the amplitude? Is this verifiable by high speed cameras or other method? Or again, purely hypothetical?

 

[kthomas]

As to the saving money comment why would any shooter in a very demanding sport where fractions of an inch changes everything add a $200 ornament to the muzzle?
Especially one that doesn't work?

As long as there is any perceived advantage, people would gladly pay $200.

Even if that advantage doesn't actually exist in reality.

 

[Taylorbok]

As long as there is any perceived advantage, people would gladly pay $200.

Even if that advantage doesn't actually exist in reality.

If you get enough people on board for taping $1 bill to their but stock to improve accuracy you could sell singles for $20.

 

[kthomas]

If you get enough people on board for taping $1 bill to their but stock to improve accuracy you could sell singles for $20.

There's a joke about fishing lures and fishermen that is very topical to this.

 

[cameljockey230]

In the lesser disciplines you could sell 1 dollar bills for $20.
As one advances in shooting the gadgetry tends to fall off and you see fewer snake oil salesman.
They are still there just fewer of them.

The wave shapes have all been modeled by numerous shooters and you can simply watch them on your cellphone.

Type in Varmint AL and look at his finite element analysis done 15 years ago when he was working at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

 

[kthomas]

In the lesser disciplines you could sell 1 dollar bills for $20.
As one advances in shooting the gadgetry tends to fall off and you see fewer snake oil salesman.
They are still there just fewer of them.

The wave shapes have all been modeled by numerous shooters and you can simply watch them on your cellphone.

Type in Varmint AL and look at his finite element analysis done 15 years ago when he was working at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

I've seen his stuff.

So I take it by this response that this is all still very hypothetical, and not yet proven by methods such as a high speed camera.

 

[timintx]

I've seen his stuff.

So I take it by this response that this is all still very hypothetical, and not yet proven by methods such as a high speed camera.

There is no method that shows sine waves other than ladder tests. If you know of a method why don’t you tell our military , please don’t say cameras , they will laugh at you .

Timintx

 

[morganlamprecht]

The naysayers tend to use generic tuners made for a specific barrel profile on a poorly shooting gun expecting it to cure a bad bedding job and poor reloading practices.

ironically enough, some of the biggest proponents for tuners are using these exact same things to claim how well tuners work

 

[kthomas]

There is no method that shows sine waves other than ladder tests. If you know of a method why don’t you tell our military , please don’t say cameras , they will laugh at you .

Timintx

Yikes.

That's far from dispositive then.

ETA:

1. I don't believe for a minute that ladder tests are the only way to test this.

2. In fact, ladder tests are an awful way to conduct this test. There are way too many variables at play, and in no way can a ladder test determine if a sine wave/barrel oscillation is occurring.

 

[LeftyJason]

I wonder if something like this would work.


They are way expensive though. Fluke ii910 are $28k

 

[brianf]

until all records are had by rifles with tuners (real records not ELR which is a different animal and they rarely shoot x rings and the monos used cant compete for 1000 yards and in) tuners will be an argument


common tuner themes;

people cite varmint AL, but his data is all theory/software

people cite Calfee but hes been asked several times to run tests funded by others and it never happens

there is no consensus on the formula for tuner weight

there is no consensus on the set up process

there is no consensus on adjusting tuner after original set up

there is no consensus on what factors are more influential (velocity, temp etc), and if there is a modest agreement there are no agreed formulas as to what range is "do not adjust"

some say velocity nodes are important (others say there are no such things as nodes), but then they say that a set and forget tuner is possible with is counterintuitive

its the same as positive compensation, some winners believe in it and some winners say snake oil


it always comes down to money available for testing, and the juice isnt worth the squeeze for ROI

 

[Alan Warner]

until all records are had by rifles with tuners (real records not ELR which is a different animal and they rarely shoot x rings and the monos used cant compete for 1000 yards and in) tuners will be an argument


common tuner themes;

people cite varmint AL, but his data is all theory/software

people cite Calfee but hes been asked several times to run tests funded by others and it never happens

there is no consensus on the formula for tuner weight

there is no consensus on the set up process

there is no consensus on adjusting tuner after original set up

there is no consensus on what factors are more influential (velocity, temp etc), and if there is a modest agreement there are no agreed formulas as to what range is "do not adjust"

some say velocity nodes are important (others say there are no such things as nodes), but then they say that a set and forget tuner is possible with is counterintuitive

its the same as positive compensation, some winners believe in it and some winners say snake oil


it always comes down to money available for testing, and the juice isnt worth the squeeze for ROI

Last time I was out with our 155 solids at a Palma match, ( 8 years ago) with a twist appropriate bbl. I score a 445 with fatigue setting in on the last target. To say solids are not capable is pure bull shit. iron sights with a sling, mind you.

 

[brianf]

Last time I was out with our 155 solids at a Palma match, ( 8 years ago) with a twist appropriate bbl. I score a 445 with fatigue setting in on the last target. To say solids are not capable is pure bull shit. iron sights with a sling, mind you.

i didnt say they were not capable

they are not good enough to win..if not every f-class, BR, palma shooter would be using them

many have tried and reverted back to cup core designs

the increase BC is not a big enough gain inside 1000

i think we can all agree that iron sights with a sling is not the same as prone with optics

 

[timintx]

until all records are had by rifles with tuners (real records not ELR which is a different animal and they rarely shoot x rings and the monos used cant compete for 1000 yards and in) tuners will be an argument


common tuner themes;

people cite varmint AL, but his data is all theory/software

people cite Calfee but hes been asked several times to run tests funded by others and it never happens

there is no consensus on the formula for tuner weight

there is no consensus on the set up process

there is no consensus on adjusting tuner after original set up

there is no consensus on what factors are more influential (velocity, temp etc), and if there is a modest agreement there are no agreed formulas as to what range is "do not adjust"

some say velocity nodes are important (others say there are no such things as nodes), but then they say that a set and forget tuner is possible with is counterintuitive

its the same as positive compensation, some winners believe in it and some winners say snake oil


it always comes down to money available for testing, and the juice isnt worth the squeeze for ROI

Wrong again Al had real life confirming his modeling .including me .Who cares about consensus. I have demonstrated positive compensation with ladder graphs comparing poi down range with a single 100 yard graph which matched up perfectly.Proven , has been done just recently , No doubt . You are just speaking from your own experiences.and I am speaking from mine . You can not prove it so no one else can either ? Your opinion is that it can be measured , well show me your supposedly tested tuner data ,., show me this measuring system . Put your money where your mouth is , let’s see it . I have already proved graphing ,positive compensation, and tuners do work regardless of adjustment methods . Bryan even saw a tuner work wonders . With out data you don’t have a leg to stand on so show us your data to the contrary. .

Timintx

 

[cameljockey230]

Those that have never used a tuner are the best posters in my humble opinion.
They want the powder charge the seating depth out of the box bullets no testing tuner weight tuner distance from the muzzle and they want it to make that j c Higgins rifle grandpa gave them to win a national championship or else everyone else is lying pond scum scoundrels.

Varmint Al's Engineering Page - Finite Element Analysis of Structures

Here is the finite element analysis as requested and as soon as my j c Higgins rifle shows up I can get the powder charge and seating depth.
The rest will take more than 15 minutes so please be patient.
Calfee pointed those with an interest in how to find the correct weight. TimnTx and Lynn followed his posts and Lynn won the most controversial NBRSA 1000 Yard Nationals in history. Those in charge didn't like getting whooped up on. Look up the 2010 NBRSA 1000 Yard Nationals and let me know what you see. They even took away his Hall Of Fame points.
This was 13 years ago.
TimnTx can tell you guys about a benchrest shooter in Texas Jackie Schmitt.
He claimed tuners don't work will never be used and that the devil had invaded our souls.
Then he tried one.
He latest post on tuners after asking the webmaster to ban certain people for life is "He will never shoot a rifle without a tuner"
The ELR crowd is about 10 years behind the times but it's a good community and will catch up fast thanks to the Internet.
Oh I forgot one
Yes if your combination uses a properly weighted tuner it will shoot well. That means guys shooting F-class 100-200 Benchrest and Rimfire Benchrest can usually buy and off the shelf tuner as those guns tend to be cookie cutter type barrels.
I myself use vastly different barrels on my 338 Norma Ackley improved 338 Lapua Ackley Improves 338 snipetacs 375 cheytacs 375 snipetac 375/50bmg 416 and 50 bmg rifles.
Those barrels range from 28-45 inches long and 1.250 inches at the breech to 2.5 inches at the muzzle.

 

[timintx]

Yikes.

That's far from dispositive then.

ETA:

1. I don't believe for a minute that ladder tests are the only way to test this.

2. In fact, ladder tests are an awful way to conduct this test. There are way too many variables at play, and in no way can a ladder test determine if a sine wave/barrel oscillation is occurring.

Bullshit.

 

[kthomas]

Bullshit.

Sorry but if a ladder test is the best that can be done to prove barrel oscillations/sine wave vibrations then that is incredibly weak evidence.

It doesn't even isolate many other variables at play, there's no way a ladder can conclude the above.

Honestly I'm surprised anyone would even think that such a test can draw such conclusions.

 

[timintx]

Sorry but if a ladder test is the best that can be done to prove barrel oscillations/sine wave vibrations then that is incredibly weak evidence.

It doesn't even isolate many other variables at play, there's no way a ladder can conclude the above.

Honestly I'm surprised anyone would even think that such a test can draw such conclusions.

Well then show me a better way . It worked in the recent military demo just fine .

Timintx

 

[brianf]

Wrong again Al had real life confirming his modeling .including me .Who cares about consensus. I have demonstrated positive compensation with ladder graphs comparing poi down range with a single 100 yard graph which matched up perfectly.Proven , has been done just recently , No doubt . You are just speaking from your own experiences.and I am speaking from mine . You can not prove it so no one else can either ? Your opinion is that it can be measured , well show me your supposedly tested tuner data ,., show me this measuring system . Put your money where your mouth is , let’s see it . I have already proved graphing ,positive compensation, and tuners do work regardless of adjustment methods . Bryan even saw a tuner work wonders . With out data you don’t have a leg to stand on so show us your data to the contrary. .

Timintx

Your becoming defensive, I have no horse in the race. I’m pointing out the obvious from the manufactures themselves.

I don’t need data, “im” the one asking for it. Let’s say I’m a auditor like osha, they don’t know how to build a building but they know if the electrical cords are frayed.

From several manufacturers of tuners who have posted on the hide over the last few years…there are several threads which there is open discussion of the differences

From how to set up, to how they work, to what weight is best. That is in their own words not mine.

Additionally Lou M, probably one of the top bench shooters on the planet suggests a different way to set up tuners than some mfg’s. He has medals on the wall..that’s results driven opinion. Which no one else has shown.

Varmint Al has not (as far as I know, I might have not seen it) peer reviewed high speed camera or sensor array of barrel movement. It’s not 1980, this equipment is cheap to buy and cheap to rent. Any data brought forth with out it is suspect or at a minimum incomplete.

If your positive compensation theory is validated then your vertical should always be the smallest in every group you shoot if competing.

If your vertical is not consistently the smallest or equal to shooters who do not believe in positive compensation..it’s not validated. Previous data gathered is incomplete and it’s effects are lost in the weeds.

I’m not fighting with you but there is not complete statistically significant data supplied with tuners and positive compensation. The burden of proof is on the new theory not the other way around.

 

[kthomas]

Well then show me a better way . It worked in the recent military demo just fine .

Timintx

There are many companies that make sensors and equipment that are designed to measure this very thing.

A ladder test cannot conclusive determine barrel oscillations.

 

[kthomas]

If you are truly serious about determining this, reach out to experts that specialize in such a topic, not an anonymous stranger on a forum.

There are people and companies who specialize in this and would be able to steer you in the right direction, if finding out such a thing is truly your goal.

Some quick research will get you started on who to contact.

 

[kthomas]

Your becoming defensive, I have no horse in the race. I’m pointing out the obvious from the manufactures themselves.

I don’t need data, “im” the one asking for it. Let’s say I’m a auditor like osha, they don’t know how to build a building but they know if the electrical cords are frayed.

From several manufacturers of tuners who have posted on the hide over the last few years…there are several threads which there is open discussion of the differences

From how to set up, to how they work, to what weight is best. That is in their own words not mine.

Additionally Lou M, probably one of the top bench shooters on the planet suggests a different way to set up tuners than some mfg’s. He has medals on the wall..that’s results driven opinion. Which no one else has shown.

Varmint Al has not (as far as I know, I might have not seen it) peer reviewed high speed camera or sensor array of barrel movement. It’s not 1980, this equipment is cheap to buy and cheap to rent. Any data brought forth with out it is suspect or at a minimum incomplete.

If your positive compensation theory is validated then your vertical should always be the smallest in every group you shoot if competing.

If your vertical is not consistently the smallest or equal to shooters who do not believe in positive compensation..it’s not validated. Previous data gathered is incomplete and it’s effects are lost in the weeds.

I’m not fighting with you but there is not complete statistically significant data supplied with tuners and positive compensation. The burden of proof is on the new theory not the other way around.

I'm surprised no big time tuner advocates are eager and hungry to validate their hypothesis ' through rigorous and scientific testing, renting the equipment as you point out.

If the hypothesis does hold up, then you only get more data and information to fine tune your methods even further for better results, rather then having to make guesses and assumptions and rely on old simplistic models.

If tuners and positive displacement theory is true, then they can take things to the next level with such testing. Seems like a no-brainer to me if this is what you believe in. Especially if you are trying to sell stuff to the government.

I really don't understand the reliance on weak evidence & testing methods and old simplistic modeling when there is potentially so much to gain.

 

[jl937]

The 3rd octave let's one know that the barrel blank is resonating.
That is then used to determine the point on the barrel back from the muzzle where there is a node and then that distance from the node back to the muzzle determines how much weight is needed and its location.
The naysayers tend to use generic tuners made for a specific barrel profile on a poorly shooting gun expecting it to cure a bad bedding job and poor reloading practices.
I don't shoot precision rifles this is how those that successfully use tuners in the various disciplines are setting them up.
I don't have the time currently to draw a picture and photograph it for you then post it here but picture this in your mind.
Take two identical barrels and send a bullet down both of them.
One has a tuner one doesn't have a tuner.
They both vibrate but one of them has less amplitude because the added mass damped the amplitude.
So overlay two sine waves with identical nodes and anti nodes but with different amplitudes.
If your still with me let me know

I follow what you're saying, just not convinced that it's grounded in physics.

Adding mass to the end of a barrel will change its natural frequency and therefore the node locations of the higher order vibrational modes. There is no "overlaying of identical nodes" to compare before-and-after amplitudes of the tuner & no tuner configurations.

Something else I've noticed after digging further into his data is that Varmint Al's simulations actually show a higher muzzle displacement with a tuner on the end of the barrel vs a bare muzzle. I'm suspicious that could be caused by something like an artifact of his simulation's boundary conditions (much of his work is simulated as free recoil). My gut intuition like yours is that adding mass to the muzzle would in fact serve to reduce or dampen muzzle oscillations, but pointing to Varmint Al's work as evidence supporting your theory of how tuners work is contradictory.

 

[kthomas]

I follow what you're saying, just not convinced that it's grounded in physics.

Adding mass to the end of a barrel will change its natural frequency and therefore the node locations of the higher order vibrational modes. There is no "overlaying of identical nodes" to compare before-and-after amplitudes of the tuner & no tuner configurations.

Something else I've noticed after digging further into his data is that Varmint Al's simulations actually show a higher muzzle displacement with a tuner on the end of the barrel vs a bare muzzle. I'm suspicious that could be caused by something like an artifact of his simulation's boundary conditions (much of his work is simulated as free recoil). My gut intuition like yours is that adding mass to the muzzle would in fact serve to reduce or dampen muzzle oscillations, but pointing to Varmint Al's work as evidence supporting your theory of how tuners work is contradictory.

Models are simplistic and require the modeler to make a lot of assumptions - some of which may not be correct.

A model is only a starting point. But it needs to be verified by actual testing.

Relying on old hypothetical models that have never been verified with real world testing is just silly, IMO. And very far from being definitive or conclusive.

 

[timintx]

There are many companies that make sensors and equipment that are designed to measure this very thing.

A ladder test cannot conclusive determine barrel oscillations.

Uh no there is not . You can not just put sensors on the barrel . Again the Only way to know is powder charge ladders .
Has worked for twenty years and counting and until you do it you can not say otherwise with any credence.

Timintx

 

[timintx]

Models are simplistic and require the modeler to make a lot of assumptions - some of which may not be correct.

A model is only a starting point. But it needs to be verified by actual testing.

Relying on old hypothetical models that have never been verified with real world testing is just silly, IMO. And very far from being definitive or conclusive.

Just correcting your incorrect statements Again Varmint Als modeling is backed up with actual real gun testing and my testing as well. That’s the facts not hypothetical but real testing . Look on Estans rifle on Als website .

Timintx

 

[kthomas]

Uh no there is not . You can not just put sensors on the barrel . Again the Only way to know is powder charge ladders .
Has worked for twenty years and counting and until you do it you can not say otherwise with any credence.

Timintx

Sorry, but there is no way to conclude if and how much the barrel is oscillating through ladder testing, let alone quantify it. There's too many variables that are not being isolated when conducting such testing, it's an irrelevant way to test for barrel oscillations.

I guarantee there are actual ways to scientifically test & quantify this with modern equipment. There is equipment to do this. You wouldn't even have to stick anything on the barrel necessarily either.

 

[brianf]

I'm surprised no big time tuner advocates are eager and hungry to validate their hypothesis ' through rigorous and scientific testing, renting the equipment as you point out.

If the hypothesis does hold up, then you only get more data and information to fine tune your methods even further for better results, rather then having to make guesses and assumptions and rely on old simplistic models.

If tuners and positive displacement theory is true, then they can take things to the next level with such testing. Seems like a no-brainer to me if this is what you believe in. Especially if you are trying to sell stuff to the government.

I really don't understand the reliance on weak evidence & testing methods and old simplistic modeling when there is potentially so much to gain.

its pretty expensive to put "1000 rounds down range" and collect data

and that data is on random, days at random times, and random rifles etc

think about it..if the best tuner gains 15-20% and looks horrible how may will buy it

rifles are a looks game, 99% of the people buying tumners are doing it for the look so the need for data is not there

going from .5 to .4 with data to verify...thats alot of testing for not much gain..and can you really show a .1 inprovment over several hundred round

if it was a .5 to .2...well there would be a "perfect" tuner on every rifle made

the ammo comapanies would have bought the company already and stoped wasting money on thier bullet and load testing for accuracy

theyd sell prety good ammo with direections on how to tune it, and wed all be buying that brand as it would shoot better

dont you think lapua would buy the perfect tuner and patent for a few million so they can charge 2-3x times the amount for their "kit" of the best shooing ammo /tuner in the world guaranteed?

 

[kthomas]

Just correcting your incorrect statements Again Varmint Als modeling is backed up with actual real gun testing and my testing as well. That’s the facts not hypothetical but real testing . Look on Estans rifle on Als website .

Timintx

Like most shooters & reloaders, I think you are trying to draw definitive conclusions from testing that can't do so.

 

[kthomas]

its pretty expensive to put "1000 rounds down range" and collect data

and that data is on random, days at random times, and random rifles etc

think about it..if the best tuner gains 15-20% and looks horrible how may will buy it

rifles are a looks game, 99% of the people buying tumners are doing it for the look so the need for data is not there

going from .5 to .4 with data to verify...thats alot of testing for not much gain..and can you really show a .1 inprovment over several hundred round

if it was a .5 to .2...well there would be a "perfect" tuner on every rifle made

the ammo comapanies would have bought the company already and stoped wasting money on thier bullet and load testing for accuracy

theyd sell prety good ammo with direections on how to tune it, and wed all be buying that brand as it would shoot better

dont you think lapua would buy the perfect tuner and patent for a few million so they can charge 2-3x times the amount for their "kit" of the best shooing ammo /tuner in the world guaranteed?

There's so much to learn about tuners and PDM if people really wanted to (no guarantees on what that would actually be though). But I find it odd that the most ardent tuner supporters would rather rely on weak data sets and analysis' rather then explore this further and deepen their knowledge and optimize their models and thus their precision outcomes.

The data and testing to date is so extremely limited on what conclusions you can draw from it. I'm very surprised that there's no eagerness to expand that knowledge and thus results from those that would benefit most from it.

I'm pretty agnostic on the outcomes of whether tuners "work" or not - but the level of evidence presented along with the theoretical components provided thus far is very uncompelling and by no means definitive or conclusive. If they do in fact "work" (the definition of which constantly changes between tuner manufacturers and users), there's a whole lot to gain and optimize from a deeper understanding (as you point out), so I'm very surprised to see no eagerness to do so from the tuner crowd.

 

[brianf]

There's so much to learn about tuners and PDM if people really wanted to (no guarantees on what that would actually be though). But I find it odd that the most ardent tuner supporters would rather rely on weak data sets and analysis' rather then explore this further and deepen their knowledge and optimize their models and thus their precision outcomes.

The data and testing to date is so extremely limited on what conclusions you can draw from it. I'm very surprised that there's no eagerness to expand that knowledge and thus results from those that would benefit most from it.

I'm pretty agnostic on the outcomes of whether tuners "work" or not - but the level of evidence presented along with the theoretical components provided thus far is very uncompelling and by no means definitive or conclusive. If they do in fact "work" (the definition of which constantly changes between tuner manufacturers and users), there's a whole lot to gain and optimize from a deeper understanding (as you point out), so I'm very surprised to see no eagerness to do so from the tuner crowd.

the roots of what you wrote is what the firearms industry is based on

as big as it is, the industry is really a cottege industry for accessories and product improvment

new big budget items are from the titans, sabot tank rounds etc

a new action comes out or new brass comes out;

its not sent to be destruction tested and tested for elongation etc

you put a few hot loads down the pipe "in house proof testing", if its good to go commpanies sell it

you make a action out of 4140 or 416SS, match the r700 from 60 years ago and your good to go nothing else needed...not even from insurance companies

so thinkng that the smaller designers and people who want to test a little, are willing to go above and beyond..its just not in the DNA

 

[Taylorbok]

There's so much to learn about tuners and PDM if people really wanted to (no guarantees on what that would actually be though). But I find it odd that the most ardent tuner supporters would rather rely on weak data sets and analysis' rather then explore this further and deepen their knowledge and optimize their models and thus their precision outcomes.

The data and testing to date is so extremely limited on what conclusions you can draw from it. I'm very surprised that there's no eagerness to expand that knowledge and thus results from those that would benefit most from it.

I'm pretty agnostic on the outcomes of whether tuners "work" or not - but the level of evidence presented along with the theoretical components provided thus far is very uncompelling and by no means definitive or conclusive. If they do in fact "work" (the definition of which constantly changes between tuner manufacturers and users), there's a whole lot to gain and optimize from a deeper understanding (as you point out), so I'm very surprised to see no eagerness to do so from the tuner crowd.

The thing I'm sure stopping any one tuner maker from scientifically proving how/ why a tuner works (or doesn't) is it's expensive and I really doubt the amount of money made on tuners is enough to justify the cost, However if they can prove how/ why they work there is a lot to be gained there but you also would have to publish the Data for everyone to be able to see and then everyone will be making/ doing it and likely to the point of being squashed by a larger company. So basically there is no benefit for the little guy to dive into why/ how/ if they work

 

[timintx]

Like most shooters & reloaders, I think you are trying to draw definitive conclusions from testing that can't do so.

That’s funny right there , telling people that worked with weapons for the military that their data is wrong and they are just drawing conclusions . Kind of like you telling me that my data is wrong and that is what I do on a professional level for twenty years . Yet you can not do any of it . Again talk is cheap let see your tuner data and it is not like mine so don’t try to say it is .throw us a bone here , anything .

Timintx

 

[kthomas]

That’s funny right there , telling people that worked with weapons for the military that their data is wrong and they are just drawing conclusions . Kind of like you telling me that my data is wrong and that is what I do on a professional level for twenty years . Yet you can not do any of it . Again talk is cheap let see your tuner data and it is not like mine so don’t try to say it is .throw us a bone here , anything .

Timintx

You're getting very defensive.

I'm just stating that ladder tests can't make any definitive conclusions and how, why and how much barrels are oscillating. Ladders do not measure barrel oscillation, so linking any results down range with barrel oscillation is a theoretical inference. I think it's important to note that you are not measuring or quantifying barrel oscillations by doing ladder tests, rather you are inferring that barrel oscillations (and frequency changes of said oscillations) are causing said results downrange. There is a very important distinction between the two.

There are most definitely ways to test and measure barrel oscillation, there are experts in the subject of oscillations and vibrations and there is equipment to measure such.

Anyways, good luck with your project. I have no interest in getting in a pissing match. And for the record I never said your data is wrong, I haven't even seen your data. But I think it's extremely flawed to make any conclusions about barrel oscillations through testing which doesn't even measure said barrel oscillation.

 

[iceng]

Strain gauges and piezos.

Lots of sections of strain gauges all around the barrel in a mesh, and then a new test with piezos on perceives nodes and anti-nodes, measure frequency.

BUT physically touching the barrel, will it effect results ? You bet it will.

Lasers and magnets ? Measure field vibration ? I'm not that rich.

 

[brianf]

Strain gauges and piezos.

Lots of sections of strain gauges all around the barrel in a mesh, and then a new test with piezos on perceives nodes and anti-nodes, measure frequency.

BUT physically touching the barrel, will it effect results ? You bet it will.

Lasers and magnets ? Measure field vibration ? I'm not that rich.

i think the first step is to use a pencil thin barrel to get the most whip

truthfully, i think any data with a array of sensors will be usalbe data as there isnt insturmented data openly avaialble

in general, the amount of whip is initially irrlevent

the frequency and diredction(s) are the first step to actually see whats going on

 

[timintx]

You're getting very defensive.

I'm just stating that ladder tests can't make any definitive conclusions and how, why and how much barrels are oscillating. Ladders do not measure barrel oscillation, so linking any results down range with barrel oscillation is a theoretical inference. I think it's important to note that you are not measuring or quantifying barrel oscillations by doing ladder tests, rather you are inferring that barrel oscillations (and frequency changes of said oscillations) are causing said results downrange. There is a very important distinction between the two.

There are most definitely ways to test and measure barrel oscillation, there are experts in the subject of oscillations and vibrations and there is equipment to measure such.

Anyways, good luck with your project. I have no interest in getting in a pissing match. And for the record I never said your data is wrong, I haven't even seen your data. But I think it's extremely flawed to make any conclusions about barrel oscillations through testing which doesn't even measure said barrel oscillation.

I am getting defensive because you are stating things you know nothing about to someone that does .The ladders are a direct measurement of the barrel movements and that is a fact , look at Harold Vaughn’s testing and relating these graphs downrange matched to a tee .you can say it all you want but in your case it is speculation because you don’t understand it . in my case it matches up downrange to what is at 100 yds and the sniper trainer I showed saw it match up perfectly at all ranges .the gun shot dots downrange , and the military ammo did too.

Timintx

 

[kthomas]

I am getting defensive because you are stating things you know nothing about to someone that does .The ladders are a direct measurement of the barrel movements and that is a fact , look at Harold Vaughn’s testing and relating these graphs downrange matched to a tee .you can say it all you want but in your case it is speculation because you don’t understand it . in my case it matches up downrange to what are at 100 yds and the sniper trainer I showed saw it match up perfectly at all ranges .the gun shot dots downrange , and the military ammo did too.

Timintx

That's great. But you still aren't directly measuring barrel oscillations. That's a fact. You are making an inference about barrel oscillations based on other measurements.

 

[LeftyJason]

I am getting defensive because you are stating things you know nothing about to someone that does .The ladders are a direct measurement of the barrel movements and that is a fact , look at Harold Vaughn’s testing and relating these graphs downrange matched to a tee .you can say it all you want but in your case it is speculation because you don’t understand it . in my case it matches up downrange to what are at 100 yds and the sniper trainer I showed saw it match up perfectly at all ranges .the gun shot dots downrange , and the military ammo did too.

Timintx

So what are the frequencies? Where are the nodes? What amplitude is the barrel experiencing. Hard numbers. That is the type of info that is being asked of you.

 

[jl937]

Just correcting your incorrect statements Again Varmint Als modeling is backed up with actual real gun testing and my testing as well. That’s the facts not hypothetical but real testing . Look on Estans rifle on Als website .

Timintx

The real life data I see on the website from Esten's rifle is not what I would consider scientifically rigorous. Interesting, yes, and a fun exercise to attempt to simulate but it does not definitively answer the mail IMO. Only 4 shots were used to quantify each variable in the experiment? That sample size is far too small to confirm any sort of effect.

There does appear to be a correlation (taken with a large grain of salt due to sample size, and yes that is correlation NOT causation) between POI deviations with a tuner on vs a bare muzzle and that seems to match Al's general conclusion that it's hard to say whether or not small adjustments in tuner setting actually have an effect or not. Quoted directly from Al's website, which seems to appear on every page that he presents simulation data about tuners, barrel harmonics, etc:

Maybe the "consensus" was that a rifle barrel vibrated in one or more of the mode shapes when fired. Maybe that was because the mode shapes and frequencies were easy to calculate and they did seem to answer some of the questions. From these dynamic pressure calculations, it appears that the forced deformations and recoil are much more important than the natural vibration modes in determining where a barrel is pointing...

...For decreasing group size, it appears that even an "out of tune" tuner is better than no tuner at all.

 

[timintx]

So what are the frequencies? Where are the nodes? What amplitude is the barrel experiencing. Hard numbers. That is the type of info that is being asked of you.

no frequency, remember this is a deformation that is induced by the recoil force and weight offset of the rifle causing it to bend so there are erratic movements but not in a frequency , the amplitude can be measured in each graph very easily. simply look at the highest and lowest hits on the graph and compare the changes to what was changed on the rifles . you can also determine the cross tracking velocity as well as the trends as to if the muzzle is moving down or up or parallel when your bullets are exiting and directly relate that to impacts down range .also you can determine the width of tune windows in FPS. Simply put if your barrel is moving up at bullets exit the gun shoots great but if the barrel is moving down when your bullet exits you will have horrible vertical stringing. The graph is a direct map of how your rifle will shoot downrange. Can you guess where the node is?

Timintx

 

[kthomas]

Why would a rifle shoot great with the barrel moving up as opposed to moving down? What is the theory behind that?

 

[jl937]

no frequency, remember this is a deformation that is induced by the recoil force and weight offset of the rifle causing it to bend so there are erratic movements but not in a frequency , the amplitude can be measured in each graph very easily. simply look at the highest and lowest hits on the graph and compare the changes to what was changed on the rifles . you can also determine the cross tracking velocity as well as the trends as to if the muzzle is moving down or up or parallel when your bullets are exiting and directly relate that to impacts down range .also you can determine the width of tune windows in FPS. Simply put if your barrel is moving up at bullets exit the gun shoots great but if the barrel is moving down when your bullet exits you will have horrible vertical stringing. The graph is a direct map of how your rifle will shoot downrange. Can you guess where the node is?

Timintx

This is merely a theory combined with an observed result, not any direct validation of said theory. Again, correlation NOT causation. The only thing you can say for certain is that a change in charge weight correlated to a difference in POI. Even if the theory makes logical sense that data alone is not sufficient to prove it and any speculation why that correlation exists is just that. Speculation.

People thought for thousands of years that the sun revolved around the earth purely based on observations that appeared to validate their theory.

 

[cameljockey230]

Why would a rifle shoot great with the barrel moving up as opposed to moving down? What is the theory behind that?

kthomas
I am not picking on you so don't take my post as a slam I thought you where the chief ballistician at Sierra that went to Lapua until I read your post quoted above.
The way we achieve accuracy in a rifle barrel is by getting all the bullets to converge onto the target at our given distance.
Slower bullets leave the barrel later in time than do the faster bullets.
If the muzzle is rising the slower bullets leaving later in time leave the muzzle while it is pointed at a higher angle than the faster bullets.
At some point in time those 2 paths will cross each other or converge.
This is how as reloaders we tune our rifles for best accuracy.
Yes those angles are extremely small as are the time differences.

If on the other hand the muzzle is traveling downward with the slower bullet leaving later those 2 paths will never cross and accuracy will never be what it could be.

 

[timintx]

Why would a rifle shoot great with the barrel moving up as opposed to moving down? What is the theory behind that?

Out of tune being defined as excessive vertical dispersion. If your barrel were moving down at a very fast rate it will be full out of tune indicated on the left of the graph which is the beginning of the movement and the right side is the end of the movement . The reason is a slower bullet leaves at a later point in the movement if moving downward will exit at a later and lower point aiming a slower bullet lower. If you knew the bullet was going to be slow , would you aim it lower ? certainly not but when the barrel is moving up the slower rounds are launched a bit higher ,not lower. So when you look at my graphs left to right when you see the upward tracking of the rounds as they get slower then that is when the gun is tuned and you see reduced vertical dispersion . So between 70 and 71 grains of powder indicated at the top, That is your tuned area, the window is 50 FPS wide. I would split that load up 70.5 for my powder charge and be in tune by 25 FPS either direction at 25 FPS . Now I know my width of tune and have a small window of positive compensation.

Timintx

 

[cameljockey230]

To the poster asking about 2 sinewaves of the same frequency but different amplitudes.

An example would be a 120 hertz signal at 60 and 120 volts. They all have the same frequency but the amitude of each wave would look like this.