Tuners in question ?

[cameljockey230]

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.


Actually Harold Vaughn The Grandfather of Aeroballistic Flight Mechanics for Nuclear Ordnance while at Sandia National Laboratory wrote that in his book Rifle Accuracy Facts many many years ago.
Bryan merely borrowed the phrase.

 

[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.

This result is only one of many hundreds of graphs that have been shot over many many years of testing on every caliber from .22 -.375 caliber. not just a one off look what I saw . Highly controlled testing ,modified and shot again and again until I shape the pattern where I need it to be on every gun . Then and only then large statistical samples are then done over time while monitoring for any changes during the lifetime of that barrel. I challenge anyone to load and shoot a graph with full loading range in the book 1 grain apart for 6 grains or what ever the book says. You will soon realize that you are in fact looking at the vertical barrel movements in great detail. This providing you have fair precision to begin with .

Timintx

 

[jl937]

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.

Believe me, I follow exactly what you're saying. Like I said in my earlier reply though, that's not the reality of what physics says happens when adding a mass to the end of the barrel. Doing so will lower the natural frequency in the vertical direction so he before and after will not both be 120 Hz, more like 120 Hz (with a bare muzzle) and 110Hz (with added mass at the muzzle).

 

[timintx]

Believe me, I follow exactly what you're saying. Like I said in my earlier reply though, that's not the reality of what physics says happens when adding a mass to the end of the barrel. Doing so will lower the natural frequency in the vertical direction so he before and after will not both be 120 Hz, more like 120 Hz (with a bare muzzle) and 110Hz (with added mass at the muzzle).

Well sure it will but the barrel is not vibrating in a natural frequency until it is free from the bullet. so that is a non effecting vibration. A natural frequency is not vertically oriented. it is multi directional.

Timintx

 

[cameljockey230]

Believe me, I follow exactly what you're saying. Like I said in my earlier reply though, that's not the reality of what physics says happens when adding a mass to the end of the barrel. Doing so will lower the natural frequency in the vertical direction so he before and after will not both be 120 Hz, more like 120 Hz (with a bare muzzle) and 110Hz (with added mass at the muzzle).

I can work with that.

I have to keep reminding myself all shooters are at different stages of the accuracy game.

So we agree that adding mass has reduced the amplitude regardless of a slight change in frequency?

Now what if this is true.

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.

Does that sound good to you or just made up nonsense?
Let me know so we can continue or call it quits

 

[badassgunworks]

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.


Actually Harold Vaughn The Grandfather of Aeroballistic Flight Mechanics for Nuclear Ordnance while at Sandia National Laboratory wrote that in his book Rifle Accuracy Facts many many years ago.
Bryan merely borrowed the phrase.

That comment by litz ignores basic laws that by moving that weight changes amplitude. He admitted it can improve accuracy by that comment and that tuners do work. where by defalt moving it can adjust to optomized exit timming. Dont see how a guy can be so smart and ignorant at the same time . But its even more crazy that people can blindly swallow any thing he writes. But cant believe the use of the best shooter in the world using tuners. Proof of positive compensation is in the results. positive compensation is exactly how tuners work. To improve accuracy or mess it up. How and what the tuners are used for is what differs by each individual.

 

[cameljockey230]

Yeah I am as old as the earth itself and remember Bryan's first postings on a couple of the extreme accuracy forums.
Did he really say your rifle only needs to shoot half minute of angle to win?
I ask because I shoot with the URSA group in SoCal and now Norcal and the winning rifles all seem to shoot better than that.

 

[badassgunworks]

Yeah I am as old as the earth itself and remember Bryan's first postings on a couple of the extreme accuracy forums.
Did he really say your rifle only needs to shoot half minute of angle to win?
I ask because I shoot with the URSA group in SoCal and now Norcal and the winning rifles all seem to shoot better than that.

Well perhaps thats because he cant shoot any better then that.

 

[badassgunworks]

Well perhaps thats because he cant shoot any better then that.

Perhaps thats why he does not shoot benchrest. He admits that he does not understand how benchrest shooters are capable of doing what he states cant be done .

 

[jthor]

Yes, when Bryan Litz in his new book modern-advancements-long-range-shooting volume 3 find out that tuners didnt work for him like everybody are aimnimg for, he made such a stir...

all snake oil of tuner sellers are raving about how his test is bullshit, how they can find a node with 2 shots, they are experts in reading 3 shot groups, they can find velocity platoes with one shot where Bryan cant find those platoes with 10 shots, and Bryan didnt find that with only 1° of turn your gun will become world champion...

all comunity is in delirium, because Bryan didnt see that tuners work. it is just the same if i say to some retarded chatolic that there is no god... anger everywhere!

but those retarded people cant read what corelation Bryan DID find: heavier object on the muzzle produce smaller groups!

so those snake oil producers, youtube 2 shot groups experts, velocity platoes gurus only need to hange something heavy on their barrel and they will shoot smaller groups!! no stupid turns of tuners, no retarder interpreting 2 shot POI, no nice rounded 3-shot groups. just something heavy at the end of the barrel!!!

have fun retards!

Just cause Bryan Litz says something doesn’t make it gospel. He also says a 1 MOA rifle can win F-Class yet I don’t believe he has won any matches of significance.

 

[jl937]

Well sure it will but the barrel is not vibrating in a natural frequency until it is free from the bullet. so that is a non effecting vibration. A natural frequency is not vertically oriented. it is multi directional.

Timintx

I agree, a properly free floated barrel is free to vibrate in all directions. I only mentioned the vertical component because that's the direction that would drive the positive compensation phenomenon and the focus of all Varmint Al's work. You yourself a few posts above just stated that the vertical muzzle deflection was relevant as it correlates to downrange vertical group dispersion, no?

Way back in post #52 you explained that the cross tracking velocity of muzzle movement is what causes dispersion and tuners help to align exit timing with periods of low muzzle movement. If not vibrating at the barrel's natural frequency or a higher octave of the base frequency, what frequency is this muzzle movement occurring at?

 

[timintx]

I agree, a properly free floated barrel is free to vibrate in all directions. I only mentioned the vertical component because that's the direction that would drive the positive compensation phenomenon and the focus of all Varmint Al's work. You yourself a few posts above just stated that the vertical muzzle deflection was relevant as it correlates to downrange vertical group dispersion, no?

Way back in post #52 you explained that the cross tracking velocity of muzzle movement is what causes dispersion and tuners help to align exit timing with periods of low muzzle movement. If not vibrating at the barrel's natural frequency or a higher octave of the base frequency, w

I agree, a properly free floated barrel is free to vibrate in all directions. I only mentioned the vertical component because that's the direction that would drive the positive compensation phenomenon and the focus of all Varmint Al's work. You yourself a few posts above just stated that the vertical muzzle deflection was relevant as it correlates to downrange vertical group dispersion, no?

Way back in post #52 you explained that the cross tracking velocity of muzzle movement is what causes dispersion and tuners help to align exit timing with periods of low muzzle movement. If not vibrating at the barrel's natural frequency or a higher octave of the base frequency, what frequency is this muzzle movement occurring at?

hat frequency is this muzzle movement occurring at?

It is a long type but the short version is that the only effecting vibration that is present before the bullet exits is high frequency. It travels back and fourth , and hits the muzzle 7-8 times before the exit , the frequency I could calculate but the main concern is that it is not at the muzzle when the bullet exits. It is only there in 1 spot within the whole loading range of the rifle so , tuners do nothing for this ,what tuners do is to slow the vertical bending caused by the recoil force and weight offsets to a more advantageous movement for a given exit time . This is more of a one time vertically oriented erratic deformation . Does not have frequency. 90% of vibration modes discussed and modeled occur after the Bullets exit . My main point being there is no single plane vibration . So if it s vertically oriented then it is really not a vibration .

Timintx

 

[jl937]

I can work with that.

I have to keep reminding myself all shooters are at different stages of the accuracy game.

So we agree that adding mass has reduced the amplitude regardless of a slight change in frequency?

Now what if this is true.

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.

Does that sound good to you or just made up nonsense?
Let me know so we can continue or call it quits

Yes, I understand the theory of positive compensation. I agree a tuner would reduce the harmonic amplitude, but that reduction in amplitude does not affect exit timing relative to the upward or downward orientation of the muzzle. It would only change upward or downward relative velocity at exit. If exit timing of the fast and slow bullet are the same between tuner and no tuner, the only theoretical way to align bullet exit with an upward moving muzzle is through frequency shifting.

 

[kthomas]

I would love to see some actual scientific testing on barrel harmonics and how they relate to external ballistics. In regards to both tuners and positive displacement.

Models & testing (that doesn't isolate other variables and can't conclude barrel harmonics) are pretty limiting in the scope of information they provide. We are still left with making a bunch of assumptions that may or may not be true, that relies on us to fill in the gaps with guesswork. There is very little consensus on if, how and why tuners work. Even top shooters and tuner manufacturers can't agree on how to use them. And if Varmint Al's old modelling is the best we have (no offense to Varmint Al, obviously a smart guy), we have a long ways to go in this subject.

Despite what anyone says, I would say the collective knowledge and understand of the subject is still very limited, due to the lack of hard data and evidence. We have a long ways to go in this topic, and anecdotal/observational evidence isn't going to take us any further.

 

[cameljockey230]

Yes, I understand the theory of positive compensation. I agree a tuner would reduce the harmonic amplitude, but that reduction in amplitude does not affect exit timing relative to the upward or downward orientation of the muzzle. It would only change upward or downward relative velocity at exit. If exit timing of the fast and slow bullet are the same between tuner and no tuner, the only theoretical way to align bullet exit with an upward moving muzzle is through frequency shifting.

Okay so you understand how the slower bullet and faster bullet can converge on the target without a tuner.
In my scribble drawing showing the 2 amplitudes we can pick any two points along both waves and assign them a number. We can give those two numbers a fancy name or just coordinates or anything anyone here would like to call them.
They just need to be the same for both waves.

What are your thoughts on any 2 points on wave 1 versus the same points on wave two with regards to a change in the vertical differential between those 2 points?
Wave 1 would be a bare barrel and wave 2 would be a damped down barrel due to the tuners mass.

 

[cameljockey230]

I would love to see some actual scientific testing on barrel harmonics and how they relate to external ballistics. In regards to both tuners and positive displacement.

Models & testing (that doesn't isolate other variables and can't conclude barrel harmonics) are pretty limiting in the scope of information they provide. We are still left with making a bunch of assumptions that may or may not be true, that relies on us to fill in the gaps with guesswork. There is very little consensus on if, how and why tuners work. Even top shooters and tuner manufacturers can't agree on how to use them. And if Varmint Al's old modelling is the best we have (no offense to Varmint Al, obviously a smart guy), we have a long ways to go in this subject.

Despite what anyone says, I would say the collective knowledge and understand of the subject is still very limited, due to the lack of hard data and evidence. We have a long ways to go in this topic, and anecdotal/observational evidence isn't going to take us any further.

Actually you have been given actual scientific testing but are struggling with separation of facts from internet typing which is difficult for most shooters.
The scientific community did studies many many years ago about drinking cyanide and death and they rarely update those studies.
Just because they haven't been updated recently or sent you any data doesn't mean drinking cyanide is a hotly debated topic and we should drink a glass.
The problem we have as shooters is who to listen to and eho to ignore.
Myself I took a perfectly great shooting 6 Dasher that was very competitive and added a test tuner to it so I could separate out the various theories.
With a 30 inch 1000 yard taper barrel or #17 contour a 6-10 ounce tuner 2.75 inches in front of the muzzle gave good enough accuracy to set a world record.
Unlike most if I have enough coins in my pockets I test the various goofy ideas the internet has to offer and implement those that work and avoid those that don't.
If my testing is flawed I may have already shelved the best kept secret to accuracy

 

[kthomas]

Actually you have been given actual scientific testing but are struggling with separation of facts from internet typing which is difficult for most shooters.
The scientific community did studies many many years ago about drinking cyanide and death and they rarely update those studies.
Just because they haven't been updated recently or sent you any data doesn't mean drinking cyanide is a hotly debated topic and we should drink a glass.
The problem we have as shooters is who to listen to and eho to ignore.
Myself I took a perfectly great shooting 6 Dasher that was very competitive and added a test tuner to it so I could separate out the various theories.
With a 30 inch 1000 yard taper barrel or #17 contour a 6-10 ounce tuner 2.75 inches in front of the muzzle gave good enough accuracy to set a world record.
Unlike most if I have enough coins in my pockets I test the various goofy ideas the internet has to offer and implement those that work and avoid those that don't.
If my testing is flawed I may have already shelved the best kept secret to accuracy

The evidence provided and alluded to thus far, while a good starting point, is far from conclusive or dispositive. And far from scientific. There are many variables that aren't isolated, and there's no actual measurements or observations in regards to barrel harmonics - only inferences.

This is one of many reasons why I'm skeptical of tuners - because some of the biggest proponents of tuners have little to no understanding of the scientific method or statistical analysis, and make definitive conclusions that are impossible to do from such weak data sets.

I mean no offense by this, but so far its pretty clear that some of the biggest advocates for tuners here and elsewhere don't grasp the weakness of the evidence they present. This doesn't mean that tuners don't "work", but there's a long ways to go before this topic ever gets settled - if it ever does.

 

[cameljockey230]

The evidence provided and alluded to thus far, while a good starting point, is far from conclusive or dispositive. And far from scientific. There are many variables that aren't isolated, and there's no actual measurements or observations in regards to barrel harmonics - only inferences.

This is one of many reasons why I'm skeptical of tuners - because some of the biggest proponents of tuners have little to no understanding of the scientific method or statistical analysis, and make definitive conclusions that are impossible to do from such weak data sets.

I mean no offense by this, but so far its pretty clear that some of the biggest advocates for tuners here and elsewhere don't grasp the weakness of the evidence they present. This doesn't mean that tuners don't "work", but there's a long ways to go before this topic ever gets settled - if it ever does.

The measurements you keep asking about where done by Dr Geoffrey Kolble you might have missed it?
Did you read his papers?
I am only posting so those actually interested in the topic can look up the various sources and then come to there own conclusions.
I would rather shoot against shooters without tuners or shooters with improperly tuned guns as it makes winning easier.

 

[kthomas]

The measurements you keep asking about where done by Dr Geoffrey Kolble you might have missed it?
Did you read his papers?
I am only posting so those actually interested in the topic can look up the various sources and then come to there own conclusions.
I would rather shoot against shooters without tuners or shooters with improperly tuned guns as it makes winning easier.

Reading it now - this is much more interesting then the typical anecdotal evidence that's regularly presented in support of tuners. Thank you.

 

[jl937]

Okay so you understand how the slower bullet and faster bullet can converge on the target without a tuner.
In my scribble drawing showing the 2 amplitudes we can pick any two points along both waves and assign them a number. We can give those two numbers a fancy name or just coordinates or anything anyone here would like to call them.
They just need to be the same for both waves.

What are your thoughts on any 2 points on wave 1 versus the same points on wave two with regards to a change in the vertical differential between those 2 points?
Wave 1 would be a bare barrel and wave 2 would be a damped down barrel due to the tuners mass.

I think your mistake is you're misconstruing vibrational mode shapes (which are merely generic representations that show where nodes/anti-nodes are) for the actual time dependent motion of the muzzle. It's there in Varmint Al's timescale plots of muzzle projection if you care to study it hard enough and have the physics background to comprehend it. If bullet exit times for both shots are on the downslope side of muzzle projection where positive compensation isn't possible, reducing amplitude of the muzzle projection gets you nothing.

 

[cameljockey230]

The time shows us a point after the bullet has already left the barrel. Am I still with you?
I think resonance takes place but only after the bullet has exited the muzzle.
Are we still good?
And if you read my earlier posts I already explained you want the muzzle rising.

 

[iceng]

This topic will never settle. It's like car guys with small block VS big block, or ford / chev, etc..

Some people are really good at tuning their hand loads, some people are not. Some people need assistance. Maybe tuners work, maybe they don't. All I know is, for me, they absolutely work. If you don't want one, or think they don't work, I'm cool with that. We can be friends.

As long as you don't shoot a .270win. because you are dead to me.

 

[kthomas]

I can work with that.

I have to keep reminding myself all shooters are at different stages of the accuracy game.

So we agree that adding mass has reduced the amplitude regardless of a slight change in frequency?

Now what if this is true.

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.

Does that sound good to you or just made up nonsense?
Let me know so we can continue or call it quits

The issue with positive displacement hypothesis is that it if it is in fact true, it only works at one real distance. Not applicable for those that shoot at multiple distances (most here on this site).

Great for BR and F-class where you are shooting at one set distance. Whether you can actually tune for it or not is another question, but I don't shoot those disciplines so I am completely agnostic on that. BR shooters and F-class shooters should keep doing what they think works for them, I'm not one to tell them what to do.

But positive displacement is not really applicable to anyone that shoots at multiple distances.

 

[badassgunworks]

The issue with positive displacement hypothesis is that it if it is in fact true, it only works at one real distance. Not applicable for those that shoot at multiple distances (most here on this site).

Great for BR and F-class where you are shooting at one set distance. Whether you can actually tune for it or not is another question, but I don't shoot those disciplines so I am completely agnostic on that. BR shooters and F-class shooters should keep doing what they think works for them, I'm not one to tell them what to do.

But positive displacement is not really applicable to anyone that shoots at multiple distances.

Funny comment . litz saw it first hand at spearpoint 2 weeks ago. guy had not properly tuned his rifle loads was hitting above first target . cranked the tuner not even knowing what he was doing ( as he was new to tuners and it was a new rifle ) got on target the next shot and at the end of the match he had the highest score. He won . Litz even commented on it.

 

[morganlamprecht]

a guy beating everyone else's tuned rifles with dumb luck doesnt sound great for the tuned crowd to me lol

are we going with the story line that randomly cranking a tuner corrected his incorrect dope and propelled him to victory, or did he just make a dope/hold correction moving forward and the tuner possibly had nothing to do with it?

 

[timintx]

a guy beating everyone else's tuned rifles with dumb luck doesnt sound great for the tuned crowd to me lol

are we going with the story line that randomly cranking a tuner corrected his incorrect dope and propelled him to victory, or did he just make a dope/hold correction moving forward and the tuner possibly had nothing to do with it?

He actually had really bad vertical dispersion , shots were low then high and low and high on the first target.The tuner leveled everything out then he could count on his dopes. Lucky adjustment but never the less the tuner brought the gun back in to tune. The night before I gave a tuner class to give the basics on how to use a tuner which gave a basis for adjustments and it worked out well.
Timintx

 

[morganlamprecht]

gotcha, that makes more sense than the first scenario

 

[kthomas]

a guy beating everyone else's tuned rifles with dumb luck doesnt sound great for the tuned crowd to me lol

are we going with the story line that randomly cranking a tuner corrected his incorrect dope and propelled him to victory, or did he just make a dope/hold correction moving forward and the tuner possibly had nothing to do with it?

In this case it worked out for him, but easily could've gone the other way. Which is why people like Alex Wheeler recommend to his clients to get a couple of barrels worth of BR competitions before they even think about adding a tuner to the mix.

Great for the guy to luck out on a bandaid fix last minute, but sounds like piss poor preparation on his part from the get go.

 

[timintx]

In this case it worked out for him, but easily could've gone the other way. Which is why people like Alex Wheeler recommend to his clients to get a couple of barrels worth of BR competitions before they even think about adding a tuner to the mix.

Great for the guy to luck out on a bandaid fix last minute, but sounds like piss poor preparation on his part from the get go.

It was not a band aid fix , he just tuned the gun with a tuner instead of the loads.He got his barrel at the last minute , all he could do was work up 100 yd loads and work up for pressure Load up and go. Just because it shoots good at 100 does not mean it will shoot at extreme range .It happens . And is absolute proof the tuner did it’s job . I have been in that exact same position many times especially when the rifles came out of tune . I was able to put it back in tune every time when conditions changed . Saved me a depressing trip back home .

Timintx

 

[Geno C.]

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.


Actually Harold Vaughn The Grandfather of Aeroballistic Flight Mechanics for Nuclear Ordnance while at Sandia National Laboratory wrote that in his book Rifle Accuracy Facts many many years ago.
Bryan merely borrowed the phrase.

Adding weight to the end of the barrel CAN improve accuracy. It can also reduce accuracy. I believe he neglected to mention that part.

 

[badassgunworks]

In this case it worked out for him, but easily could've gone the other way. Which is why people like Alex Wheeler recommend to his clients to get a couple of barrels worth of BR competitions before they even think about adding a tuner to the mix.

Great for the guy to luck out on a bandaid fix last minute, but sounds like piss poor preparation on his part from the get go.

You are 100% correct but it did work and solved the issue that was my point. And yes he did get lucky on cranking on it cuz the guy had no clue what he was doing but now he knows they do work hopefully he will take the time to figure it out

 

[badassgunworks]

Adding weight to the end of the barrel CAN improve accuracy. It can also reduce accuracy. I believe he neglected to mention that part.

Actually it actually lengthens the amplitude while slowing down the overall rate of movement. And then allows you to move the tuner to change where the barrel is when the bullet exits

 

[Tx_Aggie]

So now we can completely ignore load development and just buy a tuner?

No disrespect, but that sounds too good to be true.

 

[brianf]

So now we can completely ignore load development and just buy a tuner?

No disrespect, but that sounds too good to be true.

NO

welcome to the circular argument of all tuner discussions (which is why everyone gets pissed lol)

thats definitive answer from the tuner MFG's to the guys in the winner circle

if you go one step farther you would be able to tune factory ammo to match BR ammo, and we know that is not the case

 

[timintx]

So now we can completely ignore load development and just buy a tuner?

No disrespect, but that sounds too good to be true.

No one said that nor did we infer that , but you sometimes can tweak in a good load better at the longer ranges because the changes can be seen better as bad ass guns stated about a million times lol.

Timintx

 

[Tx_Aggie]

NO

welcome to the circular argument of all tuner discussions (which is why everyone gets pissed lol)

thats definitive answer from the tuner MFG's to the guys in the winner circle

if you go one step farther you would be able to tune factory ammo to match BR ammo, and we know that is not the case

Thanks.

It's just that when I see posts like these, it's easy to seen an argument being made that a tuner is powerful enough to make up for poor or nonexistent load development:

Funny comment . litz saw it first hand at spearpoint 2 weeks ago. guy had not properly tuned his rifle loads was hitting above first target . cranked the tuner not even knowing what he was doing ( as he was new to tuners and it was a new rifle ) got on target the next shot and at the end of the match he had the highest score. He won . Litz even commented on it.

He actually had really bad vertical dispersion , shots were low then high and low and high on the first target.The tuner leveled everything out then he could count on his dopes. Lucky adjustment but never the less the tuner brought the gun back in to tune. The night before I gave a tuner class to give the basics on how to use a tuner which gave a basis for adjustments and it worked out well.
Timintx

It was not a band aid fix , he just tuned the gun with a tuner instead of the loads. He got his barrel at the last minute , all he could do was work up 100 yd loads and work up for pressure Load up and go. Just because it shoots good at 100 does not mean it will shoot at extreme range .It happens . And is absolute proof the tuner did it’s job . I have been in that exact same position many times especially when the rifles came out of tune . I was able to put it back in tune every time when conditions changed . Saved me a depressing trip back home .

Timintx

You are 100% correct but it did work and solved the issue that was my point. And yes he did get lucky on cranking on it cuz the guy had no clue what he was doing but now he knows they do work hopefully he will take the time to figure it out

 

[kthomas]

The inconsistencies about what tuners can achieve and how they work really doesn't help the case for tuners.

Some say you can skip load development, others say you have to do a full load development first.

Some say tuners can't fix a bad load, others say tuners can bring bad ammo into a node.

Some say tuners can be used to make factory ammo more precise, some disciplines don't even recognize that use.

Some say tuners are used to make micro adjustments to keep you in the x-ring, others say that you can be missing plates low and high and a random tuner adjustment can bring you back into tune.

Some say tuners are used for making small adjustments as environmental conditions change, others say you set it for a specific load and forget it.

Some say you can use most any tuner and get good results, others say you need a tuner custom made for your specific rifle and application to get good results.

I'm agnostic on the outcome of tuners. I would love for them to "work". Perhaps they do for F-class and BR, I don't shoot those disciplines. For ELR maybe. For PRS I think it's pure snake oil.

But all the inconsistencies in how tuners work and what they can do really doesn't help me convince me they work in some of the ways suggested.

 

[Geno C.]

Actually it actually lengthens the amplitude while slowing down the overall rate of movement. And then allows you to move the tuner to change where the barrel is when the bullet exits

I’m not even talking a tuner. Just added weight. Try 5 different suppressors on the same rifle and it will not group the same. Some better, some worse than a naked muzzle

 

[jl937]

It is a long type but the short version is that the only effecting vibration that is preset before the bullet exits is high frequency. It travels back and fourth , and hits the muzzle 7-8 times before the exit , the frequency I could calculate but the main concern is that it is not at the muzzle when the bullet exits. It is only there in 1 spot within the whole loading range of the rifle so , tuners do nothing for this what tuner do is to slow the vertical bending caused by the recoil force and weight offsets to a more advantageous movement for a given exit time . This is more of a one time vertically oriented erratic deformation . Does not have frequency. 90% of vibration modes discussed and modeled occur after the Bullets exit . My main point being there is no single plane vibration . So if it s vertically oriented then it is really not a vibration .

Timintx

In simplest terms, I understand your theory to be that a tuner's affect on precision is primarily via inertial effects, not harmonic effects. Definitely compelling and plausible in my opinion but still would love to see some hardcore science to directly show this slowing of the muzzles deflection by adding mass to the end of the barrel. Pointing to data like reduced group size or vertical dispersion can seem to line up with the theory, but that connection relies on inference and doesn't directly validate it. If the hypothesis is that the muzzle's movement is delayed, the hypothesis can only be proven or disproven by a test where the muzzle's movements are recorded.

 

[timintx]

In simplest terms, I understand your theory to be that a tuner's affect on precision is primarily via inertial effects, not harmonic effects. Definitely compelling and plausible in my opinion but still would love to see some hardcore science to directly show this slowing of the muzzles deflection by adding mass to the end of the barrel. Pointing to data like reduced group size or vertical dispersion can seem to line up with the theory, but that connection relies on inference and doesn't directly validate it. If the hypothesis is that the muzzle's movement is delayed, the hypothesis can only be proven or disproven by a test where the muzzle's movements are recorded.

If you measure the movement point of impact and velocity must be related to the movement as well otherwise you don’t know if the particular movement effected POI. Hence ladder testing , if you get 4 -5 (250fps) difference powder charges hitting lower and lower as they speed up it becomes obvious , not just chance , then it repeats over snd over again then the barrel movement is measured and is extremely accurate as being representative of the barrel movement no matter who says it don’t . I have been doing this too long to think otherwise .

Timintx

 

[jl937]

I'm not attempting to discount your years of experience. We'll just have to agree to disagree about whether your results point to causation or correlation.

 

[badassgunworks]

If you measure the movement point of impact and velocity must be related to the movement as well otherwise you don’t know if the particular movement effected POI. Hence ladder testing , if you get 4 -5 (250fps) difference powder charges hitting lower and lower as they speed up it becomes obvious , not just chance , then it repeats over snd over again then the barrel movement is measured and is extremely accurate as being representative of the barrel movement no matter who says it don’t . I have been doing this too long to think otherwise .

Timintx

100% correct

 

[cameljockey230]

The inconsistencies about what tuners can achieve and how they work really doesn't help the case for tuners.

Some say you can skip load development, others say you have to do a full load development first.

Some say tuners can't fix a bad load, others say tuners can bring bad ammo into a node.

Some say tuners can be used to make factory ammo more precise, some disciplines don't even recognize that use.

Some say tuners are used to make micro adjustments to keep you in the x-ring, others say that you can be missing plates low and high and a random tuner adjustment can bring you back into tune.

Some say tuners are used for making small adjustments as environmental conditions change, others say you set it for a specific load and forget it.

Some say you can use most any tuner and get good results, others say you need a tuner custom made for your specific rifle and application to get good results.

I'm agnostic on the outcome of tuners. I would love for them to "work". Perhaps they do for F-class and BR, I don't shoot those disciplines. For ELR maybe. For PRS I think it's pure snake oil.

But all the inconsistencies in how tuners work and what they can do really doesn't help me convince me they work in some of the ways suggested.

If a gun is shooting at its best at 1000 yards is it also shooting its best at 2000 and 3000 yards?

I think your point is that a tuner would make a gun good at one distance and horrible everywhere else.

In actuall practice with my little experience the gun shoots better at 100,200,300,600 and 1000 yards not just a single distance.

 

[timintx]

I'm not attempting to discount your years of experience. We'll just have to agree to disagree about whether your results point to causation or correlation.

Fair enough , if you have an idea as to measuring the slight angle produced by the recoil force I will be glad to try it . The graphs I post are the only known way to measure barrel launch angles as of now mainly because it is the actual movement being traced on paper and not a electrical signal . I can see changes in incredible detail including in bore timing variations with the same instrumental velocity . So we don't agree ? That is understandable , I am only after the truth in these endeavors and if I am wrong it will not be the first time. Here are some of the problems involved to do instrumental measurements on micro movements and angular at that . Since 2001 I have been trying to do just that and after talking with many military labs and scientist from all over the world and discussing all of the variables involved it was next to impossible to correlate where the shot landed and which mode of vibrations landed it there or if it was a vibration mode that put it there or if a intermediate ballistic force or external ballistic force caused the shot to land . Attaching sensors to the action and lug area was done by Harold Vaughn and it worked well but it was mainly measuring pressure points at the lug and action area converted to a signal. That is ok but it was not measuring the precise micro barrel launch angles involved . To do so Harold had to shoot ladder tests similar to mine to to really see and measure these very small changes in a shooting tunnel. They could be calculated based on the strain gauge measurements but not actually measured. G force sensors had their own issues simply because they diverted the barrel from the normal dynamic response when attached to the barrel. For a while lasers were thought to be possible but as the gun moves rearward in a normal dynamic response the vertical plane and horizontal plane of the barrel could be measured but the problem there is the barrel is bending different directions in at least 8 different planes in 5 different spots at one time all while moving rearward and torquing so if not attached directly to the gun would be next to impossible to extrapolate the effecting variables.

Timintx

 

[timintx]

If a gun is shooting at its best at 1000 yards is it also shooting its best at 2000 and 3000 yards?

I think your point is that a tuner would make a gun good at one distance and horrible everywhere else.

In actuall practice with my little experience the gun shoots better at 100,200,300,600 and 1000 yards not just a single distance.

Here is the theory illustration .I have seen the same as you sir .

 

[kthomas]

If a gun is shooting at its best at 1000 yards is it also shooting its best at 2000 and 3000 yards?

I think your point is that a tuner would make a gun good at one distance and horrible everywhere else.

In actuall practice with my little experience the gun shoots better at 100,200,300,600 and 1000 yards not just a single distance.

I was speaking specifically in regards to positive compensation.

The whole premise is that if you time the exit of a slower projectile while the barrel is moving up, there will be a point of convergence between those two projectile speeds at some distance.

That convergence point only happens at one distance.

However there are numerous assumptions that need to be made, and there are many internal and external factors that influence ballistics beyond just velocity. In most disciplines and for most shooters, I would think any advantage would just be noise. Perhaps there's something to it in disciplines like BR or F-class, where minute advantages make a big difference, and where tools such as SEB front rests, ruddered stocks etc are used where such small differences will show up on target.

Though going along with the inconsistency theme, the BR guys and F-class guys use tuners in a completely different fashion then what's reported here, and attribute different capabilities of tuners than what's presented here. So who knows. Seems like everyone's theories on tuners is grounded in their own personal biases, willingness to believe, and flawed statistical analysis'. There's a lot still to learn apparently.

 

[jl937]

Fair enough , if you have an idea as to measuring the slight angle produced by the recoil force I will be glad to try it . The graphs I post are the only known way to measure barrel launch angles as of now mainly because it is the actual movement being traced on paper and not a electrical signal . I can see changes in incredible detail including in bore timing variations with the same instrumental velocity . So we don't agree ? That is understandable , I am only after the truth in these endeavors and if I am wrong it will not be the first time. Here are some of the problems involved to do instrumental measurements on micro movements and angular at that . Since 2001 I have been trying to do just that and after talking with many military labs and scientist from all over the world and discussing all of the variables involved it was next to impossible to correlate where the shot landed and which mode of vibrations landed it there or if it was a vibration mode that put it there or if a intermediate ballistic force or external ballistic force caused the shot to land . Attaching sensors to the action and lug area was done by Harold Vaughn and it worked well but it was mainly measuring pressure points at the lug and action area converted to a signal. That is ok but it was not measuring the precise micro barrel launch angles involved . To do so Harold had to shoot ladder tests similar to mine to to really see and measure these very small changes in a shooting tunnel. They could be calculated based on the strain gauge measurements but not actually measured. G force sensors had their own issues simply because they diverted the barrel from the normal dynamic response when attached to the barrel. For a while lasers were thought to be possible but as the gun moves rearward in a normal dynamic response the vertical plane and horizontal plan of the barrel could be measure but the problem there is the barrel is bending different directions in at least 8 different planes in 5 different spots at one time all while moving rearward and torquing so if not attached directly to the gun would be next to impossible to extrapolate the effecting variables.

Timintx

Great background, thanks for sharing. Beyond delaying that critical muzzle movement what else is critical about getting it "in tune" in your opinion. I can't imagine it's as simple as just making sure the exit timing falls on the upward side of the muzzle movement and it'll be guaranteed to shoot small groups. Obviously assuming tuning an already well developed load with minimal velocity ES, yadda yadda...

 

[Snuby642]

How bad is a tiney strain gauge glued to a barrel going to effect harmonics enough to skew the tests in whether a tuner is working or the exit timing.

If it provides a new zero when applied then that is the new base.
Even if it changed harmonics and exit timing a good tuner will correct it.

EC Tuner Brake user.

 

[jl937]

How bad is a tiney strain gauge glued to a barrel going to effect harmonics enough to skew the tests in whether a tuner is working or the exit timing.

If it provides a new zero when applied then that is the new base.
Even if it changed harmonics and exit timing a good tuner will correct it.

EC Tuner Brake user.

I agree. In the perfect experiment the measured phenomena at the muzzle would be matched shot for shot to the results on paper, and I fully agree with Timintx above that's no simple task. But just to start somewhere with some real data to back up the hypothesis it should be relatively straightforward to show that muzzle movements experience a time delay after a mass is added to the end of the barrel.

 

[cameljockey230]

In simplest terms, I understand your theory to be that a tuner's affect on precision is primarily via inertial effects, not harmonic effects. Definitely compelling and plausible in my opinion but still would love to see some hardcore science to directly show this slowing of the muzzles deflection by adding mass to the end of the barrel. Pointing to data like reduced group size or vertical dispersion can seem to line up with the theory, but that connection relies on inference and doesn't directly validate it. If the hypothesis is that the muzzle's movement is delayed, the hypothesis can only be proven or disproven by a test where the muzzle's movements are recorded.

What it the bare barrel with the high amplitude at the muzzle was shooting quarter inch groups and we cut the muzzles vertical amplitude in half?
I think if you read Dr Geoffrey Kolbe article a rimfire tuner can compensate for 50 fps plus of velocity.
Did the good Dr include photos/data and measurements or did he mess up the process?