Tuners in question ?

[timintx]

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.

I would refer you to post 198. I posted some graphs showing too much weight which made the barrel track sharply down during the exit, then a more advantageous weight with a barrel tracking upward and then a hot barrel which slightly flattens as it heats to 148 degrees .
Timintx

 

[cameljockey230]

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.

So what your saying is tuners might help at fixed distances which I agree they do but because of the wide variation in ELR distances between gongs they would actually open up your groups before and after the initial settings distance.
I also tend to agree with this but think the loss is extremely small
So can we map out a tuner like we twist the turrets for each advancing gong?
Or perhaps color code a tuner for peak accuracy at the various distances?
The tuner pictured is a Stiller no longer made on a 600/1000 yard lightgun now being tested at 2054 yards.
And just for transparency I believe Dr Geoffrey Kolbe said the same thing as in Tim's picture above about the crossing paths.
Also to be 100% above board there is a rimfire benchrest shooter who is a theoretical physicist of the Higgs-Boson type work that explained all this on one of Bill Calfees tuner threads.
I don't remember his name but he is most likely the only theoretical physicist in the world shooting rimfire benchrest and should be easy to look up.
This is why I took up the challenge of mapping out the various distances.

 

[brianf]

So what your saying is tuners might help at fixed distances which I agree they do but because of the wide variation in ELR distances between gongs they would actually open up your groups before and after the initial settings distance.
I also tend to agree with this but think the loss is extremely small
So can we map out a tuner like we twist the turrets for each advancing gong?
Or perhaps color code a tuner for peak accuracy at the various distances?
The tuner pictured is a Stiller no longer made on a 600/1000 yard lightgun now being tested at 2054 yards

ill look for the article

some guys have tried to "plot it"

tuner was shot in different environmental conditions etc, it seemed like he actually tried to be impartial at the time of reading

his thought was if the tuner changes when conditions change (something he had seen while shooting) then he can plot the changes and adjust as needed when conditions change etc

out of several trials the "DOPE" was not consistent day over day when conditions were approximately the same as recorded

it was too random and found that tuning during a match (not PRS, real X ring matches) was not worth it and just added another variable

personally, im dying for it to be a one turn and done because i shoot factory match more often than not, so making it an "easy button" is well worth the $

we just arent there yet

 

[jl937]

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?

What if you re-read Kolbe's article and came to the realization that amplitude of muzzle deflection was not significantly different with tuner vs without tuner? His work indicates that it's not about amplitude, but about time lag caused by the added mass. In Kolbe's own words:

"As can be seen, the general shape or pattern of vibrations for the two traces is very similar. However, while the vibrations on the two traces start out in a very similar way, the pattern of vibrations with the weighted barrel appears slightly stretched in time compared to that of the unweighted barrel."

Why are you so fixated on this magical one half reduction in amplitude?

 

[cameljockey230]

What if you re-read Kolbe's article and came to the realization that amplitude of muzzle deflection was not significantly different with tuner vs without tuner? His work indicates that it's not about amplitude, but about time lag caused by the added mass. In Kolbe's own words:

"As can be seen, the general shape or pattern of vibrations for the two traces is very similar. However, while the vibrations on the two traces start out in a very similar way, the pattern of vibrations with the weighted barrel appears slightly stretched in time compared to that of the unweighted barrel."

Why are you so fixated on this magical one half reduction in amplitude?

Actually I have written to him many many times and the half amplitude was merely a reference not intended as the end all be all of tuner weighting.
Does the good Doctor think I am correct or does he believe you to be correct?
Does the good Doctor give a velocity window for tuner compensation?
I already know the answers but it will give you an opportunity to show what he wrote a decade ago to the others viewing this thread.
What does damped mean in terms of a wave?

 

[jl937]

Actually I have written to him many many times and the half amplitude was merely a reference not intended as the end all be all of tuner weighting.
Does the good Doctor think I am correct or does he believe you to be correct?
Does the good Doctor give a velocity window for tuner compensation?
I already know the answers but it will give you an opportunity to show what he wrote a decade ago to the others viewing this thread.
What does damped mean in terms of a wave?

I feel like you keep straw manning my arguments.... I never said Kolbe's work was incorrect. But maybe I missed it so please show me in his article where the results point to amplitude damping being the mechanism by which tuners work.

On a separate note, in your communications with him do you know whether that experiment was ever attempted on a centerfire rifle? I'd be fascinated to see how the results compare to subsonic rimfire.

 

[cameljockey230]

I feel like you keep straw manning my arguments.... I never said Kolbe's work was incorrect. But maybe I missed it so please show me in his article where the results point to amplitude damping being the mechanism by which tuners work.

On a separate note, in your communications with him do you know whether that experiment was ever attempted on a centerfire rifle? I'd be fascinated to see how the results compare to subsonic rimfire.

Varmint Al Dr Kolbe a theoretical physicist whose name I think is grover? and a couple other shooters where all involved in the testing and my record setting rifle is still on varmint Al's website today so that is how I know and my rifle is a 6 Dasher which is a centerfire.
Also if you open the cover on Bill Calfees first book about rimfire accuracy to the acknowledgements page you will see me listed with one other shooter.

 

[jl937]

Oof, I really struck a nerve there. Apologies for bruising your ego. I'm not debating the validity of your results nor your methods used to achieve them. Congrats on your extensive accolades BTW.

Now that we're done with the dick measuring contest can we get back to the data in the Kolbe article? You still haven't answered my question. Where in his results does it point to the damping of harmonic amplitude as being the driver for getting in tune? Is there another set of data from Kolbe that I'm not aware of?

And since you were involved in the testing you may have good insight to provide in regards to my second question, I'm genuinely curious. Has the instrumentation described in the Kolbe article ever been used on centerfire rifles?

 

[brianf]

Oof, I really struck a nerve there. Apologies for bruising your ego. I'm not debating the validity of your results nor your methods used to achieve them. Congrats on your extensive accolades BTW.

Now that we're done with the dick measuring contest can we get back to the data in the Kolbe article? You still haven't answered my question. Where in his results does it point to the damping of harmonic amplitude as being the driver for getting in tune? Is there another set of data from Kolbe that I'm not aware of?

And since you were involved in the testing you may have good insight to provide in regards to my second question, I'm genuinely curious. Has the instrumentation described in the Kolbe article ever been used on centerfire rifles?

this is where it gets fuzzy

tons of actual instrumented data has been performed on rimfire

most of the centerfire data is ad-hoc/not nearly as robust as Kolbe rimfire data

so there is not a true correlation between the 2

 

[cameljockey230]

Oof, I really struck a nerve there. Apologies for bruising your ego. I'm not debating the validity of your results nor your methods used to achieve them. Congrats on your extensive accolades BTW.

Now that we're done with the dick measuring contest can we get back to the data in the Kolbe article? You still haven't answered my question. Where in his results does it point to the damping of harmonic amplitude as being the driver for getting in tune? Is there another set of data from Kolbe that I'm not aware of?

And since you were involved in the testing you may have good insight to provide in regards to my second question, I'm genuinely curious. Has the instrumentation described in the Kolbe article ever been used on centerfire rifles?

You didn't come remotely close to hitting/striking a nerve.
This debate was several years long 15 years ago and myself and TimnTx somehow managed to survive and back then it was 3 against the entire shooting community.
As to my accolades you asked and I posted if that upsets you why ask?
As to rimfire versus centerfire it's all been posted on Varmint Al's website and has been pointed out numerous times now.
The rifle wasa 6 ppc benchrest rifle owned by a shooter named Esten if my memory is any good and the modeling done by finite element analysis was confirmed on paper.
My tuner gun set a world record so Al Harrel had me submit all the data so he could match it up.
If your here to learn ask away as the info is freely given.
If you just want to hate on everything there is nothing I can do for you.

 

[kthomas]

So what your saying is tuners might help at fixed distances which I agree they do but because of the wide variation in ELR distances between gongs they would actually open up your groups before and after the initial settings distance.
I also tend to agree with this but think the loss is extremely small
So can we map out a tuner like we twist the turrets for each advancing gong?
Or perhaps color code a tuner for peak accuracy at the various distances?
The tuner pictured is a Stiller no longer made on a 600/1000 yard lightgun now being tested at 2054 yards.
And just for transparency I believe Dr Geoffrey Kolbe said the same thing as in Tim's picture above about the crossing paths.
Also to be 100% above board there is a rimfire benchrest shooter who is a theoretical physicist of the Higgs-Boson type work that explained all this on one of Bill Calfees tuner threads.
I don't remember his name but he is most likely the only theoretical physicist in the world shooting rimfire benchrest and should be easy to look up.
This is why I took up the challenge of mapping out the various distances.

I think its plausible that you can optimize your chances of increasing precision at a distance with positive displacement, given the many assumptions we have to make in the process are in fact true.

If that is the case, I'm not convinced that we can dictate that precise distance in which that act of convergence occurs, which reduces the effectiveness of such a technique. And if it decreases precision at other distances besides the point of convergence (which we can't exactly control), then this technique seems even less beneficial for disciplines like ELR.

And if a tuner does have any real effect, is it enough to really matter and overcome all the other variables in internal and external ballistics, that aren't always under our control, or can be controlled to a degree of precision in which a tuner can matter? Changing environmental conditions will alone change the ballistic behavior and render any tuner setting at one set of atmospheric conditions obsolete at another (or at a minimum less than optimal, if you can truly optimize a tuner for any given distance) - in this case you would have to be constantly adjusting the tuner per the conditions (which is what BR and F-class shooters do). I can't see this constantly changing variable being worth it when you are shooting multiple different target ranges. Way too many variables to account for, if a tuner even adds a benefit.

At some point I may try and search for that theoretical physicist's work, when I have more time. I have no doubt that some smart people have some interesting and intriguing hypothesis' around tuners. I do have some real skepticism about their real world use and applications, and the actual benefits that can be attained through a tuner. What may seem to work on paper doesn't always work out as anticipated in the real world (happens way more often than not), which is why rigorous testing utilizing the scientific method is important to test such hypothesis'.

Anyways, I remain open to the idea of tuners working. More so for one set range (like 1,000 yard BR). Much more skeptical about any real world advantages in disciplines like ELR, PRS or any other discipline in which you are shooting at multiple distances.

 

[jl937]

You didn't come remotely close to hitting/striking a nerve.
This debate was several years long 15 years ago and myself and TimnTx somehow managed to survive and back then it was 3 against the entire shooting community.
As to my accolades you asked and I posted if that upsets you why ask?
As to rimfire versus centerfire it's all been posted on Varmint Al's website and has been pointed out numerous times now.
The rifle wasa 6 ppc benchrest rifle owned by a shooter named Esten if my memory is any good and the modeling done by finite element analysis was confirmed on paper.
My tuner gun set a world record so Al Harrel had me submit all the data so he could match it up.
If your here to learn ask away as the info is freely given.
If you just want to hate on everything there is nothing I can do for you.

I didn't ask about your accolades, you brought it up. Perhaps you misinterpreted an earlier comment.

I'm not currently asking about Al's simulations, I'm specifically only asking about Kolbe's experiment. Quit changing subjects.

It's a simple question. Where does Kolbe's data point to reduced amplitude after the tuner is added? I don't see it.

 

[Snuby642]

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.

This ^ I belive any attached weight on the end of a barrel changes harmonics, a qd for a can may or may not by itself help a particular load group.

I have one can with two diffrent style qd's the weights are different and the results on groups vary as to closing or opening groups with or without can installed. They also vary between loads and are not consistant in the result.

So what your saying is tuners might help at fixed distances which I agree they do but because of the wide variation in ELR distances between gongs they would actually open up your groups before and after the initial settings distance.

This ^ is wrong.

Less :
drag, wind corriallis all the usual environmental factors and the speed and bc of your bullet

An Moa is a Moa at any distance.
There is no vodou bullshit opening your groups at some odd distance and not others.

You can go back to the fundamentals and explain it every time.

 

[cameljockey230]

This ^ I belive any attached weight on the end of a barrel changes harmonics, a qd for a can may or may not by itself help a particular load group.

I have one can with two diffrent style qd's the weights are different and the results on groups vary as to closing or opening groups with or without can installed. They also vary between loads and are not consistant in the result.

This ^ is wrong.

Less :
drag, wind corriallis all the usual environmental factors and the speed and bc of your bullet

An Moa is a Moa at any distance.
There is no vodou bullshit opening your groups at some odd distance and not others.

You can go back to the fundamentals and explain it every time.

So the high velocity shot and the low velocity shots path will never cross?
Yes sir this is indeed wrong.
And MOA is MOA at any distance so I can shoot through an acoustic target at 100 yards at 0.25 moa and when I go to 1000 yards it will still be 0.25 moa?
Yes sir this is indeed wrong
Can you take a look at post 353 and let me know if that illustration is even possible?

 

[cameljockey230]

I didn't ask about your accolades, you brought it up. Perhaps you misinterpreted an earlier comment.

I'm not currently asking about Al's simulations, I'm specifically only asking about Kolbe's experiment. Quit changing subjects.

It's a simple question. Where does Kolbe's data point to reduced amplitude after the tuner is added? I don't see it.

The subject is tuners and I have not changed the subject.
Al did simulations but he also tested a rifle and the rifle is owned by Esten and it is a centerfire rifle chambered in 6ppc and you can still look it up today
Are we past the centerfire rimfire and simulation actual rifle issue you are having?
Any time you add weight(a tuner) to the end of a barrel the waves shape gets damped down. Do you deny that? The fact that you don't know this is why you are having such a problem with what is being posted here. There is a book out by Harold Vaughn called Rifle Accuracy Facts you should read it as it goes into more detail about damping down the muzzle. I will add in an accolade for Harold Vaughn in case you don't know the name. He is considered the grandfather of aeroballistic flight dynamics for nuclear based ordnance while at Sandia National Laboratory. I haven't visited that laboratory but I trust the data.
Normally I would simply move on but there might be shooters out there that better grasp what is being conveyed and they might at some point chime in or get an idea to further aid in testing.
And I am not picking on you as I think all points need to be put out there and discussed as it all gets disseminated by those not posting.

 

[Slides]

It sounds like some people are assuming use of a tuner is binary, either full negative or positive compensation, and are exagerating the velocity variance and muzzle displacement/trajectory difference on upswing in their head, instead of doing a quick calculation. You can be anywhere in the phase range, I imagine with a lazer interferometer and a modest polished flat or affixed mirror near the end of the barrel (and break beam for exit time confirmation) and your ladder test output you can confirm more easily and consistently, likewise positive compensation even if not tuned to a specific distance would seem to me to be likely to group tighter at all effective ranges than say exit timing at end of range (which should see the most linear vertical distribution vs measured velocity, not greatest vertical distribution) either way, top or bottom than in the guts of the down stroke, for practical/realistic displacements/velocities/frequency when used on target purpose rifles, perhaps you can "overshoot" the compensation on a long pencil barrel but I'm betting in most cases vertical dispersion even at long range will be weighted average minimum around the centre of the upswing even with a floppy barrel.

I'm surprised the US military wouldn't ask for interferometer data for a test like that, they aren't prohibitively expensive, it's an off the shelf measurement solution. If someone was employing me to develop something like that I would be buying measurement gear up front, surely before getting to the end of the first decade you look for better data gathering? Before someone calls bu11shit on me suggesting that, I laid down about $17,000 AUD on a plex PCA-2000 combustion logger, optical pressure sensors and modified plugs so I can tune my own car under operating conditions when it goes back together, If there is a way for me to do something well myself, I try to do it. My shooting technique at present isn't good enough and the rifle system I chose to use (6.5kg weight limit, off a bipod) probably doesn't warrant to bother with a tuner but if I ever get a boner for F open I might go down that path. No doubt you could set it up for less than what most here have spent on the contents of their safe.

 

[timintx]

It sounds like some people are assuming use of a tuner is binary, either full negative or positive compensation, and are exagerating the velocity variance and muzzle displacement/trajectory difference on upswing in their head, instead of doing a quick calculation. You can be anywhere in the phase range, I imagine with a lazer interferometer and a modest polished flat or affixed mirror near the end of the barrel (and break beam for exit time confirmation) and your ladder test output you can confirm more easily and consistently, likewise positive compensation even if not tuned to a specific distance would seem to me to be likely to group tighter at all effective ranges than say exit timing at end of range (which should see the most linear vertical distribution vs measured velocity, not greatest vertical distribution) either way, top or bottom than in the guts of the down stroke, for practical/realistic displacements/velocities/frequency when used on target purpose rifles, perhaps you can "overshoot" the compensation on a long pencil barrel but I'm betting in most cases vertical dispersion even at long range will be weighted average minimum around the centre of the upswing even with a floppy barrel.

I'm surprised the US military wouldn't ask for interferometer data for a test like that, they aren't prohibitively expensive, it's an off the shelf measurement solution. If someone was employing me to develop something like that I would be buying measurement gear up front, surely before getting to the end of the first decade you look for better data gathering? Before someone calls bu11shit on me suggesting that, I laid down about $17,000 AUD on a plex PCA-2000 combustion logger, optical pressure sensors and modified plugs so I can tune my own car under operating conditions when it goes back together, If there is a way for me to do something well myself, I try to do it. My shooting technique at present isn't good enough and the rifle system I chose to use (6.5kg weight limit, off a bipod) probably doesn't warrant to bother with a tuner but if I ever get a boner for F open I might go down that path. No doubt you could set it up for less than what most here have spent on the contents of their safe.

I agree .I never understood why everybody thinks positive compensation is only good at one distance , my picture a few posts back should have cleared that up . We are merely spreading velocities out just to see the movements. What happens when the velocities are level ? They will have the same exit angle no matter how it is tuned .

Timintx

 

[cameljockey230]

I agree .I never understood why everybody thinks positive compensation is only good at one distance , my picture a few posts back should have cleared that up . We are merely spreading velocities out just to see the movements. What happens when the velocities are level ? They will have the same exit angle no matter how it is tuned .

Timintx

Yeah I've only used my various tuners at 100 200 300 600 and 1000 and as already posted they shot well at every distance.

 

[badassgunworks]

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

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

No

 

[Snuby642]

What happens when the velocities are level ? They will have the same exit angle no matter how it is tuned .

Timintx

No with "equal" velocity at a set distance you can watch the groups open and close with changes in the tuner.
You can also watch the groups center revolve around an axis center .

When you get to the sweet spot mine are invariably in the center with signs of positive compensation.

Not sure I can locate a couple tuner test sheet pictures. They are scattered.

I was never smart enough to start a separate storage file per gun or caliber for pictures and have started to toss all paper since I got tired of the "are you saving these targets for something?" Pointed question from the pollet beuro.

I will see if I can get a fresh test sheet shot asap.

 

[timintx]

No with "equal" velocity at a set distance you can watch the groups open and close with changes in the tuner.
You can also watch the groups center revolve around an axis center .

When you get to the sweet spot mine are invariably in the center with signs of positive compensation.

Not sure I can locate a couple tuner test sheet pictures. They are scattered.

I was never smart enough to start a separate storage file per gun or caliber for pictures and have started to toss all paper since I got tired of the "are you saving these targets for something?" Pointed question from the pollet beuro.

I will see if I can get a fresh test sheet shot asap.

I was speaking as if the velocities were exactly the same in which they never are meaning the exit time was the exact same . If they were tuning with positive compensation would not be needed and it can not be seen unless there is a velocity difference .

Timintx

 

[Snuby642]

There are always going to be variables that can wash out results on any practical test.

Some on the top shelf argue that thier load, equipment and skills can't be bettered by a tuner.

Ok, I may never reach that plateau and so I welcome a tool that I get results from at a price I can come up with.

Some have not set up a decent test and put some effort into it.

And then there are some that are biased heavily by something..

I have a brand I choose since it looked like something I would make for myself if I had the equipment. So I have a biased opinion on brand of preference but I figure every tuner out there works.

 

[timintx]

There are always going to be variables that can wash out results on any practical test.

Some on the top shelf argue that thier load, equipment and skills can't be bettered by a tuner.

Ok, I may never reach that plateau and so I welcome a tool that I get results from at a price I can come up with.

Some have not set up a decent test and put some effort into it.

And then there are some that are biased heavily by something..

I have a brand I choose since it looked like something I would make for myself if I had the equipment. So I have a biased opinion on brand of preference but I figure every tuner out there works.

No doubt you are correct , I think most tuners are reducing negative compensation and that is why groups are getting smaller . That is definitely a good thing . However it is very important to attach a velocity to every shot to know if it is positive compensation or reducing negative compensation . If you see the see slower shots hitting higher then it is positive compensation, if they are hitting level when tuned then the tuner is eliminating negative compensation. Either way the tuner is reducing group size and that is always good . If you are testing in an AR that is great news . It is good to know even with the added variables in the semi auto designs the tuner still shines and can benefit all types of rifles . Good luck in your testing .

Timintx

 

[Snuby642]

Oh and another subject on tuning at distances.

I think tuning a load should be done at short distances. . .

Environmental's spin drift corrialis etc. will scew results.

It's ludicrous in my opinion to not set up your test and tune at the same distance as your scope is zeroed.

 

[badassgunworks]

Oh and another subject on tuning at distances.

I think tuning a load should be done at short distances. . .

Environmental's spin drift corrialis etc. will scew results.

It's ludicrous in my opinion to not set up your test and tune at the same distance as your scope is zeroed.

Its difficult to tune 1/4 moa group on hand built and tuner loads at 100 yards is the diffrence you or the tuner. Becomes very difficult to determine. Tuning a group to 500 yards in good conditions is the way to go changers are easier to see. And the extrapolation of distance is amplified and visible. If you need to tune at 100 yards to get tight groups at 100 yards you need to learn how to hand load or get a different rifle cause somthing is wrong. Excluding you and or factory loads.

 

[Snuby642]

I live close to a short range. (10 minutes)
I always tune there before blowing gas to a longer range.

By all means touch up / fine tune at "range" if you want but in my opinion it should be with a tuned baseline.

That way you don't get lost by some overlooked or changing small detail.

I'm old, evaluating groups on the fly at longer ranges in small caliber is no longer viable when they start making one hole.

I also think any mistake you make is amplified at range.

I get ammo / tune right short.
When I go long I by default blame myself for discrepancies.

 

[cameljockey230]

Here is my tuner test fixture.
There is a point of no return on testing distance. Once you get passed about 550 yards with ELR size guns conditions have enough influence that you can no longer count out outside conditions.
So you set up a target at 100 yards and another at 550 yards and shoot through both with the same shot.
In my limited experience the smaller the group at 550 yards the smaller the group at 100 yards.

 

[timintx]

One thing I have been told by the old guys in 1000 yd Benchrest is to check and tune your groups at the range you shoot . I understand the short range testing and completely agree with load work ups and testing at short range but I regularly play with the tuner at 1000 in good repeatable conditions . A lot of times I got smaller groups when I tweaked the tuner at 1000. I even tweaked the seating depth at 1000 as well . If it t improved over my 1000 yd baseline then I went with it especially when it repeated . So it can work but I guess it depends on the method . I try everything to squeeze every bit of accuracy I can get even if it does not jive with everybody else .

Timintx

 

[cameljockey230]

I completely agree you have to check out your test loads at distance.
The 168 grain sierra will shoot dots at 600 and completely fall apart at 1000 at 308 velocities.
Somebody needs to build a 2000 yard indoor range so we can test in better conditions

 

[Snuby642]

Cool test fixture.

I agree with the premise.
Small at 500 will be small at 100.
To have a group smaller in moa at distance than short range is some kind of anomaly for me.

I will concede that if your groups are so small at 100 they are difficult to see a difference in tuner settings you will have to move out till results show.

If your groups are that good you may not need to bother with a tuner at all.

I'm not at that point with skill or equipment blatantly and getting on in years. The monespent on a tuner / tuner brake pays for itself in my case especially in 223 since many different projectiles are used.

 

[Snuby642]

The 168 grain sierra will shoot dots at 600 and completely fall apart at 1000 at 308 velocities.

Yes ^
I suggest this to fix the situation.
And be careful the ogive has moved. Never mind what you wish coal to be put the ogive back were you had the 168's and check it.

.30 CALIBER/7.62MM 169 GR. HPBT MATCH - Sierra Bullets

This bullet was designed with one thing in mind, and that was to shoot 1000 yards in a 308 Winchester. To accomplish that, we added length to the boattail and engineered a forgiving tangent ogive with a closed nose. Doing this gave it a .527 BC which keeps it super sonic past 1000 yards in a 308...

www.sierrabullets.com

 

[Ann Ominous]

This has been extremely entertaining to read. Thank you all.
I have just one question (with a few follow ups)

Of everyone beating a dead horse I wonder how many times they’ve foolishly spent money? (Beer, bar, women, Vegas ect. At some point we’ve all done this. Me so probably more than most)

How often have we dumped needless money into a hobby? (Please don’t come look at my hunting closet, or my garage)

What’s the cost of a good brake?

Have you stuck with the same brake for every rifle never changing it?

It’s 200 bux, that barely more than my avg cost for a brake and not my most expensive.

Fucking buy it. If it doesn’t work it doesn’t work does it hurt? No? Cool you’ve got a brake. It does hurt cool toss it or get a refund.

 

[Geno C.]

Brake

 

[misser]

Brake

now, let's be nice

 

[Ann Ominous]

Thank you. Corrected

 

[kthomas]

The owner of this website doesn't want people talking about tuners and the moderators here will ban you saying no more tuner BS.
But
Since you have a muzzlebrake if it is the self timing type you can lock it down every half turn and see if it makes any difference.
David Tubb talks about it but on this forum it's not allowed because it ruffles feathers of those that don't understand how they work.
Good Luck

The owner of this site is actually pretty friendly of tuners and speaks well of them. FYI.

 

[Snuby642]

That's kind of funny. ^^^^^^
Frank did a video with Eric recently.

 

[misser]

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

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

its magic , Arthur C. Clarke's 3ed law " any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[Ann Ominous]

Magic or science…. If it works it works

 

[Tx_Aggie]

Magic or science…. If it works it works

 

[Ann Ominous]

After this weekend I’m a believer. Bare barrel 3/4 moa 5 shot groups at 100 (consistently). (Always five shot groups, 3 shot groups are stupid) Put tuner break on it immediately opens to 1-1/4 or better. Every setting changed the group shape and or size. I had one setting that was a 1/2 moa (which I was pleased with) but the very last group was my favorite at .63 moa. I was using factory ammo and in testing the speed with a chrono I have an es of 75 fps. My first four shots would make a 1/4 moa group and the last one went nearly 1/2” high. Either through me or a hotter charge. I then finished that box playing “battleship” with my brother. Whether tuners help can be debated. After using one I see no way to argue that they don’t change grouping.

 

[Ann Ominous]

 

[misser]

is the target paper tearing like that normal for that paper ?

 

[Ann Ominous]

The wood behind it is beat up and it’s wet out. I attributed it to that. I’ll keep an eye on it but I’m not worried

 

[brianf]

So one 5 shot group l, that is still around .75 (.63).

And after that one group we stopped trying and shooting groups

Definitive proof with out a doubt

 

[iceng]

Definitive proof with out a doubt

you heard it here first folks !.

 

[cas6969]

This thread is amazing. So many arguing way too hard for reasons I don't get. I mean, sure if you made and sold tuners, I could see why you'd argue, but if you don't have a dog in the fight I don't see why you care?



I bought one a couple years ago out of curiosity, to learn and see for myself. What I saw was:

X rifle and X load shot say 3/4" 100 yard groups "all day long"
I put on the tuner, fiddle with it a bit, and it shot smaller than 3/4" groups "all day long".
I only tried it with a couple established loads that shot reasonably well. Playing with it, I was able to make them shoot better.

Now one side would argue:
"No it didn't". (Uh, yeah it did.)
"You haven't fired enough groups for it to be statically relevant." (Mmmm, just every single group from that point on??)
"You could do the same thing by tuning your load." (Maybe, did say you couldn't?)
"It won't do that with every load." (Did I say it would?)
"It won't do that with every rifle." (Did I say it would? )

After a while I took it off rifle X and stuck it on the shelf. Not because I didn't think it was doing what was claimed, but because it didn't work with what I do with the rifle. And that's CONSTANT load development. 99% of the rounds that rifle will ever fire will be off the bench trying different load variations. Because that's what I do with it. Adding countless more variables of tuner settings to try with every load change I made just wasn't practical.

But really, why do you care?
If I were a PRS competitor I'd be THRILLED if my opponents were spending time and money on something I didn't think actually worked.

 

[Ann Ominous]

So one 5 shot group l, that is still around .75 (.63).

And after that one group we stopped trying and shooting groups

Definitive proof with out a doubt

Wrong. Shot 11 5 round groups. This is just me. I don’t care if you like/want/need a tuner. There is no one that can convince me that they don’t affect group size period. Bought one cause all the arguing back and forth made me curious. I’m out

 

[kthomas]

Hanging a weight on the end of a barrel does seem to help in a lot of cases. Even a suppressor will do this.

What's more dubious is the claim that moving that weight in increments of thousandths of an inch will unlock your most optimal precision - and that you can do this with 2 or 3 round tests (or at all).

 

[brianf]

Wrong. Shot 11 5 round groups. This is just me. I don’t care if you like/want/need a tuner. There is no one that can convince me that they don’t affect group size period. Bought one cause all the arguing back and forth made me curious. I’m out

You do realize the velocity increase to move a center fire at 100 yards as far as you suggest is several hundred FPS. Prob 2-3x you chrono ES.

I’m happy it works but you are still shooting a .75 gun.