EC tuner brake

[r.tenorio671]

And with the above quoted words lay the dilemma.
The conclusion is usually the problem.
Testing of anything requires boundaries of physics, logic, reason & truth or, for those who don't understand, you simply employ intuition, emotion, pier pressure or ignorance which is, pretty much the product of the tuner testing we've seen so far.

....the conclusion an individual reaches is the one that individual arrives at based on their objectives, it is neither right or wrong, it just met and checked sufficient boxes for something that had been unanswered before. That is not to say it's for everybody, the decision to try something unknown is an INDIVIDUAL choice.

...one can read all of the arguments, test results, yada yada yada, but only until the individual tries it out for themselves can THEIR question be answered...maybe.

...if "statistical data" of sufficient quantity or quality per your objectives has not been met, then it is your INDIVIDUAL choice driving YOUR determination of its worth, doesn't mean it is the absolute and definitive answer for everyone else.

Opinions are just like assholes, everyone has one....

 

[Snuby642]

I figure by now most reasonable people understand a tuner works.

I figure some people possibly have equipment and skills dialed in to a point that they can no longer tell a difference since their skills and equipment have topped out, good for them.

Then there is the rest of the field.

 

[r.tenorio671]

I figure by now most reasonable people understand a tuner works.

I figure some people possibly have equipment and skills dialed in to a point that they can no longer tell a difference since their skills and equipment have topped out, good for them.

Then there is the rest of the field.

...yep

 

[Seymour Fish]

In the video I posted you have literally the "who's who" of Fudd writers of the time. Carmichael should have known better but I bet the rest got a free rifle for some pro-jabber. They state in their video, a 2" group will work at 100 yards on a deer but not at 400. So why did they just show tuned groups at 100 yards and not at 400 or 600?

I guess you can use a tuner at 600 yards if you're an F class guy, but why would you bother with a good rifle? I watched EC's videos of the SW championship. The scores were close and all the shooters stated it was just pulling triggers, until the wind changed.

The browning boss rifles were a piece of shit and gave a tuner a bad name. BT DT. A good rifle with a good tune of wide powder and seating depth nodes does not need a tuner. Some use a tuner instead of seating-depth tuning, others use one to compensate for wide temp swings, for example traveling to matches. Some claim the extra mass at the muzzle inherently widens the powder node, Mike Ezell for example. I pulled ECs targets at the 1000 yd Tx St Championships 2014 and can verify 1) he is for real 2) a large percentage of his shots landed within a two inch circle so knows how to tune.

 

[badassgunworks]

I figure by now most reasonable people understand a tuner works.

I figure some people possibly have equipment and skills dialed in to a point that they can no longer tell a difference since their skills and equipment have topped out, good for them.

Then there is the rest of the field.

Not at all true. if installed a quality tuner on one of those so called experts rifles i could cut their groups size in half at 750 yards. I have proven this to many people. Over and over again. No matter how great your loads and rifle is there is always hormonic issues. Environmental changes and eroation dictate constant change

 

[kthomas]

Are you responding to me or yourself with that advice? A year later and you’re still arguing with strangers on the internet about the use of barrel tuners. Sounds like you’re stuck on them, quite seriously.

If you need me to go back and quote your own posts about what they do (or don’t do), you may have a bigger issue.

I just find the topic fascinating and the discussion interesting. I have absolutely nothing against tuners, hell, I would love for them to work in the capacity some here claim. I'm looking forward to testing it with factory ammo now, this discussion has made me excited to try it.

I don't take anything personally, I'm sure in person we'd get along and have great discussion. I personally think it's okay to have differing opinions - that leads to the most interesting discussions and exploration of topics.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

I just find the topic fascinating and the discussion interesting. I have absolutely nothing against tuners, hell, I would love for them to work in the capacity some here claim. I'm looking forward to testing it with factory ammo now, this discussion has made me excited to try it.

I don't take anything personally, I'm sure in person we'd get along and have great discussion. I personally think it's okay to have differing opinions - that leads to the most interesting discussions and exploration of topics.

I’ll gladly buy you a beer if thats the case

 

[morganlamprecht]

I believe you've see that post too, since you responded multiple times in that thread, a year ago, telling people all the reasons why they shouldnt buy one then either.

The better question is, why you have a chip on your shoulder to be arguing against tuners so much? Usually someone doesnt spend this much time and energy trying to discredit a product they simply dont like, they just move on with their lives.

To be fair, winning matches isn’t a real barometer for anything other than a lot of stuff can be made to work…most people’s heads would explode with what I’ve shown up with lol

I could stick a tuner in my ass crack and go win a match…might take a few stages to get comfortable I’d imagine, wonder what setting would make my groups tightest…

 

[longrange772]

If you do a test, I would be interested in your thoughts on the recoil reduction on the braking portion of the tuner as well.

 

[morganlamprecht]

I Haven’t directly compared them, purposely…

But mine feel similar to any other top end brake recoil wise…similar to APA, piercision, area419, etc…basically with any of them on the end I don’t notice a big difference

 

[Barelstroker]

Lash, my sentiments exactly. Don’t need a computer to see the obvious, or God forbid a statistician to obfuscate it.

That's the problem Seymour. It usually isn't obvious, it just seems that way.
If it was obvious they wouldn't have invented statistics, would they?

 

[Barelstroker]

Seems to be quite a bit of data actually. I do find it intriguing that you choose to keep ignoring it though.

What data?
If you mean some random claims & articles, that means fuck all & nothing more than anecdotal hearsay.
A half reasonable test would be to find your magic tuner setting then, confirm that setting with at least 4 x 5 shot groups.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

To be fair, winning matches isn’t a real barometer for anything other than a lot of stuff can be made to work…most people’s heads would explode with what I’ve shown up with lol

I could stick a tuner in my ass crack and go win a match…might take a few stages to get comfortable I’d imagine, wonder what setting would make my groups tightest…

Just don’t install it with rocksett

 

[Mike_in_FL]

The browning boss rifles were a piece of shit and gave a tuner a bad name. BT DT. A good rifle with a good tune of wide powder and seating depth nodes does not need a tuner. Some use a tuner instead of seating-depth tuning, others use one to compensate for wide temp swings, for example traveling to matches. Some claim the extra mass at the muzzle inherently widens the powder node, Mike Ezell for example. I pulled ECs targets at the 1000 yd Tx St Championships 2014 and can verify 1) he is for real 2) a large percentage of his shots landed within a two inch circle so knows how to tune.

I agree with you about the BOSS. I'm very aware of rimfire tuners dating back to the 70's personally. EC has stated he doesn't chase the lands due to erosion so I don't doubt he is on to something nor his ability.

And I think I stated that Browning seemed to approach it as a band-aid for piss poor barrels. Watch the video for a hoot, it was obviously a marketing ploy with professional cheerleaders acting as if they'd alchemized lead into gold.

I just think after 15 pages and a lot of arguing, know your audience. I don't think the majority here are flat range guys. Adding another variable to their equation probably doesn't make sense at this point. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

Not saying a good tuner doesn't have an application. I'm sure that if someone is making a product that works it will be reported and you'll see it used more widely. Watching to see if this and the Insite are the ones.

 

[Barelstroker]

I agree with you about the BOSS. I'm very aware of rimfire tuners dating back to the 70's personally. EC has stated he doesn't chase the lands due to erosion so I don't doubt he is on to something nor his ability.

And I think I stated that Browning seemed to approach it as a band-aid for piss poor barrels. Watch the video for a hoot, it was obviously a marketing ploy with professional cheerleaders acting as if they'd alchemized lead into gold.

I just think after 15 pages and a lot of arguing, know your audience. I don't think the majority here are flat range guys. Adding another variable to their equation probably doesn't make sense at this point. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

Not saying a good tuner doesn't have an application. I'm sure that if someone is making a product that works it will be reported and you'll see it used more widely. Watching to see if this and the Insite are the ones.

The problem with this thread is the same problem we see on every other thread where there are guys like myself who don't just jump straight on the band wagon.
As I've stated previously, tuners may well work as advertised but, I haven't seen any statistically relevant testing to make that conclusion. As soon as myself & others say this, it's immediately assumed that we are saying tuners don't work. It's basically ignorance of statistical relevance which is the problem.
Now watch as someone quotes me & says I'm arrogant.

 

[badassgunworks]

The problem with this thread is the same problem we see on every other thread where there are guys like myself who don't just jump straight on the band wagon.
As I've stated previously, tuners may well work as advertised but, I haven't seen any statistically relevant testing to make that conclusion. As soon as myself & others say this, it's immediately assumed that we are saying tuners don't work. It's basically ignorance of statistical relevance which is the problem.
Now watch as someone quotes me & says I'm arrogant.

I respect your comment and your opinions. Certain people are doubting Thomas has and want to see proof of something that they don't necessarily understand. I can assure you that the dampening or changing of harmonic resonance through shifting weight has been used in the mechanical industry for over100 years it's done in the automotive industry The aviation industry. It's not new technology .

 

[AleksanderSuave]

I respect your comment and your opinions. Certain people are doubting Thomas has and want to see proof of something that they don't necessarily understand. I can assure you that the dampening or changing of harmonic resonance through shifting weight has been used in the mechanical industry for over100 years it's done in the automotive industry The aviation industry. It's not new technology .

You're offering respect to someone who's incapable of extending the courtesy to others. 'stroker' has been arguing against tuners and personally insulting anyone who supports one, since the early pages of this thread.

Hahaha, you accuse others of a fragile ego Haaaaa fucking Haaaaaa.
You must be a Troll, no one could be this stupid.

 

[badassgunworks]

You're offering respect to someone who's incapable of extending the courtesy to others. 'stroker' has been arguing against tuners and personally insulting anyone who supports one, since the early pages of this thread.

One of the things I hate about snipers hide is that nobody uses their real name if I had to make an educated guess Stroker maybe Jesse Cook. But I could be wrong

 

[AleksanderSuave]

One of the things I hate about snipers hide is that nobody uses their real name if I had to make an educated guess Stroker maybe Jesse Cook. But I could be wrong

The cloak of anonymity on the Internet certainly makes a lot of guys a lot more opinionated than they’d ever be in person.

Same guy who was demanding somebody send him a barrel tuner for testing, odd request as if his opinion on the product is coming from that of an authority figure or subject matter expect.

It’s a weird thing to come into this thread demanding that somebody convince him to buy a product in the first place, trying to derail it while others who actually own the product discuss the valid use of it.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

As if it matters.

Bryan Litz or Lou Murdica could come on here and cite something (doesn’t matter what) and they’d be treated the same way.

Which is why it’s rare to see anyone of any importance in the industry here. Most have at one time or another, and they end up getting run off.

 

[Barelstroker]

The cloak of anonymity on the Internet certainly makes a lot of guys a lot more opinionated than they’d ever be in person.

Same guy who was demanding somebody send him a barrel tuner for testing, odd request as if his opinion on the product is coming from that of an authority figure or subject matter expect.

It’s a weird thing to come into this thread demanding that somebody convince him to buy a product in the first place, trying to derail it while others who actually own the product discuss the valid use of it.

I don't know WTF you're going on about cock.
I've never asked anyone to send me a tuner except as a joke &, I've never been down on tuners or am convinced they don't work.
All I've ever said &, will have to say again is that I have not seen convincing statistical data which backs up all the claims.
You obviously believe that any number of shots in a test is relevant & I can assure you that is not the case. It's not my opinion, it's scientifically proven fact.
So, instead of prancing on here making bullshit accusations, why not spend some time studying statistics, get to know what the fuck it is you keep insisting doesn't really mean anything & keep your fucking mouth shut.
Now fuck off.

 

[Barelstroker]

One of the things I hate about snipers hide is that nobody uses their real name if I had to make an educated guess Stroker maybe Jesse Cook. But I could be wrong

I have &, usually give my real name in PM's to Hide members I've spoken to in PM's.

 

[Barelstroker]

Bro - let me be clear - with terms you will understand. You're a troll, and a terrible one at that, and one who obviously understands very little about what they are talking about. Your posts are full of hilariously bad logical fallacies that you seemingly continue to say because they make you feel good. There's absolutely *zero* reason for us to continue discussing anything.

This post was quoted directly before the post AleksanderSuave posted & was originally posted to AleksanderSuave.
I wasn't the only one who thought & still thinks he's a troll.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

As if it matters.

Bryan Litz or Lou Murdica could come on here and cite something (doesn’t matter what) and they’d be treated the same way.

Which is why it’s rare to see anyone of any importance in the industry here. Most have at one time or another, and they end up getting run off.

There’s plenty of people of importance in the industry here. Pretty sure I just communicated with Frank from Bartlein barrels in a thread. I could make a list but then you likely wouldn’t believe that either.

 

[Barelstroker]

There’s plenty of people of importance in the industry here. Pretty sure I just communicated with Frank from Bartlein barrels in a thread. I could make a list but then you likely wouldn’t believe that either.

Now one of the worlds most respected barrel makers has to put up with your bullshit as well.

 

[brianf]

There’s plenty of people of importance in the industry here. Pretty sure I just communicated with Frank from Bartlein barrels in a thread. I could make a list but then you likely wouldn’t believe that either.

Question (and not just for you just my reply)

If tuners do work as some expect why hasn’t every manufacturer added a tuner to every rifle they sell.

It seems to be untapped accuracy for very limited expense.

From a pure business standpoint, if tuners were able to “half the group” size of a factory barrel/weapon system for the added expense of 50$ (Prob much much less mass produced tuner)…they would all be doing it.

First would be for marketing stating that their rifles are the most accurate you can buy…which if confirmable would surely increase sales and profits.

Second would be their ability to use cheaper barrels or manufacturing processes to save COGS.

Never mind the military using the tech for synced tuner to projectile in a tank/artillery etc. I’m sure the army would be willing to spend a few bucks for a tuner which is synced up to a particular tank round for greater accuracy/hit percentage.

They have lasers that monitor tank barrel droop when hot so the firing control system can compensate, they can surly add a servo controlling a threaded weight on the barrel.

Just thinking at a wider scope

 

[kthomas]

Question (and not just for you just my reply)

If tuners do work as some expect why hasn’t every manufacturer added a tuner to every rifle they sell.

It seems to be untapped accuracy for very limited expense.

From a pure business standpoint, if tuners were able to “half the group” size of a factory barrel/weapon system for the added expense of 50$ (Prob much much less mass produced tuner)…they would all be doing it.

First would be for marketing stating that their rifles are the most accurate you can buy…which if confirmable would surely increase sales and profits.

Second would be their ability to use cheaper barrels or manufacturing processes to save COGS.

Never mind the military using the tech for synced tuner to projectile in a tank/artillery etc. I’m sure the army would be willing to spend a few bucks for a tuner which is synced up to a particular tank round for greater accuracy/hit percentage.

They have lasers that monitor tank barrel droop when hot so the firing control system can compensate, they can surly add a servo controlling a threaded weight on the barrel.

Just thinking at a wider scope

It's one thing for a tuner to be used for very marginal gains during competitions to account for changing environmentals (where very minor changes can be the difference between a win and a loss), but it's a completely different thing to use a tuner to make a rifle group better with sub-optimal/quality ammo.

With the lack of compelling data, I still find this new claim to be a bit dubious. I'm still open to the idea, and I would love to see quality data that backs up that assertation.

If the effects were truly that obvious, I think they would be a lot more prominent for this purpose.

At some point, I plan on testing it for myself. Just found out my tuner brake combo is bored for 6mm, so I'll have to get it bored out to 6.5mm if I want to do this testing.

 

[Mike_in_FL]

Now one of the worlds most respected barrel makers has to put up with your bullshit as well.

You need to put him on Ignore. It's almost hilarious to watch him insult people left and right, look at this posts, not just in this thread. Then say others are incapable of extending courtesy,

Check out his bitchin' post count. He's a narcissistic troll and he's probably going to find the ban hammer one of these days. He has a really cool post about finding and killing somebody he thought slighted him. You know it's a joke but it's here on the internet forever now. I'm sure Frank Galli would not be impressed to know about that drivel of his.

I came here looking for real world examples of how this works. You've got a guy posting targets at 50 yards, a trolling shill, and two SOB's that ought to be paying for Commercial accounts based on their sales pitching.

This is like going on Arfcom and questioning the efficacy of a Larue product. @lash I'd like to hear what you think after using yours for some time.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

Question (and not just for you just my reply)

If tuners do work as some expect why hasn’t every manufacturer added a tuner to every rifle they sell.

It seems to be untapped accuracy for very limited expense.

From a pure business standpoint, if tuners were able to “half the group” size of a factory barrel/weapon system for the added expense of 50$ (Prob much much less mass produced tuner)…they would all be doing it.

First would be for marketing stating that their rifles are the most accurate you can buy…which if confirmable would surely increase sales and profits.

Second would be their ability to use cheaper barrels or manufacturing processes to save COGS.

Never mind the military using the tech for synced tuner to projectile in a tank/artillery etc. I’m sure the army would be willing to spend a few bucks for a tuner which is synced up to a particular tank round for greater accuracy/hit percentage.

They have lasers that monitor tank barrel droop when hot so the firing control system can compensate, they can surly add a servo controlling a threaded weight on the barrel.

Just thinking at a wider scope

Cost. They dont need to sell a tuner with it to get a "sub moa" claim.

Plenty of rifles dont even ship with a scope rail, or a proper rail for bipod, so why exactly would they add tuners?

 

[AleksanderSuave]

You need to put him on Ignore. It's almost hilarious to watch him insult people left and right, look at this posts, not just in this thread. Then say others are incapable of extending courtesy,

Check out his bitchin' post count. He's a narcissistic troll and he's probably going to find the ban hammer one of these days. He has a really cool post about finding and killing somebody he thought slighted him. You know it's a joke but it's here on the internet forever now. I'm sure Frank Galli would not be impressed to know about that drivel of his.

I came here looking for real world examples of how this works. You've got a guy posting targets at 50 yards, a trolling shill, and two SOB's that ought to be paying for Commercial accounts based on their sales pitching.

This is like going on Arfcom and questioning the efficacy of a Larue product. @lash I'd like to hear what you think after using yours for some time.

who has a post about finding and killing someone that he thought slighted them...?

 

[badassgunworks]

Question (and not just for you just my reply)

If tuners do work as some expect why hasn’t every manufacturer added a tuner to every rifle they sell.

It seems to be untapped accuracy for very limited expense.

From a pure business standpoint, if tuners were able to “half the group” size of a factory barrel/weapon system for the added expense of 50$ (Prob much much less mass produced tuner)…they would all be doing it.

First would be for marketing stating that their rifles are the most accurate you can buy…which if confirmable would surely increase sales and profits.

Second would be their ability to use cheaper barrels or manufacturing processes to save COGS.

Never mind the military using the tech for synced tuner to projectile in a tank/artillery etc. I’m sure the army would be willing to spend a few bucks for a tuner which is synced up to a particular tank round for greater accuracy/hit percentage.

They have lasers that monitor tank barrel droop when hot so the firing control system can compensate, they can surly add a servo controlling a threaded weight on the barrel.

Just thinking at a wider scope

None of the barrel manufactors will. What does that say about there barrels ? Other competitors will make comments and say our barrels dont need tuners like X company does. And the military has in the past looked at tuners.

 

[Tsovern]

Some high speed photography from the side and in front ( above/below projectile path) of the barrel while manipulating the tuner would be interesting. .

 

[R_Swanson]

This post was quoted directly before the post AleksanderSuave posted & was originally posted to AleksanderSuave.
I wasn't the only one who thought & still thinks he's a troll.

I've had that dumbass, wanna-be troll on ignore since this back and forth, I'd suggest you do the same.

 

[Mike_in_FL]

who has a post about finding and killing someone that he thought slighted them...?

You do. Even if it is copy pasta. I'm sure you have a document somewhere full of witty comebacks. You think this is wise with this administration or federal agencies?

I really don't think the owner of this site would appreciate it. I wouldn't want one bit, as in binary digit, of your crap stored if I was paying for the servers. You might want to go back and delete post #79.

Vortex Gen 4 Hybrid!!!

So wait, you called them yesterday and they told you they'd take care of it... yet you still came here to talk shit about them... and say multiple times that you'd like to hear from a Vortex rep? Wasn't that a Vortex rep you heard from yesterday when they told you they would make it right? Are...

www.snipershide.com

 

[AleksanderSuave]

What data?
If you mean some random claims & articles, that means fuck all & nothing more than anecdotal hearsay.
A half reasonable test would be to find your magic tuner setting then, confirm that setting with at least 4 x 5 shot groups.

So buy one and run your own half reasonable test, and prove the rest of us wrong, you whiney miserable fuck.

They cost about $150. If you put $20 away each month that you bitched in this thread, you would have had enough set aside to buy one by now, instead of begging others to send it to you.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

You do. Even if it is copy pasta. I'm sure you have a document somewhere full of witty comebacks. You think this is wise with this administration or federal agencies?

I really don't think the owner of this site would appreciate it. I wouldn't want one bit, as in binary digit, of your crap stored if I was paying for the servers. You might want to go back and delete post #79.

Vortex Gen 4 Hybrid!!!

So wait, you called them yesterday and they told you they'd take care of it... yet you still came here to talk shit about them... and say multiple times that you'd like to hear from a Vortex rep? Wasn't that a Vortex rep you heard from yesterday when they told you they would make it right? Are...

www.snipershide.com

First day on the internet?

You seem to be the only one who missed the obvious fact that "copypasta" is widely accepted as a joke. 14 others reacted to it as well. We should ban them too. I have a feeling you're a little too slow to catch most satire as well.

Its so common, that it was literally posted, IN a thread that Frank was participating in. Its been repeated on this website multiple times over. Unbunch your panties a little, you may live longer.

Advice please ??

Never understood this. The order is: 1. do your research 2. buy the best product you can afford that fits your requirements/desires 3. be happy with it or sell the damn thing if it doesn’t pass muster. Why care what anyone else thinks about your optic as long as you’re happy? Oh, right. This...

www.snipershide.com

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in guerilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

 

[Mike_in_FL]

Unbunch your panties a little

At least they're your moms, if you ever came out of the basement you'd know that. Your entire repertoire is personal insults and yet you're critiquing other people for the same thing. You have hounded people relentlessly with "but you didn't answer my question" and your own demonstration of the product can be summed up with "but science, bruh". Lay off the Code Red. Decaf can be quite as tasty these days. I'm surprised you don't work for the CDC, if you work at all.

It's really not smart to post your garbage in this political climate. Think of what your ego will look like without this post count.

 

[brianf]

Cost. They dont need to sell a tuner with it to get a "sub moa" claim.

Plenty of rifles dont even ship with a scope rail, or a proper rail for bipod, so why exactly would they add tuners?

To get a higher ring and a higher margin with the same mfg capacity.

It’s called making money lol

 

[Seymour Fish]

I agree with you about the BOSS. I'm very aware of rimfire tuners dating back to the 70's personally. EC has stated he doesn't chase the lands due to erosion so I don't doubt he is on to something nor his ability.

And I think I stated that Browning seemed to approach it as a band-aid for piss poor barrels. Watch the video for a hoot, it was obviously a marketing ploy with professional cheerleaders acting as if they'd alchemized lead into gold.

I just think after 15 pages and a lot of arguing, know your audience. I don't think the majority here are flat range guys. Adding another variable to their equation probably doesn't make sense at this point. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

Not saying a good tuner doesn't have an application. I'm sure that if someone is making a product that works it will be reported and you'll see it used more widely. Watching to see if this and the Insite are the ones.

I agree with you about the BOSS. I'm very aware of rimfire tuners dating back to the 70's personally. EC has stated he doesn't chase the lands due to erosion so I don't doubt he is on to something nor his ability.

And I think I stated that Browning seemed to approach it as a band-aid for piss poor barrels. Watch the video for a hoot, it was obviously a marketing ploy with professional cheerleaders acting as if they'd alchemized lead into gold.

I just think after 15 pages and a lot of arguing, know your audience. I don't think the majority here are flat range guys. Adding another variable to their equation probably doesn't make sense at this point. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.

Not saying a good tuner doesn't have an application. I'm sure that if someone is making a product that works it will be reported and you'll see it used more widely. Watching to see if this and the Insite are the ones.

Mike, Well-reasoned thoughts , yet the “audience” has nothing to do with flat range vs 2-way range, and autocratic fossils as well as snake oil salesmen/ gurus can kiss my ass.

 

[badassgunworks]

To get a higher ring and a higher margin with the same mfg capacity.

It’s called making money lol

Definitely would be a smart move and as you stated higher margins and happier customers. My fear is that people will get the wrong idea as to why their Barrel needed a tuner where the competitors would not

 

[Barelstroker]

So buy one and run your own half reasonable test, and prove the rest of us wrong, you whiney miserable fuck.

They cost about $150. If you put $20 away each month that you bitched in this thread, you would have had enough set aside to buy one by now, instead of begging others to send it to you.

I will eventually get around to some testing. I don't have the time at the moment.
I think we could all take a breath & reset as this has spiralled into something that none us wanted.
I'll try to explain as best I can why I like to see robust statistical testing conducted. To be clear, I haven't singled out barrel tuners. I look at every device & the claims about those devices from the same perspective.
I don't know how much you know about statistics but, I'll try to put some perspective on why stats are used. If you're unfamiliar with stats, particularly stats involved with rifle accuracy testing, I suggest you look up some info on Google.
With regard to the questions & answers pertaining to this very thread, stats are used to test individual rifles used by armies world wide. For example, the Chinese commissioned a bunch of their own scientists who conducted a huge test which was primarily focussed on working out the minimum number of test samples required to accuracy test all their rifles while maintaining statistically robust data. This is quite important because the Chinese military hierarchy would need to substantiate the massive expenditure in time & ammunition to test millions of rifles. If memory serves, the Chinese scientists came up with 5 x 8 shot groups ( don't quote me) to determine a rifles "cone of fire" while maintaining statistical relevance.
The statistical relevance or robustness of any test is dependent upon the SD of the variation measured.
Grubbs conducted very similar experiments with a total of 10,000 shots fired by army marksmen. The position of each & every shot was plotted using Bivariate coordinates & the centre of the POI of the combined shots calculated.
To cut a long story, Grubbs test was ground breaking in that it provided a sound scientific & statistical basis for the information Grubbs & others have since used to determine the future probability of an outcome.
All I can assure is that statistics, when properly applied, do matter. Statistics are employed in just about every business & Government to help & guide outcomes from manufacturing QC to population demographics to market stock speculation & everything else imaginable.
Statistics isn't just a word used to demoralize & confuse those who disagree with us in their tracks. Stats are a very real, analytical, verifiable, repeatable, mathematical systems with rules & boundaries. It is usually the misapplication & or misuse of stats which are the cause if misunderstanding or outright distrust.
It was the past British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli who has been attributed to the famous quip; "There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics" the philosophical truth of which can be vigorously debated because, it is not statistics in their pure form which lie but, the application & mathematical rigidity adhered to which is the lie.
We see this kind of statistical skulduggery, misapplication & outright lies, in news polls which try to convince the mostly ignorant masses that everyone around them possesses a particular political or other view. How do these polls twist the truth & create the narrative?
I'm glad you asked. The most common method is to use very small sample numbers, focussed in a particular area or demographic. The small sample number helps to ensure that the answers to the poll questions will be held within the requirements of the narrative &, the demographic or area is chosen with the previous knowledge of a certain concentration of view points, in the case of political polling.
Accuracy testing can be undertaken in much the same way whereby, a small sample number, focussed in a particular way, reinforces a pre-existing belief.
For example; Tuner testing 2 or 3 shot group then changing the setting then, another 2 or 3 shot group & etc assumes that a minute change in the centre of mass of the barrel WILL reveal a measurable change. So, right from the outset, the results will be skewed with the assumption driving the result, rather than allowing the raw data to be interpreted as it stands. So, it's not only the sample number which is a problem but also, the way in which a test is conducted which, can & usually will impact the results or, the interpretation of those results.
In conclusion, statistical testing must have a logical, repeatable focus in concert with a resolution of the variance which can be measured & plotted & an appropriate sample number calculated to achieve a stable standard deviation (SD) with which to use as the basis of the required statistical calculations.
If you want to extrapolate into the future by shooting a sample of groups then, rigid statistical analysis is THE only way we have of reaching a reliable outcome. Everything else is just noise, twisted to appear realistic.

 

[badassgunworks]

I will eventually get around to some testing. I don't have the time at the moment.
I think we could all take a breath & reset as this has spiralled into something that none us wanted.
I'll try to explain as best I can why I like to see robust statistical testing conducted. To be clear, I haven't singled out barrel tuners. I look at every device & the claims about those devices from the same perspective.
I don't know how much you know about statistics but, I'll try to put some perspective on why stats are used. If you're unfamiliar with stats, particularly stats involved with rifle accuracy testing, I suggest you look up some info on Google.
With regard to the questions & answers pertaining to this very thread, stats are used to test individual rifles used by armies world wide. For example, the Chinese commissioned a bunch of their own scientists who conducted a huge test which was primarily focussed on working out the minimum number of test samples required to accuracy test all their rifles while maintaining statistically robust data. This is quite important because the Chinese military hierarchy would need to substantiate the massive expenditure in time & ammunition to test millions of rifles. If memory serves, the Chinese scientists came up with 5 x 8 shot groups ( don't quote me) to determine a rifles "cone of fire" while maintaining statistical relevance.
The statistical relevance or robustness of any test is dependent upon the SD of the variation measured.
Grubbs conducted very similar experiments with a total of 10,000 shots fired by army marksmen. The position of each & every shot was plotted using Bivariate coordinates & the centre of the POI of the combined shots calculated.
To cut a long story, Grubbs test was ground breaking in that it provided a sound scientific & statistical basis for the information Grubbs & others have since used to determine the future probability of an outcome.
All I can assure is that statistics, when properly applied, do matter. Statistics are employed in just about every business & Government to help & guide outcomes from manufacturing QC to population demographics to market stock speculation & everything else imaginable.
Statistics isn't just a word used to demoralize & confuse those who disagree with us in their tracks. Stats are a very real, analytical, verifiable, repeatable, mathematical systems with rules & boundaries. It is usually the misapplication & or misuse of stats which are the cause if misunderstanding or outright distrust.
It was the past British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli who has been attributed to the famous quip; "There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics" the philosophical truth of which can be vigorously debated because, it is not statistics in their pure form which lie but, the application & mathematical rigidity adhered to which is the lie.
We see this kind of statistical skulduggery, misapplication & outright lies, in news polls which try to convince the mostly ignorant masses that everyone around them possesses a particular political or other view. How do these polls twist the truth & create the narrative?
I'm glad you asked. The most common method is to use very small sample numbers, focussed in a particular area or demographic. The small sample number helps to ensure that the answers to the poll questions will be held within the requirements of the narrative &, the demographic or area is chosen with the previous knowledge of a certain concentration of view points, in the case of political polling.
Accuracy testing can be undertaken in much the same way whereby, a small sample number, focussed in a particular way, reinforces a pre-existing belief.
For example; Tuner testing 2 or 3 shot group then changing the setting then, another 2 or 3 shot group & etc assumes that a minute change in the centre of mass of the barrel WILL reveal a measurable change. So, right from the outset, the results will be skewed with the assumption driving the result, rather than allowing the raw data to be interpreted as it stands. So, it's not only the sample number which is a problem but also, the way in which a test is conducted which, can & usually will impact the results or, the interpretation of those results.
In conclusion, statistical testing must have a logical, repeatable focus in concert with a resolution of the variance which can be measured & plotted & an appropriate sample number calculated to achieve a stable standard deviation (SD) with which to use as the basis of the required statistical calculations.
If you want to extrapolate into the future by shooting a sample of groups then, rigid statistical analysis is THE only way we have of reaching a reliable outcome. Everything else is just noise, twisted to appear realistic.

You have been listening to bryan litz to much. Lol

 

[Barelstroker]

You have been listening to bryan litz to much. Lol

More people should listen to the likes of Litz instead of believing YouTube vids of ignorant hosts & anecdotal accounts.
There'd be a lot less arguments.

 

[Steel head]

More people should listen to the likes of Litz instead of believing YouTube vids of ignorant hosts & anecdotal accounts.
There'd be a lot less arguments.

 

[badassgunworks]

More people should listen to the likes of Litz instead of believing YouTube vids of ignorant hosts & anecdotal accounts.
There'd be a lot less arguments.

Bryan is a very smart guy but he does not know everything. He is a knowledgeable when it comes to external ballistics. And is still learning about internal ballistics. He has lots of blind follower. one might think he has a financial reason to discredit tuners. But the truth is..." i shoot better cause i shoot Berger with the use of a tuner. " lol so if i hear you correctly your stating swallow the coolaid and ignore the 100s of people in ever shooting sport and all the manufactors that make and design tuners cause bryan said they dont work despite all the 100s of matches that have been wone using tuners. And every industry that use hormonic tuning for the past 100 years. Ok you win. Ill quit making tuners cause bryan said they dont work.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

At least they're your moms, if you ever came out of the basement you'd know that. Your entire repertoire is personal insults and yet you're critiquing other people for the same thing. You have hounded people relentlessly with "but you didn't answer my question" and your own demonstration of the product can be summed up with "but science, bruh". Lay off the Code Red. Decaf can be quite as tasty these days. I'm surprised you don't work for the CDC, if you work at all.

It's really not smart to post your garbage in this political climate. Think of what your ego will look like without this post count.

were you not breastfed enough as a child? Sounds like you’ve got some deep seated issues buddy.

Need a hug? Maybe step away from the computer for a while if you take things this personally.

I’m not arguing in favor of any statistics in this thread you inbred, nor am I asking anyone else to prove to me why I should buy this product. I asked why the critics in here can’t agree on a testing method that they all approve of, and you must have had an aneurysm, or choked on your drool in the process?

In the mean time, enjoy the ignore list, maybe you can bitch and whine some more about something else you don’t own too.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

To get a higher ring and a higher margin with the same mfg capacity.

It’s called making money lol

Most rifle manufactures can sell you a rifle without a scope rail and the cheapest stock possible.

That’s called making money. They don’t need to “add value” if their product already sells for the price they want in the first place.

 

[badassgunworks]

Most rifle manufactures can sell you a rifle without a scope rail and the cheapest stock possible.

That’s called making money. They don’t need to “add value” if their product already sells for the price they want in the first place.

That may be true but its not smart. But people are stupid and buy crap all the time and love it. Lol but then they get smart if they do they dont return .

 

[Feniks Technologies]

The absolute best defense against things like Applied Ballistics is data that meets or exceeds their testing with results showing the contrary.

Not a few three round groups on paper here and there.

So, if people are going to invoke that places such as AB are incorrect, I’d encourage them to post the data here.

Anyone care to post anything other than a few groups on paper?

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Some high speed photography from the side and in front ( above/below projectile path) of the barrel while manipulating the tuner would be interesting. .

Already quite a bit out there.

I have yet to see one that visually shows the muzzle moving *before* the bullet exits.

I believe the only ones I have seen involve large diameter barrels. But that’s what most here use.

The counter argument is the movement is too small to see visually, which may be a valid argument.


If anyone has links or videos that show something, would be interested in seeing them posted here.