As far as tuners go if the effects are not seen to shoot well with the tuner then try a different weight bullet or change the in bore timing drastically, then the tuner could help . Going through the graphs with the same tuner I graphed 3 differing weights . The middle weight bullet was exiting on a spot that was not much happening but the lighter bullet weight and the heavier bullet weight both showed good movement that would be favorable for tuning .
- Thread starter eric1911
- Start date
- Status
Do you have any documentation that will show examples of this?
Not to come across as a complete contrarian asshole but so far all I have read in this thread is "Believe me, I've seen it, and it works".
I have yet to see anyone even throw up any targets of "before tuner, after tuner" etc other than my example of how I might as well read disemboweled chicken entrails as try to decipher 2 shot groups shot at different settings.
I do , but in graph form , no large sample groups, I am having problems opening the largest bullet file [277 gr] but will get it worked out and try to post it later . It was a saw tooth pattern with 30 fps wide humps which is perfect for a tuner . The middle weight bullet exiting at a moment of negative compensation state with less amplitude of movement. The light bullet is exiting in a positive compensation state [slower tracking higher] with low amplitude but is really the best pattern because it is more of a constant meaning less adjustments will be needed of the tuner as temp changes your velocity. Before a tuner is adjusted at all I try multiple weight bullets just to get a idea of what pattern the tuner will be adjusting or speeding up and slowing down at that particular exit timing. With a low round count on the barrel the exit timing will change at a later date but I dont want to waist a single round so this is done and rechecked after 100-400 rds. The graphs if read correctly will tell me how the gun will shoot without going through hundreds of rounds to to get it tuned only to have to re tune it at the matches. I shoot at some drastically differing alts and temps and see big swings in velocities and tunes, so it is always nice to have a tuner just in case I pre loaded my ammo at home and can not change the ammo.
Attachments
Last edited:
@pyrotechnic i understand your point of view but my view is there are many smart guys out there. Ken Dickerman, Tim Vaught, Eric Cortina, Keith Trapp, Shiraz Balolia, Lou Murdica... etc. They use barrel tuners and I just can't belive all these guys are wrong. Don't get me wrong i never belive someone blindly but their rifles shooting really well.
But I agree on one point. I have never seen long term studies and statistick about tuners.
But I agree on one point. I have never seen long term studies and statistick about tuners.
Anyone stating this in this thread better not ever buy a new scope, a new ammo, a new bullet, a new rifle etc until they have at least 10 years of studies by 100's of people with thousands of data points in graphs and doctoral papers to prove said "new thing" works. If not then how do you figure anything new works? God forbid you actually try it!!! EEK!!! You need all those years of data points by other people to prove to you anything new works. LOL GTFOH!!!
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Except everyone keeps pointing out tuners been being used for 40 years….
Probably need 41 years to flush out the testing…..
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Would you say saterlee isn’t wrong about 10 shot velocity test?
He’s a top shooter.
There is abundant documentation about how all of those things work. There are mathematical equations describing their behavior and even computer programs to assist in their design. There are books on the engineering of all those things.
With tuners there are just people saying take my word for it or look at these holes on paper, look at this “data” that is obviously noise. No comparison.
Not new products. No documentation. They are new. There are similar things but not the same.
Obvious noise? Lol
If there was reproducible, statistically relevant data that showed the effects of a tuner we wouldn't be having this discussion and they would be a product that could toddle along on it's own merits. However, it doesn't appear to exist and an appeal to authority is the strongest argument for their use. I have no doubt that the above mentioned individuals have forgotten much more about shooting well than I will ever know. That doesn't mean that their opinion should take the place of this actual data.
@Rob01 you know as well as I that 99% of this forum is dedicated to arguments over whether some piece of gear/scope/bullet/rifle/banana hammock provides tangible benefits over xyz alternative with everyone defending their choice with the zealous enthusiasm of a true believer......until the next best thing comes along lol.
Auto tune.
Blue tooth connectivity, so you don't have to break position or reach up on the line and touch a warm tuner.
Should be able to tune x- 2 shot, and let cool and verify with a couple of actual groups in 15 - 20 minutes (less wind). Lol
On a realistic note the two shot tests worked well in an ar.
Load 2 in a mag, shoot, drop mag, (a range courtesy) make adjustment, load mag, get back on it.
At that cadence the EC tuner never got to warm to adjust and heat stayed constant (by touch).
It's not that big a thing to toss a third test shot in if you think you pulled one.
Blue tooth connectivity, so you don't have to break position or reach up on the line and touch a warm tuner.
Should be able to tune x- 2 shot, and let cool and verify with a couple of actual groups in 15 - 20 minutes (less wind). Lol
On a realistic note the two shot tests worked well in an ar.
Load 2 in a mag, shoot, drop mag, (a range courtesy) make adjustment, load mag, get back on it.
At that cadence the EC tuner never got to warm to adjust and heat stayed constant (by touch).
It's not that big a thing to toss a third test shot in if you think you pulled one.
The trouble with nailing ones colours to the mast is that it's impossible to take them down when the storm finally comes.
Yes but there is no alternative to the tuner except tuning the load to the barrel, which everyone says works but flip it and that's heresy!!!! LOL They need tons of "data points" and flow charts and diagrams to prove to them they might work. Well honestly I could give a rats ass if someone here believes if they work or not for me. I know that they do. If they want me to test and shoot 1000 30 shot groups every 5 yards to a mile every month of the years due to weather changes well they will be waiting a long time. LOL It's just funny people who don't want to try them come in and make fun of those that do try them to find out if it works for them or not. Doesn't matter if they find they do or not as with anything in this sport, as you well know, nothing is for everyone but doesn't mean it doesn't work for some.
Well Rob, it's all been said before.
The issue has always been the method used as proof that tuners work as advertised & not that they just flat out don't or can't work.
Where to now?
I suppose we could all continue with posts replete with rhetoric & exaggeration but that won't advance either argument in any positive way.
Since the real root controversy appears to me to be the "testing method", maybe we could look more closely at that subject & see if we can't reveal something which might bring a settlement of sorts?
See that's where you lose me. I will not waste one grain of powder trying to prove to someone that something works. Maybe the manufacturer will but not me. Believe it or not. I don't care as I know. I can show my results but you and others don't believe them, call them exaggerations even though you don't know, as they don't give your millions of data points needed for you to believe so there is our impasse. Again it goes back to people not wanting to put forth the time, components and money to try them telling people who have done that they are wrong. See the problem? LOL
I see a problem, it just isn't the same problem you see.
What I had in mind was to look more closely at why some of us don't agree with 2 shot testing & try to establish why this doesn't convince us.
At this point, not a shot has to be taken.
I can understand your thinking on that but when these graphs are repeated time and time again during modifications and after on every gun and every caliber I have built and tested for many years it become more obvious, especially when I go straight to the match and win it. The best I would say to you is think of it as a trend . I am sure you know that during the life of the barrel things are ever changing so it is just a matter of how far you will go to maintain a tune . I want .2 MOA all of the time , I would say it is not going to happen but I am gonna try my best to get as close as I can and maintain the rifle tune as close as I can . Others feel it is not necessary , that's ok but I need all of the help I can get if I am shooting out to 4100 yards lol.
But that's all hypothetical and theoretical. At some point shots will have to be taken to prove it. Real data. Someone who doesn't believe two shots work then they can buy one and shoot 2, 5, 10 shots a target between tuner settings and test it for themselves.
Not so at all.
This stuff has been scientifically & mathematically justified for decades. One of the main reasons why statistics has been studied & tested so much is because of the very predicament we see here on this thread. The interpretation of any kind of testing results is open to any number of influencing pressures which the rigid adherence to robust statistical analysis was invented to overcome.
In the world of science & physics, when a paper is circulated for peer review, the most important information in that paper is the details of the testing undertaken. The 1st question any reviewer asks is how the theory was tested, the methodology & how the data was interpreted.
I got an idea for a tuner test. I'm getting my .223 barrel for my AI in the next couple weeks. I will see if I can get 62gr fiocci bullshit plinking ammo to shoot tighter by using the tuner. Ive got 1000s of those rounds. I'll need to put plenty of rounds down the barrel to break it in anyway. Why not?
And again, I don't care enough to even talk about it with you. I am not here to prove anything to you. Don't use one if you think they don't work. Or pony up and try it so you actually have some experience. Then maybe we can talk.
Try it but they won't make garbage into handloads. LOL Might make them good enough to practice with though.
Thats the point of shooting that BS ammo in the first place. Shooting positional at 100 and 200 yards. If it shoots 1moa, I'll call it a success.
I think you'd care if I said tuners definitely don't work.
The 1st question I'd hope you'd ask is how did you test to come to that conclusion?
This testing dilemma works both ways & so it should.
To my recollection, none those who aren't convinced have stated that tuners don't work for the very same reasons we remain unconvinced that they do; we haven't seen solid evidence that tuners don't work so, we haven't said that.
Anyhow, you're entitled to your opinion.
And you expect someone else to prove it to you. You have such a strong opinion then pick up a tuner and test it. Spend your time and money and put your money where your mouth is and put in the work. Don't expect others to do it for you. Until then you can say statistical this and hypothetical that and it means less than the guy shooting two shot tests as he is actually doing something to prove they work or don't for him.
And my opinion comes from my experience with a tuner on multiple rifles and calibers.
That’s an interesting port design. I just bought another ats and a sidewinder and will be interesting to compare to the tmb. A friend will be doing a 30-378 build pretty soon , can you please message me where to see your product
Only on the hide does someone validate the effects of tuners by touting groups shot with different suppressors and then proceed to call everyone else an idiot.
They're both bitches nothing funny about that.
Of course if you put a real man into the game he'd be accused of being a women beater.
What I find interesting is how you get away with talking shit about other vendors, but God forbid if you're pussy gets called out,you're on the Bat phone crying to Frank.
Dave Thomas = a legend in his own mind
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Not quite. It’s easy to follow if you understand how a tuner works. It’s moving weight. The changing of suppressors is just a much more drastic example. It’s not that hard to follow. The massive shift in weight shows massive differences in groups. Not only size, but location. Now think of a very small shift in a lesser weight. Easy to see how that can effect groups.
Have you ever tested a tuner? Or any other shifting of weight on the barrel?
I understand the hypothesis. I put my results up earlier in the thread.
I wonder how much the different flow regimes between suppressor brands and models has to with it as well. Baffle type, baffle concentricity, concentricity of the exit, etc.
Not all suppressors are made equal. For example, when Shark suppressors were still in the game, I remember reading issues with the manufacturing of their suppressors that in some cases led to degradation in precision.
There's much more happening than a simple weight change when you slap different suppressors on.
3 of the 4 suppressors were tbac. 2 OG and one gen1 ultra. The runout on the exit hole on all 3 of them are extremely consistent. The yhm runs pretty true as well even though it’s on a qd mount. Notice how I said in the original post that the rifle shot the ammo quote well but the bare muzzle group was rather unimpressive. That was a result of the mass lost when threading the muzzle. The original crown was left untouched.
It’s only a hypothesis if it’s untested. My testing has shown very repeatable results. Starting with small samples, I moved to larger samples that did nothing but all it did was waste time and components. The results didn’t change
But its not just supressors that prove your point you also own tuner brakes that have proven the same results.
Correct. I just use the suppressor swap test as a more drastic example that I hoped would be easier to see what the difference can do. It seems to be harder for people the see the smaller differences seen when moving a tuner weight a smaller amount. Seems even that wasn’t clear enough for some
during this experiment do you have any pics of that ammo/day with the barrel "untouched"?
be nice to see what the original non threaded barrel shot like, as threading changes the internal bore diameter under the threads
thanks
Not from that day. But the typical groups with that ammo was about double the size of the 30p1 groups. For a factory gun, at 300 yards, that in itself was impressive.
Threading a muzzle, if done right, does not open up the bore diameter. My 338 that’s large enough that Tbac won’t even allow me to shoot it through their 338 ultra, because the muzzle pressure is so high, is threaded 5/8-24 against all conventional “wisdom”. Surprise, surprise, the bore was never altered.
Threading a muzzle, if done right, does not open up the bore diameter. My 338 that’s large enough that Tbac won’t even allow me to shoot it through their 338 ultra, because the muzzle pressure is so high, is threaded 5/8-24 against all conventional “wisdom”. Surprise, surprise, the bore was never altered.
It's a pity you didn't record the shot number placement for each group. Would 2 shots per group have told the same story?
Nobody has stated anywhere in this thread that screwing a descent weight on the muzzle won't change POI or even group size but, tuner increments change tuner length by a couple thou at most which is orders of magnitude from the 1/2 or 1 Lb weight of the tuner itself.
This is exactly true.
That’s why tuners are for fine tuning a load. You should be doing the coarse tuning with the normal methods of old development
This has been the whole debate.
Changing the length of a tuner by a thou or two at a time would require a very high sample number to distinguish a change if it could be measured at all.
So you know what you're looking for as opposed to an unbiased expectation with an appropriate understanding of how sample number represents changes in results.
And you’re still arguing about something using only book learning and a fixation on statistics instead of actually shooting and learning just an itsy-bitsy little bit about what the hell you’re talking about.
So, there’s that…
- Status
