I do but these test were done back in 2001-2008 with multiple guns and barrels in Competition and practice and test sessions . Only to prove viability over long term in competition.They were also combined with other technologies that I can not disclose . I am sorry but what I can do is to give certain results throughout the testing as it relates to tuners only if I can find them , the data is scattered on 3 different computers and data books which ended around 2008. During that time I did averages at 3 given points of testing . I have since moved on to fixed weighting systems and muzzle devices of all types and suppressors , brakes, recessed crowns , etc. I will see if I at least find those average points . The rest of the data is reserved for military only.
- Thread starter category_theory
- Start date
- Status
I think it's funny that the best benchrest and F class shooters are consistently outshooting expected vertical for velocity spread but load tuning/adjusting the response via barrel tuners apparently don't work. I'd love to see a viable alternative proposed for these effects. People attempting to test with rifles that don't group significantly inside the expected vertical differences is meaningless. The fact you can wind the vertical up and down with the tuner is pretty easy to demonstrate, surely one of you guys with electronic targets that give down range velocity and shot position could prove expected distribution to yourself for loads tuned conventionally at 100 yards/meters for smallest groups the slowly phase the tuner shooting at 600 or 100 yards or even 300 to see how velocity vs vertical on target distribution and total vertical spread changes. The fact that the most successful shooters tune at competition distance and their vertical distribution is an order of magnitude inside expected still tells the story.
yOu Don'T hAVe EViDeNSe, I suspect having worked at a national calibration laboratory I have been exposed to more statistics than most here, to go 95% confidence interval while eliminating other factors in complex systems can absorb literally years and hundreds of thousands of dollars, but you can often see what is occurring with far less effort. Just because I haven't calculated peak stress, strain and deformed displacement in my socket doesn't mean I haven't rotated the tyres on my car.
yOu Don'T hAVe EViDeNSe, I suspect having worked at a national calibration laboratory I have been exposed to more statistics than most here, to go 95% confidence interval while eliminating other factors in complex systems can absorb literally years and hundreds of thousands of dollars, but you can often see what is occurring with far less effort. Just because I haven't calculated peak stress, strain and deformed displacement in my socket doesn't mean I haven't rotated the tyres on my car.
Last edited:
That’s part of the rub. Some of those shooters tell us it shrinks group size. Or only keeps group size (or ‘in tune’). There’s no clear consensus on effect or theory.
Except that’s not what you’re being told when you see proponents selling tuner brakes for factory or PRS rifles.
I’d just like something that isn’t an argument from authority or “just go test it.” I’ve tried to test it, but if my rifle needed to shoot hummers to see it I wish someone would have told me that up front.
I’m moving on to tuned mass dampers, so if someone wants to machine me a downscaled one like the ARL made, all I need to do is win one club match and we could make millions.
Spot on . I see shooters outshooting their expected vertical all of the time . What I really find distressing is this rigorous statistical analysis of Litz that everybody is defending shows a tuner can put a gun out of tune. Well if it can put a gun out of tune why would he say it does not work ? If a tuner can put a gun out of tune then it can put a gun in tune so why did he stop adjusting when the rifle came out of tune and call it the result ?He just contradicted his own test . That indicates a agenda . What ever it may be I do not understand why or how he came to that conclusion. Then to say moving a adjustable weight does not change anything ? Only assumptions due to lack of testing and not enough statistical data to say that . And lastly adding weight improves accuracy ? It can also hurt accuracy .Again another assumption due to lack of testing and not understanding what he is testing . But thousands of shooters are wrong because they didn’t use Brian’s methods ? Just strange to me .
Last edited:
If you can go to the benchrest central archives from 20+ years ago and you will see timntx Lynn bill calfee gene bukys harold vaugh-(the grandfather of aeroballistic flight ordnance for nuclear based technology) the physicist I mentioned earlier in this thread Dr Geoffrey Kolbe Varmint Al (Al Harrell from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) and a host of other shooters all discussing the actual science of how tuners work.
I posted earlier links to Bryan litz on that forum above with engineers explaining to him everything he didn't understand in the Eric cortina video.
When you come shooting above Upperlake I will explain why.
Talking tuners on a forum with shooters who have never used one is like talking computers with your grandparents 25 years ago.
They don't understand how they work and are the most difficult to teach. Younger shooters don't have the ego issues to get over and they try new things for themselves.
You can look at Tim's list of posters and put them on your ignore list if you want to actually learn about tuners.
I find it's actually easier to find how things work from those using the product than those who don't.
And yes I can lend you my book so you can read 723 pages if you want
You probably need to separate the fact you can load tune for positive compensation or anywhere in the muzzle movement range first.
Adding mass at the muzzle, will tend in general to reduce group size from shooter influence or minor load/ignition system behaviours via simple inertia. But the other thing it does is slow the impulse phasing response that people normally tune loads to, so not only can you adjust the phase to suit variations in barrel transit time, which at least here in Australia are primarily from powder temp variations but that usable window may now be large enough that you don't even have to adjust unless going for world records or somewhere with very large temperature swings. The people telling Tim he's an idiot for calling a fixed mass a tuner haven't worked out that if he has doubled or trippled the muzzle transient time either at stoke end or upswing for positive compensation, depending on whether he is trying from up close benchrest, 1000 or ELR even with charge temp variations he is close enough to still be in tune, likewise people claiming he can't tune to whatever mill spec ammunition with suppressors.
Likewise just because someone ignorant of actual functionality or effects uses something doesn't mean it doesn't work or people cannot use them for different purposes. I imagine before chronographs were common/reliable you could intentionally tune a barrel for a larger vertical spread to quickly assess load consistency between lots of factory ammunition outside you normal cone of accuracy for instance.
I don't see people claiming fixed lenght Helmholtz resonators on mine vent fans don't work because atmospheric temperature and pressure vary a bit?
There seem to be a lot of detractors expecting some universal fit this one device to any barrel lenght/profile/cartridge/action and it will respond in exactly this way with every 1/8th turn on the tuner, if not its bullshit. You don't all tune loads in the same powder mass steps for BR cases as cheytac do you? You don't seat ELDS like VLDs? You don't aim for the same AFRs and ignition timing on a 100cc 2 stroke as a 660cu big block do you?
Slides
An Australian longrange shooter Jeff Roger's traded me my first tensioning tube for some 187 grain BIB flatbased bullets 20+ years ago.
I attempted to start a thread on tensioning tubes but if tuners are giving this group diarrhea tensioning tube would put them over the edge.
Flat out like a lizard drinking.
An Australian longrange shooter Jeff Roger's traded me my first tensioning tube for some 187 grain BIB flatbased bullets 20+ years ago.
I attempted to start a thread on tensioning tubes but if tuners are giving this group diarrhea tensioning tube would put them over the edge.
Flat out like a lizard drinking.
Can you please give us some more info about this. Weight has a positive or neg effect ?
Positive according to The Grandfather Of Aeroballistic Flight Dynamics for Nuclear Based Weapons at Sandia National Laboratory
It’s in vol 3 of Adv of LR shooting. But yes it’s a positive correlation.
Except that every time those same shooters shoot over doppler, all of a sudden the bullets are going exactly where the doppler says they should based on everything being measured......not just velocity.
When you shoot next to a chrono only, that's the only thing you have to compare and you're always going to have something grouping smaller or larger than velocity says.....because of other variables. Sometimes everything ends up being equal, and velocity tells the story it should.
But every single time you start adding sensors that measure other things, all of a sudden the groups line up. Tim is a perfect example. He "proves litz wrong" on his range using a pencil and paper and a chrono. But can't produce a single shred of proof from doppler when there are many testing facilities across the country he could easily use....not just Litz.
This stuff is incredibly easy to prove. And we'd have mountains of doppler data showing groups that could only be shot if the launch angle and such was different bullet to bullet. Instead we have guys on YouTube with a Labrador claiming they proved it. Or guys with a sharpie and legal pad explaining how they "proved it." When not a single testing facility with doppler shows anything other than bullets going where all the variables say they should go.
What about using this?
System 89 BC Chrono™ – Oehler-Research
Oehler Research Ballistic Coefficient Chronograph The System 89 measures the calibrated ballistic coefficient for each bullet fired. At very long ranges, the shot-to-shot uniformity of the […]
oehler-research.com Actually the new FX True Ballistics Chrono measures BCs!!! Im honestly not sure why more people aren’t talking about that fact! For about 800 usd you can measure your own BC dispersion. It’s also now capable of measuring up to 4500 f/s!What about using this?
System 89 BC Chrono™ – Oehler-Research
Oehler Research Ballistic Coefficient Chronograph The System 89 measures the calibrated ballistic coefficient for each bullet fired. At very long ranges, the shot-to-shot uniformity of the […]
What about using this?
System 89 BC Chrono™ – Oehler-Research
Oehler Research Ballistic Coefficient Chronograph The System 89 measures the calibrated ballistic coefficient for each bullet fired. At very long ranges, the shot-to-shot uniformity of the […]
You can now start narrowing down BC variance. Though not as accurately as doppler. That system basically uses screens and time of flight to calculate BC.
Definitely better than just using a chrono.
And LabRadar gives you the data to calculate that as well. Few use the unit to its full capability.
I doubt that will get you to the level that we're talking for this discussion, although it can be a useful tool for truing and whatnot. Another member here wrote a program to back calc with labradar tracks as well (clicky clicky).
The older Oehler 43 and others have been doing this for 30 years now so it's nothing new to the shooting community.
You can space out the sensors to improve velocity variation numbers as well so no more plus or minus variations you see with a typical chronograph or Labradar. Henry "The Bullet God" Childs who posts as HBC on the more accuracy minded forums gives data with 32 feet of spacing showing velocity variation well below 0.25 fps at 3000 fps muzzle velocity. He can also tell you the temperature of military cannon rounds at maximum ordinate while firing over a closed highway.
Dr Geoffrey Kolbe used cameras and sensors to show everyone a tuner can compensate for 65fps on a 22 rimfire round and google will get you the paper and instrumentation used 20 years ago.
The testing and science has been available for years now it just hasn't trickled down to this community of shooters.
Nothing wrong with the 222 or 308 you just won't find them anymore at a benchrest competition kind of thing.
Where do you come up with this Doppler stuff ? You are wrong but you say it will measure all of what ? POI? No , instability at the muzzle ? No , beyond transonic ? No . It is obvious you have never used Doppler . The 89 does that . Then you say I used a regular chronograph ? Really , dude you do not have a clue. I use a oehler 89 BC chrono . Why do think a radar is better ? The more you talk shows the less you know and understand . Learn what you are talking about before you say someone else is just using a regular chronograph . I can do tons more with the oehler than any radar lol. Anybody that uses tuners can prove Litz wrong . Again the video is instructional , not proof .
Last edited:
Wrong again . It is just as good as any radar.Actually better just because it will measure well beyond transonic , a radar just guesses after 2500 yards .
Last edited:
Just looking at it from a physics point of view - hang a weight (moment) off of a steel rod (member) - there are already known effects on how the steel rod will behave in motion. See engineering and physics textbooks, modeling software, etc. How much or how exactly the behavior will vary per rifle though I guess is a different story and is probably where the debate arises - then add in other factors such as user error, different barrel profiles, etc.
Can't find the time stamp right now, but there were two approximately 60 seconds windows in this podcast that summed it up pretty well IMO:
moderndaysniper.podbean.com
On the flip side, I imagine Litz would know all of the above and also has at least a working knowledge of Design of Experiments as well - curious how he arrived at his conclusion of tuners generally doesn't make enough of a difference to matter.
Can't find the time stamp right now, but there were two approximately 60 seconds windows in this podcast that summed it up pretty well IMO:
MDS Episode #0079: Aaron Hipp | Modern Day Sniper Podcast
This episode Caylen invites a special guest as a subject matter expert to discuss the hot-topic item of barrel tuners. Aaron Hipp is an accomplished PRS competitor with over a decade of experience in the sport competing at a high level. Aaron’s background in education and occupation is...
moderndaysniper.podbean.com On the flip side, I imagine Litz would know all of the above and also has at least a working knowledge of Design of Experiments as well - curious how he arrived at his conclusion of tuners generally doesn't make enough of a difference to matter.
Last edited:
Oh I know they have been
. Just saying the barrier for entry is much less now. Oh that’s cool! I mean honestly you just environmentals and multiple readings of the same shot… I love that the FX has it built in though!
Just looking at it from a physics point of view - hang a weight (moment) off of a steel rod (member) - there are already known effects on how the steel rod will behave in motion. See engineering and physics textbooks, modeling software, etc. How much or how exactly the behavior will vary though I guess is a different story and is probably where the debate arises - then add in other factors such as user error, different barrel profiles, etc.
Can't find the time stamp right now, but there were about 60 seconds windows in this podcast that summed it up pretty well IMO:
MDS Episode #0079: Aaron Hipp | Modern Day Sniper Podcast
This episode Caylen invites a special guest as a subject matter expert to discuss the hot-topic item of barrel tuners. Aaron Hipp is an accomplished PRS competitor with over a decade of experience in the sport competing at a high level. Aaron’s background in education and occupation is...
On the flip side, I imagine Litz would know all of the above as well - so I'm kind of curious how he arrived at his conclusion of tuners generally doesn't make enough of a difference to matter.
There's much more to it than just a weight hanging on the end of the rod.
You have the entire internal combustion cycle going on, which adds much complexity to the situation. Heat, temperature, and a mass moving internally through said "rod" at a very fast velocity (which isn't uniform, but accelerating), makes for a pretty complex equation. And all of these variables change with different cartridges, powder charge & type, projectile weight and design, barrel profile, groove characteristics, etc. It's even variable within the same barrel, cartridge, etc, as we can only hold our ammo to certain tolerances.
Yes, harmonics has been studied and somewhat understood across different disciplines and applications. Our understanding of harmonics as it applies to ballistics (internal & external) is much more limited.
Says who you?
What degree do you hold so we know how many weights hanging from rods you have done a thesis on?
Where is your proof your data and your test results?
Absolutely correct... I left out a lot of other things that would impact weight on metal rod analogy. Both for brevity and because I'm not any kind of expert on how all of the forces and factors will change the exact behavior of the rod. But I believe the point still stands - hanging a weight on the end of a steel rod will still change the way it sits and behaves when some external force is applied vs the same steel rod with no or a different weight.
Anyways, this is why I'm still curious.
I'd like to see what it can do as a built in feature, or what people are seeing for BC variability over oehler or other doppler systems. I ran that program with LR tracks (of which, the program selected 45 viable so probably a touch small on sampling size) and came up with a G7 SD of .004. If you punch that into a hit probability calc, that alone can be worth 10% hit probability difference at 1000 yards.
There's no simple answer to a complex question - beware of those that will tell you otherwise.
You
You can also add muzzle blast and CG offset influence on BC variation . just recently learned this via oehler 89. But it is relative as a whole meaning the measuring of BC whether TOF or velocity change over a given distance there is always going to be disagreements on which Method is better . The variation of measurements can also be effected by wind variations as well. Granted the design of the bullet can have a great effect but in my testing bullets that has reported high sd did not have these same percentages of BC variations that were initially reported . Probably due to the barrel on the particular rifle. Might add a dirty muzzle brake has a HUGE effect on BC variations while a clean brake has little to no effect on these variations.For example the radar data at matches for the same bullet in different guns can have different or larger BC variations . So I think there are many factors involved in determining the true no wind influenced BC as well as the variations involved . I have seen this while running my oehler for the shooters at the Ko1m match as well.
Last edited:
But there are simple answers to simple questions and a tuner is extremely simple for almost everyone so beware of those saying it's complex unless they are published have a degree have data and test results that show otherwise.
If they can't perform a simple test put them on the ignore list.
Timintx
If you can remember back about 25 years ago the shortrange benchrest shooters sounded about the same.
It took about 2 years for them to test tuners and now those same posters are saying they will never shoot another gun without a tuner.
What is even more hilarious is Bryan was there the entire time and never said a word?
The ignore list is your friend.
You tuner zealots have been convincing me of that for a while. I can't believe I just wasted minutes of my life reading a thread where one evangelist is calling the IB cycle simple and another is trying to pretend an Oehler 89 is a better velocity/BC test system than a dopplar....
That’s an aweful lot of variables.
Could you cite some example numbers from your testing? What would you consider a “HUGE” effect on BC?
It has been tested side by side to Doppler with the same results .and about 150,000 cheaper , and have cited things the 89 can measure that the Doppler can not . That is all I am saying.At 3500.00 it is not a just a chronograph .
Last edited:
I need to look at my tests but I am checking velocity drop from muzzle to target . There was a 16 FPS more velocity drop at the target at 100 yards with a dirty brake ,that is huge . Also could not hit the targets at extreme ranges . So there is a drop in BC but also a random dispersion due to muzzle blast destabilizing the exiting bullet . Once cleaned accuracy came back and velocity drop was normalized at100 yards and was basically the same as without the brake . I will look and see what the average was on BC variance But I believe was .009 SD Before the brake was cleaned . Once cleaned accuracy was back and won my next ELR match . Just never realized what a little carbon could do to accuracy .
Being purchased by people who would benefit more from trigger time who are shooting positional so it's well inside the noise? Or they want super aggressive brakes? Plenty of people buy things that don't suit their needs in almost every hobby pursuit, it doesn't invalidate the concept. Are slicks redundant for circuit racing because John Smith goes back to semislicks for his street/track car? Moronic argument.
I'm often a couple of targets down the mound from a former F Open world champion, agged higher than Eric this year too. This is a guy happy to use and old scope and stock if it's serviceable, not shy of devcon or tape of it does what he wants, not into the latest fashion, no sponsor stickers on anything. Senior mining position, drives a nice car, absolutely no skin in any form of firearms sales. There are most certainly tuners on his competition guns.
Source? The 89 measures two things, muzzle velocity and time of flight. Dopplar gives instantaneous velocity for the full flight path.
There is a reason government ranges (and increasing numbers of ammo companies) are instrumented with dopplar, and it's not cause they like lighting money on fire. Official government testing even uses dopplar for muzzle velocity.
So you are applying curve fitting to datasets, or applying curve fitting to data sets? Unless you are examining some kind of short burst rocket projectiles what are you gaining? What wavelength is it, what is the effective linear and cross axis resolution? Guessing it's orders of magnitude larger than the helium neon laser interferometers we used for dimensional analysis and displacement measurements.
My source is Oehler , and my own experiences. There is a thread on the field testing forum with Buford Boone , a well known expert in ballistics .DOD style Doppler is different from what the public uses . The DOD style is much bigger ,and can go out to 8 miles or farther and uses triangulation with multiple receivers and multiple crews , that’s why it cost 40,000 dollars a day . The public radars only go to 2500 yards or so and not show point if impact with measurements . The oehler can go out well past transonic for a more complete BC curve as well and can be used for a host of testing at the muzzle as well and at a much cheaper cost .
Which style....V1? He has newer and improved versions on the market now and even a tuner/brake combo. Many people may just be upgrading, so that doesn't indicate anything is wrong with them.
I get the impression you're trying to use a "baffle with bull" approach to disguise the fact you don't know what you're talking about. The wavelength is dependent on the type of radar, and the idea of spatial resolution only applies to certain types. continuous wave doppler only gives velocity as a function of time, but tracking radars also exist that can monitor position directly. Obviously it's lower resolution than metrology equipment you'd find in a QC lab. The point is that the 89 can do none of those things.
Long story short, what you're gaining is instantaneous data rather than a single data point integrated over the whatever distance you set your mic array at.
Unpublished hearsay isn't a source. I've met Buford, and the fact that he's a good guy and knows what he's talking about doesn't magically add capabilities to the 89. The point of impact aspect of the 89 only works if you're supersonic and the accuracy of the mic array is heavily dependent on proper setup.
There is no such thing as "DoD style Dopplar", any member of the public could also buy a full tracking system from Weibel if they had the coin. The DoD uses a wide range of systems for different use cases.
Can you expand on your "host of testing at the muzzle" you're getting with an 89?
The microphone setup requires supersonic, the impact plane setup does not.
System 89 BC Chrono™ – Oehler-Research
Oehler Research Ballistic Coefficient Chronograph The System 89 measures the calibrated ballistic coefficient for each bullet fired. At very long ranges, the shot-to-shot uniformity of the […]
oehler-research.com The DOD style reference was not just made up , give me a break here . This comes from heads at the military. .Again look at the thread where Buford states the functions and capabilities of the 89, and Oehler has publications on the 89 and videos as well. I used the 89 for finding the effects of muzzle blast , like destabilizing the exiting bullet , suppressor, brakes , recessed crowns , drilled bores and their effects on stability via muzzle velocity drop across a given distance measurements with accuracy to 1FPS as well if set up correctly . The main reason I bought the 89 was to do muzzle testing by velocity drop measurements from muzzle to target close to the muzzle and to get a more complete BC at extreme ranges not just guessing in to transonic . .
The last time I was involved with dappled testing it was with Clifford "Skip" Talbot and Dean Michaelis and it was $60,000 just for the 3 days of testing.
Doppler if you have the coin is great but this thread is about tuners and doppler data isn't going to convince the flat earthers shooting factory ammo in factory guns of anything..
What is amazing is the title of this post has Tuners in it and instead of Ignoring it the flat earthers converge upon it.
The flat earthers should all get together with Bryan and take there CZ457 22's to a rimfire benchrest match where 100% of the guns on the line will have Tuners and simply show those zealots how to shoot.
You can shame those zealots into selling all those Tuners that don't work.
And most importantly you can get a hug from Bryan.
And for the record nobody said IB wasn't complex you made that up out of thin air. Tuners are not complex and if you understood how they work and you clearly don't you would know that.
Doppler if you have the coin is great but this thread is about tuners and doppler data isn't going to convince the flat earthers shooting factory ammo in factory guns of anything..
What is amazing is the title of this post has Tuners in it and instead of Ignoring it the flat earthers converge upon it.
The flat earthers should all get together with Bryan and take there CZ457 22's to a rimfire benchrest match where 100% of the guns on the line will have Tuners and simply show those zealots how to shoot.
You can shame those zealots into selling all those Tuners that don't work.
And most importantly you can get a hug from Bryan.
And for the record nobody said IB wasn't complex you made that up out of thin air. Tuners are not complex and if you understood how they work and you clearly don't you would know that.
Correct, but that only gives time of flight, not impact location.The microphone setup requires supersonic, the impact plane setup does not.
System 89 BC Chrono™ – Oehler-Research
Oehler Research Ballistic Coefficient Chronograph The System 89 measures the calibrated ballistic coefficient for each bullet fired. At very long ranges, the shot-to-shot uniformity of the […]
Don’t forget the most important , post transonic BC .
If all on the line are using tuners how would you know they can't be beat by someone not using one. There are competitions where the winner is not using a tuner. What does that say about the rifles that were and didn't win?
I actually use tuners and have been for longer than most on this forum have been shooting so I understand why they are on 100% of the guns on the line.
BUT
YOU and the other naysayers have a golden opportunity to win every match by showing up and beating those crazed zealots.
You would be an internet sensation!!!
Bullets are photons, and Doppler is the double slit experiment.
- Status
