Haven’t done a formal one to date. All previous testing was basic.
Ex: get dope from kestrel, chrono shots, see what groupings look like and make the call if X ammo is better then Y in similar conditions.
Never felt the need to write a formal test report because I always thought my barrel was the item holding me back. This whole tuner subject has me wanting to do something more definitive. Environmental conditions are going to be my biggest variable.
If it was worth the effort and I had some help, I could instrument the rifle to gather thermal and vibration data, mount in a sled, and set up an electronic trigger pull. I know my range has some electronic target devices that show round impacts but I’ve never used it. Using this for this would be a huge time and target cost saver.
Methodology: performance utilizing extremes
Determine best and worst ammo brand/type without tunner using 20rd shot groups @ 207yd and 307yd target distances.
Clean rifle between each 20rd string using a repeatable process. Could get photos with borescope for validation.
Install tuner and rerun best and worst ammo in the same 20rd strings with the same cleaning patterns.
Change tuner setting (x) degrees between strings (due to ammo quantities, I may have to test extremes of tuner or reduce round count per string).
Ideally I would like to keep barrel temps and shot interval timing equal but it’s just more stuff to track and process. Video recording of all of this would be helpful as well.
If instrumented properly It would be a lot of data requiring post processing. I’m not a SQL guru so it would take me some time to parse into something readable/meaningful.
Last edited:
Sled mount and removing erroneous data has not been applied to testing befor as far as I’m aware. If we can omit rounds that don’t chrono with the same speed we may get a higher value.
I shouldn’t have said anything, I’m the weakest link in my system. Not my Vudoo, not the ammo, me.
I’m not sold on anything. I would like to run test in the same manner I do for work however, I don’t control the environmental conditions nor the supply of ammunition. Removing human interaction, environmental deviation, and obvious munition errors is the only way definitely isolate the tuner.
Showing these devices have an influence either good or bad, on a setup is good for everyone. I just don’t know if anyone is actually running these test with a controlled and consistent process to provide substantial proof on ether side of the argument.
There are a lot of smart guys here with way more experience than I but no side has shown the raw supporting data beyond target photos for their beliefs.
All I can say is if you shoot enough, over time you get that intangible “feel” for when things work and when they don’t, and when the gear is good, it just adds to the ability of you to know if you yourself are having a good day when you can do no wrong, or one of those days when you can’t get it together. I own a few “acid test” guns that I’ll take along when trying something new, just so I can judge my own abilities before I go critiquing new guns or gear. While it would be marvelous to have a 3-400 yard tunnel to test in, just having that distance outside is a blessing compared to what others have access to.
Long range rimfire isn’t something really new, check your history and you’ll see folks shooting 200y+ with irons and rickety thin scopes, OFFHAND or prone while resting the raw barrel directly on a beam or crossed sticks. Yes, over time targets and bullseyes got smaller, X’s were added, and the precision in ammunition skyrocketed.
Eventually the great precision rifle wars commenced… the Springfield 1922 had gained a well earned reputation for accuracy, as had the Winchester 52 which evolved through several improvements to battle each new advancement by Remington with their model 37 and then 40X and 40XB, but when Anschutz introduced the 54 and started bringing home the gold, the writing was on the wall.
Then there was a void of precision.
Kimber offered pretty, as did Dakota. Cooper offered precision, but never dove deep enough in my opinion, even with all their TRP ventures.
CZ’s were “discovered” when the import gates opened, and along with Sako’s excellent P94S, made the U.S. market set up and take notice. Rebranded import offerings from Winchester never really gained traction, Remington brought out the 504 series, but forgot how to nail down consistent accuracy, and when they fielded the excellent Shilen barreled versions it was too late.
Then we saw the first modern ammo drought. Lead smelting plants shut down, a major source of a certain type of chemical used in ammunition worldwide suddenly stopped when bean-counters shifted production from one state to another, and disassembled the first plant before the second could produce the correct composition/quality/and quantity required by their contracts. We all saw the quality shift in offerings of Aussie Winchester and others. I honestly don’t know if the shift of PMC ammo from Korea to Mexico was political or financial, but the quality suffered so much it’s not seen anymore. Fiocchi, which was rarely encountered to begin with, became scarce, and on the home front Federal went from a real contender with their 711,911, UM1 lines becoming shadows of their ‘80s greatness.
Back to the long guns…
Are our modern rifles “better” than those old horses? Shooting a Winchester 52C against a modern Vudoo might surprise you. The mechanical accuracy is every bit as precise, the ergonomics and what I still call “shootability” of the rifles leaves no comparison, modern guns with their chassis and hybrid stocks hold the reins.
Would a tuner improve the classics? I’m not sure.
Ammo, ammo, ammo, the great intangible.
In my experience mid-grade ammo has certainly declined in quality over the last 20 years, which is frustrating given the advancements in the guns. Is the modern best, their best ever? I dunno cause I don’t run it. Will quality ammo ever be produced in quantities large enough to satisfy the statistical sample crowd? Will the barrel still have any useful life following such tests???
Long range rimfire isn’t something really new, check your history and you’ll see folks shooting 200y+ with irons and rickety thin scopes, OFFHAND or prone while resting the raw barrel directly on a beam or crossed sticks. Yes, over time targets and bullseyes got smaller, X’s were added, and the precision in ammunition skyrocketed.
Eventually the great precision rifle wars commenced… the Springfield 1922 had gained a well earned reputation for accuracy, as had the Winchester 52 which evolved through several improvements to battle each new advancement by Remington with their model 37 and then 40X and 40XB, but when Anschutz introduced the 54 and started bringing home the gold, the writing was on the wall.
Then there was a void of precision.
Kimber offered pretty, as did Dakota. Cooper offered precision, but never dove deep enough in my opinion, even with all their TRP ventures.
CZ’s were “discovered” when the import gates opened, and along with Sako’s excellent P94S, made the U.S. market set up and take notice. Rebranded import offerings from Winchester never really gained traction, Remington brought out the 504 series, but forgot how to nail down consistent accuracy, and when they fielded the excellent Shilen barreled versions it was too late.
Then we saw the first modern ammo drought. Lead smelting plants shut down, a major source of a certain type of chemical used in ammunition worldwide suddenly stopped when bean-counters shifted production from one state to another, and disassembled the first plant before the second could produce the correct composition/quality/and quantity required by their contracts. We all saw the quality shift in offerings of Aussie Winchester and others. I honestly don’t know if the shift of PMC ammo from Korea to Mexico was political or financial, but the quality suffered so much it’s not seen anymore. Fiocchi, which was rarely encountered to begin with, became scarce, and on the home front Federal went from a real contender with their 711,911, UM1 lines becoming shadows of their ‘80s greatness.
Back to the long guns…
Are our modern rifles “better” than those old horses? Shooting a Winchester 52C against a modern Vudoo might surprise you. The mechanical accuracy is every bit as precise, the ergonomics and what I still call “shootability” of the rifles leaves no comparison, modern guns with their chassis and hybrid stocks hold the reins.
Would a tuner improve the classics? I’m not sure.
Ammo, ammo, ammo, the great intangible.
In my experience mid-grade ammo has certainly declined in quality over the last 20 years, which is frustrating given the advancements in the guns. Is the modern best, their best ever? I dunno cause I don’t run it. Will quality ammo ever be produced in quantities large enough to satisfy the statistical sample crowd? Will the barrel still have any useful life following such tests???
I’ll try and stay on topic.
What is the round count on this barrel?
Have you slugged it?
Have you bore scoped it?
What I would be looking out for is either a bore that gets larger as you get near the muzzle, or a bore that is out of round.
Those tests would tell you if altering the existing barrel is worth the effort.
1. > 2500rds
2. Nope but willing to do so
3. Yes. Wanted to know if I had the “dreaded” carbon ring….. I did and have since removed it. Use to go by the method of “ only clean when accuracy falls off “ with my other rifles. This method has some truth but it’s Achilles heel is that you have now created a corrosive environment and if left in storage for extended periods, damage will occur. Having a scope has been a blessing and a curse.
I don’t have enough spread at 100yds to clearly identify tuning impact. Electronic reader is only available for the 200 and 300yd ranges.
best ammo regarding performance has been Lapua long range but I only had about half a box. Ammo availability has been lacking. I never purchased in case quantities and glad I didn’t otherwise I’d still be blaming the barrel.
I know I can’t test every barrel manufactures length, twist, rifling combination nor every ammo offering so to some extent this test will only valid for my rifle. Maybe reaching out to an ammo manufacture with deeper pockets for controlled testing would be beneficial but I’m not sure they would share result if there is a possibility of negative sales impact.
You will still have some variance even with 20 shot groups. Also if you’re trying to tune at 200-300 you’ll have to deal with wind and wind doesn’t only affect the horizontal group size.
Remember this is 22 Rimfire. It is basically 1900s technology improved with slightly better aerodynamics. The bullet is a high BC lead slug. It is never going to be as accurate at 300 as a center fire PRS round.
All this is trying to say keep your expectations in check. There is Black Magic involved in long range 22LR shooting. We each will have our own opinions of how to get there.
Get good ammo, a great Barrel, a really good scope and a great rest and shoot a lot of rounds and you will find happiness, at least I do.
All this is trying to say keep your expectations in check. There is Black Magic involved in long range 22LR shooting. We each will have our own opinions of how to get there.
Get good ammo, a great Barrel, a really good scope and a great rest and shoot a lot of rounds and you will find happiness, at least I do.
Bryan Litz coveres tuners pretty extensively (1,000's of rounds fired) in Modern advancements for long range shooting, Science of Accuracy even has the video of their findings.
#55 - Barrel Tuner Testing - The Science of Accuracy
Barrel Tuner Testing-do they or don't they work? Listen in as Bryan and the Applied Ballistics team discuss the rigorous testing and results.
thescienceofaccuracy.com
The Hornady guys have also done large scale (1,000's of rounds fired) sampling and found nothing.
Can you present anything like the above that tuners work?
As I said I follow the winners, not sure what Hornady has to do with anything, and I wouldn’t trust/believe them and the others are good. I know they worked for me about 75% of the time, didn’t hurt me too much the rest of the time. As I have said at least twice in this thread, it is impossible prove or disprove to someone else. I know that in BR the winners use them and most of the non-winners do as well. To each their own, they will shrink my vertical dispersion in half.
No actually it’s not that difficult to prove if they work or not….. it’s not like they are some kind of magical mechanical device. There’s always the “well this very particular setup might work” but litz tested 3 rifles I think. Hornady did their test and RAD has done several. Same conclusions….. I’m also not sure why so many people hate on hornady. From what I’ve seen it’s all boomers who didn’t listen to what they said and just write it off as hornady wants us to buy more bullets blah blah blah
Interesting information in those videos above. Also talked about plastic and elastic round deformation that I find very intriguing.
No tuner on hand but I was itching to try some eley. Conclusion is that it’s no good for my rifle. Only shot at 100 yds with 30 rounds each. None grouped as well as CX and closing the bolt was tough enough to let me know I could never run it in a match. Buddie brought his MTR and had the same lower grouping performance experience. His MTR loves SK LR.
No tuner on hand but I was itching to try some eley. Conclusion is that it’s no good for my rifle. Only shot at 100 yds with 30 rounds each. None grouped as well as CX and closing the bolt was tough enough to let me know I could never run it in a match. Buddie brought his MTR and had the same lower grouping performance experience. His MTR loves SK LR.
No, it's actually fairly straight forward to prove or disprove the concept, and the tuner myth has been thouroughly debunked by multiple large scale tests.
Convincing the close minded, superstitious tuner zealots that they have been swindled by cheap charlatans is the impossibility.
You "follow the winners", so you are easily mislead by peer pressure? How long ago was it that all of the "winners" fanatically proclaimed the earth was the centre of the universe, or that heavier than air flight was an impossibility?
Multiple large scale tests prove .22LR tuners don't work?
Litz's .22LR tuner testing was reported in his book Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting, Vol. III. The .22LR testing was seriously flawed. It was based on unreliable ammo, SK Long Range Match, an entry level target ammo. All bets for reliable and repeatable results are off with less than dependably consistent ammo.
The linked You Tube video seems to be focussed on centerfire, so it's much less relevant.
On the other hand, there are well-regarded studies which support and demonstrate the efficacy of tuners with .22LR. The fact is that positive compensation is real, and tuners can be utilized to achieve it.
See, for example, the work of Geoffrey Kolbe, who is not a charlatan.
http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/velocity_dispersion.htm
Of course, if tuners work only by positive compensation, once a tuner setting is established at a particular distance it is ostensibly good only for that distance. This has implications for using tuners at a variety of distances.
Litz also did tests with centerfire cartridges…. Are you saying using the same tuner on rimfire and centerfire is different? Same physics apply….. and are you also saying litz is a charlatan? Lol
