- Thread starter Taylorbok
- Start date
My take away FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, not the video is this.
Groups (generally) are improved by way or minimising fliers. If you have a 4 shot .25moa group, and the 5th on opens it to 0.6moa, you get pissy and think you pulled it.
My experience of shooting 5x5shot groups is the fliers tend to be better. Still exist, but bring the group to 0.4 / 0.5 moa in this example.
It tames the wild ones, but does not much of anything to 80% of your shots.
This is my, and many of my customers experience. Im NOT saying hornady, or anyone else is wrong, im not saying im right, im just stating my (very limited) knowledge on them... plus my several hundred customers who report back.
I honestly think the cartridge has more to do with it than most. Know how some rounds just rattle the teeth out of your head, but others seem "soft" ? Powder charge, velo, bullet weight (TKO) etc.
Also, chassis VS stock... im gonna suggest theres a difference.
Groups (generally) are improved by way or minimising fliers. If you have a 4 shot .25moa group, and the 5th on opens it to 0.6moa, you get pissy and think you pulled it.
My experience of shooting 5x5shot groups is the fliers tend to be better. Still exist, but bring the group to 0.4 / 0.5 moa in this example.
It tames the wild ones, but does not much of anything to 80% of your shots.
This is my, and many of my customers experience. Im NOT saying hornady, or anyone else is wrong, im not saying im right, im just stating my (very limited) knowledge on them... plus my several hundred customers who report back.
I honestly think the cartridge has more to do with it than most. Know how some rounds just rattle the teeth out of your head, but others seem "soft" ? Powder charge, velo, bullet weight (TKO) etc.
Also, chassis VS stock... im gonna suggest theres a difference.
I bought one of Erik's first production tuners and my PRS scores improved... someday I will get around to installing it.
I watched the podcast twice. One thing Seth did say was that while they had these dispersions and did not find the tuner to add anything more effective to the job than even a suppressor would, it may boil down to placebo. If the euipment makes you competent and you perform better feelng good about the rig, so be it. Which falls in line with, it is almost always the shooter that needs adjustment.
Then ammo.
Last is the rifle unless something is just dangling off or moving all over.
Then ammo.
Last is the rifle unless something is just dangling off or moving all over.
For those without a sense of humor, this is an archery stabilizer attatched to the muzzle brake with bailing wire.
I figure it will reduce groups from 3 moa to .3 moa.
I figure it will reduce groups from 3 moa to .3 moa.
LMAOThey wouldn't work with free-float handguards, but the adjustable Tac Sac handguard tuner has been around for a few years.
.jpg)
Just a random thought but if you already did a decent job of load development, wouldn’t you have already reduced the effect of barrel whiplash? (Mental image: Indiana Jones and his whip)
In that case I could see that the effect of a barrel tuner would be minimal. Apply the dispersion reduction to the pattern of 100 shots and I could definitely see why it would be described as only affecting one or 2 shots out of 5.
In that case I could see that the effect of a barrel tuner would be minimal. Apply the dispersion reduction to the pattern of 100 shots and I could definitely see why it would be described as only affecting one or 2 shots out of 5.
That’s the funny part of all this stuff
It’s been says that seating depth has to do with vibration/harmonics but no one has definitive data on it
Guys will say they do…but the only video anyone has seen in the last 10 years is the Litz video that doesn’t show much of any movement.
The more we all argue and talk about all this stuff…the more it becomes quality components and build, load to the kernel and magically everything shoots the same.
The rest is lost in wash after 2000 rounds
Well, it makes sense that seating depth, and to a lesser degree charge weight, would affect the timing of the bullet relative to ignition and exit of the barrel. The imagined Indiana Jones whip action is, of course, hugely exaggerated and a bit funny. Harmonics, I am convinced, actually exists, as that is what makes a bell ring. Setting off a small explosion inside good quality steel is bound to be similar to striking the barrel with a hammer, specially when the bullet is ejected from the cartridge and strikes the lands.
There is just a very small effect that likely results in a difference of likely less than half an moa (as a guess lol)
I have been experimenting with software that can, ostensibly, predict the needed timing provided all the inputs are appropriate. No conclusions yet, not enough shooting time invested.
Anyways, I find the whole harmonic timing subject fascinating.
Indeed! I have been using hBn on my bullets the last few years. I do not have an adequate way to measure the neck tension and the difference the coating makes. Otherwise, I do love the coating as I am convinced it produces less friction and deposits in the barrel. Of course, objective data is not available just my own experience.
While there's definite benefits to be had with neck turning (depending on your situation), concentricity isn't really one of them. It's been tested to death. Runout really doesn't matter.
The freebore of a chamber is generally in the area of .0005" clearance around the bullet. It's almost impossible to have ammo concentric enough that the bullet doesn't touch the wall of the freebore. So, it doesn't matter if it's .001 or .010 runout.....the bullet will be forced back inline. Otherwise it wouldn't be able to chamber.
Every time it's tested, sometimes in double digits of runout....no one has been able to shoot the difference.
"Harmonics" in the pure definition of the word absolutely exist. Everything vibrates.
The question is, 1) does that matter and 2) if it does matter, can we actually exploit it?
There's a lot of stars that have to align for all this to work consistently:
- Barrels/rifles have to react/vibrate almost the exact same way every single shot
- Our reloading process has to be almost exactly the same every round
- The components we use (brass, bullets, powder, primer, etc) have to be close to the same from part to part
All of those things have to *all* be in place before we can even begin to tune/tame the harmonics.
Now we have to be able to test in such a way that we are able to have a high degree of confidence that the changes we are making to our ammo are actually changing something. Which is much, much harder to achieve than most anyone gives credit for. And you have to do it without burning your barrel out firing enough rounds. Which is also hard to do as you really need larger sample sizes.
Just those things above have to all be in agreement before you even start testing. And then you have to figure out a recipe combination that is able to take advantage of vibrations so small they can't be (according to proponents) seen on cameras recording an extremely high frame rate.
And, all of that has to happen in someone's garage or backyard in their spare time. It's a monumental feet when you actually consider what people are claiming they are able to do.
Most people aren't able to even produce data that is worthwhile. For example in the pics I'm attaching, there is the chrono numbers for 5 shots on 5 different charge weights of powder. Which is a very common method people use for load development. It seems fairly clear that two of those charge weights are better than the other.
However, all 5 of those charge weights have the exact same Standard Deviation over a 100 shot sample. The 5 shot velocities were chosen at random from each 100 shot string. So, in reality, all 5 charge weights perform the *exact* same. However, the "data" collected via a common load development method shows otherwise.
This means that we are now using incorrect data before we even move into seating depth, tuners, harmonics....etc, etc.
Theres your problem...
*smirk*
Neck turning may not provide perfect concentricity. And without the fine print, this is part of the errors shown in the Hornady podcasts about group sizes and SD, etc. Even if you have the premium parts and can guarantee only the minimum of warp in the bore itself, you can have these misalignment problems in the brass. Even center of gravity in the bullet due to variances in mass distribution.
I tend to believe that errors in PoI are in this order, highest to lowest.
1. shooter
2. ammunition
3. rifle and associated gear
1: shooter.
2: shooter technique.
3: more shooter.
4: shooters best mate.
5: ammunition which shooter loaded.
6: factory ammumition
7: shooter.
8: rifle and associated gear.
2: shooter technique.
3: more shooter.
4: shooters best mate.
5: ammunition which shooter loaded.
6: factory ammumition
7: shooter.
8: rifle and associated gear.
I might put factory ammo at the end
9 of 10 people can’t beat FGMM..and many actually admit they they are still trying to equal it
Hell, You can chamber a barrel with a railroad spike, put 308 FGM and it’ll shoot .7 or better out of a crappy Remington with 8 pound trigger
Yeah, ill actually agree with you. I did that to poke fun at everyone.
Fgmm is good. I honestly believe you could chamber an old rusty water pipe, scrub it with a brush, and go shoot top level matches. Provising the shooter doesnt do typical shooter mistakes.
Here in Australia we have a bunch of shooters who perform top end with factory. Isnt that right @96C ? Hornady superformance 6cm from memory.
Fgmm is good. I honestly believe you could chamber an old rusty water pipe, scrub it with a brush, and go shoot top level matches. Provising the shooter doesnt do typical shooter mistakes.
Here in Australia we have a bunch of shooters who perform top end with factory. Isnt that right @96C ? Hornady superformance 6cm from memory.
My single biggest issue with tuners is trying to establish a base line. Really need to shoot 500 rounds on a barrel, then repeat with a tuner to find a load, and shoot 500 rounds. Now your barrel is NOT in the same condition.
YEs barrels last beyond 1500+ rounds, but you would need to repeat the process on multiple types of barrels.. contours, lengths, cromo vs stainless ?? Who knows.
Im not sure tuners will ever be fully caregorised (proven yes or no, with repeatable results, peer reviewed) in my life time.
YEs barrels last beyond 1500+ rounds, but you would need to repeat the process on multiple types of barrels.. contours, lengths, cromo vs stainless ?? Who knows.
Im not sure tuners will ever be fully caregorised (proven yes or no, with repeatable results, peer reviewed) in my life time.
There's a few guys shooting box ammo well, I didn't have time to do brass prep for thousands of rounds a year... Shot Hornady 6.5mm CM 140gr Match for the first 3 years then half a season of 6CM 108gr Match. Took a few podiums with it, ES was maybe 40-60fps, easily grouping .5-.75MOA which was fine for PRS, sometimes better with prefit steel & carbon barrels.
You did the concentricity and runout tests on the 6.5CM ammo in Monarto and choked, it was the most out of whack ammo on the line for the weekend from memory!
Getting ES / SD down was the biggest drive to handload.
For those who dont know, we match sponsored an even, and i took a 21st cent concentricity gauge and a seating depth digital gauge. Tested 58 shooters, only 2 people wouldnt let it happen because they are sooks.
5 random rounds, on video, and written down. Spin test and seating avg test. VERY interesting results.
5 random rounds, on video, and written down. Spin test and seating avg test. VERY interesting results.
Results…you leave us with that.
That’s like watching boobs on a scrambled cable box
That’s like watching boobs on a scrambled cable box
It's interesting that everyone alway puts gear at the bottom, but many are also tuner proponents (not singling anyone out at all). Which is almost at odds with one another. People make claims of being able to shoot the difference in almost microscopic things such as seating depth in .003 increments. The difference between .001 and .005 concentricity. Primer seating depth. Turning a weight 1/8 of a turn....etc, etc.
But then always start or finish with "but everything is mainly the shooter." While an on overwhelming majority of shooters have never even taken a formal class.
So, you basically end up with everyone claiming its the Indian not the arrow, but then spending all their time fondling the arrow.
But then always start or finish with "but everything is mainly the shooter." While an on overwhelming majority of shooters have never even taken a formal class.
So, you basically end up with everyone claiming its the Indian not the arrow, but then spending all their time fondling the arrow.
I know one thing, when I use a “field bag,” the groups are less precise than a benchrest bag. I can’t think of a single benchrest shooter that would use a field bag in competition. Because the gear matters a lot.
Summary: i found ZERO correlation between accuracy of ammo compared to placed results in a match. One of the worst placed decently, and the 2 equal best ammo, one placed well (top12 ??) And the other was quite low.Results…you leave us with that.
That’s like watching boobs on a scrambled cable box
The rest was super spread out.
I wanted to get those 5 shots thru a chrono onto a 100m target, and also note data.. Friday practice could have worked, but forgot the tools. I may revisit this.
Agreed. I always find it interesting when watching a YouTube video of someone claiming they can see the difference in a very small variation of ammo, but at the same time they are using a bipod up front and a game changer in the rear.
Use a tuner
Don’t use a tuner
Your choice
I’ve grown weary of the debate
Don’t use a tuner
Your choice
I’ve grown weary of the debate
So have I but it’s just so fun when everyone goes ballistic.
Tired of reading about TT vs SB or why a savage is as good as a AI
It also lets me learn who is bat shit crazy so I know not to take “advice” from their posts
Funny I was gonna go buy a Savage. Not because its as good as an AI, but because it about as good as I feel my skill is right now.
Charge weight has a much larger affect on overall action time compared to seating depth - the depth will have a marginal difference to variation in charge weight, and subsequent time to burn out, peak pressure, velocity etc.
The above being said, seating depth continues to be one of the more important, and controllable aspects (along with charge weight) in reloading, and obviously can have an impact on how the projectile enters the bore - whether that induces balloting or other accuracy degrading components in the relationship between the bore and the projectile or not.
You'll see resultant accuracy issues with larger velocity spreads (charge weight comparatively to seating depth) because the action time, and especially the distance of the bullet travelled in bore vs time (the direct component of slower or faster velocity) affects where the barrel is pointing -- the harmonics / vibrations, at shot exit.
This is not to say you're objectively wrong by any stretch, fine tuning seating depth absolutely has an impact on accuracy, but I don't think it's fair to claim that seating depth has nearly as much an impact on action time compared to charge weight, all things being equal.
I made the assumption that the handloader had achieved reasonable consistency with his charges. That being the case then variation should be small and achieving the correct seating depth would be next.
I agree that the charge weight will produce the largest variation in results if not consistent and in control. I go to ridiculous lengths lol
Factor: Tuner setting
Factor Level: tuner setting A and tuner setting B.
Observations: Not randomized. Strings were shot at two different periods.
Response: Group size.
Runs: 1
Experimental Error: Cannot estimate when Run = 1.
Nice groups though.
Exactly, let the FDA or DEA come and look at potency /run = less than three and less than 3 techs and they will be a recall by the end of the day.
…I make “pills”
Asks scientist to explain anecdotal data.......par for course.
Your more correct than you actually knowCDC & WHO dgaf though
CDC is “legit” but their job is to live in fear and be overly cautions.
WHO is run by the highest bidder, they really don’t create science they just choose what scientists to quote
That’s a nice discussion.
Erik needs to load a ton of ammo, have someone else randomly mix it in a metaphorical hat, and use his gun in a machine rest while changing tuner settings. For days.
Or if the idea is a man needs to be part of the system to test it, then ideally that man should neither be allowed to know the tuner setting nor see the effect downrange during the test.
The more we can remove a particular man out of the system the more interesting the results will be. To me, anyways.
That's what I understand of the scientific method, as well. And Seth did end with a comment that there can be a placebo effect. If you, as the shooter, believe in your gear and are confident with it, you may shoot well regardless of the other data that shows no difference in grouping performance other than any weight hanging on the end seems to help.
With the Hornady data, they have no dog in the fight, merely trying to document the results they get. The best results from science involve the least amount of confirmation bias.
Exactly this.
Perfect explanation of what is needed... and what will NEVER happen.
Is this topic as controversial as whether velocity flat spots exist during load development?
Doesn’t exist. I may release a paper as to why people think they’re observing “velocity” nodes.
The problem is that just like Litz, they keep using the same flawed method of testing by having a device that has as many 50 or more settings and only using 3 or 4 of those settings in their test and then proclaiming the device doesn't work....That's the same logic as using seating depth variations of every .020" and being baffled why you can't seem to find any nodes that group well.....
