If we were to sit down at a bench and shoot my rifles I could demonstrate the effects in a few minutes with you shooting the gun would you accept that? Or would you say too small if a sample ?
- Thread starter category_theory
- Start date
- Status
If your testing is so compelling as to only take a few minutes, I question why you haven't already provided it.
I have as far as positive compensation and tuning , by way of graphs and target. Universal tuners I am still trying to dig up the tuner test results . But this was 2001 . Give me time I will find it . There were 3 points in testing . The first point was only tuner , second point was tuner combined with positive compensation , and last was all combined with bullet stabilization technology. The first results with the tuner only is what I am trying to find .
Again very simple to prove using a larger data sample. Why hasn't this been done? People would be much more open to learn something they don't understand with proven results. It shouldn't be that complicated to test but it seems to be avoided by everyone involved.
I should add , my style of fixed weight tuners I use now is the result of movable weight tuners which have only been used in Benchrest many years ago .but now once set I do not need to adjust anymore so there is no need for a movable weight .
Not trying to discount that but I sm not going to shoot 300 rounds to adjust the tuner. Or even 30 shot groups between adjustments because there is no need to . Large samples will only be done after the final setting to confirm but not to get the gun in tune .
If you look at all the posts here you see a couple shooters using tuners with some success.
You then see a few who tried a manufacturers tuner who didn't get it to work.
The next group has never used a tuner has never looked for any data online and yes it has been posted on this forum many times.
The last group is what we used to call window loicking short bus retards or wlsbr's. They want to take a factory Savage 338 add a tuner and shoot factory ammo into a national title by going on the internet.
As Tim posted you can shoot one of my rifles and it only takes a few moments to see 25 year old news.
With the internet the advances are coming even to states with Dorothy rubbing her ruby slippers and you will either run a tuner or get beat by a tuner equipped gun.
This forum and ELR shooting was headed in the right direction but with the rules and restrictions some of the sanctioning bodies imposed creativity and experimentation will only come from the most accurate disciplines and trickle down slowly to these posters.
I suggested this weeks ago but the bench was at litz’s place with tech. And crickets.
Offer still stands, I’ll pay for the rental if money is needed.
And as I said before, I really hope tuners work so reloading is faster, easier or not needed all in the future.
The benefit of tuners only pushes the sport /hobby forward for all which is a good thing.
Pick a few weekends and we can start the process.
So why wouldn't a manufacturer do this? There is no arguing it would improve sales with proof.
Tim
Lately I have been calculating the weight needed according to Calfee then after initial testing cutting the muzzle back 0.010 and retesting.to see if the groups like it or hate it.
They have . Just not as much shots as you want . We tuned a rimfire the other day in 1 adjustment . Went from 1.5 inch groups to one hole groups . Then confirmed it , does not happen much but it happens . Ask Bruce when you see him next time .
The nice thing about tuners is you can pick the velocity you want and tune the tuner to it . Can not do that without one .
Set it up and I will build the gun ,but we do it my way first with a correct premise , then Brian can do any test he wants after that providing we are just showing that the tuner will tune the gun , not make it better.
Id only hope so, that’s why I’d like to go and figure it out with tech so there is debate.
Like I said if Bryan approves it your good to go but if 1000 rimfire and benchrest shooters from the very same forum he posts on say otherwise you get banned and the thread is deleted.
Watch in the video when Cortina asks him about his guns groups. It was all Cortina could do to contain his laughter.
I'll reevaluate my position when more data is presented. To ask anyone to do otherwise is ludicrous.
brianf makes a fine deal. I'd make that deal, damn good deal.
brianf makes a fine deal. I'd make that deal, damn good deal.
Last edited:
Because 1000 BR shooters and Cortina are using a $600 chronograph.
Also, you guys used to hate on Cortina constantly on those other forums. Now magically, you’re using him as an example.
Mental Illness
Also, you guys used to hate on Cortina constantly on those other forums. Now magically, you’re using him as an example.
Mental Illness
Ok, let’s quick messing around.
If testing at Applied Ballistics (yes, Litz and AB, because they are the industry standard, whether we like or not) is conclusive and agreed upon by all parties…..
Our company will invest a minimum of $200,000 into the production, inventory, marketing, and distribution of any related products (including tuners).
We will split profits 50/50 with the party who brings the technology to the table.
There will be zero investment required on the other party. We will foot the entire bill. Including the Applied Ballistics Testing.
So, there it is…..screenshot it if you want. Get your data together and PM us.
Again, this is predicated on AB confirming the testing data is valid and in favor of the technology tested.
If testing at Applied Ballistics (yes, Litz and AB, because they are the industry standard, whether we like or not) is conclusive and agreed upon by all parties…..
Our company will invest a minimum of $200,000 into the production, inventory, marketing, and distribution of any related products (including tuners).
We will split profits 50/50 with the party who brings the technology to the table.
There will be zero investment required on the other party. We will foot the entire bill. Including the Applied Ballistics Testing.
So, there it is…..screenshot it if you want. Get your data together and PM us.
Again, this is predicated on AB confirming the testing data is valid and in favor of the technology tested.
Why didn't you document this? This would be a cheap an easy test. Go grab that same rifle and shoot ten groups "in tune" make your one adjustment and shoot ten more groups. This is all people keep asking for and why they get frustrated.
I've seen my cheap Savage shoot silly small groups then large ones with zero changes. The more rounds I've shot I realize this just happens and without repeated results it's just noise.
I’m truthfully confused…not joking
On the other thread the consensus was from yourself and Tim (main tuner proponents) said that tuners will not fix factory ammo.
Yet you saying that tuners work on rimfire which is factory ammo
Factory ammo: can’t change seating depth, charge etc
So logically if what you say is correct tuners should work on factory center fire ammo but you say it doesn’t
???
Then you have not controlled the variables . Most likely something changed . So find it and correct it , eliminate the noise , don’t just blame it on noise and call it unfixable or standard distribution . Use flags and I garrantee that noise can go away at 100 yards , use front and rear bags , use a concrete table , control the variables .
I was about to reply and say someone is absolutely going to just say you didn’t test correctly. Without showing any of their statistically significant data testing.
It’s the flat earth strategy. All their testing is perfect regardless how bad. All your testing, no matter how significant, is never good enough.
Dude is talking about bags and a concrete table. Again, back to using equipment that cost pennies to invalidate testing using millions of dollars of equipment.
Tuners do no fix bad seating depth , there a a few factors involved with factory ammo that could prevent the tuner from fixing it . Bad bullets , light of uneven neck tension , but if that is all good then the tuner can fix it . It could be all of the above . Well eliminate the variables , it is always trial and error . It is just a machine man and you should know that.
So you're saying my $250 Savage rifle is a 1/8 moa rifle? How can I pickup my custom rifle and shoot consistent size groups. It's definitely not my rear bag or lack of wind flag. That's just silly
That is real testing , controlling the variables , why can you not see that ?
This is a big part of what I don't understand from the tuner advocates.
The messaging on what they can and can't do is so inconsistent. Ask 10 different tuner manufacturers and shooters on what they can do, and you get 10 different answers.
There's seemingly no real consensus on what they can and can't do, and how they work. Hence why some call them a "black art".
The issue is that there's a lot of variables that can't be controlled - such as atmospheric conditions.
And variables that can only be controlled to a certain degree of precision (such as many parts of the reloading process).
What funny here is you are saying your gun shoots big groups one minute and small the next , do you realize how weird that sounds ? That is silly .lol
Then bring your proof to a real testing facility where they don’t use flags. They use lidar for wind.
We’ll foot the bill and pay for your product/technology to be developed and sold. You claim to want to monetize via contracts.
So, let’s make some money. It’s literally a free roll for you.
We take your wind flags and sand bags, put them through rigorous testing with real equipment. Then you’re getting paid for your product and work.
Definitely people would argue but we don't even have something this simple.
With these claimed results of 1.5 inch to one hole groups, it would be extremely easy to send that barrel action to Lapua, where they could lock it in there vise used for testing. Same lot of ammo and shoot 25 groups of each. It would be extremely hard to argue with that dramatic of a result.
LOL, no….this isn’t real testing. This is someone outside with wind flags and a sandbag.
Oh I agree. His claims of 100fps compensation @ 1k yds would be insanely easy to prove.
P
effecting variables can be controlled , , that is real testing .
Dude you have no clue .
Hey now, that's how I did my testing.
Although I had to lay on the ground because I didn't have a concrete bench. That's probably why my tuner doesn't work. I'll add that to the list...
Lapua has done testing with tuners and rimfires. I think there's threads about it in the rimfire section.
From what I remember, the results from their tuners are inconsistent, at best. I think the rimfire crowds excuse is that internal ballistics from a vice doesn't translate to shooting with inputs from a shooter
They can be controlled - to a certain degree.
A reaction of a rifle system is so sensitive to change . Solidity is paramount to insure the dynamics do not change .for instance , rubber feet on a bipod can cause issues with vertical . A wood shooting bench can cause pc to disappear . You guys test with those ?Hey now, that's how I did my testing.
Although I had to lay on the ground because I didn't have a concrete bench. That's probably why my tuner doesn't work. I'll add that to the list...
Lapua takes the action out if the stock and bolts it in to a fixture . That changes the reaction of the system . It is great for determining random dispersion but not tuners which rely on the weight offset to bend the barrel on recoil.Lapua has done testing with tuners and rimfires. I think there's threads about it in the rimfire section.
From what I remember, the results from their tuners are inconsistent, at best. I think the rimfire crowds excuse is that internal ballistics from a vice doesn't translate to shooting with inputs from a shooter
No man it happens all the time when you don't cherry pick results. Jaclyn and I each shot close to 10,000 rounds of bolt gun ammo one year at the peak of our PRS shooting. Anyone that tells you your rifle will shoot the same every time is lying. Sure with a better barrel, gunsmith and components you can shrink the dispersion but it's still there.
Try a different weight bullet then test your tuner again , your bullet could be exiting at a point in which the barrel is not bending .Hey now, that's how I did my testing.
Although I had to lay on the ground because I didn't have a concrete bench. That's probably why my tuner doesn't work. I'll add that to the list...
I’m willing to put up at least $200,000 to be shown a clue…..
My point is something was different , so find out why .
Right.
Which is how some participants in this thread suggest that is how you should test a tuner properly.
Which goes to my point about how inconsistent the tuner advocates are. There's no consensus.
I tried your test. I ran it three times. There was never a statistically significant difference at any reasonable p level. You can hide behind "your testing flawed, my testing is perfect" all you want. Take brianf or Rio's deal. You won't, because either you can't guarantee it, or the effect is so small it's washed out with rubber bipod feet.
You just strawman and ad hominem your way out of addressing any dissenting view or providing any proofs at all.
- Status
