EC tuner brake

[kthomas]

Might need one to keep it a .25 MOA in all conditions.

It doesn't change near as much as you suggest.

You are making statements suggesting that precision changes as much as 50-100% or more due to environmentals, which is simply not true.

Bench rest shooters use tuners to keep their rifles agging in the 0's and 10's, not to prevent their rifle from opening up by 50-100+%.

Bench rest shooters also do their load work independently of a tuner, as they know that a tuner does not make their reloads more precise. Tuners are also very finicky and hard to truly understand, and people such as Alex Wheeler tells his clients to shoot out at least a barrel or two in bench rest comp without using a tuner. He does this because he understands that ballistics are very multi factoral, and you need to have an excellent grasp of it before you even start adding another variable into play. What's even more interesting is that too bench rest shooters don't even agree on how a tuner works and should he used. That's a big rabbit hole in itself.

A tuner does not make a gun more precise, with the exception of having the potential to make ammo that's sub optimal for your rifle and chamber more optimal, like factory ammo (in some cases).

What bench rest shooters are using tuners for (accounting for very fine adjustments as environmentals change ballistics) is not really applicable to our style of shooting, and not a great example to use to sell the benefit of tuners to our general shooting demographics.

 

[Snuby642]

Starting at zero for ocw?

I'm thinking to start load test with tuner set at 5 and once powder charge is settled go back to start at zero on the tuner.

Scope problems on one gun and barrel problem on another have slowed my roll.

Theoretically there is one gun left but the "wait on Christmas" mandate was in effect and the range crowded with new toys and shooters.

Local kids go back to school Wednesday so range will be better for testing groups with less distractions.

 

[BoltRunner]

Most people either don’t have or aren’t capable of sub .5 moa.

Especially with bipod and rear squeeze bag.


Everyone says “I shoot .25 when I do my part” or “all day everyday.” And that’s just not reality.

Most who claim it never seem to be able to produce it consistently and on demand.

Well yeah... It's really easy for guys to get on the internet and tell everyone how big of a badass they are and then not be able to reproduce it... Everyone is an expert on everything on the internet didn't you know that

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Starting at zero gives you only one direction to travel.

In theory, it will open and close groups like seating depth. So no need to start out further and move in.

You can start wherever you want. It’s just more to keep up with starting further out and possibly moving back in.

 

[Mute]

Can you reference

Yeah, theres an exemption form you can fill out that allows out of state residents to bring suppressors if traveling to an organized shooting event inside the state.

You have more rights here than actual residents.

Other than certain FFL, LEO, or IDGAF. But I wouldnt know anything about that.

Can you reference the form number or the exemption in the penal codes for this? I have never heard of this exemption for CA ever.

 

[gnochi]

Can you reference

Can you reference the form number or the exemption in the penal codes for this? I have never heard of this exemption for CA ever.

I’m digging and I’m not seeing it. Cal PC 33410 is pretty clear on the exemptions to the restriction on possession/etc.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

Can you reference

Can you reference the form number or the exemption in the penal codes for this? I have never heard of this exemption for CA ever.

Sorry, I've looked and cant find it. I remember it was detailed as side note to out of state travelers as part of one of those ironman/shooting competitions held at a National Guard base in central California. You had to fill out forms of your itinerary and send it to multiple agencies. Could only travel to and from lodging to event, etc. I lived in CA so it wasnt relevant to me at the time.

 

[Leadrain22]

It doesn't change near as much as you suggest.

You are making statements suggesting that precision changes as much as 50-100% or more due to environmentals, which is simply not true.

Bench rest shooters use tuners to keep their rifles agging in the 0's and 10's, not to prevent their rifle from opening up by 50-100+%.

Bench rest shooters also do their load work independently of a tuner, as they know that a tuner does not make their reloads more precise. Tuners are also very finicky and hard to truly understand, and people such as Alex Wheeler tells his clients to shoot out at least a barrel or two in bench rest comp without using a tuner. He does this because he understands that ballistics are very multi factoral, and you need to have an excellent grasp of it before you even start adding another variable into play. What's even more interesting is that too bench rest shooters don't even agree on how a tuner works and should he used. That's a big rabbit hole in itself.

A tuner does not make a gun more precise, with the exception of having the potential to make ammo that's sub optimal for your rifle and chamber more optimal, like factory ammo (in some cases).

What bench rest shooters are using tuners for (accounting for very fine adjustments as environmentals change ballistics) is not really applicable to our style of shooting, and not a great example to use to sell the benefit of tuners to our general shooting demographics.

I never stated as fact that a tuner would improve your groups by any specific amount. I used a generic MOA as an example.

Whatever the improvement is, it's an improvement. If you're a Northern shooter that travels to (example) Arizona or Florida for a match. You could benefit from a tuner, If you're a weekend fare weather warrior that only shoots at his home range. (Mostly the same condition) You're not going to see the benefits of a tuner.

If you could maximize the performance of your rig at any of the locations you compete at, why wouldn't you. Even if it's a .1 of an inch tighter?
I dont see a disadvantage of having one, I'll take all the help I can get.

For the amount of money we spend on these rigs. I dont see why not spend a few buck over the cost of a plain Jane muzzle brake and buy a tuner with a brake. Buy a brake with the option to fine tune your load.

 

[Rob01]

For the amount of money we spend on these rigs. I dont see why not spend a few buck over the cost of a plain Jane muzzle brake and buy a tuner with a brake. Buy a brake with the option to fine tune your load.

Or buy the ATS tuner and use whatever brake you want with it. Not stuck with one brake. Or use a suppressor.

 

[kthomas]

I never stated as fact that a tuner would improve your groups by any specific amount. I used a generic MOA as an example.

Whatever the improvement is, it's an improvement. If you're a Northern shooter that travels to (example) Arizona or Florida for a match. You could benefit from a tuner, If you're a weekend fare weather warrior that only shoots at his home range. (Mostly the same condition) You're not going to see the benefits of a tuner.

If you could maximize the performance of your rig at any of the locations you compete at, why wouldn't you. Even if it's a .1 of an inch tighter?
I dont see a disadvantage of having one, I'll take all the help I can get.

For the amount of money we spend on these rigs. I dont see why not spend a few buck over the cost of a plain Jane muzzle brake and buy a tuner with a brake. Buy a brake with the option to fine tune your load.

Spending the time and resources to retune your rifle at each new location to tighten it up a tenth of an MOA or less, especially when there are other factors that will have a much bigger impact on your ability to score, is a pretty silly use of a tuner.

And yes, there certainly is disadvantages to tuners, just like anything else. To suggest otherwise just shows a lack of understanding of the subject.

Anyways, I'm not going to debate this further, silly to do so in this thread. Let's just be honest about the utility and limitations of tuners.

 

[Snuby642]

So got to run the EC Tuner Brake today.

This was with my carbine plinkers that I loaded a lot of.

Brand new 20 inch Ballistic Advantage barrel. Two shot test per setting is all you need unless you shank one.

On sheet one I put two center high and right then dialed in.
Started on zero in the center.
Numbers correspond to tuner setting.

I kept it to the zero to 10 and two shots since this is also barrel break in. I could change tuner setting with bare hand (quickly).

You can see the pattern change from horizontal to vertical on subsequent settings and I will bet rounder in between but didn't want to heat it up too much yet.

Set it on #2 for second sheet and let a couple or RSO's shoot top spots and I took center.

Recoil and muzzle flip were mitigated well but I need to re-time it slightly. One thing supprised me was it was the quietest brake I own. It's a 30 cal brake with an adapter on the 223.

Also on this build used a Breek Arms handgaurd and ambidextrous charging handle that worked well. The first charging handle may have got bent in shipping but thier customer service team took care of that promptly with a replacement so I will be doing more buisiness with them. Thier barrel nut does not have the gas tube going through it and that is nice.

 

[2aBaC̶a̶]

So are you sold?

 

[AleksanderSuave]

Now you must have each of those RSOs shoot the entire tuner test and share their targets too, so that internet trolls who will never buy one, still won’t be 100% convinced.

 

[Snuby642]

Yes those 31 shots sold me.
It worked exactly as E C said it would.

In fact when doing ocw tests in 0.3 grain incraments the pattern changes for me exactly the same as the one full # setting on the tuner.

I can't wait to try the marked half settings and maybe split those if I can hold that tolerance on good days.

Best group those plinkers ever saw was 0.8, 5 shot group on my best day and were set up for a 16 inch barrel.

Those are 52g speer in gfl range pickup brass with 27.5g cfe223. Nothing special about them and produced on a dillon.

I'll shoot actual groups when broke in.

 

[AleksanderSuave]

I’m just trying to figure out how a “blind shooter” test would work. If the results were too good. They could be fake. If they were inconsistent, they could similarly be faked.

Strap a GoPro to your head and film from start to finish and then they’ll accuse you of doctoring the video too.

 

[Snuby642]

Well my small sample test with an unbroken (new) barrel was not how I intended to test.

My carbine is in sick bay so I decided to finish this 20 inch upper build.

I like E C's videos and he comes off as a genuine guy, have not met him.

 

[Packfan]

I ran across this thread doing some research on tuners. I have a new .223 bolt gun I am debating adding a brake to. Some members suggested a tuner as the gun seems to shoot marginally better groups with the Mageneto Speed attached to the bare barrel. That said, the EC tuner-brake could be the best of both worlds for me.

I have a little experience with tuner-brakes as I have an older Browning A-Bolt .300 WM with the BOSS (Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System). The BOSS was designed to optimize factory ammo and it works quite well in my experience. My gun came with a ported attachment that also works as a brake and a non-ported CR (conventional recoil) attachment that provides only tuning.

Browning provided recommended starting settings for popular factory loads and the process to optimize was EXACTLY what has been described here- shoot 2-3 shot groups above and below the recommended setting to zero in on a sweet spot. It was pretty obvious where to find the "node" as it took my rifle from 2 MOA out of the box and made it sub MOA. I even stopped reloading .300 WM as I could not consistently beat factory Federal Premium 180 grain Nosler Partitions or Accubonds with the Boss.

I don't understand what the debate is and why any additional "testing" is required to prove tuners are effective. History has already spoken.

 

[kthomas]

I ran across this thread doing some research on tuners. I have a new .223 bolt gun I am debating adding a brake to. Some members suggested a tuner as the gun seems to shoot marginally better groups with the Mageneto Speed attached to the bare barrel. That said, the EC tuner-brake could be the best of both worlds for me.

I have a little experience with tuner-brakes as I have an older Browning A-Bolt .300 WM with the BOSS (Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System). The BOSS was designed to optimize factory ammo and it works quite well in my experience. My gun came with a ported attachment that also works as a brake and a non-ported CR (conventional recoil) attachment that provides only tuning.

Browning provided recommended starting settings for popular factory loads and the process to optimize was EXACTLY what has been described here- shoot 2-3 shot groups above and below the recommended setting to zero in on a sweet spot. It was pretty obvious where to find the "node" as it took my rifle from 2 MOA out of the box and made it sub MOA. I even stopped reloading .300 WM as I could not consistently beat factory Federal Premium 180 grain Nosler Partitions or Accubonds with the Boss.

I don't understand what the debate is and why any additional "testing" is required to prove tuners are effective. History has already spoken.

Because 2-3 shots is statistically irrelevant.

But apparently statistics doesn't matter when it comes to ES/SD and tuners

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I ran across this thread doing some research on tuners. I have a new .223 bolt gun I am debating adding a brake to. Some members suggested a tuner as the gun seems to shoot marginally better groups with the Mageneto Speed attached to the bare barrel. That said, the EC tuner-brake could be the best of both worlds for me.

I have a little experience with tuner-brakes as I have an older Browning A-Bolt .300 WM with the BOSS (Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System). The BOSS was designed to optimize factory ammo and it works quite well in my experience. My gun came with a ported attachment that also works as a brake and a non-ported CR (conventional recoil) attachment that provides only tuning.

Browning provided recommended starting settings for popular factory loads and the process to optimize was EXACTLY what has been described here- shoot 2-3 shot groups above and below the recommended setting to zero in on a sweet spot. It was pretty obvious where to find the "node" as it took my rifle from 2 MOA out of the box and made it sub MOA. I even stopped reloading .300 WM as I could not consistently beat factory Federal Premium 180 grain Nosler Partitions or Accubonds with the Boss.

I don't understand what the debate is and why any additional "testing" is required to prove tuners are effective. History has already spoken.

Because history hasn’t spoken.

Full disclaimer. I run Erik’s tuners. Sometimes I’ve used them and other barrels it’s sat in zero setting the entire life of the barrel.

But, I can’t tell you they absolutely work the way we think they do. There’s a lot more than meets the eye with a ton of this stuff.

 

[kthomas]

Not even the benchrest crowd can agree on how to properly use a tuner, and that discipline has been using them to varying degrees for decades. Though they do all essentially agree though that a tuner won't make your rifle and reloads more accurate (keep in mind this is for reloads).

I even saw a world record benchrest shooter argue with a tuner manufacturer on how a tuner should be used. That in itself was pretty telling.

There still appears to be a lot of voodoo and lore around tuners, what they accomplish and how they accomplish it.

My mind is open in regards to tuners, but the data sets that get presented to promote/advocate for tuners are very uncompelling and unconvincing. Frank has an article somewhere on the site about his experience with a tuner, and even he seemed confused as to the process and what the results were.

I also have a prototype tuner/brake from one of the bigger companies that I've tested for myself, so I do have personal experience. It did not make my reloads shoot any better. I haven't tested with factory ammo, and there may be some merit for that use. But shooting 2-3 rounds per setting is definitely not going to get you to the most optimal position, not unless you run into it by blind, dumb luck. That's about as statistically relevant as the "satterlee method" for reloading.

 

[Snuby642]

I had a hell of a time getting my EC tuner brake perfectly level yesterday.

After the first day shooting it on a new barrel I noticed it was clocked slightly off . Maybe 5-10 degrees at the most.

I bought a new better level and checked everything. Took a lot of attempts but now it's squared up.

I'm fixing to buy more of them.

Shooting suppressed helped my shooting, the tuner brake did more.

 

[kthomas]

I had a hell of a time getting my EC tuner brake perfectly level yesterday.

After the first day shooting it on a new barrel I noticed it was clocked slightly off . Maybe 5-10 degrees at the most.

I bought a new better level and checked everything. Took a lot of attempts but now it's squared up.

I'm fixing to buy more of them.

Shooting suppressed helped my shooting, the tuner brake did more.

Out of curiosity, what about the tuner brake made you shoot better than with a suppressor? Was it the brake portion and the recoil mitigation, or the actual tuner settings?

 

[Snuby642]

Because history hasn’t spoken.

Full disclaimer. I run Erik’s tuners. Sometimes I’ve used them and other barrels it’s sat in zero setting the entire life of the barrel.

But, I can’t tell you they absolutely work the way we think they do. There’s a lot more than meets the eye with a ton of this stuff.

That has to be the stupidest post on this thread.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

That has to be the stupidest post on this thread.

Feel free to link an article or test that explains exactly how tuners work that isn’t completely theoretical.

 

[Packfan]

Agreed that 3 shots is not statistically relevant in and of itself, but MANY 3 shot strings to find the sweet spot and HUNDREDS of rounds fired at that setting (and others) is. I tried every factory load available at the time (remember when ammo was readily available) and none came close to the optimized settings I landed on. As always, YMMV.

I am not saying tuners are the answer for every rifle or barrel, but my experience optimizing factory ammo with a hunting grade rifle was favorable. That said, if reloading, a finely tuned load development process may be tough to improve upon and a physical tuner may not amount to much. The "history" I referred to is the fact that tuners are far from a new technology and the existence and success of the BOSS, Eric's tuner, and many others is an indication there are benefits for some shooters.

 

[Snuby642]

You have barrels that you left the tuner setting on zero the life of the barrel? No ammo testing, no throat erosion no environmental changes?

Things the tuner brake can help with.

Since your selling ammo I expected a little more than that from your post as to how adjustments did not help.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

You have barrels that you left the tuner setting on zero the life of the barrel? No ammo testing, no throat erosion no environmental changes?

Things the tuner brake can help with.

Since your selling ammo I expected a little more than that from your post as to how adjustments did not help.

The ammo shot well enough I didn’t need to use the tuner.

The 2019 NRL series points winner never adjusted his powder charge or seating depth for 6+ barrels. Loaded the exact same load over and over. No tuner, nothing.

It happens. If my velocity numbers are tight, and the rifle’s precision is still acceptable, then why would I “tune” something that’s working?

 

[Snuby642]

So the tuner is for decoration then.
Nice.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

So the tuner is for decoration then.
Nice.

It’s almost no cost to me once I own the tuners. So, it goes on there.

No different than having a 35x or 40x power optic and not running it over 25x.

I have a gamer plate in my bag I rarely use too. Doesn’t mean they don’t work. I just don’t always find a need for them.

Tuners however are still in the area of not being completely fleshed out testing wise. And likely won’t be for quite a while. There’s almost zero ROI for testing them to the standard that would be required to work it all out. Just money flushed down the toilet.

AB has been testing them. And the results relayed to me at the last conversation a few months back……the results weren’t even close to as black and white as “it works or it doesn’t”.

 

[Snuby642]

Not everyone is running the same standards of gear.

This skews results.

You developed ammo with the tuner set at zero (which I think is a mistake) and then did no testing after that to conclude the tuner wouldn't be of benifit?

Not a fair assessment of the situation at all. By your own admission you don't know the effects on your own ammo.

When you placed the tuner on your barrel it skewed your results to work with a tuner, set at zero you developed the load to your satisfaction and stopped the test prematurely.

Why would you go by results someone else did when you have the item allready installed?

Is there a conflict of interest going on?

 

[Feniks Technologies]

Not everyone is running the same standards of gear.

This skews results.

You developed ammo with the tuner set at zero (which I think is a mistake) and then did no testing after that to conclude the tuner wouldn't be of benifit?

Not a fair assessment of the situation at all. By your own admission you don't know the effects on your own ammo.

When you placed the tuner on your barrel it skewed your results to work with a tuner, set at zero you developed the load to your satisfaction and stopped the test prematurely.

Why would you go by results someone else did when you have the item allready installed?

Is there a conflict of interest going on?

It seems you’ve completely taken the conversation to somewhere different. I never said I was testing the tuner.

I said that some rifles I use it and some I don’t. That was simply to say that I’m not bashing tuners as I use them at times. That even though I use them, I completely understand that we as a community don’t know everything about them yet. As we are continually learning.

Different rifles and different disciplines have different precision requirements. If I have a rifle with a tuner set on zero and it shoots well under what I’m looking for, I don’t continue as my work is done. Could the tuner on the barrel be part of the cause of that? Of course. But I’m not even remotely debating if it did or didn’t have an edfect

Why would I trust a company like AB’s testing? Well, I know their protocols and dedication to learning, so that’s part of it. They also have doppler radar that we don’t currently have.

My post you started with had zero to do with testing tuners. It was a simple statement that we as a community don’t know everything about them. Hell, currently the only actual work done on barrel harmonics is purely theoretical. All of varmint Al’s and other pages people like to link are just theoretical simulations of a theory. They aren’t actual measurements taken. In the first paragraph of the tuner testing on Al’s page it clearly says this how a tuner “might” affect the barrel.

We are a long way from fully understanding many of the things people assume or take for granted as fact. Keeping an open mind and continually improving testing is how we advance.

 

[Barelstroker]

I am not saying tuners are the answer for every rifle or barrel, but my experience optimizing factory ammo with a hunting grade rifle was favorable.

And herein lies the dilemma Packfan.
We hear all the time of guys "testing" loads, projectiles, powders, dies, annealing, you name it. The issue is the definition of "testing" or "favourable"
I'm not saying that you haven't tested properly however, your definition of "favourable" may not be statistically adequate, favourable or not.

 

[Snuby642]

I don't have theories, I have photographs, results of shots on paper. Lab radar does not measure group size.

I will have more. A picture is worth a thousand theories.
Most would not have problems understanding them.

I haven't measured groups yet since I have not yet shot one.

We will see Tuesday if remove and reinstall of the tuner brake is repeatable since I had it on the barrel a few degrees off horizontal.

Shouldn't take long to zero in and maybe test 11-20 settings and a couple of groups if I'm shooting decent.

I want to start a fresh load with some common components and try a variation on EC's instructions on a hunch.

So far everything he has said has proven out.

 

[Barelstroker]

I don't have theories, I have photographs, results of shots on paper. Lab radar does not measure group size.

I will have more. A picture is worth a thousand theories.
Most would not have problems understanding them.

I haven't measured groups yet since I have not yet shot one.

We will see Tuesday if remove and reinstall of the tuner brake is repeatable since I had it on the barrel a few degrees off horizontal.

Shouldn't take long to zero in and maybe test 11-20 settings and a couple of groups if I'm shooting decent.

I want to start a fresh load with some common components and try a variation on EC's instructions on a hunch.

So far everything he has said has proven out.

Results of what though Snuby?
As I've stated before on this thread, tuners may well work as advertised but, there's no way in this universe that 2 or 3 shots groups at different settings will tell you anything other than what you want it to tell you.
It isn't only about good groups either. Two or three shot groups could just as easily cause you to abandon an otherwise potentially excellent tuner setting because one shot enlarged the group more than you liked. Small sample sizes can work either way & often do.
A 2 or 3 shot group is virtually no indicator at all. Not to mention the fact that should you choose a setting from a 2 or 3 shot group & load 10 as proof, the 10 shot group will 100% of the time be larger than the initial group you chose. What then?
Do you abandon the setting & move on?
I'm unsure as to what you guys are expecting & what you think the outcome will be.

 

[iceng]

That's about as statistically relevant as the "satterlee method" for reloading.

Ohhhh spicy.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I don't have theories, I have photographs, results of shots on paper. Lab radar does not measure group size.

I will have more. A picture is worth a thousand theories.
Most would not have problems understanding them.

I haven't measured groups yet since I have not yet shot one.

We will see Tuesday if remove and reinstall of the tuner brake is repeatable since I had it on the barrel a few degrees off horizontal.

Shouldn't take long to zero in and maybe test 11-20 settings and a couple of groups if I'm shooting decent.

I want to start a fresh load with some common components and try a variation on EC's instructions on a hunch.

So far everything he has said has proven out.

Oh it’s still theory. As far as why/how it works. Just because you know the end result doesn’t mean you know how you got there.

It also doesn’t mean anything unless it’s absolutely repeatable. Which would mean statistically confident groups shot day in and day out.

You’ll find that your group size and precision of the rifle system will be much larger than you think if you test this properly.

So, unless you’re planning on burning out a barrel or three, it’s not going to mean much. At least nothing more than anecdotal.

 

[Feniks Technologies]

I also said “doppler” not a Labradar.

AB is looking at the entire picture. Velocity, group size, and the entire trajectory of the projectile.

 

[Snuby642]

Your form of testing is of no practical advantage to the real world.

The device could not be much simpler to operate and understand.

The only people that need more testing to the degree you claim someone else is doing are just here for the argument .

When developing your loads do you test till several barrels have been shot out like you say is necessary? Maybe you should follow your own exaggerated requirements.

Or as I suspect, test till results can be skewed to show the results that fit your narrative.

Do your own test and publish the results because till you do your input is not useful.

 

[bbhank]

Wouldnt it make sense that load development and The EC Tuner Brake do the same thing. I would think that if you are using factory ammo the tuner would dial in any off the shelf ammo. but is it realistic to think that if you develop a load that shoots .25MOA that a Tuner brake would make it .125MOA.

 

[kthomas]

Your form of testing is of no practical advantage to the real world.

The device could not be much simpler to operate and understand.

The only people that need more testing to the degree you claim someone else is doing are just here for the argument .

When developing your loads do you test till several barrels have been shot out like you say is necessary? Maybe you should follow your own exaggerated requirements.

Or as I suspect, test till results can be skewed to show the results that fit your narrative.

Do your own test and publish the results because till you do your input is not useful.

You can believe anything you want with small sample sizes.

If you shoot 2-3 shot groups testing tuner settings, and find a few settings that produce better groups than others, then it's pretty easy to fool/convince yourself that you made your rifle more precise through the tuner. Same thing with the Satterlee method. It's easy to convince yourself that you found a velocity "node" when you only shoot a ladder with a sample size of one per charge weight. And unless you test further, you could be convinced for years that you have the most optimum load from an ES/SD standpoint due to those small sample sizes. Having good quality components and reloading equipment makes the illusion that much stronger.

As reloaders, we put way too much weight into "tests" conducted with small sample sizes. I've done lots of "testing" with my 6BRA, and I've come to find out that there is no unicorn bullet seating depth for the most optimum precision, and I can throw almost any charge weight (within reason) and have nearly identical performance.

I've come to learn that our rifles aren't near as picky with bullet seating depths as we can make it out to be, nor is it picky about charge weights. What's most important is consistency - throwing the same amount of powder each time, consistently sizing the brass, consistently seating the bullets. Using good quality components and consistently reloading matters way more than being 10 or 20 thou off the lands, or having your tuner on 'setting 3' versus 'setting 7'.

 

[kthomas]

Wouldnt it make sense that load development and The EC Tuner Brake do the same thing. I would think that if you are using factory ammo the tuner would dial in any off the shelf ammo. but is it realistic to think that if you develop a load that shoots .25MOA that a Tuner brake would make it .125MOA.

A tuner won't make your reloads any more accurate/precise.

 

[Snuby642]

Would stand to figure that some call it diminishing results when groups are that tight to begin with.

I estimate at that point the shooters abilities are eating half of the result maybe more.

It is not that the tuner brake stops working it's the shooter and other uncontrollable .

Same with me.

 

[kthomas]

Would stand to figure that some call it diminishing results when groups are that tight to begin with.

I estimate at that point the shooters abilities are eating half of the result maybe more.

It is not that the tuner brake stops working it's the shooter and other uncontrollable .

Same with me.

That's why we need companies like AB to do such rigorous testing, because a lot of the results we are producing is just noise.

 

[Barelstroker]

The problem with a very small sample number is that there is no way to derive a statistically representative SD or, to know where on the gaussian curve a shot will originate from that curve. The gaussian distribution drives the position of each sample according to the true SD.
Sample number & SD are directly related. Both, a grossly small or large SD will be derived from small sample size because each shot of that small sample size has too large an impact on the mean from which the SD is derived.
Since most guys don't calculate the SD of their distribution, this has the effect of under or over exaggerating the results seen on the target.
To add to this, the way that the distribution is typically used is with a non symmetrical centre POI. This has the effect of shifting the distribution about a constantly moving axis within the gaussian distribution which is pushed & pulled from from the centre to the left & right tails without the gaussian distribution being adequately expressed. This is directly caused by the constant change in POI from the change in mass at the muzzle.
In other words, trying to find a statistically representative distribution within 3 shots with a constantly changing muzzle mass position is akin to a card counter trying to count cards when the pack is replaced after 3 cards are dealt.

 

[lash]

Tuners work, Patriot valley sell the kind that work with suppressor

Adaptive Tuning System by Kinetic Security Solutions

[email protected]

patriotvalleyarms.com

@Steel head ATS tuners have 3/4-24

That’s what I just purchased, an ATS. I got to see what it did for a few of the better PRS guys down here and was duly impressed. I ordered one that day.

@Barelstroker, I watched the before and after right there on the range. Three five shot groups before putting the tuner on. Then three five shot groups after putting the tuner on and adjusting it for the load. Big difference that was real.

I could give a shit about all of your babbling on about statistics and sample size etc. The results are real and measurable, but you should definitely all wait a year or two until someone has done full testing and published the results. I’ll use what I know works.

 

[Barelstroker]

That’s what I just purchased, an ATS. I got to see what it did got a few of the better PRS guys down here and was duly impressed. I ordered one that day.

What was the test that convinced you that they work?

 

[lash]

What was the test that convinced you that they work?

Please reread my post above. I was editing while you were posting above.

 

[kthomas]

That’s what I just purchased, an ATS. I got to see what it did for a few of the better PRS guys down here and was duly impressed. I ordered one that day.

@Barelstroker, I watched the before and after right there on the range. Three five shot groups before putting the tuner on. Then three five shot groups after putting the tuner on and adjusting it for the load. Big difference that was real.

I could give a shit about all of your babbling on about statistics and sample size etc. The results are real and measurable, but you should definitely all wait a year or two until someone has done full testing and published the results. I’ll use what I know works.

Why were they using a tuner? To optimize factory ammo?

 

[Packfan]

I could give a shit about all of your babbling on about statistics and sample size etc. The results are real and measurable, but you should definitely all wait a year or two until someone has done full testing and published the results. I’ll use what I know works.

For those that question there is no statistical benefit for them to use a tuner, the answer is pretty simple: don't use them!

I offered my many years of experience optimizing factory ammo with a tuner, based on hundreds of rounds downrange, and it was immediately dismissed as unacceptable and not statistically relevant.

I don't need to walk around the Earth to know that it is round. I accept the overwhelming evidence and experience of others that it is. Others may need to just start walking. Have at it.

Over and out.

 

[lash]

Why were they using a tuner? To optimize factory ammo?

No. It’s simple really, find a good load that is in a solid node for SD, charge and jump. That gives you a solid 1/2 MOA group. Test load at distances. Nice, right? Then use the tuner. Cut that group size by 30-50% (repeatable) in minutes. Test out to distances and tweak slightly if needed. Easy button. Who doesn’t want an easy button?

But frankly, I’m not here to sell these things. I hardly want them to go up in price and become unavailable. I really don’t think that anyone should buy one. It’s all just smoke and mirrors and nobody can shoot the difference anyway, right?