impossible, according to the 2-3 people in here telling us nobody in competition uses it.
- Thread starter eric1911
- Start date
- Status
And if you're using a mass-produced rifle, none of that applies.
Its impossible this may help?
I know exponentially more guys shooting an off the shelf rifle (Or barreled action) in a chassis, than I do who have a barrel blank turned by a gunsmith.
Additionally, since covid, a box or 2 of whatever grain you want (or what brand), of ammo, is essentially non-existent. For those that dont load, quality match ammo comes and goes in different brands and grains, so you buy what you can in bulk. The barrel tuner helps in that case too, if you get a grain or brand that simply isnt shooting well through your non custom rifle.
If I knew more guys who were serious competitors maybe that would be different. But you're confusing a niche audience (this website) and the higher concentration of guys who shoot competitively here, as the norm of the overall community of bolt action or even long range guys.
The majority of people I talk to (even at my private gun club) think anything after 100 yards is long range
Last edited:
I think Im missing a photo of the first sheet?
EC tuner brake
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...
www.snipershide.com Post # 513
I'm unconvinced that tuners are going to make a rifle with poorly suited ammo shoot better. But I'm open to the idea, I'm still waiting for data that makes that compelling story. Before our discipline "discovered" tuners, no other centerfire discipline was using tuners for this purpose, but maybe there's something to it.
I also think the average shooter, the one in your example, doesn't usually have the skillset nor the knowledge to properly use a tuner. For most people, its another variable that can be pretty confusing to interpret. Alex Wheeler recommends his clients to shoot out at least 1-2 barrels in competition before even adding a tuner to the equation, and even our fearless leader here Frank seemed confused from the results of his tuner experiment.
Personally, I think the utility and practicality of tuners is really overstated in our discipline, and the conclusions many gather from their very limited datasets aren't really there in actuality.
No, you can't use a Led Sled as a test unless you intend to shoot the rifle like that on an ongoing basis.
This will change the rifle recoil movement which, depending upon the weight of the rifle, could & probably will effect the fundamental characteristics during firing.
Don’t forward circular arguments. Do you think that the results of an extensive lead sled test would not be valid in when extended to a non-mechanical test? I didn’t read anywhere that it was a recommended way to tune the rifle to a person, just as a method to remove as many variables as is possible.
But then I guess all of those ammunition and factory rifle/gear testers, that are testing their ammo, firearms and gear using test fixtures, are wasting their time. If that makes their tests invalid as soon as a person picks up the firearm, then we might have a problem.
Just so there are no mistakes, the shots I posted are test shots not groups to measure my abilities.
They were shot in the best test environment I have available to eliminate as many variables as I can.
My testing so far has been bench at 50 yards indoors on heavy sand bags.
Dillon reloads with their standard powder drop on my self built ar with a 20 inch Ballistic Advantage barrel. (approximately $ 250 barrel)
I don't have an agenda.
They were shot in the best test environment I have available to eliminate as many variables as I can.
My testing so far has been bench at 50 yards indoors on heavy sand bags.
Dillon reloads with their standard powder drop on my self built ar with a 20 inch Ballistic Advantage barrel. (approximately $ 250 barrel)
I don't have an agenda.
I wouldn’t say that a person can gain anything over a well tuned handload but I would say that you can achieve the same results quicker with less components, with a good tuner. And like I said before, though it may be very slight, it’s very helpful to adjust for environmental changes. It’s like having the ability to change your seating depth ever so slightly. At least that’s what I’ve experienced. There’s really no reason to try and sell the success of a tuner to anyone for me but I do find it interesting that theres even an argument that they work and for myself,
I find it’s always good to keep an open mind and never stop learning.
I find it’s always good to keep an open mind and never stop learning.
The person you're quoting is just an upset man-child. He's been using the same circular argument since this thread originally started.
At one point in the discussion about barrel tuners, he tried to personally discredit me by saying that one cannot have a valid opinion on a product you dont own, eluding to another post on the Hide, regarding a scope, then ran off with his tail tucked between his legs, when I posted a photo of that exact scope, in my possession.
Since then, he still has not actually tried a barrel tuner (its been 6+ months now), yet continues to come in here to argue about them.
Imagine an educated individual trying to debate any product's effectiveness, and arguing against the use of devices that eliminate variables that would make test results less accurate. Only a butt-hurt child, who was embarrassed by their own assumptive stupidity, holding a grudge against a complete stranger, would continue to argue that position over half a year later.
Last edited:
I think they're missing context from the original target post and the one posted on page 12, need to see them side by side to see what setting #2 did for the groups.
...you do you Snuby642, no need to placate any on here. If it worked for you, that's good enough. I for one appreciate you sharing your experience. Ultimately it will always come down to the individual shooters desire and objectives that work for THEM and only thru trial & error testing they conduct with THEIR equipment. Within every persons posted experience there are nuggets of beneficial info if one views it with an open mind.
I just picked up an ATS from the PX to play with. Not expecting a dramatic difference since I’m shooting factory loads right now, just always wanted to try one.
You will be pleasantly surprised.
Who said anything about it being invalid. It would be valid if you used a sled all the time.
It's a known phenomenon that different shooting positions change POI & cone of accuracy.
I would never use a Led Sled for that reason. What good is it to test something like a tuner which is thought to be sensitive to barrel vibration in equipment which will completely change the rifle harmonics?
It's good to keep an open mind but, not gaping though.
A gaping mind is a bit like a gaping asshole, takes everything that's shoved up it & covers everything with shit.
I think you have me confused with someone else.
I've never argued that tuners don't work. All I've said & will continue to say is that I haven't seen statistically relevant test results to conclude that they do work.
Everyone has an agenda.
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
No, I’m not backpedaling. You’re not keeping up with two lines of thought.
1: most people aren’t able to exploit the performance increase (if any) of many of the things discussed. Be it tuners or things like primer seating. Be it do to shooter or rifle or ammo.
2: fixtures actually hurt your case. When testing is done in fixtures the groups size of most loads is still larger and encompasses the movement of the POI. This in turn forces much larger sample sizes to be tested, as when fixtures are used, only the very, very best ammo on the planet holds group size and POI small enough to differentiate the signal from the noise with smaller sample sizes.
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
There’s pro football players that don’t change their socks on a winning streak. Doesn’t mean it works.
I have tuners on most barrels. Cause why not. As well as I know Erik personally and support him.
But that doesn’t mean I’m not 100% completely aware that we don’t understand as much about “harmonics” as we like to think.
Last edited:
....not necessarily a good analogy considering that the human mind is capable of receiving an almost immeasurable amount of data/input and deciphering it to come to a conclusion. Even more remarkable is the human mind's flexibility and capability to modify previously made conclusion when new data or perspectives are attained.
And with the above quoted words lay the dilemma.
The conclusion is usually the problem.
Testing of anything requires boundaries of physics, logic, reason & truth or, for those who don't understand, you simply employ intuition, emotion, pier pressure or ignorance which is, pretty much the product of the tuner testing we've seen so far.
At some point you should decide which side of the fence you want to be on in the discussion. Posting that you know Eric personally doesnt invalidate the performance of the tuner, nor your opinion on it, nor does it at all remove bias from your opinion. I can say I personally know and support anyone. Who's to prove me wrong?
There's plenty of members who personally know and support Frank, but a lot less of them who endorse (Or have even tried) the AP SH rifle. You knowing someone doesnt magically mean anything.
So which one is it you're going to stick to? Most people wont see the effects of it because they aren't pro shooters or there's not enough testing to see the effect of it?
Because if its the former, that can be applied to match ammo, high quality glass, or any other higher end gear, and if its the latter, then you (and anyone else here who's against the product) still havent come to an agreement on whats considered a valid sample size.
You're going in circles, and using false analogies by the boatload at this point. The argument was that "no one" uses a tuner in competition. Multiple people here who compete have posted that they do in fact use them, and have witnessed others using them. Thats a pretty simple thing.
So now you're jumping all over the place, back to arguing the effect of them, but still cant explain what would be a valid test would be.
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/tuners-and-barrel-harmonics.7011299/ This has been beat to death, and lets try to ignore the obvious bias and financial interest you have against it, if you're in the ammo industry, a product that allows people to primarily shoot factory ammo better (your competitors product), is obviously not a product that is complimentary to you.
If you genuinely believe that barrel tuners dont affect barrel harmonics, then you might as well be sitting here and arguing that the earth is flat, and expecting the rest of us to take you seriously.
Varmint Al's Site Map
www.varmintal.comwww.varmintal.com
There's plenty of scientific research on the effect of barrel tuners already out there, if you stop burying your head in the ground and pretending it doesnt exist.
Finally, with all the talk of "scientific method" by you previously, your biggest point was that you have tuners on some rifles, and some are set to zero, while others are not. Thats about as unscientific as it gets. You posted nothing to support how you got to that setting, other than your personal opinion.
Sorry if the rest of us who have seen them work aren't interested in entertaining your opinion on the subject any longer, in spite of MOUNTAINS of data and evidence that literally shows that you're wrong..
Last edited:
Lapua Performance Center https://www.capstonepg.com/rpc/
Eley Customer Test Center https://www.killoughshootingsports.com/content/6-eley-range
Please give Lapua and Eley a ring and let them know that fixtures hurt their testing methodology and that its only accurate for the "Very Best ammo on the planet"
Record it for us too.
i thought they would?
Ive seen the groups most guys shoot at the ranges Ive been to. Plenty cannot group 22LR at 50 yards.
Mechanical devices (like Lead Sleds) have been a staple of removing shooter abilities from testing equations for a long time, for a reason.
I'll take Lapua or Eley's data on ammo performance out of a rifle over the guys who blame things like the time of day on their inconsistent shooting abilities at 100 yards, or shoot CCI standard and never even try another brand because someone on the internet told them its the best.
A stock or a chassis on a 22LR shouldnt affect your accuracy or POI shift, unless 1 of 3 things are happening.
1. your action screw torque isnt to spec.
2. your ergonomics are off resulting in poor shooting ability from you
3. the chassis/stock is poorly designed and affects barrel harmonics by touching the barrel where it shouldnt be touched.
All of the above items are independent of any accuracy potential on the action (which is what needs testing).
If your stock doesnt fit you, thats not Lapua's fault (or concern), nor does it invalidate their testing.
Last edited:
You have some data to support those group sizes, or should we just take your word for it, like some of the other guys in this thread?
I never said that the test center will outperform all humans, I said that the mechanical device removes the variable of the shooter's abilities (or lack thereof).
its very possible you'll get better groups after, its also very possible you wont.
Some of the people who post here seem to believe that because they personally saw something happen once, it invalidates everything else anyone else has ever seen or documented. I once saw a Bald Eagle near Detroit, based on that, therefore, bald eagles must now live in all large automotive metropolitan areas, right?
If the test centers were such hot garbage, why would they still exist..? You think a bunch of people who are spending the time and energy sending out their rifles, then spending their money buying a bulk lot or brick of match ammo, are happy with 3/4" groups, and would stay silent about it after? I guess you havent seen much of the internet.
@Feniks Technologies
Tell you what if you will donate ? 60 223 rounds that will run in an ar preferably near the 52g bullets I used I would be happy to run the exact same test.
I would expect that they run my plinkers in the ground.
It would be easy enough to see if it looked like I was shanking any on purpose . That would just make me look bad.
In fact I think if I can show better results with your ammo it would benefit us both.
Tell you what if you will donate ? 60 223 rounds that will run in an ar preferably near the 52g bullets I used I would be happy to run the exact same test.
I would expect that they run my plinkers in the ground.
It would be easy enough to see if it looked like I was shanking any on purpose . That would just make me look bad.
In fact I think if I can show better results with your ammo it would benefit us both.
Ill second that. Send me some half decent 6.5 creedmoor and I will record on video the entire test process, so there's no doubt about what was and was not done. If the tuner truly delivers "random" results, and lacks repeatability, I'll pay you for the ammo you wasted.
If you dont believe the data that already exists on the subject, put your money where your mouth is and contribute to the testing process.
I dont need to be convinced of something that I own. If it didnt work, I would have boxed it up and returned it to Erik cortina, but I'll gladly help you get that data once you have some skin in the game.
I agree 100%. I actually brought an old lot of center X I had to test and it didn’t test well and I took it home and shoot it and shot it better than the test tunnel.
Did they provide any followup on that? I havent tested mine (was planning on it) but would be pretty unhappy with that.
Also had no clue you could supply your own ammo.
I used to use a lead sled.
I started using calibers that were less brutal and learned to shoot better in the process.
I think sleds don't recoil the same as a body and effect performance and poi.
Test barrels in a fixture are a different breed.
Imho
I started using calibers that were less brutal and learned to shoot better in the process.
I think sleds don't recoil the same as a body and effect performance and poi.
Test barrels in a fixture are a different breed.
Imho
No I never worried about it enough to ask.
We were driving up anyways so I figured I would bring it and try some on the vise.
The person behind Feniks Technology would defend tuners much like you and others currently are.
It's interesting to see how his opinion has evolved through his own testing and the testing conducted by the likes of Applied Ballistics.
I hope the alluded to testing of tuners by AB becomes public.
Sorry, english isn't my native language, but I speak 4 in total pretty fluently. As part of that process, I'll revise a lot of what I write because it doesn't sound grammatically accurate, and the numerous iphone auto-corrects don't help either.
Whats your excuse for thinking that "talking" (as opposed to writing) is what happens when you push buttons? Were you slow since birth, or just became this way over time?
All I asked for is data to support your claim that test centers result in 19mm groups often.
If that equates to a "black hole" in your mind, then I guess a discussion where actual results are compared, is probably above the mental gymnastics you're currently capable of.
Maybe a coloring book and crayons or a pop up book are more your speed?
I'll leave this one unedited just for you, so you can sound out every word, slowly, to understand it better, and not get it confused with a black hole again.
You should call up lapua and tell them everything they are doing at the test center is wrong. Locking an action into a vise is not the same as shooting so everyone is wasting their time and money. Let us know what kind of response you get. Thanks,
I suggested the same exact thing. I would like a recording too.
Always amazed by how many experts we have on here, who know more than the the industry experts, on just about every subject known to shooting.
I'm sorry you took it that way.
So if the industry leaders in ballistics determined through extensive testing that tuners don't work like you think they do, would you believe them or would you just be another self-proclaimed SH expert?
This refers to 0.22 ammo testing.
Totally different kettle of fish.
I would absolutely believe them. Which is why I searched out that kind of testing specifically before buying one. Im not pretending to be an expert here. I own the product and it works exactly as described.
Maybe you need to ask yourself the same question, instead of being so asinine? Why is it that despite seeing data, you still seem to think that you know something no one else does?
Here's Gavin, Im sure you've seen the ultimate reloader channel once or twice, testing this product.
Those who have actually tested it seem to get consistently similar results to what they describe in the video. Have ammo thats not optimal? Run through the steps until the groups shrink. Lock it in.
They also mention using it in PRS matches. But you know, the 2-3 experts we have in here are convinced they're not used in competition either.
They are testing .22 ammo. No recoil force to consider so it shouldn't matter.
Different story with centrefire rifles.
We're not using a radio, this isn't the military, and you sound outdated "AF", even with using "subtle flex".
Also, why do you keep trying to change the subject instead of just presenting the data that supports your wild claim about the rimfire testing centers?
Is your weak attempt at personal attacks the only thing you can think of, since you got called out for saying something that you obviously cannot substantiate with data?
Also, I edited this a few times extra, just for you, since its gotten your panties in such a bunch that you might need some yeast infection medication after.
cheers.
Let's not get so sensitive.
This is a good discussion, why ruin it with hurt feelings?
If you believe a tuner works for you, use it and be happy. You shouldn't feel obligated to prove anything about it to anyone else.
Being skeptical is healthy if you don't let it take over and preconceive your notions.
But what do I know? I don't use a tuner myself. . .
Carry on.
This is a good discussion, why ruin it with hurt feelings?
If you believe a tuner works for you, use it and be happy. You shouldn't feel obligated to prove anything about it to anyone else.
Being skeptical is healthy if you don't let it take over and preconceive your notions.
But what do I know? I don't use a tuner myself. . .
Carry on.
Damn you just edited again to add additional thoughts
Slow down little fella.
Im sorry if you cant keep up, champ.
I'll try to use smaller words and shorter sentences just for you. Maybe a picture would help?
I'll check that video out.
But lets keep the following in mind:
- Prior to these products coming into PRS circles, tuners (which have been used for decades), were never used in centerfire rifles to make a rifle more precise. The disciplines that have a long experience with tuners (benchrest and F-class) DO NOT use tuners for this purpose. This is an unprecedented claim. I think on this premise alone, it's more than okay to be skeptical about tuners and this new prescribed use for them.
- If there is a benefit to tuners for this prescribed purpose, its likely very marginal. Even Frank here was confused to the results of his tuner testing, and he's obviously a very experienced shooter, an expert on shooting in his own right. Alex Wheeler of benchrest fame tells his clients (he builds world record setting BR guns), that they should shoot at least 1-2 barrels out in competition before adding a tuner into the mix. Why? Because they are another variable, one that can be very confusing to interpret. Even very seasoned and skilled shooters have a hard time interpreting and understanding tuners.
- A sample size of 2-3 for testing is statistically irrelevant. That's just noise. That applies to anything. Yet somehow, reloaders and shooters think that statistics doesn't matter when it comes bullet seating depths, charge weights and tuners.
- All the public testing done to date is statistically irrelevant. Most of it is anecdotal garbage, if we are being honest. I've yet to see a compelling data set that demonstrates that tuners work for the purposes that are being described in this thread. Most of the "data" presented is about as relevant as the "satterlee method" 10-shot ladder.
I own a tuner, btw, and I have done my own limited testing with it. To be fair, I need to test it more. But in the ~60 or so rounds I shot through a tuner, I haven't seen any compelling data that makes me think it "works" like how some like yourself on here state. I do believe in barrel harmonics, I do believe that perhaps they do have some use for benchrest and F-class, how minute that is (and lets not forget different than the prescribed use here). I'm open to the fact that they may help factory ammo that isn't optimized to your rifle to shoot better, but I've yet to see a compelling data set that demonstrates that.
lmao...ultimate reloader youtube channel...industry expert...jfc...
Same ole, same ole.
They have no clue of statistical relevance.
Three shot group.....change. Another 3 shot group............change.
Just another irrelevant test.
- Status
