- Thread starter eric1911
- Start date
- Status
The reason why people bring up statistics and sample sizes is because some of us have found in our own reloading experience that small sample sizes can lead you to conclusions that aren't necessarily correct.
I've learned that myself through many years of reloading. What conclusions I may draw from smaller data sets (~30-60 shots) turn out to be untrue when I do further exploration over hundreds and thousands of rounds over different conditions.
I don't think anyone here is saying that tuners "don't work", nor does anyone here have anything against tuners or want the claims to not be true. They obviously have some utility, and have been in use for decades by some disciplines. There's no discounting that. But some of the claims being made about tuners here are dubious at best in the absence of quality data, and there's good reason to remain skeptical.
Anyways, I personally have no dog in the fight. I do find the topic particularly interesting however. I myself have a tuner, but so far have found the utility and practicality of such a device to be very limited, especially with reloads. I hope to do my own testing with factory ammo, shooting hundreds of rounds over many months and collecting my own data. I have a 6.5 Creedmoor barrel that has a chamber cut for reloaded 140 Berger Hybrids, and lots of Hornady (AMAX, ELD-M) and Prime ammo that I could test with.
Anyways, I'm heading back into the shadows, but watching with interest. Nothing against those with tuners and those that feel they work (which they obviously do to some extent). If it works for you, then keep doing what you are doing. Nothing what I say or anyone else says invalidates anyone's own experience or results. But sometimes we like to attribute results falsely to certain factors, when using limited data sets (I myself have certainly been guilty of this).
I've learned that myself through many years of reloading. What conclusions I may draw from smaller data sets (~30-60 shots) turn out to be untrue when I do further exploration over hundreds and thousands of rounds over different conditions.
I don't think anyone here is saying that tuners "don't work", nor does anyone here have anything against tuners or want the claims to not be true. They obviously have some utility, and have been in use for decades by some disciplines. There's no discounting that. But some of the claims being made about tuners here are dubious at best in the absence of quality data, and there's good reason to remain skeptical.
Anyways, I personally have no dog in the fight. I do find the topic particularly interesting however. I myself have a tuner, but so far have found the utility and practicality of such a device to be very limited, especially with reloads. I hope to do my own testing with factory ammo, shooting hundreds of rounds over many months and collecting my own data. I have a 6.5 Creedmoor barrel that has a chamber cut for reloaded 140 Berger Hybrids, and lots of Hornady (AMAX, ELD-M) and Prime ammo that I could test with.
Anyways, I'm heading back into the shadows, but watching with interest. Nothing against those with tuners and those that feel they work (which they obviously do to some extent). If it works for you, then keep doing what you are doing. Nothing what I say or anyone else says invalidates anyone's own experience or results. But sometimes we like to attribute results falsely to certain factors, when using limited data sets (I myself have certainly been guilty of this).
Haha, it really is like pulling teeth in this place.
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Actually, not even close.
The issue is, no one has even done the bare minimum testing to back up their theories/opinions.
It’s not a coincidence that everyone uses low round count testing and/or didn’t record their tests. And this is not relegated to tuners. It’s applicable to everything.
There’s two main reasons low round count “tests” are so prominent:
- longer term testing almost always shows nothing definitive. This is with most everything in life. There is far, far more noise than signal. So, small sample sizes look good as that’s usually the only way to show any difference.
- humans like for everything to mean something. We do not handle the unknown well at all. We dislike it so much, we will fill in blanks with illogical assumptions because our brain feels better with any answer (no matter how absurd) than having to walk around not knowing. Or not feeling in control.
The hard fact is, most things in life are far, far more random than we like to admit. Doing so would he admitting that we aren’t as unique as we like to think and that not everything means something.
No one ever learned anything blindly believing. A healthy does of logical skepticism is what keeps an industry moving forward.
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Now that we have things more setup, here is a test we will run. As long as nothing else comes up more important, we’ll attempt to have this done within a couple weeks a post data.
Please leave any feedback of something you don’t agree with, want changes, or added.
- Action: Ruckus
-Barrel: Bartlein MTU 6gt. ~ 200 rounds on barrel
- Stock: Foundation Centurion with 3” BR bag rider on front
-Optic: gen 2 razor + trigger cam
-Trigger: diamond single stage.
- Rest: SEB Neo + TBD rear bag
Ammo:
-brass: one fired Hornady
-powder: 33.3 gr varget from v4
-primer: cci 450
-bullet: Berger 109
-jump: .030 (may do a seating depth test, but likely just go with .030)
Tuner and Brake:
APA Fat Bastard
ATS tuner
Distance will be 300 just to make things easier to visualize.
Protocols:
Barrel will be cleaned and fouled.
With brake and no tuner installed we will fire 30 rounds. Each round will be 1min apart.
POI in reference to POA will be documented.
Install tuner and follow ATS instructions @ 300yds. Determine which setting and set the tuner.
Fire 30 rounds with 1min intervals.
Document
Remove brake and tuner. Reinstall without changing the setting.
Another 30 rounds.
Concerns that will be hard to control:
-continue fouling
-throat erosion
-lighting/mirage/environment
However, these are all things one would see in a typical one or two day match shooting up to 300rnds before cleaning or testing for load tweaks.
If this test shows a exploitable increase in performance, we will move onto things like testing in different environments than tuner was set and other such things.
Everything will be purchased at retail. We will have zero to gain from any of this monetarily speaking.
Please leave any feedback of something you don’t agree with, want changes, or added.
- Action: Ruckus
-Barrel: Bartlein MTU 6gt. ~ 200 rounds on barrel
- Stock: Foundation Centurion with 3” BR bag rider on front
-Optic: gen 2 razor + trigger cam
-Trigger: diamond single stage.
- Rest: SEB Neo + TBD rear bag
Ammo:
-brass: one fired Hornady
-powder: 33.3 gr varget from v4
-primer: cci 450
-bullet: Berger 109
-jump: .030 (may do a seating depth test, but likely just go with .030)
Tuner and Brake:
APA Fat Bastard
ATS tuner
Distance will be 300 just to make things easier to visualize.
Protocols:
Barrel will be cleaned and fouled.
With brake and no tuner installed we will fire 30 rounds. Each round will be 1min apart.
POI in reference to POA will be documented.
Install tuner and follow ATS instructions @ 300yds. Determine which setting and set the tuner.
Fire 30 rounds with 1min intervals.
Document
Remove brake and tuner. Reinstall without changing the setting.
Another 30 rounds.
Concerns that will be hard to control:
-continue fouling
-throat erosion
-lighting/mirage/environment
However, these are all things one would see in a typical one or two day match shooting up to 300rnds before cleaning or testing for load tweaks.
If this test shows a exploitable increase in performance, we will move onto things like testing in different environments than tuner was set and other such things.
Everything will be purchased at retail. We will have zero to gain from any of this monetarily speaking.
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
On a separate day we will at 100yds:
Go through a tuner test per the instructions.
We will do this 5 times to start. And compare the tests.
In theory, the 5 tests should show a very similar pattern.
If the 5 tests show a pattern, we will continue tests until each setting has a minimum of 20 rounds.
Assess for consistent POI vs POA + group dispersion.
Go through a tuner test per the instructions.
We will do this 5 times to start. And compare the tests.
In theory, the 5 tests should show a very similar pattern.
If the 5 tests show a pattern, we will continue tests until each setting has a minimum of 20 rounds.
Assess for consistent POI vs POA + group dispersion.
I was voted "worlds best dad" last year at fathers day. Voted on by my kids. It was unanimous !. I even got presented a new covfefe mug !
This is what tuners are. They are accurate to you, at that exact moment in time. Nothing else matters at that point in time either.
I relate it to a customer i had. Older gentleman, super nice guy. Hadnt shot in 30 years. Now retired (engineer of some sort) and was going to set the world on fire with reloading. "Its a formula you see. The volume of a case, the length of a barrel, and the projectile weight. Im going to make the best loads and sell the data".
He was buying the best loading gear, all the guicci stuff like annealers, a nice press, all sorts of dies and bushings, measuring equip, etc..
His theory was to design or "discover" the bestest eva load recipe for bench rest or fclass or whatever.
I said he will discover the best load for him, not everyone. He was admient i was wrong and he was right.
The conversation finished with him saying he will get the moat accurate load. I asked what he rated as "accurate". Down range was the answer. So i asked about ES/SD, he said "oh, thr most accurate load, which i develop will naturally have the lowest ES/SD".
Saw him once more a few weeks or months later. He was trying to shill some info or whatever. I said i couldnt use his data as i dont shoot that cartridge. He said he could develop a load for me, on his gun.
I very politely, but clearly stated that i use fully prepped brass. Flashhole, ream inside and out, trimmed etc.. "well i can develop a load for that too". What about my barrel length ? "I can copy the length down to the millimeter". But what about my throat errosion, are you using my exact reamer ? Same thickness recoil lug ? What twist rate ? Do you gauge pin your brass necks ? Large or small primers and which primers ? Etc..
Aparently he was going to make a "formula" which you enter your data and get very accurate results. Like GRT or quickload i asked.
"Whats that ? I bet they are not very good".
Tuners are like this. They are accurate to you on the day.
This is what tuners are. They are accurate to you, at that exact moment in time. Nothing else matters at that point in time either.
I relate it to a customer i had. Older gentleman, super nice guy. Hadnt shot in 30 years. Now retired (engineer of some sort) and was going to set the world on fire with reloading. "Its a formula you see. The volume of a case, the length of a barrel, and the projectile weight. Im going to make the best loads and sell the data".
He was buying the best loading gear, all the guicci stuff like annealers, a nice press, all sorts of dies and bushings, measuring equip, etc..
His theory was to design or "discover" the bestest eva load recipe for bench rest or fclass or whatever.
I said he will discover the best load for him, not everyone. He was admient i was wrong and he was right.
The conversation finished with him saying he will get the moat accurate load. I asked what he rated as "accurate". Down range was the answer. So i asked about ES/SD, he said "oh, thr most accurate load, which i develop will naturally have the lowest ES/SD".
Saw him once more a few weeks or months later. He was trying to shill some info or whatever. I said i couldnt use his data as i dont shoot that cartridge. He said he could develop a load for me, on his gun.
I very politely, but clearly stated that i use fully prepped brass. Flashhole, ream inside and out, trimmed etc.. "well i can develop a load for that too". What about my barrel length ? "I can copy the length down to the millimeter". But what about my throat errosion, are you using my exact reamer ? Same thickness recoil lug ? What twist rate ? Do you gauge pin your brass necks ? Large or small primers and which primers ? Etc..
Aparently he was going to make a "formula" which you enter your data and get very accurate results. Like GRT or quickload i asked.
"Whats that ? I bet they are not very good".
Tuners are like this. They are accurate to you on the day.
That’s all that really matters isn’t it? We can argue all day if they really work or not. If someone has a little more confidence while running one then it’s already helped. People wear lucky socks, lucky shirts, etc. all the time because they feel better while doing so. Until the testing is done, who cares if they really work. Unless someone takes their tuner off and beats me over the head with it, I’m indifferent on the matter. With that said, I do have a ATS tuner sitting on the table and about 300 rounds of copper creek 105s that I’m going to play with a little. It may or may not make my rifle more accurate, but if it makes me more accurate it was worth it.
only addition id be curious of is once the tuner setting is found...repeat the 30 shot process a couple times apart, in variable weather/time of day if possible
couple years ago a guy (not a bad shooter at all, far better than most) had for sure found his load one day...sent me pics with 3 - 10 shot groups, he said he shot round robin...he was comparing the best 3 jumps or something from a jump test or some window he liked...in the pics, there was a clear winner...the 2 outside groups were 5/8-3/4", but the middle group iirc was completed covered with a dime or penny...it was clearly way smaller. I said cool, next time you go to the range, shoot that same "good" load 2-3 more times for a 10 shot group...after 2 more trips, he quit shooting the groups because he had 2- 10 shot groups that were 5/8-3/4", just like the others...idk how or what made that 1 single group in the middle of the round robin so good that one day, but it didnt hold up in short order
when the tuners were originally explained to me by a maker of them, the method was...
-do all regular load work w/ tuner on but not adjusted...it was stressed, they were not a replacement for load work up and prep clearly
-after load is found, adjust tuner to find HOW it affects groups...some settings should reduce/increase vertical spread...others should relate to horizontal
- if/when you change days/locations/weather conditions etc...and you see your groups/spread deviating, adjust the tuner to the setting that corrected what you saw...say you shoot and are seeing vertical, turn to the setting that made groups flat, etc
this angle seemed plausible for a paper shooter, which he was, but for myself...when im shooting day to day, its at steel and on the clock so it would be hard for me to differentiate anything and adjust, didnt really interest me
recently, once a lot of people i know who believed their 10 shot load tests gave them their best load ever found out about tuners, they quickly became the magic trick to 1 hole groups with any ammo...interesting
Last edited:
So you are shooting a “control group” at the start of testing, but then never shooting another as you induce variables testing the tuner? Wouldn’t this help with the “concerns that are hard to control”?
That quote and it's reflection of the implications for society through the misapplication of statistic is why my statistics professor in college had it painted on the wall in his office, and even had a banner with it too in the lecture hall. Great prof, if you brought in a misapplication of statistics in current news/events to him and pointed out how it was done, he let you miss Friday's review lecture and quiz if you wanted to.
BTW the mathematical rigidity isn't the lie. I take it you meant the lack thereof.
Is the whole prosess going to be recorded on cam corder with a time clock ?
For those of you arguing the math behind this, perhaps you should read the Varmit Al' page. He was an engineer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and worked performing engineering structural analysis on complex systems. He as run the finite and structural analysis on rifle barrels, tuners, etc. He has already posted the facts from an engineering perspective using software more complex than anyone here is going to achieve with your test setups. I would highly suggest you check out his page even if you dont understand the math which many wont. Yes the page looks old and outdated but the engineering analysis is as sound as it gets. /END-Argument
Barrel Tuner analysis
Barrel Harmonics
Various Rifles with Tuners
Barrel Tuner analysis
Barrel Harmonics
Various Rifles with Tuners
I think we need larger samples and way more than only one barrel.
They should be shot till failure and replaced with another set.
Then I will be satisfied you lived up to your own standards.
Also the load should be changed halfway through by at least 1 full grain up or down.
And only two tuners? Also too small a sample size.
You don't seem to live up to our expectations.
They should be shot till failure and replaced with another set.
Then I will be satisfied you lived up to your own standards.
Also the load should be changed halfway through by at least 1 full grain up or down.
And only two tuners? Also too small a sample size.
You don't seem to live up to our expectations.
that page was spoken about 10 pages ago, and cited "by both sides"
one thing you should know about that page is that he states most of the simulations are theoretical and not run with a projectile being fired or moving down the barrel
I've already shared the Varmint AI links as well. A few times. They're not going to read them.
The issue isn't the math or research into the subject (as there's plenty of it if you're looking for it), the issue is the small handful of naysayers in here are committed to arguing for the sake of arguing, as between them, they cannot come to an agreement on what would be a true scientific test.
Still waiting for the critics to agree on that one. Doubt it will happen this year, or next year, since they couldnt agree to it last year either.
Dont forget to include that double blind you and others were demanding. Have an RO shoot it, then a random guy you spin around and make dizzy. Also record the entire process and share raw footage. no editing allowed.
Afterwards a notarized statement that they are not profiting from the test, or related to you, friends of yours, or anything similar.
Fair is fair.
They couldn't even agree on the color of shite!
Braveheart (1995) clip with quote They couldn't even agree on the color of shite! Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.
memes.getyarn.io Show or copy the links.
I've read the "Varmint AI page some time ago. The software he uses is very good but, it can only give simulations on the info you give it. There have been quite a few other studies on barrel harmonics using LS dyna which show different results.
This has nothing at all to with the issue. Even if the theory is correct, it doesn't change the fact that 2 shots per tuner setting tells you nothing & that's been the point all along.
It's safe to say that tuners definitely change POI when screwed on the barrel but, that doesn't prove they make the cone of fire smaller at any setting.
Here's some super slow Mo vid of the bullet exiting. Notice how there is absolutely no barrel movement before or after the bullet exits. The barrel movement will have happened after the videos but not during.
Analysis' are great.
However, I also have an engineering background, working on complex multi-hundred million dollar projects, and I can tell you that what happens in the real world can differ greatly from an analysis, which are often over simplified and make many assumptions.
I legitimately wanted to read some reports from people running the EC Tuner. However, reading the opinions of people who literally no one cares about their opinions has been as fun as it gets. I'm pretty sure they don't even own a gun. According to them you would have to but 100 rounds of ammo to find out statistically if it's accurate in your gun. Lol. I'm good with two five shot groups. I would say bad shooters would need to shoot a lot more because their group sizes vary wildly as they are the poor variable in the equation. Now I feel better that another idiot has added another meaningless opinion to this mess.
Two different powder charges will show you what you need to know. in two shots, but you have to spend the time with a tuner before you will know .Everyone calling BS are the ones who can offer little info and say that it needs to be proven and why would we need anything from Bryan Litz, he has stated he has no experience with tuners so he can offer little to the tuner adjustments and the way people adjust them. Well it has been proven and was 20 years ago . but none of you guys have checked. The people are giving advise because they have used them , to help you guys. This all has been proven before so no need to prove it here. You guys just have not seen it , but the cycle starts again about every 20 years. The truth is right here in front of you guys, so try it and then come back with some real feedback. So far literally everybody that has not used a tuner puts it down of says they dont work . You just got to know the basics of tuners and how they work. Then they are easy to use , dont take my word for it but just try it . Hell I will let you shoot my gun ,and show exactly how to use it , shoot as many groups as you want at 1000, at 2000 and at 3000 even 4000yds if you want. So come on man give us a break.
Tim in Tx
Last edited:
Glad you are testing but you have to spend the time with a tuner before you will know anything .Everyone including you that are calling BS are the ones who can offer little info and say that it needs to be proven and why would we need anything from Bryan Litz, he has stated he has no experience with tuners so he can offer little to the tuner adjustments and the way people adjust. Well it has and was proven 20 years ago but none of you guys have checked. The people are giving advise because they have used them , to help you guys. This all has been proven before so no need to prove it here. You guys just have not seen it , but the cycle starts again about every 20 years. The truth is right here in front of you guys, so try it and then come back with some real feedback. So far literally everybody that has not used a tuner puts it down of says they dont work . you just got to know the basics of tuners and how they work. Then they are easy to use , dont take my word for it but just try it . Hell I will let you shoot my gun ,and show exactly how to use it , shoot as many groups as you want at 1000, at 2000 and at 3000 even 4000yds if you want. So come on man give us a break.
@timintx actually I have a tuner. So does @Feniks Technologies. In fact, I believe he has a few.
And neither of us are making overly simplified binary statements such as "tuners don't work".
And neither of us are making overly simplified binary statements such as "tuners don't work".
Don't give up on the tuners they are fun to learn ,I will help if I can as will Eric, Aron and Mark and Dan I am sure. There are differing levels in which a tuner will work, just bear in mind if the gun is super Rigid a tuner wont help much , so dont count on a bull barrel to work well with a tuner. Forward taper works better.
Tim in Tx
By all means do tell, do you or him have any data to offer about tuners ? any adjustment methods? how they work? pics?
I already posted that info earlier in the thread.
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
Quite a bit yes.
But it’s all very similar to your data which shows impacts on a target. Sometimes more predictable than others. Some not as much. A lot of noise to sort through. That’s normal in any data.
Which, again, doesn’t answer the question of how/why. One can make some predictions as to why. But then it’s theoretical and awaits either further testing or equipment.
I can show you data in which a tuner does quite a bit if what many would call “positive” effects and other data in which it didn’t do much or was more random. When said data is presented to tuner manufacturers, it’s typically met with “well, depends on xyz” which is a fine response. We’ve tested one tuner (no, I’m not going to give the manufacturer for anyone to drag in the mud) that no testing whatsoever produced anything consistent or usable.
But, we will not use either forms of data sets to try to be a proponent or a naysayer until the industry is able to further measure and test such things.
As always, people are attempting to turn a conversation into a conflict (not you). As they attempt to sort everyone into one side or the other.
I’m not sure how many times it has to be repeated. I’m not saying they don’t work. I own many of them.
I am however saying it’s not always as simple as people make it sound. Many times that “tune” someone believes it’s in, it’s just noise. Similar to many load development methods.
We share the data with manufacturers or individuals who are looking for feedback on their products. Sometimes they use it and sometimes they don’t.
Just like everything else in this arena your 3 shot (not you personally) groups are sometimes noise and sometimes signal. That’s why it requires higher round count tests.
And obviously that kinda of round counts are not feasible for everyone and that’s completely fine. But you can’t just say “I don’t have time for 20 rounds, I’ll just make it work with 2.” You’re actually wasting ammo usually as it’s just rounds on paper that don’t actually show anything and people make decisions based on random data sets. When they could have just ran with something without the test that would have worked just as well.
And then there’s the always inconvenient truth that most of use don’t have the equipment and/or skill to exploit the small gains we are chasing.
Do you know what page ? I would like to read it but this is a super long and old thread.
Do you take in to account the gun? not just the tuner? such as weight distribution? flex ratio?
Tim in Tx
I don't, but it's not very far back.
Admittedly it's not very rigorous testing, and by no means is it in itself conclusive of anything. But what I found through testing 5 round groups, is that I couldn't get better groups with a tuner. My rifle without a tuner shoots tiny groups though, there's not much to improve.
I want to do testing with a tuner with 6.5 Creedmoor and factory ammo, to see if there is something to that.
I wouldn't say that tuners "don't work" - they obviously do to some extent, in some applications. But I do really question their practicality in the PRS type discipline. And I've yet to see any data that tells a compelling story that tuners can convincingly reduce group size with factory ammo beyond a marginal margin.
Actually I just noticed my comment was meant for barrelstroker , did not see your quote in with his until now lol.
The only thing 2 shots will tell you is that you shot 2 bullets.
It doesn't matter if it's a tuner test, powder test, projectile test, seating depth test, case volume test, powder temp test, primer test, case neck tension test, clean vs dirty barrel test, bipod test, front rest test, rear bag test. Is there anything I missed?
It don't matter what test you conduct, 2 shots proves you shot twice & nothing else.
So what did you WANT to hear?
Just tell me & I'll repeat it to you.
Maybe........."There's absolutely no doubt that tuners work"
What about this......"I've done heaps of testing & they work great"
Or this..........Myself & 2 buddies have got tuners & they definitely work, just like everyone says.
There you go Styger, everything you WANTED TO HEAR.
Do you care about my opinion now?
I am afraid so ,2 5hots with different powder charges tell me my exact state of tune . They may not tell you that but mine do. If they do not hit level then the tuner is not set properly. if they hit level I am in perfect tune . Pretty simple .
Tim in Tx
Marvellous ignorance indeed.
I read somewhere that
I read somewhere that there are tuner nodes just like powder and seating and it is 1/10 of a gr wide. I haven’t tested this but curious if you have? I use your ats in 600 competition and usually in 1’st or second. I also use the tmb for a 300 prc with very good results. Actually changing bullet and powder in it today for availability reasons. I’ve posted a tune on here before with the 245’s. It’s never fell out of tune but I suspect it has to do with the forgiving ogive? Switching to Hornady, I can post pictures of the ladder but I only shoot 2 unless I think I have something or pulled something. I shoot at 200 for groups. I think that really helps see the tune better
Your opinions are not only worthless, they truly show how intellectually challenged you are.
I don't see any movement in any of the shots with the different suppressors.
The POI will change with the weight of the tuner & may progressively change with the changing settings but, no movement during the firing sequence.
Appears to me that the POI change is what you're seeing combined with the rifles normal distribution.
If you have data from more than 2 or 3 shots per setting, I'm happy to see it.
If you don't want to hear anything you think is negative, why not just contact EC?
He'll definitely tell you what you want to hear & you won't feel offended & get triggered.
No, The barrel is moving before the bullet leaves no doubt but it is only bending approximately .002-004 in a angular fashion not lateral bending. if you can see .002 movement your eyes are way better than mine. that is why I use a ladder test , by doing so I can see even the smallest movements and they do repeat over and over ,not a fluke. The poi change is just between to differing rounds , not from bolting on a suppressor. having differing exit time is most important because it shows you where the bullets are being pointed allowing me to actually draw a graph of the barrels movements . There is no other way that is more accurate. I have talked with world renowned scientists from around the world on measuring movements . Dr Geoffry Kolbe has come the closest, but even his test had its issues.
Tim in Tx
I think you are talking about Aron's tuners but , I have tested numerous times what you speak of , the main problem is consistency. If you could shoot the exact way every time you would see there are usually a lot of good spots , but that is just random and burns up a lot of ammo. I think the nodes are way bigger than 1/10th of a grain . more like a half or 3/10ths of a grain may be . That also depends on where the movable weight is . if it is way out in front of the tuner it will require much smaller increments than if behind the crown. Way more sensitive out front and so is mine but arons are behind the crown so they affect the bending much less than Erics and Marks tuners. From 55 degrees to 88 degrees I only move the tuner one increment [1/20th of a turn just to keep it in tune from morning to afternoon. I shoot 2 different powder charges of 1 grain at the target , adjust the tuner until they are level and lock it down then shoot groups with one powder charge . Worked in national level competition for 7 years . One note to remember is that if you are turning the adjustable weight rearward then you are speeding up the movements so if it warmer in the afernoon your bullets will speed up a bit turn it rearward and speed up the movement to catch back up with the velocity increase and you are in tune in that respect. to do the same thing with Arons tuners you would probably be round 1/3rd of a turn from 55-88 degrees. this really depends on how your velocity changes temp changes . Good luck and hope it helps.
Tim in Tx
There have been quite a few experiments measuring muzzle movement before bullet exit with comparative inconclusive results due to different barrel diameters & etc.
Lets speculate that your version of the theory is correct. You cannot measure the difference with 2 shots. Why can you not understand this.
Over a barrel life of 5000 rounds, a 2 shot group gives a 70% confidence interval with a margin of error of 50%.
This means that 7 out of 10 shots will give similar results with a +/- of 50% deviation.
With all testing, it must be applied to the realistic expectations which means that when applied to tuner setting tests, 70% confidence with a +-50% error is pretty much noise & basically useless for tuner setting purposes.
If your goal is to shrink groups from 1" to 1/2", 2 shot samples cannot tell you anything has changed at all.
If you want a 95% confidence interval with a 5% error assuming a 5000 round population, that equates to 357 samples which, is unnecessary for our purposes however, an 80 confidence interval with a 20% margin of error needs 11 samples & is IMO a good compromise. Less than approximately 10 samples per setting, the margin of error is too large & not effective.
Your exactly right , but you overlooked the fact but I am not shooting single powder loads, 1 grain of powder difference which is 36 fps .I am spreading out the differences to see the adjustments. I am not trying to shoot a group. Just shooting to see how close they hit to each other vertically. you have to spread things out to see them creating vastly different velocities and not just a few fps within a single load . If you do not do this then you will be stuck in world of probabilities and errors which can be argued to the moon and has been.
Tim in Tx
Last edited:
I'll repeat it again.
Two shots cannot tell you anything. 70% confidence is 7 of ten shots & 50% error means you could just as equally see 50% smaller or larger, higher or lower. The problem isn't what you're testing for whatever reason. The problem is that 2 shots is only a tiny % representation of what possible outcomes could be. Furthermore, it doesn't only show you a good vs bad or unacceptable outcome. You could & definitely have thrown a good outcome away because 2 shots have misrepresented a more probable outcome.
It does no good to argue your merits with me as I'm not making the rules. If you want to make a determination of an outcome from any change in any system, there is a calculated minimum number of samples that must be measured depending on the calculated probability that you choose. This is scientifically derived & not opinion.
I here there are companies that for money will I've you all the stats you can afford.
- Status
