Hornady on tuners.

[morganlamprecht]

Yes I have , I don’t think the test structure was in question although I would have done it differently ( smaller increments ), It is the results that I am not sure how Brian came to the conclusion from those results . As well as it was later said as absolutes. Hornady claims that was just their results and not absolute and that was wise to claim . As I have stated before a tuner moves the phase of a movement so if there is no movement then there will be no effect from the tuner . This is why a 6 grain ladder is so important. You have to know what pattern you are adjusting. If all powder charges on a ladder hit level then a tuner will have no effect especially with low recoil forces such as the 22 , 6 mm , 6.5. If there is around 1.5.- 2 inches of amplitude on a 100 yard target then it is a good candidate to show tuner function.

assuming this is key...this could explain why i never saw anything from the tuners i tried on my rifles

i dont ever see that much movement from my rifles @ 100 yds...i never tested 6 grains of spread in my smaller short action cartridges in the past, but 2.5-4gr was common, and in the larger cases (6.5prc to 300prc) sometimes i would test as much as 8-10gr

shooting thru entire charge ranges i was testing it wasnt uncommon for the spread of total rounds fired when complied to a single group to be in the .7-1" range

 

[JB.IC]

Here is a fallacy. The image below is at 150yds. One would believe that 110-114gns is a group node. Except, that person has no idea where the actual distribution of the group and MV would cluster when a larger sample is taken at each charge weight.

 

[carbonbased]

Here is a fallacy. The image below is at 150yds. One would believe that 110-114gns is a group node. Except, that person has no idea where the actual distribution of the group and MV would cluster when a larger sample is taken at each charge weight.

View attachment 8354639

Where did that image come from?

 

[JB.IC]

Where did that image come from?

It’s mine. I took it few years ago when I was trying to find pressure in my 33XC.

 

[timintx]

Here is a fallacy. The image below is at 150yds. One would believe that 110-114gns is a group node. Except, that person has no idea where the actual distribution of the group and MV would cluster when a larger sample is taken at each charge weight.

View attachment 8354639

Exactly I agree , that is why plotting each shot is so important . When I speak of one shot it is not to find a node , it is to find a trend which can clearly be seen as to barrel movement . Those bullets should only be dropping a fraction of what is on the target , and 110 -114 is where the barrel has a slight upswing or is dispersion so look at the extremes and the trend is more clear . Repeat this if you suspect 110-114 is dispersion , if it repeats it is barrel movement .

 

[JB.IC]

Exactly I agree , that is why plotting each shot is so important . When I speak of one shot it is not to find a node , it is to find a trend which can clearly be seen as to barrel movement . Those bullets should only be dropping a fraction of what is on the target , and 110 -114 is where the barrel has a slight upswing or is dispersion so look at the extremes and the trend is more clear . Repeat this if you suspect 110-114 is dispersion , if it repeats it is barrel movement .

I don’t recall anything about that image being repeatable for 110-114. The group dispersion just happened to overlap in that pressure test. In this case, no one typically uses a 33XC with 300gn bullets at those low velocities. But maybe there was something to it because it did group “better” at slower velocities. I switched to a 37XC and would need to revisit the 33XC.

 

[Csafisher]

Exactly I agree , that is why plotting each shot is so important . When I speak of one shot it is not to find a node , it is to find a trend which can clearly be seen as to barrel movement . Those bullets should only be dropping a fraction of what is on the target , and 110 -114 is where the barrel has a slight upswing or is dispersion so look at the extremes and the trend is more clear . Repeat this if you suspect 110-114 is dispersion , if it repeats it is barrel movement .

So if your groups showed vertical in a ladder test, what would be the next step? Add/subtract weight or turn tuner so the same ladder shows less vertical?

How could you accomplish that with a 22lr? Can’t do a ladder.

 

[timintx]

So if your groups showed vertical in a ladder test, what would be the next step? Add/subtract weight or turn tuner so the same ladder shows less vertical?

How could you accomplish that with a 22lr? Can’t do a ladder.

That is tougher , if you could find 3 lots at different speeds I would say change weights around until they hit level at the distance you normally shoot . Then use the movable weight to keep it there.

 

[Barelstroker]

I watched Erik's latest video of him walking around asking all the shooters if they used those amassssing toooooners. Completely meaningless. Winning events has little correlation with shooting consistently small groups, it's really based on the best score in a particular event or, overall score of the day. Winning scores vary considerably depending on conditions.
I find it difficult to understand why Erik hasn't conducted some reasonably robust testing by now if he truly believes toooooners work.
Either Erik has done some robust testing & the results were inconclusive or, Erik has done testing but it took 500 samples to find a positive toooooner interval or, he has simply convinced himself or has allowed himself to be convinced that toooooners work & testing is unnecessary or, He has tested & found they don't do nufink.
Just saying.

 

[Ronws]

I watched Erik's latest video of him walking around asking all the shooters if they used those amassssing toooooners. Completely meaningless. Winning events has little correlation with shooting consistently small groups, it's really based on the best score in a particular event or, overall score of the day. Winning scores vary considerably depending on conditions.
I find it difficult to understand why Erik hasn't conducted some reasonably robust testing by now if he truly believes toooooners work.
Either Erik has done some robust testing & the results were inconclusive or, Erik has done testing but it took 500 samples to find a positive toooooner interval or, he has simply convinced himself or has allowed himself to be convinced that toooooners work & testing is unnecessary or, He has tested & found they don't do nufink.
Just saying.

True, anecdotal evidence is going to be second best guess. No one disputes having a tuner makes for better groups. But so does have having a suppressor or a brake. Especially a beefy one. But Hornady was not able to find a discernable improvement by making adjustments to the tuners.

In addition, professionals are practiced at good shooting practices and using premium parts.

And Erik did say on a Hornday podcast that he will not go farther with a gun not shooting 1/4 MOA if it is not doing that in 3 to 5t shots. Shooting it more would not make tighter groups, which is true. But 3 shots is not enough for valid statistical analysis. However, Jayden said on another podcast that grouping the gun for the job is fine. So, for hunting, it is better to shoot seven 3 shot groups to get the average expected accuracy.

 

[CNC-Dude]

I watched Erik's latest video of him walking around asking all the shooters if they used those amassssing toooooners. Completely meaningless. Winning events has little correlation with shooting consistently small groups, it's really based on the best score in a particular event or, overall score of the day. Winning scores vary considerably depending on conditions.
I find it difficult to understand why Erik hasn't conducted some reasonably robust testing by now if he truly believes toooooners work.
Either Erik has done some robust testing & the results were inconclusive or, Erik has done testing but it took 500 samples to find a positive toooooner interval or, he has simply convinced himself or has allowed himself to be convinced that toooooners work & testing is unnecessary or, He has tested & found they don't do nufink.
Just saying.

He has done plenty of testing but he has moved those videos over to his Patreon channel or his private forum that you have to pay a subscription to.....

 

[brianf]

I watched Erik's latest video of him walking around asking all the shooters if they used those amassssing toooooners. Completely meaningless. Winning events has little correlation with shooting consistently small groups, it's really based on the best score in a particular event or, overall score of the day. Winning scores vary considerably depending on conditions.
I find it difficult to understand why Erik hasn't conducted some reasonably robust testing by now if he truly believes toooooners work.
Either Erik has done some robust testing & the results were inconclusive or, Erik has done testing but it took 500 samples to find a positive toooooner interval or, he has simply convinced himself or has allowed himself to be convinced that toooooners work & testing is unnecessary or, He has tested & found they don't do nufink.
Just saying.

Why waste time and money on testing.

He’s making money selling tuners

Best case they work and he still sells them

Worst case they don’t and he looses business.

It’s a loose loose for him

Testing is best for a “upstart” which can sell them based on testing data.

The firearms industry is getting to be like golf. Every week there is another gadget that is supposed to help instead practicing, top quality components and getting instruction.

 

[kthomas]

I watched Erik's latest video of him walking around asking all the shooters if they used those amassssing toooooners. Completely meaningless. Winning events has little correlation with shooting consistently small groups, it's really based on the best score in a particular event or, overall score of the day. Winning scores vary considerably depending on conditions.
I find it difficult to understand why Erik hasn't conducted some reasonably robust testing by now if he truly believes toooooners work.
Either Erik has done some robust testing & the results were inconclusive or, Erik has done testing but it took 500 samples to find a positive toooooner interval or, he has simply convinced himself or has allowed himself to be convinced that toooooners work & testing is unnecessary or, He has tested & found they don't do nufink.
Just saying.

Because he doesn't have to. There's no incentive for robust testing on his end.

Right now, the low quality observational evidence shows what he wants. Why spend a bunch of money to ultimately find out tuners don't work exactly like how he wants?

He can only lose. Most people don't really seem to understand or care about the weakness in EC's evidence behind his claims. And they're happy to spend the money for any perceived benefit it may come with on his products.

 

[Taylorbok]

He has done plenty of testing but he has moved those videos over to his Patreon channel or his private forum that you have to pay a subscription to.....

there is no testing there that proves tuners work.

 

[JB.IC]

On average, sample standard deviation is 80% of what the population is at n = 2. At n = 3, it goes to about 88%. As n increases, sample sd converges to the population value, on average.

Groups sizes are dispersion and suffers the same consequence.

Whatever the population sd is, you have a 68% probability of seeing the population sd value or less when calculating the sample sd at n = 2 for a random sample. You have a 38% probability of seeing half the population sd value or less when calculating the sample sd at n = 2 for a random sample. With small sample sizes, you are more likely to see an underestimated sample sd. Now imagine you’re Garmin and sell a product that underestimates sd to an even larger degree. They got reloaders thinking they’re gods.

 

[Ronws]

. They got reloaders thinking they’re gods.

The laugh was for this comment. Well done.

 

[JB.IC]

The laugh was for this comment. Well done.

I was afraid to call out tuners just in case they have some effect outside of adding weight to the muzzle, so Garmin got it instead lol

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Because he doesn't have to. There's no incentive for robust testing on his end.

Right now, the low quality observational evidence shows what he wants. Why spend a bunch of money to ultimately find out tuners don't work exactly like how he wants?

He can only lose. Most people don't really seem to understand or care about the weakness in EC's evidence behind his claims. And they're happy to spend the money for any perceived benefit it may come with on his products.

This. Precisely this. I can't blame him from a business standpoint. Sinking money into testing won't help his business.

Even if he's 1000000% sure they work and how they work, and the testing proved that.....he would gain nothing from money spent testing. He wouldn't sell more than he sells now.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

He has done plenty of testing but he has moved those videos over to his Patreon channel or his private forum that you have to pay a subscription to.....

None of what's on his patreon would even begin to qualify. Your standard of "testing" is just not very good.

 

[Taylorbok]

This. Precisely this. I can't blame him from a business standpoint. Sinking money into testing won't help his business.

Even if he's 1000000% sure they work and how they work, and the testing proved that.....he would gain nothing from money spent testing. He wouldn't sell more than he sells now.

I'd beg to differ. If someone proved tuners worked they'd definitely sell more

 

[Tokay444]

assuming this is key...this could explain why i never saw anything from the tuners i tried on my rifles

i dont ever see that much movement from my rifles @ 100 yds...i never tested 6 grains of spread in my smaller short action cartridges in the past, but 2.5-4gr was common, and in the larger cases (6.5prc to 300prc) sometimes i would test as much as 8-10gr

shooting thru entire charge ranges i was testing it wasnt uncommon for the spread of total rounds fired when complied to a single group to be in the .7-1" range

It's not key. Other tuner proponents say the gun needs to be a half moa or less gun to see an affect from moving a tuner.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I'd beg to differ. If someone proved tuners worked they'd definitely sell more

You can't sell more than every single one you make.

 

[Haney]

Search results for query: EC tuners for sale

www.snipershide.com

 

[CNC-Dude]

None of what's on his patreon would even begin to qualify. Your standard of "testing" is just not very good.

I haven't been on his Patreon channel, but he has done extensive testing on some of his videos he had on YouTube I have seen that were on there. They probably are on his private forum. Many of those f class guys have moved to Patreon and other venues to get more money for their content. The better details and substance are no longer free anymore it seems...

 

[Taylorbok]

I haven't been on his Patreon channel, but he has done extensive testing on some of his videos he had on YouTube I have seen that were on there. They probably are on his private forum. Many of those f class guys have moved to Patreon and other venues to get more money for their content. The better details and substance are no longer free anymore it seems...

His testing is moderate at best. I was a member on his forum for a while and he claims to show all this testing and stuff there but you don't it's the exact same shit everyone else sees on youtube.

You can't sell more than every single one you make.

I suppose that is a factor but then he should ramp up production.

 

[mrcheesemoose]

I'd beg to differ. If someone proved tuners worked they'd definitely sell more

If someone proved with extensive testing that tuners work, I would buy one

 

[CNC-Dude]

I'll reiterate, he demonstrates how he arrives at the best tune for his load/rifle combo. No, he doesn't have a video showing him shoot 500 or more rounds at a target proving that is the best setting, i would guess he does that in preparation before a match or event in different weather conditions to see if it is a stable setting or needs further adjustments....

 

[kthomas]

I'll reiterate, he demonstrates how he arrives at the best tune for his load/rifle combo. No, he doesn't have a video showing him shoot 500 or more rounds at a target proving that is the best setting, i would guess he does that in preparation before a match or event in different weather conditions to see if it is a stable setting or needs further adjustments....

I haven't seen EC's patreon content, so let me be clear about that.

But his videos on YouTube are akin to those videos of great shooters showing how the 'Satterlee Method' works for them.

It certainly looks like it works when you use incredibly small sample sizes.

 

[Barelstroker]

I was having a little fun with my last post. I find it therapeutic to state the obvious then leave it hanging.
I find the power of consensus intriguing though. The apparent sociological pressure to fit in or, to accept that something works without a skerrick of factual evidence based solely on consensus seems to me to be the predominant driver & common denominator.
It appears to me that a large percentage of the population adheres strongly to consensus as the foundation for their world view or realty as they perceive it.
As far as I can discern, most peoples world views & daily discissions are driven primarily by subjective rather than objective information driven primarily by their predisposition to sociological pressure to conform.

 

[CNC-Dude]

I haven't seen EC's patreon content, so let me be clear about that.

But his videos on YouTube are akin to those videos of great shooters showing how the 'Satterlee Method' works for them.

It certainly looks like it works when you use incredibly small sample sizes.

He has stated in a podcast with F-Class John that he shoots around 9000 rounds per year in testing and in competition, so I'm going to guess his sample sizes to confirm his tuner settings are pretty big because I doubt you'd consume 9000 rounds just in competitions....

He also in 2023 through the year purchased 3 new DMG Mouri CNC lathes that cost over $350,000 each. So has he fooled the entire shooting community and become the biggest snake oil salesman of the century or does he know something about what he's doing?

 

[JB.IC]

I was having a little fun with my last post. I find it therapeutic to state the obvious then leave it hanging.
I find the power of consensus intriguing though. The apparent sociological pressure to fit in or, to accept that something works without a skerrick of factual evidence based solely on consensus seems to me to be the predominant driver & common denominator.
It appears to me that a large percentage of the population adheres strongly to consensus as the foundation for their world view or realty as they perceive it.
As far as I can discern, most peoples world views & daily discissions are driven primarily by subjective rather than objective information driven primarily by their predisposition to sociological pressure to conform.

Which as bad as that may be, it makes them more predictable. Like if you wanted to sell a tuner

 

[Barelstroker]

He has stated in a podcast with F-Class John that he shoots around 9000 rounds per year in testing and in competition, so I'm going to guess his sample sizes to confirm his tuner settings are pretty big because I doubt you'd consume 9000 rounds just in competitions....

He also in 2023 through the year purchased 3 new DMG Mouri CNC lathes that cost over $350,000 each. So has he fooled the entire shooting community and become the biggest snake oil salesman of the century or does he know something about what he's doing?

If Erik had solid statistical data to back his claim, he would surely have introduced it by now.
I have no problem believing that Erics business discission to expand production could have been based predominantly on subjective rather than objective information. It's amassssing but it works a good deal of the time.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

9,000 rnds a year isn't a lot. You can easy shoot 15k/yr and not being doing any real testing. Also, you could shoot an infinite amount of rounds and it would mean nothing if the data isn't properly collected or tests aren't properly done.

If he actually collected data in any meaningful way, he wouldn't have just taken pics of two groups on his phone that he shows Litz on a podcast and hornady at shot show as proof tuners work. You don't have thousands of rounds of testing and then take the equivalent of 40 shots or less around as your proof. And even those, he said he didn't have the velocity numbers for because it was on his labradar he sold. None of that are the actions of someone who believes in testing and data in a meaningful way.



As far as the point that he has expensive machines and sells things as being in some sort of way an indication that something works......that's laughable. Gary Dahl sold over 1.5 million "pet rocks." So, let's not even start down that road.

(none of this is a knock against Erik's business and such. He makes quality built products and I hope he sells as much as he can)

 

[CNC-Dude]

Fair enough....

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Just for a semi-thought experiment.....let's say tuners absolutely work. No question.

The directions that come with the most popular tuners on the market would still be completely wrong and useless. None of them mention how to test your rifle in such a way that you know what the actual dispersion of the rifle/ammo actually is.

None of them explain that using a 2-3 shot process is only good at possibly eliminating "bad" tunes, not actually confirming "good" ones.

None of them explain after finding potential "nodes" how to then test those nodes in such a way that you can confirm that the tuned rifle's dispersion is in fact an improvement over the non tuned rifle.


In a world where tuners absolutely work, using the instructions with the most popular tuners would only kinda, somewhat give you a *chance* that you have actually tuned the rifle. They would NOT be even remotely close to any type of confidence the rifle is now tuned.



At the absolute bare minimum, the common instructions with tuners are doing a huge disservice to most every customer.

 

[Barelstroker]

9,000 rnds a year isn't a lot. You can easy shoot 15k/yr and not being doing any real testing. Also, you could shoot an infinite amount of rounds and it would mean nothing if the data isn't properly collected or tests aren't properly done.

If he actually collected data in any meaningful way, he wouldn't have just taken pics of two groups on his phone that he shows Litz on a podcast and hornady at shot show as proof tuners work. You don't have thousands of rounds of testing and then take the equivalent of 40 shots or less around as your proof. And even those, he said he didn't have the velocity numbers for because it was on his labradar he sold. None of that are the actions of someone who believes in testing and data in a meaningful way.



As far as the point that he has expensive machines and sells things as being in some sort of way an indication that something works......that's laughable. Gary Dahl sold over 1.5 million "pet rocks." So, let's not even start down that road.

(none of this is a knock against Erik's business and such. He makes quality built products and I hope he sells as much as he can)

Exactly.

 

[Ronws]

Here is another reason that small groups mean very little and I don't mean that as a pun, that is just a happy accident.

I have a TC Compass II in .308 W. Out of the box, I dragged a snake through it and greased the bolt and ran it a number of times before ever getting to the range. Practiced dry fire a lot. After a few weeks, got to the range. First two shots, I measured .5 inches with a tape measure. Brought those results here and got my ass handed to me like 5 pounds of jello on a paper plate. I was told I had a shit round (Federal Fusion 165 gr,) shit gun, shit optic (Vortex Diamondback Tactical 6-24X50.) And someone did a ballistic-x analysis of my posted pic and it turned out to be .54 inches apart. I was off by .04 inches.

So, I cannot claim it is a .5 MOA rifle. Two, even three shots at less than 1.045 inches are not going to make it a sub-MOA rifle. And, since that is a hunting rifle, I consider it a 1 MOA rifle because the shots will be within that limit for what I am doing. I am simply not going to shoot at a deer more than 3 times, if the buck even hangs around long enough for that third shot.

Simply put, my group size was too small to be meaningful as anything other than a hunting rifle good to 300 yards. It would not be considered a good precision rifle for long range targets.

Maybe I am stepping out of bounds but I think that kind of applies to this question. A good 3 shot group out of an already good performing rifle and good ammo (never mind my shitty ammo) does not mean anything, statistically. For me to get a good picture of what that rifle is doing, I need to shoot the whole box in 3 shot intervals with cool down between each set. If I get an average of 1 MOA, I would be happy. Especially for hunting.

Why is that important? I heard a guy talking about this very problem and he did a cold bore shot 5 days in a row. One shot each day. And the dispersion looked the same as when he would shoot 5 at one sitting.

I also realize that my activity of hunting is different in requirements than there is in competition shooting.

So, to have statistical meaning of the effectiveness of a tuner being more better-er than other devices means you need a group size larger than 3 to 5 shots. And that was done with no discernible evidence that changing the setting of the tuner made things any better.

Even if a tuner did work, what happens when you go to a different batch of ammo?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Just from a pure marketing standpoint, you can't lose selling tuners. Since almost no one tests their rifle/ammo properly, the following can happen:

- 2 and 3 shot groups will always randomly move around inside the actual dispersion of the rifle. So, you will *always* have testing that appears to show group size and location move around. This means you'll always see "nodes" which are just random occurrences.

Since most people aren't testing properly, they will see this as the tuner "working" and be very happy.

- most shooters don't have a need and aren't capable of shooting under .5 moa consistently. Most modern rifles are capable of shooting 1moa or less (especially in small samples). So, no matter what, even with a tuner, most every modern rifle is going to shoot better than the owner is capable or needs

These two things combined will make pretty much anyone who doesn't actually understand how dispersion works, think they have something that is working. And let's be honest, most shooters have almost no clue how dispersion actually plays out. Otherwise, they wouldn't be using 2 and 3 shot groups for much anything at all.


The times that the randomness above doesn't play out in their low count tuning sessions, tuner manufacturers can say that it doesn't work for every rifle or every ammo. Or say that you need to keep turning and twisting the tuner.

Most shooters that will believe the above have either seen small sample tests on YouTube or have other tuners that appeared to work, so they believe any and all of the above.



When you have a product that appears to work (even if it does or doesn't work) with low sample size AND you can also say that it's not guaranteed to work every time.......you have marketing/manufacturing gold. You can't lose.

 

[Barelstroker]

Just from a pure marketing standpoint, you can't lose selling tuners. Since almost no one tests their rifle/ammo properly, the following can happen:

- 2 and 3 shot groups will always randomly move around inside the actual dispersion of the rifle. So, you will *always* have testing that appears to show group size and location move around. This means you'll always see "nodes" which are just random occurrences.

Since most people aren't testing properly, they will see this as the tuner "working" and be very happy.

- most shooters don't have a need and aren't capable of shooting under .5 moa consistently. Most modern rifles are capable of shooting 1moa or less (especially in small samples). So, no matter what, even with a tuner, most every modern rifle is going to shoot better than the owner is capable or needs

These two things combined will make pretty much anyone who doesn't actually understand how dispersion works, think they have something that is working. And let's be honest, most shooters have almost no clue how dispersion actually plays out. Otherwise, they wouldn't be using 2 and 3 shot groups for much anything at all.


The times that the randomness above doesn't play out in their low count tuning sessions, tuner manufacturers can say that it doesn't work for every rifle or every ammo. Or say that you need to keep turning and twisting the tuner.

Most shooters that will believe the above have either seen small sample tests on YouTube or have other tuners that appeared to work, so they believe any and all of the above.



When you have a product that appears to work (even if it does or doesn't work) with low sample size AND you can also say that it's not guaranteed to work every time.......you have marketing/manufacturing gold. You can't lose.

Absolutely 100%.
Toooooners are marketing gold &, to be honest, I've no problem with Eric selling a high quality component, which it is &, making a great legitimate business off of people who are happy & believe in the product. In a very real sense, that is the basis of any successful business & all the best to Eric in his endeavours.

 

[kthomas]

He has stated in a podcast with F-Class John that he shoots around 9000 rounds per year in testing and in competition, so I'm going to guess his sample sizes to confirm his tuner settings are pretty big because I doubt you'd consume 9000 rounds just in competitions....

He also in 2023 through the year purchased 3 new DMG Mouri CNC lathes that cost over $350,000 each. So has he fooled the entire shooting community and become the biggest snake oil salesman of the century or does he know something about what he's doing?

The same people promoting the "Satterlee Method" also shoot tens of thousands of rounds a year.

How you test matters.

 

[Tokay444]

He has stated in a podcast with F-Class John that he shoots around 9000 rounds per year in testing and in competition, so I'm going to guess his sample sizes to confirm his tuner settings are pretty big because I doubt you'd consume 9000 rounds just in competitions....

He also in 2023 through the year purchased 3 new DMG Mouri CNC lathes that cost over $350,000 each. So has he fooled the entire shooting community and become the biggest snake oil salesman of the century or does he know something about what he's doing?

Tell us you don’t actually shoot without telling us.

 

[Barelstroker]

The same people promoting the "Satterlee Method" also shoot tens of thousands of rounds a year.

How you test matters.

And of course, the elephant in the room is the fact that Grubbs conducted one of the most famous statistical analysis from which many calculations have been derived to calculate ESD, SD (s), SD (p), SD sample # multiplication factors, & etc & etc. Grubbs contribution was enormous. The problem I see is that most of those who claim to know all about statistics, especially statistical analysis of all things related to groups & rifle accuracy & repeatability, seem to be completely ignorant of Grubbs which, tells me all I need to know about what they really know.
Had Satterlee been educated in statistical analysis, he would never have embarrassed himself the way he did. Unfortunately, Mr Satterlee has still not educated himself in this area & continues on his merry way with a few changes which he seems to believe are of substance.
The main problem, as I see it is ignorance, brought about by peer pressure to conform to the majority.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Unfortunately, going round and round about stats (I'm just as guilty as anyone), really isn't going to do anything.

People who want to learn more will seek out the info on their own using resources outside of the firearms industry. It won't matter if they read something once or a hundred times how the numbers most use aren't worth anything.

Conversely, those who don't want to learn more, it doesn't matter if they read it once or a hundred times, they won't change their minds.


I was using tuners in PRS as far back as 2017/18, before the tuner craze in PRS started. Like many, I thought they worked because I was using small sample sizes. Also, while I had a decent knowledge of the stats used in firearms, I thought many of the same false notions people have about SD/ES....especially ES. But, I like learning, so I went to the proper sources and learned that I'd been spinning my wheels wasting time on things that I had zero confident numbers for.


The unfortunate truth is that many(most?) people fall into the categories of either A) don't want to learn or don't like numbers or B) actually don't have the proper tools mentally to understand the math. We aren't all created equal in the things our brains have the ability to interpret......we all have certain things that just don't click in our heads.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Also, humans in general don't like being unsure of something or the unknown. Hence conspiracy theories. The human mind would prefer to have an answer or reason why something happened....no matter how outlandish, than to not know.

Humans also like to feel in control. Accepting there's a ton (like almost infinite amount) of randomness in life is the exact opposite of control.

Math and Science live in the unknown. And the numbers for many things in life will have the answer "can't be sure" a ton.

 

[kthomas]

Unfortunately, Mr Satterlee has still not educated himself in this area & continues on his merry way with a few changes which he seems to believe are of substance.
The main problem, as I see it is ignorance, brought about by peer pressure to conform to the majority.

It's so easy to develop good ammo despite our procedures, rather than because of it.

And I think Satterlee has fallen in that trap. He's developed a shorter reloading procedure that still develops good results. That ammo isn't good because of that procedure, but rather despite it. That's just a testament to how good components are these days, along with barrels, reloading equipment, gunsmithing, etc.

Satterlee just doesn't seem to understand the 'why' and the 'how' behind reloading and performance, but that puts him in the solid majority of reloaders and shooters.

I have nothing against Satterlee, he's just easy to pick on because he has a whole reloading process named after him. It's clear that he prescribes certain performance attributes to his reloading procedure that's clearly not the case when you extend the sample size by even a little bit.

 

[JB.IC]

I don’t recall Scott wanting to have a method named after him. He just shared what he did and his followers created the name and carried his method farther than I think Scott imagined.

 

[LR1845]

It's so easy to develop good ammo despite our procedures, rather than because of it.

And I think Satterlee has fallen in that trap. He's developed a shorter reloading procedure that still develops good results. That ammo isn't good because of that procedure, but rather despite it. That's just a testament to how good components are these days, along with barrels, reloading equipment, gunsmithing, etc.

Satterlee just doesn't seem to understand the 'why' and the 'how' behind reloading and performance, but that puts him in the solid majority of reloaders and shooters.

I have nothing against Satterlee, he's just easy to pick on because he has a whole reloading process named after him. It's clear that he prescribes certain performance attributes to his reloading procedure that's clearly not the case when you extend the sample size by even a little bit.

Serious question and not being a dick....and this could be for everyone here that has commented on load development...

WHO or WHAT do YOU think has/is a solid load development routine? I have read what most of you guys do, anneal every time, charges to the kernel, seating to the .001, dry lube necks, don't wet tumble, ECT, but unless I'm mistaken I think most of us can agree that most bullet/caliber combs have several speeds where they like to run, powders that they prefer and seating depths the bullets prefer.

So why can you not go out after the barrel has X amount of rounds through it to settle in/speed up and shoot 1 round each of X amount of charge weights to find that velocity then load several at the velocity/charge weight and adjust seating in the field with a lee hand press?
I see guys doing pretty much none stop load development chasing the prefect load and never seem to find it.

 

[kthomas]

I don’t recall Scott wanting to have a method named after him. He just shared what he did and his followers created the name and carried his method farther than I think Scott imagined.

That's very likely true.

And I hope no one misconstrues my critiques against this method as critiques against Scott. He's done a lot for the sport, and everyone that has met him speaks highly of him and his character.

The process named after him is just the perfect case study in reloaders and their understanding of statistics.

 

[JB.IC]

That's very likely true.

And I hope no one misconstrues my critiques against this method as critiques against Scott. He's done a lot for the sport, and everyone that has met him speaks highly of him and his character.

The process named after him is just the perfect case study in reloaders and their understanding of statistics.

I get it. The same audience that took his method and made it bigger than it needed to be might also be the same people who then take our criticism and make it bigger than it needs to be.

 

[JB.IC]

Serious question and not being a dick....and this could be for everyone here that has commented on load development...

WHO or WHAT do YOU think has/is a solid load development routine? I have read what most of you guys do, anneal every time, charges to the kernel, seating to the .001, dry lube necks, don't wet tumble, ECT, but unless I'm mistaken I think most of us can agree that most bullet/caliber combs have several speeds where they like to run, powders that they prefer and seating depths the bullets prefer.

So why can you not go out after the barrel has X amount of rounds through it to settle in/speed up and shoot 1 round each of X amount of charge weights to find that velocity then load several at the velocity/charge weight and adjust seating in the field with a lee hand press?
I see guys doing pretty much none stop load development chasing the prefect load and never seem to find it.

Find where pressure will be with the bullet at the smallest jump or largest jam you would ever want to use. I prefer to find pressure in the summer time on a hot day.

Back your load off at least 100fps from where you found pressure. Shoot groups at different bullet jumps or jams that you think are interesting. Never mind that your MV will slow down as you jump more. Who cares. At least 10 rounds per groups. I can’t really tell you how to spend your money so you have to decide how many rounds per group. Then pick the best group and go with it.

It’s one thing to be “statistically valid” and it’s another thing to just go enjoy shooting without pulling your hair.