• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Hornady on tuners.

I’m not sure. A member reached out to me. We’re in the brainstorming phase but if they’re serious, something will be happening and as far as I can tell, they’re taking the human out of the element which will help a lot; even if it’s not practical.

He's referring to us. We made a blanket offer to anyone who has a tuner product or technology, that we would pay for 3rd party testing and such. If the testing facility/s either agree that the product/tech works, or at least don't completely shut it down, we'd be willing to invest at least $200k into the product for manufacturing, marketing, etc etc.

The bare minimum to get started was a business plan, or at least something resembling one as well as other information and such.


We only had one interested party contact us. But we were unable to come to an agreement on things before getting into the actual third party testing. Which is just how business works.....sometimes parties just don't agree. (Also, before anyone asks for more details, we won't share any. Our intent is to genuinely do business if something works out. Not argue with or embarrass anyone publicly)
 
Last edited:
Over on the Accurate Shooter forum, there is also a discussion regarding the Hornady tuner testing. Erik Cortina has also commented on the thread as well as Mike Ezell that also manufacturers tuners. Mike has shared and posted a lot of data in many tuner discussions over there and brings a lot to the table that you just don't see in tuner discussions on the Hide. It might be worth looking at some of Mike's threads and posts on tuners, it might fill in the blanks and voids as well as answer questions that can't seem to find answers here....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Haney
This mass asymmetry (you called it mass distribution) is what leads to lateral throw off, and if I recall correctly, is the largest contributor to what Jeff Siewert described as a "cross velocity". With a pile more math and so on, you would be able to visualize the projectile motion (along the i axis)as a sine wave, depicting the frequency at which the projectile is wobbling.
This is close, but lateral throw-off is distinct from cross velocity, at least in the way the ARL defines jump components. They define cross velocity as the contribution from lateral barrel movement. That said, mass imbalance could help excite that movement.
Remember too, the motion of the projectile is "reasonably" constrained within the the bore of the firearm as it travels down to the muzzle. It's still not technically rigidly constrained in the bore, but significantly more-so than when it exits the muzzle. When it exits the muzzle with an offset CG, and it's all of a sudden not constrained to the bore, it can do and I say this broadly, whatever it wants.
What it wants to do is rotate about its center of mass, instead of its center of form. This is the exactly what causes the lateral throw-off mentioned above.
 
You don't generally see that addressed elsewhere because it's incredibly difficult to properly measure, at least not without having all the variables and parameters available to you. Jeff Siewert mentioned this in some of his information. Imagine you have an X, Y, Z earth coordinate system. Z is your horizontal (to the right), Y is elevation straight up, and X is looking down range from the base of the bullet in the direction of fire.

Where the moment arm stuff comes into play is with a second coordinate system that is not earth fixed, but instead fixed to the projectile, we'll use i, j, k. Axis "i" runs through the projectile CG (assuming it's has perfect symmetry), from the nose of the projectile to the base. This is the polar moment of inertia. The other two axis, j and k, run perpendicular to the i axis through the CG, and are known as the transverse moments of inertia.

Here's where your point is important - if the CG of the projectile is offset some number from the axis of symmetry, then you now have an arm running through either the j or k transverse moment of inertia, perpendicular to the polar moment of inertia. That arm now wants to cause the projectile to "spin" within its current state of spinning (if that makes sense). This mass asymmetry (you called it mass distribution) is what leads to lateral throw off, and if I recall correctly, is the largest contributor to what Jeff Siewert described as a "cross velocity". With a pile more math and so on, you would be able to visualize the projectile motion (along the i axis)as a sine wave, depicting the frequency at which the projectile is wobbling.

Remember too, the motion of the projectile is "reasonably" constrained within the the bore of the firearm as it travels down to the muzzle. It's still not technically rigidly constrained in the bore, but significantly more-so than when it exits the muzzle. When it exits the muzzle with an offset CG, and it's all of a sudden not constrained to the bore, it can do and I say this broadly, whatever it wants.
Yes, that is what I was getting to but you stated it more accurately than I did.
 
He's referring to us. We made a blanket offer to anyone who has a tuner product or technology, that we would pay for 3rd party testing and such. If the testing facility/s either agree that the product/tech works, or at least don't completely shut it down, we'd be willing to invest at least $200k into the product for manufacturing, marketing, etc etc.

The bare minimum to get started was a business plan, or at least something resembling one as well as other information and such.


We only had one interested party contact us. But we were unable to come to an agreement on things before getting into the actual third party testing. Which is just how business works.....sometimes parties just don't agree. (Also, before anyone asks for more details, we won't share any. Our intent is to genuinely do business if something works out. Not argue with or embarrass anyone publicly)
That would be cool. And I still appreciate the Hornady analysis because like Jeff had said, he had no dog in the fight. This was purely investigation with no bias or monetary interest.

Someone mentioned in another post that in a different forum, others who make and/or sell tuners have data to present that it works. And their data could be valuable but I also think overshadowed by the monetary gain. Not quite as obvious but akin to a glowing Arken scope review by someone who is an Arken affiliate (which does mean monetary compensation in those cases. Now, ask yourself, if the price of the scope and included gear is already less or equal to the cost of just the scope from another brand and they still have money to pay affiliates, what corners are being cut? But I digress, back to our regularly scheduled tuner discussion.)
 
So, weird thought I had while back at shot.

If you take a stick and hold it straight out, the tip is going to wobble around, because no one is perfectly steady.

If you add a fixed weight to the far end of the stick, it's going to wobble around, but move slower.

If your wobble zone moves slower, I'd think you could shoot smaller groups.

Unrelated, I used to have a pdf about lot testing for the Olympics with an accelerometer. Trying to dig it up.
What happens when you move that weight .01" one way or the other? That's what actually being argued here.
 
Over on the Accurate Shooter forum, there is also a discussion regarding the Hornady tuner testing.

That thread is just the opposite of the SH thread, people saying of course they work the testing just wasn’t done properly- as is tradition anytime tuners come up there. I don’t remember seeing a data thread/post from Ezell so if you could drop a link it would be appreciated.

I did lol at the clickbait comments though.
 
That thread is just the opposite of the SH thread, people saying of course they work the testing just wasn’t done properly- as is tradition anytime tuners come up there. I don’t remember seeing a data thread/post from Ezell so if you could drop a link it would be appreciated.

I did lol at the clickbait comments though.

The assumption on that forum is that tuners in fact do work, regardless of what any testing may or may not show.
 
The assumption on that forum is that tuners in fact do work, regardless of what any testing may or may not show.

That’s what I was trying to hint at while still being diplomatic. I get burned out on tuner discussions hearing “the tuner was adjusted wrong,” “that gun doesn’t shoot good enough,” & “we’ve all seen it we can’t be wrong.” Well tell me how good the gun has to be and how far to spin this thing because my testing put 20 shots into about .8 irrespective of tuner setting. I come from cycling, so I get the chase of marginal gains but even the jokers selling bigger derailleur pulley wheels post test stand data of frictional watt savings.

What happens when you move that weight .01" one way or the other? That's what actually being argued here.

My ATS, for example, weighs about 108g for the movable section, where each mark moves that weight about .002”.
 
That’s what I was trying to hint at while still being diplomatic. I get burned out on tuner discussions hearing “the tuner was adjusted wrong,” “that gun doesn’t shoot good enough,” & “we’ve all seen it we can’t be wrong.” Well tell me how good the gun has to be and how far to spin this thing because my testing put 20 shots into about .8 irrespective of tuner setting. I come from cycling, so I get the chase of marginal gains but even the jokers selling bigger derailleur pulley wheels post test stand data of frictional watt savings.

I'm with you. I'm pretty tired on the discussions as well. There's nothing more to really discuss, absent of any real quality testing.
 
That thread is just the opposite of the SH thread, people saying of course they work the testing just wasn’t done properly- as is tradition anytime tuners come up there. I don’t remember seeing a data thread/post from Ezell so if you could drop a link it would be appreciated.

I did lol at the clickbait comments though.
His username on Accurate Shooter is gunsandgunsmithing. There are literally hundreds of tuner discussions he has contributed to over there, so you can literally select any of them. He has posted numerous targets with groups set at different tuner settings to demonstrate how the groups are affected by changes in the tuner. He also encourages everyone to call him at his shop with questions. He can explain anything you want to know about them....
 
ive seen a lot of mike's posts and i think shared one here in an old tuner thread...

i dont remember the exact wording, but it read like if you arent shooting a rifle capable of BR level precision, over flags, and making perfect shots/calls you were pretty much wasting your time.

which, when that thread was going on....no one testing the tuners in that thread was doing
 
While there's definite benefits to be had with neck turning (depending on your situation), concentricity isn't really one of them. It's been tested to death. Runout really doesn't matter.

The freebore of a chamber is generally in the area of .0005" clearance around the bullet. It's almost impossible to have ammo concentric enough that the bullet doesn't touch the wall of the freebore. So, it doesn't matter if it's .001 or .010 runout.....the bullet will be forced back inline. Otherwise it wouldn't be able to chamber.

Every time it's tested, sometimes in double digits of runout....no one has been able to shoot the difference.
Re; runout. This has been a decade ago, but I measured the runout on a box of FGMM and binned them in 0.001 wide bins. I had 5 at <0.002 and 5 at >0.005. I really wanted there to be no difference in how they shot. The results are posted in this long thread from 2014. TL : DR, the small runout group shot into a sub moa group. The large runout group shot into a ~1.3 moa group. The thumbnail still shows in the thread, but the image has long since been scrubbed from the hosting site.

 
  • Like
Reactions: iceng
His username on Accurate Shooter is gunsandgunsmithing. There are literally hundreds of tuner discussions he has contributed to over there, so you can literally select any of them. He has posted numerous targets with groups set at different tuner settings to demonstrate how the groups are affected by changes in the tuner. He also encourages everyone to call him at his shop with questions. He can explain anything you want to know about them....

I've read a lot of his posts, but I don't recall any with targets and settings. I see a lot of "make small changes" and "won't make the gun better" but that should still be easy to quantify in tune vs out of tune.

i dont remember the exact wording, but it read like if you arent shooting a rifle capable of BR level precision, over flags, and making perfect shots/calls you were pretty much wasting your time.

Those qualifiers would make it possible to disregard almost all tests/targets/findings.
 
I've read a lot of his posts, but I don't recall any with targets and settings. I see a lot of "make small changes" and "won't make the gun better" but that should still be easy to quantify in tune vs out of tune.



Those qualifiers would make it possible to disregard almost all tests/targets/findings.

and that was around the time i pulled the couple of tuners i had been playing with off and quit looking for something to show
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheOfficeT-Rex
.
His username on Accurate Shooter is gunsandgunsmithing. There are literally hundreds of tuner discussions he has contributed to over there, so you can literally select any of them. He has posted numerous targets with groups set at different tuner settings to demonstrate how the groups are affected by changes in the tuner. He also encourages everyone to call him at his shop with questions. He can explain anything you want to know about them....
Just talking isn't posting data, as some proponents on this site seem to believe it is. Please post a single link to some actual data.
 
ive seen a lot of mike's posts and i think shared one here in an old tuner thread...

i dont remember the exact wording, but it read like if you arent shooting a rifle capable of BR level precision, over flags, and making perfect shots/calls you were pretty much wasting your time.

which, when that thread was going on....no one testing the tuners in that thread was doing
And there in lays another issue. No two tuner manufacturers can agree on the parameters of making one effective.
 
Re; runout. This has been a decade ago, but I measured the runout on a box of FGMM and binned them in 0.001 wide bins. I had 5 at <0.002 and 5 at >0.005. I really wanted there to be no difference in how they shot. The results are posted in this long thread from 2014. TL : DR, the small runout group shot into a sub moa group. The large runout group shot into a ~1.3 moa group. The thumbnail still shows in the thread, but the image has long since been scrubbed from the hosting site.

That's not a test, and certainly isn't a definitive result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kthomas
Re; runout. This has been a decade ago, but I measured the runout on a box of FGMM and binned them in 0.001 wide bins. I had 5 at <0.002 and 5 at >0.005. I really wanted there to be no difference in how they shot. The results are posted in this long thread from 2014. TL : DR, the small runout group shot into a sub moa group. The large runout group shot into a ~1.3 moa group. The thumbnail still shows in the thread, but the image has long since been scrubbed from the hosting site.


Did I read this right, you use 5 shots each? If so, that's not really much of anything. Pretty much every test with significant round count says otherwise.

You'll be hard pressed to find any top F class guys using a concentricity gauge if they even own one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kthomas
Did I read this right, you use 5 shots each? If so, that's not really much of anything. Pretty much every test with significant round count says otherwise.

You'll be hard pressed to find any top F class guys using a concentricity gauge if they even own one.
Hey, that was the entire group- not just a sample…

Full transparency. That was 10 years ago and I quickly stopped caring about runout when I realized a few things; FGMM is more than sufficient for my hunting needs without sorting; measuring runout sucks; I really don’t like reloading and only do it under protest; my time is valuable; and I don’t have any “real people” to brag to regarding my shooting prowess (or lack thereof) so who cares.

Oh, to the point of the thread. I have 1 tuner, that I bought for a rifle that I couldn’t get to shoot as well as I thought it should/could. That rifle seems to shoot better with it than without it, but I never found a setting that was significantly or repeatably better than any other. Yes, I followed the instructions.
 
Oh, to the point of the thread. I have 1 tuner, that I bought for a rifle that I couldn’t get to shoot as well as I thought it should/could. That rifle seems to shoot better with it than without it, but I never found a setting that was significantly or repeatable better than any other. Yes, I followed the instructions.
Did you ever try other muzzle devices?
 
1707236639882.jpeg


And FWIW, I have been guilty of confirmation bias at least every other day. It is something I can clear away, now and then.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TheOfficeT-Rex
Did you ever try other muzzle devices?
The tuner is behind the muzzle brake that was on the rifle before I bought the tuner. It’s one of the designs that relies on a brake to secure it to the barrel. Tuner + brake seems to be better than brake alone. No data on bare muzzle.

It’s a 22grendel and no factory ammo is available. It doesn’t get shot much as it requires me to get off my air conditioned ass and reload ammo in the garage.

A few years ago Lowlight weighed into the tuner discussion with an observation that just putting one on a barrel seemed to tighten up groups, no actual “tuning” done. I don’t have a link to that thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tokay444
Shortest paper in history.

Reloading is expensive.
Statistics is hard.
People are dumb.
It could be condensed to one or two paragraphs plus the figures.

See the problem today is computational method and analysis tools are available for free. I’ve watched an entire field of study turn from having to know the mathematics and theory to the fake data science culture that has no idea what’s going on except their ability to import a library or use excel. Everyone thinks they’re the expert but can’t actually tell you what’s going on behind the scenes. “Oh look, a pattern, it must be real.”
 
.

Just talking isn't posting data, as some proponents on this site seem to believe it is. Please post a single link to some actual data.
No, he has posted actual data on that site for over a decade. I've seen and read a lot of those discussions and seen his results. There's literally hundreds of threads he's been involved with in that time. I'd have to do a search to find some of the good ones just like you'd have to do over there as well. But, i'll see what I can find...
 
It could be condensed to one or two paragraphs plus the figures.

See the problem today is computational method and analysis tools are available for free. I’ve watched an entire field of study turn from having to know the mathematics and theory to the fake data science culture that has no idea what’s going on except their ability to import a library or use excel. Everyone thinks they’re the expert but can’t actually tell you what’s going on behind the scenes. “Oh look, a pattern, it must be real.”

But muh P value......
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB.IC
It could be condensed to one or two paragraphs plus the figures.

See the problem today is computational method and analysis tools are available for free. I’ve watched an entire field of study turn from having to know the mathematics and theory to the fake data science culture that has no idea what’s going on except their ability to import a library or use excel. Everyone thinks they’re the expert but can’t actually tell you what’s going on behind the scenes. “Oh look, a pattern, it must be real.”
Yeah, I didn't use a slide rule in grad school, but I did need to know what the software was doing to the data...
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB.IC
Yeah, I didn't use a slide rule in grad school, but I did need to know what the software was doing to the data...
There’s a difference between someone knowing what is supposed to be going on and allowing the software to do the heavy lifting or just saying “f it, the software will figure it out.”

I am convinced the latter is happening more times than not. I seen some guy doing a test on something he was proud about punishing online. The guy did like 30 individual t-test without any error corrections…. If he’d actually studied the theory, he would have known better. What’s worse is a single statistics course at a university is not enough. My undergrad degree had 42 credit hours alone in both theory and application. That’s more than a graduate degree, but my graduate degree was far more interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ronws
Oh, and it's not just the caliper accuracy you're fighting. Everyone knows how much a pain in the ass bullet comparator inserts are to use consistently. Takes almost no effort for the bullet to seat further into the insert.

So, you just stacked a pretty huge error possibility on top of the .001 accuracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kthomas
Here's another riddle to add to the pile. The most popular mitutuyo calipers used to compare BTO are only accurate to +/- .001" (they resolve lower, but not accurate to lower) repeatability......

But people use them still advocate for seating depth testing in .003" increments.

Most are seemingly unaware of the plethora of limitations that exist in reloading that prevents us from drawing definitive conclusions from such "testing".
 
  • Like
Reactions: morganlamprecht
Why not instead of moving the weight a thousandth (or a few thou) you just get a set of threaded stock of various weights and sizes
The tuner is behind the muzzle brake that was on the rifle before I bought the tuner. It’s one of the designs that relies on a brake to secure it to the barrel. Tuner + brake seems to be better than brake alone. No data on bare muzzle.

It’s a 22grendel and no factory ammo is available. It doesn’t get shot much as it requires me to get off my air conditioned ass and reload ammo in the garage.

A few years ago Lowlight weighed into the tuner discussion with an observation that just putting one on a barrel seemed to tighten up groups, no actual “tuning” done. I don’t have a link to that thread.
I think the above is 100% correct. Adding a big weight to the end of the barrel will change things.

Testing by the thousandth seems stupid. Wouldn't it be a lot better to cut pieces of straight taper barrel, thread them, and then attach them one at a time in a progression of lengths over say a 50 shot group? Getting a statistically significant sample is something that marksmen seem to not understand, especially if they think they get the result they want over a few shots. We KNOW that there is such a thing as barrel harmonics and whip, and that changing barrel length/weight will change the precision of a rifle. It's elementary that adding a big weight to the end of the barrel will change something. The real question is in what amounts will it change things, and to me the hash marks on a barrel tuner are probably way, way, way too small to see an appreciable (maybe even measurable) difference.

The idea of an adjustable weight seems like its maybe too clever when a set of fixed weights might be far more efficacious (and much simpler to machine).
 
Most are seemingly unaware of the plethora of limitations that exist in reloading that prevents us from drawing definitive conclusions from such "testing".

Yea, it's nuts how much shit has to go right for ammo to be as consistent as people think they are making it.

20-30 rnd strings with single digit SD is much harder than most realize. As they think their ammo is sub 20 ES, let alone the SD they think they have.
 
Oh, and it's not just the caliper accuracy you're fighting. Everyone knows how much a pain in the ass bullet comparator inserts are to use consistently. Takes almost no effort for the bullet to seat further into the insert.

So, you just stacked a pretty huge error possibility on top of the .001 accuracy.
Another issue is the measurements are truncated. So you can’t really model the error distribution. For instance, if the true error distribution is normal, it might show up as log-normal. Modeling such needs to be understood.
 
I will say, as someone who took 1 or 2 classes that used probability and statistics in college, I only ever learned enough to monkey-see-monkey-do and quickly data dumped it. It's not an intuitive subject for most folks and really easy to get really sideways.

Honestly I had no interest whatsoever into statistics until we started poking around with test repeatability and admittedly we were pretty ignorant at the onset ourselves. We still are, I'm sure, to some level next to people who live and breathe it all day every day.

All of this poking around and testing is showing a lot of seemingly inexplicable variation that we still don't have a grasp on. I don't think anyone does other than at a conceptual level. Gradients on top of gradients moving around in different directions :D Holding it all down and getting a good look at it is tough.
 
Most are seemingly unaware of the plethora of limitations that exist in reloading that prevents us from drawing definitive conclusions from such "testing".
this was one of the main things that drove me to simplify my process more and more over the years

there were things i measured the best i could and found differences i absolutely would have bet mattered...and would have been obvious

then i shot them and saw nothing worth noting
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ledzep and kthomas
I will say, as someone who took 1 or 2 classes that used probability and statistics in college, I only ever learned enough to monkey-see-monkey-do and quickly data dumped it. It's not an intuitive subject for most folks and really easy to get really sideways.

Honestly I had no interest whatsoever into statistics until we started poking around with test repeatability and admittedly we were pretty ignorant at the onset ourselves. We still are, I'm sure, to some level next to people who live and breathe it all day every day.

All of this poking around and testing is showing a lot of seemingly inexplicable variation that we still don't have a grasp on. I don't think anyone does other than at a conceptual level. Gradients on top of gradients moving around in different directions :D Holding it all down and getting a good look at it is tough.

It was a few years ago when I really started to understand the folly of small samples. It's pretty annoying when you realize how much ammo you literally wasted over the years thinking you were actually doing something.
 
I will say, as someone who took 1 or 2 classes that used probability and statistics in college, I only ever learned enough to monkey-see-monkey-do and quickly data dumped it. It's not an intuitive subject for most folks and really easy to get really sideways.

Honestly I had no interest whatsoever into statistics until we started poking around with test repeatability and admittedly we were pretty ignorant at the onset ourselves. We still are, I'm sure, to some level next to people who live and breathe it all day every day.

All of this poking around and testing is showing a lot of seemingly inexplicable variation that we still don't have a grasp on. I don't think anyone does other than at a conceptual level. Gradients on top of gradients moving around in different directions :D Holding it all down and getting a good look at it is tough.
Engineers get to have all the fun. Talking numbers is only interesting to a point.

I’m going back to college to get either a mechanical or aerospace engineering degree or something in another science. Statistics & data science just isn’t that interesting anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kthomas
this was one of the main things that drove me to simplify my process more and more over the years

there were things i measured the best i could and found differences i absolutely would have bet mattered...and would have been obvious

then i shot them and saw nothing worth noting

I'm the same way.

It's driven me to simplify my reloading process, not to make it more complicated. My reloading process has only gotten simpler with time.

Using good quality reloading tools, components, and having a repeatable process gets you 97% of the way there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FredHammer
It was a few years ago when I really started to understand the folly of small samples. It's pretty annoying when you realize how much ammo you literally wasted over the years thinking you were actually doing something.

People tend to make pretty good ammo despite our testing, not because of it.
 
It was a few years ago when I really started to understand the folly of small samples. It's pretty annoying when you realize how much ammo you literally wasted over the years thinking you were actually doing something.

i wasted it for a few years...

figured some things out..quit wasting it

then went back and wasted it again for a year just to double check...then wasted some other peoples just to triple check lol
 
It would be a fun experiment to have two visually identical tuners that weigh the same. When you adjust the placebo version, the adjustment wheel spins but no weight distribution changes.

The second tuner acts normally.

During testing, the subject is unaware of this fact. Run the test a whole bunch and compare groups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ronws and kthomas
Unfortunately......same.

I used to do the "Satterlee method" - talk about a complete waste of time. My college statistics teacher would've slapped me.

That was a real wake up call, especially given how many "pro" shooters were advocating for that method. Most of the "experts" truly don't know shit - and again, we make good ammo despite our "testing", not because of it.
 
People tend to make pretty good ammo despite our testing, not because of it.

Another "problem" is that most people never go back and test the "bad" ammo. I've had a few people take me up on them doing load development and coming up with the best and worst ammo. They shoot it, but I have the ammo and give them the round to shoot each time. They don't know which is which.

Most times, either they are much closer than they expected and even sometimes swap places after longer strings.


Another "problem" is people never consider the flip side of things. They only care when they shoot a group smaller than the MV dictates, but don't care when they shoot a group larger than it dictates.

They also will credit a bad group to a pulled shot/shooter error.....but never consider that you can make a shooter error that happens to be at the right time that actually decreases the group size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kthomas
I used to do the "Satterlee method" - talk about a complete waste of time. My college statistics teacher would've slapped me.

That was a real wake up call, especially given how many "pro" shooters were advocating for that method. Most of the "experts" truly don't know shit - and again, we make good ammo despite our "testing", not because of it.

Ya, more boom boom make the bullet go more fast fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kthomas
I used to do the "Satterlee method" - talk about a complete waste of time. My college statistics teacher would've slapped me.

That was a real wake up call, especially given how many "pro" shooters were advocating for that method. Most of the "experts" truly don't know shit - and again, we make good ammo despite our "testing", not because of it.
I was saying that to my buddies who just wouldn’t believe me. To Scott’s credit, I don’t believe he claimed it to be scientific. I recall him always saying that it was just what he did and had a chill demeanor about it.