Hornady on tuners.

[Maurygold]

Definitely not "all" top F class and BR shooters uses tuners. At least two members on the Lapua Team don't run tuners. The world record holder for 1k yds BR didn't use a tuner....etc etc. And that's just off the top of my head.

As usual, when it comes to things like this, something a person believes in requires almost zero proof. And what they don't believe in needs an impossible amount of proof. This same user was recently arguing against annealing being beneficial. Even though more top shooters anneal than use a tuner.

People can't even agree with themselves on what facts/points are valid enough for an argument. Some top shooters using a tuner means it works, but some top shooters annealing doesn't mean it works.



There's no conversation to be had when someone can't even be consistent with their own points.

A significant amount are annealing for brass life which makes perfect sense when you’re shooting out multiple barrels. I agree that annealing can effect brass life and if you’re using multiple barrels that matters. I however reject your notion that when looking at brass under 12-15 firings it increases performance.

You’re playing both sides. On one hand everyone doing it is sufficient to accept annealing but the majority of the us rifle team using tuners means there’s no validity to them?

 

[Maurygold]

And this is a huge reason there is such a divide. One side thinks this is a worthwhile demonstration. The other knows it's inconclusive at best.


Now, what ends up happening (possibly) is guys like F Class John shoot so much of the same cartridge/ammo over long periods of time, they may be able to get something out of their overall data. But the small samples they show in videos such as this literally show nothing.

And I mean that in the most neutral way possible. It doesn't help nor does it hurt tuner arguments. It's basically a nothing burger.

What does he know. He only won multiple large shooting events and you won…… oh wait.

 

[mrcheesemoose]

This is awesome data. Thanks for posting! I got a jupyter notebook that can give me CEP50, CEP95, and mean radius from the X/Y data from the app. (side note, it can be super tedious having to copy from the app, would be awesome if you guys had an export to excel feature or something). I prefer CEP over mean radius since its more resilient to fliers

Speaking of, first group posted. Even this group isn't really sub moa since 95% of the shots make a group larger than a moa. Tho I do need to double check the math since I had to make some quick adjustments for 200 yard calculations.

powder bullet combo	mean radius	RSD	CEP50	CEP95	diameter containing 95% of shots
6mm ARC-110Honrady A-tip-28.0Varget	0.365376	0.165342	0.338536	0.703791	1.40758

I don't suppose you have that notebook somewhere shareable?

As an aside... if anyone is into using R, there is a package called 'shotgroups' that can do some pretty interesting number crunching / visualization.

Yah I can probably share it here, that will have to be done tomorrow tho

 

[mrcheesemoose]

What does he know. He only won multiple large shooting events and you won…… oh wait.

Ever heard of the placebo affect? Just because someone with a bunch of expansive gizmos won some things doesn’t mean that *all* the fancy gizmos actually worked

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Ever heard of the placebo affect? Just because someone with a bunch of expansive gizmos won some things doesn’t mean that *all* the fancy gizmos actually worked

Unfortunately, it's hard for many to be able to step back and look at the big picture.


If I told everyone that I recently started turning my hat backwards while shooting and that caused my groups to become smaller, and that when I forget to turn my hat backwards, the groups get larger........they would all (correctly) tell me that it was just random luck that the times I forgot my hat I shot larger groups. Or possibly some sort of placebo effect.

But they aren't able to look at other things, such as tuners or load development methods the same way. Random chance makes sense to them when it's something that is pretty obvious not helping........but random chance doesn't make sense to them on things like 3 and 5 shot strings. Even though the concept is the exact same.

(Again, not saying things don't work. Just that unless you test in a way that eliminates things, you can't say that any of it isn't just inside the random dispersion of group size and/or chrono data)

 

[iceng]

Horse shit.. i promise you next match people would be wearing backwards hats.

You are cool, and i want to be like you....

And not a poor.

 

[Maurygold]

Unfortunately, it's hard for many to be able to step back and look at the big picture.


If I told everyone that I recently started turning my hat backwards while shooting and that caused my groups to become smaller, and that when I forget to turn my hat backwards, the groups get larger........they would all (correctly) tell me that it was just random luck that the times I forgot my hat I shot larger groups. Or possibly some sort of placebo effect.

But they aren't able to look at other things, such as tuners or load development methods the same way. Random chance makes sense to them when it's something that is pretty obvious not helping........but random chance doesn't make sense to them on things like 3 and 5 shot strings. Even though the concept is the exact same.

(Again, not saying things don't work. Just that unless you test in a way that eliminates things, you can't say that any of it isn't just inside the random dispersion of group size and/or chrono data)

No one cares what you’re doing though you aren’t consistently performing at the top of a sport. And your claim none of these people can shoot good enough or enough samples to understand if the tuner helps is crazy when they’re winning large shooting events.

Maybe this comes down to the fact you don’t shoot thousand of rounds a year or shoot over shotmarkers with precision equipment to be able to tell what these people know.

People don’t randomly show up and place 60 shots into small groups at 600 and 1k yards consistently. You don’t shoot like this though so I can see how you can’t respect this is far outside of chance. You don’t by chance or random shoot 60 bullets into a very small target that far away.

But like you said…. It’s hard for some people to take a step back and look at the big picture.

 

[Maurygold]

Ever heard of the placebo affect? Just because someone with a bunch of expansive gizmos won some things doesn’t mean that *all* the fancy gizmos actually worked

Placebo effect is actually how I shoot tiny groups. I’m just a big dummy following the crowd and got lucky with all the tiny groups I shoot.

Could you maybe show us how not following this placebo effect has helped you shoot tiny groups far away?

Someone check on @Rio Precision Gunworks hes currently staring at a wez chart punching air right now questioning his precious books

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

Man, my mind is totally changed since you posted a couple no context pictures of small groups and personal insults.

Good thing I don’t anneal either, my head would have exploded.

 

[Maurygold]

Man, my mind is totally changed since you posted a couple no context pictures of small groups and personal insults.

Good thing I don’t anneal either, my head would have exploded.

the focus of my argument is that some of the best precision shooters who are routinely performing are using them and quite successfully. Which flies in the face of people acting like it’s pseudo science that doesn’t work when it’s being routinely proven as effective.

I provided some groups so you can see that I don’t sit around reading books and just talk theory. I actually get out and shoot. It’s easy to hurl insults at me but bottom line I can shoot small groups at distance - something many on here claim to be able to do but don’t provide proof. You can discount my opinion if you want but I’m successfully shooting very small groups at distance.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

the focus of my argument is that some of the best precision shooters who are routinely performing are using them and quite successfully. Which flies in the face of people acting like it’s pseudo science that doesn’t work when it’s being routinely proven as effective.

I provided some groups so you can see that I don’t sit around reading books and just talk theory. I actually get out and shoot. It’s easy to hurl insults at me but bottom line I can shoot small groups at distance - something many on here claim to be able to do but don’t provide proof. You can discount my opinion if you want but I’m successfully shooting very small groups at distance.

You obviously didn’t read the rest of the thread. Go ahead and take your “argument” back to fuddcentral accurateshooter.

 

[Yoteski]

the focus of my argument is that some of the best precision shooters who are routinely performing are using them and quite successfully. Which flies in the face of people acting like it’s pseudo science that doesn’t work when it’s being routinely proven as effective.

I provided some groups so you can see that I don’t sit around reading books and just talk theory. I actually get out and shoot. It’s easy to hurl insults at me but bottom line I can shoot small groups at distance - something many on here claim to be able to do but don’t provide proof. You can discount my opinion if you want but I’m successfully shooting very small groups at distance.

But your argument is you wouldn’t be capable of shooting these small groups without your tuner set on a specific setting…..?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Tell us you don't actually know what data and "proof" are without telling us you don't actually know what data and proof are.

 

[SDet]

I have to be honest, the tuner stuff is interesting from an engineering point. That said, looking at record setting rifles (benchrest) from the last 20 years, they're on maybe half of them?

That suggests that they don't hurt accuracy, and maybe they make a change in the 0.0xx moa range. But that really comes back to the "your gun isn't accurate enough to see it" train of thought. There are probably many more noticeable areas to improve before tuners come into play.

Some of the articles also got into loads and guns getting out of tune throughout the day and loading at the match. But these are in the 1" at 600 for 30 round realm.

 

[Maurygold]

But your argument is you wouldn’t be capable of shooting these small groups without your tuner set on a specific setting…..?

My shooting was improved by the use of a tuner. The use of that tuner involves settings that are more favorable than others.

You guys are assuming I stuck a tuner on and just accepted it’s better. I shot at least a thousand rounds of rounds to determine if it improved my shooting. Otherwise it would have come off. No that’s not statistically significant but you’re notion im just bandwagoning is misguided

 

[Maurygold]

I have to be honest, the tuner stuff is interesting from an engineering point. That said, looking at record setting rifles (benchrest) from the last 20 years, they're on maybe half of them?

That suggests that they don't hurt accuracy, and maybe they make a change in the 0.0xx moa range. But that really comes back to the "your gun isn't accurate enough to see it" train of thought. There are probably many more noticeable areas to improve before tuners come into play.

Some of the articles also got into loads and guns getting out of tune throughout the day and loading at the match. But these are in the 1" at 600 for 30 round realm.

They’ve certainly increased in popularity over the last 5 years. This 2019 chart looks like the majority were using tuners and 3 of the top 4 in heavy gun used them.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I have to be honest, the tuner stuff is interesting from an engineering point. That said, looking at record setting rifles (benchrest) from the last 20 years, they're on maybe half of them?

That suggests that they don't hurt accuracy, and maybe they make a change in the 0.0xx moa range. But that really comes back to the "your gun isn't accurate enough to see it" train of thought. There are probably many more noticeable areas to improve before tuners come into play.

Some of the articles also got into loads and guns getting out of tune throughout the day and loading at the match. But these are in the 1" at 600 for 30 round realm.

That's also part of the debate/problem.

Some will tell you that you have to tune to the current conditions. Others will tell you that it's a set and forget.

 

[lumberjack78]

Placebo effect is actually how I shoot tiny groups. I’m just a big dummy following the crowd and got lucky with all the tiny groups I shoot.

Could you maybe show us how not following this placebo effect has helped you shoot tiny groups far away?

Someone check on @Rio Precision Gunworks hes currently staring at a wez chart punching air right now questioning his precious books

View attachment 8348869

I'm assuming the tuner wasn't responsible for that 4th shot "flier"?

 

[Maurygold]

That's also part of the debate/problem.

Some will tell you that you have to tune to the current conditions. Others will tell you that it's a set and forget.

Nope. The common understanding is that you tune it to the rifle. Why they all settings.

I would agree sticking a tuner on clamping it because it’s weight and expecting better groups is dumb.

 

[Maurygold]

I'm assuming the tuner wasn't responsible for that 4th shot "flier"?

Your group sir?

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

Your group sir?

How small do my groups need to be before a tuner will work?

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

How small do my groups need to be before a tuner will work?

It's best not to engage. Shortly he'll claim victory and move on.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

It's best not to engage. Shortly he'll claim victory and move on.

But I’ve been trying to get someone, anyone, to answer this for me in three threads now!

I’m just bitter I bought one and it didn’t make my mid pack finishing factory ammo shooting any better because that was the common knowledge two years ago.

 

[JBoomhauer]

They’ve certainly increased in popularity over the last 5 years. This 2019 chart looks like the majority were using tuners and 3 of the top 4 in heavy gun used them.

It also looks like in 2019 it was mandatory to shoot N133 and a 6PPC if you wanted to be competitive.

 

[Maurygold]

It's best not to engage. Shortly he'll claim victory and move on.

@Rio Precision Gunworks with backhanded comments yet zero proof of his shooting. Classic. What an authority on shooting. Lol

Back to the shed Danny!!

 

[Maurygold]

It's best not to engage. Shortly he'll claim victory and move on.

Danny you have any advice for cortina? You’re probably a better shooter than him too.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

But I’ve been trying to get someone, anyone, to answer this for me in three threads now!

I’m just bitter I bought one and it didn’t make my mid pack finishing factory ammo shooting any better because that was the common knowledge two years ago.

That's always a moving target.

When your ammo is terrible or factory, many will say you can't use a tuner to make bad ammo good (even though there's literally a paid Facebook advertisement for a popular tuner claiming you can).

When your ammo is too good, they will say you will see little or no change since your ammo is so good.



Which means, it works for almost good enough, but not the best ammo......maybe. But probably sometimes.

 

[Ledzep]

Speaking of, first group posted. Even this group isn't really sub moa since 95% of the shots make a group larger than a moa. Tho I do need to double check the math since I had to make some quick adjustments for 200 yard calculations.

powder bullet combo	mean radius	RSD	CEP50	CEP95	diameter containing 95% of shots
6mm ARC-110Honrady A-tip-28.0Varget	0.365376	0.165342	0.338536	0.703791	1.40758

Yah I can probably share it here, that will have to be done tomorrow tho

The first group was the one with sorted and "loved" cases had a total group size of 1.24" at 200yd. Mean radius .36" MV SD 8fps
The 2nd group with random grabbed stuff and thrown charges had a total group size of 1.42" at 200yd. Mean radius .36" MV SD 11fps

Both are pretty solidly sub-MOA.

 

[Taylorbok]

@Maurygold we managed to keep this thread pretty civil until this point.
You are the same as every other tuner advocate, no data to prove the use of tuners work, just the fact that some people who shoot small groups use them which no one here will deny. The lack of scientific data makes it nearly impossible to believe followed by the fact there have now been 2 fairly scientific tests done that have shown the movement of a tuner makes no difference on group size.

 

[mrcheesemoose]

My shooting was improved by the use of a tuner. The use of that tuner involves settings that are more favorable than others.

You guys are assuming I stuck a tuner on and just accepted it’s better. I shot at least a thousand rounds of rounds to determine if it improved my shooting. Otherwise it would have come off. No that’s not statistically significant but you’re notion im just bandwagoning is misguided

As a data scientist I see this sort of pattern all the time in *trillions* of data points. Oftentimes you think that one variable is influencing another variable (in our case having a tuner or not influencing group size) then when you run component analysis or correlation matrices on it, it turns out there’s another parallel variable that made you think the original variable was responsible, or there’s a bunch of different variables that influenced the change, all independent of the variable you thought was responsible. I won’t believe tuners work until you show me the data and the analysis that proves that they do. Until then, I’ll accept the null hypothesis that they don’t help, and that they don’t hurt your shooting. Seems like you may have the data, now do the analysis. Speaking of, I’d love to see that data (raw shot data, not groups).

 

[mrcheesemoose]

The first group was the one with sorted and "loved" cases had a total group size of 1.24" at 200yd. Mean radius .36" MV SD 8fps
The 2nd group with random grabbed stuff and thrown charges had a total group size of 1.42" at 200yd. Mean radius .36" MV SD 11fps

Both are pretty solidly sub-MOA.

Ah, so my calculations were not measuring in moa but inches. Stupid me, I’ll have to update that. Definitely sub moa for sure.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

As a data scientist I see this sort of pattern all the time in *trillions* of data points. Oftentimes you think that one variable is influencing another variable (in our case having a tuner or not influencing group size) then when you run component analysis or correlation matrices on it, it turns out there’s another parallel variable that made you think the original variable was responsible, or there’s a bunch of different variables that influenced the change, all independent of the variable you thought was responsible. I won’t believe tuners work until you show me the data and the analysis that proves that they do. Until then, I’ll accept the null hypothesis that they don’t help, and that they don’t hurt your shooting. Seems like you may have the data, now do the analysis. Speaking of, I’d love to see that data (raw shot data, not groups).

Yep. Shooting 1,000 or 1 million rounds doesn't help if you don't collect and/or analyze the data correctly.

And everyone claims they have the data, but when it's time to show it.....it's presented in a way that's impossible to correlate anything.

 

[CNC-Dude]

That's also part of the debate/problem.

Some will tell you that you have to tune to the current conditions. Others will tell you that it's a set and forget.

That's mostly dependent on the ammo. If you are using factory ammo, it's not consistent box to box even in the same lot numbers. So you may be constantly be adjusting the tuner. Even reloaded ammo that is on the edge of an unstable node will require that as well. Nobody thinks a tuner can create a championship ammo from lousy or mediocre ones.

 

[Maurygold]

@Maurygold we managed to keep this thread pretty civil until this point.
You are the same as every other tuner advocate, no data to prove the use of tuners work, just the fact that some people who shoot small groups use them which no one here will deny. The lack of scientific data makes it nearly impossible to believe followed by the fact there have now been 2 fairly scientific tests done that have shown the movement of a tuner makes no difference on group size.

I agree that litz testing shows no difference. So are you claiming if cortina or john go shoot the same barrel same load same condition without a tuner they would shoot the same group? Is it possible for a tuner to negatively affect groups by moving it?

I’m willing to agree that clamping a tuner to a gun in a single random spot could negatively impact groups vs no tuner. Do you agree with that as well?

 

[JBoomhauer]

As a data scientist I see this sort of pattern all the time in *trillions* of data points. Oftentimes you think that one variable is influencing another variable (in our case having a tuner or not influencing group size) then when you run component analysis or correlation matrices on it, it turns out there’s another parallel variable that made you think the original variable was responsible, or there’s a bunch of different variables that influenced the change, all independent of the variable you thought was responsible. I won’t believe tuners work until you show me the data and the analysis that proves that they do. Until then, I’ll accept the null hypothesis that they don’t help, and that they don’t hurt your shooting. Seems like you may have the data, now do the analysis. Speaking of, I’d love to see that data (raw shot data, not groups).

He should be able to export that data also.

I occasionally shoot F class to dial my PRS rig in and get that data from the shotmarker instead of the group image.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

That's mostly dependent on the ammo. If you are using factory ammo, it's not consistent box to box even in the same lot numbers. So you may be constantly be adjusting the tuner. Even reloaded ammo that is on the edge of an unstable node will require that as well. Nobody thinks a tuner can create a championship ammo from lousy or mediocre ones.

This is what I mean. There's plenty of others (again, paid ad on Facebook) that claim otherwise. You're also putting words in mouths. No one is saying that anyone is saying it will make bad ammo championship ammo (for the most part).

Hell, there's people who claim they can tune (not necessarily with an adjustable tuner, but tune in some way, shape, or form) factory ammo to "benchrest accuracy" past 2,000 yds.

 

[Haney]

Tell us you don't actually know what data and "proof" are without telling us you don't actually know what data and proof are.

Tell us you are not a receptionist at a gun assembly garage just hoping to touch a piece of machinery some day . With your constant bullshit posts 24/7 there is no way you do real work .

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Or.....I own parts of three different companies and also put in 8-10hrs a day in a fourth area. Among other things, I loaded 500rnds of ammunition for a customer yesterday.

It's not that hard to take 30sec here and there to type a post. Just typed this one while watching a Mark 7 running with another 500pcs with a mandrel. And an AMP Mate working on 500 other pieces.

It's good to be one of the bosses. Means I can stop what I'm doing whenever I want to do whatever I want. Then go right back to doing what I was doing.

 

[Taylorbok]

I agree that litz testing shows no difference. So are you claiming if cortina or john go shoot the same barrel same load same condition without a tuner they would shoot the same group? Is it possible for a tuner to negatively affect groups by moving it?

I’m willing to agree that clamping a tuner to a gun in a single random spot could negatively impact groups vs no tuner. Do you agree with that as well?

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying there is no data to support it.
In both tests the movement of the tuner had no affect on group size. (positive or negative)

The addition or removal of the tuner as a weight/ muzzle device has shown to potentially have some impact on group size so it is likely if they just removed the tuner the group size would change. Even in that video you posted in post #276 he admits the ES was different on the groups and would cause the vertical.

I'm still planning to test a tuner myself to find out but I'm not hopeful that it has a meaningful impact.

 

[Tokay444]

the focus of my argument is that some of the best precision shooters who are routinely performing are using them and quite successfully. Which flies in the face of people acting like it’s pseudo science that doesn’t work when it’s being routinely proven as effective.

I provided some groups so you can see that I don’t sit around reading books and just talk theory. I actually get out and shoot. It’s easy to hurl insults at me but bottom line I can shoot small groups at distance - something many on here claim to be able to do but don’t provide proof. You can discount my opinion if you want but I’m successfully shooting very small groups at distance.

And some of the best don't. So there's that. Use does not prove effectiveness the same way disuse does not prove ineffectiveness. .

 

[Tokay444]

Nope. The common understanding is that you tune it to the rifle. Why they all settings.

I would agree sticking a tuner on clamping it because it’s weight and expecting better groups is dumb.

This isn't a common understanding at all. We have multiple tuner manufacturers telling us different things completely, and proponents of tuners telling us different things as well. Nothing is common on the topic other than zero supporting data that they work.

 

[Tokay444]

@Maurygold we managed to keep this thread pretty civil until this point.
You are the same as every other tuner advocate, no data to prove the use of tuners work, just the fact that some people who shoot small groups use them which no one here will deny. The lack of scientific data makes it nearly impossible to believe followed by the fact there have now been 2 fairly scientific tests done that have shown the movement of a tuner makes no difference on group size.

Tuners are a religion, which is the opposite of science.

 

[Tokay444]

That's mostly dependent on the ammo. If you are using factory ammo, it's not consistent box to box even in the same lot numbers. So you may be constantly be adjusting the tuner. Even reloaded ammo that is on the edge of an unstable node will require that as well. Nobody thinks a tuner can create a championship ammo from lousy or mediocre ones.

That's not what certain tuner manufacturers claim. Are you a new tuner manufacturer making another differing claim?
Also, lol@node.

 

[lumberjack78]

That's not what certain tuner manufacturers claim. Are you a new tuner manufacturer making another differing claim?
Also, lol@node.

I thought it was anti-node not the unstable node. Now we can't even agree on what these imaginary things are called.

 

[Ledzep]

Pshh.. Muzzle weight tuners.... The real secret sauce is in infinitely adjustable modular mass/gas flow tuners.

What's the optimal baffle spacing? You know.. to get to the gas node.

Disclaimer: I haven't put a bullet through this yet, but I'm sure it will do something!

 

[CNC-Dude]

That's not what certain tuner manufacturers claim. Are you a new tuner manufacturer making another differing claim?
Also, lol@node.

Nodes are what the top shooters and tuner manufacturers refer to them as. They also state that you need to find a stable node from load development before trying to use a tuner. No, I'm not a tuner manufacturer, but I have made one based off of what I think is a good design that is on the market. I adjusted and tested it just like I've seen the original maker test his on many of his videos and found it improved the groups considerably over the same rifle with the same ammo and no tuner. I'm building an F-T/R rifle now and am curious if the same results can be found with it. Maybe, maybe not! I'm not going to loose sleep if it doesn't and if it does, good for me. A Hall of Fame Benchrest shooter on one of Erik Cortina's podcasts, Jack Neary stated that many of the benchrest events he competes in are won by as little as .001" in their aggs. And many feel if a tuner can gain them just a few thousands of group size, it's worth it to them. The same for the other F-Class guys, if a tuner can improve their score by a few points, that might be all they need to win. Try one for yourself and draw your own conclusions instead of what others are claiming....

 

[Tokay444]

Nodes are what the top shooters and tuner manufacturers refer to them as. They also state that you need to find a stable node from load development before trying to use a tuner. No, I'm not a tuner manufacturer, but I have made one based off of what I think is a good design that is on the market. I adjusted and tested it just like I've seen the original maker test his on many of his videos and found it improved the groups considerably over the same rifle with the same ammo and no tuner. I'm building an F-T/R rifle now and am curious if the same results can be found with it. Maybe, maybe not! I'm not going to loose sleep if it doesn't and if it does, good for me. A Hall of Fame Benchrest shooter on one of Erik Cortina's podcasts, Jack Neary stated that many of the benchrest events he competes in are won by as little as .001" in their aggs. And many feel if a tuner can gain them just a few thousands of group size, it's worth it to them. The same for the other F-Class guys, if a tuner can improve their score by a few points, that might be all they need to win. Try one for yourself and draw your own conclusions instead of what others are claiming....

Who is they? Can you provide two tuner manufacturers who’s advertisements are in agreement with your statement?

 

[CNC-Dude]

Who is they?

Erik Cortina.....watch his videos about chasing the lands! The Ultimate Reloader.....any of his reloading videos....! Have you ever heard of YouTube....?

 

[Yoteski]

My shooting was improved by the use of a tuner. The use of that tuner involves settings that are more favorable than others.

You guys are assuming I stuck a tuner on and just accepted it’s better. I shot at least a thousand rounds of rounds to determine if it improved my shooting. Otherwise it would have come off. No that’s not statistically significant but you’re notion im just bandwagoning is misguided

So what’s the actual percentage it increased your accuracy?

 

[morganlamprecht]

found it improved the groups considerably over the same rifle with the same ammo and no tuner.

what is "considerably" if you had to put a number on it...like avg group size before vs the improved

im really asking, because if i found a tuner improved what i have without a tuner considerably, id be in winning benchrest rifle territory with a bipod and rear bag (which i dont really believe would be realistic)...ive considered my rifles i tested were mostly maxed out (if you want to put it that way) and they werent bad enough to see a large improvement to beging with or i wasnt good enough to see a tiny one in the positive direction