Don't forget to let us know how many shots were in that group. One answer could mean something and the other completely statistically irrelevant
- Thread starter Taylorbok
- Start date
Is there another tuner manufacturer that shares the same opinion of how a tuner works and is supposed to be setup, as Erik? The Ultimate Reloader is a paid shill. I won't patronize him with any views. Yes.Erik Cortina.....watch his videos about chasing the lands! The Ultimate Reloader.....any of his reloading videos....! Have you ever heard of YouTube....?
I think I’m going to try to start a thread even better than this one.
The central question can be: from a load development and reloading perspective, does anything have an affect on accuracy other than velocity consistency and projectile consistency.
The central question can be: from a load development and reloading perspective, does anything have an affect on accuracy other than velocity consistency and projectile consistency.
I think that the Ezell tuner guy has a little different approach to his testing method, but I don't really search and seek everyone's products myself. I'm sure they all function in a similar manner, they might just try to explain it in a different way to make people think their product stands apart from someone else's. Erik has mentioned in a lot of his podcasts that just because someone like Speedy, or another top shooter tells him something, he still wants to do his own testing and verify what his results are. Not that he thinks they might try to mislead him, but just to verify his results with his rifle. That's one reason I made my own tuner, I just was curious and wanted to see what my results were. At the end of the day, your results are really all that matters.
As far as the Ultimate Reloader, yeah I agree with you he seems to benefit substantially from his promotion of products. I think some of his testing could be a little more in depth also.
No. That's the problem. None of them can come to a consensus on how they work, how to use them, or what the requirements are for rifle/ammo/shooter to be able to see a benefit from one.
Has there been a decision made on whether tuners have an effect on velocity dispersions?
Yes. In fact I would say velocity consistency is less directly linked to dispersion than a long list of other things.
A start to a short, completely non-inclusive list,
Bore and groove diameter consistency
Bore and groove diameter ratios
Bore and groove area ratios
Bore straightness
Bore/OD concentricity
Throat geometry, especially combined with bullet seating
Case clearance/chamber geometry
Bullet/groove diameter relationship
Bullet rigidity
Powder type
- A muddy mess of discussion on pressure vs. time or pressure vs. distance curves
Muzzle device
- Tuners? suppressors? Mass? Gas flow?
Rifle weight
Bedding
Barrel profile, material, heat treat
Primer type
Primer seating (to a much more limited effect than most people think, but it can still cause problems)
Neck tension value
Neck tension consistency
Case fill %
....
....
It's a randomized mess of so many variables anyone that claims to boil it down to single variable solutions is immediately suspect to me. I will tell you the heavy hitters assuming everything else is up to snuff are "component tetris" between the barrel, bullet, and powder, but the other things can all screw you if you do them wrong enough.
velocity will show at distance, but close range its not much of a factor at all...ive shot a lot tiny groups @ 100 with varied powder charges that had huge ES/SD in velocity
I'll Post This Here - Hornady's Podcast #50. I thought it was one of their best, but some reloaders might not like what they see....
Unfortunately the problem with statistics is not that they are wrong but that there is a lack of understanding of what the statistics can tell us. Whether your sample set is 3 shots, 20 shots, or 100 shots it is statistically significant. It is the level of significance that is important to...
www.snipershide.com Post #228 shows rounds fired with velocity spreads of 100+ fps at 100 yds from a couple different rifles as an example of how much it can not matter up close
velocity will show at distance, but close range its not much of a factor at all...ive shot a lot tiny groups @ 100 with varied powder charges that had huge ES/SD in velocity
I'll Post This Here - Hornady's Podcast #50. I thought it was one of their best, but some reloaders might not like what they see....
Unfortunately the problem with statistics is not that they are wrong but that there is a lack of understanding of what the statistics can tell us. Whether your sample set is 3 shots, 20 shots, or 100 shots it is statistically significant. It is the level of significance that is important to...
Post #228 shows rounds fired with velocity spreads of 100+ fps at 100 yds from a couple different rifles as an example of how much it can not matter up close
That begs the question, what are we attempting to achieve in the reloading room? What measuring tools do we have available to measure our success or failure at achieving these metrics?
If we are not going to let the labradar or other chronograph pick the best performing load? What is happening at 100 yards where group dispersion is either more or less than what the velocity dispersion would predict the group dispersion would be?
Most people don’t have equipment that is accurate to less than .002”, yet think they can measure to .0005” because their digital readout displays in half thou increments. Then think they can measure seating depth in .003” increments and that it makes a difference.
Irrelevant to the tuner thread.
There's more than just velocity affecting where a bullet will land. Stop trying to make a gotchya argument. I'm sure people would love to jump into your fresh new positive compensation thread.
Point well taken.
The point I was trying to make is it seems like the one thing the entire reloading community can agree on is minimizing velocity dispersion is a goal.
We have decently accurate tools for measuring velocity.
It seems like the first order of business would be testing whether a tuner has an effect on velocity dispersion.
Depends on what forums and people you ask. There's many who don't agree on this either. They shoot ladder tests at distance an either don't pay attention or don't even us a chronograph for load development.
If you mean velocity dispersion as SD, and ES of velocity - I don't think it does. For example, my last tuner test average MV/ES/SD* for the "worst" tuner setting was 2832/25/6.6 vs 2839/25/6.8 for the "best" setting (24 valid LR tracks on each). While the averages are 7 fps different, the spreads and SDs are near identical.
I'm not sure how one would test a tuner to find the "best" and "worst" settings for velocity without burning a lot of ammo just to find out your SD*'s are just higher than you'd like.
If you meant dispersion due to velocity, as in positive compensation or some other similar notion - In my testing, I haven't seen a tuner make any difference to vertical dispersion due to tuner setting.
*That's STDEV.S
ETA: As to first order of business - Most claims made wrt tuners are about group size or rifle tune (as measured by group size), so that kinda steers the conversation.
There’s people here, who have no tangible product to sell, that have said out loud they, “possess the technology” to tune out a velocity spread of 200ft/s, and can’t believe that no one is beating down their door for it.
We all know I’ve asked several of them to tune a rifle I send them.
I’ll give them my AXMC and have them get me squared away.
I’ll have another prefit and shoot them side by side with same ammo
Best case, they work and it shoots great.
Worst case it doesn’t do that much and they made some money and I have 2 barrels to shoot out.
Still no takers from legitimate tuner people
As promised. Zipped because I can't attach ipynb files -_-
Cool. Been a little bit since I dabbled in Python, since R has more packages I'm interested in... but I vastly prefer the syntax of Python.
FWIW... if you ever get feeling ambitious and put it on github, let me know!
This is ripe for correlation matricies. If we wanted to see how much each of these variables affects group size, we should get tons of data and correlate all this together. A correlation matrix will tell you not just which variables impact dispersion more, but also by how much. The more data you have, the more accurate the matrix. I started compiling data to do just this late last year, but then winter came and it hasn't really risen about 20 here on the weekends. I'm super curious, but man it takes awhile to get a lot of data.
I definitely will! I have a couple other notebooks I have, I'll have to put some more polish in them and fix some issues (like that moa thing earlier) then I can put them up and share.
Correlation matrix won’t show non-additive effects. This topic is a conditional multidimensional problem.
Might be worth looking at the vignette pdf for that 'shotgroups' package... might give you some ideas for your notebook(s).
I second this one. That pdf is worth a read even for someone that isn't looking to write some code.
Check my math. 1 MOA = 1.045 in @ 100 yd.
So, at 600 yds, 1 MOA= 6.27 in. and 6.3 > 6.27.
6.3/6.2 =1.005 MOA.
Probably not noticable. So, the tuner made it a 1 MOA gun (or do we want to consider the .005, as well, since minute details matter)?
I’d love to know where you’re going with this….. I hope it includes you showing us targets at distance.
Waiting for the “muh savage 110 shoots 1/4 moa at 100 yards post”…..
Last edited:
You misunderstand me. Those are not my targets. I was asking about the math. Or has someone changed the definition of 1 MOA = 1.045 inches?
And no, I do not have a 110 shooting 1/4 MOA nor was I implying anything other than questioning the effect of the tuner.
And that is why I said to check my math.
Did I make a mistake with the math? If so, what was my mistake?
Yep. Gun barely shoots moa.
It actually shoots 2moa at 100 yards but I’m using bullets with convergence so it shoots better at 600 yards.
To be clear, you’re saying that adjusting your tuner makes your rifle a 2MOA at 100 gun but a 1MOA gun at 600?
What protocol are you using to test/adjust your tuner?
This is a claim that has been repeated multiple times here by tuner advocates.
It would be interesting to see what a gun tuned like this looks like when shooting over radar.
Is this gun less accurate at any range other than 600y in the above case. Seems it is only useful if the shooter is shooting at a fixed known distance.
How would this benefit a PRS or practical shooter that may have ten 1.5 MOA targets at 10 different ranges from 300y to 1200y?
If you want to be technical and exact as possible, 1 MOA at 100 yards is 1.047"....
that's not how ballistics work. I was messing with the guy for wanting to have a math class (and messing up the constant) - bullets with convergence?
the gun shoots exactly how you would expect at 100 yards, but I don't shoot Benchrest, so I don't spend much time at the 200-yard line, more or less the 100 picking apart 1/4 moa groups.
There are guys that make that exact claim.
The only difference is they call it “Positive Compensation” instead of convergence.
You're right, my mistake.
So, on the 20 shot group at 600 yards, 1 MOA = 6.282"
The reported 6.3"/6.282" = 1.003, instead of 1.005.
Thanks for checking me on my math.
I hope this is a joke or a sarcastic post
Does give me an idea though. I could turn a lot of this into python packages if anyone’s a taker.
“bullet convergence”
What a concept
What could explain how bullet convergence works?
Once the bullet leaves the barrel, it seems like the consistency of the projectiles themselves and the consistency of the muzzle velocities would be the primary factors
Now before the bullet leaves the barrel?
Is what “bullet convergence” is referring to the angle of the barrel at the time the bullet exits?
What a concept
What could explain how bullet convergence works?
Once the bullet leaves the barrel, it seems like the consistency of the projectiles themselves and the consistency of the muzzle velocities would be the primary factors
Now before the bullet leaves the barrel?
Is what “bullet convergence” is referring to the angle of the barrel at the time the bullet exits?
@timintx "has the technology".
Yes , a slower bullet is aimed higher by the barrel , and a faster bullet is aimed lower by the barrel. Meaning the barrel has a upward lateral velocity at the time of exit .
Last edited:
Is there a way to “tune” the rifle such that the opposite would be true or does what you described always happen for you?
The effect of the barrel moving downward is quite common on most every rifle and will cause exaggerated vertical dispersion so that it’s even with small ES the dispersion is large. To get the barrel moving up takes specialized weighting and offsets at least for a wide window .
Like a tuner?
