I Guess I'll start here...Tuners
- Thread starter Buzzbee
- Start date
I think maybe not the next "Big" thing, but I do think they will slowly gain more popularity and become accepted as a true working piece of kit.
Eric Cortina deserves a lot of credit for making a version that works really well on center fire rifles. I think his innovation is in realizing how small a change is needed to actually change barrel harmonics. His tuner only moves a couple thousandths of an inch from one setting to the next. His is also designed very well to stay in place under the sharp recoil impulse of a center fire rifle.
I think PRS shooters were less likely to accept a barrel tuner until Eric Cortina's design, because the nature of the sport involves lots of movement and the possibility of knocking your muzzle against props or natural terrain. Now that is it pretty evident the tuner works and is a virtually seemless form factor on a heavy barrel I think more shooters will want the convenience of not doing extensive load development.
Eric Cortina deserves a lot of credit for making a version that works really well on center fire rifles. I think his innovation is in realizing how small a change is needed to actually change barrel harmonics. His tuner only moves a couple thousandths of an inch from one setting to the next. His is also designed very well to stay in place under the sharp recoil impulse of a center fire rifle.
I think PRS shooters were less likely to accept a barrel tuner until Eric Cortina's design, because the nature of the sport involves lots of movement and the possibility of knocking your muzzle against props or natural terrain. Now that is it pretty evident the tuner works and is a virtually seemless form factor on a heavy barrel I think more shooters will want the convenience of not doing extensive load development.
Browning has had the BOSS tuner for years, I guess nobody took notice.
Nothing new about barrel tuners. Like you said the boss tuner is probably 10-15years old.
Erik did a tremendous job on his tuner. But, Aaron Hipp took it to a new level. No modifications to the barrel, and the tuner works extremely well. I’ve tested his tuner On multiple calibers. It’s like an easy button.
What I recall of the old tuners like the brownings/Winchester boss is they can improve the accuracy more so with factory ammunition. The reloaders didn’t get the same amount of improvement. However, One group derived a significant benefit but only for a brief period of time. Browning and Winchester had increased sales of rifles equipped with the boss for a year or so. The serious shooters called BS and continued to tune their loads as the have for over 50 years that I know of.
I don’t see that anything has changed. If you shoot factory ammo it’s a great addition. No more buying every brand and bullet weight of ammo to find something that shoots good for you.
The reloaders might try them but I suspect they’ll go back to working up loads for their rifles like they’ve always done.
Just my humble opinion
I don’t see that anything has changed. If you shoot factory ammo it’s a great addition. No more buying every brand and bullet weight of ammo to find something that shoots good for you.
The reloaders might try them but I suspect they’ll go back to working up loads for their rifles like they’ve always done.
Just my humble opinion
The new tuners like the Kinetic Security Solutions ATS are not like the BOSS. Same basic idea but you can use them on any barrel that is threaded but with your own choice of brake or suppressor. Even Aaron said he didn't come up with anything new but just made it easier to use. Just screw it on and then put your brake or thread protector on over it. Simple. I have one of the ATS tuners and it works as advertised. I put it on my 6.5 Creedmoor and tuned it to factory 140 ELD-M ammo and it shoots. Easy to tune in also. Below is a pic of 5 shots using a 6th bullet hole as the aiming point.
Even handloaders can use them with success. Ever work up a single digit ES/SD load that didn't shoot as good as others? Now you can keep the low numbers and tune the harmonics to make it shoot.
Not sure if they will be the new thing but they work and I am sure some will play with them.
Even handloaders can use them with success. Ever work up a single digit ES/SD load that didn't shoot as good as others? Now you can keep the low numbers and tune the harmonics to make it shoot.
Not sure if they will be the new thing but they work and I am sure some will play with them.
Kinetic Security Solutions LLC
Dedicated to providing quality products to the shooting community.
www.kineticsecuritysolutions.com
I use them to be lazy.
Similar to what Rob said. For prs, I can skip the seating depth portion of load development and just use the tuner (f class and such you’ll want to do both).
I’m actually about to head to range with a new dasher barrel right now. I took a rough estimate/measurement of lands with the hornady tool. Back off .030 to make sure I’m nowhere near lands. Tossed 30.0 varget for the first 1-200 rnds and just going to adjust tuner.
Once barrel is sped up, I’m going to take the same .030, find a powder charge via chrono, then re-tune with tuner and be done. Every 300-500 rounds I’ll either do a very small seating depth test or just set the tuner to zero and re-tune. Whatever I feel like doing.
Similar to what Rob said. For prs, I can skip the seating depth portion of load development and just use the tuner (f class and such you’ll want to do both).
I’m actually about to head to range with a new dasher barrel right now. I took a rough estimate/measurement of lands with the hornady tool. Back off .030 to make sure I’m nowhere near lands. Tossed 30.0 varget for the first 1-200 rnds and just going to adjust tuner.
Once barrel is sped up, I’m going to take the same .030, find a powder charge via chrono, then re-tune with tuner and be done. Every 300-500 rounds I’ll either do a very small seating depth test or just set the tuner to zero and re-tune. Whatever I feel like doing.
Sounds like you have a solid plan of attack. Let us know how everything goes. I’d be interested in how much benefit is gotten by reloaders. No question that in my mind it’ll improve factory ammo considerably but I’m not sure that it’ll help guys like you.
I reload extensively. I was intrigued by Browning's BOSS tuner years ago but not enough to try it. A lot of effort and components goes in to finding a good load. And like has already been mentioned, loads with the lowest ES and SD aren't normally the most accurate. But if this can tune those loads to be accurate and relatively easily, then the cost savings in components alone easily pays for it.
This is my personal opinion, but I think tuners are a current fad that is mostly becoming prominent and relevant in PRS because it fulfills our need to tinker and experiment, one made recently possible through new variations in tuners.
I can potentially see benefits with factory ammo, I've yet to play with one myself, but based on what others are reporting, it sounds promising for use with factory ammo.
As a reloader, I've never had trouble dialing in a really good load in a relatively short period of time. I think a good portion of that is due to using good quality reloading equipment, along with good reloading components and consistently using the same components rather then constantly experimenting to chase ballistics.
I'm not really a believer in positive compensation, in which a tuner essentially prescribes to that theory. Positive compensation is optimizing a load at a set/specified distance, and in a game where we are shooting from 100 yards to a mile plus, I don't think positive compensation is the most optimal method of developing a load. Bryan Litz doesn't believe in positive compensation or the benefits of tuners, and they've been doing extensive ballistic tests for years. So take that for what it's worth.
Another downside to a tuner, is that it's another potential thing to go wrong. If they do work, they will certainly be less then optimal if knocked loose, causing all sorts of potential problems. Wouldn't take much for a couple of grub screws to come loose, especially in a discipline where we are not always nice to our rifles.
To me, the potential benefits don't outweigh introducing a new potential failure into the system, and personally I see it as more of a passing fad, staying on relatively few guns in the long run. Even in F-class and benchrest, where tuners have been around for decades, they evoke pretty mixed feelings and reviews.
I can potentially see benefits with factory ammo, I've yet to play with one myself, but based on what others are reporting, it sounds promising for use with factory ammo.
As a reloader, I've never had trouble dialing in a really good load in a relatively short period of time. I think a good portion of that is due to using good quality reloading equipment, along with good reloading components and consistently using the same components rather then constantly experimenting to chase ballistics.
I'm not really a believer in positive compensation, in which a tuner essentially prescribes to that theory. Positive compensation is optimizing a load at a set/specified distance, and in a game where we are shooting from 100 yards to a mile plus, I don't think positive compensation is the most optimal method of developing a load. Bryan Litz doesn't believe in positive compensation or the benefits of tuners, and they've been doing extensive ballistic tests for years. So take that for what it's worth.
Another downside to a tuner, is that it's another potential thing to go wrong. If they do work, they will certainly be less then optimal if knocked loose, causing all sorts of potential problems. Wouldn't take much for a couple of grub screws to come loose, especially in a discipline where we are not always nice to our rifles.
To me, the potential benefits don't outweigh introducing a new potential failure into the system, and personally I see it as more of a passing fad, staying on relatively few guns in the long run. Even in F-class and benchrest, where tuners have been around for decades, they evoke pretty mixed feelings and reviews.
Here is 3 settings on the tuner. Went from .4-.5moa to .3moa.
Doesn't sound like much, but that’s 20-25% better. I’ve seen it do similar things like bring factory ammo from 1 to .5moa.
For prs loaders, the benefit is less range trips and less seating depth shenanigans to get to easily acceptable results for the targets we shoot. If you have 100yds out your back door, might not benefit you. If you have to drive an hour, you’ll benefit greatly. Or if just lazy like me.
With anything in this sport you will have people who like it and people who don't. Have to try it and figure it out for yourself. I was on the fence and figured I would try it as I shoot some factory ammo. I was worried about having it set at 100 yards and then not working at farther distances and that worry was dispelled the first match. I had only shot it at 100 yards to zero and then went to the match and they had a zero day before and shots out to almost 1000. I checked zero and then went out to the 930 yard steel and took three shots and the spotter said "man those are almost touching". Worry gone.
Also the way the ATS is installed having it come loose would be way down the list of thing I would be worrying about. I installed mine and locked down the screw, only have one installed, and haven't touched it since and have shot it in a couple matches and range sessions.
Also the way the ATS is installed having it come loose would be way down the list of thing I would be worrying about. I installed mine and locked down the screw, only have one installed, and haven't touched it since and have shot it in a couple matches and range sessions.
Slight tangent for conversation purposes. Let’s say positive compensation isn’t real.
What is the explanation when groups are fairly routinely shot at distances where the muzzle velocity variation itself makes the group size impossible? By shooters who are skilled enough they aren’t moving the rifle enough for pure chance/luck that the lower velocity shot was pulled high or the higher velocity shot was pulled low.
Personally I don't really know or care whether positive compensation works, lots of people swear that it does and use it for their load development methods (like Alex Wheeler). However Bryan Litz says it doesn't work, not with today's excellent equipment and free floated barrels. I don't know how much research he's done into it, but I found it an interesting comment.
Based on the theory positive compensation is based on, I don't think PRS is the best application for it, assuming it does work. Positive compensation is designed to optimize accuracy at a set distance, not for a diverse range that we shoot.
A lot of the knowledge in our sport is based on anecdotal evidence and superstition and myth. There's hardly any qualitative and scientific method style testing being done, that eliminates or isolates variables to understand what is truly happening. Sample sizes are generally very small, and shooters as a group tend to draw incorrect and false conclusions from very small data sets. One common variable very misunderstood is SD and ES, a lot of people don't understand the statistics behind it and why sample size matters for example.
I've never tested the positive compensation method myself, and don't really care to. In theory alone PRS/ELR type shooting is not the most suitable application for the method, assuming it works. Applied Ballistics is currently testing and dispelling a lot of reloading myths and lore by testing with a scientific type method, and I find it interesting that Bryan Litz doesn't speak highly of tuners and positive compensation.
At the end of the day, to each their own. I'm personally not convinced that it's going to change the PRS game in any lasting or meaningful way, but I've been wrong before.
When I see a 20-30 shot group or composite group that shows a difference I'll start believing.
I agree with it likely being overkill for prs given the target size.
My example above showed it going from .4-.5 to .3.
I would have been perfectly fine with .5
I've been loosely following your posts and results on tuners, and I must admit that it seems to demonstrably makes groups smaller in your case.
I would be really curious to see any quality studies done on tuners, I hope Applied Ballistics or others do some qualitative testing on a large scale.
Agreed. Unfortunately it’s really hard to make the juice worth the squeeze when it comes to most testing in our industry. It costs a lot of money and resources in general, with very little if any return on investment.
Combined with the plethora of variables you would have to control and isolate, it would be a monumental undertaking.
Like you, I don't foresee anyone doing it, except perhaps Applied Ballistics.
Have you by chance tested the tuner with groups at 300 or greater distance? Just curious as those groups might consistently exhibit or exacerbate changes in variables when we are taking such small groups, at least in my experience.
Not knocking your shooting, I just personally have a hard time judging variables when group sizes at 100 are within single tenths of an inch. For example, repeating your three groups would you expect the exact same results or would you surprised to see two at .4 and one at .5.
Ultimately as others have already noted it would be great to see AB or someone undertake a large sample size test.
