Tuner Data

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

We want the muzzle pointing upward with the least amount of movement possible.
And yes

So, if you were to take a rifle, with a properly worked up load.

And you were to take your tuner, adjust it whatever amount you want. Let's say to mark number 1. You shoot a single shot at a bullseye. Then you shoot another shot at a bullseye under than....then another bullseye under that. Single shot each time at tuner setting 1.

You move to tuner setting 2. You do the same thing to a vertical line of 3 bullseyes directly to the right of number 1 setting.

You keep doing this.


So, you will have 3 horizontal rows of shots and 3 vertical rows. Each vertical row would be 3 shots at a given tuner setting.

If you were to draw a from each bullet hole on each horizontal row, you would have 3 lines that show the POI moving as you cycled through your tuner settings.



In your understanding of barrel movement and tuners would those POI lines be:

A) very similar
B) if yes, why, if no why


Thanks

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Here is an example of a target like that:

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Would you expect to see:


A:

or

B:

 

[cameljockey230]

If your tuner is set ideally you won't have any vertical at all.
If you then move the tuner to another setting you will introduce vertical into your shots.
Just for clarity tuners like the Stiller have numbers on them but they don't click and can be more precisely adjusted.
Tuners like the Harrels/Hoehn have clicks so your stuck with an increment that might not be ideal.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

If your tuner is set ideally you won't have any vertical at all.
If you then move the tuner to another setting you will introduce vertical into your shots.
Just for clarity tuners like the Stiller have numbers on them but they don't click and can be more precisely adjusted.
Tuners like the Harrels/Hoehn have clicks so your stuck with an increment that might not be ideal.

Not what I asked.

Which of those targets would you expect to see as you rotate your tuner?

 

[cameljockey230]

It's still a computer model.

Models have lots of limitations and require a lot of assumptions.

They need to be verified with actual testing.

And quote is right from that page.

Keep reading it over and over again. Then post when you can Cleary state the facts not your usual nonsense.

 

[cameljockey230]

It also says "...they can cause large dispersion." See, I read at a 7th grade level and I can take things out of context just as well as you can.


He provides no testing. I don't care where the model comes from.

He doesn't make any such claim nor provide any level of certainty or proof.

I'm done here. He's all yours fellas.

Actually Vaughn used to post on the benchrest forum before his passing. He was a very nice guy but he didn't suffer fools well.
We are diminished by you leaving but we should pull throug6 the loss.

 

[cameljockey230]

That's the rub.

I have a hard time believing a tuner will turn a rifle shooting factory ammunition at 3/4-1 MOA into a 1/4-1/3 MOA rifle.

I believe any benefit from a tuner will be marginal. You won't really be able to extract it shooting prone from bipod and rear bag or off of a barricade.

In disciplines where marginal makes a difference between a win and 10th place, turn that's where I see tuners truly having an application.

And admittedly I'm one of those people that probably won't benefit from a tuner.

You have difficulties because you ask questions then refuse to read what is put in front of you.
I posted for you to look up the browning Boss patent and you obviously never did.
I asked you to look up rifle accuracy facts available to anyone free online. You didn't do it and the entire section on barrel vibrations is only 46 pages.
Even The office t Rex managed to read it. He doesn't understand it be he tried reading it.
I am starting to see what timntx is talking about regarding your posts.

 

[cameljockey230]

Not what I asked.

Which of those targets would you expect to see as you rotate your tuner?

I don't use your method so I would never see what you posted.
Your method has no value to me as it doesn't show what I am after.
Varmint Al did simulate my record setting gun if you want to read it.

Finite Element Analysis -- Dynamic Analysis of a Light Rifle with/without a tuner.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I don't use your method so I would never see what you posted.

That's not "my method."

Pretty simple question. If you have a grasp on how you believe they work, there is zero reason you wouldn't be able to predict which of those patterns would likely be the outcome. If both would be possible, or neither would be likely.

If you've actually done any amount of testing and data collection on the subject, this would be a trivial answer.

 

[cameljockey230]

I gave you my answer you just ignored it.
I don't predict answers just give facts

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Ok, well, unfortunately you obviously have not done enough data collection or testing for me to have a conversation with.

I'll check back in the future and when you've progressed your knowledge enough, we can have a conversation.

Good luck in your shooting.

 

[cameljockey230]

I have forgotten more about tuners than 99 and 44/100 percent of those posting will ever know and shooting isn't luck it's preparation and work.
In your absence read Varmint Al's theory on my record setting rifle it may suprise you.

 

[Ebar48]

@cameljockey230 Has anyone shot real word statistically significant groups at various tuner settings that show they have an actual effect on group size? The only data I’m aware of like this is Brian Litz who showed they did not make a statistical difference. Serious question.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

And this is also a problem. There is no consensus among tuner proponents.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I have forgotten more about tuners than 99 and 44/100 percent of those posting will ever know and shooting isn't luck it's preparation and work.
In your absence read Varmint Al's theory on my record setting rifle it may suprise you.

LOL.......

Yet you can't even tell me what is likely to happen as you adjust your tuner.


Unless you put more than about 20k rounds per year, you're not even remotely tall enough for this ride.

 

[cameljockey230]

LOL.......

Yet you can't even tell me what is likely to happen as you adjust your tuner.


Unless you put more than about 20k rounds per year, you're not even remotely tall enough for this ride.

I told you exactly what you would see and what anyone using a tuner is after.
You can't accept it because your method isn't working.

 

[cameljockey230]

@cameljockey230 Has anyone shot real word statistically significant groups at various tuner settings that show they have an actual effect on group size? The only data I’m aware of like this is Brian Litz who showed they did not make a statistical difference. Serious question.

Once someone posts statistically significant you lose everyone because all the haters do like kthomas is keep moving the goal post.
My guns have won a national title and set world records but none of that matters if your kthomas

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I told you exactly what you would see and what anyone using a tuner is after.
You can't accept it because your method isn't working.

You think what I posted is a "method?" You don't even have a clue what I'm talking about. That is elementary level question to assess your baseline knowledge of any of this.

Tell you what, I'll give you an easier question:

You test two loads over a chrono. The first is a 4 shot string and the second is a 6 shot string.

The first shot string has an SD of 8 and ES of 12. The second has an SD of 5 and ES of 22.



Which load is better according to the chrono data. And, what is likely the SD and ES of each load if you were to test long term? (if you're not able to answer this correctly, then you're incapable of extrapolating data to prove or disprove any of this)

 

[cameljockey230]

And this is also a problem. There is no consensus among tuner proponents.

Which is why nobody who is an actual shooter pays attention to anyone asking for patreon money or donations as I posted earlier.
The same holds true for those selling muzzlebrakes and those using standard deviation.

 

[cameljockey230]

You think what I posted is a "method?" You don't even have a clue what I'm talking about. That is elementary level question to assess your baseline knowledge of any of this.

Tell you what, I'll give you an easier question:

You test two loads over a chrono. The first is a 4 shot string and the second is a 6 shot string.

The first shot string has an SD of 8 and ES of 12. The second has an SD of 5 and ES of 22.



Which load is better according to the chrono data. And, what is likely the SD and ES of each load if you were to test long term?

As soon as shooters start spouting about standard deviation most accuracy shooters hit the ignore button.
It's good for those that can't load to help with fragile egos.

 

[Ebar48]

I’m not kthomas. Your original post asked what data was needed to prove tuners work. I am saying statistically significant data that shows that there is a definitive change in group size and or impact point would be required. And as I stated Brian Litz test is the only one I know of that after finding the best and worst tuner setting per the manufacturers method shot statistically significant groups and there was no difference between the settings. Winning matches and setting records is not a proof that tuners work as the entire system (shooter, rifle, environment, etc) is too noisy and contains too many variables to say that matches won are a direct result of tuners.

So the data I am asking for is statistically significant groups shot across various tuner settings that show a statistically significant change to group size. I don’t even care if they get bigger sts. Just significant change is all I’m looking for.

 

[cameljockey230]

Get back to tuners

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Which is why nobody who is an actual shooter pays attention to anyone asking for patreon money or donations as I posted earlier.
The same holds true for those selling muzzlebrakes and those using standard deviation.

Please tell me you don't use extreme spread over standard deviation.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I was hoping I was wrong. But unfortunately this is essentially a flat earth thread.

The OP has zero clue how empirical testing would be performed, doesn't answer any questions that would be incredibly easy for anyone educated on these matters, and discredits any info presented without giving a clear explanation why that person is wrong.

 

[cameljockey230]

I’m not kthomas. Your original post asked what data was needed to prove tuners work. I am saying statistically significant data that shows that there is a definitive change in group size and or impact point would be required. And as I stated Brian Litz test is the only one I know of that after finding the best and worst tuner setting per the manufacturers method shot statistically significant groups and there was no difference between the settings. Winning matches and setting records is not a proof that tuners work as the entire system (shooter, rifle, environment, etc) is too noisy and contains too many variables to say that matches won are a direct result of tuners.

I don't want to post anything negative about posters who advertise on this forum.
When you point certain things out they have you banned even if your correct.
This subject was beat into the ground 20 years ago on a forum the person you mentioned was on and he remained silent amongst the engineers and one physicist posting at that time.
You can pm me to discuss

 

[Ebar48]

Pm inbound

 

[cameljockey230]

Please tell me you don't use extreme spread over standard deviation.

At the distances shot on this sub forum SD is of no value at all because your barrel is shot out before you ever reach any usable Intel.
Extreme spread will give you an expected spread so you can use that subtracted from your actual group size to determine where your error is coming from

 

[cameljockey230]

I was hoping I was wrong. But unfortunately this is essentially a flat earth thread.

The OP has zero clue how empirical testing would be performed, doesn't answer any questions that would be incredibly easy for anyone educated on these matters, and discredits any info presented without giving a clear explanation why that person is wrong.

Yeah when your audience is the kiddies you can run over them easily but when your audience has the trophies and records to back up his facts it does make it hard on blowing wind up our arses.
Maybe get back to tuners something you have no idea of how they work according to YOU

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

At the distances shot on this sub forum SD is of no value at all because your barrel is shot out before you ever reach any usable Intel.
Extreme spread will give you an expected spread so you can use that subtracted from your actual group size to determine where your error is coming from

Holy shit....

You don't even understand how to use SD to extrapolate your likely SD and ES. You also have a clear misunderstanding how ES works.

SD and ES are borrowed by the shooting community from statistics. There are clear rules how they work and your explanation would result in an F in an elementary level math or statistics class.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

FYI, here's the answer to above:

- 4 shot string with SD of 8 and ES of 12

Will have an SD between 5 and 30 and an ES up to 180fps

- 5 shot string with SD of 5 and ES of 22

Will have an SD between 3 and 12 and an ES up to 78

 

[Ebar48]

FYI, here's the answer to above:

- 4 shot string with SD of 8 and ES of 12

Will have an SD between 5 and 30 and an ES up to 180fps

- 5 shot string with SD of 5 and ES of 22

Will have an SD between 3 and 12 and an ES up to 78

how do you get there with just the SD and ES numbers? I know the calculations required for sample and population SD but require knowing each individual term. I’m actually here and willing to be taught something useful. And if this is what I take from this thread, I would be happy lol

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

how do you get there with just the SD and ES numbers? I know the calculations required for sample and population SD but require knowing each individual term. I’m actually here and willing to be taught something useful. And if this is what I take from this thread, I would be happy lol

Run a 95% confidence interval using your sample size and sample SD.

And your ES will be up to about 6x your SD for 99.7% of shots.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

how do you get there with just the SD and ES numbers? I know the calculations required for sample and population SD but require knowing each individual term. I’m actually here and willing to be taught something useful. And if this is what I take from this thread, I would be happy lol

Also, are you familiar how SD works on a normal distribution bell curve? 68% 95% 99.7%

 

[cameljockey230]

FYI, here's the answer to above:

- 4 shot string with SD of 8 and ES of 12

Will have an SD between 5 and 30 and an ES up to 180fps

- 5 shot string with SD of 5 and ES of 22

Will have an SD between 3 and 12 and an ES up to 78

Ebar48
Run a 95% confidence interval and it does nothing at all to help you shoot smaller groups.
It tells you that if you shot 4000 groups this load should outshoot that load but your barrel is only good for 200 groups.
It does help confuse those into thinking it somehow matters though.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Ebar48
Run a 95% confidence interval and it does nothing at all to help you shoot smaller groups.
It tells you that if you shot 4000 groups this load should outshoot that load but your barrel is only good for 200 groups.
It does help confuse those into thinking it somehow matters though.

So, you're either:

- a troll
- not smart
- actually insane

(also, next time be faster while googling how I came with those numbers)

 

[Ebar48]

Also, are you familiar how SD works on a normal distribution bell curve? 68% 95% 99.7%

Yea, 68 percent of the data falls within 1 SD, 95 within 2, and 99.7 within 3. I just couldn’t remember how to extrapolate sample to population sd without actually calculating it from the values.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Yea, 68 percent of the data falls within 1 SD, 95 within 2, and 99.7 within 3. I just couldn’t remember how to extrapolate sample to population sd without actually calculating it from the values.

Correct. If ol'boy above knew this, he'd never be using ES for anything.

 

[cameljockey230]

So, you're either:

- a troll
- not smart
- actually insane

(also, next time be faster while googling how I came with those numbers)

You know nothing of how tuners work by your own admission you just sell them.
And nobody needs to google anything in response to your posts.
You already admitted you know nothing about tuners I didn't say it you did.

 

[cameljockey230]

Let's get back to tuners not a sales pitch

 

[cameljockey230]

Correct. If ol'boy above knew this, he'd never be using ES for anything.

Actually you have stumbled upon a truth here.
After decades of competing you don't need extreme spread to tune as much as you do when your starting out.
You never need standard deviation.
If your gun is shooting 2 inch groups at 600 and in the 3's at 1000 extreme spread while helpful holds a backseat to experience.

 

[Bandit320]

So, you're either:

- a troll
- not smart
- actually insane

(also, next time be faster while googling how I came with those numbers)

I don’t think limiting him to only one of those three choices is sufficient.

 

[cameljockey230]

I don’t think limiting him to only one of those three choices is sufficient.

Correct I am also a much better shooter than you are.

 

[Bandit320]

Perhaps you are. Your also a self absorbed cunt.

 

[cameljockey230]

Perhaps you are. Your also a self absorbed cunt.

There is no perhaps about it.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Posting for anyone interested. No particular goal. Just an interesting video.

 

[cameljockey230]

I watched the Bryan Litz podcast today where he tested a cz457 22 rimfire using 5 -5 shot groups at 50 yards. It was 50 minutes long and i fell asleep for 8 minutes of it but if this is the data your asking for it's called an aggregate and it's what benchrest shooters do at every match.
The 22 had 30% variation on its control groups and he thinks removing human error is bad when proving tuners work or don't work.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

I watched the Bryan Litz podcast today where he tested a cz457 22 rimfire using 5 -5 shot groups at 50 yards. It was 50 minutes long and i fell asleep for 8 minutes of it but if this is the data your asking for it's called an aggregate and it's what benchrest shooters do at every match.
The 22 had 30% variation on its control groups and he thinks removing human error is bad when proving tuners work or don't work.

It's simple. Conduct your test and submit it to the appropriate journal for review. If it's found to be valid, you will be published in said journal.

That's how the rest of the world works.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

FWIW, I'd side more with Alex Wheeler's interpretation. You're tuning the entire system including the shooter.

I.E. the barrel itself in a vacuum may not (or it may) move enough to tune. But once you add in the other components, a human, and non vacuum environment.....now it's absolutely going to be some movement.

Obviously there are some who do articulate this. However, there's plenty more who don't.....which leads to inconsistent explanations. And that will always hurt a cause.

 

[Tokay444]

As you wish.

Actually, Vaughn makes no claim tuners work, did no testing on a rifle, and said "Unfortunately, I don't know any good way to test a muzzle weight to make sure it is really working . . . Theoretically, a tuned mass damper ... could be used to damp muzzle vibration." (Vaughn, p82).

They dont work.
Data - Bryan Litz, Volume III of Moder Advancements in Long Range Shooting

This is fucking amazing.