Here's a recent Benchrest shooter of the Year showing data that doesn't support this statement.
Not to mention the physical characteristics of a barrel change over its life span, making highly unlikely a tune would be the same the entire time.
- Thread starter cameljockey230
- Start date
Here's a recent Benchrest shooter of the Year showing data that doesn't support this statement.
Not to mention the physical characteristics of a barrel change over its life span, making highly unlikely a tune would be the same the entire time.
Damn. That’s a stealthy tuner. Can’t event tell it’s mounted.
It's already been published.
So you haven't read it either?
Link the journal where your tests have been published. I'll read it immediately.
So let me get this straight. You adjust your tuner for every match and you honestly haven't read the 500 page book Team Calfee The Book?
Why are we having this conversation go buy the book.
Ummm, what? I never said what I do or don't do for a match. Is English your first language? Not sure why you think I haven't read Bill's book?
Also, I'm still waiting on the link where you have your data published in a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL.
So you have read Bill Calfees book?
Yes.
Still waiting for journal link.
Still waiting for journal link.
I can think research questions I’d like the answers to. They are not hypotheses, of course (except maybe #6, which is pretty sloppy).
I’m sure this has been done…I’d like to know the answers.
I’m sure this has been done…I’d like to know the answers.
- Do barrels shot from a machine rest (no stock) vibrate in all directions? Or mainly up/down? (Like a wave)
- What about shot by a human with a rifle in a typical stock?
- Does it matter if it’s a BR rig or bipod or held offhand?
- Will a tuner help all barrels? What about pistols? 16” battleship guns? Tank guns? If not, why?
- What confounding issues may hamper scientific testing? (Like a barrel that lasts only 200rds, etc). In other words, why is this so had to prove one way or another?
- How much quantifiable improvement can one realistically expect from a tuner? Suppose the shooter is an expert, then suppose the shooter is not.
- Is there a chance…the tuner is a way…for the shooter…to somehow tune himself?
- Tuning his performance somehow; the act of paying attention to other shooting variables, or increasing confidence.
- Once this is figured out, can the person that did it move on to the best way to clean a damn rifle barrel? Lol
Did you read the front of the book
Did you read that part?
You have read the book right?
I think in the front of the book it's called the dedication?
Did you read that part?
You have read the book right?
Attachments
Your sure you read Team Calfee The Book correct?
This makes sense.
Alex Wheeler also advocates to burn out a barrel or two in competition before even thinking about adding a tuner.
Learn all the nuances of internal and external ballistics before adding another variable to the system. In his eyes, a tuner is not something that you just add and in ~3 minutes you are shooting smaller groups.
Can you tell us all who Bill Calfee is?
What does he do?
What's in this very long book?
What does he do?
What's in this very long book?
......that's not a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL
How many barrels does it take to become knowledgeable in your estimation?
Have you read Team Calfee The Book?
Does Bill Calfee have any peers in the world of rimfire benchrest?
Who would they be?
Did you finally read the dedication?
Who peer reviewed your video?
Yes sir folks he read the dedication and now he knows "The Wataerboy" and it happened right here folks
Now can we get back to tuners folks and skip the funny videos.
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work. It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field.
Just out of curiosity because rio started out good then turned bitter and left can we all name Bill Calfees peers?
Let's just name those who have done more tuner work that is published.
Just out of curiosity because rio started out good then turned bitter and left can we all name Bill Calfees peers?
Let's just name those who have done more tuner work that is published.
C’mon man. The way the scans are being used here is almost certainly called fair use in the USA.
Fair use - Wikipedia
You have a point of view. Articulate it and support it with quotes or data. At this point you are just saying, “Read this book! Look at the number of champions!” Etc.
I would expect a proponent of tuners to say something like this:
“You know, it can be hard to pin down why they work. But they seem to work. I know that the fact that lots of competitors use them, by itself, doesn’t prove that they work. But it is compelling.”
“It seems like one needs to be a very good shooter with a very good rifle to be able to tell the difference. My hypothesis as to how they work is this:”
“Positive compensation is a way tuner proponents explain how tuners work. It means adjusting the rifle and ammo so the slower bullet exits the bore when the muzzle is flexing upwards, and the faster bullets exit when the barrel is straighter.
This way, if you have a variation in bullet velocity (typical), at a certain distance any slower bullets will impact in the same spot as the faster bullets.
To realize any tuner benefits, one needs a very accurate gun to begin with plus the skills to shoot very very accurately. Otherwise all is for naught.”
Now, I’m just putting myself in your shoes. I’m sure I’ve explained your position incorrectly in some fashion. But I suggest you use this style as a template to get your point of view across. I am not telling you to to do this. Just a suggestion.
Now, both sides start looking dumber by name-calling.
Last edited:
There are almost no "peers" in shooting sports that are qualified to review test data.
Bill isn't a research scientist. You're just making up whatever you want as you go along.
Not bitter, you just don't have the required intelligence to converse with any longer on this subject.
Bill isn't a research scientist. You're just making up whatever you want as you go along.
Not bitter, you just don't have the required intelligence to converse with any longer on this subject.
The other side could then say, “Wow, that’s interesting. Let’s design a test to see if that’s the way tuners work. I know this guy with a super high-speed camera and this other guy that has an indoor 100 yd range and…”C’mon man. The way the scans are being used here is almost certainly called fair use in the USA.
Fair use - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
You have a point of view. Articulate it and support it with quotes or data. At this point you are just saying, “Read this book! Look at the number of champions!” Etc.
I would expect a proponent of tuners to say something like this:
“You know, it can be hard to pin down why they work. But they seem to work. I know that the fact that lots of competitors use them, by itself, doesn’t prove that they work. But it is compelling.”“It seems like one needs to be a very good shooter with a very good rifle to be able to tell the difference. My hypothesis as to how they work is this:”
“Positive compensation is a way tuner proponents explain how tuners work. It means adjusting the rifle and ammo so the bullet exits the bore when the muzzle is flexing upwards. This way, if you have a variation in bullet velocity (typical), at a certain distance any slower bullets will impact in the same spot as the faster bullets.
To realize any tuner benefits, one needs a very accurate gun to begin with plus the skills to shoot very very accurately. Otherwise all is for naught.”
Now, I’m just putting myself in your shoes. I’m sure I’ve explained your position incorrectly in some fashion. But I suggest you use this style as a template to get your point of view across. I am not telling you to to do this. Just a suggestion.
Now, both sides start looking dumber by name-calling.
And then you do a test, in collaboration. Doesn’t matter if either one of you “know” you’re right. Keep that to yourself, lest you look rather foolish.
Edit: don’t forget you don’t have to design the end-all-be-all of a test. Start small. Consider your test as prototypes. Talk to others on both sides as to how to improve the test. Keep going.
What’s important is that you both have an open mind to see what’s physically happening. If either one of you say, “I know what’s going to happen, I don’t need to test it” then just leave the chat right now?
Last edited:
Can I post a picture of the dedication to the 500 page book on tuners by Bill Calfee here or will that upset you?
Stay tuned it's coming we just have to introduce ourselves first.
And did kthomas read Team Calfee The Book?
Hint: consider stopping asking if people have read such-and-such a book. That’s not doing you any favors?
Just write down your concise hypothesis as to why tuners work.
Just write down your concise hypothesis as to why tuners work.
It's written down in the book and thanks for asking.
The Waterboy
You are most welcome.
Could you explain that a little more? We need a few paragraphs as to what your hypothesis is.
Last edited:
LOL. Just put the puzzle together. This all makes sense now.
Welcome back Mr. Lynn.........
Welcome back Mr. Lynn.........
Yes and thanks for a tuner question.
The picture is the dedication to the book written by the greatest rimfire gunsmith to walk on earth Mr Bill Calfee.
I am his little buddy The Waterboy.
This is why Rio started out okay then went sideways on us.
He read the darned dedication.
But let's get back to tuners.
They dampen the upward moment of the barrel broadening the area under the curve.
If you can set the barrel to the third mode and achieve resonance which takes place after the bullet leaves the barrel the tuner is now set and will not need adjusting. The mass of the tuner needs to be out in front of the muzzle or you will never achieve resonance.
Can I name names here?
The picture is the dedication to the book written by the greatest rimfire gunsmith to walk on earth Mr Bill Calfee.
I am his little buddy The Waterboy.
This is why Rio started out okay then went sideways on us.
He read the darned dedication.
But let's get back to tuners.
They dampen the upward moment of the barrel broadening the area under the curve.
If you can set the barrel to the third mode and achieve resonance which takes place after the bullet leaves the barrel the tuner is now set and will not need adjusting. The mass of the tuner needs to be out in front of the muzzle or you will never achieve resonance.
Can I name names here?
Attachments
I actually haven't read that book. I've read the other that is readily available.
Team Calfee is very hard to come across a copy.
Team Calfee is very hard to come across a copy.
Rio you need to read those dedications
No, I know who you are. You've been bounced around and bounced off every shooting forum on the internet for 20 years.
Rio and now you admitted you lied what a surprise
No, I was confused on which book you were referring. That's far different from a lie.
Either way, take care. I'm pretty sure you'll find yourself banned yet again from yet another forum.
Good luck.
Either way, take care. I'm pretty sure you'll find yourself banned yet again from yet another forum.
Good luck.
No you lied and got caught yet again which is why I asked you so many times.
Let’s take this slow. I am but of feeble brain.
They dampen the upward moment of the barrel broadening the area under the curve.
What is this curve? Pretend I am 5 yrs old.
If you can set the barrel to the third mode and achieve resonance which takes place after the bullet leaves the barrel the tuner is now set and will not need adjusting.
Same thing for the “third mode.” Remember, I’m five, I don’t know math.
The mass of the tuner needs to be out in front of the muzzle or you will never achieve resonance.
What exactly do you mean by “resonance”? (What kind of resonance? Pretend I’m your friend’s wife at a party)
Last edited:
I won't pretend your Rio.
The curve is the moment or upward sweep of the barrel. If you have a high-speed camera the muzzle rises and drops almost like a sinewave. The wave has amplitude and when we tune without a tuner the window for best accuracy is on the upward swing of the barrel just before the peak.
The tuner has mass so when we add it the muzzle it's akin to stepping on the wave or damping it down.
When the wave is damped to peak is still there its just lower. Picture yourself riding a bike over a hill. Now picture you friend took his bulldozer and flattened the hill. This leaves a wider spot or more area under the curve making the gun easier to tune.
In the old days shooters would say it easier to tune a straight contour barrel than a tapered barrel.
The upward moment or peak drops down on a thick barrel and is sharper on a skinny barrel.
The third mode just means one of the frequencies of the barrel. In this case the 3rd one which is the vertical up and down.
The easiest way to know what resonance is by listening to a tuning fork or wind chime. The 3rd mode is when you hold a blank between your thumb and forefinger and strike the muzzle with something. The barrel will ring.
Let me know where any confusion comes in and I will draw a picture
Rio good to have you back. I was worried about you after getting caught again.
Can you list those peers now or will that get you confused again?
Ok, progress!
I want to help you write a hypothesis. Engineers and scientists, please chime in as we go along as I am neither. I note some questions inline.
***
I, @cameljockey230, hypothesize that tuners work in the following manner:
- After a shot is fired, the barrel vibrates up and down before the bullet leaves the muzzle. Call this vertical vibration the third mode. (As opposed to side to side and diagonally?)
- A tuner that is attached in front of the muzzle slows the amplitude of the vibrating barrel, making the peaks and valleys of the vibration broader.
***
Ok, so that’s a start. But we haven’t touched on why a tuner helps accuracy/precision. What about the following that I wrote above a-ways?
(Positive compensation) means adjusting the rifle and ammo so the slower bullet exits the bore when the muzzle is flexing upwards, and the faster bullets exit when the barrel is straighter.
This way, if you have a variation in bullet velocity (typical), at a certain distance any slower bullets will impact in the same spot as the faster bullets.
The barrel vibrates in more than a dozen ways but the only one that concerns us tuner users is the 3rd..
Let's have a couple pictures.
If we had cameras or taped a pencil to the end of the barrel and shot it(I am helping Rio here) this is what we would see in wave number 1.
If we then added a tuner this is what we would see in wave number 2.
Now the way accuracy works is we want all of our bullets to converge at the target but we have issues like bc variation bullet to bullet and also velocity variation.
This has been posted 10,000 times already but if the barrel is climbing when the bullets exit the slower bullet will stay in the barrel longer and thus exit at a steeper angle upwards.
Are we still good?
Let's have a couple pictures.
If we had cameras or taped a pencil to the end of the barrel and shot it(I am helping Rio here) this is what we would see in wave number 1.
If we then added a tuner this is what we would see in wave number 2.
Now the way accuracy works is we want all of our bullets to converge at the target but we have issues like bc variation bullet to bullet and also velocity variation.
This has been posted 10,000 times already but if the barrel is climbing when the bullets exit the slower bullet will stay in the barrel longer and thus exit at a steeper angle upwards.
Are we still good?
Attachments
Yeah. The bit I quoted is exactly the same idea I wrote in italics in my last post (I think, hopefully, right?).
Whoops I missed the B.C. variation. I can add that in a sec. But continue.
Okay so now we have the slower bullet exiting the barrel later and it's at a higher trajectory than a faster bullet which left sooner.
Gravity will now take over and at some distance those two bullets will cross paths and hopefully that is at the bullseye.
This works the same way with or without a tuner.
Now here is where we will lose Rio but I have faith one of his hang hunting buddies will help him with this.
In the picture we are only interested in the area to the left side of the dotted line. This is the barrel muzzle rising.
Now if we assigned numbers like a graph to wave 1 a small change in the numbers would be a big change in the muzzles angle as compared to wave#2
This is what confuses everyone not just Rio.
Make sure you run a straightedge along each wave to see the variation further out as this is the hardest part to understand and kthomas has already passed out but we are about to revive him.
Gravity will now take over and at some distance those two bullets will cross paths and hopefully that is at the bullseye.
This works the same way with or without a tuner.
Now here is where we will lose Rio but I have faith one of his hang hunting buddies will help him with this.
In the picture we are only interested in the area to the left side of the dotted line. This is the barrel muzzle rising.
Now if we assigned numbers like a graph to wave 1 a small change in the numbers would be a big change in the muzzles angle as compared to wave#2
This is what confuses everyone not just Rio.
Make sure you run a straightedge along each wave to see the variation further out as this is the hardest part to understand and kthomas has already passed out but we are about to revive him.
Attachments
Forget completely about bc variation we are only thinking here in a perfect world.
Concentrate on the angles of a non tuner barrel and a damped down tuner barrel
I’m with you…continue
Here are 2 more pictures greatly exaggerated for demonstration purposes only.
Of course they posted backwards so let's ignore thar as well.
In the 2nd example we have a non tuner barrel and as we go from position 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 we have a large departure angle variation.
This large variation means a very narrow window where the shots will converge exactly on the bullseye.
In the 1st picture this is a graph showing a tuner installed and a damped down barrel.
If we now sweep from shot 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 we barely get any change in the muzzles position or area under the curve.
This now much broader area means our velocity can very greater before we see its affect at the bullseye.
We have compensated for a larger area.
If your still with me it would be amazing as it takes most shooters several years if ever to comprehend what that means
Of course they posted backwards so let's ignore thar as well.
In the 2nd example we have a non tuner barrel and as we go from position 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 we have a large departure angle variation.
This large variation means a very narrow window where the shots will converge exactly on the bullseye.
In the 1st picture this is a graph showing a tuner installed and a damped down barrel.
If we now sweep from shot 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 we barely get any change in the muzzles position or area under the curve.
This now much broader area means our velocity can very greater before we see its affect at the bullseye.
We have compensated for a larger area.
If your still with me it would be amazing as it takes most shooters several years if ever to comprehend what that means
Attachments
I think I’m still with you.
You not only want to launch the bullet as the muzzle is rising, but you also want to create a situation in which the muzzle is not rising too fast. That way, you have a larger window of “optimal” time to launch the bullet.
All this is still in service to launch slower bullets when the muzzle is pointed higher, and launch faster bullets when the muzzle is pointed lower (in both situations the muzzle is rising). This way, they hopefully land near the same spot at a certain known distance.
Is this correct?
Similar threads
