Tuners in question ?

[Taylorbok]

@Snuby642
consider this, can you name anything else on this planet that actually works like produces legitimate results but no one can prove it, or provide an explanation on how or why it works?

I don't understand what you mean by sell testing. I'd just like to see one test done scientifically that proves tuners work, it's literally not a hard test to do.

To that effect I'll do my own damn test

 

[LeftyJason]

Here's a good test. Stick different weights on a TacOps and see how it shoots. Make them adjustable or not who cares. See if it will shoot as good as the test target.

@MikeRTacOps might have someone take you out and confiscate it, but then at least it would be from a decent starting metric.

 

[Snuby642]

That's not how its done.

 

[TheOfficeT-Rex]

That sounds like a decent start.

7 cycles through the settings, with a 5 shot group at each setting, would be better. You could overlay your individual 5 shot groups into a composite 35 shot group for each setting (keeping in mind POA), then measure and compare the mean radius of each.

Done that way there would be no need to subjectively pick what looked like the best and worst, as you could objectively compare all of the settings against each other.

That's a neat test idea. I'll ship you my 5/8x24 ATS if you'd like to try it. You can keep it too, if you promise to PM me the results.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Haven't been paying close attention to the thread, but if someone trusts themselves to do the following without bias, I think you'd learn a lot about dispersion and such. All at 100yds.

Day 1: shoot a 20 shot group on zero setting on your turner

Day 2: either cover the tuner or have someone spin it back and forth and land on a random setting. Shoot 20 shot group. Record tuner setting once you are done. Don't look at it before.

Day 3: repeat day 2 method

Day 4: repeat day 2 method

Day 5: shoot a 20 shot group on zero setting

Rinse and repeat this as many times as you see fit. The general idea is to go back to your zero setting every 4th day. Meaning you get 3 days of different settings, then a day of zero setting.

Stay hyper focused on your fundamentals. You'll get a lot of very good focused repetitions of fundamentals and you'll get a crash course in dispersion. You can also use something like the Garmin Chrono and get a very good insight into velocity variation.

You can do this daily, or stretch it out over however long you want.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

In a perfect world, find a friend or family member.......have them make a random schedule. Each day is on a different setting or zero setting on the tuner. And you never get to know or look at it.

Put all the settings in an excel sheet with zero setting mixed in at a decent frequency. Use a random number generator to assign numbers 1 thru whatever the amount of days you want.

You never get to see the spreadsheet schedule, and you never get to see the tuner setting. If you can't trust yourself, have the other person keep the rifle and shield the tuner so you can't see the setting.


Then you'd get as close to an unbiased shooting experience as possible.


Then at the end, without knowing what setting is which, pick the groups you think are showing promise. You won't know which setting they are (you just know it's labeled "Day 1" or whatever), just that you decided those groups were worth doing again. Take however many it is, and have the person do another RNG for your schedule.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Sorry for the three posts in a row. Just breaking them down so they aren't just a long page of words.

You can also use the above method to validate your load development process. Load your tests, but have a neutral party keep track of the data. So you don't know which load is what. At the end, go back and pick some of your best, and some of your worst loads and have them schedule them randomly again.

We've used the above methods with a handful of shooters who were willing to participate. Both load development and tuners. It's always an eye opening experience for them. Not because it does or doesn't show that tuners and/or load develop does/doesn't work. But they get to see how much dispersion and variance there actually is in shooting (and life in general).

 

[iceng]

I honestly think the majority of us would accept even one properly conducted test.

Nooooope.
Some people still believe the world is flat and the moon is some sort of govt psyop or made of cheese.

Saying that, you did say "majority" not "everyone".

 

[misser]

tuners have been tested many times ,see on youtube .

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

My opinion not that it matters is it depends.

With a good heavy barrel and good handloads with jump insensitive bullets like berger hybrids, The benefits of a tuner seem to be much less.

Now take the same variables and add factory ammo. Probably with a less jump sensitive bullet. Or a thinner barrel. You will probably be able to see the difference.

While I see the testing that says they dont make a difference, I have trouble discounting someone like Eric Cortina who is winning National/World champs using a tuner. Maybe its all bullshit but leads me to believe there is some marginal benefit.

I think for PRS type shooting, they really dont do much. I don't see any benefit on my match loads. I cant really shoot better than about a tenth (1/3 moa) anyway so who knows.

I use one for .22 rimfire and factory ammo. Helps tighten those groups up a bit. Since we cant control the build of the round, it helps IMO. Helps to keep them under 1/2 moa which is my upper limit for match ammo.

So its about expectations management. Have to have realistic expectations about it. I don't think tuners hurt, and adding weight at end of tube means less weights to add to chassis to get a good balance.

 

[Snuby642]

. I cant really shoot better than about a tenth (1/3 moa) anyway so who knows.

I agree. If your skills, equipment and load get to the point of 1/10th (mill) or maybe 1 / 4 moa then it will be diminishing returns.

Maybe you could see results at 1000 yds.

For some folks like me shooting 3/4 moa at best the tuner brought it down to 3/8 best with an ar.

I think that's a good deal for many shooters at 250$

My guess is some people have practiced and spent thier way to 1/4 moa and cant see a difference because they can't shoot the difference.

Edit to add . Can't shoot the difference due to equipment, load, and skills combined.

Imho

 

[Taylorbok]

tuners have been tested many times ,see on youtube .

"tested" using 3 shot groups and verified with 3 shot groups.
That's basically the same as shooting 3 shot groups with no tuner and when it magically spits out a tiny group or two stopping and calling the rifle tuned.

 

[misser]

"tested" using 3 shot groups and verified with 3 shot groups.
That's basically the same as shooting 3 shot groups with no tuner and when it magically spits out a tiny group or two stopping and calling the rifle tuned.

ah but the gun that does not have a tuner shoots a bughole group BTDT.now what? different day different conditions , same gun same loading, no longer shoots a bughole group ,it should but there's nothing you can do about it. You have loaded 200 rounds and that's what you are stuck with . the gun with a tuner can adjust up or down which brings it back in and still can use the same loading.

 

[kthomas]

ah but the gun that does not have a tuner shoots a bughole group BTDT.now what? different day different conditions , same gun same loading, no longer shoots a bughole group ,it should but there's nothing you can do about it. You have loaded 200 rounds and that's what you are stuck with . the gun with a tuner can adjust up or down which brings it back in and still can use the same loading.

There's a giant "if" here, that hasn't been rigorously demonstrated to be true.

 

[misser]

There's a giant "if" here, that hasn't been rigorously demonstrated to be true.

its being done at every F class event . because it can be done

 

[Zilla]

... I have trouble discounting someone like Eric Cortina who is winning National/World champs using a tuner.

This is not true.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

This is not true.

Esplain

 

[Zilla]

Esplain

He has not won a U.S. National Championship. He was a member of the World Champion TEAM. He did not shoot on that team.

 

[iceng]

While I see the testing that says they dont make a difference, I have trouble discounting someone like Eric Cortina who is winning National/World champs using a tuner. Maybe its all bullshit but leads me to believe there is some marginal benefit.

Im not sure many people can shoot well enough (out shoot their system, inc ammo) to even show micro benefits of a tuner on a top end system / ammo.

Eric can, thats why he is a champion. I believe he could potentially win without one, but having one, is like 10th of a second improvement on a F1 or MOTOGP bike. They dont NEED that 10th of a sec improvement, but its a nice buffer to have in your back pocket when you need it.

 

[misser]

i'm not going to tell any one they dont know what they are doing when they can keep well with in a 10'' from 1000 yd

 

[Taylorbok]

its being done at every F class event . because it can be done

Why will no one prove it? I saw Cortina once bring two 1000 yard target that he was claiming was due to tuner change but even his data showed the ES alone would have caused the greater dispersion. Just because they think it works doesn’t mean it does.

ah but the gun that does not have a tuner shoots a bughole group BTDT.now what? different day different conditions , same gun same loading, no longer shoots a bughole group ,it should but there's nothing you can do about it. You have loaded 200 rounds and that's what you are stuck with . the gun with a tuner can adjust up or down which brings it back in and still can use the same loading.

Again that's assuming the tuner actually does something. Most of the groups are well within natural dispersion of the system.

i'm not going to tell any one they dont know what they are doing when they can keep well with in a 10'' from 1000 yd

Honestly that’s not that tough to do, and there’s lots of people who do it without a tuner.

I’d honestly appreciate if you would stop using the same point over and over again. Try coming up with something new, use some critical thinking or conduct the test I mentioned.

 

[Tx_Aggie]

ah but the gun that does not have a tuner shoots a bughole group BTDT.now what? different day different conditions , same gun same loading, no longer shoots a bughole group ,it should but there's nothing you can do about it. You have loaded 200 rounds and that's what you are stuck with . the gun with a tuner can adjust up or down which brings it back in and still can use the same loading.

its being done at every F class event . because it can be done

Which conditions must change for a gun to "come out of tune" and by how much? Temp? Humidity? Atmospheric pressure?

And how would one adjust a tuner to compensate for these changes in conditions?

How would someone learn to do this in a consistent and repeatable way? Is this something Eric talks about in the instructions for his tuners?

Say the gun shoots a group larger than you expect, do you spin the tuner a little, and if it then shoots a tight 3 shot group decide you've brought the rifle back into tune?

 

[misser]

Which conditions must change for a gun to "come out of tune" and by how much? Temp? Humidity? Atmospheric pressure?

And how would one adjust a tuner to compensate for these changes in conditions?

How would someone learn to do this in a consistent and repeatable way? Is this something Eric talks about in the instructions for his tuners?

Say the gun shoots a group larger than you expect, do you spin the tuner a little, and if it then shoots a tight 3 shot group decide you've brought the rifle back into tune?

it would be so easy for you to go to youtube . both erik and f class john

 

[Snuby642]

Dicing tuners in general and EC specifically.

You got to figure a couple of these guys has got thier ass chapped somehow.

 

[Tx_Aggie]

it would be so easy for you to go to youtube . both erik and f class john

I've looked. All I've found in regards to specific procedures are the standard tuner tests, many of which say once you've found a setting you're done.

There are some places where Eric mentions being able to re-tune a rifle at a match if the ammo you loaded suddenly stops grouping (for example in a conversation with Paramount Tactical) - essentially the exact statement you made above, including the bit about 200 rounds - but nothing more specific. Certainly nothing as detailed as which conditions you should watch for and how you should adjust a tuner to compensate for them.

If you can actually answer the question, I'd appreciate it. Or provide a link to a video where someone else gives a specific procedure for adjusting a rifle tune to a change in conditions.

 

[kthomas]

I'm F-class there's a saying "down and out" - when the temp goes down, move your tuner out.

However it's often described as much more of a "dark art" then anything scientific. That in itself is a bit telling.

 

[misser]

I think the point being made is that its not uncommon at all for shooters to go from shooting a really bad group to a really good group. A lot of times its the shooter, not the equipment that causes that discrepancy. Posting two groups is not really proof of anything.

i have more . yet i have decided you are not worthy

 

[misser]

I've looked. All I've found in regards to specific procedures are the standard tuner tests, many of which say once you've found a setting you're done.

There are some places where Eric mentions being able to re-tune a rifle at a match if the ammo you loaded suddenly stops grouping (for example in a conversation with Paramount Tactical) - essentially the exact statement you made above, including the bit about 200 rounds - but nothing more specific. Certainly nothing as detailed as which conditions you should watch for and how you should adjust a tuner to compensate for them.

If you can actually answer the question, I'd appreciate it. Or provide a link to a video where someone else gives a specific procedure for adjusting a rifle tune to a change in conditions.

the answer is erik is also a competitor . his knowledge is an edge he has over anyone competing against him . are you going to give that information away to someone that could beat you in competition shooting ?

 

[kthomas]

i have more . yet i have decided you are not worthy

That's cool. You are not beholden to prove what you think works to anyone, I get that. No hard feelings here, nor do I expect you to provide the type of data that would dispositively validate tuners.

Besides, the type of tests that would need to be conducted to appropriately limit confounders and isolate variables in order to draw adequate conclusions on something like tuners is beyond the scope of most any individual shooter. It would require a substantial investment in money, components and time to prove out adequately (along with the knowledge and skill to perform such a test).

 

[kthomas]

the answer is erik is also a competitor . his knowledge is an edge he has over anyone competing against him . are you going to give that information away to someone that could beat you in competition shooting ?

One of Erik's great traits is that he is very open to sharing information with the public. I really respect him for that, he shares an incredible amount of knowledge to the benefit of the shooting community.

I don't think Erik is gatekeeping any tuner secrets.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

One of Erik's great traits is that he is very open to sharing information with the public. I really respect him for that, he shares an incredibly amount of knowledge to the benefit of the shooting community.

I don't think Erik is gatekeeping any tuner secrets.

Erik flat out says he's gatekeeping tuner secrets. Several times he's said that he has info that has been passed down to him from very knowledgeable tuner advocates and they swore him to secrecy.

 

[kthomas]

Erik flat out says he's gatekeeping tuner secrets. Several times he's said that he has info that has been passed down to him from very knowledgeable tuner advocates and they swore him to secrecy.

Okay, I didn't know that.

#darkart

 

[Snuby642]

How f-ing hard is it to turn a knob a line or 2 or a half.

Much easier than dialing in wind.

I have changed brass headstamps on a load and only had to dial in 1 1/2 (clicks). I have dialed in a click for temperature variations

I have a new place to shoot and it's altitude is twice my normal and will have to adjust probably but winds have been a bitch.

It's not that damn dramatic.
How long did it take for you guys to figure out how to adjust your scope?

 

[Tx_Aggie]

the answer is erik is also a competitor . his knowledge is an edge he has over anyone competing against him . are you going to give that information away to someone that could beat you in competition shooting ?

How f-ing hard is it to turn a knob a line or 2 or a half.

Much easier than dialing in wind.

I have changed brass headstamps on a load and only had to dial in 1 1/2 (clicks). I have dialed in a click for temperature variations

I have a new place to shoot and it's altitude is twice my normal and will have to adjust probably but winds have been a bitch.

It's not that damn dramatic.
How long did it take for you guys to figure out how to adjust your scope?

And we're back to a place where the two leading tuner proponents in a thread can't even agree on something basic.

Either using a tuner is "easier than dialing wind on a scope" or it's some complex dark art that Cortina (and other "master tuners") is keeping to himself to gain an advantage over all of the poor saps that buy tuners from him.

 

[Snuby642]

Retards.

You just make shit up as you go along. Sounds like a f-ing Democrat telling us that getting a blowey in the oval office is not having sex.

 

[Taylorbok]

How f-ing hard is it to turn a knob a line or 2 or a half.

Much easier than dialing in wind.

I have changed brass headstamps on a load and only had to dial in 1 1/2 (clicks). I have dialed in a click for temperature variations

I have a new place to shoot and it's altitude is twice my normal and will have to adjust probably but winds have been a bitch.

It's not that damn dramatic.
How long did it take for you guys to figure out how to adjust your scope?

Wind drift is backed up by math, science and facts...
Not to mention it's repeatable.

 

[kthomas]

What exactly does an increment/setting on a tuner represent? How much does each tuner setting move that tuner longitudinally on the barrel? What are the expected results of moving that tuner each increment? Does moving that increment on the tuner result in a repeatable downrange result? Is it repeatable across conditions? What conditions necessitate a change in tuner setting? How much of a change in a condition would necessitate a tuner setting change?

The above would require an incredible amount of testing to determine. Hornady has a few podcast episodes that seem relevant to this topic, specifically the ones about sample sizes and tuners.

 

[Taylorbok]

Retards.

You just make shit up as you go along. Sounds like a f-ing Democrat telling us that getting a blowey in the oval office is not having sex.

We haven't made up a single thing.

I mean a blowjob is not coitus. Oral is definitely a sexual activity so it depends how the question was posed.

 

[Slides]

What exactly does an increment/setting on a tuner represent? How much does each tuner setting move that tuner longitudinally on the barrel? What are the expected results of moving that tuner each increment? Does moving that increment on the tuner result in a repeatable downrange result? Is it repeatable across conditions? What conditions necessitate a change in tuner setting? How much of a change in a condition would necessitate a tuner setting change?

The above would require an incredible amount of testing to determine. Hornady has a few podcast episodes that seem relevant to this topic, specifically the ones about sample sizes and tuners.

Just something to think about. If I posed similar questions about change in windage or elevation from 150 to 500 yards on rifle systems including everything from run of the mill AR through to F class rifles sending 180+grain 7mm projectiles or ELR cartridges, there will be a lot of different answers for the same interval and wind.

Seems pretty common here in Aus, if groups open on F class rifles and it's got hot they wind in and the opposite when it gets cold, I would assume this it to bring the barrel movement back into phase with the shortened or lenghthened barrel transient time, primarily due to powder temperature change but with small compounding effects from barrel length growth/contraction/air density in the bore ahead of the bullet/minor changes in stiffness/elastic response of barrel/action/stock. Given nearly every rifle system has different stiffness, lenght, weight and barrel transient bullet time I think it's pretty childish suggesting that if every system doesn't have exactly the same response to 10 degrees even on the same tuner it's bullshit.

People talking about "scientific method" while admitting that fitting a suppressor or large mass does change grouping and vertical. Let's step back to first principles, compare this to numerical analysis of differentials or integration. You dice up very small changes or steps to calculate or back calculate the impact of a function change/area/what have you. If you accept adding a suppressor or large mass has an effect, then it follows that there are piecewise impacts from adding or moving ever decreasing amounts/movements of mass on the system. Unless you genuinely want to argue it's a step function from no effect whatsoever to suddenly impacted, but if that was the case surely there would only be two barrel profiles in existence too?

You could have a more nuanced argument about what inherent system accuracy was required to differentiate signal from noise after that but refusing to acknowledge basic physics/maths means there is no point even having a conversation.

Likewise with group size/mean radius/vertical/MV/BC and sampling size. Every measurement has uncertainty with numerous contributing factors, it doesn't mean it's all worthless. Every single calibration I did or checked for others at NMIA had an attached uncertainty calculation which generally included measured temperature variance plus device or probe drift or scanner variance, atmospheric density measured variance and device variance, some included gravity uncertainty (if you are serious you have a vacuumtube drop measurement that is repeaded thousands of times by geological survey) with then added tidal/moon variance plus a bunch of other factors including sampling size and hysteresis of devices with sensors. It is pretty much impossible to maintain exactly barrel/action/stock/ammunition temperature across significant testing but you can take measurements and and analyse for effects. The reality is most people shooting don't have a strong enough grounding in mathematics/physics/engineering/metrology or the time and money to conduct exhaustive testing, and if they have worked out enough to satisfy themselves on their system empirically, why would they expend the effort or a full modelling or testing regime?

 

[Snuby642]

Nice.

But I doubt you can teach these guys anything they are more interested in trolling than learning.

 

[Tx_Aggie]

Just something to think about. If I posed similar questions about change in windage or elevation from 150 to 500 yards on rifle systems including everything from run of the mill AR through to F class rifles sending 180+grain 7mm projectiles or ELR cartridges, there will be a lot of different answers for the same interval.

Seems pretty common here in Aus, if groups open on F class rifles and it's got hot they wind in and the opposite when it gets cold, I would assume this it to bring the barrel movement back into phase with the shortened or lenghthened barrel transient time, primarily due to powder temperature change but with small compounding effects from barrel length growth/contraction/air density in the bore ahead of the bullet/minor changes in stiffness/elastic response of barrel/action/stock. Given nearly every rifle system has different stiffness, lenght, weight and barrel transient bullet time I think it's pretty childish suggesting that if every system doesn't have exactly the same response to 10 degrees even on the same tuner it's bullshit.

People talking about "scientific method" while admitting that fitting a suppressor or large mass does change grouping and vertical. Let's step back to first principles, compare this to numerical analysis of differentials or integration. You dice up very small changes or steps to calculate or back calculate the impact of a function change/area/what have you. If you accept adding a suppressor or large mass has an effect, then it follows that there are piecewise impacts from adding or moving mass on the system. Unless you genuinely want to argue it's a step function from no effect whatsoever to suddenly impacted, but if that was the case surely there would only be two barrel profiles in existence too?

How much testing (round count per test, and repetitions of this testing in varied conditions) would you say is necessary to actually know how far in or out one must adjust the tuner on their specific system to “bring the barrel back into phase” with the barrel time. And would one test based on powder temp, ambient temp, air density, or several of these? How large of a sample at each tuner setting?

It certainly sounds more complicated than just winding the tuner in when it gets hot or out when it gets cold. If every rifle is a unique system, each will have a unique set of tuner adjustments that must be learned from testing, no? How much barrel life can one expect to use up doing that testing?

 

[Slides]

How much testing (round count per test, and repetitions of this testing in varied conditions) would you say is necessary to actually know how far in or out one must adjust the tuner on their specific system to “bring the barrel back into phase” with the barrel time. And would one test based on powder temp, ambient temp, air density, or several of these? How large of a sample at each tuner setting?

It certainly sounds more complicated than just winding the tuner in when it gets hot or out when it gets cold. If every rifle is a unique system, each will have a unique set of tuner adjustments that must be learned from testing, no? How much barrel life can one expect to use up doing that testing?

I'll pose another question to you, does a guy who is only willing to adjust a couple of screws on his carburettor and twist his distributor (no piston changes, cams, valves, manifolds ignition graph changes), need to spend 2 million dollars and equivalent several full time work years becoming truly proficient in the use of an AVL engine simulation , dyno and combustion measurement system to get the same 98% of what he can from his 80s shitbix with the hand tools available to him in his garage and a 5 dollar phone logging app?

Horses for courses. I'd suggest doing most of that level testing on a clone 1970 service rifle is over investing. If there was a genuine standard issue benchrest or F class rifle for international competition high level testing and simulation (remembering you could be talking 50k a year software licences and someone with a decade experience to drive it) still might not be worth the effort of "metrologically robust testing".

 

[Tx_Aggie]

I'll pose another question to you, does a guy who is only willing to adjust a couple of screws on his carburettor and twist his distributor (no piston changes, cams, valves, manifolds ignition graph changes), need to spend 2 million dollars and equivalent several full time work years becoming truly proficient in the use of an AVL engine simulation , dyno and combustion measurement system to get the same 98% of what he can from his 80s shitbix with the hand tools available to him in his garage and a 5 dollar phone logging app?

Horses for courses. I'd suggest doing most of that level testing on a clone 1970 service rifle is over investing. If there was a genuine standard issue benchrest or F class rifle for international competition high level testing and simulation (remembering you could be talking 50k a year software licences and someone with a decade experience to drive it) still might not be worth the effort of "metrologically robust testing".

Okay. Would it be correct to interpret your response as:

“Unless you’re in a position to have multiple barrels chambered for a rifle, and are willing to burn one of them up doing tuner testing, then maybe a barrel tuner isn’t for you.”

 

[Slides]

Okay. Would it be correct to interpret your response as:

“Unless you’re in a position to have multiple barrels chambered for a rifle, and are willing to burn one of them up doing tuner testing, then maybe a barrel tuner isn’t for you.”

Not at all, unless you wanted to to a Phd on barrel and load response (and hence the extention of muzzle mass) in which case, depending on cartridge, yeah you possibly would if attempting to measure sensitivity of each variable as independently as possible and compare it to a simulation model as a theoretical exercise. In which case you would also be looking at temp and humidity sensitivity of individual powders and a whole bunch of other stuff as well fir a genuinely robust model.

In the real world however it's very unlikely you scoring string is going to massive swings from -10 to 40C between stages without also impacting ammunition and barrel temperature or you will see maximum ammunition temperature with minimum atmospherics. Given these things track together and you aren't attempting to isolate confounding factors like barrel lenght growth and any elastic modulus change from barrel transient time, just the overall effect, and that, at least in shooting scenarios for ranges in Australia/UK and South Africa air density will likely be orders of magnitude less important than temperature, for practical purposes you could probably spend a couple of days shooting out of an air conditioned room with your set charge and seating depth with a chronograph and shotmarker and call it done if you wanted to hand someone a tabulated tuner setting vs temp (or ave MV at conditions depending on what devices or info they can use in competition) table for a specific rifle. But that doesn't discount that there are overall consistent effects like temperature rise reduces barrel transient time and extending a response member slows it and vice versa, so as others have said, if it's in tune and goes out you should have a pretty good idea which way to tweak it slightly even if you don't know the precise magnitude.

 

[Slides]

Which begs the question, if you wanted to be a pedant, do AB and Hornady use temperature, humidity, mass balance and velocity measuring equipment with current calibration certificates tracable to NIST? Have they qualified airflow and temperature variations in their test tunnels/ranges? Do they have 4 wire platinum resistance thermometers mounted on the rifle action/barrel and in the ammunition box? What acclimatisation times were they using? Do they do regular ice point test? A metrologist could probably tear shreds off their test setups/experimental design, regardless of whether on not is has a material impact on the outcomes. I would think if you were genuinely having a go however you would be starting with benchrest or F class style rifles and rests/bags to reduce variance.

 

[iceng]

at least in shooting scenarios for ranges in Australia/UK and South Africa air density will likely be orders of magnitude less important than temperature,

Also be aware that gravity is upside down for us, and coriolis is backwards. You need to use LEFT twist barrels, OR! Load your proj backwards when you seat it, else it wont stabilise.

 

[6.5SH]

Also be aware that gravity is upside down for us, and coriolis is backwards. You need to use LEFT twist barrels, OR! Load your proj backwards when you seat it, else it wont stabilise.

Wouldn't right twist have the advantage down under given left is better in the northern hemisphere?

 

[iceng]

Nope. Because we are upside down. Its one of those weird things which you think you know the answer because it seems logical, but realise Australia is not logical, so then you understand and it becomes logical.

We are illogical in those situations.

 

[Macht]

...But that doesn't discount that there are overall consistent effects like temperature rise reduces barrel transient time and extending a response member slows it and vice versa...

Care to explain how moving a mass on the exterior of the barrel changes internal barrel time?

 

[Slides]

Care to explain how moving a mass on the exterior of the barrel changes internal barrel time?

Where did I say that? Perhaps I should have separated the statements better. I guess I assumed people would understand the muzzle device doesn't effect burn conditions because that's a rather odd thing to suggest. Is that your best attempt at a lame gotcha? Extending a member slows it's response, longer windchime lower frequency.

Hot powder burns faster resulting in shorter barrel time.


Extending the mass on the barrel slows it's response, withdrawing the mass on the barrel speeds up its response. So you extend the mass/member lenght to match time to exit for a slower burn and shorten it to match a faster burn to retain the same exit phase.


Unless @Macht I have upset your plans for bringing quantum entangled powder charges to competition?