calfee tuner tests

T

tim in tx

Guest
from a long range standpoint , at 100yds i want to see a flip relative to the correction needed to compensate for the velocity variance at 1000yds aprox .it was too windy to test at 1000yds this weekend so just to confirm in my own mind and kind of waundered if the weight to correct would compare with jackie and lisa's barrel contours to see how universal this theory can be.i am sure my barrels are longer then theirs so i went with a 3 grain difference test today,and the results for the most part was compairable to jackie and lisa's results,except this time i went on up in weight and length from where i left off from last week ,i started at 11ozs and ended up at 23 ozs . the next node ended up being 10 ozs as well. the bullets crossed or fliped at one point but it was wind because it never repeated unless i shot with the pick up of the tailwind.when i went on by the 2 nodes at no point had the bullets ever fliped without the the winds help, however they did converge to one hole [.100 or less] .i would assume that a smaller difference in powder,like lynn suggested could possibly be easier to get the flip,so tommorrow i will start from the other end ,similar to calfees extremes this test is still at 100yds for now .i will see if i can can get a flip to correct a 50 fps drop which is a aprox 1moa with my slugs,if that works i will expand outward with more extremes to see the limits. good luck to everybody. hope this helps tim in tx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure this has been covered, but why 3gr? why not a more realistic variance of -.5gr to +.5gr for a total of 1 gr? that's where I'd like to see it actually converge. I think it'll take less weight than a more extreme load change like 3gr. and remember 42yds:eek:
 
dusty sir

thats exactly what i will be doing tommorrow.kinda works out to about .8 of a grain.i just wanted to see the 3gr test for myself, as far as the 42 yds goes it is still a matter of angles.i see nothing mystical about 42yds. tim in tx
 
Dusty Stevens

Dusty the 3 grain test has nothing to do with Bill Calfee.I read about his two bullets at different velocities and making them converge and simply tested out his idea.In my testing 0.3 grains of variance at 100 yards is easy to get confused with what is actually going on because one is at a velocity node.
In order to show just how easy it is to converge 2 bullets that are 0.2 apart I used 3/4 of an inch as my example which turns out to be 3 grains.
On my 1,000 yard heavyguns just to see in the big arrels would react similarly I used 7.5v grains worth of variance.
I tested yesterday and the weight required on a 30 inch barrel was actualy less than what Jackie was using.I am going out again today with 2 more guns to see if I get a pattern.
Lynn
 
tim in tx said:
from a long range standpoint , at 100yds i want to see a flip relative to the correction needed to compensate for the velocity variance at 1000yds aprox .

it was too windy to test at 1000yds this weekend so just to confirm in my own mind and kind of waundered if the weight to correct would compare with jackie and lisa's barrel contours to see how universal this theory can be.i am sure my barrels are longer then theirs so i went with a 3 grain difference test today,and the results for the most part was compairable to jackie and lisa's results,except this time i went on up in weight and length from where i left off from last week ,i started at 11ozs and ended up at 23 ozs .

the next node ended up being 10 ozs as well. the bullets crossed or fliped at one point but it was wind because it never repeated unless i shot with the pick up of the tailwind.when i went on by the 2 nodes at no point had the bullets ever fliped without the the winds help, however they did converge to one hole [.100 or less] .

i would assume that a smaller difference in powder,like lynn suggested could possibly be easier to get the flip,so tommorrow i will start from the other end ,similar to calfees extremes this test is still at 100yds for now .i will see if i can can get a flip to correct a 50 fps drop which is a aprox 1moa with my slugs,if that works i will expand outward with more extremes to see the limits. good luck to everybody. hope this helps tim in tx
Click to expand...

well guys ,i have finished my brake /tuner setup.i am set to go from 1oz -11 oz.do you guys think that 11 oz will be enough with a 27"1.25 to a .967 and no fluted?we will test mr calfees method tommorow.will post the results as they get sorted tommorrow.good luck jackie and thanks lynn. tim in tx

i followed your advise and the set up is basicly a brake with a 3oz tube or a 7 oz tube mounted on the front mounted the same way the brake was attached to the barrel and ring weights [1oz]slide on with no threads,they are locked with a set screw,after the proper weight determination i plan to tailor a thin indexed adjustable sleeve . kinda like a micrometer handle in front of the brake. tim in tx

my test went exactly as lynn said it would to a tee.the 100yd test changed the verticle from 1.5" to .200 within 7 ozs .staight up and down.upon the last adjustment i had 1 round hole with 5 grains difference in powder charges.i never thought i would ever see that.

when i finished up at 100yds ,i took off to west texas to do some 1000yd testing.i found that a different tune[weight] was needed to remove the verticle with one load,i ended up adding 2 more ozs from my 100yd tune.i had verticle right at 17 inches,and ended up at about 5 inches of verticle with a known low es load, but in all fairness the 1000yd results were tested with a pretty stout tailwind [12-18mph]so i will do some more testing at 1000yds next week to confirm these results.well lynn it seems you and calfee are on to something but i am not sure what to think for the 1000yd stuff yet. tim in tx

Hi Tim,

Thank you for sharing your tuner testing experience with us.

I think some of us are having a hard time understanding the details of your experiment and the equipment used.

Could you fill in some of the details about;

-Cartridge, powder, bullet and type of rifle used.

-Design of tuner/brake........is this a combination muzzle brake and tuner or have you removed the brake and replaced it with the weight rings? You have stated that the rings are secured with a set screw..........does this mean every ring has a set screw or only the last ring which in turn sandwichs the other rings? How does the set screw work?

-Do you have any photographs of your setup and targets that might show the convergence of the different load impacts?

Any further details will probably give us a clearer picture of your experiments...................Don
 
sorry for the lack of info,i will try to get some pics up soon.

well don,this is a 1000yds light gun 7 rem mag, berger 180,w/rl25 64.5 on the high load and 63.7 on the low load .nightforce scope,tooley/baer stock design ,rem action ,24.25 long pacnor 3 land barrel with a brake and a tube threaded and fitted on the front of the brake[ same od as the brake], i have 3 tubes the tubes are 1 inch 2.5 inches and 4.25 inches long,i have made weight rings at 1oz each ,some are slightly less also so i can move in smaller weight increments,these rings slide over the tube and are locked by a set screw in the side. the total length with the brake and extra long tube is right at 30.25 inches,the taper is a 1.25 for 4 inches or so and straight taper down to a .960 diameter.the brake has not been removed at any time ,only the tubes have been changed to acomidate more weights and moving them further out to the end. and now for the results.in two words IT WORKS.i used loads today at 100yds and did get the bullets to flip, and to the exact correction needed for 1 moa to equal a 50 fps drop at 1000yds .we were all using too much difference in loads.the barrel whip was not enough to get the slow shot to go high.but with a more realistic .8 variance it came realitivly fast and i did confirm a 1.1 moa correction 8 times,and with much less weight than i had used before it was a very small window[2-3ozs].from one holle to 1.1inches of vertical,but it did repeat,i shot at least 15 times with the rounds hitting fliped playing with weight positioning on the sleeve. and was absolutley astounded.it was way too windy today to go to west tx,to confirm but but soon very soon.and the great thing is also the rifle makes weight by 19ozs.i will post more details about weighting and lengths when i remeasure and reweigh the final needed weight everything to a tee .if mr calfee states that the barrel is parallel and not canted i think it would be a mistake to beleive this,if mr calfee agrees with varmint als theory that the barrel swing is higher and canted upward then i would say thats the way it still looks to me right now after todays testing. either way it is still looking like it could actually happen . tim in tx
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don

I just got home after a long day at the range.My three guns are all 1,000 yard lightguns with 30 inch Hart Max Heavy Varmint Contour barrels on them.My tuners are about 2.75 inches long with the muzzle threaded for about 0.800 inch.\
I used the Robvon weights available in the classifieds section here today except I didn't use the adaptor that Roger supplies with the set.Jay McMunn(Jay,Idaho) on tis forum built me a adaptor approximately 1.75 inches long out of aluminum and threaded for my barrel.
Two guns were your typical 6BR shooting 105 gr bullets with a stiff load of Varget.The other gun is a 6mm-06 using Lapua 30-06 brass a boron nitrided 115 Tubb bullet and 54 grain of VV170.All the standard benchrest prep was used on the cases.
The first 6BR liked 6 ounces.The second 6BR liked 14 ounces and has a fluted barrel on it.The 6mm-06 liked 7 ounces.
My father shot all three guns first and we numbered the weights so we had them all in the same order.With 3 different rifles and 2 shooters we tested each gun at 0.5 ounce increments and we only varied 0.5 ounces on one gun.

We did notice one thing.If your weights unscrew or become loose you can only get the gun to shoot about 1/2 of a calibers worth of verical.When the weights are tightened up you can remove the rest of the vertical.

I used 8.5 X 11 targets with 6 bulls on each page turned sideways so I had 18 tests per frame.You will notice that on your vertical if you have lines drawn horizontaly only 1 bullet per test is actually needed.By this I mean once you get both shots in one hole if you then switch the weight and the first shot isn't on the same line the second shot won't be either.
It appears only one bullet shifts but I can't say that for sure just what I'm seeing.
All of my shooting was done with the same loads without any variance at all in charge weight.
Lynn
 
2nd Day Testing

Okay, I'll follow up on last weekends test of the "Calfee-style" muzzle device that I posted about last week. I tested all day on Saturday.

1st. As I suspected, I could not get repeatable results with the same weight/load as the previous week. Using the same combination that had given my the teen agg (28.5 grains of H322), the best I could do was groups of .234, .298, .318, .324, and a ragged .413. Each of these groups showed noticeable vertical.

2nd. Next I tested the 2 shot 2 velocity thing, in an effort to repeat what had happened the week before. Loads were 27 and 30 grains. Last week, with 8.2 oz I could get the shots to converge from 1.3 inches apart to .3 inches. This week, I could not get the 8.2 ounces to place the shots any closer together than 1.1 inches together. By the way velocities were 30 grains = 3454 fps, 27 grains = 3128 fps (6ppc, 68 grain Bart's). KIDS, DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME.

3rd. Without the tuner, the 2 shot tests produced spacing identical to last week (1.3 inches). Last week, the 8.2 oz removed 1-inch of vertical. This week it only removed .200 inches.

4th. I then tried the 28.5 grains of H322 without the weight installed. Groups were better than with it: .238, .269, .312, .333, .345. Not good, but better.

5th. I then started testing to determine what weight would remove a large amount of vertical from the two widely-spaced shots. This week, 1.1 ounce did the best job ( I went clear up to 18 ounces). This weight removed about .750 worth of vertical.

6th. Shooting groups with the 1.1 ounce weight on did not produce anything better than was capable without the weight, even though it removed a lot of vertical from the 27/30 shots.

Conclusions based on the tests over 2 days:

Will the muzzle weight make 2 widely varying velocity shots move closer together? Yes.

Am I ever going to shoot rounds containing 3 grains of powder difference in a match? No, so I don't know why this is relevant.

Was I able to get repeatability with the muzzle weight? No, not on this date.

Did the muzzle weight do anything? Yes it did. With enough experimentation and trial and error, somebody might just figure this out.

Am I going to pursue this? Perhaps. But now the season is upon us. I spent Sunday preparing for our season opener. I need to think about this when winning some matches is not the focus of my shooting.

I am slightly disappointed (although not surprised) that I could not repeat the results of last week with the same weight, in the same place, with the same load. Nor am I surprised that I could make a DIFFERENT weight perform well. This is what I have been calling "tuner frustration" for years. I can make a tuner work well in every instance I have tried one--I just cannot make the same tuner, perform the same, every time I have used it. They all require adjusting, tweaking, and/or changing in some manner from one day to the next.

I know that there are those out there that believe that "once you get a tuner of the proper weight positioned correctly in the proper place" the gun will shoot like the proverbial house a fire, but I've never been able to produce such an animal.

I will keep searching.

God,I love this game!

Lisa Spendlove
 
Lisa,

My limited experience with 5 tuners exactly matches yours.........

In a nutshell, a bare barrel will repeat, a barrel with a tuner will not.

Asking a barrel with a tuner to do today what it did yesterday is asking for a train wreck.

But thanks to this board and a monstrous group of dedicated experimenters we're seeing progress.........IT'S A GREAT TIME TO BE ALIVE !!! :):):):)

Thank you (and everyone else) for sharing


al
 
Lisa Spendlove

Lisa something just doesn't seem right.On Jackie's tuner he used a constant weight and with a 1/4 turn in or out he can win matches and shoot small agg's.That 1/4 turn in terms of weight is very small even though its on the end of a long barrel.
I suspect something else is wrong.
Lynn
 
Alinwa

alinwa said:
In a nutshell, a bare barrel will repeat, a barrel with a tuner will not.
Asking a barrel with a tuner to do today what it did yesterday is asking for a train wreck.
Click to expand...

Al as you know Henry Childs uses what he calls a muzzle weight on all of his rifles.I doubt very much Henry would go through the trouble of adding a muzzle weight to create a train wreck or create a non-repeatable barrel.
Just what do you think a tuner does that changes day to day unless its density altitude?
Lynn
 
Lynn,


I have no idea. Maybe magnifies changes for good as well as for bad? I don't have a clue.


I've done nothing but support and applaud everyone from Calfee to Schmidt to Borden to Vaughn on their efforts. I talked to Harold Vaughn 3 times about the problems I'd had. He said that in his opinion the way to go was "heavier and looser" which is another way of saying what Bill's been saying all along.


As I've repeatedly stated for 5yrs, "I'm scared of 'em" :)


I'm most intrigued by the "Gene Beggs' design".


al
 
lisa

from what i have seen on my test today,your barrel probably does not have enough swing to make up for a 3 grain velocity difference but go down to 1 grain difference and i bet you will be able to do what ever you want to with the group from going into the same hole or make the slower shot hit high or low, and it should repeat .unless something is shifting .good luck tim in tx
 
Lynn

Okay. Something else must be wrong.

Of course the DA was different. The temperature was 20 degrees colder, the humidity was almost 30% higher, and it was raining (hard) instead of being sunny. Last week the DA was 153. This week it was 489.

That's the point. If the same weight won't do exactly the same thing, regardless of DA (or moon phase, or the price of the yen, or whatever), then it is of no use to me.

I've tried probably 10 or so different "tuner" approaches over the years, both adustable and non-adjustable, on probably 30 barrels or guns.

I have 4 rifles sitting in the safe right now, 2 more that are my husband's, and 1 one more that is our son's that have tuners attached.

Obviously I think that tuners work, or I wouldn't have them.

What I have never, ever, had is one that is repeatable. To me this means that once the adjustable tuner is set, it never needs to be moved to shoot the smallest group possible, or the weight never needs to be adjusted to shoot the smallest group possible.

The problem must lie with me, since I am the only common denominator. I'm incapable of figuring out what so many other know.

I am not looking to find a tuner that works by adjusting, I am looking to find a tuner that works by not adjusting. I know that adjusting tuners to fit the condition works. I do it at every rimfire match I attend. I can do it with my Boss-equipped hunting rifles.

I was testing the theory that you put forth: Find a weight that will drive two widely-varying velocity shots through the same hole (tune out the vertical with weights), then the changes in DA would not effect group size.

So far my testing has been able to accomplish the first part, but I have not be able to repeat the results. Not just in this test, but in many, many others over the years.

I also put forth the following theory: Jackie is shooting winning aggs for several reasons, one of which is that he has a tuner attached to his barrel that HELPS him win. I also submit that Jackie uses what he feels are the best components, frozen scopes and static mounts, a fixed reloading setup, and a huge amount of shooting skill. I can't speak for Jackie, of course, but I think that he would be the first to admit that the tuner is just one of the reasons he wins. Not the sole reason he wins.

God, I love this sport.

Lisa
 
here are some pics of the priliminary machined weighting system

hope these pics go through. tim in tx
 

Attachments

  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    38.6 KB · Views: 453
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    39.4 KB · Views: 397
tim in tx said:
hope these pics go through. tim in tx
Click to expand...

Tim, pictures came thru nice and clear, now we have a better understanding of your settup.

In that you were able to remove the verticle with "Calfees" method, it will be interesting to see how the final "grouping" results perform.............Don
 
Jetmugg said:
What makes a tuner a "Calfee tuner"?

SteveM.
Click to expand...

Relative to our most recent discussions, I would say that a "Calfee" tuner protocol, is a barrel muzzle tuner system with a range of removable weights that is capable of finding the optimal and widest accuracy window for a given barrel/gun, that requires no further tuner adjustment, regardless of atmospheric conditions, for a given yardage..........Don
 
Don said:
Relative to our most recent discussions, I would say that a "Calfee" tuner protocol, is a barrel muzzle tuner system with a range of removable weights that is capable of finding the optimal and widest accuracy window for a given barrel/gun, that requires no further tuner adjustment, regardless of atmospheric conditions, for a given yardage..........Don
Click to expand...

Great definition. You need to put this in Wilkepedia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top