Lot Testing With Tuner

Lot testing with Tuner

kevinnevius said:
Mike:

Great post, I couldn't agree more.

I do think that there are some sweet spots that are wider (or at least more tolerant) of velocity changes than others, but I fully agree that "tune" is velocity dependent - and subject to the variables you mentioned.

When I am developing tuner settings for a season, I like to run two independent tests with two lots of differing velocities - just to see if there is any overlap or common tuner positions. Personally, I find these settings as I mentioned more tolerant than others. It may be a compromise though - but it seems to avoid some of the sensitivity of other settings.

All the best to you,

kev
Click to expand...
Kevin what spread would you say in avg velocity gives you best results?
 
tim said:
Great barrel Billy. I doubt a tuner will do much but you never know, the hard part is figuring out how to fit one on that pipe.:D
Click to expand...
i put a small tuner on that clamps wioth set screw shot well will try other lots later in good weather.
 
I don't know exactly the size

BillBrawand said:
have 1 250 bbl does tunner help this heavy bbl i put it on unml rail bill brawand hope for ans
Click to expand...

but I saw a rifle at a couple of indoor matches owned by Denny Antonious that has pretty big barrel and he had, as I recall, 37 pounds of brass weight hanging off the end of the barrel. He holds an indoor record with it I believe. She's a brute. A 52 Winchester action I think.

Pete
 
oldman said:
Kevin what spread would you say in avg velocity gives you best results?
Click to expand...

It varies, the most important thing (to me, at least), is using two lots of different speeds that have performed well (they are known good performing lots to begin with). That kind of limits my options.

The tuner position specific to a single lot is always preferable - I have just always thought it interesting, especially when proving out a brand new barrel, to identify initial positions that might be more tolerant (or at least good places to start when transitioning out of something proven to a new unproven lot).

As an example (and I know this is my particular rifle, and only one example) when initially tested with 325 and 328MPS lots, a common position was at the ninth revolution +10 clicks. I used it there and was really happy with it with either lot (I was using the slower lot at 100 yards, which was especially good). Last year, I transitioned to a 320MPS lot - and it was good at this position, but in retesting / retuning a much better position was found at REV 5 + 12 clicks.

Not sure if anything scientific can be gleaned from this, but it did reaffirm at least to me, that tuner positions are lot if not velocity dependent.

Sorry for the delayed response, all the best to you!

kev
 
tim said:
Hi Kev,
So have you always tuned for lots ?

Thanks,
Tim
Click to expand...

Good afternoon Tim:

I have been shooting a really long time, and my memory isn't what it once was. When I started I was not using a "tuner" as they currently exist, but many of us were experimenting with extension tubes - and we recognized early on how much performance variation existed when something was changed (or the position along the bores axis was moved). The advent of BR certainly benefitted all of the RF shooting sports, where very little innovation existed for many years.

The rifle I won my first National with (in 2008) did not have a tuner, but was "tuned" with the placement of the extension tube. I used a tube that had a location ring to position it (both rotationally, to maintain an iron sight zero, and laterally for the manipulation of mass). I mic'd the position from the muzzle at a starting point (at the time it was 2.200"), and "walked" the entire tube assembly forward in .025" increments (with the front sight on, and any other mass located). The tubes were dovetailed top and bottom so the front sight could be positioned on the bottom side in the very same lateral position so tune was not effected and the line of sight for the scope was clear). I hope that makes sense.

The issue for us (prone SB) has always been one of weight too. Even 8 ounces placed that far forward can cause significant fatigue. So, most of us have come up with combined barrel / tuner and extension configurations that allow us to tune, aren't so heavy that we can maintain position, and give us the extended sight radius for iron sight shooting. For me, barrels around .920" finished between 25" and 26", and a 16" extension tube with a Hoehn tuner placed at the muzzle seem to work well (for what it's worth).

And I realize there are those who are very accomplished who believe you set a tuner once and leave it alone. But in my very humble opinion and in my experience, that has never been the case. As I have mentioned before, I believe the primary variable here is velocity (which effects the time the bullet takes to reach the muzzle - and therefore the position of that exit point in the vibration cycle). But again, that's just my opinion for what it's worth.

All the best Tim, I enjoy your posts and it's great to hear from you!

kev
 
Last edited:
Always a ton of great stuff.
We have to get you to shoot a sporter with that immovable deal on the end.:p

Thanks Kev,

Tim

P.S. going to try to head to your neck of the woods come spring, try to do a Lapua test visit.
Gotta get out of the damn house.
 
Last edited:
I believe it is changes in acceleration rather than velocity that is more critical in exit timing.
 
Jerry H said:
I believe it is changes in acceleration rather than velocity that is more critical in exit timing.
Click to expand...

Funny you mention that.
Way back when Federal hit with their top flight stuff, being the curious guy I am, I reached out to them an got to talk to one of their engineers on the phone. One thing that stuck out was his explanation that while they did not want to impact ultimate velocity they did develop priming/powder that yielded dramatically less time in barrel for slug. This, what, 20+ years ago.
I believe this to be true also with the Moscow Olymp of which I still have a few boxes. Interesting
 
Jerry H said:
I believe it is changes in acceleration rather than velocity that is more critical in exit timing.
Click to expand...

Thanks Jerry:

You may be correct, that makes total sense to me.

I think any variable that alters the bullets exit position (including acceleration or velocity - or both!) would be a factor.

Thanks for the post!

kev
 
Tuner

Anyone having tried M Ezell tuner or using M Ezell rimfire tuner? What experience, still using, switched to what brand?
 
I have one

oldman said:
Anyone having tried M Ezell tuner or using M Ezell rimfire tuner? What experience, still using, switched to what brand?
Click to expand...

but I've not used it. No particular reason I guess but the Harrell tuner is easier to use for me. I don't recall ever seeing an Ezell on a RF rifle at any of the matches I've been at. Doesn't mean there weren't any. I don't look at every rifle there.

Pete
 
tim said:
great barrel billy. I doubt a tuner will do much but you never know, the hard part is figuring out how to fit one on that pipe.:d
Click to expand...
i turned barrel down and clamped with set screw it was short black one about 1.5 longdioa then was someware around 650.
 
oldman said:
What tuner would be the lightest to use on rimfire .875 barrel to make weight at 13.5#?
Click to expand...

I had to make my own that ended up being 3.3oz on an . 850 barrel.
A shaved the barrel on a friends Harrell's & it ended up in the 4.5oz range.
They both work.
How much weight are you trying to lose?

Keith
 
I always succeeded to tune my rifles with the same tuner (Harrel like) irrespective of barrel diameter and weight... except for the typical Menke ones (very short with big diameters)...
I'm no ballistic/engineer/gunsmith expert, so can someone elaborate?
 
Lot testing with a tuner.

Getting back to where this thread started. Lot testing should be all about testing lots available against each other.

Eliminating all parts of the rifle that may not perform consistently is a good idea.

Strip down the rifle to it's basic parts. Action, trigger, barrel is all you need.

How about the tuner? If you are one that believes a tuner changes the consistency of your rifle leave it on.

If you think the tuner changes "time in the barrel" then it shouldn't matter.

The tuner always weights the same from shot to shot and if it is locked into position it will not change from shot to shot.

But leaving it on can have a downside. Since tuners are moveable and many contain o rings, there is a chance that they can vibrate different from shot to shot.

As others have said they lock down their tuners.

Great ammo will not make a rifle that shoots inconsistently perform. Nor can you find great ammo testing with an inconsistent rifle.

Here is an example of a lockable tuner. I copied this design from one of the best machinist in the business and one of the nicest guys I've ever known. Bob Messina.
tunerHM.jpg tuner parts.jpg

TKH
 
Last edited:
[QUOTEJOE NADER IF YOU SEE THIS
LET ME KNOW LET ME KNOW WHOSE TUNNER YOU THREWON MY TABLE AT CAMILLUS YRS AGO=tonykharper;842445]Getting back to where this thread started. Lot testing should be all about testing lots available against each other.

Eliminating all parts of the rifle that may not perform consistently is a good idea.

Strip down the rifle to it's basic parts. Action, trigger, barrel is all you need.

How about the tuner? If you are one that believes a tuner changes the consistency of your rifle leave it on.

If you think the tuner changes "time in the barrel" then it shouldn't matter.

The tuner always weights the same from shot to shot and if it is locked into position it will not change from shot to shot.

But leaving it on can have a downside. Since tuners are moveable and many contain o rings, there is a chance that they can vibrate different from shot to shot.

As others have said they lock down their tuners.

Great ammo will not make a rifle that shoots inconsistently perform. Nor can you find great ammo testing with an inconsistent rifle.

Here is an example of a lockable tuner. I copied this design from one of the best machinist in the business and one of the nicest guys I've ever known. Bob Messina.
View attachment 24418 View attachment 24419

TKH[/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top