JerrySharrett
Senile Member
Actually, I'm not sure that my questions were ever addressed.
Answering question 5, will the o-ring provide enough stability to maintain a tuned setting-NO!
.
Need Help With a Tuner
- Thread starter Hunter
- Start date
Answering question 5, will the o-ring provide enough stability to maintain a tuned setting-NO!
.
mwezell
Mike Ezell
FWIW Jerry, o-rings and a detent ball are all a Harrell's uses. There are probably more of those in use than all others combined.
Hunter
Chasin' the Sunset
I'm sorry hunter. I thought every one was answered..and then some.
I see that Jerry answered questions 2 and 5 in his post just above; however, can you direct my attention to the posts that answer questions 1 and 3? I'll assume question 4 was effectively answered by folks describing how they're using other types of tuners,
Last edited:
mwezell
Mike Ezell
The real question is number 1. Did you get a definite answer to it? If not, then you still don't have an answer to ANY.of your questions....but if you look real close, there's a lot of good info relative to tuners...just not much info that is specific to YOUR tuner, unfortunately. I'm sorry if you didn't get any answers but there's still a lot of good tuner I fo in this thread.
JerrySharrett
Senile Member
To my knowledge Lynnwood Harrell doesn't offer a tuner suitable for centerfire. That tuner, and I have a couple, was intended for rimfire. He is now offering a tuner for the black gun crowd that might work though.
That is why, in 2005, that Scott Fudd Hamilton and I started to work developing a centerfire tuner.
That tuner does work. I shot it all through the big and local shoots in 2005. Scotts centerfire tuner does require some reduction of weight in LV to make 10.5 pounds though. It require reducing the barrel weight to about 3# 14 oz. BUT the barrel does not have to be threaded as some of the other designs.
Tuners DO work and are a fun undertaking but as many have written above they require much development by the user to get beneficial results.
.
.
mwezell
Mike Ezell
Jerry, I understand you're advocating for a tuner that you helped to design, but can you describe the testing you've done to confirm that the Harrell tuner won't work on a center fire? The common thought in this regard is that they work fine as long as the clamp doesn't slip under recoil. In this, I agree and my tuners for centerfires are threaded onto the barrel.
jackie schmidt
New member
Mike, I think the idea is that in order to get a clamp on Tuner to stay firmly in place, you have to clamp it so tight as to actually squeeze the ID of the bore.
A 6PPC has quite a bit more recoil than a 22 Rimfire, and a 30BR has more than a 6PPC. Whether that recoil will cause the tuner to slip can only be answered by someone who actually uses a clamp on tuner on a Centerfire Rifle.
I never even considered a camp on tuner. Mainly, I wanted the tuner to be a one piece design to keep the weight at less than 5 ounces, and to be able to secure it with a very fine thread so as to be able to secure it with lightly tightening two small 6-32 pinch bolts.
I think the best Tuner that is available for sale to be used in 100-200 yard Benchrest is this one on Bruno's Site. Not only does it secure with a fine thread and small pinch bolt, it is light enough to make weight on most LV Rifles, and also encorporates the "snubber" feature.
http://www.brunoshooters.com/product/26276.html
A 6PPC has quite a bit more recoil than a 22 Rimfire, and a 30BR has more than a 6PPC. Whether that recoil will cause the tuner to slip can only be answered by someone who actually uses a clamp on tuner on a Centerfire Rifle.
I never even considered a camp on tuner. Mainly, I wanted the tuner to be a one piece design to keep the weight at less than 5 ounces, and to be able to secure it with a very fine thread so as to be able to secure it with lightly tightening two small 6-32 pinch bolts.
I think the best Tuner that is available for sale to be used in 100-200 yard Benchrest is this one on Bruno's Site. Not only does it secure with a fine thread and small pinch bolt, it is light enough to make weight on most LV Rifles, and also encorporates the "snubber" feature.
http://www.brunoshooters.com/product/26276.html
Last edited:
JerrySharrett
Senile Member
Mike I'm not advocating any tuner design. I am grateful to Scott Fudd Hamilton, who is well known in the rimfire world, for his effort in the tuners he provided me.
As to testing I did, the entire 2005 season was my testing lab. I did get a good feel for what it takes as to tuner weight, to either permanently tune a barrel, or to a tuner that can be used, during a shoot, to make minor adjustments.
I can not add a lot to help anyone wanting to implement a tuner to their system. Part of the reason being is that from 2001 to 2012 I was not shooting the traditional 6PPC. During that time period I shot one of several variants that Ferris Pindell started me on when, as he was loosing his eyesight. He sold me the reamers, dies, seaters, etc., for various 40 degree shouldered chamberings he had been working on. After Ferris's passing, I was requested by his widow to inventory his shop. Turned out Ferris had put a great effort into 40 degree shoulder designs.
As I have said earlier, tuners do work. For the more violent recoil of centerfire, a tuner must lock down firmly to provide predictable results. As to me continuing with tuners, other than long range, I found them as just something else to keep up with. I did use a tuner some in the 600 yard game in 2008 and 2009.
.
mwezell
Mike Ezell
Jerry, the reason I asked is because my tuner does not "lock down" per se, although it is tensioned against movement similarly to the tuners designed by Jim Borden. Mine use an o-ring at the rear and nylon tipped set screws on the threads to prevent movement as well as add tension give resistance when adjusting. The Borden also uses nylon..simply nylon thumb screws, for this. I've tested thoroughly, solid locked up tuner designs vs. my method and see no advantage of one over the other in terms of consistency. This method also allows for being able to adjust the tuner without tools. I've tried not to toot my own horn much in this regard, but I have probably got as much time and experience with tuners as anyone in the centerfire tuner game..or very near it. It's also a huge luxury to be able to test on my property where I need only raise a door to shoot 200 yards from my shop, and about 600 from a concrete pad at the other end of the shop. Further, I have had some vibration analysis testing done and will follow up with more in the future. This being done by a professor at the university of Cincinnati, who is extremely qualified in this area and just so happens to be a shooter, giving him a big advantage in understanding of what we are looking for in benchrest. My tuners have been tested on everything from air rifles to 1.450 barrel blocked centerfire br rifles. Believe me when I say that if I knew there to be an advantage in solidly mounting a tuner, mine would be that way. My testing simply didn't show it to be advantageous and only made it more difficult to adjust. Perhaps someone has done more extensive testing of all aspects of a tuner, but I don't know who it would be...and I continue this testing endlessly, in one form or another. I do plan more vibration analysis in the future, but my tuner has proven to be very functional in it's current design under all testing procedures. At this point, I find for most of us, how to make a tuner work for us is more important than debating what makes them work, on internet forums where most of the topic contributions are anecdotal at best. Not that all anecdotal evidence is not worthwhile though, as different methods of use, for example, have been proving themselves to work. In the rimfire game, Anschutz North America has done some pretty extensive testing of different tuners and mine came out on top in their testing, as well. I mention that and the vibration analysis testing to hopefully assure anyone interested in my tuners, that my testing has not been limited to seat of the pants, anecdotal procedures nor results.
As to my tuner and its design, I too use a dampening media similar to what the Bukys and Schmidt tuners use to make the tuner more efficient in vibration management than a solid steel or aluminum mass alone. I researched and tested different materials before opting to use tungsten powder as the dampening material, inside of the tuner itself. Here's a very interesting read of a study done at Texas A&M University on particle dampening that influenced my decision to test and ultimately use this method of dampening over things like a rubber "snubber".
http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/1459/etd-tamu-2003C-AERO-Marhadi-1.pdf
An added benefit of using this method is the ability to adjust the cf tuner weight from 7.5 ounces down to 4 ounces by simply removing some or all of the tungsten powder. Of course changing the weight also changes how the barrel responds to tuning and reducing the amount of dampening agent reduces its benefit. Keep in mind though, that most tuners use no dampening agent at all and still do what tuners do. In the rare case where one may choose to go even heavier than the 7.5 ounces, the cap on the end of the tuner can be replaced with one that is heavier, for even more flexibility in overall tuner weight. I'll add some pics...
You should be able to see an o-ring at the rear of the tuner. This stabilizes the rear of the tuner further than not having anything at all, like some. It is further supported by 1" of threaded section where the nylon tipped set screws apply tension against the threads. Again, further stabilizing the tuner as well as allowing for resistance to turning without the need(or want) for detents, making adjustments as fine as desired and without tools.
My tuners are threaded .900x 32TPI and have 32 reference marks around the tuner body, that equal roughly .001" of travel per mark..not coincidentally.
Importantly, IMO, my tuners come with instructions as to how to install and my recommended method for using it. This IMHO, can't be overstated, as there are many designs and "opinions" on how to adjust a tuner. There is no one answer to this question for any and all tuners, on any and all barrels.
Please read the link I posted related to the particle dampening study. It's worth the time, IMO.
They're made entirely on cnc equipment and the threads are class 1. Here's some pics of one I've had laying around for a while. It's got some scuff marks but you should get the idea.
Here are the 9 pockets where the tungsten powder goes.
The o-ring at the rear, the threads and if you look closely, the green nylon tips of the set screws.
Boyd Allen
Active member
In skimming down to the end (and possibly missing something in the process) I saw it mentioned that Lynwood does not make a CF tuner. He does make one. It is a tuner brake combo that is cleverly designed, and well made. I realize that is little comfort to the short range CF crowd, but others may find it worthwhile investigating.
Randy Jarvais
New member
MKS-Some more insight please.
Keith, or anyone else for that matter, please help me understand some of Keith's statements as I am not fully understanding his position on barrel angular velocity. I have never worked with ballistic programs and all of my experience has been with short range CF. From that limited perspective, my experience seems counter to his statements if I understand them correctly. If I may, I will try to describe the inconsistencies that I have. Keith stated (paraphrasing as I don't how to retrieve the actual quote: please forgive and correct if I my paraphrasing your position in error) that the best load to have is one whereby the barrel has the fastest angular motion (midway between a valley and peak) which would provide the greatest compensation. I understand compensation and why you would want it, but my sense tells me that if the load is producing the greatest angular velocity, then any small deviations in bullet velocity would create a large dispersion of vertical, whereas getting closer to zero angular motion would do the opposite. Any small bullet velocity deviations with zero or near zero angular motion would have less vertical dispersion.
I also think that zero angular motion does provide some compensation as well although I don't necessarily think it is the best place to be. Here is why I say that. If you are on the peak of bullet group placement, the bullet is likely to print lower when it is going slightly faster or slightly slower, won't it?? If so, isn't that compensation?? Or is it just not enough compensation? Help me out please? Where is the fault in my logic? Maybe I am thinking in too small a velocity window. What kind of velocity dispersion are you thinking when you are discussing compensation? Are you talking differences of more than 15-20 f/s bullet velocity dispersion? Thanks in advance for any help provided.
Keith, or anyone else for that matter, please help me understand some of Keith's statements as I am not fully understanding his position on barrel angular velocity. I have never worked with ballistic programs and all of my experience has been with short range CF. From that limited perspective, my experience seems counter to his statements if I understand them correctly. If I may, I will try to describe the inconsistencies that I have. Keith stated (paraphrasing as I don't how to retrieve the actual quote: please forgive and correct if I my paraphrasing your position in error) that the best load to have is one whereby the barrel has the fastest angular motion (midway between a valley and peak) which would provide the greatest compensation. I understand compensation and why you would want it, but my sense tells me that if the load is producing the greatest angular velocity, then any small deviations in bullet velocity would create a large dispersion of vertical, whereas getting closer to zero angular motion would do the opposite. Any small bullet velocity deviations with zero or near zero angular motion would have less vertical dispersion.
I also think that zero angular motion does provide some compensation as well although I don't necessarily think it is the best place to be. Here is why I say that. If you are on the peak of bullet group placement, the bullet is likely to print lower when it is going slightly faster or slightly slower, won't it?? If so, isn't that compensation?? Or is it just not enough compensation? Help me out please? Where is the fault in my logic? Maybe I am thinking in too small a velocity window. What kind of velocity dispersion are you thinking when you are discussing compensation? Are you talking differences of more than 15-20 f/s bullet velocity dispersion? Thanks in advance for any help provided.
M
mks
Guest
Randy,
Positive compensation is when the muzzle is pointed higher for slower bullets and lower for faster bullets. Compensation refers to doing something to counteract the natural tendency for fast bullets to print higher on the target and slow bullets lower. Because slower bullets exit the barrel later when the muzzle is pointed higher, a rising muzzle provides positive compensation. A dropping muzzle gives negative compensation, i.e., the slow bullets not only strike the target lower because they are slower, but also because they started with a lower point of aim. A stationary muzzle provides no compensation, because it has the same point of aim for all bullets. This is essentially what happens at the valleys and the peaks of muzzle angular motion.
You are correct that some compensation happens on either side of the peak if we include the rising muzzle before the peak and the dropping muzzle after the peak. But the rate of motion is small, so the positive compensation before the peak is not enough to give the same point of impact for the fast bullets and the negative compensation after the peak only makes the slow bullets print a little lower than they would have from a fixed muzzle. The result is still vertical dispersion in proportion to the bullet exit time variations. We need faster motion to create enough positive compensation, and we want ALL positive compensation, not half positive and half negative.
The question about muzzle velocity variation is important. Maybe your findings are different, but I find up to 50 fps variation in 15 shots, which I occasionally shoot on one score target including sighters. Without compensation, this leads to around 0.1" of vertical dispersion. I don't want my record shots to be off by 0.1", nor my sighters to mislead me by 0.1", so I think we should be concerned with variations over at least all shots on a target. One could argue that the ES that matters is that over all the shots of an entire match, which would be quite a bit larger.
If you have done ladder tests, have you ever seen a rifle that consistently prints faster bullets lower over more than a narrow muzzle velocity window? If so, it has too much compensation. I had one rifle/setup that would do this, but it seems to be rather unusual. Most have too little compensation, indicated by faster bullets printing generally higher over wide windows. That is why I say we need to use the windows with the greatest muzzle angular velocity, which usually correspond to the flat "treads" on the ladder chart and to halfway between the valley and peak of muzzle motion. It is only when these treads tilt downward toward the "risers" that we need slower angular velocity.
Cheers,
Keith
Positive compensation is when the muzzle is pointed higher for slower bullets and lower for faster bullets. Compensation refers to doing something to counteract the natural tendency for fast bullets to print higher on the target and slow bullets lower. Because slower bullets exit the barrel later when the muzzle is pointed higher, a rising muzzle provides positive compensation. A dropping muzzle gives negative compensation, i.e., the slow bullets not only strike the target lower because they are slower, but also because they started with a lower point of aim. A stationary muzzle provides no compensation, because it has the same point of aim for all bullets. This is essentially what happens at the valleys and the peaks of muzzle angular motion.
You are correct that some compensation happens on either side of the peak if we include the rising muzzle before the peak and the dropping muzzle after the peak. But the rate of motion is small, so the positive compensation before the peak is not enough to give the same point of impact for the fast bullets and the negative compensation after the peak only makes the slow bullets print a little lower than they would have from a fixed muzzle. The result is still vertical dispersion in proportion to the bullet exit time variations. We need faster motion to create enough positive compensation, and we want ALL positive compensation, not half positive and half negative.
The question about muzzle velocity variation is important. Maybe your findings are different, but I find up to 50 fps variation in 15 shots, which I occasionally shoot on one score target including sighters. Without compensation, this leads to around 0.1" of vertical dispersion. I don't want my record shots to be off by 0.1", nor my sighters to mislead me by 0.1", so I think we should be concerned with variations over at least all shots on a target. One could argue that the ES that matters is that over all the shots of an entire match, which would be quite a bit larger.
If you have done ladder tests, have you ever seen a rifle that consistently prints faster bullets lower over more than a narrow muzzle velocity window? If so, it has too much compensation. I had one rifle/setup that would do this, but it seems to be rather unusual. Most have too little compensation, indicated by faster bullets printing generally higher over wide windows. That is why I say we need to use the windows with the greatest muzzle angular velocity, which usually correspond to the flat "treads" on the ladder chart and to halfway between the valley and peak of muzzle motion. It is only when these treads tilt downward toward the "risers" that we need slower angular velocity.
Cheers,
Keith
Randy Jarvais
New member
Thank you Keith
Keith, I may be finding what you describe without realizing it due to unfamiliar terminology, angular muzzle velocity. With regards to shooting a ladder test, I have heard several variations of a similar theme so again, I am not sure if what I do is a ladder test. I have used the method that Tony Boyer's book describes (multiple charge weights with multiple seating depths) but with the load window of a 30br, it can be a lot of bullets down range. I usually use his method after I use this method. I load 6 cartridges (9 is better) that have the same powder charge. I do this for the entire load window varying each set of 6 by .3 grains. I then shoot 3 shot groups. The cartridges that have the same charges are shot at the same bull. All groups are shot in a similar condition all within a reasonable time frame with each charge weight having its own bulls. Scope is never touched and no hold off for varying conditions (reason for trying to shoot them all in as similar a condition as possible). I then plot the where the center of the groups are on graph paper. My horizontal scale, left to right, is increasing powder charge weights (or velocity or barrel time). My vertical scale is height to center of group. The graph typically displays a sine wave pattern. I use loads that are generally found just beyond a peak or just before a valley/trough. Are those locations where there is positive compensation??
Keith, I may be finding what you describe without realizing it due to unfamiliar terminology, angular muzzle velocity. With regards to shooting a ladder test, I have heard several variations of a similar theme so again, I am not sure if what I do is a ladder test. I have used the method that Tony Boyer's book describes (multiple charge weights with multiple seating depths) but with the load window of a 30br, it can be a lot of bullets down range. I usually use his method after I use this method. I load 6 cartridges (9 is better) that have the same powder charge. I do this for the entire load window varying each set of 6 by .3 grains. I then shoot 3 shot groups. The cartridges that have the same charges are shot at the same bull. All groups are shot in a similar condition all within a reasonable time frame with each charge weight having its own bulls. Scope is never touched and no hold off for varying conditions (reason for trying to shoot them all in as similar a condition as possible). I then plot the where the center of the groups are on graph paper. My horizontal scale, left to right, is increasing powder charge weights (or velocity or barrel time). My vertical scale is height to center of group. The graph typically displays a sine wave pattern. I use loads that are generally found just beyond a peak or just before a valley/trough. Are those locations where there is positive compensation??
M
mks
Guest
Randy,
I think we are talking about the same thing. On the ladder chart of elevation at the target versus powder charge, we want to pick windows that have the same elevation over a range of powder charge. My charts typically look like stair steps, so the "treads" are the positive compensation windows and the "risers" are the negative compensation parts. Overall, there is a general trend of rising elevation with increasing powder charge. If you are seeing a true sine wave, that is it is not tilted upward toward increasing powder charge, then you have windows of overcompensation alternating with negative compensation. If this is the case, then the best you can do is to tune to the peaks and valleys. Better would be to change the setup to get flat "treads." Ways to do this include raising the center of gravity of the rifle toward the bore, or shifting the front rest position.
Keith
I think we are talking about the same thing. On the ladder chart of elevation at the target versus powder charge, we want to pick windows that have the same elevation over a range of powder charge. My charts typically look like stair steps, so the "treads" are the positive compensation windows and the "risers" are the negative compensation parts. Overall, there is a general trend of rising elevation with increasing powder charge. If you are seeing a true sine wave, that is it is not tilted upward toward increasing powder charge, then you have windows of overcompensation alternating with negative compensation. If this is the case, then the best you can do is to tune to the peaks and valleys. Better would be to change the setup to get flat "treads." Ways to do this include raising the center of gravity of the rifle toward the bore, or shifting the front rest position.
Keith
Randy Jarvais
New member
Thanks again
Most of the sine patterns are not purely horizontal but do progress away from the horizontal axis with increasing charges. In the vane of treads, I assume the better charge would be near the midpoint of the tread vs the beginning or end? I am curious now to revisit the many graphs with your model in mind to see if the treads become more apparent without trying to fit the plots into a traditional sine function. Great stuff, thanks.
Most of the sine patterns are not purely horizontal but do progress away from the horizontal axis with increasing charges. In the vane of treads, I assume the better charge would be near the midpoint of the tread vs the beginning or end? I am curious now to revisit the many graphs with your model in mind to see if the treads become more apparent without trying to fit the plots into a traditional sine function. Great stuff, thanks.
M
mks
Guest
Randy,
Yes, the midpoint is best. There, bullets both slower and faster than the average are compensated in the right direction.
Keith
Yes, the midpoint is best. There, bullets both slower and faster than the average are compensated in the right direction.
Keith
Gene Beggs
Active member
Hey guys, don't go away!
We are not anywhere near finished with this thread. There are still a lot of unanswered questions but each year we get closer to understanding all about tuners and how to use them. In short range BR shooting, I believe we are just beginning to unlock the potential that exists; we are making good progress.
BTW, Hunter thank you for opening this lively thread. Hope you got your questions answered to your satisfaction. I'm sure you didn't intend for the discussion to go as far as it has but as you can see, there is great interest in tuners and we haven't reached the bottom of it yet. Oh sure, there are many who are bored with it all and tend to dismiss yet another discussion about (ugh) 'tuners' but there are those of us who are hard at work trying to improve the state of the art.
If we all pull together without regard to who did what first or who gets credit for this or that, we can master this thing for the betterment of the sport. At this time, I would like to say that Mike Ezell and Rod Brown have really impressed me with their work. I am presently running tests in the tunnel to prove or disprove what Mike and Rod have been saying all along. They feel that I, like so many others, have been making too big of adjustments and going through the sweet spots. Stay tuned! This is going to get interesting.
Come on guys, let's keep this 'think tank' going!
Later,
Gene Beggs
We are not anywhere near finished with this thread.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions but each year we get closer to understanding all about tuners and how to use them. In short range BR shooting, I believe we are just beginning to unlock the potential that exists; we are making good progress. BTW, Hunter thank you for opening this lively thread. Hope you got your questions answered to your satisfaction. I'm sure you didn't intend for the discussion to go as far as it has but as you can see, there is great interest in tuners and we haven't reached the bottom of it yet.
Oh sure, there are many who are bored with it all and tend to dismiss yet another discussion about (ugh) 'tuners' but there are those of us who are hard at work trying to improve the state of the art.If we all pull together without regard to who did what first or who gets credit for this or that, we can master this thing for the betterment of the sport. At this time, I would like to say that Mike Ezell and Rod Brown have really impressed me with their work. I am presently running tests in the tunnel to prove or disprove what Mike and Rod have been saying all along. They feel that I, like so many others, have been making too big of adjustments and going through the sweet spots. Stay tuned! This is going to get interesting.
Come on guys, let's keep this 'think tank' going!
Later,
Gene Beggs
Tuners
I asked a question,on this forum, many years ago about tuners,that generated very little response. A friend of mine once owned a browning "Boss" rifle equipped with their tuner. It came with instructions on how to adjust it and which factory ammo worked best. If I remember correctly,the instructions included numerical settings on the tuner for factory ammo. As I recall The recommended settings worked according to manufacturers instructions. You could describe it as a "set it and forget it" system with specific bullet weights.
Browning sponsored a Competition down in Houston,for owners of their "Boss Rifles". My friend competed several years in the competition with his Browning Rifle and won several awards using the tuner settings that came with the rifle. Go figure. Browning gave away some really expensive awards in efforts to market their new Rifles. My Friend got his picture and name in a shooting magazine. Which was quite impressive back in those days.
My question was, what goes into the design of a tuner that makes it work consistently on every Factory Rifle using specific factory ammo?
How is the Browning Boss system related to what we're doing today with custom designed tuners.
Am I asking one of those "Cannot discuss" questions. If so, I completely understand. i used to work for the Government.
Glenn
I asked a question,on this forum, many years ago about tuners,that generated very little response. A friend of mine once owned a browning "Boss" rifle equipped with their tuner. It came with instructions on how to adjust it and which factory ammo worked best. If I remember correctly,the instructions included numerical settings on the tuner for factory ammo. As I recall The recommended settings worked according to manufacturers instructions. You could describe it as a "set it and forget it" system with specific bullet weights.
Browning sponsored a Competition down in Houston,for owners of their "Boss Rifles". My friend competed several years in the competition with his Browning Rifle and won several awards using the tuner settings that came with the rifle. Go figure. Browning gave away some really expensive awards in efforts to market their new Rifles. My Friend got his picture and name in a shooting magazine. Which was quite impressive back in those days.
My question was, what goes into the design of a tuner that makes it work consistently on every Factory Rifle using specific factory ammo?
How is the Browning Boss system related to what we're doing today with custom designed tuners.
Am I asking one of those "Cannot discuss" questions. If so, I completely understand. i used to work for the Government.
Glenn
jackie schmidt
New member
Here is the difference.
When dealing with a Rifle with the accuracy capability of a Browning, you are looking at tuning a barrel, with a specific load, from shooting 1 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards down to perhaps 3/4, maybe a tad better.
On a Benchrest Rifle, with components that are capable of shooting a aggregate at sub .200 inch level, the gains with a tuner are minor in comparison. For instance. I can take my 30BR, have a good tune on it with the load and tuner and shoot a .150. I can turn the tuner every which way and still the Rifle will shoot below .280, maybe even better.
In other words, what I Am using the tuner for is to fine tune a already good load. I know what charge of the 4198 a 112 grn Bart's out of a 308 4-groove Krieger Barrel likes. I just use the tuner to get it as good as can.
This why a majority of shooters will not even bother with a tuner. They can do the same thing by changing the powder charge a tad, changing the seating depth, or even changing the neck tension.
Some of us just choose to leave things as they are and use the tuner to fine tune a load.
When dealing with a Rifle with the accuracy capability of a Browning, you are looking at tuning a barrel, with a specific load, from shooting 1 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards down to perhaps 3/4, maybe a tad better.
On a Benchrest Rifle, with components that are capable of shooting a aggregate at sub .200 inch level, the gains with a tuner are minor in comparison. For instance. I can take my 30BR, have a good tune on it with the load and tuner and shoot a .150. I can turn the tuner every which way and still the Rifle will shoot below .280, maybe even better.
In other words, what I Am using the tuner for is to fine tune a already good load. I know what charge of the 4198 a 112 grn Bart's out of a 308 4-groove Krieger Barrel likes. I just use the tuner to get it as good as can.
This why a majority of shooters will not even bother with a tuner. They can do the same thing by changing the powder charge a tad, changing the seating depth, or even changing the neck tension.
Some of us just choose to leave things as they are and use the tuner to fine tune a load.
Last edited:
mwezell
Mike Ezell
I think Jackie is pretty spot on. A factory hunting rifle is a whole different animal, even though the principle is the same. Same goes for "setting it and forgetting it". That alone will get you close, with a known good load or ammo, but still leaves room for improvement as it will still edge its way out of tune due to conditions...just not as dramatically as without a tuner. As I've said, there is still a benefit to a tuner even if you set it and forget it, but it's leaving a valuable aspect of them on the table...that being the ability to tune the gun at the bench. Some will disagree with this as they have found their method to work for them. I don't argue with what anyone finds to work for them.