Okay, TUNERS AGAIN. Bukys/Schmidt style versus Beggs???????????????

mks said:
You certainly have the empirical evidence to show that your method of tuning works. But I am less sure that you have hit on the right reason for why it works. I have written before about why I think the radial mode of barrel vibration is not an important factor for tuning. The reasoning basically centers around the tenuous connection between a change in bore diameter in the MILLIONTHS of an inch and vertical dispersion on target. First, that is a really small change. And second, if it did make a difference, it should affect vertical and horizontal dispersion equally. (That bullet that is rattling:confused: out of a muzzle that is a couple millionths too large should have just as good a chance of heading off in the wrong direction to the left or right as up or down.) There is plenty of work that shows that moving a tuner doesn't do this.

Also, I am afraid you are confusing the Calfee fantasy of a parallel node (the they'll-all-go-in-the-same-hole-if-you-lock-it-down falsehood) with the slower-bullets-will-go-in-the-same-hole-if-you-launch-them-higher idea that has a foundation in real science. See VarmintAl's simulations and Geoffrey Kolbe's experiments.

Thanks again for sharing. I love these discussions.

Keith
Click to expand...




Keith, I wish you and I could spend some time together out at my tunnel and shop. You've got this tuner thing figured out. :)


Rod, and all you other guys, I have something I must say. :rolleyes: Several days ago I made a post on this thread in which I said some things I later regretted so I deleted the whole thing. The main thing that prompted me to delete the post was a personal e-mail from Keith Sharp. :)

Yes, Keith sent me one of the nicest e-mails one could ever receive in which he explained perfectly how and why tuners work. You see, Keith is much smarter than I am and his writing skills put mine to shame, and I'm not being facetious when I say this; It's true!

Keith and I have had several private e-mail discussions during the past and I have come to have the utmost respect for him. If the two of us could team up, I believe we could at last, put this tuner business to rest. I have plenty of time to work on it but writing is painfully difficult for me and I often just say, "Oh, to heck with it and delete what I've started."

In the post I deleted, I knew I had not perfectly described what I knew was really going on but it was the best I could do at the time and I also knew that trying to explain the truth to the benchresters would be like spitting into the wind. Maybe between Keith Sharp and myself we can someday get it across to others what is REALLY going on. Lord knows, there has sure been a lot of myth, mystery and just plain nonsense going around about tuners. Don't give up guys, we are on the verge of a breakthrough! :p

Thank you Keith. I'll put my mind to it and between the two of us we will come up with a way to dispell the myths and get this thing across in the right way to the benchrest shooters.

Best regards

Gene Beggs
 
Gene Beggs said:
Keith, I wish you and I could spend some time together out at my tunnel and shop. You've got this tuner thing figured out. :)


Rod, and all you other guys, I have something I must say. :rolleyes: Several days ago I made a post on this thread in which I said some things I later regretted so I deleted the whole thing. The main thing that prompted me to delete the post was a personal e-mail from Keith Sharp. :)

Yes, Keith sent me one of the nicest e-mails one could ever receive in which he explained perfectly how and why tuners work. You see, Keith is much smarter than I am and his writing skills put mine to shame, and I'm not being facetious when I say this; It's true!

Keith and I have had several private e-mail discussions during the past and I have come to have the utmost respect for him. If the two of us could team up, I believe we could at last, put this tuner business to rest. I have plenty of time to work on it but writing is painfully difficult for me and I often just say, "Oh, to heck with it and delete what I've started."

In the post I deleted, I knew I had not perfectly described what I knew was really going on but it was the best I could do at the time and I also knew that trying to explain the truth to the benchresters would be like spitting into the wind. Maybe between Keith Sharp and myself we can someday get it across to others what is REALLY going on. Lord knows, there has sure been a lot of myth, mystery and just plain nonsense going around about tuners. Don't give up guys, we are on the verge of a breakthrough! :p

Thank you Keith. I'll put my mind to it and between the two of us we will come up with a way to dispell the myths and get this thing across in the right way to the benchrest shooters.

Best regards

Gene Beggs
Click to expand...

Gene ,I think you are right .:)We are learning more everyday thanks to everybody on this thread.Cool stuff gents . Tim in Tx.

LONG LIVE POSITIVE COMPENSATION
 
I am afraid you are confusing the Calfee fantasy of a parallel node (the they'll-all-go-in-the-same-hole-if-you-lock-it-down falsehood) with the slower-bullets-will-go-in-the-same-hole-if-you-launch-them-higher idea that has a foundation in real science. See VarmintAl's simulations and Geoffrey Kolbe's experiments.


Tim In Texas
When you read the 2011 Match reports you gotta wonder how that completely mad gunsmith from Borden,Indiana totally dominated rimfire benchrest yet all the experts with the scientific minds of Einstein didn't win very much.
Imagine what would happen if they taught Bill how to adjust a tuner?
Lynn
 
Lynn,I understand what you are saying and not taking sides here but I dont think you or Bill are giving enough credit to the shooters doing the shooting .Wind reading is what wins aggs. Billl has been very vocal on positive compensation and he does not even understand how it works nor has he tested it ,If he tried it he would see the light . We have come far in the past few years in leaps and bounds,We have tested what bill said eventually and found he was and is still wrong only by testing and retesting ,When the barrel is in a zero state[niether negative or positive ]this is his stopped muzzle ,the only thing wrong with that is it will not stay in tune for long, So the fact it does not have to be adjusted is a myth and I can prove it ,over and over and over . Bill just does not understand and that is ok,positive compensation is totally different from his type of tune ,in that all velocites go into the same hole.So guys which is it ?.042 of vertical and not stay in tune [stopped muzzle] or 0 vertical and stay in tune[ positive compensation]? Tim in Tx
 
I spent a couple years looking at VarmintAls' models before I decided they didn't explain everything I was seeing. Now, I'm not an engineer (I have a brother for that so I don't even have to pretend), but I have been doing numerical analysis programming off and on for 30 years, and I truly know that I can make any model demonstrate any set of assumptions.

First and foremost, I don't claim to know how or why tuners work -I just have a method that has worked for me. The trouble I had with all of the commonly cited explanations is that they just didn't seem to match my observations. Not saying my "why" is right, just saying that you ought-a try it on [target] paper. Models predict, targets validate... All the Gene's (and others) have tuners to sell - experiment for yourselves!

(My apologies for corrupting this cartoon from xkcd.com)

citogenesis.jpg
 
Tim In Texas
I was poking a little fun at Keith's statement I quoted above.

There are no two sides here as Calfee has been doing it correctly all along.His lack of scientific terminology is the only thing that has ever been in debate and he has repeatadly said call it what you want.
When he says the muzzle is stopped he simply wants the node at the muzzle.If those who think they have this tuner thing all figured out don't even understand his description of what is actually taking place I find very little use in reading those types of posts.
There is only one way a tuner works and a hundred different descriptions trying to explain it.

Answer this correctly and you'll have a better understanding than anything I have read here so far.Why does Bill want the node at the crown? Remembering he has tuned tuners for 30 years longer than anyone here and his rifles dominate the sport tuned his way.
Lynn
 
CubCouper said:
I spent a couple years looking at VarmintAls' models before I decided they didn't explain everything I was seeing.
Click to expand...

Enjoyed the cartoon, and it is so true, but this sentence piqued my curiosity. What is it about Al's simulations that doesn't fit your observations?

CubCouper said:
Not saying my "why" is right, just saying that you ought-a try it on [target] paper.
Click to expand...

If only Calfee were so objective.

Cheers,
Keith
 
Lynn,The node has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy,and someday you will find that out .Yet another Calfee myth. Tim in Tx
 
While we are on the subject of tuners and waiting to hear just what about ClubCouper's targets is inconsistent with Varmint Al's analysis of tuners, let me point out an additional advantage that weight at the end of a barrel may afford. We can move a node to the point where it is available with a given case capacity, bullet and powder. Sometimes we have to stop adding powder because of pressure, other times we simply run out of space before the next node is reached. I have found that adding weight at the muzzle can be used to move a node to a slightly lower velocity, simplifying case filling. This can come up with bullets that are on the light end of the usual weight range (for a 6PPC) when they are combined with a powder that does not exceed pressure limits at maximum fill.
 
Boyd Allen said:
While we are on the subject of tuners and waiting to hear just what about ClubCouper's targets is inconsistent with Varmint Al's analysis of tuners, let me point out an additional advantage that weight at the end of a barrel may afford. We can move a node to the point where it is available with a given case capacity, bullet and powder. Sometimes we have to stop adding powder because of pressure, other times we simply run out of space before the next node is reached. I have found that adding weight at the muzzle can be used to move a node to a slightly lower velocity, simplifying case filling. This can come up with bullets that are on the light end of the usual weight range (for a 6PPC) when they are combined with a powder that does not exceed pressure limits at maximum fill.
Click to expand...

How does "moving the node to the muzzle" accomplish this any better than letting the node fall where it may? WHERE the node occurs in relation to the muzzle has no effect on the result.....

???


al
 
alinwa said:
How does "moving the node to the muzzle" accomplish this any better than letting the node fall where it may? WHERE the node occurs in relation to the muzzle has no effect on the result.....

???


al
Click to expand...

We have two types of "nodes" floating around this thread. In vibration analysis (this is the type Al is talking about), a node is a point on a body where the linear displacement is zero and the angular displacement is maximum. Boyd has used "node" to define a state of tune, that might include powder charge, tuner setting, seating depth, etc. This latter type has been called a "window," which might be better to use in this thread to avoid confusion.

Because angular displacement is maximum at a vibration node, it is helpful to have it at the muzzle, because we need rapidly changing angle to accomplish tune. There are two problems with this concept. First, there are one or more nodes for each mode of vibration, so focusing on one of them is so incomplete a story as to be not very relevant. Second, and more important, is that vibration nodes and modes apply to steady state motion, which for the lower frequency modes of a rifle barrel doesn't occur until long after the bullet has left the barrel. The motion that we care about (up to the time that the bullet exits) is transient. It is better to think of it as a wave that starts at the receiver and travels to the muzzle.

Keith
 
Man, Couldnt ask for a more perfect explanation. Right on the money Keith . Tim in Tx
 
Boyd Allen said:
While we are on the subject of tuners and waiting to hear just what about ClubCouper's targets is inconsistent with Varmint Al's analysis of tuners, let me point out an additional advantage that weight at the end of a barrel may afford. We can move a node to the point where it is available with a given case capacity, bullet and powder. Sometimes we have to stop adding powder because of pressure, other times we simply run out of space before the next node is reached. I have found that adding weight at the muzzle can be used to move a node to a slightly lower velocity, simplifying case filling. This can come up with bullets that are on the light end of the usual weight range (for a 6PPC) when they are combined with a powder that does not exceed pressure limits at maximum fill.
Click to expand...

This is what I have been able to find. What I find is that a tuner won't make a bad load into a good one. Now if that load is a good one at 90 degrees but goes away when it cools down, it does seem that a tuner will help keep it a good load, and is exactly how I use a tuner. It's allowed me to shoot the same load all season long.--Mike
 
First of all, the point that node is used in two different ways in discussions about load tuning is correct, and helpful. When I spoke of moving a node, I was referring to one of a set of repeated "sweet spots" that may occur as we change one or more variables in our reloading "recipe". Let me give a concrete example. I have a barrel that I seems to "like" hot loads (actually seems not to develop as much pressure with a given volume of powder) that I wanted to try some 62 grain Watsons in, with 133. By the time that I had it tuned for best accuracy, and the vertical removed from the groups, I was at a powder measure setting that requires every trick in the book to leave enough room to seat a bullet. Any rushing and I had to put the powder back and start over. As it happened, I had a roll of electrical tape with me, and one of those Possum Hollow trimmers, that is mostly steel, a half inch in diameter and about 2" long. Just to see what would happen, I taped the weight to the barrel, even with the muzzle, at 6 o'clock, parallel with the bore, with two wraps of fully stretched tape. In this configuration, the aforementioned node (tuning not vibration) occurred at a slightly lower velocity, with about .3 gr. less powder. I was back at no vertical. To further confirm what I thought had taken place, I cut the tape and removed the weight, and the vertical reappeared in the next group, at which point I returned my measure to the previous setting, and found tune again. I was full circle. Rephrasing for clarity, what I wrote above, adding weight at the muzzle can change the optimal powder charge, which may be useful if case capacity issues present themselves while tuning.I hope that this is clearer.
 
Last edited:
Francis,
I have three tuners, one of Jackie's earlier ones, that I have shot in a match, one of Gene's that I have not, and one that is a close duplicate of the one that Dwight Scott made, that Dick Wright has written about in PS. I am well aware that there is a lot more to tuners than just taping a weight on the muzzle of a rifle. I was trying to make a specific point with a simple, direct example, not giving instructions about how to use a tuner, or recommending the use of a Possum Hollow trimmer and some electrical tape as a substitute for one. I will say that I believe that some folks want every thing to be shiny, store bought, and used by Tony before they will try it. I think that doing a few rough experiments is a good idea, to get in the ballpark before making any chips, or spending any money. So often I see fellows asking for answers to questions that they have the means to find answers to themselves. I think that actually trying things is better and more fun. I recommend it. As far as tuners go. I think that with any of them, I am attracted to the Buckys method of use, but one of the great things about a hobby is that barring safety issues, and competition rules, you can do it like you want to.
Boyd
 
Last edited:
Lynn,The node has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy,and someday you will find that out .Yet another Calfee myth. Tim in Tx

Tim In Texas
Tim Calfee has tried the weight behind the muzzle as is popular in centerfire were weight is a major issue.He went with lighter barrels and the tuner out in front for a very specific reason.


How does "moving the node to the muzzle" accomplish this any better than letting the node fall where it may? WHERE the node occurs in relation to the muzzle has no effect on the result.....

Alinwa
You can tune with the weight anywhere you want before or after the barrels crown and get one hole groups.There is a reason why Calfee wants the node at the crown and so far nobody has explained it.Bill has a 30 year head start on the rest of the field and challenged Geoffe Kolbey and Varmint Als it doesn't matter were you place the weight to a contest.They didn't take him up on the challenge.
Lynn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top