Tuners!!!!

[tonykharper]

You can say that again!

Unfortunately my local range has a prevailing l-r wind and it is a rare day when it drops to zero so I am forced to wait for 'condition' as indicated by my wind flags.

All is not lost though as even in a given wind condition, group size and location vary repeatably with each slight twist if the tuner body.

Whomever said that tuners were invented by the ammo manufactures was was correct, I went through two boxes of Eley Tenex yesterday and found 2 interesting nodes worth further exploration. (Range only open on Wednesdays 10 -12)

Range officer remarked that I had attended the range twice a week since the end of January so I told him that after two years of lockdown (Here in Victoria, Australia) I needed a bit of practice and in the words of the Arnold Palmer "The more I practice the luckier I seem to get"

At the end of the day, competitions may happen on a calm day or a windy day, so practicing in all conditions means that the wind can be your friend - If you are prepared and know how to handle it.

As for my tuner, it has made but a small but measurable improvement to my Anschutz 1411 group sizes as on a good day it already shot 1/4 moa groups without the tuner. By using the Lowey tuner I have been able to reduce vertical flyers, that's what I was hoping for.

What was more interesting was the psychological effect that it had on my fellow competitors, ranging from "gotta get one of them" to "bloody things should be banned".

Fascinating topic so please keep up the useful input people.

Regards * doggie *

doggie,

I've got to warn you. If shooting a couple of boxes of ammo bugs you?

You ain't seen nothing yet. One can literally go through a couple of cases of ammo, and a few barrels looking for the "illusive tune."

Shooting all that ammo will improve your performance and you can blame it on finding the "tune" or just learning to deal with the conditions.

Either way you win!!!

TKH (4628)

 

[doghunter]

Mid Barrel Tuners

Occasionally I have noticed that some people shoot with what appears to be a tuner about halfway along their barrel.

So, is this actually a tuner?

If so, how does it work?

What are the advantages/disadvantages compared to a tuner at the end of the barrel?

Still learning.

* doggie *

 

[tim]

My opinion, take it for what you paid for it.
Among the worst things new(ish) shooters can possibly do is start hanging, clamping, wild crap all over the barrel.
Now there are lots of theories about what may or may not work,you can spend a lifetime chasing your butt instead of learning your gun, and practicing with a proven platform, as in good barrel with known tuner until you have established a good skillset.
Some of the worlds absolute best performing guns have a Harrels on them, that’s it.
Spend extra $ on better ammo……..you’ll be light years ahead.

 

[PedroS]

My opinion, take it for what you paid for it.
Among the worst things new(ish) shooters can possibly do is start hanging, clamping, wild crap all over the barrel.
Now there are lots of theories about what may or may not work,you can spend a lifetime chasing your butt instead of learning your gun, and practicing with a proven platform, as in good barrel with known tuner until you have established a good skillset.
Some of the worlds absolute best performing guns have a Harrels on them, that’s it.
Spend extra $ on better ammo……..you’ll be light years ahead.

very wise words

 

[doclu60]

I whole heartily agree with posts 203 and 204. One thing I will add, is that I am slowly replacing my Harrells tuners with Stiller tuners. Better tolerances on machining and three lock screws to keep the tuner from accidently moving after it is set.

Scott

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

Mike Ezell

Ok since by your own words - You know nothing..period. Simply put, you are illiterate of this subject and again, you're trying to deflect the question rather than giving anything you can scientically support, because you're fos. That simple.

You tell me why I can shoot over the last 5-6 years multiple lots in my rifles without having to move the tuner. these are all different lots/loads as you say. and I am not just saying they will shoot but I can compete with these different lots.

Here is my unscientific explanation, I have correctly timed the barrel so the bullet will exit at the correct spot of the barrel's movement. by using the correct amount of weight I have achieved a window (margin of error)of where the bullet exits so I can shoot multiple lots/loads and not have to change any tuner setting. not only can they shoot multiple lots/loads they can do it under different conditions.

So if going by what you say that this is not possible by the law of physics please since I am FOS as quoted above please tell me how is this possible. remember I have record targets that were shot in matches to prove I did this.

Lee

 

[mwezell]

Ok since by your own words - You know nothing..period. Simply put, you are illiterate of this subject and again, you're trying to deflect the question rather than giving anything you can scientically support, because you're fos. That simple.

You tell me why I can shoot over the last 5-6 years multiple lots in my rifles without having to move the tuner. these are all different lots/loads as you say. and I am not just saying they will shoot but I can compete with these different lots.

Here is my unscientific explanation, I have correctly timed the barrel so the bullet will exit at the correct spot of the barrel's movement. by using the correct amount of weight I have achieved a window (margin of error)of where the bullet exits so I can shoot multiple lots/loads and not have to change any tuner setting. not only can they shoot multiple lots/loads they can do it under different conditions.

So if going by what you say that this is not possible by the law of physics please since I am FOS as quoted above please tell me how is this possible. remember I have record targets that were shot in matches to prove I did this.

Lee

I didn't ask what you are doing. Unless your system works for any and all lots, it's not a system at all. Rather, it's you testing lots and finding some that shoot at your tuner setting. So there it is. Unless you can shoot ALL lots competitively at a single setting, I just answered your question. If all lots can shoot competitively at a single setting, then you got me. I can't explain that because there is no physical explanation for it.

What I found while shooting ara/psl was that every bit of eley red/black and Lapua that I shot could be competitive but not always at the same setting. And yes, some lots were better than others. But rather than scrapping a lot that didn't shoot well outta the gate, I did establish a system, one where I know how far out of tune I am on the tuner by the size and shapes of the groups, much like cf guys do when loading at the range. So, I simply move the tuner accordingly and some of those "bad" lots, became some of my better shooting lots. It's explained in detail on the other site. Some good info there if you had actually read it instead of this same old crap.

Got any "junk" eley or lapua? Wanna run a test? Post pics of some bad groups and I think I can help you tune your rifle to it.

 

[PedroS]

We are going round and round and seems no one has a definitive, if there's any, answer/procedure to this matter.
I'm not belonging to any party, either the non moving or the moving tuner ones...

I read all comments/opinions with interested and keep to me what I think it's correct.
Art is not correct, because it depends of many subjective variables.
Neither science is, because it keeps changing according to knowledge. I have, still is, based my life on science, more correctly evidence based one, but sometimes my experience didn't match what evidence is showing. We should be aware, of specific variables as well as specific populations (in my case) that could, and will, change the results. That's the wonder of science. So science is not black and white, you have a lot of grey areas... if you know what I mean.

One thing that escapes me to understand, is if you compare different lots to different loads, we should agree/expect, each bullet to shoot exactly the same within a specific lot. It happens in CF, but not in RF. How do I know? Simple, put a chronograph in front of your barrel and see. In fact, CF aims to very precise same speed across the same load. RF has, on the contrary, a bigger, and much higher percentage of variance. So, how can we consider such a lot a different load if there is such a big difference in speed? The puzzling part is, irrespectively of this speed variance, that lot shoots well in a perfectly tuned RF. Why? I simply don't know...

Also, should be said in bold letters... unfortunately, not all lots can be tuned to shoot well.

Disclaimer: I shoot for results, but, of course, I like to understand what's behind.

 

[mwezell]

We are going round and round and seems no one has a definitive, if there's any, answer/procedure to this matter.
I'm not belonging to any party, either the non moving or the moving tuner ones...

I read all comments/opinions with interested and keep to me what I think it's correct.
Art is not correct, because it depends of many subjective variables.
Neither science is, because it keeps changing according to knowledge. I have, still is, based my life on science, more correctly evidence based one, but sometimes my experience didn't match what evidence is showing. We should be aware, of specific variables as well as specific populations (in my case) that could, and will, change the results. That's the wonder of science. So science is not black and white, you have a lot of grey areas... if you know what I mean.

One thing that escapes me to understand, is if you compare different lots to different loads, we should agree/expect, each bullet to shoot exactly the same within a specific lot. It happens in CF, but not in RF. How do I know? Simple, put a chronograph in front of your barrel and see. In fact, CF aims to very precise same speed across the same load. RF has, on the contrary, a bigger, and much higher percentage of variance. So, how can we consider such a lot a different load if there is such a big difference in speed? The puzzling part is, irrespectively of this speed variance, that lot shoots well in a perfectly tuned RF. Why? I simply don't know...

Also, should be said in bold letters... unfortunately, not all lots can be tuned to shoot well.

Disclaimer: I shoot for results, but, of course, I like to understand what's behind.

I agree that results are what we are after, regardless of how or why we get there. That said, doing vibration analysis testing allowed us to watch bullet exits along a sine wave on an oscilloscope and the effects of moving the tuner. Bottom line, moving the tuner changes phase time. What that means is simply put, we can shift the sine wave left or right to have bullet exit occur at the top, bottom or anywhere along the sine wave pattern. This is actual, not theory. Best accuracy occurs at top or bottom of the sine wave, repeatedly. Regardless of what I or we think about positive compensation, testing has shown muzzle velocities to have less affect on group size at the top rather than at the bottom. This seems to support that some level of positive compensation does happen. I don't think that what we shoot(rifles) are well designed to get all positive compensation. Nevertheless, some is better than none and it would explain why velocity variations have less affect than is calculable by simple ballistic charts/programs. Admittedly, our vibration analysis was not geared toward testing for positive compensation but it did shed some light on the subject. I try not to get deep into pc because of that and I don't claim to know enough about that specific aspect of tuning. I do believe there may be a fair amount to be gained from testing it more but that a gun would look drastically different with the only point being to gain MORE pc from it, and MORE forgiveness to velocity variations.
Some want to make my method seem like some outlandish theory but in reality, it's just a much more methodical means of tuning, that quantifies each adjustment's affect on target..that's all it is. And this is based on watching bullet exit times relative to muzzle position on an oscilloscope. I'm not reinventing the wheel with my approach, just breaking it down to predictable and repeatable group shapes and sizes that can be read and used to know how far to move the tuner. That's exactly how cf shooters approach adjusting loads as conditions change. They simply read the target and go up or down with powder charge to affect bullet exit timing. It doesn't matter so much that they/we know why it works as long as they can adjust and get predictable results that can be worked with. After doing the testing though, I'm more certain than ever that there is no single magical spot that miraculously allows the gun to shoot all ammo to its full potential. The biggest thing that is still left to figure out is why some barrels/rifles do seem to hold tune better than others, but I think that gets back to positive compensation, but I can't prove that and I don't claim to. That could come down to seemingly tiny variables such as barrel steel. I'm working with a bbl maker along those lines a bit with cryo treatment. But again, I'm not claiming to know that's the answer. He thinks it might be a factor, fwiw.

 

[tim]

“The biggest thing that is still left to figure out is why some barrels/rifles do seem to hold tune better than others, but I think that gets back to positive compensation, but I can't prove that and I don't claim to. That could come down to seemingly tiny variables such as barrel steel. I'm working with a bbl maker along those lines a bit with cryo treatment. But again, I'm not claiming to know that's the answer. He thinks it might be a factor, fwiw.”

So now a question.
With all of your personal testing, how many barrels would you say got tested?
What, if any, evaluation might have been done to qualify those barrels? Any thought what so ever by you or others to determine if any test barrel was “ average” what ever that is or, more to the point, above average.

Lastly, FWIW, nobody has ever claimed a properly tuned gun will shoot ALL ammo and the best gun/ tune will not make sub par ammo competitive. That said, sub par is an elusive term since it is well known some good ammo will sometimes excel in a different barrel configuration completely seperate from tune.

 

[mwezell]

“The biggest thing that is still left to figure out is why some barrels/rifles do seem to hold tune better than others, but I think that gets back to positive compensation, but I can't prove that and I don't claim to. That could come down to seemingly tiny variables such as barrel steel. I'm working with a bbl maker along those lines a bit with cryo treatment. But again, I'm not claiming to know that's the answer. He thinks it might be a factor, fwiw.”

So now a question.
With all of your personal testing, how many barrels would you say got tested?
What, if any, evaluation might have been done to qualify those barrels? Any thought what so ever by you or others to determine if any test barrel was “ average” what ever that is or, more to the point, above average.

Lastly, FWIW, nobody has ever claimed a properly tuned gun will shoot ALL ammo and the best gun/ tune will not make sub par ammo competitive. That said, sub par is an elusive term since it is well known some good ammo will sometimes excel in a different barrel configuration completely seperate from tune.

Four barrels and or rifles were tested. Accuracy was very good on all of them but that's beside the point because it wasn't an accuracy test, it was about vibration, frequencies, timing, and the effect of a tuner on where the bbl is at bullet exit. I wouldn't want to use a bad bbl for the testing but again, it wasn't about that, at that point. Now, in hindsight, there might be something to learn, say pre and post cryo, for example but that wasn't the intent at the time.

As to your last comments, as I said, some of my worst lots outta the gate wound up being some of my best ammo but at a different tuner setting. I'm not sure what you're saying about all lots working at a given setting or not. Several, many, most, some but not all? Hmm. You hammer me to explain how a sporter can perform well without a tuner but now you say that's only with some lots. Lot changes are exactly like changing the load in cf. So yes, you are tuning by changing lots. You find something that shoots and that doesn't mean it's the only load that will shoot well in it...just like cf. I have several cf loads with even different powders that perform very near the same as a totally different load, at the same tuner setting. Then I also can often move the tuner a little bit and get what looks like a bad load to shoot as well as anything. Moving a tuner accomplishes the same thing as changing loads/lots. If the bullet exits when the bbl is where it shoots small, then it'll shoot small, with different loads and or lots. It may well be at a different frequency, but it still times the bullet and bbl up for good accuracy, either way, moving the tuner or changing the load/ammo. Frequency is just a way of stating how far apart nodes are. They repeat over and over, so you can often shoot just as well at multiple spots and totally different nodes along the sine wave. Just gonna throw a random number out there of lets say 2000hz. Lets say the gun is hammering there. It can also hammer at, another random number..3000hz. Different node but as long as the bullet is exiting at top or bottom of the sine wave, it can and likely will shoot small. Moving a tuner has a negligible affect on frequency but it can and does change phase time. What that means is that we literally can move the top of the sine way, left or right, to coincide with bullet exit. This can be done even without changing frequency. And we can do that at this node, the next, the next the next and so on. Again, tune just repeats over and over. My method is just that, a method based on all of this but you can get there other ways. This just breaks it down to a more methodical approach than turning a tuner randomly.

 

[pikedrop]

My Results

Hello Mike,
I want to thank you for sharing your tuning target. It supports what I have been doing for the past few years. I have inserted my tuning target for one of my rifles. The groups do indeed increase and decrease in relation to the 'Y' axis dependent on the tuner setting. In this case, I noticed that the 'sweet spot' would probably end up being around 125. That is the reason for the second row of groups - to narrow the selection. Thus, I could see that it would end up around 122. The third row solidified the final setting at 121.
I also collect the group sizes in Excel. It is convenient to see the values coincide with the target.
Thank you again.
Matt

View attachment RED TUNING TARGET 4 JULY 2022.pdf

 

[tim]

The very first line in your quote is why I posed the question an IMHO is the very essence of much of the entire post tune adjustment debate.
EVERYTHING, every single issue relating to barrel performance including staying in tune relates to the ability to select those less than common select barrels to begin with, including what the “ old timers” would call the ability for a slug to “go to sleep” well before muzzle exit, probably relating to dimension, taper lap, steel, and whatever else.
You might, ponder that.
My interest, here, and elsewhere, is not to argue with you personally, but to reinforce to long term fact that myself and many others, many top level killer shooters and gunsmiths subscribe to the opposite of your preachings which would suggest to a dumb guy like me that depending on your platform and variety of ammo, you are missing as much as not and lots of new guys, should they swallow wholeheartedly are going to be chasing their ass for years down the road. I sure as hell am not about to change based on personal results and you have a vested interest in not changing so there we are, but you have stated directly about some ballistic considerations not entirely understood…….THAT we completely agree on.
Remember, you have testing , some of us have results over the years, with several rifles and many years at this. Nobody ever won a match based on testing reports.

 

[mwezell]

Hello Mike,
I want to thank you for sharing your tuning target. It supports what I have been doing for the past few years. I have inserted my tuning target for one of my rifles. The groups do indeed increase and decrease in relation to the 'Y' axis dependent on the tuner setting. In this case, I noticed that the 'sweet spot' would probably end up being around 125. That is the reason for the second row of groups - to narrow the selection. Thus, I could see that it would end up around 122. The third row solidified the final setting at 121.
I also collect the group sizes in Excel. It is convenient to see the values coincide with the target.
Thank you again.
Matt

View attachment 25625

Nice Matt! Looks like your gun is shooting well and I love that you can predict what it does next. I do wonder if your at the top or bottom of the swing. It can be hard to see at 50 yards. Since there are typically about 15-20 marks between sweet spots, I'd do a test from about 135 to 145 or so and see if there is another sweet spot there, then compare poi to your 121 setting. But it'll shoot small at top and bottom. I'd pick out the two sweet spots and fire a few groups at both settings. One group means little by itself but if you get predictable results for a couple of groups on both sides of what looks like a sweet spot, you're now looking at 5 groups at both settings. Cool! Thanks!

 

[mwezell]

The very first line in your quote is why I posed the question an IMHO is the very essence of much of the entire post tune adjustment debate.
EVERYTHING, every single issue relating to barrel performance including staying in tune relates to the ability to select those less than common select barrels to begin with, including what the “ old timers” would call the ability for a slug to “go to sleep” well before muzzle exit, probably relating to dimension, taper lap, steel, and whatever else.
You might, ponder that.
My interest, here, and elsewhere, is not to argue with you personally, but to reinforce to long term fact that myself and many others, many top level killer shooters and gunsmiths subscribe to the opposite of your preachings which would suggest to a dumb guy like me that depending on your platform and variety of ammo, you are missing as much as not and lots of new guys, should they swallow wholeheartedly are going to be chasing their ass for years down the road. I sure as hell am not about to change based on personal results and you have a vested interest in not changing so there we are, but you have stated directly about some ballistic considerations not entirely understood…….THAT we completely agree on.

You're full of crap. Every single post you have made here and elsewhere has been to argue and attack me and yes, you've made it personal more than once.
Regardless of that, the test was done with bbls that were winning quality but again, they still vibrate and that's what we were measuring. It wasn't about how small they'd shoot, but most anybody would like to have bbls that shot as well as they did. Most of the testing could've been done without hanging a target at all. In fact, some was done in a lab before going to the range and confirming things, with targets hung. In THIS regard, it meant nothing. But yes, ultimately accuracy means everything and my method has worked well. Interestingly, you could predict group shape by watching the computer screen(o-scope) because those shapes are predicated on where they occur along the sine wave. But you do whatever floats your boat. If I'm missing as much as not, how much is everyone missing that has never done vibration analysis at all? It's a method. Most of my posts have been about why it works, physically. Some people care about that and some don't but either way, do what works for you.

 

[mwezell]

Hello Mike,
I want to thank you for sharing your tuning target. It supports what I have been doing for the past few years. I have inserted my tuning target for one of my rifles. The groups do indeed increase and decrease in relation to the 'Y' axis dependent on the tuner setting. In this case, I noticed that the 'sweet spot' would probably end up being around 125. That is the reason for the second row of groups - to narrow the selection. Thus, I could see that it would end up around 122. The third row solidified the final setting at 121.
I also collect the group sizes in Excel. It is convenient to see the values coincide with the target.
Thank you again.
Matt

View attachment 25625

I was looking at the target and started once to ask what tuner you were using because the group shapes weren't quite what I typically see with mine or a Harrells. Then I saw your notes at the top of the page.

 

[pikedrop]

I was looking at the target and started once to ask what tuner you were using because the group shapes weren't quite what I typically see with mine or a Harrells. Then I saw your notes at the top of the page.

It is a Harrell's tuner. And as soon as our winds up here decide to calm down for an hour or two I will surely get to the range and fire a series starting with 125 up to 150. And see if there is another rise in the 'Y' axis.
Thank you.
Matt

 

[mwezell]

It is a Harrell's tuner. And as soon as our winds up here decide to calm down for an hour or two I will surely get to the range and fire a series starting with 125 up to 150. And see if there is another rise in the 'Y' axis.
Thank you.
Matt

I was referring to your notes saying "two mid bbl tuners and blue tube", fwiw. That can and will change the value of each adjustment a bit but it's not typically a great big change. IME, it's pretty amazing how little those huge changes actually translate to how how many marks between in and out of tune. For example, cf here but, a 30" 1.250 straight is typically only about 1 mark more from completely in to completely out of tune vs say a 21 inch hv or lv contour bbl. Not a huge difference as compared to the big difference in those two bbl scenarios. Just my 2 cents but yes, I'd do as you said and test that 125-150 range, then compare poi's to your previous sweet spot. It will help to do those two setting next to one another, on a single horizontal line. Thanks again! Looking good

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

I didn't ask what you are doing. Unless your system works for any and all lots, it's not a system at all. Rather, it's you testing lots and finding some that shoot at your tuner setting. So there it is. Unless you can shoot ALL lots competitively at a single setting, I just answered your question. If all lots can shoot competitively at a single setting, then you got me. I can't explain that because there is no physical explanation for it.

What I found while shooting ara/psl was that every bit of eley red/black and Lapua that I shot could be competitive but not always at the same setting. And yes, some lots were better than others. But rather than scrapping a lot that didn't shoot well outta the gate, I did establish a system, one where I know how far out of tune I am on the tuner by the size and shapes of the groups, much like cf guys do when loading at the range. So, I simply move the tuner accordingly and some of those "bad" lots, became some of my better shooting lots. It's explained in detail on the other site. Some good info there if you had actually read it instead of this same old crap.

Got any "junk" eley or lapua? Wanna run a test? Post pics of some bad groups and I think I can help you tune your rifle to it.

How about I send you some ammo and you shoot it in your rifle? since I don't know what I am doing I don't want to screw it up. like you tell someone who gives you a barrel measurement and you bore your tuner wrong, and they can't get it on the barrel. sound familiar?

Lee

 

[mwezell]

How about I send you some ammo and you shoot it in your rifle? since I don't know what I am doing I don't want to screw it up. like you tell someone who gives you a barrel measurement and you bore your tuner wrong, and they can't get it on the barrel. sound familiar?

Lee

And here we go. Still no answer? A set of calipers is a dangerous tool in a fools hand. He thinks he's a machinist or something.

Lee, I'm use to working in the tool and die industry and machining. I've been doing it in some capacity for 30 something years. Could I have made a mistake? Sure. But you never let me check it. Could that be because it measured correctly and that you gave me a bad measurement of your barrel? I guess we'll never know the truth to that huh?

That's the rest of that story and a glimpse into why I think you are a person of low or no integrity. You just confirmed it to everyone. Thank you.

The above poster is the sole reason I no longer bore tuners to a measurement provided by the customer. I offered to check it and make it right but he didn't want to ship it back. I offered him a solution and he got online and bashed me over this. All this for what was a free service if I recall.

BTW, do you have back trouble?


Still no answer?