More on Barrel Tuners

Get or give advice on equipment, reloading and other technical issues.

Moderator: Mod

Message
Author
Gyro
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:44 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#91 Postby Gyro » Sun May 27, 2018 4:26 am

So many ways to answer ....... guess u have worked out by now I'm suspicious of so much of this theory !

Does the rifle/s u mention above Williada actually exist ? And if u have theory to try and explain what's going on is that theory being "peer reviewed " by others working in the same field ? That last question I consider is extremely important.

Compensation is something that makes sense to me so I would ask what work is being done in this field ? Seems we keep getting sidetracked into complicated theory. So long as very strict control over ES numbers could be maintained then perhaps we can work with the compensation theory ? BUT can ES be controlled well enough ?

I don't even check my ES. Seems ive still got plenty of other problems with why my shots go where they do !

The top shooters attend to a great many things from a lot of experience and knowledge as u know I'm sure. And they can do that I believe without buying into a lot of the theoretical stuff.

Gyro
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:44 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#92 Postby Gyro » Sun May 27, 2018 8:31 am


wsftr
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:58 pm

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#93 Postby wsftr » Sun May 27, 2018 10:28 am

williada wrote:Guys there was a publication written by Warren Page called, "The Accurate Rifle", written so long ago who was quoting the bench standard of 1/4 minute of that era. Seeing a few posters have referred to Boyer etc, in a different discipline to ours to grasp the value of a rifle's capability, the 1/4 minute standard is old hat where shots are measured centre to centre.

At my short range tuning distance of 140 yards, I wouldn't accept anything greater from a tuned rifle from those that went through several development programs we have run in the past. At long distance, we generally refer to elevation in F Class in minutes of angle as a reference for performance. Holding quarter minute of angle elevation even at one thousand yards is not a hard thing to do on a regular basis. Such a rifle gives the shooter a buffer for wind or enables the shooter to aim off centre so conditions that can escape the shooter while aiming can deflect in; and of course light effects both diffraction and brightness cause the shooter to aim in the wrong place. The latter has nothing to do with capability. The rifle's capability does not change, only the shooter's ability to interpret conditions. That's the honesty part and skill level.

Now Gyro why do you suppose, I am happy with a barrel that lets out in the middle distance, performs well at 300 and holds up at the longs?


Don't get me wrong these aren't challenges - just questions to understand further - I'm a one barrel guy but am a firm believe in having clear references for evaluation criteria

More I want to understand under what shot count and conditions you are referring to. I think this is important for context. I don't think I have ever seen .25moa vertical at 1000 held for a string (granted my experience is limited to only a couple of ranges) - I have seen . 3moa not infreuently turn up at 900 or less.
However at load dev testing yeah I can see the possibility of regularly holding .25moa. I think this is what your reference point is.
I feel that most discussions go pear shaped because there isn't a clear reference to the criteria. i.e. we say - "must shoot better" or "tuners will provide that small edge" but there is no qualification on what shooting better is or what the small edge is. Generally that derails into a score comparison which has no meaning.

wsftr
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:58 pm

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#94 Postby wsftr » Sun May 27, 2018 10:37 am

Just for fun - here is a target testing tuner settings. I shot two groups on setting 2 as I was curious about it. It taught me a whole lot about what to look for.
Load dev was done with a tuner fitted and it was set on 0

3 Shots at 100 yards - .308 FTR 185 Berger bipod and rear bag from a bench

Some questions

Who would discard and start again
Who would select a setting and why
What would your next steps be

WP_20140412_010.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by wsftr on Sun May 27, 2018 12:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Gyro
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:44 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#95 Postby Gyro » Sun May 27, 2018 11:12 am

How many shots have u fired for this test ? Are they 3 shot groups at 100 yards ?

wsftr
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:58 pm

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#96 Postby wsftr » Sun May 27, 2018 12:04 pm

Gyro wrote:How many shots have u fired for this test ? Are they 3 shot groups at 100 yards ?

yes - updated the original post.

williada
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:37 am

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#97 Postby williada » Sun May 27, 2018 2:22 pm

Importantly, Calfee did not have an academic education and it was easy to pass negative views on his work with academic technicalities (which have fallen short as time has proven) rather than examine the concepts because Calfee could not say why it worked but he could repeat results because he knew what to do make it work through experiment. You don’t have to know how a microwave works, but someone did break the ground to enable us to just press the buttons and further the knowledge. The inverse problem arises when people put things in the too hard basket and scoff at academics. It’s a cultural thing.

Litz, like quality commentators, has a great mind, and perhaps will quantify the things for economic advantage and rightly so, while in the meantime some already practice with success and won’t give out a free lunch and rightly so because they have done the work to get a competitive edge. It’s naive to think otherwise. As Kissinger once said, “It’s not about relations, it’s about interests.” It’s a competitive world. It’s not about challenges to respond. That’s why it is wise to seek broad counsel and sort things out for yourself with the right questions. Others countries are now playing catchup. Let them. Australians have let a lot of good ideas slip from “Ugg boots to Wi-fi.”

It’s not so much about this theory or that theory, but an ability to compartmentalize and identify known factors and their magnitude in the combined effect for better results and being a creative thinker to push the envelope. Great minds have a thirst for knowledge and new ideas. For some it’s just about winning rather than the journey with like minded people to make you better. That’s why I honour Cam McEwan.

When someone says they don’t check ES, then I say that experience is biased towards dealing with difficult wind to obtain better scores or understanding the effects of light. Keep records and you will have enough data to measure results in club shooting.

The practical reality is a good barrel is often worn out by testing too much but benchmarks have been established with statistical significance from a machine rest firing thousands of shots. The machine rest takes light factors out. This approach has been used to identify an outlier; and from my experience its cause in practical terms. It is not random in reality and belongs to a vibration pattern when variables have been discounted. A solution is sought for the outlier which seems to always do us for score. We can accept low SD’s and run with probability of success, but it’s nice to know if there is more insurance in case a steer jumps a low fence.

We are not getting side tracked into theoretical stuff, but it seems to me that if people don’t even check their ES and they have not explored why their shots go where they do even with light, then it’s going to be harder to isolate the variables to evaluate the rifle’s capability to improve further even if it is at the margins with a tuner.

Yes, you do minimise ES as best you can, that’s a given, but there is a tolerable range to accommodate an outlier with a velocity spread where gravity is working with you through positive compensation. Or other harmonic balances at the micro level of the muzzle which compensates the distortion of at least three fundamental frequencies from different sources by balancing their interaction depending where you set it in relation to a tight load development. That is known and is not a theory. That can be manipulated by a tuner if you tune a load by traditional means in the first instance to minimise variables. A basic understanding of ballistics was written by Rinker is worth a read.

The question is always, can the performance be repeated? It does not have to be a rifle with a tuner but one satisfying the reasons for performance even if some do not know why.

These rifles are more common than you think and as I have said, a few barrels may have to be sorted to match criteria as Boyer does in bench rest. That is where the sport is bought. A tuner may correct some issues but that depends on the correct diagnosis of a barrel’s personality in macro and micro lift terms. It is a different question if you ask can a shooter drive a Formula 1 to its potential. A poor shooter cannot buy a score.

In Australia, some have witnessed 10 super centres shot by Mike W not at one range but at three ranges in a row to take out a prize meeting. We regularly have iron sight guys pump in 10 centres at long range. On tough ranges this is not as easy, but it doesn’t mean the rifles are not capable. I posted a recent group of a rifle I own that is capable of meeting those requirements over a full string of 10 shots in elevation at 1000 yards - a test shoot was witnessed by AlanF and others. It is repeatable. I have put this sort of information out for many years and assisted many at the local level including a few who have won international events and Queens Prizes around the country. So I am satisfied it has had peer review because the results speak for themselves. This area would make a paper for a budding PHd because I am not aware of such work.

I have posted a diagram below which gives some basic patterns once a rifle is tuned. It demonstrates rhythmic patterns to look for that are more suitable for different distances and or conditions. While it is a composed of 3 shot groups by Ecomeat at my direction, the similar patterns can be shot with more shots. Too many shots increase fouling, so the prospective area can be followed up with a single 10 shot string or you can take the gear to a prescribed distance on the range and refine a little further. Hope it is food for thought for new shooters using a tuner that have only one barrel to use? The tune velocity was previously established within a statistically significant range. Of course groups can be tighter.


Tuner Group.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

sungazer
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:58 pm

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#98 Postby sungazer » Sun May 27, 2018 3:52 pm

Would you mind sending me a PM with your answers and reasons. As I am sure I can not answer the questions correctly.

Gyro
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:44 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#99 Postby Gyro » Sun May 27, 2018 3:56 pm

Yes Williada I'm a very naughty boy for ignoring ES, but I don't weigh cases either or sort boolits .....

My fetish ( unashamedly ) is stock designing/building and gun setup and the chambering method and just playing with those dynamics is my lot for now. Call me myopic but there 'tis.

bruce moulds
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#100 Postby bruce moulds » Sun May 27, 2018 4:07 pm

williada,
if you are prepared to send a p.m., i would really appreciate the same one that sungazer has requestd.
keep safe,
bruce.
"SUCH IS LIFE" Edward Kelly 11 nov 1880
http://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM

wsftr
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:58 pm

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#101 Postby wsftr » Sun May 27, 2018 5:52 pm

At club days I regularly see the same rifles hammer out .5moa or less vertical (so yes there are a few around) but I don't think I have ever seen under .3moa. Maybe its just the driver?
Under match conditions sometimes vertical is compromised as its better to get the shot away - but even then it shouldn't be any more than .5moa vert IMO.

I don't understand the context of the groups posted. Were changes made to produce those groups?

GSells
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:04 pm

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#102 Postby GSells » Sun May 27, 2018 9:57 pm

williada wrote:Importantly, Calfee did not have an academic education and it was easy to pass negative views on his work with academic technicalities (which have fallen short as time has proven) rather than examine the concepts because Calfee could not say why it worked but he could repeat results because he knew what to do make it work through experiment. You don’t have to know how a microwave works, but someone did break the ground to enable us to just press the buttons and further the knowledge. The inverse problem arises when people put things in the too hard basket and scoff at academics. It’s a cultural thing.

Litz, like quality commentators, has a great mind, and perhaps will quantify the things for economic advantage and rightly so, while in the meantime some already practice with success and won’t give out a free lunch and rightly so because they have done the work to get a competitive edge. It’s naive to think otherwise. As Kissinger once said, “It’s not about relations, it’s about interests.” It’s a competitive world. It’s not about challenges to respond. That’s why it is wise to seek broad counsel and sort things out for yourself with the right questions. Others countries are now playing catchup. Let them. Australians have let a lot of good ideas slip from “Ugg boots to Wi-fi.”

It’s not so much about this theory or that theory, but an ability to compartmentalize and identify known factors and their magnitude in the combined effect for better results and being a creative thinker to push the envelope. Great minds have a thirst for knowledge and new ideas. For some it’s just about winning rather than the journey with like minded people to make you better. That’s why I honour Cam McEwan.

When someone says they don’t check ES, then I say that experience is biased towards dealing with difficult wind to obtain better scores or understanding the effects of light. Keep records and you will have enough data to measure results in club shooting.

The practical reality is a good barrel is often worn out by testing too much but benchmarks have been established with statistical significance from a machine rest firing thousands of shots. The machine rest takes light factors out. This approach has been used to identify an outlier; and from my experience its cause in practical terms. It is not random in reality and belongs to a vibration pattern when variables have been discounted. A solution is sought for the outlier which seems to always do us for score. We can accept low SD’s and run with probability of success, but it’s nice to know if there is more insurance in case a steer jumps a low fence.

We are not getting side tracked into theoretical stuff, but it seems to me that if people don’t even check their ES and they have not explored why their shots go where they do even with light, then it’s going to be harder to isolate the variables to evaluate the rifle’s capability to improve further even if it is at the margins with a tuner.

Yes, you do minimise ES as best you can, that’s a given, but there is a tolerable range to accommodate an outlier with a velocity spread where gravity is working with you through positive compensation. Or other harmonic balances at the micro level of the muzzle which compensates the distortion of at least three fundamental frequencies from different sources by balancing their interaction depending where you set it in relation to a tight load development. That is known and is not a theory. That can be manipulated by a tuner if you tune a load by traditional means in the first instance to minimise variables. A basic understanding of ballistics was written by Rinker is worth a read.

The question is always, can the performance be repeated? It does not have to be a rifle with a tuner but one satisfying the reasons for performance even if some do not know why.

These rifles are more common than you think and as I have said, a few barrels may have to be sorted to match criteria as Boyer does in bench rest. That is where the sport is bought. A tuner may correct some issues but that depends on the correct diagnosis of a barrel’s personality in macro and micro lift terms. It is a different question if you ask can a shooter drive a Formula 1 to its potential. A poor shooter cannot buy a score.

In Australia, some have witnessed 10 super centres shot by Mike W not at one range but at three ranges in a row to take out a prize meeting. We regularly have iron sight guys pump in 10 centres at long range. On tough ranges this is not as easy, but it doesn’t mean the rifles are not capable. I posted a recent group of a rifle I own that is capable of meeting those requirements over a full string of 10 shots in elevation at 1000 yards - a test shoot was witnessed by AlanF and others. It is repeatable. I have put this sort of information out for many years and assisted many at the local level including a few who have won international events and Queens Prizes around the country. So I am satisfied it has had peer review because the results speak for themselves. This area would make a paper for a budding PHd because I am not aware of such work.

I have posted a diagram below which gives some basic patterns once a rifle is tuned. It demonstrates rhythmic patterns to look for that are more suitable for different distances and or conditions. While it is a composed of 3 shot groups by Ecomeat at my direction, the similar patterns can be shot with more shots. Too many shots increase fouling, so the prospective area can be followed up with a single 10 shot string or you can take the gear to a prescribed distance on the range and refine a little further. Hope it is food for thought for new shooters using a tuner that have only one barrel to use? The tune velocity was previously established within a statistically significant range. Of course groups can be tighter.


Tuner Group.jpg

U have taught this lil grasshopper lots o sensei!
I'll have a crack on 2,4,6 would not shoot a sixty ! Group 5 turns me on .
Dominate rotation to the right .

I think one of the problems is I'm a tradie and not physics professor . So for me to explain my experiences can be hard for me , maybe I should just refrain from comenting ? But it's not in my nature to quit trying !

So David , how did I do? Terrible !
I think I failed the last one of these lol!
Last edited by GSells on Sun May 27, 2018 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

GSells
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 11:04 pm

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#103 Postby GSells » Sun May 27, 2018 10:00 pm

wsftr wrote:Just for fun - here is a target testing tuner settings. I shot two groups on setting 2 as I was curious about it. It taught me a whole lot about what to look for.
Load dev was done with a tuner fitted and it was set on 0

3 Shots at 100 yards - .308 FTR 185 Berger bipod and rear bag from a bench

Some questions

Who would discard and start again
Who would select a setting and why
What would your next steps be
.
WP_20140412_010.jpg


6 also turns me on but not great . May need more work ? Fwiw

williada
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:37 am

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#104 Postby williada » Mon May 28, 2018 11:10 pm

Not yet boys, have a think for a while. Good on you Graham for having a go. You will be in suspense for a while yet.

Tim N
Posts: 889
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:18 pm
Location: Branxton NSW

Re: More on Barrel Tuners

#105 Postby Tim N » Tue May 29, 2018 8:07 am

I'll show my ignorance :)
3. - 5
4. - probably but it's still 1/2 MOA
5. - yes, well under 1/2 MOA
9. - fouling
10. - clean
14. - 1 or 3

The furnace suit is on ... blase away
We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training. Archilochos 680-645 BC


Return to “Equipment & Technical”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests