Myths and Mysticism in Load Development

[wsftr]

Do tuners work is an interesting question that LITZ and Cortina couldn't agree on due to the definition of what does work mean. Interestingly the LITZ test didn't set out to see if tuners "worked".
.

I disagree. Litz devotes some 52 pages of his latest book specifically on the question of whether tuners work. On page 57 the specific questions the testing sought to answer are listed:

1) Can tuners produce a statistically significant improvement on precision, and if so, by how much?
2) Can an effective tuner setting be found within a reasonable (50-60) number of shots, per the manufacturers procedures?
3) How do tuners work on different rifles?

After 1800 rounds and four different tuners and four different rifles, seven findings were made, the most telling and contraversial were:

7) The most promising effect of a tuner was related to its static mass being attached to the end of the barrel. when various weights of muzzle devices were tested, a relativerly strong correlation was reveasled between muzzle mass and smaller groups. This rerlationship is far more significant than the position (setting) of the tuner and should be further be considered.

9) Marketing claims about the effectiveness of tuners in improving baseline mechanical precision of rifles were not substantiated by out testing.

The biggest noises against Litz's findings seem to be coming from vested interests:
The manufacturers and stores who have an obvious interest in selling
Those who have already forked out and who would look silly paying out big dollars for a threaded knob when a simple shaft collar would do

And if any of the above have actually done any extensive testing to back up their claims then thay have not published it, perhaps for obvious reasons.

Pete

Yes - subject to specific platform limitations.
I asked them why why didn't use a rail gun to see if tuners worked to rule out all of the shooting noise. (alas I haven't kept the email as its clear that at this point in time they are done with tuners because they believe with there platform they can't prove point 1 (IMO)). They stated they wanted to use systems that most shooters used or words to that effect and to see if within those platforms tuners could make a statistical difference..again on the one setting is best theory and in addition for specific platforms. This is very different to the question "do tuners work" and why I have formed the opinion that the shooting community appears to be at odds somewhat. They even started out with someone who couldn't shoot Brians rifle and Brian himself had to come in to do the test.

Eriks contention was that tuners work as you can see a change be it better or worse. Brians contention is that perhaps working means an improvement. (IMO)
The noise I see is more related to confusion as in - that surprising here is what I see - I did this and this happened. IMO this is because its a one setting is best vs can a tuner adjustment make a change (i.e the definition difference of "do they work"). One is seated in statistical sample size - i.e. will that one setting that made a change hold for all time (a clear no IMO) vs did it have an effect for a point of time (I think there is a fair bit to say yes, but time will tell)

My confidence in stating this is because all tuner believers have made an adjustment and seen an immediate impact hence they believe they "work" but actually the argument between tuners working or not revolves around the one setting is best vs best setting at a point in time i.e. can a tuner improve group size for any period of time or shots. (IMO). IMO Erik is embarking on the later with the John Myers theories and now the short range BR stuff.

I am keen to know what the statistical probability is for 3 10 shot groups that one adjustment is made (the tuner) that the groups would shoot 50% smaller immediately after that change.

[PeteFox]

Yes
I mostly agree.
My contention is that tuners will make a difference, that's physics. The problem is, is prediciability possible based on small sample size and is repeatability possible given all the other noise and is it possible to discern the difference:
- is the difference made by tweaking going to be positive or negative?
- and how can it be predicted?
- Litz's choice of rifles botthers me slightly, but I have to believe they weren't clunkers and their capabilities were well known prior to the testing, as a basis for comparison.
The argument could equally be made that any benefit of a tuner could be more readily seen in a rifle that produces a group bigger than optimal and that a rail gun is going to print small anyway and gains or losses in precision could be just noise, and again with such small groups how do you tell the difference?


I have closely watched tuner tweakers during matches. Sometimes there is an improvement sometimes not, mostly it makes no difference. The improvements seem to get chalked up to the tuner and if it gets worse, then it is always something else other than the tuner.
This is just buyers positive affirmation and gives no verifiable information.

The problem with all of this is cost.
The sample sizes required chew into a large part of one's hoard of projectiles and a barrel's life. so in effect, nothing can be proved, which IMO is fertile ground for snake oil salesmen and the gullible. Perhaps a small percentage of shooters have it worked out and good luck to them which leaves the rest (those who haven't worked it out) forking out cash for no benefit.

thank you for the respectful discussion
Pete

[Drop shot]

The issue of "do tuner's work" is exactly as discussed. Can adjusting them = an increase or decrease in accuracy dependant on the setting is my PERSONAL metric for whether these work or not.

The Physics is the simplest reason to align with "yes, they do work" for exactly as you've stated. Muting the harmonics and barrel movement will result in less dispersion at the muzzle which will reduce the variation in muzzle angle and harmonic dispersion at the time of bullet release, increasing consistency and therefore increasing accuracy. We see this with suppressors and some brakes (dependant on barrel contour). Does adjusting the distance the weight is sitting, relative to the end of the muzzle produce the effect that people who buy a tuner expect. We know that it's harder to hold a 5kg weight at arms length than it is close to the body, so moving the mass forward would, in theory, put more stress on the barrel and therefore COULD change the results.

The problems are;
How the data is gathered
How the data is quantified
How the data is then presented

One side is looking at tangible results and ascertaining that, based on group size and real world results, the tuners work, because they see an increase in points <- this is not a measureable result. If someone adjusts their tuner, we want to know, how much, what setting, show me the results etc etc. This is where one outcome will not equal the same in a different environment, on a different gun, etc etc. And therefore there's room to say, tuner's don't work. They aren't 100% repeatable or copyable.

The element that is oft lost on equipment, is that tuners working could be 100% psychological. It's VERY unlikely that the first setting is the accurate setting isn't it? Drop down, shoot a 3 shot group. Groups are average. Adjust the tuner, groups get better.... is it the tuner, or is the shooter warming up? This is an INSANELY common scenario. The tuners are marketed as a fast track to success. So an average shooter that is shooting like this, is very likely not seeing the results of the tuner, and is more seeing the results of their increased settling behind the gun.

We've tested shooters by telling them their scope is loose after they've shot several bad groups, then pretending to tighten their scope rings, telling them to fire another group and LO AND BEHOLD! accuracy has returned! But the shooter's mind-set is changed, and that's what made them group better.... they didn't need the torque wrench... the groups were in them ALLLLLL ALONG! But the psychological element is something that can't be removed. Neither can the human element. This is where the argument for a rail gun is relevant. The problem with rail guns is that they impart energy back to the barrel as part of recoil that wouldn't otherwise be there with a squishy human behind the gun. Any results gathered with a rail gun wouldn't be of value as it's not how the rifle would be shot. But on the flip side, how can you trust a human to perform at 100% consistency? Additionally, practical rifle shooting and F-Class shooting are very different. One of the biggest variations is the amount of recoil absorbed by F-class shooters vs people who have control of the firearm through the firing cycle. F-Class shooters tend to prefer to "free recoil" the gun and there's a chance that the bullet has left the barrel before the butt pad impacts the shoulder of the shooter. This would leave more room on the table to discuss the pure mechanical accuracy of the system and therefore would be more appropriate to ascertaining whether the tuner IS having an effect or not. I don't believe that a shooter conducting a test firing the rifle in a "practical" way, could isolate enough of themselves from the results to ascertain an outcome.

The influence can vary from shot to shot and alone can cause variation in results and variation in barrel movement. As can clothing density. So if i'm tired, 100 rounds in on my test, and it's late and i'm getting cold so I put my jacket on.... how consistent are my results going to be?

The Litz side is very binary. Which is good for what he's looking for. He looks at the tuners like a light switch. Can i flick it on and the lights come on, can i flick it off and the lights go off? <- this is measureable and recordable but doesn't take into consideration the variables. I understand that he keeps logs of cleaning etc etc etc. I'm talking, barrel contour, bullet shape and design, barrel metallurgy consistency. There's 1000 different variables that come into play during the shot firing cycle that can and will change not just in the one gun, but across guns and bullets in general. IF we can't assign a value to these variables, then we can't quantify their effect, and therefore, they are discounted as individuals and absorbed by the test in it's entirety. This is a problem. These variables may not be present in other systems at other times, in other environments.

Additionally, if someone has taken the time and effort to manage to, not control the variables per se, but understand how and when they change, and can alter the tuner settings to account for them, and can show that they work based on OUTCOME, this is where the argument the tuners DO work has plausibility. Classic example is ambient temp effecting barrel movement. Colder barrels move less, than hot barrels. So in winter, one stress point on the barrel will be more apt than summer.

These errors in recording results and sharing outcomes is something that both Jayden Quinlan and Litz agree on (though something that Jayden more READILY agrees on and i'm inclined to find more value in his discussions).

Also, Pete. I can't help myself, this is like a second sport for me.

[wsftr]

The element that is oft lost on equipment, is that tuners working could be 100% psychological. It's VERY unlikely that the first setting is the accurate setting isn't it? Drop down, shoot a 3 shot group. Groups are average. Adjust the tuner, groups get better.... is it the tuner, or is the shooter warming up? This is an INSANELY common scenario. The tuners are marketed as a fast track to success. So an average shooter that is shooting like this, is very likely not seeing the results of the tuner, and is more seeing the results of their increased settling behind the gun.

This I seriously doubt - otherwise each time I turn it I would expect my groups to get smaller . It also doesn't explain the number of times the tuner was adjusted and the groups didn't shrink first go. - I believe the psyche is to find a setting somewhere that is hopefully better. But your point to setup is LITZ point - there are larger inputs to precision such as setup or technique that need to be focused on.
Hornady subsequent podcast acknowledged that maybe if you had those large inputs locked down and incredibly consistent then maybe you could see impacts such as Seating Depth changes, tuner settings or small powder charge changes.
I think tuners are pitched as an easy street seating depth replacement these days. And who knows maybe they are as the stats state SD can't be proved either...

[Drop shot]

The element that is oft lost on equipment, is that tuners working could be 100% psychological. It's VERY unlikely that the first setting is the accurate setting isn't it? Drop down, shoot a 3 shot group. Groups are average. Adjust the tuner, groups get better.... is it the tuner, or is the shooter warming up? This is an INSANELY common scenario. The tuners are marketed as a fast track to success. So an average shooter that is shooting like this, is very likely not seeing the results of the tuner, and is more seeing the results of their increased settling behind the gun.

This I seriously doubt - otherwise each time I turn it I would expect my groups to get smaller . It also doesn't explain the number of times the tuner was adjusted and the groups didn't shrink first go. - I believe the psyche is to find a setting somewhere that is hopefully better. But your point to setup is LITZ point - there are larger inputs to precision such as setup or technique that need to be focused on.
Hornady subsequent podcast acknowledged that maybe if you had those large inputs locked down and incredibly consistent then maybe you could see impacts such as Seating Depth changes, tuner settings or small powder charge changes.
I think tuners are pitched as an easy street seating depth replacement these days. And who knows maybe they are as the stats state SD can't be proved either...

Yeah sorry, I didn't expand on that well, but yes, that's the crux - the tuner is the enth degree and I personally don't think that someone firing their rifle from a traditional bipod and rear bag would be able to determine the effects of the tuner, even with a rifle that is set up optimally for long range precision. Any improvement in this instance is going to be largely due to improvement in shooter technique or some other effect over mechanical accuracy.

The other thing that comes up all the time is cost, and therefore, people go and buy cheap ammo to try and prove these things work. You're not going to see the results in groups that are hovering around .5-1" at 100m and I just don't see any credible way of these tests working to prove anything conclusive. I'm glad people are doing them still... just because they aren't valueable for finding out if tuners work, doesn't mean they won't find something else.

Conversely, I do feel that an F-Class shooter would be able to see these minute changes, IF they are present, as the accuracy standard is more refined and most load dev is done at 300m.

I 100% agree that the tuners are sold as an express ticket to paradise lol, and if THAT's the metric you measure whether they work on not, then i'd lean pretty hard on them not and I think that's a large amount of that tuner wielding cohort unfortunately.

[Matt P]

As someone who makes and sells tuners, I don't sell them as "express ticket to paradise" (and haven't seen to many make this claim) and I tell my customers a tuner won't fix and shit load or a average barrel. You still have to put the work in and do a conventional load work up, what a tuner does do is give you a bigger "tune window" and can give you some wiggle room when traveling from one end of the country to the other. Use them or don't but all my competition rifles have them fitted.
Matt P

[Drop shot]

As someone who makes and sells tuners, I don't sell them as "express ticket to paradise" (and haven't seen to many make this claim) and I tell my customers a tuner won't fix and shit load or a average barrel. You still have to put the work in and do a conventional load work up, what a tuner does do is give you a bigger "tune window" and can give you some wiggle room when traveling from one end of the country to the other. Use them or don't but all my competition rifles have them fitted.
Matt P

The tune window is the big one, but it's linked to OBT. The mass is doing 99% of the work. The micrometer adjustment of the tuner is probably more aptly being scrutinised.

Tuners, though they may not have a label on them that says "fast track to success", are definitely seen this way by less experienced shooters. The prs crowd are buying tuner brakes now and trying to tune factory ammo to hand load accuracy.