Ep. 110 - Let's Talk Barrel Tuners
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 янв 2024
- On this episode, Seth is joined by Jayden and Miles along with special guest and author, Jeff Siewert. This show is a technical deep dive into muzzle tuners. While barrel tuners are nothing new, they have experienced a resurgence in the precision rifle sports over the last few years. If you've ever wondered if you can dial in accuracy by simply adjusting a tuner, you will enjoy this podcast!
Развлечения
I love this podcast and their scientific findings so much that ive started buying l Hornady products almost exclusively just to show my appreciacion for the work these guys do just to help us everyday shooters out.
Great work, guys!
2 fun resources on these topics are 1 Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting by Brian Litz volume 3 chapter 4 which (spoiler alert) came to these same conclusions. But number 2 Johnny's reloading bench did a 4 part series on his YT channel on barrel harmonics and show how different devices change the performance. Glad to see you guys kick the hornets nest. Removing confirmation bias is so hard and uncomfortable for all of us.
The only problem I have with the testing done is the inherent resolution of the systems. If an accuracy difference doesn't scale with group ES but is just a fixed gain then you need a certain resolution in the system(or a very large number of shots) to see it above the noise. Say that one of your loading(or tuning) variables shrinks groups by 0.075" on average. My 30BR benchrest gun capable of shooting 5x5 groups with an average size of 0.280" will show that difference(0.075" is ~27% of the average) much more easily than a hunting gun which is shooting 5x5 shot groups averaging 0.750"(0.075" is 10% of the average). Taking enough shots to prove small differences is completely impractical for the average competitor let alone the average shooter. Showing a 20% difference in 5 shot group size average is more precise to above 90% confidence can take around ten 5 shot groups of each variable. Now that being said you're still always better off choosing the smaller result because it will have the higher probability of being more precise and the more shots/groups you shoot the more confident you can be in your choice. We just need to accept the fact that we aren't SURE one is better than the other and that's okay.
Bolt Action Reloading and Johnny's reloading bench are my two absolute favorite testers when it comes to reloading variabilities. I respect you guys so much. But do you not have a concern in the method to wish these were tested, they did not follow tuner procedure with incremental changes, rather, they made large revolutions negating the tuning aspect, essentially they didn't use the device correctly so I have a hard time relying on their data.
@@justsnuggle You would be correct if they were trying to prove that tuners can improve the dispersion. However, they were only trying to show that they made any difference at all(better or worse). In that case making large changes and seeing no difference is a valid test. It's hard to fathom a physical phenomena where you could make a small change and see a significant difference in group size but then a large change does nothing at all. It is still possible that if they had tested the same way at every setting that a small amount of specific settings would have been different but that could require thousands of shots to prove to statistical relevance.
@@justsnuggle I agree, when i am doing a powder test or a seating depth test, i dont change things by a whole grain in my load ladder, nor do i change it by .050 per step in my seating depth, that would throw all the results and it would be garbage.
Jeff is one of those mega-brain guys that always has fascinating info. As a handloader his info about the main source of small caliber dispersion is really helpful.
Congratulations for lighting the Internet on fire yet again!!!
Oh yeah. People are going to be livid.
@@carson3406 Ya know, I don't even care anymore. There's usually a reason why people do things types of podcasts and they usually benefit those doing them. Hornady has a great marketing team these days. I remember not that long ago, that they would never butt heads with Big Green but times have changed, for sure. If ya really wanna know something, just test it.
@MikeEzell1 just test it is the main reason reloading is so addictive specially when you come up with a good load for your rifle.
Thanks for doing these technical deep dives with lots of testing. I can say that it has helped me as a club level competitor to confirm some of my testing and experience and actually help me mentally to not get hung up on the wrong things and get out to practice more.
For me this podcast makes my top 10 of Hornady podcasts! Great work.
Thanks for taking the heat and keeping reality in check.
Another great pod. Aonce watching. Most of Yours podcasts, I have changed My way of doin things. And in all of that I have saved barrel wear. And that's huge. Thank You.
Round 3 with jayden and cortina coming soon. Believe the target boys!!!
😂
Really like these podcasts and would love to get ahold of this simulator.
Thier results provided in the test dont line up with the results I've seen with the EC tunner break.Wonder what tunner they tried.
Im using the 6.5cm 140geldm factory loads and maybe my target got washed and shrunk because thier is a remarkable and consistant difference in group size reduction for me with a tunner. I have shot at least 50 to 75 rounds on paper (starting with a rifle with 300 or so rounds on the bbl...and using same lot of ammo) using a regular break and then the EC tuner break.
Id really like to hear from the target audience or maybe have @ErikCortina provide a target demo.
On those podcasts, it was interesting to see that sometimes they were using the same terms and meaning different things. One that jumped out for me was when they were talking about a 1/2 or 1/4 MOA barrel. For Eric, it seemed that a "1/4 MOA barrel" is one that almost always shoots 1/4 MOA with the occasional flyer. For Jayden those flyers count. A 1/4 MOA barrel NEVER shoots more than 1/4 MOA. Even if a barrel averages1/4 MOA, if it shoots even a single 1/2" group, it is a 1/2 MOA barrel (unless you specifically qualify it with the term "1/4 MOA average dispersion"). This without getting in to using mean radius instead of group size.
I love the deep discussion but I loathe the talking down, shot across the bow, the tin foil, we are precision shooters, bantering that I have seen. I can not express how much I have gleaned from both camps. No child wants to hear bad about the other parent it a divorce. Just the facts Boys! Thank You both in advance.
@@horsebarnt There is nothing wrong with either approach, it was just interesting to see the miscommunication. It comes down to a definition of terms. When using statistics, every "flyer" counts unless there was an obvious problem or malfunction like equipment breakage or hang-fire. This makes the max potential group size several times bigger than the average. Jayden also tests in a tunnel, so there is no question of a wind change., which is what it typically used to explain an unexpectedly large group in the field.
I worked as an engineer for a number of years and often saw similar things in meetings when the "engineer-speak" based on probability and statistics was at odds with typical language usage and seemingly, common sense.
There was a related discussion when an F-class champion (David Tubb, maybe?) had stated that he used a 3/4 MOA rifle. Many competitors claimed that he could not have possibly been winning with a gun like that, but it seems that it was again a "definition of terms" issue. Over thousands of rounds, there may have been a handful of 3/4 MOA groups, but the average could have been about a third of that. It is indeed possible to win with AVERAGE groups of 1/4 MOA.
Fantastic podcast/info. Waaay over my head-Took me all day to watch and go run down info/definitions!! Learned a TON!!! love this!!!
Excellent podcast. I admire that you're willing to share the information freely, and not sit on it as a trade secret. It has changed a lot of my opinions on reloading and my approach to it.
The discussion about bullet alignment with the bore is dead on point. In 2017 (retirement) I wanted to check this out, so I took 2 new barrels (6.5CM) and had the chambers cut differently. One had basically the standard throat (long freebore) and one that was cut without a throat. I took an tapered throating reamer to the second. That made the throat a simple forcing cone like a standard 30-06. I then shot 500 rounds through both barrels to establish a reliable impact dispersion figure. The second barrel (forcing cone) was nearly twice the dispersion of standard chamber (freebore). All rounds were set to a COAL that produced a soft jam of the bullet into the lands (always extractable unfired). I then machined a bullet inserting plug that I used to seat the bullets to soft jam, remove the plug, and then chamber a charged case without bullet into the chambers (sort of like bag ammo artillery). Initially I just sized the cases so the neck just slipped over the throat seated bullet. Bullet impact dispersion with the freebore barrel was not improved very much (about 10% better) while the velocity SD/ES was about 10% worse. Bullet impact dispersion with the forcing cone barrel was improved by about 55%, and the velocity SD/ES was improved by about 67%. Never the less the freebore barrel always has less dispersion than the forcing cone barrel. My conclusion was that freebore throats were superior as they help to align the bullet with the bore despite bullet runout, and case body displacement. Next I changed how I sized the cases. I used a body only die to size the brass so that the neck of the case had very little movement to the chamber neck walls in order to seal the gasses. This improved the results from both barrels as far as velocity SD/ES was concerned, but only improved the dispersion of the freebore barrel about an additional 12% while doing nothing for the impact dispersion of the forcing cone barrel. This was 3000+ rounds using Peterson brass, Sierra 140 MK, H4350, and weight sorted CCI 250 . The freebore clearance is about .0005" at the start of this series. I might know something now about achieving precision now, but I am also broke. If you can do something about the initial bullet alignment to the bore you are far ahead of the game if you first have a good barrel, chamber / throat alignment, brass, bullet, stable propellant, and reliable ignition, and a stable platform.
When you say forcing cone like a standard 30-06 is that how nearly all older cartridges are still chamber cut? Or do modern manufacturers like Bergara cut their chambers similar to more modern cartridges? Also when ordering a pre-fit barrel with a “match chamber” or are there other differences? I plan on converting one of my 30-06’s to a more precision based rifle hand loading for it. Thanks
@@chadperry4021 You have to look at the chamber prints. If you get a barrel from someone like Shilen that offers custom throats you can often specify a freebore diameter and leade angle. You have to ask if they have a throatless reamer and also a separate throat cutting reamer. Rounds like 30-06 even from later manufacturers like Bergara will usually cut a SAAMI or CIP throat, and once it is cut you cannot really change the throat to a freebore style since the forcing cone cut is already larger than the freebore would need to be. Otherwise you would need to order a special reamer (30-06) with something like a 308 Win Palma throat. That would make it a wildcat.
Sounds like you got a lot of time still wasting on pointless testing😊 btw optimizing lead angles to projectile types improve results
Interesting test. There are a bunch of 30BR's out there with zero freebores. I wonder how that relates, if at all. They certainly shoot well. I've always thought like you, that some freebore would be somewhat better but it's hard to argue with results, too. I guess ideal would be a freebore equal to the length of bearing surface but of course that wouldn't be feasible with the small 30's and light bullets commonly used.
EagleEye is learning. All precision gun smiths know the lead is extremely important and a straight chamber to bore is too. On one of Jeffs earlier visits he stated a 20mm gun with crooked barrel was more accurate than their straight one. Seems the issue could have been in the chamber area.
Awesome job and nice to have actual facts to help people make their own decision
Using charge weight ladder tests Vaughn showed the POI varies in a sinusoidal manner at the frequency of sound along the length of the barrel; using his method I have confirmed this with my rifles. PC results when the barrel is on the upswing to help offset the difference due to velocity. Kolbe showed something similar with the addition of a tuner, which only changed the bullet exit time significantly and did little to the frequency and amplitude. This longuitudinal frequency at the speed of sound causes an associated transverse muzzle vibration, much faster than the typical cantilever beam vibrations. While this behavior is quite clear, I have a centerfire and rimfire tuner and cannot say conclusively that they help, and particularly do not see how turning it one notch can have an appreciable effect.
Thank you! You’ve saved hundreds of people thousands of dollars. 👍👍
I read quite a distance into the comments and found no reference to the following: back in the mid 80's i was shooting just about every discipline of silhouette that was available. I was fortunate to dhoot with some of the best at the time. There were about three to four in our group that were analitical and also mechanically inclined which led to a lot of experimentation. Most of us were shooting Anschutz riles in smallbore and there were very accurate. All were heavy barrel silhouette factory rifles. Most would shoot groups at 100 yds equal to many centerfire varmint rifles. One of the topics of discussion was "barrel harmonics". We decided we needed to be sble to sdjust this in order to "improve" our already minute groups. The fix was to take plumbers solder, the large diameter flux cored lead soft solder and wrap it around the barrel at the muzzle. We would start with enough wraps to give us approximately 2" of length. It would be held in place with electrical tape and then we would start shooting groups. As many as ten ten shot groups, then cut one coil from the wrap and proceed. We experienced improved groups to a certsin point then the groups would start to increase in size. At that point we knew how many wraps were optimum and would reapply the electrical tape and continue with off hand practice. We also attempted moving the wrap of solder bact towards the forearm or closer to the muzzle. This had less affect on consistency then adding or deleting wraps.
I could also listen to a whole podcast on Miles’ testing on gas guns!
Favorite episode so far, this podcast has inspired me to jump into the ammunition industry so wanted to say thanks to you guys.
As an analogy, if you have a race car that does 150 mph in the quarter mile and a car that does 195 in the quarter. Which one takes the smallest adjustment to go 200 mph. These guys with really expensive precision rifles maybe only need a small adjustment to make improvements to give them a small edge! Just a thought to defend tuners!
Thank you again for all the work and information.
Never been particularly interested in a barrel tuner, but your podcast was a fascinating continuation to the "Internal Ballistics" podcast. Please keep it up.
Great discussion guys. I will agree with the mass at the end of the barrel terminology. On My 223 bolt gun I run 80- 85.5 grain bullets with a brake. Some brakes make it shoot down right ugly. I wound up with a Heathan brake that tunes really similar to the thread protector. Just messing around I backed it off 1 full turn from original installation. At the time I thought it was wishfull thinking but the groups did shrink a bit. This barrel now has 3,760 rounds down it and after every cleaning I "shoot" the barrel back in with a different instalation distance from my "known good" installed position. So far every time I wind up back at the sweet spot be that screwing it on farther or off that one round. Now this is no scientific test since I only waste 10-20 rounds after cleaning with this test. Miles, all my SR plateform rifles POI shifts 1.1- 1.3 mil lower and .2 mil left or right when the brake is pulled and the Omega 3000 suppressor is installed. I notice my rifles become happier with a wide range of ammo with a can vs. a brake.
I have a gen 1 EC tuner brake on my Sig Cross .308. I noticed a change of group size using the tuner. I have 500 rounds of the same lot number PMC bronze 147 gr. Fmj BT. Its kind of crap ammo, but its affordable. I noticed a change in group size using it and it seemed to be consistently smaller with particular settings. 🤷♂️ i think 500 rounds is a fair sample size? Ive shot about 1400 rounds total including the 500 of PMC. I like to trust what you guys say over what my own eyeballs see sometimes, but im still a believer in the EC tuner brake on this one.
As a gunsmith, if I have a custom rifle that's just outside what I expect, I'll change muzzle brakes. Usually, a heavier brake will shoot better than a lighter one. I can say that regardless if it's a brake or a tuner, a muzzle device that has a baffle very close to the muzzle will generally not shoot well. I think that muzzle tuners need to be able to tune for mass as well as tuner position to be truly effective.
Concerning your selection of rifles for the tuner testing, and analysis of results:
I have been operating under the assumption that the error factors which result in bullet dispersion in groups, add together in a square-root-of-sum-of-squares fashion. If that assumption is correct, then in order to see the error reduction from a barrel tuner, you'd want to test with the absolute best rifle, components, and shooter possible.
To illustrate, if one begins with a 3 MOA rifle-ammo system, and the shooter adds 0.5 MOA of dispersion, that doesn't make the total system 3.5 MOA, it makes it about 3.04 MOA because the two errors almost never stack in exactly the same direction on the same shot by random chance.
Flipping that around, then, if you start with a 3.04 MOA total system, and the barrel tuner eliminates something that's responsible for 0.5 MOA of dispersion all on its own, you're back to a 3 MOA total system.
Note that none of this argues either for or against your data, nor anyone's experience. My intent is simply to illustrate what a tiny overall impact a half-minute improvement in a single factor makes. One might say 'it doesn't do anything,' and be wrong because the net effect on, say, a hunting rifle is well and truly swamped by other dispersion factors. Or, one might be right if one simply looks at the situation from a different perspective (a 'practical' shooter probably cannot discern 0.04MOA dispersion change no matter how hard they look).
From my experience, you’re on the right track.
Great discussion, thanks for the data you are publishing
Saving to watch while I’m at work but oh boy is this a topic if mad like to hear your take of on!!
A great science driven look at this topic. Could not ask for a better group of guests to discuss it. Hopefully there will be more podcasts with this same group! Thanks so much for making this.
Thanks again for exposing the hobbyists in our industry to a little of the math and science of ballistics. Based on Mr. Quinlan's recommendation I read Demystified about a year and a half ago, many of the elements of dispersion are covered in the book. Also, the Bulletology website points to several papers, presentations and Power Points with relevant subject matter.
I tried a Cortina tuner on my rifle (6.5mm Creedmoor) and FOLLOWING the manufacturer's instructions, I made small adjustments (roughly 20 degrees or less) and I found a difference with each setting (.094" group @ 100yds.) A full revolution had rather repeatable results (meaning the group size did not change.)
Due to that experience, I find it difficult to get on board with your results.
Did you follow the manufacturer's instructions?
No way I would be giving up my tuner.
How many shots per adjustment did you shoot?
😂😂😂 doesn’t answer because did a couple of 2 shot groups and said “wow, tunes up” 😂😂
Difference between anecdote and science - astrology and astronomy
Have to remember that some people are expecting a 1/8 to 1/4MOA change right away, others will be happy with a few thou per group over the life of a barrel. So many factors involved before a bullet reaches the tuner. Good podcast, illustrates a lot of interesting perspectives and tech points and issues, and raises a few questions.
Wow! That was very informative. Thanks!
Awesome content! Please make more!
Great topic and professionals discussing data based results. I would love to see an episode on what data Hornady has accumulated regarding handgun accuracy and handloading. Your technical data based episodes are excellent Thank you.
Ive been on the fence about buying a tuner till now. I do load, and on average theyre a little better than factory so i thought a tuner may take me to the next level but after listening to the other side of tuner testing i doubt it would help.
I may consider digging out my golfsmithing supplies and slapping some lead tape on the end of my barrel and see what happens lol.
Thank you for the work put in to this podcast.
YES! Jeff is my favorite guest!
Thanks much!
Mine too
I just can't add any to this podcast lads. You guys said it all..........AGAIN.
Guys, another excellent podcast. Make sure your Boss allows you guys to keep it going. I don't think I draw too long of a bow when I say that most really want to know the truth. There's a lot more of us who want to hear the truth than the relative few who've foolishly nailed their colours to the mast & will try to save face until their dying breath.
Excellent.
Great comment - this whole thing gets pretty cultish for many - I’m interested in not wasting time and money and these guys, Litz and Blackburn Defense among others have saved me both
@@tonefilter9480 To be honest, I think that barrel tuners may well make a measurable difference, just not in the present common configuration whereby the threaded adjustable section moves a thou or two at a time by the hash marks &, probably doesn't move enough over the full travel length. I think a tuner with either replaceable weight rings or a more substantial adjustment length "may" cause a difference either positive or negative. Having stated that though, even if tuners did or could be made to cause a measurable difference, any marginal change in powder temp & muzzle velocity & chamber pressure would probably nullify any setting making the thing more trouble than it's worth.
@@rotasaustralis well said - I think they mentioned that chamber pressure has normal variation of 1000 pounds - that’s a bigger effect than- then add in everything else it just seems delusional to believe you can tune this gadget and everything is magically better
I am curious to know if the tuners you were using could be taken apart. I am also interested to know if you took them apart to see if there was any hidden technology. It is possible that there may be a hole/holes drilled or a weight inserted into the backside. This would influence the barrel in a different dimension than the in/out you described. That could be why your groups didn't change when you rotated it 1 full turn.
Wow this is going to be awesome!!!
Finally - voices of reason.
Miles needs to expand on his scientific and quantitative gas gun testing. What works to increase accuracy beyond the solid advice of “float a good barrel” given to me by Derrick Martin. Was an accuracy baseline established before threading the barrels, then again with only the threads cut to check for changes. Then began evaluating muzzle devices? For my money even small changes to the exterior of a barrel especially the muzzle will result in an amount of internal distortion that can been seen on an air gauge. Diving into a precision rifle I put a now discontinued OPS Inc muzzle on a .308 with 3/4” threads to retain as much material at the muzzle as possible. OPS Inc claimed an increase in accuracy due to the change in gas flow. I obviously didn’t test it, the other muzzle device I’ve seen claiming an accuracy increase is the Vortex flash finders maybe those threaded barrels could be put to further use. Excellent job all around gentleman tons of well
thought out testing! My favorite was using the 55gr bulk ammo excellent choice. Miles sure has come along way from turning down crayons on a mini lathe.
Thanks again for a great topic and sharing your data!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks Gentlemen! Great episode. I'm excitingly waiting for my suppressor to arrive in the mail. I'm about 6 months so far into this wait. I'm curious!
Have fun!
I normally get on board with the research and info and how it is presented in these Hornady podcasts, however I have to say I had some questions about this one. Feels like the samples that were used to say turners didn't make a difference weren't following the directions from the turner manufacturers. Probably need to shoot some larger groups following the setting directions. Maybe invite Eric Cortina to come tune your guns (as he is obviously a very strong proponent of them). Use your larger sample sizes with his tuning adjustments to see if it makes a difference... I'll come out and supervise :).
super interesting, thanks guys!
You bet!
I have 4 EC-TUNER'S. I change powder and charge weight until I get a low SD and sub moa group. Not one of them has gone a full revolution . Because the groups open back up. So I ask why not adjusting per manufacture recommendation?
Isolate the bore deviation by rotating the barrel in the fixture and measuring point of impact shift, test different barrels take the one with the largest shift. Put a tuner on it, measure dispersion difference, flip the barrel over and measure again. If the tuner helps right side up and upside down, then that conforms to the tuner guys theory and should be further explored. If it shoots better with a tuner right side up and worse upside down, that conforms to the theory that the tuner weight sometimes help straighten the bore.
Favorite one yet. I always saw the tuner as snake oil 👍🏽
Really cool to hear about the issue with the gau-8 30mm, I was on A10s for 6 years and loaded a lot of 30mm.
Wow '' Very Interesting , Great Podcast 💯💥💥💥💥💥💥💥
Thanks for listening
Another brilliant podcast thank you. I have a sneaking suspicion that moderation affects groups because of gas flow not weight be delighted to hear further on this when tests are completed
Right near the end, I was pleased to hear my own perspective, in that what works for you as an individual is the way to go and Seth you also do testing, you’re testing your colleagues and their cumulative knowledge. I’ve been using the rubber limb savers on several rifles for years, after doing some empirical low sample testing and as the results boosted my confidence in the respective rifles, I’ve installed them ever since. Excellent podcast compulsive listening and viewing
Put short: increasing the inertia at the muzzle end of a barrel has the potential to decrease the dispersion of a rifle system.
So I have seen differences with and without suppressors and different bullets. Once I get the right combination I try to stay consistent.
I listened to Eric and Jayden’s clip first and now this one. I am glad I listened in that order. It helped me understand where Jayden was coming from but was impressed at Eric’s pictures of his groups at range. Now I am interested in the effect of a Suppressor in this discussion since it may be fixed on the barrel in only one location. At least initially.
great conversation. Miles' contribution on multiple muzzle devices and their individual characteristics, i thought about thread fit. The fit will be different from device to device to add to the list of variables. Fit would be easy to test but hard to prove i think. I could see thread fit culminating in a damping effect to some degree, being seperated by the threads, the muzzle device will always be following the movement of the barrel on a micro level.
Thank you for your film
Sounds like barrel weights...at muzzle ...might have more significance than adjusting a tuner...ie...a barrel weight kit..
Getting statistically significant results seems practically impossible due to component costs..not to mention barrel life.
I'm re wondering what might be the scale of significance in reloading ...
Assuming most accuracy comes from good/ custom barrel with a straight chamber..tight ish neck...
And you have quality brass..and pills
Then ..
1.Consistent powder measure.
2.bullet seating depth
Then...
Neck tension
Concentricity....which seems to be considered to be insignificant under 5 thou anyway...
Ie...aasuning one has best barrel...what might be the order of priorities of all the things one may do...and expected benifits....a limited returns situation...
Thanks again...
If you have your tuner is fully rotated between shot groups, what would you get if you rotated it 1.5 setting, allowing the tuner to effect differences apart from lineal adjustment ?
Love the talk. I approach from skeptical when something works so well due to voodoo or unexplainable concepts. This will leave some rear ends chapped, though.
Interesting discussion. Did anyone do an analysis using smallbore ammunition? I was at the range with one of the smallbore bench rest shooters and he was making adjustments to his tuner. He was shooting 5 shot groups. His groups at 50y went from ~1.5” to .185” (center to center). He shot 5 additional 5 shot groups to verify his settings. He was shooting Lapua Midas+. Any thoughts?
Did you mean to indicate rimfire ammunition? Rimfire bullets are soft lead, some have plated copper on their exterior. During firing they undergo substantial plastic deformation, far more than centerfire rifle bullets.
Small sample size
A 1/4 to an 1/8 MOA improvement on a hunting set up doesn’t mean as much as a target rifle already shooting 3/8 to 3/4 MOA. It’s all in perspective.
Put some nascar tires on a everyday car and it will cause you to wreck. Put regular every day treaded tires on a nascar car and see what happens. Did the slick racing tires help the everyday car, and did the everyday car tires help the nascar tire
Eric cortina rifle cost over $11,000. Very few people own rifles of that caliber
The fact that Jayden refused to follow basic manufacturer instructions invalidates his whole test. It was a waste of 800 rounds (or whatever it was he shot). Virtually every Tuner manufacturer out there recommends turning one "scale mark" at a time, never a whole revolution. Also, the fact he threw a suppressor into the mix just added obfuscating variables. He should know better than that. His "test" proved nothing except that he has difficulty following directions.
Bryan Zolnikov is an example of someone who is demonstrating statistically significant results, with solid methodology (including a single-blind test involving a substantial number of shots). I'd start with his "Tuner Series: DBS Tuners", Parts 1 and 2.
I think a good test as to whether tuners work or not would be to get a gun with a decent barrel, that is known to shoot ammo A very well, but really doesn't like ammo B, even though ammo B is also high quality. Then put on a tuner (an EC Tuner or a DBS Tuner), and following manufacturer instructions for moving the tuner, shoot 10-20 rounds at each tuner setting for two full revolutions. Yes, that's at least 100 rounds for each revolution, but that's what Bryan has done.
Part of the problem I think with most of the "expert ballisticians" that have pretended to test tuners, is that they can't figure out how they might work, so they decide beforehand that there is no way for them to work, and consequently create the poorest designed tests possible. The tests are meaningless either direction. And I don't think they are a function of simple lever-arm mechanics. That is 2-dimensional thinking, and the barrel movement during firing is a 3-dimensional (actually, 4-dimensional) event.
For how they MIGHT work, here are some thoughts - we know the muzzle end of the barrel moves in a figure-8(ish) as the bullet is traveling out the barrel, and will exit at some point in the path of that "8". I think tuners affect either the degree, magnitude, shape or timing of that "8", and those can affect the trajectory of the bullet as it leaves the muzzle. I think Jeff Siewert touched on this in general with his bullet exiting discussion. How might "tuners" affect the "8". Maybe they are made off balance or weighted, and as you rotate that weight around the circumference of the barrel, this is what is affecting the path and timing of that "figure-8" movement (that is how I would make a tuner...). So when Jayden moved his tuner one full rotation each time, he was simply resetting the position of the weight on the barrel each time, and thus accomplishing nothing. But the only way to show it would be to test it PROPERLY.
P.S. I have no idea whether or not tuners actually work. However, I would truly like to know. I'm poor enough I barely have enough money to shoot more than a few times a year. I do save money reloading, but most importantly I NEED every round to count. I also need the same rifle to shoot multiple different bullet types well, for different reasons. Because I don't have money to have more than one rifle. It would be really helpful if I can use multiple different bullets/loads from my one rifle, simply using a tuner to adjust for different bullets. After watching Bryan Zolnikov, I suspect they do work, but I'd like to see a PROPER large scale test done.
Oh, man! It's getting good. My load development is usually 10 rds in a string until I see a statistical trend, and then I focus 25 rds on that particular trend, e.g., SDev-P/ES. Although it's not a Monty Carlo test sample, I have to acknowledge that the tuner works, and I can adjust the results repeatedly. Running the sample over a normal distribution and larger sample will give the impression that statistically it does not; however, looking at the results on paper - with a Remington 700 SPS .308 Win in a Woox Chassis... My groups are indeed smaller as compared to the baseline with no tuner and also against the tuner with a setting at zero. You guys are scratching the surface, but something else is going on that you still need to address, and for some reason, without the placebo effect, my tuner(s) work.
Agreed 👍
So to me this explains why the bench rest precision geeks specifically machine the throats of their chambers and specifically turn the necks of their brass to achieve a specified tight but functional clearance fit. Such an effort appears to be focused on the part of the system that contributes most to dispersion. Then on top of that they try to perfect everything else… and they go and shoot insane bug holes.
Interviews with Jeff are the best... Jeff does not discount anything and listens intently to all information presented... more testing may be needed...
Jeff has prolly seen and forgotten more than any of us bubbas will ever experience...
Thanks for the pod cast. It seems inconceivable that so many top level shooters.. especially benchrest and F-class use tuners don't see a measurable improvement. As another person eluded if your dispersion is dominated by something large then the tuner will show insignificant improvement. For example, if you had a loose scope or randomly deforming bullets and the gun shoots with 10MOA dispersion, then you probably won't see any improvement until you fix that problem. So perhaps the people that see the improvement are the folks that are shooting high end everything and have wrung out everything they can out of their system. I'd care to bet most guns have too much other dispersion problems to see much improvement from the tuner. Hence until those problems are dealt with, the tuner might not seem to work. Like was mentioned in the podcast, even the best shooters can't get every shot to go with the same pressure each time etc. So that means there are are going to be variations on when the bullet leaves the barrel. It seems conceivable that if the bullet is not tipped or damaged during its time in the barrel, adding weight in a certain position could affect the vibration such that the amount of angle pointing change would be less sensitive. For example, it seems intuitive that if you had the barrel vibrating up and down that trying to get the bullet to exit during the point the barrel is moving the least (derivative of pointing direction is zero) would also result in the sensitivity to the timing being close to the least. Of course there are other vibrations besides up and down.. there is left right, annular and longitudinal. Some sort of multi tuner, like multiple sliding weights and perhaps some asymmetrical type tuner might give more degrees of freedom to adjust the vibrations so that the sensitivity is lowest to variations. I have not seen such a tuner yet on a gun, but I suspect someone has messed with such things. In short I think the tuner does work and I think Eric Cortina and many others are legit, but as I have seen on youtube and the podcast indicates, it seems that, perhaps, in many cases the improvement may still be below the noise floor. I suspect that a couple of these shooters might be willing to demo their system and show that one tuning setting is good and another is bad and repeat this to clearly show the amount of improvement they are getting.
What my limbsaver near the muzzle does for certain is prevent the barrel from colliding with stuff when I'm clumsy moving the rifle around. It "seems" to do no harm to group size. Any interest in comparing Supressors to Linear Compensators?
Have you tested with Lothar Walthar barrels? They are more rigid and a higher grade of Stainless Barrel Steel 420R higher Chromium and lower sulfur content, Brinell hardness is also much higher so they also last longer.
I was just considering buying a muzzle tuner,. Your timing is awesome.
Enjoy!
May want to read some of the commentary about people that do run a tunner before you get scared off from buying one. I run an EC tunner break V2 and I can tell you there is a remarkable repeatable reduction in group size. Not sure what these guys are doing different in the tests or what variables they are trying to isolate that may contribute to different results...maybe harmonics issues from shooting from labratory vise vs most tunner users utilizing bipod or fclass rests?.... Believe the target is what Eric Cortina would say... 100% agree with him they work crazy well
@@treckon3112 totally agree. These guys aren’t talking about harmonics. A tuner does the same thing as seating seating depth. I run 5 Tuner brakes. Love them. These guys are deciding how they’re going to use the tuners. Not how tuner guys use them. Those tests are for those, rifles, those bullets, those powder chargers. They’re actually doing a small sample based on those specific barrels and loads.
Rewatch 14:00-14:40. The forced vibration (as opposed to the “harmonics” term used by some folks) is completely covered by the balloting code as long as variable pressure-time forcing functions and non-straight bore profiles are included. Both were used in my analysis.
@jeffsiewert1258 Very informative. As an old Red leg M109 155 guy, I appreciate all the work you've done. My favorite episodes all seem to have you in them. Keep em coming!
Well, a controversial topic for sure!! How about you folks getting together with Erik Cortina, or some of the other F class shooters, & see what they are actually seeing with their tuners. Shoot their rifles yourself and see if you notice a difference when you adjust the tuner. I think all the top shooters in F class are using them, so it shouldn't be hard to get some together & have some fun testing. Remember they also shoot 20 shot groups per section of each match.
Nice to see the scientist of the group being open about limitations to the simulation process.
Certainly, variations in loading and bullet seating in the chamber/lands adds uncertainty to simulation by affecting chamber pressure, speed of ignition, bullet velocity, rotational torque...
After running numerous barrel vibration simulations and validating with live fire tests, I suggest there may be a logical explanation to the tuner mystery. The barrel vibrations (muzzle movement) are very complex and determined by temperature, barrel profile, length, type of steel and cartridge loading. Added barrel weights of 4-6 Oz can affect the vibrations substantially (good or bad) by changing the exit time of the bullet. In addition, the temperature changes of the barrel cause it to lengthen & shorten, thus affecting exit time also. I suspect that adding a "barrel tuner" really gives the shooter the added weight and an adjustment that can attempt to compensate for the temperature shifts. Without a tool to predict the exact tuned solution, we are all "shooting in the dark".
Super interesting, I predict at least a brushfire but likely a full on blaze.
I think that 4 groups shot on a single tuner setting would help demonstrate normal variance in group size. That would be nice to compare to the 4 groups shot on different tuner settings
would a modular suppressor like where you can thread all the baffles on and off and choose how many, have a similar effect to a barrel tuner?
Question! If a bore is curved in the vertical plane with the bullet spinning does this cause the harmonics to be 90 degrees and in the horizontal plane?
I’ve seen much the same. Tuners have a small influence on dispersion, even using 30-shot groups. 10 to 20%, so within the expected variation
I would love to see a close up, super high speed video of how the end of the barrel moves. I don’t think this has been done before. Please try to get in touch with a slow motion channel that can do this.
@Johnnysreloadingbench made several videos with random weights attached to his barrel. A great insight to harmonics
How does surefire say they have minimal points shift usually under inch at 100 yards....very curious I love the content especially subjects like this .😊
I want to know how big of a barrel (diameter) you need to remove any flex out of it?
My understanding is that centre fire shooters have the capability of changing the harmonics of their barrel by adjusting the load when reloading their competition selected rounds. I see this done all the time with good effect.However, .22lr rimfire shooters don’t have that choice.They have to rely on factory made ammunition and therefore the only way to tune the barrel is with the addition of a tuner.
Great & interesting Podcast!
A Podcast with Erik Cortina would be interesting to discuss more on the subject, from his point of view as a professional shooter and Tuner manufacturer.
Thank you.
I use a magnetic baonet on my 380 and it totally destroyed the accuracy while getting the velocity. So is that changing the velocity while that was on? Took it of and had to readjust the scope with it off after doing that
Have not tested accuracy after storing for a while.
It’s been my experience that my magnetospeed, when attached to the barrel, affects POI, but doesnt increase or decrease dispersion. It affects POI in some of my barrels more than others. It does not affect the velocity.
with this question. i would think the heavier the barrel, the less effective it would become. the hunting profiles would see the greatest difference. also would like to find out what would be the outcome of having something as heavy as the suppressor. with out the extra length adding to the velocity.
Thanks again for bringing back topics like these on your podcast! Very interesting- it’s like having theoretical and experimental physicists confirming their data and results!!! It’s like the making of the atomic bomb all over again! Lol!🤯😂 On a serious note, this is great! This is the only way we advance and from these experiments i’m sure you will figure out something-maybe some serendipitous discovery that would set us on a new trajectory of consistency in accuracy!!!💯
🤠 I Want Steve Horneday To Come Back On And Tell Us About His Montana Mountain Goat Hunt! 🐐
Nice points of view. And testing.
Thanks!
Awesome stuff. Thick but so interesting. The Knowledge in that room is amazing,.
Thanks for the objective data. Now I know not to waste my money on a tuner, but that adding or removing weight to the end of the barrel is what actually can have an impact. That and the muzzle gas release.
Wow! I'm going to need to watch this at least two more times to get a better grip on what Jeff was talking about. Am I correct in assuming that bullet runout in a loaded cartridge contributes to dispersion more than I previously thought? I'm referring to Jeff's statements at about the 15 - 17 minute mark. At the 22:30ish mark he says that the bullet angle at exit drives the disturbance. How, as handloaders, do we minimize that? What's the biggest ROI that can be seen by changing our handloading procedures, given that we're already using using quality components and can't do much to the bore/barrel? I have not used a tuner nor do i plan to. Thanks for another great educational podcast!!
A number of factors can come into play. "Match style chambers" which are used in many newer cartridges minimize them, though. If you look at newer chamber like the 6.5 Creedmoor, for instance, Hornady, extended the freebore section (essentially a tube prior to the taper into the rifling) and reduced the clearance to the bullet to reduce slop so that the bullet is better aligned with the bore and not permitted to tilt as it takes the rifling. The freebore clearance with a 6.5 Creedmoor is a quarter that of the 308 and more than twice as long, for example. In many cases, the shank of the bullet is actually partially inside the freebore as the cartridge is loaded, so the barrel directly aligns the bullet, not the case. This is not a new concept but it has become more refined over time.
With some cartridges like the 30-06 the 300 Win Mag, there is no freebore section to align the bullet, just a forcing cone into the rifling. With those cartridges, the loaded bullet normally starts off a little off-center since it uses mostly the neck to position the bullet. This means the bullet can wobble as it enters the rifling. The chamber area around the neck needs enough slop to deal with variations in neck wall thickness and to ensure a clean release of the bullet.. With these cartridges, you need to find the right combination of primer, powder and jump to the lands that manages to make the bullet enter into the rifling straight. It is much more complicated than just stuffing the bullet into the freebore.
The bullet angle with respect to the bore centerline at muzzle exit causes an angular rate leading to bullet “wobble” once it’s free of the bore. As shooters we’d like to minimize that, but more importantly, we need to make it more consistent in magnitude (angle) and direction (around the clock as viewed from the breech). Best you can do (IMO) is to start the bullets consistently.
@@jeffsiewert1258 Mr. Siewert, would you please mention an article name or link to one of your articles that shows bullets with evidence on the rifling from tilt in the bore?. This might help some people understand what you mean by balloting and how you detect it.
I have seen them over the years, but can't remember where. Thank You.
I’m more than willing to explain terms i have used on the podcast which require more definition.
I have watched a good number of videos with observable reductions in group sizes using the EC brake tuner, it seems to me they are a viable option for the average sporting/hunting rig. I for one will be using one on my gen 2 Ruger American ranch in 7.62x39, I mean improvement right?
Great podcast. Need to have a podcast on this topic with Erik cortina to get his experiences with tuners
Smaller adjustment increments.. is it possible smaller adjustments (something like 10 degree increments vs 360 degree increments) would have significant influence on observed dispersion?
Data supported with statistic analysis = good, bias without study and support = maybe-maybe not. Keep up the high standards of professionalism!!
PS: it would be great to know what you would change to create an F-class match ready load. I ask is it seems like many studies are coming out now saying X and Y don't affect anything and none of us shoot large enough samples to make changes worth while..yet groups are getting smaller and smaller. The statistical significance has to apply to technique/equipment changes as well not just loads and tuners.
Let's get GEEKY !!
Just the psychology part at 1:09 needs its own podcast. I instilled this "bullet on bullet" mentality but with the thought that anything inside 1moa inside crosshairs is destroyed and it worked great for a very long time.
Great discussion, however I somehow miss the barrel diameter being considered in this podcast. Thin, long barrels as used in some hunting rifles vibrate much more than short thick match barrels. In my opinion you won't find much of an impact on match barrels. Bullet seating depth, and barrel bedding as well as tuners have a much more drastic impact on these pencil barrels.