Barrel tuners I mean probably almost completely useless

[Twodogs]

One for the gadget freaks I think. Tune up on a warm summer day with one type of ammo.... but what do you do on a cold morning, deer in your sights and a new box of ammo? A tuner could make your groups worse in that situation.

Temperature variables, altitude, barometric pressure etc and different ammo's could potentially make any group worse, no different from if a tuner is fitted.

 

[Utectok]

If we accept that just 0.2gn of powder, or a 0.002” change in OAL can make a dramatic difference in group size, why would you question a change in barrel harmonics will do the same thing ?

Thing is I don’t accept that either. The testing to verify these changes actually make a difference is very rarely done. A few three shot groups and ohh that’s lots better is the usual way load development happens.

 

[Utectok]

Lots of scepticism here about the effectiveness, or otherwise of barrel tuners.

I shoot competition .22 and tuners do make a difference, perhaps only a slight difference, but that slight is enough to win or lose a competition. One of the problems is that many people do not understand tuners and do not persist with the tuning process thereby not achieving the best possible results.

In an ideal world if every projectile had exactly the same velocity characteristics from the point of ignition to leaving the barrel then a tuner would be of no benefit, however this is not the case especially in .22. CF loaders often try to achieve exactly the same effect, consistency, by tuning their loads, this works.

I currently shoot two different batches of RWS R50, one is quoted as having a m/v of 333 m/s and the other 328 m/s, and yes I adjust the tuner between batches as it does make a difference in this case.

In the picture below/attached you will see the effects of the tuner at different settings. The numbers at the side are just the tuner settings. Each group is five rounds, not three. As you go down the sheet you will notice less vertical spread in the groups. Tuners are often quoted as making groups more rounded.

Works for me.

View attachment 287602

I’m sorry these groups are two small to mean anything. Is this repeatable? How do a string of 20 shot groups look at different setting? How do a string of 20 shot groups with no change to the tuner look? I’d be interested to know. Then I think you may be able to draw some conclusions

 

[Utectok]

Okay I’ll stick my neck on the line here.

I have an EC tuner brake, I swear by it for use on my match rifle.

I bought it after I had started using a muzzle brake in preference to a moderator for PRS style competitions - this gave me a variety of advantages: a more instant recoil impulse, much less mirage etc. It did however cause me a slight problem in that due to my load being worked up with a moderator when I changed to the brake rather than every group being sub 0.3MOA they were all 0.6-0.75MOA, this didn’t hamper me too much, but I felt I was seeing my group size at distance losing me hits if my wind call wasn’t 100% centred, rather than having my group be minute as I was used to and getting away with my wind call being slightly off centre.

This lead to me buying an EC tuner brake to try, looking to be able to use a already extensively proven load and just optimise it to ‘match’ the mods centre of mass on the end of the muzzle.

Now yes I appreciate a few good groups doesn’t tell you it’s categorically worked (based on the stats thread I don’t think anyone can ever prove any load is 100% this accurate or that accurate), but I can vouch over 50-100 rounds shot as groups on paper including cold bore it hasn’t shot over 0.3MOA since tuning (with some pretty decent groups in there too) and I’ve noticed the groups at distance seem to be much smaller and more consistent. This may be in some way placebo effect but I do truly believe the work, although I found they took a little more time to set up properly and find the middle of the node than they may be advertised.

A few of the groups with the tuner below:
View attachment 287598
View attachment 287599
View attachment 287597
View attachment 287600

That really interesting. I wonder if your shot say 10 different tuner settings and then ten groups with no change to the tuner would you notice the difference? Obviously have someone else “adjust” or not the tuner so you didn’t know which set was which? I’d love to see those sets

 

[Utectok]

I think the 6.5 'Needmore' series probably shows best their effectiveness, never used one of these but can certainly follow the logic. Have used the rubber butt plug type and did notice groups open up and shrink when moved along the barrel

Simply put the needmore series is an interesting project but it doesn’t prove the concept. I would like to see repeatable results with large sample sizes before I would say there is good evidence. I do think a light barrel may benefit from a weight added at the muzzle but that too would need testing

 

[RCS Deer Management]

Can you prove that? I mean with statistically large enough groups? If so I’d be all ears? If you’re talking comparing 2-3-5 shot groups I’m afraid that’s pretty meaningless

Loads of f class shooters have. I’m sorry but it’s a well proven fact that they work. Do you have any meaningful evidence that they don’t other than the fact that you don’t think they look to be moving much?

 

[Bowland blades]

When i shot competitively i never saw anyone using one ( aside from on those sat morning 100 yard clubs ) Those dont count as target shooters though !
Moderators definitely reduce 3 shot group sizes through better shooter follow through and flatter harmonics. Problem is cooling is worse and heat haze is a PITA
If someone wins a big match while using one , even by fluke ! others will buy them ( its like the French trying to find out how the UK team managed to make " rounder wheels " on thier bikes LOL"
Are they being used on the serious Long range Comps here now ? By guys that are lifting the podium spots ?

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

That really interesting. I wonder if your shot say 10 different tuner settings and then ten groups with no change to the tuner would you notice the difference? Obviously have someone else “adjust” or not the tuner so you didn’t know which set was which? I’d love to see those sets

A double-blind test would certainly be one way of testing it.

I would say just try one if you're curious, I think you would be surprised what a difference it can make if you start off with a load of stable ignition (IE Low ES and SD, ideally sub 10fps) and then use the tuner, watching mean POI and group size to look at which settings are off the nodes and what it does in between. Like when changing seating depth or charge weight you get variation in how wide the nodes are at certain points, so aiming for a nice wide stable node will give you repeatable results.

At the end of the day nobody "needs" a tuner, you can do everything you can with it by altering seating depth, but for situations where I cannot change seating depth (ie the load is accurate w/ a mod or we are using factory ammo) then I think they have a definite place. If I ever find I need to use factory ammunition for stalking I will be buying one of Mike's new MBE tuners for the back of SL5/SL7s and using that to get better results with factory ammo.

Ben

 

[NullMac]

Can you prove that? I mean with statistically large enough groups? If so I’d be all ears? If you’re talking comparing 2-3-5 shot groups I’m afraid that’s pretty meaningless

Go buy one and do it for yourself.

Not interested in your statistically valid crap

 

[308tikka]

The rubber butt plugs dont work.

The large heavy metal ones that rotate with different weight distribution, do. Certainly at 1000+ yards where every other aspect of ammunition has already been developed. But its a hassle and frankly most top end shooters dont use them.

But how are you going to fit a moderator on the barrel if its fitted?

For stalking and the normal distances involved, pointless.

Better off spending the money on ammunition and practising for 95% of stalkers.

 

[Utectok]

Go buy one and do it for yourself.

Not interested in your statistically valid crap

Nice comment ... you can remain as ignorant as you please its fine by me, statistics are simply a fact of life get over it.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

The rubber butt plugs dont work.

The large heavy metal ones that rotate with different weight distribution, do. Certainly at 1000+ yards where every other aspect of ammunition has already been developed. But its a hassle and frankly most top end shooters dont use them.

But how are you going to fit a moderator on the barrel if its fitted?

For stalking and the normal distances involved, pointless.

Better off spending the money on ammunition and practising for 95% of stalkers.

Picture taken from MBE engineering’s Facebook page:


Fully agree about the practice though - most stalkers I see at BDS range days struggle to get inside an inch, they will find no advantage to this, you need to be shooting sub 0.5” repeatedly to possibly see any benefit IMHO.

Ben

 

[Utectok]

Loads of f class shooters have. I’m sorry but it’s a well proven fact that they work. Do you have any meaningful evidence that they don’t other than the fact that you don’t think they look to be moving much?

Well all the example of people using them with 3 shot groups as a base does not prove they work either. It simply proves nothing except a rifle will fire a lot of different groups regardless of the tuning

 

[Miki]

Nice comment ... you can remain as ignorant as you please its fine by me, statistics are simply a fact of life get over it.

But you started this thread by posing a question (ie do they work) and have then repeatedly told us that they don't. Your preconception which you now seem desperate to prove is that they are statistically pointless.
It all points to conclude that you just wanted to stir up the hornets nest.

There are some on here (not me BTW) who know a great deal about the subject and you have turned around and said they are talking Utercok ....

 

[Sakoodin1]

As you can see I have a custom built AR-15 in .223 Wylde built by Valkyrie rifles with a barrel tuner on it, I can honestly say it does work on this rifle with the limiting factors of a AR-15 on load development side you can only push the bullet out as far as the magazine can take. So that’s what I done I seated 15 thou back from maximum to make sure they pop out the magazine without a hitch then I stuck a Chrony on it and loaded up single shots until I hit the desired speed I wanted which ended up being 3150fps with a 53grn vmax ( I could of pushed a bit faster if I had to but I was happy enough with that for a foxing rifle out to 500 yard’s maximum ) then I tweaked the tuner with 3 shot groups until it shot. It certainly worked in this gun but as mentioned in the above threads a tiny movement after each shot group until you get it to shoot, I think mine was moved around 15-18mm until it started putting them tight.

 

[Twodogs]

I’m sorry these groups are two small to mean anything. Is this repeatable? How do a string of 20 shot groups look at different setting? How do a string of 20 shot groups with no change to the tuner look? I’d be interested to know. Then I think you may be able to draw some conclusions

Supply me with a brick or two or RWS R 50 and I'll run a test for you. However this will only show the results for my rifle, that particular batch of ammunition and the atmospherics on the day, but will show a statistical outcome.

One reason many CF shooters do not bother with tuners, apart from being able to tune their loads with hand loading is the cost. The target posted at post no 31 consists of 40 rounds alone, the cost in CF ammunition would be prohibitive not to mention bore erosion.

I am interested in what your understanding, expectations and experience of tuners is. I have never used a tuner on a CF so feel unable to comment from personal experience. RF different matter.
I would also invite you to attend any high level .22 RF bench rest type competition anywhere in the world and see for yourself.

 

[Utectok]

But you started this thread by posing a question (ie do they work) and have then repeatedly told us that they don't. Your preconception which you now seem desperate to prove is that they are statistically pointless.
It all points to conclude that you just wanted to stir up the hornets nest.

There are some on here (not me BTW) who know a great deal about the subject and you have turned around and said they are talking Utercok ....

I'm quite prepared to say they work as soon as the evidence shows that to be the case. Perhaps I did not explain myself at all well sorry.

 

[ColinBr]

Sounds like you need to go out and try it yourself.

I can gather that no information you receive is going to change your mind otherwise.

No point in asking others and then shooting them down (pardon the pun), if you already have your opinion on the matter.

By the sounds of things, you already know the parameters of how you would decide if it works or not. So give it a go as you would like and I would be glad to see your results and end theory on the matter.

Sounds like a good day at the range to me.

 

[HonestJohn]

but then, even if you ran an experiment, how could you conclude the improvement in grouping wasn't simply down to psychology of the shooter...in fact, you'd have to make sure the shooter was not aware whether the rifle had a tuner on it, placebo experiments, etc.

 

[Utectok]

Sounds like you need to go out and try it yourself.

I can gather that no information you receive is going to change your mind otherwise.

No point in asking others and then shooting them down (pardon the pun), if you already have your opinion on the matter.

By the sounds of things, you already know the parameters of how you would decide if it works or not. So give it a go as you would like and I would be glad to see your results and end theory on the matter.

Sounds like a good day at the range to me.

Honestly the truth be told i'm pretty open minded on the matter, but I think i would like to see proof of concept before i invested in one. The only thing that slightly frustrates me that people seem to see proof in very little or no relevant data... But I guess people see what they want to see and we all like pretty little clover leafs. Anyway whatever rocks your boat I suppose?