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!
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Never been particularly interested in a barrel tuner, but your podcast was a fascinating continuation to the "Internal Ballistics" podcast. Please keep it up.
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.
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).
@Moraprecisionreloader not saying he doesn't win. There are a lot of good shooters out there. David Tubb was the big name when I was growing up. I think Erik would add more anecdotal evidence in favor of tuners but I suspect he has strong financial motivation to....
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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 ?
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
It seems strange to hear you questioning whether the tuner adjustments can have an effect, when we can see, time after time, the dispersion changes as a tuner is adjusted, even on .22LR...
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.
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 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.
ok so about 45 minutes into this. I use a harrell tuner on my .22 rpr but i did 5 shot groups at every other line on the tuner not full rotation and the groups grew alot and shrunk alot so i found which line was the best for that particular ammo only. if you change ammo then you have to re adjust you tuner for every ammo. and on some ammo the difference wasnt as dramatic.. i want to use aguila 1255 fps and it made my group drop to 1/2 the original group size without a tuner. i didnt change my setting on the tuner and shot cci and it still shot reasonably well. so im very happy with my aguila ammo at 100 yds with group size of about 1 moa and like you said alot of different temperatures and windage and how long you let the barrel rest will effect it and if i ignore the cold bore shot my groups are closer to 5/8 inch which is even better...
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.
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?
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.
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 :).
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
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.
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.
I’m always curious when you bring up the discussion about accuracy and fidelity with regard to group size and things like tuners. We know that at some point all of the components and steps taken can have an affect on group size. With that in mind, did you only use Hornady brass when testing these things. I’d argue that before one can make a verdict on efficacy that a more precisely manufactured brass would need to be tested. Not knocking Hornady brass. I use it for several of my loads where I’m not as concerned about brass life or absolute precision. It’s nice that I can scrounge a ton of once fired 6.5 creed brass from my range. For my 6 Dasher on the other hand, I use Alpha brass. I’m also about to test a Cortina tuner and thanks to this podcast I won’t be using fine increments. I’ll move that weight in much larger increments which just makes sense. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that moving that tiny amount of weight a few thou at a time would have negligible impact on groups.
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!
I don’t understand why you don’t get a hold of some people that routinely win ARA rimfire benchrest matches and bring them into your tunnel and have them show you how they use it and what it does, rather than assuming “I’m smart and I understand it so I don’t need help from anyone.” Literally every single ARA competitor has one. They don’t all win all the time, either. And the competitors that do win all the time probably know more about it than you. I don’t care how smart you think you are and how much you think you know, you don’t know everything. You might think you know what they can or cannot do for a barrel. You might think you know how to use one to get the best results. But since you’re not winning those matches yourself maybe you are wrong. Maybe it would indeed be worth your time to talk to people that have actual match winning results. Maybe none of them will talk to you. Maybe someone will. All I know is you don’t know as much as they do about the topic, or they wouldn’t be the ones winning.
FWIW, rimfire bullets are made from ver soft lead and undergo much larger permanent plastic deformation than centerfire bullets. I, for one, am still waiting on statistically significant data conclusively proving that tuners (not suppressors) work. My analysis shows they can, but i have yet to see data supporting that conclusion.
@@jeffsiewert1258I see several problems in obtaining that data. 1. Nobody that knows how to use them seems to want to explain it for fear of giving up the advantage they currently enjoy. 2. Running the tests to obtain the data will be relatively expensive with no gain other than obtaining that data. The average Joe isn't going to want to do that. 3. The people in a position to obtain that data in a professional setting with the costs being eaten as R&D don't seem to really know what they're doing with tuners, and tend to run tests that make no sense and will naturally not result in positive results. They think they know, because they possess a rather large amount of knowledge otherwise, but they don't actually know what they're doing and probably don't know that they don't know what they're doing. That's why I keep saying to these guys that they need to bring in someone that actually does know wtf they're doing to show them what they're doing wrong. But they seem to be convinced that they're smart enough to figure it out on their own without needing any outside help. I mean, even Bryan Litz couldn't make a rimfire tuner work. He chose a stupid ass barrel to test with and didn't know wtf he was doing either, but was convinced he did and his conclusion was tuners are garbage because even he couldn't make them work, which is a laugh. He doesn't know everything, because they do indeed work, but he's convinced himself that he's smarter than most people and doesn't need anyone to help him. Same thing going on with these Hornady guys. The fact that they've figured out a ton of ballistics stuff and amassed a ton of ballistics knowledge doesn't mean they know how to correctly approach tuners. Others have already done it before them. Get someone in there that's already very successful using them to teach them how to properly use them. Rimfire benchrest shooters that consistently win matches pretty much have tuners figured out, or they wouldn't be winning. Hell, Geoffrey Kolbe from Border Barrels across the ocean even publicly shared his test data on his website. He built dedicated equipment to show how they work on rimfire barrels, and has stated that it is even easier to tune centrefire barrels than it is rimfire barrels because of the greater amount of energy involved. He even has a calculator available on his website for free to aid in barrel design specifically for tuning in centrefire! So saying there's no data out there isn't exactly correct, either. Given that Geoffrey has publicly shared his data maybe he'd be willing to work with these guys. His contact info is on his website, and he answers everybody, as far as I can tell.
@@tonefilter9480 Except successful ARA shooters can show you before and after, with and without, and switch in between the two states to show you precisely what happens. You know, all scientific-like. That you don’t understand it yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
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?
First you must use a factory barrel say .860 dia. 20: to 22" and my choice is the Harrels tuner/brake. Reason I prefer Harrels is because the tuner is over the barrel and not at the end of barrel and if there are slight rotations of the tuner it will not affect the performance. A full rotation of the tuner is required vs. 1/8th of a rotation of a tuner if on end of barrel. With my Rem 20" .860 dia. barrel my best five shot groups had reduced from 5/8" to 3/8" and this is after over 150 shots in total @ 100 yds. It is beyond me why Hornady is doing a video on tuners when they don't even make them ?
I liked the science in this one but it seems the method let me down a little. You did not test the tuner as it is meant to be used. A tuner vendor would never advocate the method you used. It seems that you tested your ability to guess where the tuner will work. I say this because your adjustments were quite large. Large adjustments are not the heart of how tuners work. You really should have tried to use the tuner correctly. By correctly I mean small sample sizes at short ranges (100 yards) in conjunction with small changes in the tuner. Once you have the best node and the worst node you are ready to begin your large sample size testing. If the tuner works the dispersion of your best and worst tuner setting should be noticeably different. I feel like you let the scientific community down on this particular experiment. I would like to see you revisit this one from a different angle. I really enjoy the podcast so keep up the good work.
Have you guys tested seating depth changes in the same way? The tuner guys such as Erik are suggesting that a tuner is doing the same thing as seating depth and they now just adjust the tuner. Also I have seen many times tuner adjusted and the groups get worse and the tuner set back to the better position and the group shot smaller as well as back at the same POI. I understand all of the evidence but its hard to believe that just pick a safe load and go shoot is where we are today. IME I have had loads that on repeated club days I couldn't get to shoot under .9 moa. I changed tuner and seating depth and took into nationals and x count stated the rest. There seems more to this picture - is it the way we are analyzing and doing the studies?
The 1lb mass used in the simulation seems kind of high unless you’re talking about a supressor. Were there any sensitivities ran on the lump mass in addition to its position?
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?
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...
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.
I can only comment on rimfire competition shooting which Hornaday are not involved in. In .22lr ammunition we are at the mercy of the manufacturer. Champions in this discipline visit their chosen manufacturer to batch test ammunition in their particular rifle barrel. .22lr rimfire completion rounds are soft lead G1 type bullets loaded to sub sonic speeds. In addition they have a slightly waisted tail with a coned base that expands to fit the bore as it travels down the barrel. Even the best ammunition is not consistent with variable velocities. It has been proven that even a difference of 30fps can alter the point of impact a 100 yards 7mm. The difference in velocity in rimfire is usually down to a small variation in primer because of the size of the case. The tuner on a rimfire is primarily used to minimise the change in the point of impact from the change in velocity. It achieves this by minimising the change in barrel harmonics from an over charged load in the cartridge. Competitions in .22lr rimfire are won or lost with differences of one point or one X shot (shot with the dead centre of target) so minimising the impact spread by even one mm caused by differences in velocity are important at this level of scoring. guy Starik has a video explaining how these tuners work.
I don't know if anybody is reading this 8 month old thread BUT From an understanding of audio, fluid dynamics and gas flow. The thing that does not seem to have been addressed is the abrupt change as the projectile and the gasses exit the barrel. In other disiplines we try not to have square ends on exits from tubes. I'd be interested to see what effect smoothing the transition at the end of the barel would have. Either rounding the edges, or making those edges at the end of the barrel shortly conical or "countersunk". Another thought, would there be an advantage to stopping or tapering the rifling groves before the end of the barrel, so that there is less gass turbulence at the very end of the barrel. OR another thought, if the rifling ended one or more projectile lengths from the end of the barrel,, the projectile could be allowed to free spin while still constrained by a smooth bore, thus being more stable on exit. . Also in Audio we try to avoid resonances and ringing at all costs. I know we have barrels coated in stuff or wrapped in carbon fibre, has there been any work done wih damping materials like rubber or lead to reduce these resonances. Making the barrell thicker or stiffer is one thing, but how about making it less resonant. I know a lot of the early rifles like the lee enfield 303, had a wooden stock in firm contact nearly all the way to the end of the barrel. what is the difference in behavour of a factory 303 v one that has been sportorised and barrel floated. . It occurs to me that putting weight on the end of a barrel changes the resonant frequency of that barrel as well as changing the modes of resonance. Has anybody tried putting rediculously large masses at the end of the barrel. In engines many companies fit large masses suspended on rubber at the end of the crank to " dampen harmonics". so many questions, so many variables
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...
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.
id have a question. all the data was produced by using selfloaded ammo right. would you say tuners have a better effekt if you use factory ammo? like if you reload you tune your ammo to your rifle so the tuner will have less effect. if you use factory ammo you try to tune the barrel to the ammo? am i right? wrong? greater effect? moreover if you use less precise ammo like 308 (in comparrison to 6.5creed). so can a tuner tune the barrel to a 308 factory ammo better, than a barrel to a reloaded (more pricise) ammo in 6.5creed (more pricise)? i hope i am understandable :D greedings, thanks for the vid
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.
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
So if u have a barrel that is accurate with a muzzle brake,and it is replaced with a thread protector,I know it can shift poi but will it effect accuracy? Thanxfor the info:)
I’m afraid there’s not a simple answer. I’ve seen evidence that asymmetric gas flow (particularly shot-shot) increases dispersion (group size). So if the brake is a close fit to the bullet, it’s possible use of the brake, by itself, could reduce the disturbance & make groups smaller. On the other hand, if the added weight causes the barrel to be less straight, group size could increase. Sorry there’s not one “answer”.
One of the biggest criticisms of the testing applied ballistics did is that they made full revolution adjustments, so I was kind of sad to see you all did the same thing. From what I've heard from tuner manufacturers, you are supposed to be able to get the full results of the tuner within 1 revolution, meaning adjustments of 5-10 dashes at a time should (assuming these things do what they are supposed to) show the full results a tuner can give within a single revolution. My gut says the results would be the same as you found, but I would like to see additional testing with the tuners used the way the manufacturers say to use them. One other point of criticism, toward the beginning of the discussion Miles mentioned setting the tuner and hoping it is consistent across temperatures, but the way most people seem to use tuners is to compensate for different temperatures, with the direction you turn the tuner being dependent on whether the temperature you are shooting in is hotter or colder than when you did the initial testing, so it would be interesting to see you test that as well.
So please feel free to propose a theory of muzzle tuners that can be tested.. small changes in muzzle tuner position make a very tiny difference in barrel vibration frequency, tell us what that does to improve pointing variation or barrel translation velocity?
If I'm understanding the video correctly, when doing the live fire testing, the tuner was turned one full revolution and then a little further to the next number and re-shot. Since @ErikCortina name was mentioned, I'll presume his tuner was part of the test. If that's the case, that would mean the test was started at 0, went all the way past 40 (V2) to 2, which would be 42. Then another full revolution to 3, which would be 83. This is not the instructions given for the EC Tuner. Per the install print: "Shoot groups in increments of five on the tuner to find best settings. Look for two good consecutive settings, then put tuner in the middle of the two best settings for most stable results." He means to go from 0 directly to 5 to 10 etc. @ErikCortina has also said to start with the two best small sample groups and then verify with a large group. I know Mr. Siewert replied above that the frequency change is minimal for such small movement, but the test wasn't run per the manufacturer instructions. To paraphrase Paul Harrell, that may not be "enough difference to make a difference," but it might. Also, I don't believe tuners were intended to induce positive compensation. He did a podcast about that and the info presented showed what velocity to run so that a "slow" round would exit the muzzle as the barrel's pointing angle was moving up.
@@jeffsiewert1258 I'm not saying it will make any difference, and my expectation is that the results would be the same, I was just hoping to see a test that addressed the most common criticism of a different high profile tuner test. This test essentially mimicked the applied ballistics test, it would have been more interesting to see something different. I respect the work and always find the podcasts you are on to be very informative, but using the resources available to you to perform high volume tests would be more interesting if you did not repeat tests others have done
One of the other major influence on tuner results is the impact of atmospheric conditions. The variables are very difficult or impossible to determine.
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!
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.
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.
Thanks for taking the heat and keeping reality in check.
For me this podcast makes my top 10 of Hornady podcasts! Great work.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you! You’ve saved hundreds of people thousands of dollars. 👍👍
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.
Favorite episode so far, this podcast has inspired me to jump into the ammunition industry so wanted to say thanks to you guys.
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.
Fantastic podcast/info. Waaay over my head-Took me all day to watch and go run down info/definitions!! Learned a TON!!! love this!!!
I could also listen to a whole podcast on Miles’ testing on gas guns!
Never been particularly interested in a barrel tuner, but your podcast was a fascinating continuation to the "Internal Ballistics" podcast. Please keep it up.
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.
YES! Jeff is my favorite guest!
Thanks much!
Mine too
Awesome job and nice to have actual facts to help people make their own decision
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.
How could you do this episode without Erik Cortina.
Easily. He is not as experienced as these guys. He is over rated.
@4110mahindra well he has the metals ,might be something.
@Moraprecisionreloader not saying he doesn't win. There are a lot of good shooters out there. David Tubb was the big name when I was growing up. I think Erik would add more anecdotal evidence in favor of tuners but I suspect he has strong financial motivation to....
Erik has also had these guys on his Pod
I’m just a trigger puller. 🤷♂️
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.
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.
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 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
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.
Thank you again for all the work and information.
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.
Awesome content! Please make more!
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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!
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.
Finally - voices of reason.
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 ?
Wow! That was very informative. Thanks!
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
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
Wow this is going to be awesome!!!
Favorite one yet. I always saw the tuner as snake oil 👍🏽
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!
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
Thanks again for a great topic and sharing your data!
Glad you enjoyed it!
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.
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.
It seems strange to hear you questioning whether the tuner adjustments can have an effect, when we can see, time after time, the dispersion changes as a tuner is adjusted, even on .22LR...
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.
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 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.
Put short: increasing the inertia at the muzzle end of a barrel has the potential to decrease the dispersion of a rifle system.
I want to know how big of a barrel (diameter) you need to remove any flex out of it?
super interesting, thanks guys!
You bet!
Wow '' Very Interesting , Great Podcast 💯💥💥💥💥💥💥💥
Thanks for listening
ok so about 45 minutes into this. I use a harrell tuner on my .22 rpr but i did 5 shot groups at every other line on the tuner not full rotation and the groups grew alot and shrunk alot so i found which line was the best for that particular ammo only. if you change ammo then you have to re adjust you tuner for every ammo. and on some ammo the difference wasnt as dramatic..
i want to use aguila 1255 fps and it made my group drop to 1/2 the original group size without a tuner. i didnt change my setting on the tuner and shot cci and it still shot reasonably well. so im very happy with my aguila ammo at 100 yds with group size of about 1 moa and like you said alot of different temperatures and windage and how long you let the barrel rest will effect it and if i ignore the cold bore shot my groups are closer to 5/8 inch which is even better...
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.
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.
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?
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.
Do you think the gas gun issue of suppressed vs unsuppressed is a gas block adjustment issue
IMO, it’s likely about the symmetric reduction in flow by the bullet at muzzle release.
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 :).
I have a question, were theses test with the barrel tuner done with free floated barrels or rigid mounted barrels
Where these tunner test done in a rigid action vice or from bipod/front rest and bag rider?
To make it worse, they used a supressor.
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
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.
So I have seen differences with and without suppressors and different bullets. Once I get the right combination I try to stay consistent.
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.
I’m always curious when you bring up the discussion about accuracy and fidelity with regard to group size and things like tuners. We know that at some point all of the components and steps taken can have an affect on group size. With that in mind, did you only use Hornady brass when testing these things. I’d argue that before one can make a verdict on efficacy that a more precisely manufactured brass would need to be tested. Not knocking Hornady brass. I use it for several of my loads where I’m not as concerned about brass life or absolute precision. It’s nice that I can scrounge a ton of once fired 6.5 creed brass from my range. For my 6 Dasher on the other hand, I use Alpha brass. I’m also about to test a Cortina tuner and thanks to this podcast I won’t be using fine increments. I’ll move that weight in much larger increments which just makes sense. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that moving that tiny amount of weight a few thou at a time would have negligible impact on groups.
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!
I don’t understand why you don’t get a hold of some people that routinely win ARA rimfire benchrest matches and bring them into your tunnel and have them show you how they use it and what it does, rather than assuming “I’m smart and I understand it so I don’t need help from anyone.” Literally every single ARA competitor has one. They don’t all win all the time, either. And the competitors that do win all the time probably know more about it than you. I don’t care how smart you think you are and how much you think you know, you don’t know everything. You might think you know what they can or cannot do for a barrel. You might think you know how to use one to get the best results. But since you’re not winning those matches yourself maybe you are wrong. Maybe it would indeed be worth your time to talk to people that have actual match winning results. Maybe none of them will talk to you. Maybe someone will. All I know is you don’t know as much as they do about the topic, or they wouldn’t be the ones winning.
FWIW, rimfire bullets are made from ver soft lead and undergo much larger permanent plastic deformation than centerfire bullets. I, for one, am still waiting on statistically significant data conclusively proving that tuners (not suppressors) work. My analysis shows they can, but i have yet to see data supporting that conclusion.
@@jeffsiewert1258I see several problems in obtaining that data.
1. Nobody that knows how to use them seems to want to explain it for fear of giving up the advantage they currently enjoy.
2. Running the tests to obtain the data will be relatively expensive with no gain other than obtaining that data. The average Joe isn't going to want to do that.
3. The people in a position to obtain that data in a professional setting with the costs being eaten as R&D don't seem to really know what they're doing with tuners, and tend to run tests that make no sense and will naturally not result in positive results. They think they know, because they possess a rather large amount of knowledge otherwise, but they don't actually know what they're doing and probably don't know that they don't know what they're doing.
That's why I keep saying to these guys that they need to bring in someone that actually does know wtf they're doing to show them what they're doing wrong. But they seem to be convinced that they're smart enough to figure it out on their own without needing any outside help. I mean, even Bryan Litz couldn't make a rimfire tuner work. He chose a stupid ass barrel to test with and didn't know wtf he was doing either, but was convinced he did and his conclusion was tuners are garbage because even he couldn't make them work, which is a laugh. He doesn't know everything, because they do indeed work, but he's convinced himself that he's smarter than most people and doesn't need anyone to help him. Same thing going on with these Hornady guys. The fact that they've figured out a ton of ballistics stuff and amassed a ton of ballistics knowledge doesn't mean they know how to correctly approach tuners. Others have already done it before them. Get someone in there that's already very successful using them to teach them how to properly use them. Rimfire benchrest shooters that consistently win matches pretty much have tuners figured out, or they wouldn't be winning. Hell, Geoffrey Kolbe from Border Barrels across the ocean even publicly shared his test data on his website. He built dedicated equipment to show how they work on rimfire barrels, and has stated that it is even easier to tune centrefire barrels than it is rimfire barrels because of the greater amount of energy involved. He even has a calculator available on his website for free to aid in barrel design specifically for tuning in centrefire! So saying there's no data out there isn't exactly correct, either. Given that Geoffrey has publicly shared his data maybe he'd be willing to work with these guys. His contact info is on his website, and he answers everybody, as far as I can tell.
Every successful king believed in astrology therefore astrology is true - good logic bro
@@tonefilter9480 Except successful ARA shooters can show you before and after, with and without, and switch in between the two states to show you precisely what happens. You know, all scientific-like. That you don’t understand it yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
@@ClaytonMacleod sample size
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?
First you must use a factory barrel say .860 dia. 20: to 22" and my choice is the Harrels tuner/brake.
Reason I prefer Harrels is because the tuner is over the barrel and not at the end of barrel and if there are slight rotations of the tuner it will not affect the performance. A full rotation of the tuner is required vs. 1/8th of a rotation of a tuner if on end of barrel.
With my Rem 20" .860 dia. barrel my best five shot groups had reduced from 5/8" to 3/8" and this is after over 150 shots in total @ 100 yds.
It is beyond me why Hornady is doing a video on tuners when they don't even make them ?
I liked the science in this one but it seems the method let me down a little. You did not test the tuner as it is meant to be used. A tuner vendor would never advocate the method you used. It seems that you tested your ability to guess where the tuner will work. I say this because your adjustments were quite large. Large adjustments are not the heart of how tuners work. You really should have tried to use the tuner correctly. By correctly I mean small sample sizes at short ranges (100 yards) in conjunction with small changes in the tuner. Once you have the best node and the worst node you are ready to begin your large sample size testing. If the tuner works the dispersion of your best and worst tuner setting should be noticeably different. I feel like you let the scientific community down on this particular experiment. I would like to see you revisit this one from a different angle. I really enjoy the podcast so keep up the good work.
Have you guys tested seating depth changes in the same way? The tuner guys such as Erik are suggesting that a tuner is doing the same thing as seating depth and they now just adjust the tuner. Also I have seen many times tuner adjusted and the groups get worse and the tuner set back to the better position and the group shot smaller as well as back at the same POI. I understand all of the evidence but its hard to believe that just pick a safe load and go shoot is where we are today. IME I have had loads that on repeated club days I couldn't get to shoot under .9 moa. I changed tuner and seating depth and took into nationals and x count stated the rest. There seems more to this picture - is it the way we are analyzing and doing the studies?
Yeah they have
Anecdote v science - astronomy v astrology
The 1lb mass used in the simulation seems kind of high unless you’re talking about a supressor. Were there any sensitivities ran on the lump mass in addition to its position?
Yes. I varied the mass split between the last two barrel nodes by 10% increments. Look at the right-hand graph at 28:03.
Thank you sir!
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?
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...
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 👍
did jayden say that he was giving the tuner a full turn to each test ? i had the feeling Jayden was trying to make the EC tuner look bad
And using a supressor?
I can only comment on rimfire competition shooting which Hornaday are not involved in. In .22lr ammunition we are at the mercy of the manufacturer. Champions in this discipline visit their chosen manufacturer to batch test ammunition in their particular rifle barrel. .22lr rimfire completion rounds are soft lead G1 type bullets loaded to sub sonic speeds. In addition they have a slightly waisted tail with a coned base that expands to fit the bore as it travels down the barrel. Even the best ammunition is not consistent with variable velocities. It has been proven that even a difference of 30fps can alter the point of impact a 100 yards 7mm. The difference in velocity in rimfire is usually down to a small variation in primer because of the size of the case. The tuner on a rimfire is primarily used to minimise the change in the point of impact from the change in velocity. It achieves this by minimising the change in barrel harmonics from an over charged load in the cartridge. Competitions in .22lr rimfire are won or lost with differences of one point or one X shot (shot with the dead centre of target) so minimising the impact spread by even one mm caused by differences in velocity are important at this level of scoring. guy Starik has a video explaining how these tuners work.
I don't know if anybody is reading this 8 month old thread
BUT
From an understanding of audio, fluid dynamics and gas flow.
The thing that does not seem to have been addressed is the abrupt change as the projectile and the gasses exit the barrel.
In other disiplines we try not to have square ends on exits from tubes.
I'd be interested to see what effect smoothing the transition at the end of the barel would have.
Either rounding the edges, or making those edges at the end of the barrel shortly conical or "countersunk".
Another thought, would there be an advantage to stopping or tapering the rifling groves before the end of the barrel, so that there is less gass turbulence at the very end of the barrel.
OR another thought, if the rifling ended one or more projectile lengths from the end of the barrel,, the projectile could be allowed to free spin while still constrained by a smooth bore, thus being more stable on exit.
.
Also in Audio we try to avoid resonances and ringing at all costs.
I know we have barrels coated in stuff or wrapped in carbon fibre, has there been any work done wih damping materials like rubber or lead to reduce these resonances.
Making the barrell thicker or stiffer is one thing, but how about making it less resonant.
I know a lot of the early rifles like the lee enfield 303, had a wooden stock in firm contact nearly all the way to the end of the barrel.
what is the difference in behavour of a factory 303 v one that has been sportorised and barrel floated.
.
It occurs to me that putting weight on the end of a barrel changes the resonant frequency of that barrel as well as changing the modes of resonance.
Has anybody tried putting rediculously large masses at the end of the barrel.
In engines many companies fit large masses suspended on rubber at the end of the crank to " dampen harmonics".
so many questions, so many variables
Do fluted barrells of the same weight and contour have significant differences in harmonics and rigitity?
Cortina Tuners claim to be the best.
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...
Nice points of view. And testing.
Thanks!
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.
id have a question. all the data was produced by using selfloaded ammo right. would you say tuners have a better effekt if you use factory ammo? like if you reload you tune your ammo to your rifle so the tuner will have less effect. if you use factory ammo you try to tune the barrel to the ammo? am i right? wrong? greater effect? moreover if you use less precise ammo like 308 (in comparrison to 6.5creed). so can a tuner tune the barrel to a 308 factory ammo better, than a barrel to a reloaded (more pricise) ammo in 6.5creed (more pricise)? i hope i am understandable :D greedings, thanks for the vid
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?
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.
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
Also does this conclusion include rimfire
Thank you for your film
So if u have a barrel that is accurate with a muzzle brake,and it is replaced with a thread protector,I know it can shift poi but will it effect accuracy? Thanxfor the info:)
I’m afraid there’s not a simple answer. I’ve seen evidence that asymmetric gas flow (particularly shot-shot) increases dispersion (group size). So if the brake is a close fit to the bullet, it’s possible use of the brake, by itself, could reduce the disturbance & make groups smaller. On the other hand, if the added weight causes the barrel to be less straight, group size could increase. Sorry there’s not one “answer”.
13:45 That muzzle contour is about a #3 if anyone is wondering
One of the biggest criticisms of the testing applied ballistics did is that they made full revolution adjustments, so I was kind of sad to see you all did the same thing. From what I've heard from tuner manufacturers, you are supposed to be able to get the full results of the tuner within 1 revolution, meaning adjustments of 5-10 dashes at a time should (assuming these things do what they are supposed to) show the full results a tuner can give within a single revolution. My gut says the results would be the same as you found, but I would like to see additional testing with the tuners used the way the manufacturers say to use them.
One other point of criticism, toward the beginning of the discussion Miles mentioned setting the tuner and hoping it is consistent across temperatures, but the way most people seem to use tuners is to compensate for different temperatures, with the direction you turn the tuner being dependent on whether the temperature you are shooting in is hotter or colder than when you did the initial testing, so it would be interesting to see you test that as well.
So please feel free to propose a theory of muzzle tuners that can be tested.. small changes in muzzle tuner position make a very tiny difference in barrel vibration frequency, tell us what that does to improve pointing variation or barrel translation velocity?
Somebody in 2050 will figure out why the new generation tunners work and we will be marveling at the pioneers for being ahead of thier time
If I'm understanding the video correctly, when doing the live fire testing, the tuner was turned one full revolution and then a little further to the next number and re-shot. Since @ErikCortina name was mentioned, I'll presume his tuner was part of the test. If that's the case, that would mean the test was started at 0, went all the way past 40 (V2) to 2, which would be 42. Then another full revolution to 3, which would be 83. This is not the instructions given for the EC Tuner. Per the install print: "Shoot groups in increments of five on the tuner to find best settings. Look for two good consecutive settings, then put tuner in the middle of the two best settings for most stable results." He means to go from 0 directly to 5 to 10 etc. @ErikCortina has also said to start with the two best small sample groups and then verify with a large group. I know Mr. Siewert replied above that the frequency change is minimal for such small movement, but the test wasn't run per the manufacturer instructions. To paraphrase Paul Harrell, that may not be "enough difference to make a difference," but it might. Also, I don't believe tuners were intended to induce positive compensation. He did a podcast about that and the info presented showed what velocity to run so that a "slow" round would exit the muzzle as the barrel's pointing angle was moving up.
@@jeffsiewert1258 I'm not saying it will make any difference, and my expectation is that the results would be the same, I was just hoping to see a test that addressed the most common criticism of a different high profile tuner test. This test essentially mimicked the applied ballistics test, it would have been more interesting to see something different. I respect the work and always find the podcasts you are on to be very informative, but using the resources available to you to perform high volume tests would be more interesting if you did not repeat tests others have done
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
Would this topic include cans for tuning??
One of the other major influence on tuner results is the impact of atmospheric conditions. The variables are very difficult or impossible to determine.