Centerfire tuners

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Hey Mike. If you'll indulge me, when you are working with the tuner trying to establish best tune, are you shooting 3 shot groups, then move a mark and repeat? If not, how are you going about it?

Yes, that's it in a nutshell. But you should know, after a short time, what it prints at 1 mark out, 2 marks out, etc.
2 marks is a huge adjustment for a condition related change. So, you're always within a very small window and just can't get lost.

Not that you can't go the wrong way...but you can't get lost. When in doubt, go back where you were, particularly if the wind is blowing. Better yet, have good notes that can be confirmed by how it prints on the sighter.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Just weighted one of my 1.250 ST fluted barrels @ 7 lbs & 15 oz
My slightly modified Ezell tuner weighs 6.8 oz. You do the math.
Ben

You should be very safe at that weight but just be careful weighting it. There is a point where a tuner can be too heavy. IME, that's north of 12 ounces.
What is very counter intuitive is that a stiffer barrel can have too much weight at the muzzle sooner than a barrel that is less stiff. I worded that carefully. I didn't say a fat or skinny barrel. Lilja has a barrel weight calculator program that also calculates stiffness. It's an eye opening tool! Go find it and play with the numbers.

 

[BartsBullets]

Tim, I have to agree with Jim here and it has little if anything to do where you are tuned, be it powder charge or tuner setting. Moving the tuner a given value will have a given result in terms of vibrational frequency. Moving it a mark in will raise the frequency and a mark out will lower it, respectively. If tuning is as I believe, about timing bullet exit to occur while the barrel is at a spot that gives best accuracy along a sine wave pattern(in simple terms), the results are predictable and no setting is wider than the next, per se. I will say that you will typically have two sweet spots on a typical sr br rifle withing about 8 marks and that the one that prints slightly higher is where I tune for, because of being more forgiving to velocity variations between rounds in a given condition. Yes, that can well mean a very slightly wider tune window but it's a subject for another thread.

Now..and this is where you have to keep powder tuning separate from tuner tuning..Some loads will plateau and give very low es, which will give a window where tune isn't affected as much. Still, moving the tuner in a given condition and by a set amount will always have the same vibrational affect.

No bad intentions in this post to you or anyone else, seems to be a needed disclaimer for some.

Bottom line, a mark should be worth a mark, always.

Tim

Has a good point! A tuner can only get a load so close if the seating depth and powder charge are out of whack.

Bart

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

That's not the point I took from his post, but what a tuner can do is only to extract whatever a given load has, in a rifle, in a given condition..from it. IOW, if that load will shoot dots at 90°, a tuner can make it dot up at 70°.
FWIW, seating depth does not seem to be that critical with a tuner. I've been very fortunate to win a lot of matches and haven't chased the lands, essentially, since I started using a tuner...in 2008! That's pretty huge! This at least implies that tune is about barrel timing..bullet exit with barrel position in its oscillation. If that is true, then it also applies mostly, to powder charge. I have found this to be true, fwiw.

No, we're not comparing hof points here. We're comparing results on paper to confirm what was seen on an oscilloscope during vibration analysis. The two combined, still don't equal your hof points. That doesn't mean it's useless information either, Bart. Maybe this was a case of one or both of us misinterpreting his post.

 

[Bindi2]

Ok. I won't disagree but what science do you have to support those numbers? And yes, I like a heavier tuner BECAUSE it lowers the frequency of vibration, which does in turn, widen the sweet spot. Everything is just slower.

I was using an aluminium stock that was lengthened , goose necked, and weighted up to maximum allowable weight with no success in controlling torque and jump. The tuners used had gone from 3 oz up but the results were a little hit and miss. I bought two wooden stocks both solid timber just weight difference. Had the forend made longer on both then went shooting well over weight using a camera to capture what was going on. Using a hack saw we kept shortening the stocks until the torque and jumping was gone, that's how we found the length of the forend we also found the accepted length of pull was wrong for prone shooting. We then weigh the rifles to find the heavy timber was just over weight with a heavy yarmit barrel. The lighter wood was just over weight with a straight barrel the mill soon sorted that. The tune was still not what I wanted. We made heavier ones going up to 500 grams with the finest thread possible. Both barrels showed the best tune at 10% barrel weight. Must admit we did the HV first that gave us the hint for the straight. The rifles were over weight again, the HV just made weight in the light wood. So we made our own laminate stock and a much lighter solid wood stock which were of similar weight with good results regarding torque. The idea to make a vey much lighter stock came to fruition . This brings my Straight with 500gram tuner in well under 9kgs with a fine thread on the tuner you can wind out till you have a perfect vertical line keep going you will get a perfect horizontal line guess where the tune is. Not halfway the tune needs to be on the vertical side so wind shots are true wind shots not barrel shots.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I was using an aluminium stock that was lengthened , goose necked, and weighted up to maximum allowable weight with no success in controlling torque and jump. The tuners used had gone from 3 oz up but the results were a little hit and miss. I bought two wooden stocks both solid timber just weight difference. Had the forend made longer on both then went shooting well over weight using a camera to capture what was going on. Using a hack saw we kept shortening the stocks until the torque and jumping was gone, that's how we found the length of the forend we also found the accepted length of pull was wrong for prone shooting. We then weigh the rifles to find the heavy timber was just over weight with a heavy yarmit barrel. The lighter wood was just over weight with a straight barrel the mill soon sorted that. The tune was still not what I wanted. We made heavier ones going up to 500 grams with the finest thread possible. Both barrels showed the best tune at 10% barrel weight. Must admit we did the HV first that gave us the hint for the straight. The rifles were over weight again, the HV just made weight in the light wood. So we made our own laminate stock and a much lighter solid wood stock which were of similar weight with good results regarding torque. The idea to make a vey much lighter stock came to fruition . This brings my Straight with 500gram tuner in well under 9kgs with a fine thread on the tuner you can wind out till you have a perfect vertical line keep going you will get a perfect horizontal line guess where the tune is. Not halfway the tune needs to be on the vertical side so wind shots are true wind shots not barrel shots.

Oh boy, there's a lot to cover here and I'm gonna go see my better(much) half for the night. I do wish you had just called as we could have covered this in a few minute phone convo.

Bottom line is this...you changed rifle weight in big swings and everything matters. You can't just look at tuning as just the barrel...It's attached to a stock! That stock dissipates and dampens vibration.

I'll say this and call it a night(maybe), when doing vibration analysis, I took a glued and screwed stock...unglued it, and just bolted it back into the same stock and bedding. The barrel vibrated at a different frequency and shot best at a different tuner setting. No other changes! It's not just the barrel!

 

[JEFFPPC]

Tim

Has a good point! A tuner can only get a load so close if the seating depth and powder charge are out of whack.

Bart

If your using the tuner to get a load your wrong from the start. Develops a load and then use the tuner as a final step to refine that load.

 

[BartsBullets]

That's not the point I took from his post, but what a tuner can do is only to extract whatever a given load has, in a rifle, in a given condition..from it. IOW, if that load will shoot dots at 90°, a tuner can make it dot up at 70°.
FWIW, seating depth does not seem to be that critical with a tuner. I've been very fortunate to win a lot of matches and haven't chased the lands, essentially, since I started using a tuner...in 2008! That's pretty huge! This at least implies that tune is about barrel timing..bullet exit with barrel position in its oscillation. If that is true, then it also applies mostly, to powder charge. I have found this to be true, fwiw.

No, we're not comparing hof points here. We're comparing results on paper to confirm what was seen on an oscilloscope during vibration analysis. The two combined, still don't equal your hof points. That doesn't mean it's useless information either, Bart. Maybe this was a case of one or both of us misinterpreting his post.

Mike,

No disagreement there.

I have had long range guns that powder and tuner couldn’t fix the tune, until the seating depth was adjusted.

As far as tuners go I’m a big fan of the Ezell.

Bart

 

[Quickoz]

I was using an aluminium stock that was lengthened , goose necked, and weighted up to maximum allowable weight with no success in controlling torque and jump. The tuners used had gone from 3 oz up but the results were a little hit and miss. I bought two wooden stocks both solid timber just weight difference. Had the forend made longer on both then went shooting well over weight using a camera to capture what was going on. Using a hack saw we kept shortening the stocks until the torque and jumping was gone, that's how we found the length of the forend we also found the accepted length of pull was wrong for prone shooting. We then weigh the rifles to find the heavy timber was just over weight with a heavy yarmit barrel. The lighter wood was just over weight with a straight barrel the mill soon sorted that. The tune was still not what I wanted. We made heavier ones going up to 500 grams with the finest thread possible. Both barrels showed the best tune at 10% barrel weight. Must admit we did the HV first that gave us the hint for the straight. The rifles were over weight again, the HV just made weight in the light wood. So we made our own laminate stock and a much lighter solid wood stock which were of similar weight with good results regarding torque. The idea to make a vey much lighter stock came to fruition . This brings my Straight with 500gram tuner in well under 9kgs with a fine thread on the tuner you can wind out till you have a perfect vertical line keep going you will get a perfect horizontal line guess where the tune is. Not halfway the tune needs to be on the vertical side so wind shots are true wind shots not barrel shots.

I would argue that test wasn't fair as you changed so much stuff when doing that you cant say what made the difference. Considering there's a wood stock design that is long in the forend that's favored by nearly all top end FO guys in Aus, you cant say that shorter is better. Also I've seen all stocks torque and buck, but when one changes the gun handling by shooter, the torque and jumping is removed to a degree depending on stock style and construction material.

There's a lot of factors that can affect all of this. Stock material, design, balance of rifle, variations in gun handling, cartridge selection, the list goes on and on.

At the end of the day: Use what Wins, Period.

 

[Rockchuck]

Looks like the ezell tuner is highly recommended. Thanks for the info guys

(Rockchuck)
Ed

 

[Bindi2]

Oh boy, there's a lot to cover here and I'm gonna go see my better(much) half for the night. I do wish you had just called as we could have covered this in a few minute phone convo.

Bottom line is this...you changed rifle weight in big swings and everything matters. You can't just look at tuning as just the barrel...It's attached to a stock! That stock dissipates and dampens vibration.

I'll say this and call it a night(maybe), when doing vibration analysis, I took a glued and screwed stock...unglued it, and just bolted it back into the same stock and bedding. The barrel vibrated at a different frequency and shot best at a different tuner setting. No other changes! It's not just the barrel!

As I live in Australia the phone is not easy. You are right I went back to basics and built a prototype stock that could be altered to find what worked. when that was achieved the tuner was done last. Once the combination was under control,( the stock did that changed the point of balance and allowed more weight into the barrel/action ) the tuner could and did come into play more than before. The weight and fine thread became more effective. Rifles are a combination of parts. The stock is separate as it is macro the rest are micro that make a separate macro. All the rifle micros have to be good but can only make an average rifle if the stock is wrong. So getting the stock right is the most important. I now shoot 5 rifles done like this and I don't know how many stocks have gone out or been modified by the stock maker.

 

[Bindi2]

I would argue that test wasn't fair as you changed so much stuff when doing that you cant say what made the difference. Considering there's a wood stock design that is long in the forend that's favored by nearly all top end FO guys in Aus, you cant say that shorter is better. Also I've seen all stocks torque and buck, but when one changes the gun handling by shooter, the torque and jumping is removed to a degree depending on stock style and construction material.

There's a lot of factors that can affect all of this. Stock material, design, balance of rifle, variations in gun handling, cartridge selection, the list goes on and on.

At the end of the day: Use what Wins, Period.

I started with a long forend ,you are right I changed a lot videoed it all one step at a time till I had what was needed. I watched all the top shooters following the national teams event including the long forends, long forend with goose neck to see where I was at. The stock maker did the same. I also know shooters were watching when I shot and was involved in further discussions with some . You are right about the variations I had to deal with most of them to get my rifles shooting to be competitive to the point I found a weakness in the 7mm with the tuner.

 

[Tim Singleton]

Mike,

No disagreement there.

I have had long range guns that powder and tuner couldn’t fix the tune, until the seating depth was adjusted.

As far as tuners go I’m a big fan of the Ezell.

Bart

Big fan as well!

all I’m saying is make sure you are on the spot !

same gun same bullet same powder charge
two different seating depths
IME you have to make sure of seating depth prior to screwing on the tuner
Not talking about chasing the lands just finding the right spot!

 

[6BRinNZ]

Big fan as well!

all I’m saying is make sure you are on the spot !

same gun same bullet same powder charge
two different seating depths
IME you have to make sure of seating depth prior to screwing on the tuner
Not talking about chasing the lands just finding the right spot!

I've heard this a bit - what is the thinking behind it? Nice pics BTW.

 

[Tim Singleton]

I've heard this a bit - what is the thinking behind it? Nice pics BTW.

Out of tune bullet hole compared to an
In tune bullet hole

 

[6BRinNZ]

Out of tune bullet hole compared to an
In tune bullet hole

I was wondering what the thinking was to finding seating depth without tuner on. Why can the correct seating depth not be found with it on?

 

[Stan Taylor]

I don't have clue what I'm doing with one of them there tuners but getting ready to find out I ordered me one of them Ezell tuner so you guy's stay tuned I will be reporting on my progress.

 

[Tim Singleton]

I was wondering what the thinking was to finding seating depth without tuner on. Why can the correct seating depth not be found with it on?

I think some take that approach
It has worked better for me to do one step at a time

 

[6BRinNZ]

I think some take that approach
It has worked better for me to do one step at a time

Thanks. Do you just fit and adjust the tuner once a tune is found without it?
I've only ever done tuning with the tuner on as I haven't been able to think of a reason why not. But I have read plenty where many state to find the correct tune without the tuner first. But outside of understanding what the barrel is capable of without the tuner I haven't seen a theory behind the process. That's not to argue with the results of those that do tune without it first.

 

[Tim Singleton]

Thanks. Do you just fit and adjust the tuner once a tune is found without it?
I've only ever done tuning with the tuner on as I haven't been able to think of a reason why not. But I have read plenty where many state to find the correct tune without the tuner first. But outside of understanding what the barrel is capable of without the tuner I haven't seen a theory behind the process. That's not to argue with the results of those that do tune without it first.

The shortest answer is in your post
I need to know what the barrel is capable of