Bryan Litz on barrel tuners.

[Ned Ludd]

You're very right and it crossed my mind about his shooting ability. I wasn't going to and I will not question that. I'd know in a group or two if he can shoot or not but for now, will assume that he can and would be happy to help there if needed. At least to my ability to be of help. I'm blessed to have my own range and some good flags but I'm better at telling someone how to shoot than I am at shooting.Lol!

Simply watching anyone shoot over flags and their gun handling shows me a lot about anyone's potential. If he's shooting during switches, I'd simply offer to do my best at calling the wind. Again, I'll assume he knows how to shoot small. No reason not to. You need to be proficient but not world class. The test is contingent upon every shot and bad calls marked accordingly. Things like stairstep groups that go up and to the right are not typically wind induced, from a rh twist bbl, for example. That actually plays pretty heavily in my evaluation of a tuner test, for that reason.

No doubt about it, even a few poor shots can make a tuner test very difficult to interpret correctly. I was not in any way denigrating Bryan's shooting abilities, or those of the people he had working on the testing. I know that Bryan is a phenomenal shooter, and I have to assume he trusts the shooting abilities of those that helped him out with those tests. However, just having several different people involved suggests the potential for greater difficulty interpreting all the results, and may have contributed to them reaching the conclusion they did, that's all.

I'm certainly no tuner guru, but I have several and have had no difficulty setting them and observing firsthand what they can do, as well as observing that the optimal settings I found during testing could be reproduced on different outings. But that was all determined using the output from only one person; i.e. myself, and I can imagine that it might be far more difficult to evaluate when the data was produced by several different people.

I'm a little surprised Bryan's publication regarding tuner results has received as much attention at various shooting forums as it has. When I read something that appears to be very different than my own personal experiences, I tend not to pay much attention to it. Hopefully, anyone interested in using a tuner will chalk this up as only one point of view among many, and follow up with their own tuner research accordingly.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

I wish he woulda used folks that actually use tuners to do the testing

 

[Bill Norris]

I wish he woulda used folks that actually use tuners to do the testing

Yea, That would have been a smarter move by far.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I have read a lot of "science " that was obtained with rifles not shooting small enough to see the difference. Since tuners are primarily designed for and used by BR shooters, I would want my "science " from a BR shooter. A good one.

 

[RickyK]

I know that Bryan is a phenomenal shooter,

He may be , i haven't been in this F class game very long but what records and championships does he hold ???

 

[Dave M.]

FWIW, I'm sure by now there have been literally millions of rounds fired validating tuners and Brian fired a few hundred. If you look for his stated goal of his test, you'll see part of the problem. I've been around tuners enough to know that they are indeed repeatable. In fact, the test I have others do when setting them up is based on predictable group shapes on both sides of what appears to be a sweet spot to validate it. I'm not trying to convince you and I'm not going to get into a pissing match about them. Their results and reports from people who actually use them speaks volumes, whether you think so or not. Numerous world records and national championships are enough for me but vibration analysis testing helped to understand how they do what they do.

I said in about 2012 or so that I thought tuners would soon be as much a part of a new build as a bbl, trigger and stock. Perhaps not for everyone but they have certainly gained in popularity for some reason and they aren't new. They've been around for a good number of years, especially in rf, where they can't tune the load to the rifle. Just about every rf br rifle has some sort of tuner and has had for a very long time. Yes, you can tune a cf without one if you wish.

When the master speaks…. He listen. Mike has a real knack for simplifying what tuners do, but he’ll also spend an hour on the phone talking about particle damping technology (lol, ask me how I know). I love chopping it up with Mike and I’ve learned a great deal about tuners from our discussions. I tend to tune, lock it down and then not want to change it for fear of screwing it up. I wish I understood how to change the setting to see an improvement without merely guessing and actually seeing a degradation in group size and shape.
Dave

 

[DiRTY DOG]

My observations from Litz's tuner test:

1. All 4 test rifles, which included 3 full custom centerfire rifles, struggled to achieve 1/2 moa control groups (50 yards for 22lr and 100 yards for centerfire). And then same with the best tuner groups. All between 0.4" to 0.6" at best. Makes me question the shooter's ability, and it only takes a little shooter error to make the tests worthless.

2. There seemed to be NO effort made to minimize the effect of barrel heat. I think he flat out admits it on the podcast.

3. The first half of the test was a complete waste since he intentionally disregarded all manufacturer's instructions on tuner adjustment (to only adjust 2 or 5 notches at a time), and instead he made huge adjustments (full rotations at a time).

4. He found that extra weight at the muzzle (in the form of a tuner) improved precision. So what did he do? He tested in HUGE increments of +16 oz, +32 oz, +48 oz, and +64 oz. Wouldn't it be better to test in 1 oz or 2 oz increments, or maybe 4 oz increments? One whole pound increments seems obsurd considering each of the tested tuners weighed much less than 1 lb. Seems like a dumb test.

 

[BoydAllen]

Durward Wofford shot his way into the short range group hof yesterday with his win at the nbrsa nats using one too, fwiw. He deserves most of the credit though.

Top shooters don't put stuff on their rifles that doesn't work. They test a lot and go with what works, whatever it is.

 

[BoydAllen]

My observations from Litz's tuner test:

1. All 4 test rifles, which included 3 full custom centerfire rifles, struggled to achieve 1/2 moa control groups (50 yards for 22lr and 100 yards for centerfire). And then same with the best tuner groups. All between 0.4" to 0.6" at best. Makes me question the shooter's ability, and it only takes a little shooter error to make the tests worthless.

2. There seemed to be NO effort made to minimize the effect of barrel heat. I think he flat out admits it on the podcast.

3. The first half of the test was a complete waste since he intentionally disregarded all manufacturer's instructions on tuner adjustment (to only adjust 2 or 5 notches at a time), and instead he made huge adjustments (full rotations at a time).

4. He found that extra weight at the muzzle (in the form of a tuner) improved precision. So what did he do? He tested in HUGE increments of +16 oz, +32 oz, +48 oz, and +64 oz. Wouldn't it be better to test in 1 oz or 2 oz increments, or maybe 4 oz increments? One whole pound increments seems obsurd considering each of the tested tuners weighed much less than 1 lb. Seems like a dumb test.

Based on this information on how the test was done(thanks for that) IMO for purposes of high accuracy sports, the test was totally useless.

 

[lawman29]

You can bet if B. Litz made a tuner, he'd think they are
the best thing since sliced bread. lol

Disagree with his conclusions... okay. Implying that he would be dishonest about the science to benefit financially... not okay. For those of you that "liked" that post, it says more about you than Mr Litz.

 

[BoydAllen]

That was a snubber, not a tuner he used. .the assumption is that it increases the tune node without adjusting.

If you look at recent match photos from both the US and Europe you will see a lot of Buckys tuners, which is what he used. He did pretty well himself with one, 6th in the Hall of Fame. He did his adjustment when he first installed it. IMO if it works, it is correct.

 

[Ned Ludd]

He may be , i haven't been in this F class game very long but what records and championships does he hold ???

National Championships in multiple disciplines (i.e. Conventional and F-Class [F-TR]). I cannot provide a complete dossier on his other wins at various levels of competition, but I rather suspect they are numerous. He is VERY good.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Disagree with his conclusions... okay. Implying that he would be dishonest about the science to benefit financially... not okay. For those of you that "liked" that post, it says more about you than Mr Litz.

The day I start selling you my knowledge I'll take that comment. I dont know how many thousands of rounds I have fired at 1k to learn and give it all away for free. I call bs when I see it. Expessialy when your being charged for it.

 

[CA_Shooter]

My observations from Litz's tuner test:

1. All 4 test rifles, which included 3 full custom centerfire rifles, struggled to achieve 1/2 moa control groups (50 yards for 22lr and 100 yards for centerfire). And then same with the best tuner groups. All between 0.4" to 0.6" at best. Makes me question the shooter's ability, and it only takes a little shooter error to make the tests worthless.

2. There seemed to be NO effort made to minimize the effect of barrel heat. I think he flat out admits it on the podcast.

3. The first half of the test was a complete waste since he intentionally disregarded all manufacturer's instructions on tuner adjustment (to only adjust 2 or 5 notches at a time), and instead he made huge adjustments (full rotations at a time).

4. He found that extra weight at the muzzle (in the form of a tuner) improved precision. So what did he do? He tested in HUGE increments of +16 oz, +32 oz, +48 oz, and +64 oz. Wouldn't it be better to test in 1 oz or 2 oz increments, or maybe 4 oz increments? One whole pound increments seems obsurd considering each of the tested tuners weighed much less than 1 lb. Seems like a dumb test.

How many shots per control group that couldn't shoot 1/2 MOA?

 

[BoydAllen]

Note the tuner.

 

[DiRTY DOG]

I paid for a $10 monthly subscription just to listen to his podcast on tuners. I was seeking data.

I'm not a tuner fanboy, I just purchased an EC tuner 2 weeks ago to test myself on a 6.5x47L.

After listening to just part of Litz's podcast, it was quickly clear to me that his testing was seriously flawed. I was very disappointed and puzzled. Are ALL of Litz's test equally flawed? Or just this one? How could such an "expert" do such flawed tests?

After very limited testing, I know my tuner can for sure make groups worse, and can change the POI. I am not sure if it can improve my groups, maybe I'm not a good enough shooter? More testing needed.

 

[dellet]

It’s kind of interesting to watch a high tech argument over a reasonably low tech problem. Over 100 years ago the science of harmonics, vibration and tuning barrel devices was accepted science or practice.

Then precision and accuracy through load development, shooting component quality, shooter skills, shooting equipment more or less developed to a point where vibration and harmonics could more or less be ignored.

As shooting science came full circle, those looking for an edge again looked at barrel tuning with much better measuring devices and science.

100 plus years ago when the barrel was laid directly on the mount for bench shooting, part of the process was to strip the rifle down to the action and barrel, suspend the assembly, tap on the barrel and find the dead spot. The place you could tap and get no ringing or vibration.

This was where you place the barrel on the rest, or attach the front portion of a “machine rest”. Adjusting the position of the clamped on front rest fore and aft can dramatically change group size. It was literally tuning vibrations like a fork.

Anyone who has ever shot with a barrel resting on a sold object has experienced the jump of barrel on recoil. Watching a match shot off cross sticks will quickly show the new shooters. They are the ones whose rifle jumps uncontrollably.

Here’s a machine rest of the day. Setup correctly the rifle would slide straight back.


Modern example of the same style rest. The rear mount is a reproduction with an updated front mount on the rifle. Period correct front mount is shown.


Record group from 1901, 10 shots, 200 yards, .722”



Components have changed, but not the arguments. Maybe an inverse relationship. As the groups have gotten smaller, the arguments have gotten larger.

 

[Curious]

My observations from Litz's tuner test:

1. All 4 test rifles, which included 3 full custom centerfire rifles, struggled to achieve 1/2 moa control groups (50 yards for 22lr and 100 yards for centerfire). And then same with the best tuner groups. All between 0.4" to 0.6" at best. Makes me question the shooter's ability, and it only takes a little shooter error to make the tests worthless.

2. There seemed to be NO effort made to minimize the effect of barrel heat. I think he flat out admits it on the podcast.

3. The first half of the test was a complete waste since he intentionally disregarded all manufacturer's instructions on tuner adjustment (to only adjust 2 or 5 notches at a time), and instead he made huge adjustments (full rotations at a time).

4. He found that extra weight at the muzzle (in the form of a tuner) improved precision. So what did he do? He tested in HUGE increments of +16 oz, +32 oz, +48 oz, and +64 oz. Wouldn't it be better to test in 1 oz or 2 oz increments, or maybe 4 oz increments? One whole pound increments seems obsurd considering each of the tested tuners weighed much less than 1 lb. Seems like a dumb test.

Thank you DD, this was exactly the information I was looking for other than the number of shots he was shooting per group? still it makes me sad to read it.

I remember reading his comments on FB a while back and my first impression was that Bryan had no experience of tuners at that time and also that he didnt really understand the concept. Judging by your description of how he tested them its clear now he didnt.

What a shame, I remember at the time a chap who made tuners invited Bryan to use his gun and shoot with him to be shown it all unfold, sadly it looks like he didnt take up that option.

I respect Brian and anyone else who has consistently proven themselves in competition like some of the guys here and I cant understand why he would conduct such a poor test or have what seems to be a bias against tuners?

Im lost for words as to what was wrong when three full custom CF rifles cant establish control groups better than 0.4"-0.6" unless he was shooting 10 shot groups on a windy day without flags maybe?

Was he shooting from a proper bench with a mechanical rest etc or lying on his belly with a bipod and rear bag?

What were the wind conditions on the day?

Disappointing for someone so well respected within the industry and the ability to influence so many

 

[R.Morehouse]

When the master speaks…. He listen. Mike has a real knack for simplifying what tuners do, but he’ll also spend an hour on the phone talking about particle damping technology (lol, ask me how I know). I love chopping it up with Mike and I’ve learned a great deal about tuners from our discussions. I tend to tune, lock it down and then not want to change it for fear of screwing it up. I wish I understood how to change the setting to see an improvement without merely guessing and actually seeing a degradation in group size and shape.
Dave

I have always kept it very simple when adjusting my Ezell tuners " Down & Out "when the temp. goes down I move the tuner out with VERY small adjustments, then verify on the sighter....This has not let me down yet.......Happy Shooting.........

Regards
Rick

 

[R.Morehouse]

It’s kind of interesting to watch a high tech argument over a reasonably low tech problem. Over 100 years ago the science of harmonics, vibration and tuning barrel devices was accepted science or practice.

Then precision and accuracy through load development, shooting component quality, shooter skills, shooting equipment more or less developed to a point where vibration and harmonics could more or less be ignored.

As shooting science came full circle, those looking for an edge again looked at barrel tuning with much better measuring devices and science.

100 plus years ago when the barrel was laid directly on the mount for bench shooting, part of the process was to strip the rifle down to the action and barrel, suspend the assembly, tap on the barrel and find the dead spot. The place you could tap and get no ringing or vibration.

This was where you place the barrel on the rest, or attach the front portion of a “machine rest”. Adjusting the position of the clamped on front rest fore and aft can dramatically change group size. It was literally tuning vibrations like a fork.

Anyone who has ever shot with a barrel resting on a sold object has experienced the jump of barrel on recoil. Watching a match shot off cross sticks will quickly show the new shooters. They are the ones whose rifle jumps uncontrollably.

Here’s a machine rest of the day. Setup correctly the rifle would slide straight back.
View attachment 1376809

Modern example of the same style rest. The rear mount is a reproduction with an updated front mount on the rifle. Period correct front mount is shown.
View attachment 1376810

Record group from 1901, 10 shots, 200 yards, .722”

View attachment 1376811

Components have changed, but not the arguments. Maybe an inverse relationship. As the groups have gotten smaller, the arguments have gotten larger.

Man, that is one beautiful rifle/setup. That pair of pics to me are just cooler than cool. Thanks for posting them.

Regards
Rick