ERIK & ERIC

[rijndael]

The air conditioning might be on, best to set a small pinwheel flag at 10 ft just to sure.

You can't go down range. The target carriers move to your set distance, no one goes in front of the firing line.

Ventilation is behind the shooters ... going straight down range.

 

[Dave M.]

What did you end up doing?

I ended up finding the next node up at 50.7gr of H4350 with an average MV of 2847fps. Then seated the Berger 180 hybrids at 2.445” jam+0.003”. Then re-ran the tuner setting test and selected setting #9. Took the load up to the 1000 yard Michigan State Championship and finished 3rd (3 points out of 1st). I found the tuner setting can vary depending on the conditions from about 6.75 to 11.25, and that moving the tuner up or down just half a number can have a drastic effect on the groups. I’m still learning how to adjust it on the fly to improve the groups and score. I plan to speak to Mike about this soon. Good luck.
Dave

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I ended up finding the next node up at 50.7gr of H4350 with an average MV of 2847fps. Then seated the Berger 180 hybrids at 2.445” jam+0.003”. Then re-ran the tuner setting test and selected setting #9. Took the load up to the 1000 yard Michigan State Championship and finished 3rd (3 points out of 1st). I found the tuner setting can vary depending on the conditions from about 6.75 to 11.25, and that moving the tuner up or down just half a number can have a drastic effect on the groups. I’m still learning how to adjust it on the fly to improve the groups and score. I plan to speak to Mike about this soon. Good luck.
Dave

Yes, call me during the day tomorrow. What you describe is not typical. Happy to help.

 

[SG4247]

I found the tuner setting can vary depending on the conditions from about 6.75 to 11.25, and that moving the tuner up or down just half a number can have a drastic effect on the groups.

Can you explain what is 6.75 and 11.25? Is that tuner position?

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I found the tuner setting can vary depending on the conditions from about 6.75 to 11.25, and that moving the tuner up or down just half a number can have a drastic effect on the groups.

Can you explain what is 6.75 and 11.25? Is that tuner position?

I'm sure he's talking about marks and breaking them down into very small .25 increments. Keep in mind that this is not typical with my tuner and when it happens like he described, there's usually a reason for it. That's why I'm waiting for him to give me a call so we can go over that and get him on the right path.

With my tuner, in absolutely perfect conditions and a zero or low teen rifle, you can see less than a mark on target but otherwise, I recommend moving in full mark values. Which on my standard tuner is only .001 of an inch of actual tuner travel. Obviously, very small already. When I've seen only a fraction of a mark make a big difference it has been because it's not truly in tune at the top or bottom of the natural frequency sine waveform but rather, on a very narrow area somewhere other than top or bottom. These areas at top and bottom are known as anti-nodes.

While in the gun world we talk about being in a "node", that's not technically what it is but we all know what each other is talking about when we hear this. Bullet exit should happen at an anti-node.

The actual sine wave when viewed on an oscilloscope is not smooth at all. It's loaded with spikes and irregularities but it has peaks and valleys at natural frequencies. If you tune to those, you should see predictable group shapes for a few marks, normally 4 or 5 between completely in to completely out of tune. But you can land on one of those small spikes and get big and erratic changes with teeny tiny tuner movement. That's not where you want to be but it can shoot small on one of those spots. But it'll go out of tune fast and ugly.

 

[Dave M.]

I found the tuner setting can vary depending on the conditions from about 6.75 to 11.25, and that moving the tuner up or down just half a number can have a drastic effect on the groups.

Can you explain what is 6.75 and 11.25? Is that tuner position?

Yes those are number on the tuner dial. The tuner is numbered in whole numbers so the X.75 and Xx.25 were merely estimates of the tuner positions between the whole numbers.

 

[Dave M.]

I'm sure he's talking about marks and breaking them down into very small .25 increments. Keep in mind that this is not typical with my tuner and when it happens like he described, there's usually a reason for it. That's why I'm waiting for him to give me a call so we can go over that and get him on the right path.

With my tuner, in absolutely perfect conditions and a zero or low teen rifle, you can see less than a mark on target but otherwise, I recommend moving in full mark values. Which on my standard tuner is only .001 of an inch of actual tuner travel. Obviously, very small already. When I've seen only a fraction of a mark make a big difference it has been because it's not truly in tune at the top or bottom of the natural frequency sine waveform but rather, on a very narrow area somewhere other than top or bottom. These areas at top and bottom are known as anti-nodes.

While in the gun world we talk about being in a "node", that's not technically what it is but we all know what each other is talking about when we hear this. Bullet exit should happen at an anti-node.

The actual sine wave when viewed on an oscilloscope is not smooth at all. It's loaded with spikes and irregularities but it has peaks and valleys at natural frequencies. If you tune to those, you should see predictable group shapes for a few marks, normally 4 or 5 between completely in to completely out of tune. But you can land on one of those small spikes and get big and erratic changes with teeny tiny tuner movement. That's not where you want to be but it can shoot small on one of those spots. But it'll go out of tune fast and ugly.

I agree with what Mike is saying. I decided to go up to the next “node” at 50.7gr and I had to shoot an extremely abbreviated tuner setting test. I selected setting #9 but I speculate that wasn’t the best setting; however, it was good enough to take third place and I opted to leave the tuner setting at #9 for the entire competition because it was shooting fairly well.
Dave

 

[lawman29]

My goal is to shoot 1 inch moa or better at a 100 yards that's all we have around here with a gas gun

What make is your AR and what is the barrel twist?

 

[Ammolytics]

Hey everyone!
I didn't get any notifications about this thread, but I'm happy to discuss the conversation that started it.

Regarding tuners: In hindsight, we spent more time discussing this than I would have liked. I recognize that this is a hot topic with a lot of strong opinions. Maybe I'm remembering the conversation differently, but I never said they don't work -- what I did suggest is that the path that I'm exploring with amplifying high-speed video may give a better understanding.

I gave Erik two links to share that demonstrate what the software is capable of and it looks like he only added one of them to the description. Here they are for anyone who is interested.

Again, happy to clarify or answer any questions!
-Eric @ Ammolytics

 

[Bill Norris]

Maybe I'm remembering the conversation differently, but I never said they don't work.


BUT you did elude to that fact when you were referring to the barrel movement and you said "if the movement is caused by the vibrations at all" which would in turn suggest there was no job for the tuner.

 

[ChristianSilver]

Today was the first day out with a tuner. Received the tuner yesterday and I threaded the bbl here at home.
284 Win, Bat M, Kestros, 31” Krieger 1-8, EC V2 on a proven gun with a proven load. Gun was shooting in the same ragged hole prior to tuner install.
What does the target tell me? It was a 5 shot group at each 1” dot, 100 yards. Tuner start at zero and went one complete round in increments of 5.

 

[Bill Norris]

Setting 0 thru 10 is a broad window of tune. I would suggest setting 5 as that is @ middle of the tune window. You could test on either side of 5 @ 4 and 6 to see if it is tighter. Setting 35 is tight as well but it is a lone wolf and the point of impact seems a tad high as well.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Setting 0 thru 10 is a broad window of tune. I would suggest setting 5 as that is @ middle of the tune window. You could test on either side of 5 @ 4 and 6 to see if it is tighter. Setting 35 is tight as well but it is a lone wolf and the point of impact seems a tad high as well.

I hear that a lot but my findings differ. Powder can have velocity flat spots or plateaus but I know of no reason that a tuner would show that sort of characteristic. When we move the tuner, we're changing what is effectively a constant, being how the barrel vibrates. In my experience, each mark has a value and it's logical that it should if you think about it just a bit.

Since he's using someone else's tuner, I can't say for sure but I would not recommend moving that much at a time either...but some tuners, you might. I will say that the groups appear random, which is what happens if you skip over sweet spots or just group shapes between them...but you can clearly see it's working. A characteristic of moving in too large of increments.

 

[Bill Norris]

I hear that a lot but my findings differ. Powder can have velocity flat spots or plateaus but I know of no reason that a tuner would show that sort of characteristic. When we move the tuner, we're changing what is effectively a constant, being how the barrel vibrates. In my experience, each mark has a value and it's logical that it should if you think about it just a bit.

Since he's using someone else's tuner, I can't say for sure but I would not recommend moving that much at a time either...but some tuners, you might. I will say that the groups appear random, which is what happens if you skip over sweet spots or just group shapes between them...but you can clearly see it's working. A characteristic of moving in too large of increments.

Exactly, that's why I would definitely go back and test on either side of the window.

 

[Ammolytics]

Maybe I'm remembering the conversation differently, but I never said they don't work.


BUT you did elude to that fact when you were referring to the barrel movement and you said "if the movement is caused by the vibrations at all" which would in turn suggest there was no job for the tuner.

I'll come back to this specific point in a moment. First, it's important to note that I took a risk by joining Erik on his podcast at this point in time because my research is not yet complete. The opportunity was for me to share the approach I was taking and some hypotheses that I'm exploring. The risk though is that I don't yet have any results or evidence to share, which can easily lead folks (including myself) to postulate and jump to conclusions prematurely.

As with everything I have done before, all original data files, programming source code to process them, load and firearm information, are all published open on GitHub and in the articles. My goal is, as always, to explain the approach I took, what worked & what didn't, and everything anyone else may need in order to reproduce my results or try something else.

Now, about that specific point -- the "if" is perhaps the most important word that I'll point out. At this point in the conversation, I was speculating. I did not say "tuners don't work" or "there are no vibrations" or "there are no harmonics".

I'm making a good faith attempt to learn something new. I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything -- I will present the data and evidence as they are. As such, I hope that you and others can be more generous in your interpretations of what I said in the course of an unscripted conversation.

 

[Bill Norris]

I'll come back to this specific point in a moment. First, it's important to note that I took a risk by joining Erik on his podcast at this point in time because my research is not yet complete. The opportunity was for me to share the approach I was taking and some hypotheses that I'm exploring. The risk though is that I don't yet have any results or evidence to share, which can easily lead folks (including myself) to postulate and jump to conclusions prematurely.

As with everything I have done before, all original data files, programming source code to process them, load and firearm information, are all published open on GitHub and in the articles. My goal is, as always, to explain the approach I took, what worked & what didn't, and everything anyone else may need in order to reproduce my results or try something else.

Now, about that specific point -- the "if" is perhaps the most important word that I'll point out. At this point in the conversation, I was speculating. I did not say "tuners don't work" or "there are no vibrations" or "there are no harmonics".

I'm making a good faith attempt to learn something new. I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything -- I will present the data and evidence as they are. As such, I hope that you and others can be more generous in your interpretations of what I said in the course of an unscripted conversation.

Not worth arguing over at all. As I stated when I started the thread we know tuners work IF one can use it. We don't have to know why or how it works in order to use them to our advantage.

In my opinion a statistical look at tuners is a waste of time simply because when a new barrel is put on a rifle the tune just as the load will need to be re-done.

 

[Ammolytics]

Not worth arguing over at all. As I stated when I started the thread we know tuners work IF one can use it. We don't have to know why or how it works in order to use them to our advantage.

In my opinion a statistical look at tuners is a waste of time simply because when a new barrel is put on a rifle the tune just as the load will need to be re-done.

Just in case this point was lost in my convo w/ Erik: I'm not using statistics to look into tuners. In fact, tuners aren't even the subject of my research. By all means, use a barrel tuner! I have no skin in that game.

The real point: I'm taking a novel approach in an attempt to visualize barrel harmonics. That's it.

In the conversation, we went down a few rabbit holes about what may be possible, or what could be learned if this approach works. Likely, we spent more time on that which may have distracted from what I'm actually doing.

As far as your point about not needing to know how or why things work. Fair enough. My counter point to that would be that you don't need to know about gravity or how it works in order to run, jump, or play catch. Once you do, however, you can build a space program.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I'll come back to this specific point in a moment. First, it's important to note that I took a risk by joining Erik on his podcast at this point in time because my research is not yet complete. The opportunity was for me to share the approach I was taking and some hypotheses that I'm exploring. The risk though is that I don't yet have any results or evidence to share, which can easily lead folks (including myself) to postulate and jump to conclusions prematurely.

As with everything I have done before, all original data files, programming source code to process them, load and firearm information, are all published open on GitHub and in the articles. My goal is, as always, to explain the approach I took, what worked & what didn't, and everything anyone else may need in order to reproduce my results or try something else.

Now, about that specific point -- the "if" is perhaps the most important word that I'll point out. At this point in the conversation, I was speculating. I did not say "tuners don't work" or "there are no vibrations" or "there are no harmonics".

I'm making a good faith attempt to learn something new. I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything -- I will present the data and evidence as they are. As such, I hope that you and others can be more generous in your interpretations of what I said in the course of an unscripted conversation.

I love that you're doing this but as I mentioned early in this thread, I'm skeptical of the approach of strictly using cameras without overlaying bullet exit, which will require other equipment..I think.

The more, the better. I spend a lot of time(some would say too much) sharing what I have learned doing vibration analysis regarding tuners. There's still much to be learned but the gist appears to be relatively simple, yet not so simple to test and quantify..we are manipulating phase time, forcing the bbl to be at top or bottom of its oscillations when bullet exit happens. Yes, that dumming it down but I like to do my best to try to convey complicated test results in such a way that anyone can understand. There is a saying in regard to that. If you understand something well enough, you can explain it where anyone will understand. That's exactly what I try to do. I find speaking very technically to bore most people and most of the rest don't care. Yes, they want to know as much as they can but there's a limit to what most people will remain attentive to and in the end, if they can utilize the info given, they are happy. I'd love for the slow mo video to work better than I anticipate and I hope I'm wrong because a picture really is worth a thousand words to the vast majority of people, myself included. I'm just a gunsmith/farmer/country boy who spends a lot of time learning a very narrow area of a pretty complicated wider subject. So I welcome anyone who has the background or expertise in this or any area that helps us all to learn. Ultimately, tuners are easy to use and yes, I say this with zero doubt..tuners work, but there aren't multiple ways of doing this optimally. There are different designs that require different approaches though and this adds to the confusion regarding tuners. One maker can say move 1 mark at a time and the next to move it 5 marks at a time, and both be right...for that tuner.

Keep up the good work and I look forward to hearing back from you here.

 

[jelenko]

visualize barrel harmonics

Would your approach be able to also capture compression waves as described by Chris Long?

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Would your approach be able to also capture compression waves as described by Chris Long?

Serious question here but why do you feel the OBT theory has any merit to it? I ask this because I trust my test results and while we did not in any way test for longitudinal barrel movement, the best support I can find for it is that most people claim it can get them "very close" to in tune. What I've found with tuners addressing vibration in an oscillating fashion is that there is only about .004-.005 of tuner travel(using my tuner) from completely in tune to all the way out. So, is that "very close" to in tune?

Serious question and I don't mean to start a shitstorm but I'd like to here the logic behind it when what I have stated from my vibration analysis testing is validated, upside down and sideways. I do think that longitudinal movement may well be one aspect but that the tuner being at the end of the bbl appears to adjust for its, seemingly small if any, value. Again, serious discussion only please.