6BRA Ladder Test with/wo Tuner

[WyleWD]

I'd take the 30.6 and 31.6 loads and repeat the test with and without the tuner at 300yds (or further) and see what it looked like. WD

 

[urbanrifleman]

Man, those nodes are small. There are no real flat spots.

 

[CaptainMal]

Think you might be misreading long range results by testing at 100 yards. I have had issues trying to find any testing time. Did at Bob Davidson's 200 yard range during a scope testing session. Using Alex's new BRA, I was able to shoot "one hole" groups at 200 yards with the BRA using 31.6 gr and 30.8 gr. ES was not as good as the poorer groups around 31 gr. but the groups were super. Learned a bit about seating depth that I carried over to long range.

One day I did get a brief chance to try a few shots at 600 yards. Horrible vertical. What shot at 200 was a mess at 600 yards. Noticed the faster ( read more powder) loads actually hit a couple inches LOWER than the slower ones.

Later got a chance to briefly do a small ladder test at 600.

fullsizeoutput_ffa by Larry Malinoski, on Flickr

Colored the bullets and only had a few of each but did a three-shot test - varying the load from 30.8 to 31.2 gr. in sequence three times so as to better mimic conditions for each. Mirage made it tough. Could hardly see that blue dot aiming point.

Only had two left of the 31.0 gr. to try right at the center. Made the adjustment and shot those two. Again, little bit of mirage to deal with.

fullsizeoutput_ffb by Larry Malinoski, on Flickr

Bases on those three shots in the ladder test and the two on target, I just loaded up 55 to use in tomorrow's light gun IBS shoot. This was a load I would have trashed if my only testing was at close range.

With little opportunity to confirm and a desire to actually try Alex's BRA build, I will see tomorrow morning.

 

[Northridge]

Can we really read anything into this when the ladder was shot at 100yds?

Curious, yes we can take info from 100 yards in my experience that will help me short cut or reduce time out on ladders at further distances not just 1000 yards. this example or test ladder is very revealing for me not so much what potential Bart can get out of it at 100 but the willingness to develop tendencies i like in a frequency from top to bottom. this was a very good ladder as it is easy to read but in know way was Bart on his fine tune home run formula for 100 or any other yardage he was just dinking around showing the difference between tuner and non tuner with same data in ladder. thanks Bart

Shawn Williams

 

[BartsBullets]

Last week I tried H4895 30.6 and 31.0 grains after reading where Alex had said one of those load would probably shoot.

Last week in my gun 30.6 produced straight vertical groups, while 31.0 shot nice round holes at 100 yards.

Durning this test I was surprised that 30.6 out shot 31.0.

Bart

 

[X-Caveman]

I'm probably wrong, but based on the pictures, I would load 30.55gr and stretch it further. Interested to learn from those more seasoned than myself.

 

[BartsBullets]

Measured the groups. It’s Kind of interesting the the best average groups were 30.6 and 31.0.
31.6 avg was small but had the Hail Mary group in it.

 

[jamesdmock]

Bart, I posted earlier that I was trying to test TOO many variables in an attempt to save components and I probably wasted more with the helter skelter method. However, I have settled on what I think is my best load for the 6 BRA and it is 30.6 gr. of H4895 AND YOUR 105 infinity seated at ~.005 off the lands and Federal 205 primers. This is with the tuner in place and set at 0-31 (that is only a few thousandths out from the "stop" shoulder. This load has shown great consistency.

 

[Clucknmoan]

Think you might be misreading long range results by testing at 100 yards. I have had issues trying to find any testing time. Did at Bob Davidson's 200 yard range during a scope testing session. Using Alex's new BRA, I was able to shoot "one hole" groups at 200 yards with the BRA using 31.6 gr and 30.8 gr. ES was not as good as the poorer groups around 31 gr. but the groups were super. Learned a bit about seating depth that I carried over to long range.

One day I did get a brief chance to try a few shots at 600 yards. Horrible vertical. What shot at 200 was a mess at 600 yards. Noticed the faster ( read more powder) loads actually hit a couple inches LOWER than the slower ones.

Later got a chance to briefly do a small ladder test at 600.

fullsizeoutput_ffa by Larry Malinoski, on Flickr

Colored the bullets and only had a few of each but did a three-shot test - varying the load from 30.8 to 31.2 gr. in sequence three times so as to better mimic conditions for each. Mirage made it tough. Could hardly see that blue dot aiming point.

Only had two left of the 31.0 gr. to try right at the center. Made the adjustment and shot those two. Again, little bit of mirage to deal with.

fullsizeoutput_ffb by Larry Malinoski, on Flickr

Bases on those three shots in the ladder test and the two on target, I just loaded up 55 to use in tomorrow's light gun IBS shoot. This was a load I would have trashed if my only testing was at close range.

With little opportunity to confirm and a desire to actually try Alex's BRA build, I will see tomorrow morning.

So a couple honest question here. Faster groups shot an inch lower than slower ones. What did these two charges show for waterline at 200? Were they close to the same vertical from POA?

Did you try these two loads past 600 to see what the they showed?

 

[BenPerfected]

So a couple honest question here. Faster groups shot an inch lower than slower ones. What did these two charges show for waterline at 200? Were they close to the same vertical from POA?

Did you try these two loads past 600 to see what the they showed?

Not sure that any additional tuning past 600 yds is helpful. Maybe the 1000 yds shooters could comment on long range tuning.
Ben

 

[dkhunt14]

Not sure that any additional tuning past 600 yds is helpful. Maybe the 1000 yds shooters could comment on long range tuning.
Ben

I believe that if you are going to shoot 1000 yards, the testing needs to be 1000 yards. A couple of years ago at the World Open, Sam Hall needed a place to set his canopy and cleaning bench. I told him I wouldn't move my car becuase I needed to put my guns in it, but he was more then welcome to set up in front of it because I wasn't going anywhere. During the weekend I talked to him quite a bit. He said he thought his 600 yard loads fell apart at 1000. He told me he brought his two best 600 yard guns and loads. After looking at his targets he was pretty sure they fell apart. I agreed with him. Matt

 

[BenPerfected]

I believe that if you are going to shoot 1000 yards, the testing needs to be 1000 yards. A couple of years ago at the World Open, Sam Hall needed a place to set his canopy and cleaning bench. I told him I wouldn't move my car becuase I needed to put my guns in it, but he was more then welcome to set up in front of it because I wasn't going anywhere. During the weekend I talked to him quite a bit. He said he thought his 600 yard loads fell apart at 1000. He told me he brought his two best 600 yard guns and loads. After looking at his targets he was pretty sure they fell apart. I agreed with him. Matt

Thanks for the reply Matt, thinking I will start to worry about tuning at 1000 yd after I can shoot consistently at 600 yd.

 

[Clucknmoan]

I believe that if you are going to shoot 1000 yards, the testing needs to be 1000 yards. A couple of years ago at the World Open, Sam Hall needed a place to set his canopy and cleaning bench. I told him I wouldn't move my car becuase I needed to put my guns in it, but he was more then welcome to set up in front of it because I wasn't going anywhere. During the weekend I talked to him quite a bit. He said he thought his 600 yard loads fell apart at 1000. He told me he brought his two best 600 yard guns and loads. After looking at his targets he was pretty sure they fell apart. I agreed with him. Matt

This is exactly what I was thinking and why I asked. Testing should probably be done at whatever distance your discipline requires. Testing at 600 may be as ineffective as testing at 100 yards.

So question is, if you do not shoot a discipline that has a defined yardage, what then? I would think that testing at 100 yards would be just about as effective place to start as any. Providing that you pay close attention to ES and vertical POI vs POA from charge weight to charge weight. Of course then to stretch it out to a few different yardages. Am I off base here?

 

[dkhunt14]

Thanks for the reply Matt, thinking I will start to worry about tuning at 1000 yd after I can shoot consistently at 600 yd.

Ben, it maybe can workout. I wouldn't count on it though. I believe all guns can be different, just like barrels. I would almost bet though, that it is a different load if your looking for the ultimate accuracy. Matt

 

[Northridge]

The point of those 2 sine wave target was not load development. It was to see how hanging a weight on the muzzle (tuner) effected the harmonics of the barrel. I would like to hear some opinions on why they look the way they do. I have seen where adding a weight, whether a tuner, muzzle brake, or fixed weight did not change the node. My opinion is we have looked at how tuners work with respect to barrel harmonics wrong.

Alex, by"did not change node" appears equal? what I see is anything but equal the tuner being more stalled or lazy in response, as the frequency moves up the ladder they are showing similarity but are about 2 tenths different for similar results not even wanting to shape the same but different, short of the peak at mid charge upper did not find peak settlement. i'm just trying to see what you feel you are seeing or not for that matter.

Shawn Williams

 

[gilmillan1]

I will honestly choose anywhere between 31.0 to 31.4. On both tests the ES are below 10 for all of those loads. If you have a reliable Chronograph, then i would pick the middle load of that range i mentioned. I would then play with seating depth. After getting a small group, then i would play with the tuner.

 

[CaptainMal]

So a couple honest question here. Faster groups shot an inch lower than slower ones. What did these two charges show for waterline at 200? Were they close to the same vertical from POA?

Did you try these two loads past 600 to see what the they showed?

Sorry. Out dealing with a health issue with wife so delayed answer.

Dug out my 200 yard test group sheet. What I see for height is not definitive. I was testing a jam .004" and a jump .004" at each of the loads from 30.8 - 31.6 gr. At 31.3 gr. there is a ragged hole right on the target dot inside the sighting circle. That was an impact "move down" from lower loads. Not wanting to shoot out my sighting dot, I seem to remember moving the impact point up 1/2". That made further comparisons on elevation at 200 more difficult. That was also not an issue for me at the time. Then again, later shooting showed a bit of rising mirage on the target that I did not try to compensate for.

Have not tested past 600 yards and that was only really two brief times. Manatee removed the 1,000 yard range and I would have to go to my place in Georgia to do that now. Prominent shooter, Doug Bell, was watching on the first test and saw the two - three inch difference in height between 30.8 gr. and 31.6 gr. We then talked about barrel nodes, so he is aware. I did the second test without going 31.6 because the velocity was getting above 3,000 fps and I did not want that.

So my answer is - I cannot answer conclusively except I am doing the "jump" seating, even though the "jam" seating had tighter 200 groups.

 

[TZaun]

Well........ I frequent this site to learn. If I'm going to learn something here, there's a few questions I have. It's been stated that there's no difference between the 2 tests. I've stared long and hard trying to understand why. I've learned that @Alex Wheeler REALLY knows his stuff. There has to be a reason he's said what he's said, but I can't see it. When I look at the horizontal printing of the groups I only see 3 times out of 9 identical charges that react the same way on a plane. When I look at what I think are nodes from the flattening of velocity, I see 2 with the tuner (30.3 & 31.1) and only 1 without the tuner (30.5). When I look at the ES from the 2 tests I see an average ES of 4.39 with the tuner (I averaged the 2 groups with the 30.8 charge) and 7.7 without the tuner. When I look at the average velocity gain on each 1/10th of powder I see 6.69 fps with the tuner and 7.94 fps without the tuner. Alex, obviously this is above my paygrade. What is it that you're looking at to say they are the same? To a hayseed, like myself, they look like they've been shot from 2 different rifles.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

The point of those 2 sine wave target was not load development. It was to see how hanging a weight on the muzzle (tuner) effected the harmonics of the barrel. I would like to hear some opinions on why they look the way they do. I have seen where adding a weight, whether a tuner, muzzle brake, or fixed weight did not change the node. My opinion is we have looked at how tuners work with respect to barrel harmonics wrong.

So, you're offering no answers as to why tuners work, while admitting that they do, yet disputing 25 years of evidence, along with vibration and FEA analysis testing, by some highly qualified people, all while you have nearly no experience with tuners? Am I reading this right?

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Well........ I frequent this site to learn. If I'm going to learn something here, there's a few questions I have. It's been stated that there's no difference between the 2 tests. I've stared long and hard trying to understand why. I've learned that @Alex Wheeler REALLY knows his stuff. There has to be a reason he's said what he's said, but I can't see it. When I look at the horizontal printing of the groups I only see 3 times out of 9 identical charges that react the same way on a plane. When I look at what I think are nodes from the flattening of velocity, I see 2 with the tuner (30.3 & 31.1) and only 1 without the tuner (30.5). When I look at the ES from the 2 tests I see an average ES of 4.39 with the tuner (I averaged the 2 groups with the 30.8 charge) and 7.7 without the tuner. When I look at the average velocity gain on each 1/10th of powder I see 6.69 fps with the tuner and 7.94 fps without the tuner. Alex, obviously this is above my paygrade. What is it that you're looking at to say they are the same? To a hayseed, like myself, they look like they've been shot from 2 different rifles.

I agree.