6BRA Ladder Test with/wo Tuner

[Mulligan]

A question from the peanut gallery.

Does this suggest, that if you were to run the same sort of test, but instead of the tuner you were to use a magneto speed hanging off the barrel. Would you see the same results? In other words, nodes in the same place just point of impact changing from the weight on the barrel.
CW

 

[Northridge]

A question from the peanut gallery.

Does this suggest, that if you were to run the same sort of test, but instead of the tuner you were to use a magneto speed hanging off the barrel. Would you see the same results? In other words, nodes in the same place just point of impact changing from the weight on the barrel.
CW

my experience is you will see both point of impact and a slight change in tune if in the wrong location. my finding is & i know this may sound strange but if your really close to money load at any distance you will find magna speed will have less affect if any. now 1.250 barrels or stiff dogs in general affect is less and harder to see.

Shawn Williams

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Shawn,
Here is whats been on my mind. If you have a vibrating tube and you hang a weight on the end of it you will reduce the frequency of the vibration as well as increase the amplitude. Like a fishing pole with a lead weight on the tip. So that is how I have thought about tuners. So I would expect to see the nodes get farther apart relative to powder charge and I would expect to see large vertical poi shifting on the target. By did not change the node I am saying I'd look hard at 30.6 on both targets. To me hanging a weight on the muzzle and all the frequency and amplitude changes we "think" take place should have an effect on where that node is? I have changed muzzle brake out for heavier ones, I have clamped fixed weights behind the muzzle, the tune was still right there, I find that odd.

What I see and what I think you are looking at is the same thing we've known for many, many years. That being, that you can work up your best load with or without the tuner on the gun(just don't move it), and it works seemingly, equally well both ways.

I think that's what you may be referring to, one way or another. To be honest, it's hard for me to get my head wrapped around how it can work either way, too. Bottom line though is, it does and that tuners work, are repeatable and very easy to use.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

What I am hoping to do is start an open conversation. I have put forth some opinions and some experiences that contradict the notion that tuners increase amplitude and reduce frequency. If a mass on muzzle reduces frequency and increases amplitude we should see larger vertical poi change on target from the top to the bottom nodes as well as nodes farther apart in powder charge. This target Bart shot is one example, but I have seen enough in many experiences that make me believe muzzle weight does not do that. I agree it works like that on a pipe, but I dont think it does with a barrel with 60k psi and a bullet traveling down it. This really is not a tuner issue, its a weight issue, I dont care if its a tuner, brake, suppressor, ext. I have plenty of experience adding mass to a muzzle. You may not be open to this discussion as your a salesman first it seems.

No Alex, I first did the research and years of testing, myself. The problem with you post is that it is opinion that is contradicted by scientific research, with actual measurements.

There has been plenty posted on the various forums over the last 15 or so years on this subject by people such as varmint al and engineers that specialize in vibration analysis. What I don't want to discuss is conjecture.

Anyone that truly wants to learn about this issue needs to realize that dependable information that is based on science is all that matters in regard to HOW they work. In the real world though, what matters most is that they do in fact work and are easy to use. If the only people that used tuners are the ones that can explain every minute detail of what is happening, there would be no one left. As I and several very qualified engineers have agreed, there are too many variables and we are chasing a moving target in determining every last detail. The good news is two fold. First, we have learned a lot. I think with some research, you can find a ton of proven and scientifically supported details.
Secondly, they are so easy to use and make work.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Im not disputing they work, Im not trying to turn people off to trying them. How they work is what I am thinking about lately. I just dont believe the amplitude/frequency thing any longer. I am not even talking about turning them. Just the simple addition of a weight to the muzzle is where I am at right now.

You'll find more people will agree with you when your position does not contradict science. You'll need to change your stance for that to happen. Some might, but again, do the research and then come back.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

FWIW, on the barrels we tested, the tuners measurably affected frequency about 3.5 times as much as they did amplitude. This was with a laser accelerometer and both numbers were significant.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Always selling.

Is that really your argument? You can do better than that.

Yes, I make and sell tuners. I also know that you can't bs your way through this subject...you better know what you're talking about and be able to back it up. I spent 7 or 8 years researching and testing before I ever sold my first tuner. I haven't shot in a match without a tuner since 2007. Knowledge, experience and a good product sell themselves.

But telling you that your opinion on this subject is bs is not selling anything. I've plainly stated that I did not wish to discuss conjecture and that your theory is contradicted by science. I haven't tried to sell a thing.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

With all your experience and scientific analysis please explain to me why those 2 targets do not show the increased amplitude and reduced frequency a mass on the muzzle provides.

On your laser testing was this done with live fire?

IMO, they show both. And yes, first tested in a lab and later by live fire.
And remember this, your argument is not with me or my testing. What I did was to validate to myself, what had already been done before me...and for times like this. Your argument is with science and engineers, before me.

 

[Northridge]

Interesting to say the least, Science is Science of which often contradicts itself and often supports its conclusions, static testing can have very different results from practical testing this I know on many professional and personal fronts as well as topics but to say something doesn't have validity because science hasn't supported the given conclusion is to sell advancement, knowledge, etc. short. I'm not disputing a persons efforts, skill set or recorded results but will dispute most science as a line item guaranty or scripture. I would strongly disagree that a tuner improves anything at distance, short range shooting a tuner I feel helps a rifle shoot smaller but that's another subject that resists Science I'll leave it alone. happy shooting all.

Shawn Williams

 

[dedogs]

information that is based on science is all that matters in regard to HOW they work.

If this is true, how is it that the information that has been fed to us for years by SCIENTISTS is constantly being contradicted by people (more SCIENTISTS) who are observing the Universe? This is happening on a regular basis with the advent of more powerful telescopes and closer observation. Alex has observed a different result than what science says should occur and has simply asked WHY? What's so hard to understand? dedogs

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Interesting to say the least, Science is Science of which often contradicts itself and often supports its conclusions, static testing can have very different results from practical testing this I know on many professional and personal fronts as well as topics but to say something doesn't have validity because science hasn't supported the given conclusion is to sell advancement, knowledge, etc. short. I'm not disputing a persons efforts, skill set or recorded results but will dispute most science as a line item guaranty or scripture. I would strongly disagree that a tuner improves anything at distance, short range shooting a tuner I feel helps a rifle shoot smaller but that's another subject that resists Science I'll leave it alone. happy shooting all.

Shawn Williams

I never claim that a tuner makes a perfectly tuned rifle shoot smaller, at any distance. But a gun that is not in perfect tune is another story. Big difference. Expecting a tuner to make a perfectly tuned rifle, somehow more perfectly tune, is setting yourself up for disappointment. Thos folks simply don't understand what tuners can do, yet.

What they can do, is maintain peak tune by barely nudging the tuner when it creeps out of tune. You can do this at the bench during a match. That aspect is no different than changing powder charge, seating depth, etc..except you need no tools, no nothing! You don't even need to get out of your seat nor put your hand in front of the muzzle....and they're super easy to use if you are very methodical in your initial testing. I could teach a first time 10 year old shooter how to use one in a matter of minutes. In fact, it's easier when their head hasn't been filled with misinformation.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

If this is true, how is it that the information that has been fed to us for years by SCIENTISTS is constantly being contradicted by people (more SCIENTISTS) who are observing the Universe? This is happening on a regular basis with the advent of more powerful telescopes and closer observation. Alex has observed a different result than what science says should occur and has simply asked WHY? What's so hard to understand? dedogs

Does he have a better telescope?

 

[tn6br]

Always selling.

Boy that was big of you, speaks to your character i suppose? Someone gives you a well thought out valid response and thats your reply? Attack a mans business?

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Dont need one to see a target, but if one day I drop an apple and it goes up I'll question the laws of gravity.

I wouldn't count on that happening either.

 

[dedogs]

Does he have a better telescope?

Cute, answer a question with a question. I'm still waiting. dedogs

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Cute, answer a question with a question. I'm still waiting. dedogs

The only question I see is, what's so hard to understand about your rediculous post. I don't think it deserves any more answer than I gave you. Sorry.

You're taking the side of one person against years of proven real testing by scientists, physicists and engineers. Give me a break!

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Well this went down hill fast. Nothing of value will come out of this. If anyone has some thoughts, PM me.

I have only stated that your theory is in opposition to what science says.

 

[group therapy]

I can't be the only one to see that Alex ask for a test to be performed and is asking for opinions as to why the results did not match up to what "science" expected. thats called academic debate and open dialogue is good for these kind of matters, I mean how does a bumblebee fly? all this is way over my head but when smarter and more experienced people chime in, well there you go, we have an academic debate and information is exchanged

 

[group therapy]

and btw, thanks for the test and info to everyone

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Myth: Bumblebee's shouldn't be able tofly. There's an oft repeated “fact” that the humble bumblebee defies all known laws of physics every time it flaps its tiny little bee wings and ascends to the sky. ... But, of course,bumblebees don't fly like airplanes.Aug 1, 2013