Advice for Bryan Litz on barrel tuners.

[Beiruty]

Someone did it for you all, and AL analysis indicates that the tuners do work:

Happy reading for all:

Barrel Tuner Analysis -- FEA Dynamic Analysis of Esten's Rifle with/without a Tuner.

Rifle Barrel Tuner Vibration Analysis

Finite Element Analysis -- Dynamic Analysis of a Light Rifle with/without a tuner.

FEA Barrel Pressure Analysis on a 6PPC Rifle Barrel

Way too much time typing and too little time reading and comprehending. Get an Ezell tuner and test it as directed on numerous threads. If there is something you don’t understand about it, give Mike a call. He will graciously take the time to walk you through the process and help you troubleshoot or just plain understand.

Otherwise, go troll somewhere else. We have really knowledgeable people on this site that donate their valuable time and knowledge to help us out. They do not owe us anything. Yet, they share freely. Still, some of you think that is not enough. I would bar you from the site.

 

[memilanuk]

At the risk of keeping this going... I'd be curious to see if anyone in the 'pro tuner' camp has tried replicating the tests that Litz performed, but with a "more accurate" gun/ammo combo.

The way I read the chapter - and I fully admit I haven't read and re-read all 50 pages in depth - is not so much that tuners don't or can't work, but that the effects tend to overlap. I think that's a pretty reasonable premise, no matter the gun or caliber. Once you have your 'sweet spot' on the tuner, fire five (or more) 5 shot groups at that setting. Whats the min/max/average group size? Now, go back to your tuner test target. Is the worst group size within that min-max range that you just shot with the 'best' setting? Possibly.

Don't get me wrong. I use tuner(s), and have for years. I think they do work, and I generally get what seems to me like pretty repeatable results. I also have no problem admitting that if I shot and re-shot the test enough times, or shot enough groups at different settings, the line between 'best' and 'worst' would be a lot more blurry. Yes, the curves overlap to some degree. I'll still take 'better' when I can get it.

 

[Curious]

Way too much time typing and too little time reading and comprehending. Get an Ezell tuner and test it as directed on numerous threads. If there is something you don’t understand about it, give Mike a call. He will graciously take the time to walk you through the process and help you troubleshoot or just plain understand.

Otherwise, go troll somewhere else. We have really knowledgeable people on this site that donate their valuable time and knowledge to help us out. They do not owe us anything. Yet, they share freely. Still, some of you think that is not enough. I would bar you from the site.

An Ezell tuner is totally unsuitable for the vast number of possible tuner applications, its more of a dedicated BR or possibly FClass style tuner.

It requires the barrel to be threaded and is quite a lump in comparison to the number of others out there on the market that will look much better sitting behind a muzzle brake or suppressor. Examples such as the ATS or Cortina tuners, these will find their way onto far more factory type guns or PRS/varminter/hunting style gun purely based on their size and aesthetics.

The discussion is about tuners in general not just the Ezell one and not all about BR use either. As we have already seen Mr Ezell wont talk about tuners in general, only his own and generally by telephone which is his prerogative but not much use to this more generalised open forum discussion.

And before anyone starts suggesting Im trolling Mr Ezell In not, its his tuner and he can decide how he discusses it with his customers, I have stated the facts, nothing more.

 

[DHuffman]

An Edzell tuner is totally unsuitable for the vast number of possible tuner applications, its more of a dedicated BR or possibly FClass style tuner.

It requires the barrel to be threaded and is quite a lump in comparison to the number of others out there on the market that will look much better sitting behind a muzzle brake or suppressor. Examples such as the ATS or Cortina tuners, these will find their way onto far more factory type guns or PRS/varminter style gun purely based on size and aesthetics.

The discussion is about tuners in general not just the Edzell one and not all about BR. As we have already seen Mr Edzell wont talk about tuners in general, only his own and generally by telephone which is his prerogative but not much use to this more generalised discussion.

And before anyone starts suggesting Im trolling Mr Edzell In not, its his tuner and he can decide how he discusses it with his customers, I have stated the facts, nothing more.

According to his signature in the bottom of his posts......

Ezell not Edzell, this whole thread has been mostly you trolling others.

 

[Curious]

At the risk of keeping this going... I'd be curious to see if anyone in the 'pro tuner' camp has tried replicating the tests that Litz performed, but with a "more accurate" gun/ammo combo.

The way I read the chapter - and I fully admit I haven't read and re-read all 50 pages in depth - is not so much that tuners don't or can't work, but that the effects tend to overlap. I think that's a pretty reasonable premise, no matter the gun or caliber. Once you have your 'sweet spot' on the tuner, fire five (or more) 5 shot groups at that setting. Whats the min/max/average group size? Now, go back to your tuner test target. Is the worst group size within that min-max range that you just shot with the 'best' setting? Possibly.

Don't get me wrong. I use tuner(s), and have for years. I think they do work, and I generally get what seems to me like pretty repeatable results. I also have no problem admitting that if I shot and re-shot the test enough times, or shot enough groups at different settings, the line between 'best' and 'worst' would be a lot more blurry. Yes, the curves overlap to some degree. I'll still take 'better' when I can get it.

if the load that your shooting and trying to tune falls into the accuracy side of a node as opposed to the scatter side then Ive never seen one I couldnt tune to improve group sizes considerably. I could then take it out of tune to demonstrate the effect of the tuner and put it back into tune again either at the same number or by finding another number further around as the wave repeats.

Average group size reduction will depend on what the state of tune is with the tuner set to zero and the initial test groups are fired. Ive seen this happen (purely coincidental) where the groups with the tuner at zero are great, as you work away from zero the group size opens up and then closes again but to no better than it was at zero, you cant get a better tune than when its optimised. This wave then repeats every so many graduations, and how many graduations depends on the weight of the tuner, the thread pitch it adjusts along and the number of increments the tuner has.

Everything Ive seen with tuning a tuneable load would disagree with Bryans findings, note I say tuneable load as that is very relevent. If an ammo is too far out for a particular gun it wont tune repeatably in my experience, something I would like to learn more about.

 

[memilanuk]

JFC, you're like a broken record.

Yes, I (and pretty much everyone participating in the discussion) understand basic tuner theory of operation.

Read what I said. If you don't like his test *results* and don't think they reflect how your gun behaves... replicate the test, exactly, including the # of groups fired and the data acquisition, crunch the numbers and *prove* him wrong. Don't sit there behind your keyboard whining about it with anecdotal examples.

 

[Curious]

JFC, you're like a broken record.

Yes, I (and pretty much everyone participating in the discussion) understand basic tuner theory of operation.

Read what I said. If you don't like his test *results* and don't think they reflect how your gun behaves... replicate the test, exactly, including the # of groups fired and the data acquisition, crunch the numbers and *prove* him wrong. Don't sit there behind your keyboard whining about it with anecdotal examples.

I dont think I need to wast the ammo to be honest, even Stevie Wonder could see how flawed his testing was.

If you dont like the discussion dont read it.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I do have a question, is there a simple explanation to the sine wave of groups in the pic and what it's telling us and how to use what we are seeing?

The sine wave and poi are literally a reflection on target of the muzzle angle changing relative to bullet exit...vibrating, in simple terms. The group shapes are relative to where along a nodal cycle bullet exit happens...ideally at or just prior to the top of the waveform but it'll shoot small at top and bottom.

 

[Beiruty]

The sine wave and poi are literally a reflection on target of the muzzle angle changing relative to bullet exit...vibrating, in simple terms. The group shapes are relative to where along a nodal cycle bullet exit happens...ideally at or just prior to the top of the waveform but it'll shoot small at top and bottom.

The bottom of the sine can be exploited as OCW node, that is, little variation of powder charge should not affect the POI. The first paragraph below is talking about the sine wave movement of POI.

However, the tuner position along the barrel, should be positioned for the following effect, to reduce the vertical dispersion. The question, how?

From Al, https://www.varmintal.com/aeste.htm

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I'll add that the target implies a much smoother wave form than it really is. You can land on spots that will shoot tiny, but move the tuner a mark and groups go to hell. You want to be on top of that natural curve. Then quantify how many marks between completely in tune to completely out of tune. This changes very slightly with bbl stiffness but a lot with different tuner(Lump) designs. THAT'S why I like to only address MY tuner...because I know those values for them but not for every tuner out there. So, If I tell someone on an open forum that they should move it in 1 mark increments and they have a different tuner, then it compounds confusion on a subject that is already too debatable due to misinformation or this kind of scenario, where good info for one make of tuner doesn't necessarily apply to all.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

The bottom of the sine can be exploited as OCW node, that is, little variation of powder charge should not affect the POI. The first paragraph below is talking about the sine wave movement of POI.

However, the tuner position along the barrel, should be positioned for the following effect, to reduce the vertical dispersion. The question, how?

From Al, https://www.varmintal.com/aeste.htm

View attachment 1378161

Respectfully, that data is old. Most of his work is likely timeless in regard to fea analysis specifically but his tuning process was from a time when it was still thought that tuners only affected vertical and they were mostly light, behind the muzzle types...Not all. Most of his work is golden, though.

 

[DHuffman]

This thread is a lot more enjoyable reading after I put a couple guys on ignore

 

[Uthink Uknow]

I stayed out of this conversation because my data, though extensive, is limited to only the Gene Beggs Tuner. I know how far to turn it based on personal experience and my notes. I have proven through performance that this tuner works. Competition is the true barometer of what is happening. And I’ve done well in this. I’ve seen conditions change that demanded a change in the tuner setting. Again, this is in short range BR, the only competition I choose to shoot. I hope you haven’t put me on the ignore list.

 

[DHuffman]

No I haven't LOL

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

The other thing I look for, along with poi, is group shape for at least a couple of adjustments on either side of a sweet spot. This is repeatable and that repeatability is exactly what I use to confirm tune. It also defies Litz's claim of inability to repeat with his test.

 

[jackieschmidt]

There may just be some things that are of no real use to average Joe and his hunting rifle.
A 2oz jewel trigger a fixed 40x scope or a tuner

Tom, the only experience I have had with a factory hunting rifle and a tuner is the Browning auto with a BOSS.

Many years ago, by brother in law bought a Browning auto in 270. It had a BOSS.

We went to the range with it, and using Winchester Silver Tips, the thing shot 3 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards.

We worked with the BOSS, shooting two shot groups. We finally got it adjusted to where two shots were within 1 1/4 inch of each other, then shot a three shot group that was around 1 1/2 inches.

That was a huge improvement. I told him when he went hunting next week end to not clean it, and shoot from that same box of cartridges. Don’t change a thing.

He harvested a nice white tail at about 75 yards and could not thank me enough.

Of course, you and I both know the deer didn’t know if he got shot with a 1 1/2 inch Rifle, or a 3 1/2 inch Rifle.

But my brother in law knew, and felt good about it.

 

[BoydAllen]

To address the challenge to reproduce Litz's tests, most shooters are only concerned with making their rifles shoot better, or at least having a better way to adjust tune. Once that has been achieved, as it has by many, there is little incentive to spend valuable barrel life, components and time doing research for its own sake. I have read good reports on a number of tuners and know a number of shooters who do very well with and without them. Not being in the tuner business, I am not much concerned about the prevalence of tuner use but I do believe that having more interested shooters has greatly increased our number of options, which is to my mind a good thing. One of the good things about our hobbies is that we can make personal choices as to how we pursue them, and measure our success (or failure) by any standard we like.

 

[Dave M.]

One reason is it's a really long post describing the process, much less the why's and what fors...which leads to more questions and really long threads. I do this by phone.

Another reason is that tuner instructions are not universal between designs. Big differences in bbl stiffness can be a factor as well, in how I'd go about it and which which one.

With those two considerations alone, how long before a thread like that becomes a problem rather than beneficial?

I will say that the most common mistake is moving too far at a time and without a well worked out methodology. My phone instruction averages about 20 minutes but has often gone an hour plus.

Or a hour + if I dial Mike up. Lol

 

[mikecr]

I messed with a non-brake Browning BOSS for a while and really liked it. I do not believe there is a 'better' tuner system out there.
For me, I set it per factory recommended and worked up an OCW load (powder node).
OCW loads are usually not the most accurate, so then I adjusted the tuner to dial in as much as anyone could expect from the system (barrel node).

The tuner gave me both nodes right on top of each other.
I don't know of any other way to do this, other than trial & error & luck.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

How do I tune my BOSS?

www.browning.com