Excellent clarification. I think that the issue for me is the idea that not adjusting a tuner over the course of a match weekend, but instead varying powder charges to stay up with ambient condition changes, makes what you are using not a tuner. That is impression that I got from an earlier post in this thread. If you say that a snubber is a subcategory within tuners, sure, at that point you are simply referring to its built in vibration damping.
We aren't that far apart here, but that whole notion of a single magical tuner setting that brings everything into some magical harmony is just falacy. RF guys fall for the same thing a lot more, believing there is one mysterious and elusive place that shoots all ammo to its potential, all the time. Again, just plain false and I challenge anyone to offer any scientific basis for that. It's just not how it works in reality...or in science, fwiw. That's why Gene and I didn't always agree about how to best use a tuner. At least in Gewne's case and with most cf guys that never touch a tuner..at least they do realize that one must still change the load at times, to maintain peak tune. Now I'm not saying that his method didn't work for him..not at all. He was still tuning by changing the load, which we've all known works for a very long time.
That may or may not mean much.
Of course. But knowing the person involved, I'm pretty sure he has a fair idea how to use it, and probably wanted the test to succeed. Now whether he had the final say in how the test was ran, we can't really know. But I kinda doubt Litz was operating in a vacuum with regard either. I question a few of the things that were done myself but it wasn't my money being spent, so.. ..
Being skeptical is a good thing. There's a distinct difference between "I don't think they work" to "They don't work and I'll prove it." I think Litz's approaches it with the former in mind and is open that his tests may show they work. As someone mentioned earlier one of his testers had a barrel tuner on his personal competition rifle, before he started the test he accepted that they worked.
I don't think going through a few more settings is a waste. I look for a full nodal cycle on the target. That being, from completely in tune, to completely out..AND back in. It confirms poi and repeatability of groups on both sides of a sweet spot. The target shows a bit a wind, IMO. TB0 could be wind. TB4 can not..from a rh twist barrel. Otherwise. I like it. It's readable.
Yea, I get that one can go from one extreme to the other with in and out of tune and I have done that in the past as well. Not real sure about wind affecting TB 0 cause my 100 yd. hole in the woods normally is not bothered by wind. Simply app. 15 ft. wide path cut into the otherwise thick woods and the only thing I could ever feel would be a slight tailwind. But even that would be mostly blocked by the 6 foot elevation build-up above the target elevation and my 12 foot (stud) wall height then plus the rise of the rafter @ 5 - 12 pitch shop where I am shooting from under a lean-to shed roof. WOW, I hope that made sense. LOL. Thanks for the observations for sure.
Lol! It might've been all tune but it's missing a group formation that I would expect with my tuner. It might happen at tb1. For the same reason, I think it might be best at 7 or 9 rather than 8 but it's pretty good there. The vertical on the bottom row @8 is why I think that. I've tested his tuner a little bit but not enough to claim I know better than you or him, in terms of how far to move it but it looks to me like you might benefit from moving 1 mark at a time rather than 2. You may well have tested it already.
Yea, I do normally check on either side of what I find by moving two number increments. I did look at 7 & 9 on the first test and basically the groups were pretty much the same as 8.
Very interesting Tim.
