Ammo Question/Tuner Question

[JimSC]

the thing is anyone with a rifle, tuner, box of ammo and an open mind can test for themselves.

 

[JimSC]

Hey Jim, I think I see what is going on here. 384 seemed like a good group, I would say 385 is a little better. After that I notice a vertical string at 386 and horizontal strings through 390. I may even make an argument that 389 wasnt too bad.
I am assuming that you have tested at other settings previously and this is what you came up with as the best setting.
What information do we get from vertical and horizontal spreads, bad settings, bad match with the ammo, etc?

I used the Hopewell method

THE HOPEWELL METHOD OF BARREL TUNING

Comments by Guy Starik" The tuner is a weight which can be precisely position by minute steps, allowing you to find the “Sweet Spot” of...

newbrunswick-benchrest.blogspot.com

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

the thing is anyone with a rifle, tuner, box of ammo and an open mind can test for themselves.

That's right but I think people start off on the wrong foot so many times, by simply moving too far at a time and stepping over those all important group shapes....moving it randomly, looking for anything predictable, is a tough way to do anything.

 

[Doc22]

I used the Hopewell method

THE HOPEWELL METHOD OF BARREL TUNING

Comments by Guy Starik" The tuner is a weight which can be precisely position by minute steps, allowing you to find the “Sweet Spot” of...

newbrunswick-benchrest.blogspot.com

Ok 3 boxes of ammo thats not baddddd.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Ok 3 boxes of ammo thats not baddddd.

A box and a half will get you through my full test if ya don't screw up. Lol! Easier said than done to get 75 rounds down and all be perfect. When you pull the trigger in a switch or whatever, just mark that shot and fire again is best I can tell ya. Looking for shapes and patterns leaves little room for error and makes it tough to read groups.

 

[Doc22]

A box and a half will get you through my full test if ya don't screw up. Lol! Easier said than done to get 75 rounds down and all be perfect. When you pull the trigger in a switch or whatever, just mark that shot and fire again is best I can tell ya. Looking for shapes and patterns leaves little room for error and makes it tough to read groups.

Did you list you method, sorry if I missed it there's a lot of posts

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Did you list you method, sorry if I missed it there's a lot of posts

Yes, read from shit show forward. Even pics. There's more details but we'll talk about that. Between what I've posted and our pm's, you should have the gist of it but...that's why I do this by phone.

 

[Doc22]

Yes, read from shit show forward. Even pics. There's more details but we'll talk about that. Between what I've posted and our pm's, you should have the gist of it but...that's why I do this by phone.

For anyone following this thread its post 154.
Unfortunately there was some hiccups along the way, but yes between these threads and out pms I feel vastly more knowledgeable about tuning.

I do have a question you say that there is no magic setting for all ammo. But when I read up on the Hopewell method he said that there is a setting that will generate positive correlation to compensate for slower ammo to leave the barrel at the same angle as the faster ammo.

Are these just differences in ideology between experts?

 

[CharlieNC]

For anyone following this thread its post 154.
Unfortunately there was some hiccups along the way, but yes between these threads and out pms I feel vastly more knowledgeable about tuning.

I do have a question you say that there is no magic setting for all ammo. But when I read up on the Hopewell method he said that there is a setting that will generate positive correlation to compensate for slower ammo to leave the barrel at the same angle as the faster ammo.

Are these just differences in ideology between experts?

Pull up the link I posted earlier to the Kolbe article. It reports measured behavior of positive compensation offsetting velocity differences .

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

For anyone following this thread its post 154.
Unfortunately there was some hiccups along the way, but yes between these threads and out pms I feel vastly more knowledgeable about tuning.

I do have a question you say that there is no magic setting for all ammo. But when I read up on the Hopewell method he said that there is a setting that will generate positive correlation to compensate for slower ammo to leave the barrel at the same angle as the faster ammo.

Are these just differences in ideology between experts?

Not really. I'm not a fan of the Hopewell method...seems aptly named to me. But that's because it starts with big adjustments that I know are skipping over good settings along the way, costing time and ammo, but it's just another method and if the end result is that you end up at a spot that shoots...there ya go! Tune repeats over and over with bbl frequency...so there are multiple sweet spots. Now, you hit on positive compensation but you need to get the principle down before getting into pc, imo. We'll get there and we can discuss it more whenever you call but it's a deeper and even more controversial hole than simply introducing a methodical tuning approach that we've been covering in this thread. In a nutshell, pc is differing velocities landing in the same spot due to different trajectories. It's real but has its detractors, too. Lots more to it than just a tuner on the bbl, though. But, they aid it getting the bbl to be on the upswing when bullet exit occurs, which is a good thing.

 

[Doc22]

Pull up the link I posted earlier to the Kolbe article. It reports measured behavior of positive compensation offsetting velocity differences .

I' read that as well which is how I came up with my question.
According to the Kolbe article, once positive correlation was established bullets were tuned to leave at Angle which arrived at the target atthe same height which ultimate what we all want.
If we place that with our earlier statements that cheap inconsistent ammo is ammo which does not perform uniformly with the understanding that part of the irregular nature of ammo is the fps. Then according to Kolbe we should be able to surmise that a properly tuned barrel will help compensate for those irregularities. These are according to his findings.

I've learned a lot over the past few days.

 

[Doc22]

Not really. I'm not a fan of the Hopewell method...seems aptly named to me. But that's because it starts with big adjustments that I know are skipping over good settings along the way, costing time and ammo, but it's just another method and if the end result is that you end up at a spot that shoots...there ya go! Tune repeats over and over with bbl frequency...so there are multiple sweet spots. Now, you hit on positive compensation but you need to get the principle down before getting into pc, imo. We'll get there and we can discuss it more whenever you call but it's a deeper and even more controversial hole than simply introducing a methodical tuning approach that we've been covering in this thread. In a nutshell, pc is differing velocities landing in the same spot due to different trajectories. It's real but has its detractors, too. Lots more to it than just a tuner on the bbl, though. But, they aid it getting the bbl to be on the upswing when bullet exit occurs, which is a good thing.

I can see why you wouldn't like the Hopewell method, I will try to find more to research as well. We will talk tomorrow nut I'm putting my thoughts here for anyone in the future who may follow this thread to understand the thought process.
I will still need to do some more research to understand if there is indeed 1 "sweet spot" or as you have stated there are multiple. If there are multiple then I agree with you the Hopewell method is broader than necessary. Looking forward to our conversation tomorrow.

 

[CharlieNC]

I' read that as well which is how I came up with my question.
According to the Kolbe article, once positive correlation was established bullets were tuned to leave at Angle which arrived at the target atthe same height which ultimate what we all want.
If we place that with our earlier statements that cheap inconsistent ammo is ammo which does not perform uniformly with the understanding that part of the irregular nature of ammo is the fps. Then according to Kolbe we should be able to surmise that a properly tuned barrel will help compensate for those irregularities. These are according to his findings.

I've learned a lot over the past few days.

Help is the operative term. PC is only effective across a limited range of velocity, and the offset it provides is either too much or too little; these are the factors which could be engineered to provide enhanced PC but it appears the depth of research required has not been conducted and not likely affordable in the public sector.

 

[Bill Norris]

Help is the operative term. PC is only effective across a limited range of velocity, and the offset it provides is either too much or too little; these are the factors which could be engineered to provide enhanced PC but it appears the depth of research required has not been conducted and not likely affordable in the public sector.

This pretty much goes hand in hand with what Tim Sellars was pointing out on "Believe the Target" with Erik Cortina. He has done lots of testing himself but in his mind more Expensive Research is needed.

 

[Doc22]

This pretty much goes hand in hand with what Tim Sellars was pointing out on "Believe the Target" with Erik Cortina. He has done lots of testing himself but in his mind more Expensive Research is needed.

Yes That is what the Kolbe article surmised as well. suffice it to say someone will do the research, it seems that this is more limited to being a rimfire problem, since larger bullets can be handloaded and thus produced to a uniform standard across a lot.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

This pretty much goes hand in hand with what Tim Sellars was pointing out on "Believe the Target" with Erik Cortina. He has done lots of testing himself but in his mind more Expensive Research is needed.

Yes. He and I agree for the most part. Maybe not 100% but at the least, where pc is concerned.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Yes That is what the Kolbe article surmised as well. suffice it to say someone will do the research, it seems that this is more limited to being a rimfire problem, since larger bullets can be handloaded and thus produced to a uniform standard across a lot.

Yes, I said something to that affect in a recent post but long range is similar, even with single digit es numbers, etc. But yes, you're on the right track.

 

[BowChamp]

If you continue the test all the way out, it'll repeat but the next sweet spot will be at the bottom of the bbl swing and hence, will have a very slightly lower poi. Jims gun shows it pretty well but some guns do show this more clearly than others at 50 yards.

Again, I think I mentioned this...With my tuner, it's typically 8-10 marks between sweet spots. So, I'd expect it to come back into tune at about number 16 but will have a little lower poi and no...wait for it...positive compensation can happen at the bottom. Different rabbit hole for now. Lol!

View attachment 1508321

Question,

Using your chart, I have tune (small round group) at the top of the wave. I turn the tuner out until it comes back to tune (small round group) at the top of the wave again.

Would you choose one over the other or both just as good?

Thanks!

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Question,

Using your chart, I have tune (small round group) at the top of the wave. I turn the tuner out until it comes back to tune (small round group) at the top of the wave again.

Would you choose one over the other or both just as good?

Thanks!

Getting past my bedtime but that question gets to positive compensation. I'd tune to the top for that reason, especially with a rimfite, where velocity spreads can be big even with good ammo. Good question though and it's clear you're following the whole idea.

Edit...I misread. Told ya it's past my bedtime. Still very good question and it gets more involved than I wanna get into tonight but generally, in tune is in tune. Top is top. If I can get time tomorrow, I'll try to get into that more and what I look for beyond group shapes and what we've talked about so far.

 

[Vin81]

Lol! You just can't let an opportunity to get a dig in at me go by...ever.
To your point, different science. He's a surgeon and I'm sure he's good at it and has spent a great deal of his life learning about his specialty. So have I.
I've read his posts. It seems like a long way to go to get there but like I said before...do what works for you. Goes for Pedro, you and everyone. No matter and he may well test in Germany too but Pedro is from Portugal..only a few countries off there, Tim!! All the same, right?

Do you not finish reading my posts or just selectively respond to parts of them? It's called context Tim. It matters.

I'm trying to stay above getting into the mud with you but you keep reaching and pulling at me, don't you?

It's just a method of tuning, Tim. What about that bothers you and why can't you let it be? You don't have to read it, much less try it. Same goes for anyone but some care about hearing it without it becoming this same shit.

I’ve seen WLM mentioned a few times in different posts, tried searching and can’t seem to find anything. What does WLM stand for?