Barrel tuners. Good or a waste of time?

[Alex Wheeler]

I am questioning the wisdom of handing over a competitive edge and then having to explain and argue with the theoretical experts!

Thats been happening a lot lately! Proof is in wins and records, not graphs in books. Real world experience and proving it at matches.

 

[Mulligan]

Thats been happening a lot lately! Proof is in wins and records, not graphs in books. Real world experience and proving it at matches.

Alex,
You're not wrong.
Admittedly there are a few d-bags on here that will always look the gift horse in the mouth and tell anyone they can that the data set isn’t big enough or they should have divided the P-Val by PI instead of doing whatever what ever it is they did.
The truth is, the vast majority of readers on this forum are respectful and do appreciate learning from the “big dogs”. If all the testers follow your advice, the daily bulletin will turn into re-runs.
CW

 

[Puzzaz01]

Hey @BartsBullets .... I don't blame you one bit, you've worked hard and it shows. You really don't need to post on this site for everyone to see. I'll be up tomorrow and you can show me in person. Lol...

Darrin

 

[dcali]

I dont want to dis-rail this thread so feel free to ignore this, but I wonder how standard vibration analysis truly applies to a hollow cantilevered beam with a traveling mass and a constantly changing pressure behind it? I often wonder if we are not being short sighted by looking at barrel harmonics as if we really understand them.

There’s vibration analysis and then there’s VIBRATION ANALYSIS. You’re correct. Looking at simple canteliever beams isn’t going to get you any numbers worth caring about.

But... there is a lot we know about how *any arbitrary structure under any arbitrary load* vibrates. I spent a great deal of my younger days modeling spacecraft under very complex launch loads. It works. BUT... you also need to test. You need to tune your model to your hardware tests if you want your model to spit out quantitatively accurate results. For rifles, I think this is a pipe dream and not even worth doing. (It could be done, but it would be far more trouble than it’s worth.)

That said, there are a lot of *concepts* that get used in analysis that are helpful when designing and using rifles. Lots of folks seem to understand that rifle barrels vibrate in various “modes” which are at varying resonant frequencies. The next step is to understand that the forces acting on the rifle also act at varying frequencies, which excite those modes to varying degrees. Nobody ever really talks about that. Another useful concept is that constraints matter a lot. I guarantee you that you will observe a measurable resonant frequency change between a rifle fired free recoil and one bolted to a bench. This is why stock stiffness matters. In fact, I bet you could design a stock based tuner - some sort of device to vary the stiffness of the stock. This would impact barrel frequency in the same way that a traditional tuner does.

So no, we don’t fully understand the numbers. But yes, we do understand the mechanisms through which these phenomenon work. And that’s valuable. We don’t need to resort to blind trial and error.

Unfortunately, I see a lot of people who are completely missing the point of what a tuner does conceptually, which in turn causes them to go about using them in some odd and counterproductive ways. There was also a time when some tuner manufacturers were spouting some garbage that is just factually incorrect, which doesn’t help. Today that’s much less of a problem. I suppose this internet is good for something after all. You don’t need a PhD in structural dynamics to use a tuner properly. But some basic conceptual knowledge of what’s going on will save some guys a lot of grief.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

There’s vibration analysis and then there’s VIBRATION ANALYSIS. You’re correct. Looking at simple canteliever beams isn’t going to get you any numbers worth caring about.

But... there is a lot we know about how *any arbitrary structure under any arbitrary load* vibrates. I spent a great deal of my younger days modeling spacecraft under very complex launch loads. It works. BUT... you also need to test. You need to tune your model to your hardware tests if you want your model to spit out quantitatively accurate results. For rifles, I think this is a pipe dream and not even worth doing. (It could be done, but it would be far more trouble than it’s worth.)

That said, there are a lot of *concepts* that get used in analysis that are helpful when designing and using rifles. Lots of folks seem to understand that rifle barrels vibrate in various “modes” which are at varying resonant frequencies. The next step is to understand that the forces acting on the rifle also act at varying frequencies, which excite those modes to varying degrees. Nobody ever really talks about that. Another useful concept is that constraints matter a lot. I guarantee you that you will observe a measurable resonant frequency change between a rifle fired free recoil and one bolted to a bench. This is why stock stiffness matters. In fact, I bet you could design a stock based tuner - some sort of device to vary the stiffness of the stock. This would impact barrel frequency in the same way that a traditional tuner does.

So no, we don’t fully understand the numbers. But yes, we do understand the mechanisms through which these phenomenon work. And that’s valuable. We don’t need to resort to blind trial and error.

Unfortunately, I see a lot of people who are completely missing the point of what a tuner does conceptually, which in turn causes them to go about using them in some odd and counterproductive ways. There was also a time when some tuner manufacturers were spouting some garbage that is just factually incorrect, which doesn’t help. Today that’s much less of a problem. I suppose this internet is good for something after all. You don’t need a PhD in structural dynamics to use a tuner properly. But some basic conceptual knowledge of what’s going on will save some guys a lot of grief.

Im certainly not advocating not trying to figure out why and how. Thats really my interest in rifles after all. But especially when it comes to barrel vibrations so much of what is out there is written as if its fact. So much of it does not match up with what you see on target. What you say about frequency very well may be true. But I cant see frequency in a load. We may be able to change frequency but I dont believe it effects groups. Amplitude is very obvious in groups. I just like to see the theory match the target, then you can really start to think your on the right track.

 

[dcali]

I think the main way that understanding comes into play is just simple stuff. Like keeping guys from setting a tuner as if you set it once and you’re done. That’s just not how it works. And any prediction based on a simple resonant frequency calculator is far too simplistic to bother with. We need to be thinking about loads, their frequencies, their directions and what can be done about them to reduce, eliminate or exploit them. We can measure the frequency content of various loads. If we did that, and compared it to the rifle’s (not just the barrel’s) resonant frequency, I bet we’d figure out some interesting ideas. This is basically what Harold Vaughn did in his book. It’s a shame he only ever searched the surface. There’s a lot more to learn here.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

My thoughts on frequency is how can a cartridge chambered in a #3 sporter and also in a 1.250 straight barrel have the same accuracy node spacing with powder charge/velocity? The frequency has to be very different in those 2 but the node spacing is not affected? I just dont think frequency is effecting what we are doing. But maybe Im looking at it all wrong? Im not talking about tuners here. Im just talking vibrations in general.

 

[tvaught]

If only there was a National Barrel Vibration & Frequency Tuning Theory Championship...then we'd have a lot of trophies to hand out for some of our "expert" posters in this forum/thread running off the real knowledge.

 

[richard]

I think the main way that understanding comes into play is just simple stuff. Like keeping guys from setting a tuner as if you set it once and you’re done. That’s just not how it works. And any prediction based on a simple resonant frequency calculator is far too simplistic to bother with. We need to be thinking about loads, their frequencies, their directions and what can be done about them to reduce, eliminate or exploit them. We can measure the frequency content of various loads. If we did that, and compared it to the rifle’s (not just the barrel’s) resonant frequency, I bet we’d figure out some interesting ideas. This is basically what Harold Vaughn did in his book. It’s a shame he only ever searched the surface. There’s a lot more to learn here.

You can beat this horse until it's dead. Most probably don't really care how it works as long as it does work. The target tells the story plain and simple. If you can make the rifle do what you want it to, what else really matters.

Richard

 

[Cloudrepair]

This is all very interesting to me.
I recognized the value when i first saw a tuner, being a machinist and dealing with vibrastions/ harmonics how i seen it. The first tuner i ever used was about twenty years ago i had a boring job i needed to do with a three foot boring bar, i couldnt seem to get the lathe speed and feed to work so i straped a bar of brass to the boring bar.
The boring bar was about three inch diameter hanging out about 30" the brass bar was about 10"long 1" diameter and it brought it right in and improved the finnish very much. Now if i can get time at the range i could test my tuners they arent the level mikes tuners are but easier for me to do my own.
I dont known if i will ever have the skill at the range some of you have but i try to learn and improve from all the info i find here.

 

[alinwa]

This is all very interesting to me.
I recognized the value when i first saw a tuner, being a machinist and dealing with vibrastions/ harmonics how i seen it. The first tuner i ever used was about twenty years ago i had a boring job i needed to do with a three foot boring bar, i couldnt seem to get the lathe speed and feed to work so i straped a bar of brass to the boring bar.
The boring bar was about three inch diameter hanging out about 30" the brass bar was about 10"long 1" diameter and it brought it right in and improved the finnish very much. Now if i can get time at the range i could test my tuners they arent the level mikes tuners are but easier for me to do my own.
I dont known if i will ever have the skill at the range some of you have but i try to learn and improve from all the info i find here.

 

[Cloudrepair]

Very cool
The machine i was useing was just a LeBlonde with a 9 inch spindle bore.
Nice machine there Alinwa

 

[6BRinNZ]

Hey Guys!

I’m not run off! Just way too many non-shooting Theoretical experts on this thread for me! I started thinking to myself why do I want to just hand over one of the best things I’ve figured out in competitive shooting. Then have to argue about it with the same bunch.

Once it’s posted some will argue “it can’t be!” Another bunch will say it requires “more statistical analysis!” There will some that say I don’t think that will help! So why do it???

In the past three years I doubt there has been anyone that’s worked any harder then I have trying to figure out how to make these big 6mm bullets go into one hole and how to keep long range guns in tune! I’ve learned a lot and it’s been a hell of a journey!

Three things that Tony Boyer taught me to look for in a barrel;

1. A large load window
2. Is the barrel helping in the wind
3. (The Holy Grail) Point of Impact doesn’t change as the load goes up or down.

With the tuner in the right place with most Barrels I can get or at least improve on #1 and #3!

Not trying to tease you all, but I am questioning the wisdom of handing over a competitive edge and then having to explain and argue with the theoretical experts!

It’s just easier to Wish Everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Bart

A bunch of us are real keen to hear what you have to say.
I appreciate you don't want to give it away.
You don't have to argue with anyone, justify or anything else. Just put it on the table. Your results do everything else.
Erik Cortina did this with the 100 yrd load dev thread. It helped a whole bunch of us average Joe's out.
I doubt it did jack for the upper echelon.

 

[lukehalee]

I think Bart’ messing w everyone, a big red herring. I think he is actually a meteorologist. Everyone that knows anything knows as powder load changes, barrel time changes. I don’t think that barrel ever stops flopping around. (Sorry if I’m too technical).

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Nah, Bart is really doing what he said. I have seen the targets. Its interesting.

 

[BartsBullets]

I think Bart’ messing w everyone, a big red herring. I think he is actually a meteorologist. Everyone that knows anything knows as powder load changes, barrel time changes. I don’t think that barrel ever stops flopping around. (Sorry if I’m too technical).

Nope! I’ve discussed and talked with Alex about it weeks ago. Next thing to do is see if it holds together at 1000 yards.

Bart

 

[Gene Beggs]

You can beat this horse until it's dead. Most probably don't really care how it works as long as it does work. The target tells the story plain and simple. If you can make the rifle do what you want it to, what else really matters.

Richard

Well said Richard. Most shooters don't really care how a tuner works any more than they care about phases of the moon.

It has always helped me to remember that a barrel tuner works exactly like the focus ring on a scope. I often ask those new to tuners, "Can you focus a scope?" They usually answer with something like, "Of course." Then I say, "If you can focus your scope, you can 'focus' your barrel/tuner using the same technique."

i.e., Place the tuner on 'zero' and fire a two or three shot test group on the sighter. If the first two shots don't go in a dot, there is no reason to fire a third. A third shot won't make the group any smaller but if the first two shots dot up, go ahead and fire a third to see if it will join the first two. If three shots dot up it's very likely that two more will also go in the group in which case we have been extremely lucky by having the tuner in the 'in tune' position to begin with.( There is about a one in five chance of this happening.) But most of us are rarely that lucky so lets discuss what to do if the first two or three shots of the test group look as if they were fired from a shotgun.

Obviously, if the test group is ragged, the rifle is out of tune so lets make a one mark adjustment of the tuner. "Which way?" you ask. It doesn't matter; one mark in either direction will make a noticeable difference in the next test group so let's begin with one mark out toward the muzzle. If the test group gets bigger, we went the wrong way in which case we go back where we were, ('zero') and then make a one mark adjustment in toward the breech. If the next test group looks better but there is still about one bullet hole of verticle, go one more mark in the same direction and you should be right in tune. Make a note of the temperature and tuner setting then go to the record!

If this sounds time consuming and complicated don't worry; in short order you will be doing it easily and quickly during the warmup period.

And that's all there is to it!

Next time we will discuss keeping the rifle in tune throughout the day as atmospheric conditions change. Remember to keep it simple. Don't fuss with trivia and try to make something hard out of it; it really IS that simple.

Later,

Gene Beggs

 

[Cloudrepair]

The bar in that vid looks like one with the disc dampening method designed into it ( carbide discs stacked in a portion of it) or something similar.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Well said Richard. Most shooters don't really care how a tuner works any more than they care about phases of the moon.

It has always helped me to remember that a barrel tuner works exactly like the focus ring on a scope. I often ask those new to tuners, "Can you focus a scope?" They usually answer with something like, "Of course." Then I say, "If you can focus your scope, you can 'focus' your barrel/tuner using the same technique."

i.e., Place the tuner on 'zero' and fire a two or three shot test group on the sighter. If the first two shots don't go in a dot, there is no reason to fire a third. A third shot won't make the group any smaller but if the first two shots dot up, go ahead and fire a third to see if it will join the first two. If three shots dot up it's very likely that two more will also go in the group in which case we have been extremely lucky by having the tuner in the 'in tune' position to begin with.( There is about a one in five chance of this happening.) But most of us are rarely that lucky so lets discuss what to do if the first two or three shots of the test group look as if they were fired from a shotgun.

Obviously, if the test group is ragged, the rifle is out of tune so lets make a one mark adjustment of the tuner. "Which way?" you ask. It doesn't matter; one mark in either direction will make a noticeable difference in the next test group so let's begin with one mark out toward the muzzle. If the test group gets bigger, we went the wrong way in which case we go back where we were, ('zero') and then make a one mark adjustment in toward the breech. If the next test group looks better but there is still about one bullet hole of verticle, go one more mark in the same direction and you should be right in tune. Make a note of the temperature and tuner setting then go to the record!

If this sounds time consuming and complicated don't worry; in short order you will be doing it easily and quickly during the warmup period.

And that's all there is to it!

Next time we will discuss keeping the rifle in tune throughout the day as atmospheric conditions change. Remember to keep it simple. Don't fuss with trivia and try to make something hard out of it; it really IS that simple.

Later,

Gene Beggs

Thank you gene. Youve unselfishly shared a lot over the years and anybody that knows you really appreciates snatching some of your hard earned knowledge.

 

[jimmymac]

Thank you gene. Youve unselfishly shared a lot over the years and anybody that knows you really appreciates snatching some of your hard earned knowledge.

Exactly! Thanks Gene.