Bryan Litz on barrel tuners.

[dgeesaman]

I have 15 rifles that would say diffrent. more than 30 years ago, people would use a rubber doughnut. Then Browining came out with the BOSS. Once the pattent expired, all the other tuners came out. They worked great! At least on my rifles.

Don’t tell me, tell AB. I just attempted to convey the overall findings.

It is worth noting they did two sets of testing - one using a uniform approach on all of the tuning devices, then a second round following the tuner suppliers exact method for each tuner. The statistical outcome was the same - no apparent improvement.

There’s a lot of griping from people who haven’t read the book, don’t know the details of the method, and don’t have data of their own. It’s a study based on the scientific method, and if there’s one thing shooters know, many important things we do don’t fit well into scientifically and statistically rigorous studies. It doesn’t mean one invalidates the other.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Not a big time shooter in any classification - just like to tinker with reloading - shoot and enjoy the results. Recently read the article again. Reply 3 "In a word, he did not get convincing, repeatable data that showed tuners worked in all test cases" accurately states his findings. You need to read the article - as his list of variables he tried to address is impressive. He did find that the additional weight at the muzzle may positively affect results. He plans on studying that finding more at a later time.

Only gripe, his graphing of results appear to be in color - but he only prints them in black and white. Trying to visualize different shades of grey is useless. AB books are already not cheap. IMO - not sure how much adding color to the printing would be. However without it, the data is far less convincing (and less interesting to read) because you cannot see the results.

Did convince me that at my level of shooting - I don't need a "tuner."

FWIW, I'm sure by now there have been literally millions of rounds fired validating tuners and Brian fired a few hundred. If you look for his stated goal of his test, you'll see part of the problem. I've been around tuners enough to know that they are indeed repeatable. In fact, the test I have others do when setting them up is based on predictable group shapes on both sides of what appears to be a sweet spot to validate it. I'm not trying to convince you and I'm not going to get into a pissing match about them. Their results and reports from people who actually use them speaks volumes, whether you think so or not. Numerous world records and national championships are enough for me but vibration analysis testing helped to understand how they do what they do.

I said in about 2012 or so that I thought tuners would soon be as much a part of a new build as a bbl, trigger and stock. Perhaps not for everyone but they have certainly gained in popularity for some reason and they aren't new. They've been around for a good number of years, especially in rf, where they can't tune the load to the rifle. Just about every rf br rifle has some sort of tuner and has had for a very long time. Yes, you can tune a cf without one if you wish.

 

[Straightshooter1]

Guys,

Can anyone point me in the direction of any discussions about Bryan Litz's recent findings/opinions on barrel tuners?

I dont subscribe to his channel and to be honest Im not wanting to listen to his 2hr long podcast on the subject. I would just like to hear what his findings and condensed opinion was and how it has been received by the shooing community.

Thanks

C

When I got his book I was excited to see what data he put together and then surprised at his findings as they didn't support the benefits of a barrel tuner. But, I was also surprise by some of this testing methods that I feel compromised his results.

For example, the part about a tuner for a .22LR, the ammo he used (SK Long Range Match) really wasn't good enough to use for testing, even at 50 yds in the open environmental elements. I have some the SK Long Range Match and it does shoot nicely compared to most of LR ammo, but not really near as good as those like Eley Tenex or Lapua Midas. Even with the best of .22LR ammo, you'd better have a really well tested lot to find enough consistency to make testing for other things valid. So, as I expected, the results for the .22LR just couldn't show any benefit for a barrel tuner.

He goes on to center fire cartridges. Before installing the tuner, control groups are fired. Then the tuners are mounted and testing done. The issue I have about this (and this is really just my opinion base on my anecdotal experience) is once a tuner is mounted, one needs to develop a load with the tuner on before further refining with the tuner adjustments. Like with .22LR, a tuner is not going to fix or improve bad ammo that's out of tune. I find that the tuners I've used does help refine a verily well tuned load, similar to adjustments in seating depths. The other issue I have with the testing he did, is that most of it was done without accounting for or keeping the barrel heat down. The last of his shooters did that some, which brought that issue to his attention, but too late.

. . . anyway, this is my take on what I read.

In his summary, he mentions the effect that the tuner's weights has. Here's his summary:

 

[jackieschmidt]

As Boyd Allen, Dusty, and quite a few other members of this sight can attest, I am one of the shooters that was on the front lines during the battle to get Tuners allowed in NBRSA Bag Gun classes.

I had developed my own one piece tuner, (to be used in the two 10.5 weight limit classes, Sporter and Light Varmint). The late Gene Bukys had visited Dywight Scott and brought back to Houston a different design.

It took quite a bit of persuading, but at the National Meeting the BOD voted to allow tuners on a one year provision basis. At the membership meeting, the discussion was a tad heated, one very well known member of the Benchrest community even took the microphone and said, “Jackie, most of the people here wish you would just go away.”.

The membership did vote for the one year provisional, and the next year tuners were allowed.
The rules governing them is in our Rule Book.

I then developed my own ”dampening tuner”. I believe it broadens the competitive load window. Gene started making his own tuner with a dampener soon after.

Through the years, what have I learned? First, you can’t make a mediocre barrel shoot like a great barrel with a tuner. All it does is offer another tuning aid, (in the case of a tuner, instant), in our never ending quest to get as much out of a barrel the it was born with.

Like Gene, I try to avoid moving the tuner once I find the node that the barrel likes. In Short Range Benchrest, the overall load has to be pretty close. You just can’t toss 30.0 grns of 133 in a 6PPC and expect to get it shooting at a sub .200 level of accuracy by turning the tuner. Anybody that shoots Short Range knows that there is a heck of a lot more involved in finding a competitive tune than simple barrel harmonics.

But once you find that tune, and the tuner setting that the barrel likes, you can tweak things between relays to (hopefully), keep the combination competitive.

Of course, in shooting Disciplines where there is no on site loading between relays, the tuner might be used with a different purpose.

Here are my LV 6PPC and my 30BR VFS rifle with their respective tuners.

 

[1bamashooter]

Flawed tests with flawed results. He dropped the ball on this one and should at least retest. Tuners absolutely work and are pretty much required in rimfire BR to be competitive

 

[ASD9055]

It is basic harmonics. I could direct Bryan to Advanced Dynamic Modeling, High speed cameras, but he allready knows everthing, so no point. I understand the reason why and have the actual results from 22-250 to 338 WM and most every classic claiber in between. Expereince trumps testing, because there is always bias in setting up a test. Well known fact in Engineering and statistics.
If you go in blind, it could be difficult to find the tune, however, if you follow manufacturer directions, in my case, Browing/Winchester, you find it withing a few rounds.

 

[1bamashooter]

No reflection on anyone else's testing but here's why I use them. I know how and why I use them and wouldn't be caught dead on the line without one anymore.

then validated BOTH rifles at 600yds. The gun labeled Pastel had the ammo 100% worked up for it and then the gun labeled BOLD was ONLY tuned using that same ammo from the Pastel gun. I know what I can do with them and that's all that matters to me.

View attachment 1376605View attachment 1376607

You need to send Litz that video

 

[Bottom Fodder]

That's not what I said. If you're in perfect tune without a tuner, it won't make it more than perfectly tuned. But if your tune is leaving something on the table, a tuner can get that last bit. That said, I use a tuner to maintain peak tune over condition changes that would otherwise call for a change in powder charge. If you expect your wallet groups to get better, you don't understand what tuners do and using one to its potential is about recognizing tune, or lack of it on the target...just like powder tuning. They are easier to learn to use than learning to maintain tune with powder charge IMHO, and it's at your fingertips rather than the reload bench. And as Boyd mentioned, the nodes are a tad wider but I don't get too caught up in that aspect because the idea is to use it to maintain peak tune. Not to hope it stays there, but that certainly does have value and I'll take it.

So do they come with phone apps that you plug in shoot day atmosphere conditions, round count and moon phase and it tells you what to set your tuner too?

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

When I got his book I was excited to see what data he put together and then surprised at his findings as they didn't support the benefits of a barrel tuner. But, I was also surprise by some of this testing methods that I feel compromised his results.

For example, the part about a tuner for a .22LR, the ammo he used (SK Long Range Match) really wasn't good enough to use for testing, even at 50 yds in the open environmental elements. I have some the SK Long Range Match and it does shoot nicely compared to most of LR ammo, but not really near as good as those like Eley Tenex or Lapua Midas. Even with the best of .22LR ammo, you'd better have a really well tested lot to find enough consistency to make testing for other things valid. So, as I expected, the results for the .22LR just couldn't show any benefit for a barrel tuner.

He goes on to center fire cartridges. Before installing the tuner, control groups are fired. Then the tuners are mounted and testing done. The issue I have about this (and this is really just my opinion base on my anecdotal experience) is once a tuner is mounted, one needs to develop a load with the tuner on before further refining with the tuner adjustments. Like with .22LR, a tuner is not going to fix or improve bad ammo that's out of tune. I find that the tuners I've used does help refine a verily well tuned load, similar to adjustments in seating depths. The other issue I have with the testing he did, is that most of it was done without accounting for or keeping the barrel heat down. The last of his shooters did that some, which brought that issue to his attention, but too late.

. . . anyway, this is my take on what I read.

In his summary, he mentions the effect that the tuner's weights has. Here's his summary:

View attachment 1376647

The last two paragraphs say a lot. That being that tuners don't improve on an already perfect tune(already said that) and...just how do they make groups worse without changing tune, anyway. So they can't be set back to a setting that shot small? That's just plain wrong, right there. So, it shoots as good as the "baseline" at a setting, makes it worse when he took it out of tune, but couldn't take it back to shooting small? Come on man!

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

So do they come with phone apps that you plug in shoot day atmosphere conditions, round count and moon phase and it tells you what to set your tuner too?

Almost. If you show up I'll give you firsthand in person instruction at no cost. And I'll refund your money if you don't walk away with a different attitude about them. I'll furnish the gun and ammo. I'll move the tuner and you do the shooting.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

The last two paragraphs say a lot. That being that tuners don't improve on an already perfect tune and...just how do they make groups worse without changing tune, anyway. So they can't be set back to a setting that shot small? That's just plain wrong, right there. So, it shoots as good as the "baseline" at a setting, makes it worse when he took it out of tune, but couldn't take it back to shooting small? Come on man!

Exactly

 

[Beiruty]

You need to send Litz that video

Here is my test of EC tuner as per his test method.
Quick empirical conclusion: If the load is not tuned to your rifle, you cannot get better groups with a tuner.
In other words, if you have a load tuned to your rifle, you can change the position of the tuner, and you may get s tighter groups.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Almost. If you show up I'll give you firsthand in person instruction at no cost. And I'll refund your money if you don't walk away with a different attitude about them. I'll furnish the gun and ammo. I'll move the tuner and you do the shooting.

How about some snacks, Mike? I'm especially partial to HoHos and Fruity Pebbles.
Seriously, that's an exceptionally generous offer, and one that any interested party should leap at the chance to avail themselves.



The bottom line is that the physics/properties of a beam with an adjustable weight attached at one end have been intensively studied and are very well defined (i.e. cantilever beam physics). So we know what a tuner should do. Unfortunately, the skill of the shooter carrying out the tuner test is a variable that can never be easily quantified. In a worst-case scenario, it only takes one or two trigger jerks, gun handling errors, or missed wind calls during the course of a tuner test to potentially render it uninterpretable. Nonetheless, they can and do work. But I can also easily envision how a tuner test with several different shooters and rifles might suggest a different conclusion.

 

[INTJ]

While I greatly appreciate what Bryan Litz does, there is a problem approaching shooting from a statistical analysis approach. We don't really have any constants when we shoot. Every shot is different.

Each time a round goes down the barrel the barrel changes. Each case is a bit different, as are powder kernels, bullets, primers; not to mention we aren't perfectly consistent each time we pull the trigger.

As someone who competes in 1000 yd BR, I well know how fleeting good tune are. Let the barrel get a little too dirty and the group opens up. Get a little sloppy with some part of loading and the group opens up. Slightly misread the wind and groups open up. Lose a tiny bit of consistency in gun handling and groups open up.

Now statistically, the size of groups we shoot when things aren't as good as they should be (but in decent conditions) are probably considered pretty good to most and "normal" in terms of statistics. Say 5" 5-shot groups at 1000 yds and 7" 10-shot groups.

However, we routinely shoot 5-shot groups under 3" and 10-shot groups under 5" in decent conditions. So much so that we expect to do that. Sometimes we shoot a lot smaller.

However, those groups we expect to shoot have a very limited in-tune time. Before every match, most of us recheck our loads and often make slight adjustments to seating or powder charges. At the IBS 1000 yd Nationals in 2021, I reduced the load in my 300 WSM heavy gun by .1 or .2 grains. I tightened my groups and won both of my relays that day, where the day before I won only one relay.

That is just one example, but my fellow 1K BR shooters have these results all the time. We frequently make what should be a statistically insignificant change and shoot smaller.

Anyway, a proper tuner test is going to require very good conditions, BR rifles shot from a competition style rest or a rail gun--shot by someone who knows how to shoot those kind of rifles, BR level load prep, BR level tuning, constant throat measurement, and cleaning the barrel within it's known best shooting interval. The barrel also needs to exceed the round count where it starts to lose BR level accuracy.

In fact, just about any test trying to determine the ultimate in accuracy should be done that way. BR competitors test that way as do some F-Open shooters.

Any other approach to testing is simply going to show, depending on distance, that a championship level BR rifle is only a .5 to 1.0 MOA rifle.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

How about some snacks, Mike? I'm especially partial to HoHos and Fruity Pebbles.
Seriously, that's an exceptionally generous offer, and one that any interested party should leap at the chance to avail themselves.



The bottom line is that the physics/properties of a beam with an adjustable weight attached at one end have been intensively studied and are very well defined (i.e. cantilever beam physics). So we know what a tuner should do. Unfortunately, the skill of the shooter carrying out the tuner test is a variable that can never be easily quantified. In a worst-case scenario, it only takes one or two trigger jerks, gun handling errors, or missed wind calls during the course of a tuner test to potentially render it uninterpretable. Nonetheless, they can and do work. But I can also easily envision how a tuner test with several different shooters and rifles might suggest a different conclusion.

You're very right and it crossed my mind about his shooting ability. I wasn't going to and I will not question that. I'd know in a group or two if he can shoot or not but for now, will assume that he can and would be happy to help there if needed. At least to my ability to be of help. I'm blessed to have my own range and some good flags but I'm better at telling someone how to shoot than I am at shooting.Lol!

Simply watching anyone shoot over flags and their gun handling shows me a lot about anyone's potential. If he's shooting during switches, I'd simply offer to do my best at calling the wind. Again, I'll assume he knows how to shoot small. No reason not to. You need to be proficient but not world class. The test is contingent upon every shot and bad calls marked accordingly. Things like stairstep groups that go up and to the right are not typically wind induced, from a rh twist bbl, for example. That actually plays pretty heavily in my evaluation of a tuner test, for that reason.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

While I greatly appreciate what Bryan Litz does, there is a problem approaching shooting from a statistical analysis approach. We don't really have any constants when we shoot. Every shot is different.

Each time a round goes down the barrel the barrel changes. Each case is a bit different, as are powder kernels, bullets, primers; not to mention we aren't perfectly consistent each time we pull the trigger.

As someone who competes in 1000 yd BR, I well know how fleeting good tune are. Let the barrel get a little too dirty and the group opens up. Get a little sloppy with some part of loading and the group opens up. Slightly misread the wind and groups open up. Lose a tiny bit of consistency in gun handling and groups open up.

Now statistically, the size of groups we shoot when things aren't as good as they should be (but in decent conditions) are probably considered pretty good to most and "normal" in terms of statistics. Say 5" 5-shot groups at 1000 yds and 7" 10-shot groups.

However, we routinely shoot 5-shot groups under 3" and 10-shot groups under 5" in decent conditions. So much so that we expect to do that. Sometimes we shoot a lot smaller.

However, those groups we expect to shoot have a very limited in-tune time. Before every match, most of us recheck our loads and often make slight adjustments to seating or powder charges. At the IBS 1000 yd Nationals in 2021, I reduced the load in my 300 WSM heavy gun by .1 or .2 grains. I tightened my groups and won both of my relays that day, where the day before I won only one relay.

That is just one example, but my fellow 1K BR shooters have these results all the time. We frequently make what should be a statistically insignificant change and shoot smaller.

Anyway, a proper tuner test is going to require very good conditions, BR rifles shot from a competition style rest or a rail gun--shot by someone who knows how to shoot those kind of rifles, BR level load prep, BR level tuning, constant throat measurement, and cleaning the barrel within it's known best shooting interval. The barrel also needs to exceed the round count where it starts to lose BR level accuracy.

In fact, just about any test trying to determine the ultimate in accuracy should be done that way. BR competitors test that way as do some F-Open shooters.

Any other approach to testing is simply going to show, depending on distance, that a championship level BR rifle is only a .5 to 1.0 MOA rifle.

In short range, unless someone breaks, you're a solid dead last place with a .5-1moa rifle and tune. You can tell what the tuner does to group shapes with less distance and wind between you and the target. It just extrapolates with yardage. I do virtually all tuner testing at 100 yards with cf rifles...some 200. Ive done enough long range testing to see that the results just extrapolate and that wind mainly, just becomes a bigger factor in it. Shortening the distance just shortens the time to see what the tuner does to the group shapes...repeatably. Most guns are either in or very, very close when moved out to longer range in the same conditions.

 

[Bottom Fodder]

Almost. If you show up I'll give you firsthand in person instruction at no cost. And I'll refund your money if you don't walk away with a different attitude about them. I'll furnish the gun and ammo. I'll move the tuner and you do t

Almost. If you show up I'll give you firsthand in person instruction at no cost. And I'll refund your money if you don't walk away with a different attitude about them. I'll furnish the gun and ammo. I'll move the tuner and you do the shooting.

Mighty nice offer, but if I bought one and won the next match then like a bass tournament next match everyone would show with one and the playing field would back level

 

[JEFFPPC]

So a custom built gun with proper load development is still not at it‘s full potential until you add a “tuner” among other bells and whistle. And I though I was the limiting factor

I have been shooting tuners longer than most. For probably close 10 years I would be the only guy at a match with tuners. My experienced opinion is the tuners best value is staying in tune. So if you have a rifle that is capable of being precise,?, know how to develop a load,?, and have the shooting skills,?, you will most often find the sweet spot for your barrel and rifle without the tuner. There are ocassions when a bump one way or the other will help. But the real value is staying in tune, again that requires experience and time. Will it make up for a half a$$ed build, poor reloading, poor bench manners and no flags, no. Will it help a bad gun be better, probably but won't make it a winner either.There is one thing I totally disagree with and that is developing a load and then putting a tuner on. You just turned your gun into one with no load development. Have 800 rounds down the tube and it seems your losing your edge. Couple 2 shot groups will get you sharpened up using the tuner properly. All tuning done over flags.
,

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Mighty nice offer, but if I bought one and won the next match then like a bass tournament next match everyone would show with one and the playing field would back level

That does happen in a competitive game, frequently. The offer stands. Not sure how far "over yonder" is from here but I'd be happy to show you my process and it's hard not to see what tuners can do. Even Brian's test confirms it by saying they can take a gun out of tune. Well, the obvious response is...if they can take one out, why can he not bring it back into tune during his test or did he just omit that part from either his test or from his conclusion report. Hmmm.
Again, you can tune a rifle by load. I've never said otherwise.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I have been shooting tuners longer than most. For probably close 10 years I would be the only guy at a match with tuners. My experienced opinion is the tuners best value is staying in tune. So if you have a rifle that is capable of being precise,?, know how to develop a load,?, and have the shooting skills,?, you will most often find the sweet spot for your barrel and rifle without the tuner. There are ocassions when a bump one way or the other will help. But the real value is staying in tune, again that requires experience and time. Will it make up for a half a$$ed build, poor reloading, poor bench manners and no flags, no. Will it help a bad gun be better, probably but won't make it a winner either.There is one thing I totally disagree with and that is developing a load and then putting a tuner on. You just turned your gun into one with no load development. Have 800 rounds down the tube and it seems your losing your edge. Couple 2 shot groups will get you sharpened up using the tuner properly. All tuning done over flags.
,

I agree except that for a long time, it was reported by many that we should do load development before adding the tuner. Fact is, it works either way because tune just repeats with frequency. Adding a mass on the end of the bbl lowers the frequency and slightly widens the node width, but it does still repeat. IME, the tuner works just as well either way but I do prefer to do load work up with it on, for the same reason you allude to. Just don't touch it while doing the initial load work up.