• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

ERIK & ERIC

gunsandgunsmithing said:
Hopefully some naysayer will agree that it's easier to prove cause and effect than the other way around. The effect is obvious and the cause is all that's left. Like proving 2+2 does NOT equal 4. Good luck to them with that, I guess but who knows with today's funny math. Like you said though...does it really matter to most? Most people can't scientifically describe how an internal combustion engine in a car works but they just hop in and go because they know it works.
Click to expand...
Yea, his comments concerning barrel movement (or not) in his discussion leaves a lot to be desired. He doubts barrel whip and the stretch theory.
 
Has anyone ever looked at the testing that browning did on their Boss system before they patented it and mass produced it? I bought one 30 years ago and found they worked in tuning loads to a fine degree. I think browning discontinued them because hunters didn’t care that much. They were only concerned with minute of deer and cared about esthetics more than precision. But, I’m guessing they have some research on tuners that would be educational.
 
Last edited:
I would play with that powder charge up and down a couple of tenths both ways unless you are at Max. load already. Maybe try a different primer if you don't see an improvement with powder. I agree the load needs to be a lot happier in order for the tuner to do it's job correctly.
 
My point of view has always been that we are shooting for small groups and anything that does not show up on target doesnt matter. You can measure or test anything you want, but if it does not correlate to what happens on paper I dont care. Tuners are SO simple. They do what they do.
 
Fairchaser said:
Has anyone ever looked at the testing that browning did on their Boss system before they patented it and mass produced it? I bought one 30 years ago and found they worked in tuning loads to a fine degree. I think browning discontinued them because hunters didn’t care that much. They were only concerned with minute of deer and cared about esthetics more than precision. But, I’m guessing they have some research on tuners that would be educational.
Click to expand...
They had the right idea and I'm pretty sure their engineers did the testing. The only thing is there's a tremendous difference between that tuner on a hunting rifle vs a tuner designed for a br rifle. They all work on the same principle but the difference can be pretty significant in terms of how far you should move any tuner at a time, on whatever bbl contour you're shooting. Relatively, the difference is ]retty small but there are several reasons for the differences that can only be tested to know if you're moving a tuner too much at a time or not. There's really only one way to know this and my sine wave test, as some call it, shows this very we) either way and is intended to quantify the value of each adjustment on your bbl, with your tuner. But yes, overall, they were light years ahead of everyone one else in this regard and on hunting contours, I think they were close and because there are several factors at play, the only way to prove them right or wrong is to test similar tuners on similar bbl contours. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that this 2as not something they took lightly. Think about that for a minute and what very likely went into that decision. I'm surprised there are still doubters at all, given the engineering that came way before little old me.
 
Fairchaser said:
Has anyone ever looked at the testing that browning did on their Boss system before they patented it and mass produced it? I bought one 30 years ago and found they worked in tuning loads to a fine degree. I think browning discontinued them because hunters didn’t care that much. They were only concerned with minute of deer and cared about esthetics more than precision. But, I’m guessing they have some research on tuners that would be educational.
Click to expand...
Bought the WInchester version. Liked it so much bought it in evey caliber I could ge my hands on.
 
quest450 said:
don't forget wind flags :p
Click to expand...
Oh, definitely don't forget flags. I love when I hear how the wind doesn't bother the bullet at 100 yards....just love it. Hopefully you're not one of those guys. All it takes is a ballistics program. Just plug in a 180° 10 mph switch and see what it does to the bullet, just at 100 yards even. It's certainly not a secret or anything. There's a reason why several experienced member's first question is, "did you have flags set?" Often, you can tell by the group shape.
 
SKWERLZ said:
i can’t understand how you can’t acknowledge that, 50-70k psi has to do something to the barrel steel
But I’m just a redneck with a jethro clampett edjumakashun.
Click to expand...
Yes! It's only that high for a very short period near the breach end but yes, you're absolutely correct. That said, longitudanal bbl growth is not the driving force to tuning but it's certainly a factor.
 
Vaughn "Rifle Accuracy Facts" . From a charge weight ladder test, he clearly shows the sinusoidal wave pattern on the target (after subtracting the ballistic, gravity effect) whereby the barrel vibration is a few thousands and the frequency is at the speed of sound (based on my calculations). This is based on reality, the target, which is what we care about. Using his approach I carried out these calculations for my target ladders and found the same. It's so straightforward and definitive, I lost interest in pursuing more characterization using the high speed accelerometer I purchased.
 
CharlieNC said:
Vaughn "Rifle Accuracy Facts" . From a charge weight ladder test, he clearly shows the sinusoidal wave pattern on the target (after subtracting the ballistic, gravity effect) whereby the barrel vibration is a few thousands and the frequency is at the speed of sound (based on my calculations). This is based on reality, the target, which is what we care about. Using his approach I carried out these calculations for my target ladders and found the same. It's so straightforward and definitive, I lost interest in pursuing more characterization using the high speed accelerometer I purchased.
Click to expand...
Yea, I think the proof of tuners helping to tune a load is all in everyone's face. Whether they accept it or not is their choice but it is kind of crazy that they will try and convince us believers that it is only a fad (money scheme) and there is no value in a tuner. It would be best if their opinions were kept to themselves.
 
Bill Norris said:
Absolutely, and I think most shooters know a tuner does it's job but just because some cannot accept it they will try to disprove it any way they can. They try and use the scientific approach to prop themselves up.
Click to expand...
I see this all the time and it’s frustrating- people using science to try and justify that their rifle simply hasn’t been tuned well or isn’t up to snuff. The word “dispersion” has become the substitute for “my rifle shot a .250 group one time and so it’s just a .250 gun with a dispersion problem.”

I stay off of Facebook, hell I stay off of everything but this website.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Classified Ads

Forum statistics

Threads
164,670
Messages
2,182,175
Members
78,461
Latest member
JKATT66

Share This Page

Back
Top