Hornady Podcast on barrel tuners

[6.5 forever]

More and more I think that video was done hastily to just generate content, clicks and page views to hornady products.

Mostly just for content. If you don't post new content often enougj you lose subscribers, viewers and you mess up search optimization (ie being in the upper tier of search results)

That definitely sounds probable

 

[BoydAllen]

I just watched the first few minutes, but even from that it was apparent that they were poorly informed on the subject. The first clue was the fellow referring to barrel tuners as muzzle tuners. When the next fellow spoke he recounted how he had read that they worked and in doing so, revealed how spotty his knowledge is. What they should have done is to consult with people who have achieved success using tuners. Apparently they did not. My conclusion is that they are not as smart as they think they are.

 

[Jud96]

My post isn’t exactly about tuners, but my thoughts on Hornady, if they were so good at what they do, why aren’t their bullets used by any serious competitors in precision shooting sports? Custom bullets, Berger’s, and some Sierra’s are what dominate in F-Class, Benchrest, and even PRS. They should figure out how to make bullets equal or better than Berger, because Berger is the standard for production bullets. Hornady seems to be hit or miss on their bullets and some lots are good, some are bad, some designs are okay and some blow up or don’t shoot for crap.

 

[L.Sherm]

My earlier post was not a bash on Hornandy but more toward the crowd who I see say minute of deer or Elk is good enough or you only need 1 M.O.A at long range to hunt because that's the kill zone on a elk at 1,000. Ive seen it posted many times on forums. The other on is you dont need to load like your shooting BR, F- Class accuracy for hunting I just shake my head.
I believe that crowd is there focus.
They have done some good things like put the right freebore in the PRC line unlike Nosler.

 

[Bill Norris]

I just watched the first few minutes, but even from that it was apparent that they were poorly informed on the subject. The first clue was the fellow referring to barrel tuners as muzzle tuners. When the next fellow spoke he recounted how he had read that they worked and in doing so, revealed how spotty his knowledge is. What they should have done is to consult with people who have achieved success using tuners. Apparently they did not. My conclusion is that they are not as smart as they think they are.

My post isn’t exactly about tuners, but my thoughts on Hornady, if they were so good at what they do, why aren’t their bullets used by any serious competitors in precision shooting sports? Custom bullets, Berger’s, and some Sierra’s are what dominate in F-Class, Benchrest, and even PRS. They should figure out how to make bullets equal or better than Berger, because Berger is the standard for production bullets. Hornady seems to be hit or miss on their bullets and some lots are good, some are bad, some designs are okay and some blow up or don’t shoot for crap.

Absolutely Boyd, they have no clue how to actually test in order to gain the true honest results.

Totally Agree 100 % Jud96. From my first days of learning to hand load for accuracy back in the mid-90s if I ever had an issue with a bullet it ALWAYS seemed to be Hornady. And today that has not changed at all. But I have gotten smarter and ONLY shoot Hornady bullets to blow out brass or for foulers before I start real testing with either Custom, Berger, or Sierra bullets. I hope Hornady reads this. TUNERS WORK.

 

[Dave M.]

Hornady basically duplicated Brian Litz' test and then claimed tuners don't work.

Both Litz and Hornady failed to follow the manufacturer's instruction on how to use the tuner.

Hornady ONLY tested using large movements of the tuner (full 360 degree revolutions) instead of making small incremental changes. Litz called his full revolutions "sweeps", while Hornady calls theirs +1 or +2 from baseline. Most tuners advise to make small incremental changes of 2 or 5 hashmarks, maybe 1/12 or 1/16 revolution at a time.

Hornady did not explain why they chose to only test full revolutions and NOT test smaller increments.

Rifles tested: 6Arc, 6.5 Cr, 556

41:35 min- 556 rifle... "On this first test I did 3 different tuner settings and I made pretty big movements of the tuner's adjustment: full revolutions of the indexing marks... full revolutions from baseline of zero..." +1 full revolution from baseline, then +2 full revolution from baseline.

"The test data that we have shows that across those three tests, the tuner did not make changes to the result outside of what would be expected just from test to test."

"...to get to the conclusion of, we've shot nearly a thousand rounds, and you can hang stuff on a barrel and it makes a difference, maybe, but the individual settings don't make a difference. Not from what we saw."

Additionally, a different problem with their test- "for the 556 test we used 55gr FMJ bulk ammo." Why would they use such poor quality ammo for ANY test? The regular (large) variances in velocity and accuracy likey overshadowed any pos/neg changes a tuner would make. Useless test.

Also, they did computer modeling using a 30 cal 24" barrel with a 16oz tuner on the muzzle. Again, literally nobody uses a 16oz muzzle device of any kind. They did not simulate any other reasonable and commonly used weights. Most tuners and brakes are between 2-6oz, nowhere near 16oz. Litz did the same thing testing up to 4lbs muzzle devices.

So many problems with the Hornady testing. I’m surprised they didn’t have one single competent person in their company that said “woooo, let’s pull the reigns back on this a little and see what we are missing”.
So incompetent of them. And why use such a ridiculously poor combo of rifle and ammo. They should have started with what they determined was a rifle that exhibited world class accuracy without a tuner as the baseline for testing.

 

[Dave M.]

I don't think this statement will upset anyone and that we can all agree that...if you don't know the value of any adjustment to the tuner and how it should affect the result on the target...you are guessing. Nothing more, nothing less and it doesn't matter what kind of tuner or what it's on.
Simple enough, right?

Now, apparently their test would support that statement but not much else. I'm with the op on this...Why would they spend time and money trying to disprove what so many know to be true. IMHO, any test that starts off with such large adjustments exemplifies the lack of understanding of what they are testing, err...tuners. Starting with low quality ammo would only reinforce that. You have to trust each shot so poor quality ammo is not conducive to that basic aspect of testing, pretty much anything. That gets us to, GIGO...garbage in, garbage out. I would think they know that much so it makes me wonder what their desired outcome actually is. It might fool some people but you don't have to be particularly bright to understand that aspect of any test, with or without regard for their experience or lack of, regarding tuners.

Precisely stated. The testing at the very least should have started with a rifle and ammo combo known to possess world class accuracy SANS tuner. Then install a tuner and follow the tuner designer’s recommended testing procedure.
Dave

 

[L.Sherm]

I dont know if I'm assuming or not because I don't watch any of there pod casts but I'm guessing they used there factory ammo and I've never got Hornandy factory ammo to shoot in anything ive tried to get close to what I believe to test a tuner.

 

[DiRTY DOG]

So many problems with the Hornady testing. I’m surprised they didn’t have one single competent person in their company that said “woooo, let’s pull the reigns back on this a little and see what we are missing”.
So incompetent of them. And why use such a ridiculously poor combo of rifle and ammo. They should have started with what they determined was a rifle that exhibited world class accuracy without a tuner as the baseline for testing.

They did test a 6arc Bihorn TL3 with a Manor stock and Proof prefit steel barrel, and 6.5Cr Ruger Precision Rifle, but did not discuss the results other than saying they "did not see big differences".

The problem isn't the equipment. The problem is performed a lame test by only testing full 360 degree revolutions from baseline. Literally nobody claims tuners work that way.

They did not test the way actual tuner makers and shooters use tuners, which is moving in small increments from baseline.

It's as if they intentionally tested in a way that would show tuners don't work. And avoided using tuners correctly they way accomplished competitors actually use them. Litz did the same. How is it not intentional to create such a lame test?

Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[dgeesaman]

Hornady basically duplicated Brian Litz' test and then claimed tuners don't work.

Both Litz and Hornady failed to follow the manufacturer's instruction on how to use the tuner.

Hornady ONLY tested using large movements of the tuner (full 360 degree revolutions) instead of making small incremental changes. Litz called his full revolutions "sweeps", while Hornady calls theirs +1 or +2 from baseline. Most tuners advise to make small incremental changes of 2 or 5 hashmarks, maybe 1/12 or 1/16 revolution at a time.

Hornady did not explain why they chose to only test full revolutions and NOT test smaller increments.

Rifles tested: 6Arc, 6.5 Cr, 556

41:35 min- 556 rifle... "On this first test I did 3 different tuner settings and I made pretty big movements of the tuner's adjustment: full revolutions of the indexing marks... full revolutions from baseline of zero..." +1 full revolution from baseline, then +2 full revolution from baseline.

"The test data that we have shows that across those three tests, the tuner did not make changes to the result outside of what would be expected just from test to test."

"...to get to the conclusion of, we've shot nearly a thousand rounds, and you can hang stuff on a barrel and it makes a difference, maybe, but the individual settings don't make a difference. Not from what we saw."

Additionally, a different problem with their test- "for the 556 test we used 55gr FMJ bulk ammo." Why would they use such poor quality ammo for ANY test? The regular (large) variances in velocity and accuracy likey overshadowed any pos/neg changes a tuner would make. Useless test.

Also, they did computer modeling using a 30 cal 24" barrel with a 16oz tuner on the muzzle. Again, literally nobody uses a 16oz muzzle device of any kind. They did not simulate any other reasonable and commonly used weights. Most tuners and brakes are between 2-6oz, nowhere near 16oz. Litz did the same thing testing up to 4lbs muzzle devices.

Tests that test if a tuner is what they wished it would do versus what a tuner actually does - yep test confirms you aren’t ready for a tuner.

 

[Jud96]

Hornady also seems to cater to PRS like many companies are doing. It’s the hot thing right now and several of the Hornady podcast hosts either compete in PRS or have shot matches before. From the way they talk, I’d assume none of them have shot benchrest or F-Class. Because of this, I don’t think they tend to think or test like a BR or F-Class shooter has to in order to be competitive. If they can be sub MOA and do course tests to get there, then that’s perfect for what they do. Just my thoughts on listening to the majority of their podcasts

 

[Bill Norris]

Hornady also seems to cater to PRS like many companies are doing. It’s the hot thing right now and several of the Hornady podcast hosts either compete in PRS or have shot matches before. From the way they talk, I’d assume none of them have shot benchrest or F-Class. Because of this, I don’t think they tend to think or test like a BR or F-Class shooter has to in order to be competitive. If they can be sub MOA and do course tests to get there, then that’s perfect for what they do. Just my thoughts on listening to the majority of their podcasts

Yea if they were capable of handloading to higher precision and accuracy and their bullets were up to the task then they might be able to see more clearly that the tuner does work.

 

[Tesoro]

I think the Horandy guys should have consulted with Mr Ezell before excluding the environmental variable that can make a tuner shine:

IME, tuners will allow you to extract whatever potential a given load and gun have to offer, and to maintain that same level of performance over a wide range, if not any range of temps and conditions.



So, if you have a gun that is only a .3 gun with Varget and 105's(both given for example) without a tuner, it'll still be a .3 gun with one.

BUT..if you have a gun that is a tack driver with lets say 30.0 grains of varget, but it falls off at 30.5, or when temps change significantly, a tuner will allow you to keep that 30.0 grain charge in tune throughout whatever conditions you have to work with.



So, yes, a tuner can "mask" a bad load by tuning the gun to shoot that load, but only within a certain range. It will never make poor powder choices or poor quality bullets into premium performing loads, though.



The benefit of a properly weighted tuner is a wider tune window and the ability to adjust to maintain tune in different conditions. The method that I recommend for tuning a rifle with a tuner is simple..put the tuner on and work up your load as normal..and never touch the tuner until the load is settled upon. Moving the tuner while doing load workup is akin to changing the powder charge twice before shooting it.



That said..if you're dealing with a cartridge that has a known good load..ie. 29.5grins of 133 in a ppc...you can typically go with that known load and fine tune it in with the tuner.



There is nothing complicated about using a tuner. In fact, they can greatly simply tuning and make nodes easier to find. Just keep it simple! It's so very easy to do that I can show someone with a known good gun and load how to use their tuner in 15 minutes or less, in good wind. ---Mike Ezell

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Just throwing out random numbers here but lets say a tuner can take a .5moa load and make it shoot teens. It can if the problem was tune. Now lets say your gun or ammo are only capable of shooting 1.5 moa. You can forget fixing that with a tuner. If the problem is purely tune, a tuner will correct that to whatever potential the gun/load has. It really is a TUNER. It's not a fix for crap ammo or equipment. They correct TUNE and they have to be used properly, which also encompasses being methodical in the whole tuning process. Moving one randomly, without any idea of a predictable outcome...is guessing. It's random and it's just wrong. It will yield random and unpredictable results. You can luck into a sweet spot, even randomly but then what? Without a predictable result from methodically adjusting the tuner, no way me or anyone could repeatedly tune with one. It'd be like randomly picking a load and then randomly changing it when the tune goes away.

Moving in full turns would be like...ok, got a little vertical in my group so lets add a lb of powder and see what happens.

 

[JimSC]

using a Harrels tuner on a .22 LR moving it 2 increments at a time for a total of 14 increments. This target represents about 1/6th of a revolution on a Harrels. You can see the wave in the vertical and the composite is where the wave peaks in two places overlayed. In the composite, you can see the group height for settings 260 and 274 for those ten shots overlayed on each other was .229 including the shot in the 360 group that dropped below the waterline.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

using a Harrels tuner on a .22 LR moving it 2 increments at a time for a total of 14 increments. This target represents about 1/6th of a revolution on a Harrels. You can see the wave in the vertical and the composite is where the wave peaks in two places overlayed. In the composite, you can see the group height for settings 260 and 274 for those ten shots overlayed on each other was .229 including the shot in the 360 group that dropped below the waterline.

Not a classic example but what I look for is largely there and it's pretty common for there to be about 8-10 marks from completely out of tune to fully in tune. Looks like yours is 10 marks. And yes, you can see the sine...Out of tune in the middle and in tune at the top in your test example. More groups will show more info. It was probably in tune again but at the bottom of the swing at around 354 if it was there to look at. Sweet!

It's important to note this is a rimfire target. It's typically about half as far between sweet spots on a cf and I move 1 mark at a time on my cf tuners, rather than your 2 but on a rf.

 

[JimSC]

The target is indeed rough, the wind was kicking my tail but the last week or so we have had bad weather and I needed a range trip. I was looking for the vertical swing more than anything, and just doing the best I could with the horizontal

here is a composite of the two nodes at the bottom 366 and 368. Seven of the ten were tight and the three flyers were most likely my windhold

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

The target is indeed rough, the wind was kicking my tail but the last week or so we have had bad weather and I needed a range trip. I was looking for the vertical swing more than anything, and just doing the best I could with the horizontal

here is a composite of the two nodes at the bottom 366 and 368. Seven of the ten were tight and the three flyers were most likely my windhold

I look at groups on either side of a sweet spot I can't tell much from the composite.

 

[JimSC]

3 ammos, 3 tests at three temps using 3 different ammos is all the best groups were shot at 388, 380, and 372 or about 8 clicks apart. My next experiment is to dial in a couple of random settings one in the 100's and one in the 400 range and see if I can find a tuning node within 8 or 9 clicks

I look at that last composite and think that the gun/ammo combo has a good chance of shooting a high teens or low 2000's target which was exactly what I ended up shooting on a couple of practice targets afterward. My wind reading is a work in progress, and while it is improving it ain't there yet

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

3 ammos, 3 tests at three temps using 3 different ammos is all the best groups were shot at 388, 380, and 372 or about 8 clicks apart. My next experiment is to dial in a couple of random settings one in the 100's and one in the 400 range and see if I can find a tuning node within 8 or 9 clicks

I look at that last composite and think that the gun/ammo combo has a good chance of shooting a high teens or low 2000's target which was exactly what I ended up shooting on a couple of practice targets afterward. My wind reading is a work in progress, and while it is improving it ain't there yet

Reading wind...we never stop learning and we all make mistakes. You know all this but it's the biggest challenge to really shooting and winning. The wind is my friend! Yeah right!