Keith’s seating depth video

[Bill Norris]

The two most critical factors I see with adjusting tuners is the rifle/load combo has to be happy and the trigger man has to be able to hold/shoot the difference one might see from turning the tuner.

Agreed and he deserves to be acknowledged for his work.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

The two most critical factors I see with adjusting tuners is the rifle/load combo has to be happy and the trigger man has to be able to hold/shoot the difference one might see from turning the tuner.

Shooter is definitely a big part and I think we agree about what you're saying but I guess you'd have to define "happy." They won't fix issues like a bad bullet but IME, they will always give you the potential of what you try to make shoot in your rifle. If it won't shoot, a tuner won't fix it, IOW. That goes for whatever reason unless it's just tune related. I do think tuners can cure all tune issues but you can't necessarily start with retumbo in a hornet case either, and expect great end results...just as an off the wall example here.

 

[Bill Norris]

Shooter is definitely a big part and I think we agree about what you're saying but I guess you'd have to define "happy." They won't fix issues like a bad bullet but IME, they will always give you the potential of what you try to make shoot in your rifle. If it won't shoot, a tuner won't fix it, IOW. That goes for whatever reason unless it's just tune related. I do think tuners can cure all tune issues but you can't necessarily start with retumbo in a hornet case either, and expect great end results...just as an off the wall example here.

Agree

 

[LVLAaron]

Tim and I agree very much on what tuners do but he puts a lot of emphasis on PC. My position for short range is that I've shot many bbls, for several years and remained competitive in short range without chasing the lands. BUT, as the lands erode, we may well go beyond our "full nodal cycle" and no longer be at the top of bbl swing, which I believe has much more value in long range and even rimfire than in short range centerfire shooting. Bottom line, erosion can take us to the bottom of the bbl swing where PC can not happen but it can still shoot small, especially so as distance decreases and velocity variations decrease.

I watched this a while back and without going back through nearly 2 hours of video, I think he and I agree on this as well, just two different games. He focuses a lot on ELR, where I focus most on short to 1000 yards. The further you go out or the more velocity changes, the more critical pc becomes. Tim has a pretty good handle on tuners and I think we are pretty well in agreement on this....which is all relative to poi changes with tune, be it with a tuner or without one at all. Tuners do not create PC. They do allow you to manipulate bbl position at bullet exit though, which lets us achieve pc without load or seating depth changes. But both can get us to the same place, in the end.

The video is a good one and he does a good job of explaining things but I think you have to slow down and take in all he says and what it means to get the most out of it. If you're on the right path already, you'll probably follow right along but if you have different ideas about what tuners do, well, you may not get a handle on what he's saying. There are lots of theories that are mostly just that and they usually cost us time and money if we take the wrong path. Again, the video is good and Tim has a good grasp, IMHO, of what tuners actually do.

Buddy of mine this year said, and I editorialize; "I'm not changing seating depth, I'm just going to turn my tuner out as the lands erode for this barrel" - It's working. I wont call him out because he's on the forums, and has earned his own accolades.

Statistics be damned.


Stupid question. Lots of people lately saying "statistically irrelevant" but when they say that, they don't share what WOULD be relevant. Which leads me to believe it's crabs-in-a-bucket-syndrome, but I digress. Agree?

 

[Sandstorm]

rifle/load combo has to be happy and the trigger man has to be able to hold/shoot the difference

Bill I agree with this completely. A tuner is like wax on a showpiece and will do nothing for a pile of crap.
That was a good podcast, and they all seem to have some merits.....and you always have something to walk away with be it only more questions than answers.

 

[Pete Wass]

I do not believe that we can make perfect ammo, close but not perfect. There are always going to be variations that are out of our control.

Well, technically, you are right but at least we can now have nearly perfect and repeatable charges quickly. Fuel burns by weight , not by volume. Primers might be slightly different but when one can fire three bullets into the same hole that measures in the low zeros, considering the small variables encountered other than the loaded round, I'm calling it perfection , as close as the system will allow.

 

[Pete Wass]

I recheck my Touch marks on the bullet at every bullet lot change and re-establish. I have run .006" in for years, just because and I guess I really don't chase the lands nor do I continuously test for group size. I have one rifle with a tuner but my Hunter rifles don't have one at this time. I simply take what they give me for the day. I shot a 250-13 last Saturday with one of them so I think it behaved that day. I know they blow up on hot days but we haven't had any so far this year

Beyond that, considering when tuners need to be changed, up here at least, the conditions are always so wild, how would one know using a scope that requires hold off , if one changed anything. That's why on tuners on my Hunter guns. Now, I believe a tuner can enhance any barrel it's on but if they shoot zeros without one, why bother?

 

[DiffEQ]

Where is this video. Can someone please post a link?

 

[foxguy]

Where is this video. Can someone please post a link?

Youtube

 

[davidjoe]

Statistics be damned.


Stupid question. Lots of people lately saying "statistically irrelevant" but when they say that, they don't share what WOULD be relevant. Which leads me to believe it's crabs-in-a-bucket-syndrome, but I digress. Agree?
[/QUOTE]

It depends on whether the results are inside or outside of expectations.

In my opinion, the number of shots to prove a rifle is capable of meeting expectations is small, maybe 5, at whatever the subject distance is, if those 5 shots are solidly within the desired result. It’s extremely unlikely for a mechanical object to luck its way into a demanding, desired outcome. I don’t need a dyno to illuminate the room with my turbos 10 times in a row at redline to prove the number was real.

On the other hand, if a rifle prechecked to specs failed to meet expectations in 5 shots, additional tests might show that the first test was shooter error, or anomalous. If none of the shots were near each other at all, 5 may indeed be enough to make a decision. They don’t really have off days, like people do, a “best of seven” isn’t necessary because they are inanimate objects.

There is no rifle I have seen that, by itself, with 10 identical rounds, is going to shoot the first 5 in a dispersed 2 moa, and the second 5 in .5 moa.

This is destructive testing after all, and the results should and do gradually get worse, until they fall apart completely. We have seen NightForce’s impact rig, Ferrari’s wicked speed bumps, etc., - all things we do NOT want reconfirmation of time and time again on something we might own, to prove it wasn’t a lucky pass.

 

[Sandstorm]

to prove it wasn’t a lucky pass.

I like it, and it works for me.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Buddy of mine this year said, and I editorialize; "I'm not changing seating depth, I'm just going to turn my tuner out as the lands erode for this barrel" - It's working. I wont call him out because he's on the forums, and has earned his own accolades.

Statistics be damned.


Stupid question. Lots of people lately saying "statistically irrelevant" but when they say that, they don't share what WOULD be relevant. Which leads me to believe it's crabs-in-a-bucket-syndrome, but I digress. Agree?

Been doing the same pretty much since going to tuners. I agree...it just works and that's all that matters. No need to get into the why's of it. It just works. I do still believe that starting with a good base tune, both powder and seating, is by far the best approach though.

 

[drop_point]

I'm not an expert on making a gun that shoots .3s shoot in the .2s. But I wonder at times if some of our rituals and load development delivers us confidence as shooters. A confident shooter shooting an OK load probably trumps an unconfident shooter shooting an OK load.

This weekend I was shooting in pretty nasty conditions, shooting brass that had not been fired in the rifle before. I didn't have enough formed brass to use for the upcoming two-day match. I figured if I put another 100 rounds on my barrel to form the brass and take other ammo over the weekend, I would be taking a barrel with 2200 rounds on it to the two-day. That didn't seem wise.

I shot three sighters that were 10s or Xs, then my first ten rounds for record were tens or x's. When I got to the bottom ten, I threw several 9s and two 8s without the conditions changing. I got rattled. On the second match, I also had some 9s that I had no idea how it could thrown them. Was the virgin brass really shooting that bad? Or was it my confidence?

 

[foxguy]

I'm not an expert on making a gun that shoots .3s shoot in the .2s. But I wonder at times if some of our rituals and load development delivers us confidence as shooters. A confident shooter shooting an OK load probably trumps an unconfident shooter shooting an OK load.

This weekend I was shooting in pretty nasty conditions, shooting brass that had not been fired in the rifle before. I didn't have enough formed brass to use for the upcoming two-day match. I figured if I put another 100 rounds on my barrel to form the brass and take other ammo over the weekend, I would be taking a barrel with 2200 rounds on it to the two-day. That didn't seem wise.

I shot three sighters that were 10s or Xs, then my first ten rounds for record were tens or x's. When I got to the bottom ten, I threw several 9s and two 8s without the conditions changing. I got rattled. On the second match, I also had some 9s that I had no idea how it could thrown them. Was the virgin brass really shooting that bad? Or was it my confidence?

I can share this with you, My first F-class mid-range 600 yd Match. Shooting a Savage f-class 6MM BR. Conditions were mild winds 3-12 mph from appx 4 o'clk. I estimate that I had 1000 rnds fired on the rifle's barrel. I had loaded 100 rounds, 50 were fire formed brass that had been loaded multiple times previously. 50 rounds were new brass having never been loaded before. 1st Match I shot a 197-11x's, second match I shot a 199-8x's and my last match with the new brass that had never been loaded before I shot a 200-10 x's. I was loading / shooting Lapua Brass. Needless to say, I was very happy with how I shot, the loads, and how the rifle shot. The rifle/load was shooting appx 1/3 moa at 100 yards.

I haven't shot any other caliber at a distance like this so I can't compare to others.

 

[memilanuk]

It’s extremely unlikely for a mechanical object to luck its way into a demanding, desired outcome.

Except... 'fliers' work both ways. As anyone who's shot enough, and is honest with themselves, should know. Ya know, those times when the shot broke... less than perfect... and still went in the middle with the rest. First inclination is to pass it off as the results of good form, NPOA, clean living, whatever. Reality... it was more likely luck of the draw.

Recognizing the difference between that, and when a group was just small all on its own merits, is the 'trick'. Larger sample sizes, or at least further testing to verify that the results can be replicated, helps alleviate that.

Whether it needs to be 'statistically valid'... probably not, unless you honestly intend for the results to stand up to 'peer review', whether in a scholarly journal or the interweb comments section

 

[davidjoe]

Ok, this is off topic slightly but it’s real time from the range, 600 club match in the wind, it’s just hilarious. Too dumb not to share.

This is the hose-clamped, filled stock, unitized .243 F-Open rig off a dang Harris Swivel with DTACS and pinch bag.

I don’t clean 20 shot targets all that often and this 40-X isn’t the one that is supposed to. Patent pending, lol. .

 

[CharlieNC]

Ok, this is off topic slightly but it’s real time from the range, 600 club match in the wind, it’s just hilarious. Too dumb not to share.

This is the hose-clamped, filled stock, unitized .243 F-Open rig off a dang Harris Swivel with DTACS and pinch bag.

I don’t clean 20 shot targets all that often and this 40-X isn’t the one that is supposed to. Patent pending, lol. .

I bet he didn't strap that stuff on the day before either! Some level of evaluation and the desire to provide a shock response went into it.

 

[JFrank]

If anyone is still confused about choosing a seating depth for long range, I’ll add a target shot at around 900 yards that IMO illustrate’s the importance of finding a seating window that has printing consistency and a bit of forgiveness.
I won’t tell you who shared this with me but he knows a thing or two.
I’ll put on my flake jacket and wait for the experts to weigh in.

Jim

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

If anyone is still confused about choosing a seating depth for long range, I’ll add a target shot at around 900 yards that IMO illustrate’s the importance of finding a seating window that has printing consistency and a bit of forgiveness.
I won’t tell you who shared this with me but he knows a thing or two.
I’ll put on my flake jacket and wait for the experts to weigh in.

Jim

Not disagreeing at all but if you change one aspect, the rest may well need adjustment as well. IOW, There may well be a powder charge that shoots better than any of those at say..+ .006, just for example. If it works, it works though.

 

[Fuj]

Not disagreeing at all but if you change one aspect, the rest may well need adjustment as well. IOW, There may well be a powder charge that shoots better than any of those at say..+ .006, just for example. If it works, it works though.

Speaking of "change one aspect"......I screwed up and forgot to neck
lube 15 cases from another tray. All things being equal, they shot the
best ?? I have a session after the rains tomorrow, and will see if it repeats,
and will take the lab radar with me this time to check numbers.