Testing smallbore ammo lots: tuner tube on or off?

[kevin nevius]

Yet another national champion , but humble, and sneaky corvette guy giving a consistent message.
Folks.....these are the guys you listen to IMHO.

P.S. I owned three 327 Vette's , 2 327/350 & 1 327/375 fuelie. Best engine Chevy ever made.

Much appreciated, hope I get to see you on the road (and wave like hell! LOL)

If you have time, send me a PM - Vette's are the only thing I love talking about more than rimfires!

All the very best to you and yours,

kev

 

[Tad_Earhart]

You continue to associate CF and RF……. Wrong then…..wrong now.
Lots of opinion for a guy with little experience.

From a person with some experience Tim, what do you directly think is different RF to CF to cause you to be so sure of this? I am asking for your thoughts on this, not you stating Gordon Eck or someone else. I understand an IR sporter too and why that is such an easy thing to cling to in this argument. If they were the end all be all to the argument, why does anyone build 10.5/13.5 Lb guns at all that participate in IR? It would be a hell of a lot easier to work with one gun all the time than to try to to keep 2 going. There are scope choices being used now that can get around the 6.5X limit in sporter for the other two classes as well.

I used to be in your camp and think there was no correlation but after willingly and actually open-minded tested enough to to actually tell, I found out I was wrong. The same things are going on just at a little different timing and intensity. I got better and my equipment got better too. Just like basic tuning in general, you will likely not see anything if all you do is adjust willy-nilly and hope for something. It takes work to make it happen and figure out. Things evolve in 20 years, even if the people along for the ride kick and scream the whole way.

Tad

 

[VLNBYR]

If you are struggling doing rimfire and can't get it right or understand what's going on how is throwing centerfire into the mix going to help. You clear the water by adding less mud not more.

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

my327vette (great name BTW - do you own one?):

Just my opinion here - tuners (traditionally) are a mechanism of fine tuning. When I initially set up a barrel, the placement of the crown is the critical issue. You need great baseline accuracy to start with, or a tuner will never get you there.

But the system needs to be tested exactly as it would be in competition (whatever your discipline is). Testing without a tuner is just too large a variable to hope to learn anything reliably about how the system will perform with it (if tested without).

When I finish a barrel, I test it just as it would be used in competition - with the tuner in a midrange setting. I look for good baseline accuracy - and round groups (preferable without vertical / horizontal dispersion or "stringing"). If I don't see it, I set back the crown incrementally and retest. Something in the .450" outside edge with roundness is probably workable (if I had to put a number on it). Then start your tuner testing.

Again, just my (very humble) opinion. Wishing you the best,

kev

Hi Kevin,

I was wondering how do you calculate where to set the tuner when you are testing a new barrel? IMO if you don't know how the new barrel shoots first how one can determine it is the barrel and not the setting on the tuner. granted a person with your experience would be able to know.

Lee

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

IMO ammo is the dividing factor between CFBR and RFBR I don't think there is single serious CFBR shooter who competes regular shooting factory loaded ammo. would be interesting for someone to try.

as for tuning both use barrel/bullet timing, but in RFBR there are more factors such as weight of the rifle, barrel profile and recoil management that influence the timing. I don't believe in CFBR this has as much influence if any. I don't know of or heard of any CFBR using a reverse taper profile barrel. again, would be interesting to see.

Disclaimer: I don't shoot CFBR but have friends and know on a casual basis those who do. one of which just won a World title in France. I proudly display the championship pin he gave from his title he won in Canada.
from my observations ammo/load development is key for CFBR. something in RFBR that can't be changed.

Lee

 

[Ccrider]

I hope Mike does'nt see this thread.....LOL

You are wrong for this.

 

[kevin nevius]

Hi Kevin,

I was wondering how do you calculate where to set the tuner when you are testing a new barrel? IMO if you don't know how the new barrel shoots first how one can determine it is the barrel and not the setting on the tuner. granted a person with your experience would be able to know.

Lee

Good morning Lee, thanks for the note (I hope you and yours are well!):

I have a few more variables than most to worry about (like weight and sight radius). Because of this, I finish most blanks slightly long (whatever the blank allows - I order most to finish at 27"). I set them up with everything in place, and the tuner at a midrange setting (typically at the 4th revolution zero). I test it there, and look for decent baseline accuracy - round groups, limited stringing - and as I mentioned, something in the .450" outside edge range for at least (5) five shot groups fired indoors, from the bench.

It is a feel thing, you can tell if a barrel is "trying" to show you something. If it is, and the accuracy seems good / consistent, I will actually do a revolution test across the tuners travel to see just how good it might get (and see if I can identify a sweet spot that is wide enough to get some consistency with). I have lot remnants with a pretty wide velocity range, sometimes I'll run a revolution test with differing speeds just to see how tolerant a barrel is.

If it isn't close, I'll set back the crown and start again. The amount of the setback is also a feel thing, generally based on how good (or bad) the accuracy is. I am continually amazed just how much difference a crown setback makes - it is a hard reset on a barrel, if you have any accumulated data on the barrel it becomes useless (you are basically starting over).

It makes me wonder just how many great barrels are potentially shelved (or never reach their potential) simply because the crown position is not near a "node" to begin with.

It's a lot of work for sure, but RF barrels tend to last a little while - so at least you can take advantage of your efforts for a few seasons!

All the best,

kev

 

[Bill K]

Follow the same pattern/ procedure that you used when you did your testing the first time and use now. If it worked for you then, it should again.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

You are wrong for this.

My boots are too new to step into this one, so I'll just enjoy it from the sideline. Lol!

 

[VLNBYR]

There is a common thread within the very small group that has achieved consistent rimfire success. They have found their way at the range and not on an internet forum.

 

[JimSC]

There is a common thread within the very small group that has achieved consistent rimfire success. They have found their way at the range and not on an internet forum.

Being the first one on the range and the last one to leave.
Jerry Miculek

 

[Tad_Earhart]

If you are struggling doing rimfire and can't get it right or understand what's going on how is throwing centerfire into the mix going to help. You clear the water by adding less mud not more.

I have to say that I disagree with that statement John, and here is why. We started with shooting rimfire competitively before we owned any kind of reloading equipment for our centerfire rifles. Centerfire/reloading answered a bunch of questions we had about things, ammo and tune related stuff, that we could not easily answer with rimfire. With a centerfire rifle, we could go to the reloading bench and change nearly anything we wanted to quickly and test the results. Overall it made us better. It still continues to.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I have to say that I disagree with that statement John, and here is why. We started with shooting rimfire competitively before we owned any kind of reloading equipment for our centerfire rifles. Centerfire/reloading answered a bunch of questions we had about things, ammo and tune related stuff, that we could not easily answer with rimfire. With a centerfire rifle, we could go to the reloading bench and change nearly anything we wanted to quickly and test the results. Overall it made us better. It still continues to.

I believe handloading to be no different that testing different lots. Not much different than picking two loads from a manual, that both shoot well, opposed to finding two good lots of ammo. Just like there are multiple loads that shoot tiny, there are multiple lots of rf ammo that do as well. Some loads/lots seem to rise above the rest by a bit but there can be multiple loads/lots that are competitive. When you find that perfect load/lot, life is good.

If anything, the rf ammo makers have done most of the leg work and premium ammo is loaded with "near"
optimum components when you buy them. Far fewer variables in that regard vs cf. Essentially with rf, you get 1 or two bullets and a couple of powders, already loaded to different known velocities, for you.

With cf, there are literally hundreds or more combinations you have to sort out in your rifle.

If finding a good lot for a rf seems difficult, it must be near impossible in cf...but then enters that T word that no one wants me to discuss. Lol! Even without the T word, there are multiple "nodes" or loads/lots that shoot well. Now how is that? Because tune repeats, with and without the T word.

 

[TRSR8]

From a person with some experience Tim, what do you directly think is different RF to CF to cause you to be so sure of this? I am asking for your thoughts on this, not you stating Gordon Eck or someone else. I understand an IR sporter too and why that is such an easy thing to cling to in this argument. If they were the end all be all to the argument, why does anyone build 10.5/13.5 Lb guns at all that participate in IR? It would be a hell of a lot easier to work with one gun all the time than to try to to keep 2 going. There are scope choices being used now that can get around the 6.5X limit in sporter for the other two classes as well.

I used to be in your camp and think there was no correlation but after willingly and actually open-minded tested enough to to actually tell, I found out I was wrong. The same things are going on just at a little different timing and intensity. I got better and my equipment got better too. Just like basic tuning in general, you will likely not see anything if all you do is adjust willy-nilly and hope for something. It takes work to make it happen and figure out. Things evolve in 20 years, even if the people along for the ride kick and scream the whole way.

Tad

Tad, my thoughts, but understand, at best these are ( both yours and mine) but, educated guesses. RF interior ballistics is for all it’s worth, still pretty subjective in many ways and my thoughts are my own, well before I started using Gordon, The smith I used for years was a sharp cookie and did tremendous work on harmonics and tuning even developing triangular barrel profiles to change and minimize vibrations.
As to Sporters, several guys shoot them for all 3 gun, but the plain simple truth is heavier is easier, 3” forends beat 2”, and even with a variable, youvare quite below ideal scope power.
You guys have stated lots of guys bring multiple lots to the bench for sporter but simply rarely happens.
Certainly, barrel harmonics are similar, sine waves, etc but, I suspect the biggest
difference is the magnitude and the initial pressure curves involved.
Everybody knows, for instance, in CFBR shooting N133, you may very well have to chase load throughout a match for whatever reason, BUT, rarely if ever if you shoot LT 32, or LT 30.
I have won with 133, pretty familiar with it, I have won with LT 32 and never change load, when first on the scene Lou Murdica shot the same load of LT for a whole damn year and won plenty. In our weekly club matches, 100yds, 200yds, I shot LT30 all year…same load…never moved it a tenth, shot same, winter and summer, dead of last winter, shot a .1650 agg, You tell me why 133 you play with LT 32, 30, virtually never.
RF while exhibiting similar characteristics is dealing with far less intensity, especially in two areas…..initial combustion and final distance before exit of the slug.While similar, everything in RF is less/slower allowing for a lasting tune….The variances are smaller.
The best….very best barrels, that seal well allow the slug to exit in a far less exited state than CF. The old timers used to say the best barrels wii put a slug to sleep before exit.
I have been very fortunate to have some wonderful barrels, chambered correctly and my beliefs pertain to that class of barrels which are less common, even today, than many believe and one of the single biggest challenges in RFBR is the ability to score one as well as recognize one.
Everything is better with a barrel like that, a flat shooting one, and with great ammo it’s tuned for keeps.
Certainly I’ve played with tune in different atmospheric condition….always go back to my tune. Here’s a card shot in a match a while back.Tune same as it was 6 years before. I think you’d agree, that’s a damn flat shooting rifle.

Even with the best testing discipline, there are so many variables involved, we’re still relegated, at the end, to educated guesswork.

My big frustration is these gurus with about a years worth of experience giving “definitive” answers to lots of this stuff, and the hapless newbies inclined to follow them toward frustration to no end. My thoughts, but my own developed over a hell of a long time doing this with a pretty fair track record.
Best,
Tim

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Tad, my thoughts, but understand, at best these are ( both yours and mine) but, educated guesses. RF interior ballistics is for all it’s worth, still pretty subjective in many ways and my thoughts are my own, well before I started using Gordon, The smith I used for years was a sharp cookie and did tremendous work on harmonics and tuning even developing triangular barrel profiles to change and minimize vibrations.
As to Sporters, several guys shoot them for all 3 gun, but the plain simple truth is heavier is easier, 3” forends beat 2”, and even with a variable, youvare quite below ideal scope power.
You guys have stated lots of guys bring multiple lots to the bench for sporter but simply rarely happens.
Certainly, barrel harmonics are similar, sine waves, etc but, I suspect the biggest
difference is the magnitude and the initial pressure curves involved.
Everybody knows, for instance, in CFBR shooting N133, you may very well have to chase load throughout a match for whatever reason, BUT, rarely if ever if you shoot LT 32, or LT 30.
I have won with 133, pretty familiar with it, I have won with LT 32 and never change load, when first on the scene Lou Murdica shot the same load of LT for a whole damn year and won plenty. In our weekly club matches, 100yds, 200yds, I shot LT30 all year…same load…never moved it a tenth, shot same, winter and summer, dead of last winter, shot a .1650 agg, You tell me why 133 you play with LT 32, 30, virtually never.
RF while exhibiting similar characteristics is dealing with far less intensity, especially in two areas…..initial combustion and final distance before exit of the slug.While similar, everything in RF is less/slower allowing for a lasting tune….The variances are smaller.
The best….very best barrels, that seal well allow the slug to exit in a far less exited state than CF. The old timers used to say the best barrels wii put a slug to sleep before exit.
I have been very fortunate to have some wonderful barrels, chambered correctly and my beliefs pertain to that class of barrels which are less common, even today, than many believe and one of the single biggest challenges in RFBR is the ability to score one as well as recognize one.
Everything is better with a barrel like that, a flat shooting one, and with great ammo it’s tuned for keeps.
Certainly I’ve played with tune in different atmospheric condition….always go back to my tune. Here’s a card shot in a match a while back.Tune same as it was 6 years before. I think you’d agree, that’s a damn flat shooting rifle.

Even with the best testing discipline, there are so many variables involved, we’re still relegated, at the end, to educated guesswork.

My big frustration is these gurus with about a years worth of experience giving “definitive” answers to lots of this stuff, and the hapless newbies inclined to follow them toward frustration to no end. My thoughts, but my own developed over a hell of a long time doing this with a pretty fair track record.
Best,
Tim

You said a couple of things that I have a fair amount of experience with testing. One is relating cf to rf harmonics. To start...and I'll keep this short...Amplitude and frequency, while related, are two separate entities. CF creates more amplitude, for sure, even given the stiffer bbls typically seen with those. BUT, and it's a big one.....If we could simply fire a cf cartridge in our rf bbls, amplitude would change but frequency will essentially be unchanged. Two separate things. That said, yes, bullet exit happens sooner in the cf. These are definitive because they are facts. And yes, tune windows are very slightly wider with rf. This is measured and quantifiable due to lower frequency...not amplitude, although amplitude also plays a smaller role as well. Exit time and frequency are bigger roles as most rf bbls are much less stiff than cf counterparts.
So far we agree more than we disagree. Where I run into a disagreement with so many rf guys is that some insist that there is a magical place on a tuner that shoots all ammo to its full potential. I'm really not interested in who has done what with a single tuner setting. What I'd like from anyone who proclaims to know, is why.

I'll be the first to say that I know of no physical explanation for a setting, with or without a t word, that shoots everything best there. In fact, physics does not agree with this premise.

I've asked this same question of way more than 1000 people now and not a single one has given anything solid to base that theory on except "that's what so and so(top shooter)said.

I'd love to hear an explanation for that theory that can even come close to agreeing with physics. If you have it, I wanna hear that and test it.

There are reasons why a 22lr cartridge would seem more forgiving than most any cf cartridge because of straight walls and bore/case capacity ratios making it extremely efficient and forgiving but there is no physical explanation for a single setting working best for all ammo....that I'm aware of. So, I'm asking.

Yes, some powders are more forgiving but if there is a single setting where the gun is magically tuned to shoot all ammo to its potential, what difference do the powder's characteristics make?

I do agree that the LT powders are much more forgiving than say n133, though. Me personally, I no longer give much value to tune width because I tune based on group shape and size opening up to tell me clearly that tune has changed. Now that can be supported by physics. I look for very specific group shapes that occur as tune changes in order to correct tune. With that said, I prefer it to "talk to me" and be very clear when tune changes as opposed to a load that might shoot smallish, but not to its potential, even when slightly out of tune.

Back to the question though....what physical explanation is there for a tuner setting that always shoots all ammo to its full potential, in all conditions? TIA

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

Good morning Lee, thanks for the note (I hope you and yours are well!):

I have a few more variables than most to worry about (like weight and sight radius). Because of this, I finish most blanks slightly long (whatever the blank allows - I order most to finish at 27"). I set them up with everything in place, and the tuner at a midrange setting (typically at the 4th revolution zero). I test it there, and look for decent baseline accuracy - round groups, limited stringing - and as I mentioned, something in the .450" outside edge range for at least (5) five shot groups fired indoors, from the bench.

It is a feel thing, you can tell if a barrel is "trying" to show you something. If it is, and the accuracy seems good / consistent, I will actually do a revolution test across the tuners travel to see just how good it might get (and see if I can identify a sweet spot that is wide enough to get some consistency with). I have lot remnants with a pretty wide velocity range, sometimes I'll run a revolution test with differing speeds just to see how tolerant a barrel is.

If it isn't close, I'll set back the crown and start again. The amount of the setback is also a feel thing, generally based on how good (or bad) the accuracy is. I am continually amazed just how much difference a crown setback makes - it is a hard reset on a barrel, if you have any accumulated data on the barrel it becomes useless (you are basically starting over).

It makes me wonder just how many great barrels are potentially shelved (or never reach their potential) simply because the crown position is not near a "node" to begin with.

It's a lot of work for sure, but RF barrels tend to last a little while - so at least you can take advantage of your efforts for a few seasons!

All the best,

kev

Hi Kevin,

All good here hope the same you and yours as well. thank you for explaining how you go about setting the tuner on a new barrel. as I said and you mentioned the feel you have for things with your experience you can tell pretty much what needs to be done. I don't have the means or skill set to do barrels which for me is a good thing
but am very fortunate to have someone who has the ability to provide a barrel done the way I want it.

Thanks for sharing.

Lee

 

[TRSR8]

You said a couple of things that I have a fair amount of experience with testing. One is relating cf to rf harmonics. To start...and I'll keep this short...Amplitude and frequency, while related, are two separate entities. CF creates more amplitude, for sure, even given the stiffer bbls typically seen with those. BUT, and it's a big one.....If we could simply fire a cf cartridge in our rf bbls, amplitude would change but frequency will essentially be unchanged. Two separate things. That said, yes, bullet exit happens sooner in the cf. These are definitive because they are facts. And yes, tune windows are very slightly wider with rf. This is measured and quantifiable due to lower frequency...not amplitude, although amplitude also plays a smaller role as well. Exit time and frequency are bigger roles as most rf bbls are much less stiff than cf counterparts.
So far we agree more than we disagree. Where I run into a disagreement with so many rf guys is that some insist that there is a magical place on a tuner that shoots all ammo to its full potential. I'm really not interested in who has done what with a single tuner setting. What I'd like from anyone who proclaims to know, is why.

I'll be the first to say that I know of no physical explanation for a setting, with or without a t word, that shoots everything best there. In fact, physics does not agree with this premise.

I've asked this same question of way more than 1000 people now and not a single one has given anything solid to base that theory on except "that's what so and so(top shooter)said.

I'd love to hear an explanation for that theory that can even come close to agreeing with physics. If you have it, I wanna hear that and test it.

There are reasons why a 22lr cartridge would seem more forgiving than most any cf cartridge because of straight walls and bore/case capacity ratios making it extremely efficient and forgiving but there is no physical explanation for a single setting working best for all ammo....that I'm aware of. So, I'm asking.

Yes, some powders are more forgiving but if there is a single setting where the gun is magically tuned to shoot all ammo to its potential, what difference do the powder's characteristics make?

I do agree that the LT powders are much more forgiving than say n133, though. Me personally, I no longer give much value to tune width because I tune based on group shape and size opening up to tell me clearly that tune has changed. Now that can be supported by physics. I look for very specific group shapes that occur as tune changes in order to correct tune. With that said, I prefer it to "talk to me" and be very clear when tune changes as opposed to a load that might shoot smallish, but not to its potential, even when slightly out of tune.

Back to the question though....what physical explanation is there for a tuner setting that always shoots all ammo to its full potential, in all conditions? TIA

Don’t know….don’t care. I do know what works.
While no major WLM fan, zero argument about what he,’s built and who shoots them, same exact approach with Eck. I also happened to be a close friend of Chet Amick, talked to him couple times a week for years before his passing, lots of exchanges about tuning….same exact approach, these guys have virtually zero in common other than excellent result.
Countless guns and winners over many years…..SAME EXACT TUNING APPROACH.
Now at the risk of being rude Mike but the sum total of guns and tunes you are responsible for equals approximately zero percent of that population.
Now I truly love to know why something works but aI fully except that , more important is the realization of what does work. Me…I’m more than comfortable with the approach myself and that esteemed body have developed and this will no doubt be litigated until we’re both long gone. You’re gonna believe what you’re gonna believe but I’ll stand my track record over many years as personal proof of concept.
I should be happy you send so many guys down that dirt road…..love to shoot against them.
I would truly love to know the % of diehard tuner twisters consist of guys simply unable to admit they are notcas good as they think and/or simply missed conditions, always blame ammo, etc., been witnessing them for years.

 

[kevin nevius]

Hi Kevin,

All good here hope the same you and yours as well. thank you for explaining how you go about setting the tuner on a new barrel. as I said and you mentioned the feel you have for things with your experience you can tell pretty much what needs to be done. I don't have the means or skill set to do barrels which for me is a good thing
but am very fortunate to have someone who has the ability to provide a barrel done the way I want it.

Thanks for sharing.

Lee

Good morning Lee:

I am very appreciative of your help and feedback through the years, someday I would be honored to fit a barrel for you (done however you want it!).

You can consider this a standing offer!

kev

 

[Tad_Earhart]

I should be happy you send so many guys down that dirt road…..love to shoot against them.
I would truly love to know the % of diehard tuner twisters consist of guys simply unable to admit they are notcas good as they think and/or simply missed conditions, always blame ammo, etc., been witnessing them for years.

Tim, I first want to thank you for your long reply. We can agree to some things but some we will not and that's fine. My biggest point on this is that set and forget is not the only way. Don't get me wrong there has been a lot of fine shooting and records done with that mindset, but there are a bunch of top guys twisting and winning big, and setting new records in the last few years as well. I think that adjusting while shooting, when necessary, is the better option even though it may be initially a bit harder to get a handle on. I think the ammo situation now only furthers the need to adjust and keep up with the ammo but there are benefits even realized when ammo was how it used to be.

We have not had the opportunity to work with either of the LT's but know they are very good powders. Did you preload with it before match day?



Now for the quoted section above, I have the same thoughts for shooters not willing to learn what it takes to keep a gun in tune and stay on set and forget. Our equipment may be equal at their best, but when the set and forget guy "can't make anything work", I have a way to adjust to make it happen. I have witnessed that one for years as well. Do not underestimate the guys that are willing to actually learn the adjust when needed side. The mindless twisters that do not know where they are going or why with an adjustment I actually have empathy for. They recognize there is some sort of issue or problem and at least they are trying something to improve things and their chances of doing better.

Tad

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

Good morning Lee:

I am very appreciative of your help and feedback through the years, someday I would be honored to fit a barrel for you (done however you want it!).

You can consider this a standing offer!

kev

Hi Kevin,

You have no idea how much your offer means to me. as you know over the years, I have been an advocate of the chambering information you provided. and you continued help over the years when I had a question has been a blessing.
I truly believe that is the single most important decision I made to help improve my rifle's performance by using the Nevius chamber as I often have talked about it.
even my friend who does my barrel work was/is skeptical on minimum engraving. but even he could not discount the results like these examples. being he did the chambering. all brand-new barrels the very first shots out of the barrels.
I shall keep your offer on hold for now only because getting ammo is very difficult.

Take care,
Lee