Tunner Test Design

[ASD9055]

Yes, it's a lot but it's doable, within a range of acceptable results. It was the same with the BOSS system. What you have to remember is that tune repeats over and over with frequency. So lets say it's 4 marks from as good to as bad as it will shoot...well, double that and it'll be back in tune moving the same direction and you're never further from shooting small than that amount(8 marks total).
I don't care for the obt thing but I've only seen claims that "it'll get ya close." So, even if 4 marks is from extreme in to extreme out of tune..I think most people would call that close. In that regard, it works, even if where it calculates is completely out of tune, it's still only .004 away from back in tune..in this scenario. I'm using those numbers based on my tuner having 32 marks around it and it's threaded 32tpi. A different tuner and a significantly different bbl contour from BR contours does yield different results though.

The Boss system did this...it got you close and then the instructions told you that it would need to be fine tuned from there in small increments.

But yes, it's doable but you really have to quantify the value of each increment before moving it randomly, if you expect predictable results from it or any tuner.

This is where some tuners really are better than others. They basically all work but the leg work and research to quantify the value of each adjustment and conveying that to the end user is absolutely paramount. Anything less is guessing and guessing yields inconsistent results. Because tune repeats over and over, you can randomly land on a sweet spot but that's when you get lost, adjusting from that point on for ammo or condition changes that affect tune.

I know some people get tired of hearing me say the same things over and over about tuners but clearly, not everyone is on the same page or heard it yet. My system is about breaking things down into small but very methodical adjustments and knowing the expected result of that change before you do it. It's not that complicated at all to do but it takes some work and time to establish some base info that you must have before you can expect predictable results going forward.

I totally Understand. I know as far as the BOSS go, for example one load start at 0.2, you may end up at 9.8 is the fine tune. It is something that many people missed.
Those who are tired of hearing it, they can just skip it. There is always some one new to benefit. I benefitted a lot from people on various forums just be listening.
Thanks

 

[Todd Earhart]

Yes, it's a lot but it's doable, within a range of acceptable results. It was the same with the BOSS system. What you have to remember is that tune repeats over and over with frequency. So lets say it's 4 marks from as good to as bad as it will shoot...well, double that and it'll be back in tune moving the same direction and you're never further from shooting small than that amount(8 marks total).
I don't care for the obt thing but I've only seen claims that "it'll get ya close." So, even if 4 marks is from extreme in to extreme out of tune..I think most people would call that close. In that regard, it works, even if where it calculates is completely out of tune, it's still only .004 away from back in tune..in this scenario. I'm using those numbers based on my tuner having 32 marks around it and it's threaded 32tpi. A different tuner and a significantly different bbl contour from BR contours does yield different results though.

The Boss system did this...it got you close and then the instructions told you that it would need to be fine tuned from there in small increments.

But yes, it's doable but you really have to quantify the value of each increment before moving it randomly, if you expect predictable results from it or any tuner.

This is where some tuners really are better than others. They basically all work but the leg work and research to quantify the value of each adjustment and conveying that to the end user is absolutely paramount. Anything less is guessing and guessing yields inconsistent results. Because tune repeats over and over, you can randomly land on a sweet spot but that's when you get lost, adjusting from that point on for ammo or condition changes that affect tune.

I know some people get tired of hearing me say the same things over and over about tuners but clearly, not everyone is on the same page or heard it yet. My system is about breaking things down into small but very methodical adjustments and knowing the expected result of that change before you do it. It's not that complicated at all to do but it takes some work and time to establish some base info that you must have before you can expect predictable results going forward.

Lots of good information here.
Todd

 

[Dave M.]

Absolutely right Boyd. Clearly, Bryan is not dumb but there's a huge difference in being dumb vs ignorant of a very specific subject. Just as clearly to many, he published a book with a chapter dedicated to a subject to which he is just as clearly ignorant of. I'm just a ky hillbilly but I'm not dumb and on this very specific subject, I've taken the time to NOT be ignorant on. What I publish has been thoroughly tested BEFORE I post it unless I clearly state it as opinion or untested. And I had the help of extremely qualified people in this specific field to help and do the testing because I recognize that there is benefit to knowledge and education on this subject. I had simply done testing and seen on target that they were worth while. My more scientific testing has been in depth and not alone, as I don't consider myself qualified to do everything we have done. But ultimately, the results of vibration testing did yield good info but it mostly just supported what this hillbilly had already seen. You don't need to be an engineer to use a tuner but you can't make wrong assumptions in how you go about it, expecting good data to come from it...nor good results.

^^^^ Mike had taught me a great deal about tuners and I feel the hours of conversation we’ve had only scratches the surface of tuner use and knowledge. Bryan is super intelligent and I don’t doubt his ballistic knowledge is greater than 99.99% of people walking the face of the earth, but when it comes to tuners, the section in his book was flawed from the get go. He should have sought out the foremost experts on tuners and constructed a scientific DOE to prove and/or disprove their effectiveness. This wasn’t done and therefore the results incorrectly led him to the conclusion that tuners were not beneficial, or the group couldn’t be described as statistically significant.
Dave

 

[dcali]

It’s not cheap or easy to do the engineering work required to really understand what’s going on at a detailed level in a rigorous way. That’s why nobody is doing it. It’s a major effort. Not just in dollars, but in time.

 

[chkunz]

It’s not cheap or easy to do the engineering work required to really understand what’s going on at a detailed level in a rigorous way. That’s why nobody is doing it. It’s a major effort. Not just in dollars, but in time.

I agree but without the effort all we have is opinions. Sometimes opinions is all we have but data is much more valuable, so normally you get what you pay for. That is the reason I started this thread. I thought since Brian Litz is willing to spend the time and money to do the test, the tunner advocates could recommend the design of the test involved so everyone would benefit from the effort. So far all I have received is replies bashing Brian and no one has responded with any details of a valid test. I have wasted everyone's time with this thread and will see if I can delete it.

 

[CharlieNC]

I agree but without the effort all we have is opinions. Sometimes opinions is all we have but data is much more valuable, so normally you get what you pay for. That is the reason I started this thread. I thought since Brian Litz is willing to spend the time and money to do the test, the tunner advocates could recommend the design of the test involved so everyone would benefit from the effort. So far all I have received is replies bashing Brian and no one has responded with any details of a valid test. I have wasted everyone's time with this thread and will see if I can delete it.

I don't know about others, but I have not given a detailed response because such a plan would be extremely lengthy and require considerable research and thought. It must start with an understanding of barrel harmonics alone, and then extend to include the tuner as this is a system. Not a trivial matter to carry out correctly.

 

[dcali]

I agree but without the effort all we have is opinions. Sometimes opinions is all we have but data is much more valuable, so normally you get what you pay for. That is the reason I started this thread. I thought since Brian Litz is willing to spend the time and money to do the test, the tunner advocates could recommend the design of the test involved so everyone would benefit from the effort. So far all I have received is replies bashing Brian and no one has responded with any details of a valid test. I have wasted everyone's time with this thread and will see if I can delete it.

It’s a very valid question. I’m just offering up an explanation as to why it seems like nobody has anything useful to say. It’s a really hard question. I’m not sure Bryan can justify the amount of effort that would go into something like that. But you’d have to ask him. I think what he did was pretty good for what it was.

What I don’t believe would be useful is “do the same thing but follow *this* set of instructions”, which is a lot of what I’m seeing. If we want answers, we need to ask the right questions.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

It’s a very valid question. I’m just offering up an explanation as to why it seems like nobody has anything useful to say. It’s a really hard question. I’m not sure Bryan can justify the amount of effort that would go into something like that. But you’d have to ask him. I think what he did was pretty good for what it was.

What I don’t believe would be useful is “do the same thing but follow *this* set of instructions”, which is a lot of what I’m seeing. If we want answers, we need to ask the right questions.

Damon, you've repeatedly said that no one has done the testing you're referring to but we've discussed this, I think. I've done vibration analysis testing that seems to fit the bill for what you're looking for. I didn't do it alone but had some extremely qualified people involved. As I said before, I share freely most anything but the testing itself is proprietary and will stay that way. I'll answer what I can but that info doesn't even belong to me exclusively and four people will have to sign off on releasing it IF I wanted to share that with my competition in the tuner industry...and I do not. That's just on round one and I've done two rounds of vibration analysis, where other/different people were involved...and will be doing more. It wasn't terribly cost prohibitive but I was very lucky to have people that were qualified and some were even shooters, themselves, which helped exponentially.

Bottom line is that testing has been done and is going on that you're not aware of that involves laser accelerometers etc and processors that are fast enough to give good feedback for this application. It's certainly not that the testing isn't being done, though. You seem to be someone that is qualified to do it yourself and I'd encourage that and help where I can. Trust me though, I don't pull my info out of my crack and it's far more than anecdotal. In truth, I learned a lot but it has mostly just confirmed what I was able to conclude from the target, before any analysis was done in that context. But yes, it gives me a leg up on competitors and if they want it, they'll have to do the same.

One of the more interesting things that came from the testing is that the same gun that was glued and screwed vibrated at a very different frequency than the same gun after pulling it apart and re-torqueing the screws in what appeared to be a perfect bedding job when un-glued....yet it was only 2 marks(.002) from back in tune...at a totally different frequency. This supports many of my posts regarding how tuners do what they do..fwiw.

 

[CharlieNC]

Mike you are correct that this is an extensive job requiring expertise to conduct the vibration testing. I've played with this just enough to learn that while observing it's extensive usefulness. Throw in different calibers, barrel designs, tuner designs, etc and the cost adds up quickly to obtain a comprehensive evaluation. I can't foresee someone doing this and absorbing the cost to report the results freely. And the bottom line is most shooters don't care about this level of detail, they just want the gismo that works.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Mike you are correct that this is an extensive job requiring expertise to conduct the vibration testing. I've played with this just enough to learn that while observing it's extensive usefulness. Throw in different calibers, barrel designs, tuner designs, etc and the cost adds up quickly to obtain a comprehensive evaluation. I can't foresee someone doing this and absorbing the cost to report the results freely. And the bottom line is most shooters don't care about this level of detail, they just want the gismo that works.

That's exactly right. Most don't care why, just how. That's definitely the easy part. It does help to be able to state that "this is what I saw" etc, but ultimately, I saw it on the target before ever doing the testing and the key was to QUANTIFY the value of each adjustment!!! I can't over state that! If you don't know what the expected result is from moving the tunewr...leave it the hell alone, unless you're completely out of tune. Long story but you won't be far out...ever...with a given load.

 

[CNC-Dude]

I think Brian's approach is him trying to be too analytical without having a good grasp on how they work. You don't need to know how gasoline is made to understand that if you put it in your car, truck or motorcycle and turn the key they start. I think if he tests one in an unbiased or predetermined mindset and sees that making changes to the tuner also makes changes to the groups, he then can make an educated hypothesis about how they work and function. But until he clearly sees the results with his own eyes, and follows the instructions on how to tune them by the very ones that make them, he may not change his thinking on them.

 

[dcali]

Damon, you've repeatedly said that no one has done the testing you're referring to but we've discussed this, I think. I've done vibration analysis testing that seems to fit the bill for what you're looking for. I didn't do it alone but had some extremely qualified people involved. As I said before, I share freely most anything but the testing itself is proprietary and will stay that way. I'll answer what I can but that info doesn't even belong to me exclusively and four people will have to sign off on releasing it IF I wanted to share that with my competition in the tuner industry...and I do not. That's just on round one and I've done two rounds of vibration analysis, where other/different people were involved...and will be doing more. It wasn't terribly cost prohibitive but I was very lucky to have people that were qualified and some were even shooters, themselves, which helped exponentially.

Bottom line is that testing has been done and is going on that you're not aware of that involves laser accelerometers etc and processors that are fast enough to give good feedback for this application. It's certainly not that the testing isn't being done, though. You seem to be someone that is qualified to do it yourself and I'd encourage that and help where I can. Trust me though, I don't pull my info out of my crack and it's far more than anecdotal. In truth, I learned a lot but it has mostly just confirmed what I was able to conclude from the target, before any analysis was done in that context. But yes, it gives me a leg up on competitors and if they want it, they'll have to do the same.

One of the more interesting things that came from the testing is that the same gun that was glued and screwed vibrated at a very different frequency than the same gun after pulling it apart and re-torqueing the screws in what appeared to be a perfect bedding job when un-glued....yet it was only 2 marks(.002) from back in tune...at a totally different frequency. This supports many of my posts regarding how tuners do what they do..fwiw.

I mean something that's been published like Bryan did. It's not something you can just shoe horn into a book chapter. It would be the whole book.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I mean something that's been published like Bryan did. It's not something you can just shoe horn into a book chapter. It would be the whole book.

True, it can only be condensed so far. That's why I do tuner orders by phone only, to go over whatever about a 20 minute conversation will cover.

 

[ASD9055]

Barrel Harmonics Associated With The Target

The attached report is a bit lengthy! Using principles presented by Kolbe, Vaughn, and Long a method was developed to use the target to decifer the barrel harmonic frequency and amplitude based on conducting an Audette ladder to identify a node. While many vibrations occur, the initial results...

forum.accurateshooter.com

I got to page 11 but had a lot of distructions. I will start over again when I can concetrate. You definitely did a lot of work and I appreciate you sharing it.

 

[jackieschmidt]

Both acknowledged the Boss but I did not hear either of them say anything detrimental concerning it.

My brother in law bought a Browning BAR back in the early ‘90’s in 30-06.
It had the standard BOSS. I think it was the first year they offered it.

We bought a couple of boxes of Winchester Silver Tips and headed to the range.
the initial 3 shot groups were around 3 inches at 100 yards. After about a box and a half, we got it to an honest 1 1/4 inch 3 shot groups following Browning‘s directions.

I thought that was pretty darned good for a BAR.