Vudoo 22S, Harell Tuner Hopewell Method UPDATE 3/18

[gunsandgunsmithing]

I've never agreed with the Hopewell method mainly because no one has ever given me a good reason why it begins with 25 clicks. Why not 1 click, or 23 clicks or 26 clicks? What's special about 25 clicks at a time? It also seems to imply only one correct setting on a tuner that has changed in design over the years and across all guns. It just doesn't add up to me nor agree with anything I've found in testing. It is what it is...so if it works for ya, there ya go.

 

[1Merlin]

On my tuner 25 click is one full turn. Might be as simple as being simple.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

On my tuner 25 click is one full turn. Might be as simple as being simple.

Ok...why one turn at a time, then? Why 25 clicks in a turn?

 

[1Merlin]

Breaks the process into manageable and easily tracked segments. Perhaps 24 clicks would have been better as you could have easily divisible and equal sections....? To operate a movable sliding weight you (IMO) need some repeatable method of keeping track of where you are. Five sections broken into multiple full turns with a graduated marking system is one way of doing it. It seems to work fine in my experience - which admittedly is far less than many who post here. What I would say is it is a proven method which works. There may well be other methods which work better but this one did work for me. I would certainly be open to trying something else and if it works easier/better I would consider changing..

 

[Hozzie]

Ok...why one turn at a time, then? Why 25 clicks in a turn?

I could be wrong, but on a Harrell's I believe each click is some known distance. Something like 100 clicks is .25" , so something like .025 per click. There are tuners that don't use clicks that someone can use and come up with an infinite setting in theory. Things need to be repeatable, so clicks make that easy.

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

I could be wrong, but on a Harrell's I believe each click is some known distance. Something like 100 clicks is .25" , so something like .025 per click. There are tuners that don't use clicks that someone can use and come up with an infinite setting in theory. Things need to be repeatable, so clicks make that easy.

I believe it is 0.001 per click. so 0-500 is 1/2" but most can be turned in pass 0 and have an addition range of anywhere from 10-24 clicks. the last two tuners I have come across only could go in by 3-clicks.
as far as keeping track of settings, I use a target that has 60 bulls so each group shot will be at a certain setting. pretty easy to go back to settings as long as you know at what setting you started at.

Lee

 

[grauhanen]

Whatever. Im not here to debate the dictionary. If you have something about tuners... otherwise, Have a great day.

Indeed. The occasional use of a wrong word is hardly uncommon and shouldn't cause anyone embarrassment or distress.

 

[grauhanen]

I believe it is 0.001 per click. so 0-500 is 1/2"

This is correct for a Harrell tuner, and perhaps for some others.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

Breaks the process into manageable and easily tracked segments. Perhaps 24 clicks would have been better as you could have easily divisible and equal sections....? To operate a movable sliding weight you (IMO) need some repeatable method of keeping track of where you are. Five sections broken into multiple full turns with a graduated marking system is one way of doing it. It seems to work fine in my experience - which admittedly is far less than many who post here. What I would say is it is a proven method which works. There may well be other methods which work better but this one did work for me. I would certainly be open to trying something else and if it works easier/better I would consider changing..

I guess my point is, you have to know the value of any adjustment, on target, or you can easily be left chasing your tail.

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

This is correct for a Harrell tuner, and perhaps for some others.

Yes I believe Jamie was talking about a Harrell's. the J&N since there is not clicks has a more refined adjustment where you can go even smaller increments. the Von Ahrens is a totally different design no real adjustment just a threaded collar to fine tune weight forward of the crown.

Lee

 

[1911nut]

Indeed. The occasional use of a wrong word is hardly uncommon and shouldn't cause anyone embarrassment or distress.

G-man is right on.

Internet dictionary:

1. alter (information or evidence) so as to mislead.
"a laboratory which was alleged to have falsified test results"

2. prove (a statement or theory) to be false.
"the hypothesis is falsified by the evidence"

I still have to wonder on Garandman’s tuner if 2 turns out wouldn’t hit the metaphysical junction of the PRX tune and the forced deformation tune; the Holy Grail of tunes

Geeze I been reading too much forum stuff on tuners

 

[1Merlin]

<snip> I still have to wonder on Garandman’s tuner if 2 turns out wouldn’t hit the metaphysical junction of the PRX tune and the forced deformation tune; the Holy Grail of tunes <snip>

My jaw drops, I shake my head, my eyes are glazed..... I have a new goal for my shooting life. Finding the metaphysical junction of the PRX tune and the forced deformation tune; the Holy Grail of tunes. That statement is simply out-effing-standing.

Sir. I salute you.

 

[grauhanen]

G-man is right on.

Internet dictionary:

1. alter (information or evidence) so as to mislead.
"a laboratory which was alleged to have falsified test results"

2. prove (a statement or theory) to be false.
"the hypothesis is falsified by the evidence"

Your Solomon-like verdict is premature and incomplete. Here's why.

Verify and falsify are two very different words. The words aren't synonyms and they aren't equal in meaning. Which is more appropriate?

When testing a tuner do shooters set out to seek to verify a setting or to falsify a setting, two different processes? In other words, do they seek to determine that it is correct or do they seek to prove that it's wrong? The difference may seem subtle at first glance, but it is important.

The relevant "internet dictionary" definition of verify:

1. make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified

The process of verifying something includes examining both positive and false settings and results. It will look at what succeeds and what fails.

The process of falsifying is more restrictive. It seeks to prove something to be false. As you have noted, it means to "prove (a statement or theory) false." There are a lot of false settings to eliminate before being left with the desired results.

When shooters test their tuner settings, they are verifying them. Shooters wish to know if it succeeds or fails, not only that it fails.

It may seem like splitting hairs, a semantic tussle over seemingly interchangeable words. But it's not.

.

 

[GSRswapandslow]

Your Solomon-like verdict is premature and incomplete. Here's why.

Verify and falsify are two very different words. The words aren't synonyms and they aren't equal in meaning. Which is more appropriate?

When testing a tuner do shooters set out to seek to verify a setting or to falsify a setting, two different processes? In other words, do they seek to determine that it is correct or do they seek to prove that it's wrong? The difference may seem subtle at first glance, but it is important.

The relevant "internet dictionary" definition of verify:

1. make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified

The process of verifying something includes examining both positive and false settings and results. It will look at what succeeds and what fails.

The process of falsifying is more restrictive. It seeks to prove something to be false. As you have noted, it means to "prove (a statement or theory) false." There are a lot of false settings to eliminate before being left with the desired results.

When shooters test their tuner settings, they are verifying them. Shooters wish to know if it succeeds or fails, not only that it fails.

It may seem like splitting hairs, a semantic tussle over seemingly interchangeable words. But it's not.

.

its irrelevant bullshit. we all knew what he meant and colloquialisms are more than allowed on this or any other forum.

 

[garandman]

Grauhanen -

I am going to ask you one time to let it go. You are clogging up my thread with unnecessary irrelevant posts.

 

[garandman]

Ok...why one turn at a time, then? Why 25 clicks in a turn?

To my reading, the Hopewell method is just acknowledging you've gotta start somewhere... 1st with running through the full range of adjustment in large increments, then successively smaller adjustments based on what happened with the larger adjustments.

If you started with a single click and 2 rounds for every click of adjustment, you'd fire 1,000 rounds in simply doing the initial pass through the range of adjustment.

To my understanding, the functionality of a tuner is to incrementally Effectively make the barrel longer by dialing the tuner out so as to find a harmonic sweet spot that produces a minimal amount of vertical variation in target impact.


One full rotation being 25 thousands of an inch and then running through the entire adjustment range will help you find sweet spots quicker, with less rounds fired. I appear to have found two… one at about 25 thousands and another at 200 thousands, similar to load development for center fire rifles can have multiple nodes.

Then you simply find the best node and dial that in with finer adjustments.

As I said at the beginning, I am certainly no expert and I found minimal helpful material to help me understand the process.

 

[grauhanen]

Grauhanen -

I am going to ask you one time to let it go. You are clogging up my thread with unnecessary irrelevant posts.

No problem. I don't want to aggravate anyone's sensitivities.

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

To my reading, the Hopewell method is just acknowledging you've gotta start somewhere... 1st with running through the full range of adjustment in large increments, then successively smaller adjustments based on what happened with the larger adjustments.

If you started with a single click and 2 rounds for every click of adjustment, you'd fire 1,000 rounds in simply doing the initial pass through the range of adjustment.

To my understanding, the functionality of a tuner is to incrementally Effectively make the barrel longer by dialing the tuner out so as to find a harmonic sweet spot that produces a minimal amount of vertical variation in target impact.


One full rotation being 25 thousands of an inch and then running through the entire adjustment range will help you find sweet spots quicker, with less rounds fired. I appear to have found two… one at about 25 thousands and another at 200 thousands, similar to load development for center fire rifles can have multiple nodes.

Then you simply find the best node and dial that in with finer adjustments.

As I said at the beginning, I am certainly no expert and I found minimal helpful material to help me understand the process.

Simple question here...what if there are only 8-12 marks between completely in and completely out of tune? Did moving the tuner 25 marks at a time cost you more time and ammo or did it save you both, and why? Please don't forget the why.

How many times did moving 25 marks at a time make you skip over sweet spots, in this scenario?

Again, the question remains...why move a tuner by almost any number of marks without knowing the value of each mark, first? That just seems very random to me. Unless we know the value of one mark, how do we know the value or 25, and more importantly, how do we know how to predictably correct for tune changes.

This fact remains true...smokeless powder burning is a chemical reaction and ALL chemical reactions are temperature dependant...So there is an inevitable energy and velocity increase as temps rise. This is just fact. That begs the question...how many fps between marks to maintain peak tune? No, I'm very sorry, but there is no imaginary single setting for all temps and velocities. That notion would defy physics.

So, how much does 25 marks change the barrel frequency and how does that correlate to velocity?

Bottom line is this...If you don't know why and by how much to move your tuner...you're guessing.

 

[garandman]

Bottom line is this...If you don't know why and by how much to move your tuner...you're guessing.

Simply put.. you've got 500 adjustments to check... You've got to divide it up somehow.

I don't know how to figure out why n by how much to move the tuner other than by trying some methodology.

This is not like adding grains of powder to a center fire load that incrementally increases velocity. This is changing the Length of the barrel that will affect harmonics. The only way I know how to do that is just to try and see what works. To my knowledge there is no way to know what a single click of adjustment will do. Several builders who deal in this stuff professionally have both said start around 150 to 200 and work from there. Hopewell starts from 0 and works incrementally up in large increments and then fine tunes the large adjustments

The link I placed to the Hopewell method describes that methodology and how many rounds are used for both the initial the secondary and the final fine tuning.


If you don't like the Hopewell method, What methodology would you recommend? I'm willing to try anything... lol. Especially if it will accomplish the goal in less rounds than the Hopewell method.

 

[Hi-NV Shooter]

Simply put.. you've got 500 adjustments to check... You've got to divide it up somehow.

I don't know how to figure out why n by how much to move the tuner other than by trying some methodology.

This is not like adding grains of powder to a center fire load that incrementally increases velocity. This is changing the Length of the barrel that will affect harmonics. The only way I know how to do that is just to try and see what works. To my knowledge there is no way to know what a single click of adjustment will do. Several builders who deal in this stuff professionally have both said start around 150 to 200 and work from there. Hopewell starts from 0 and works incrementally up in large increments and then fine tunes the large adjustments

The link I placed to the Hopewell method describes that methodology and how many rounds are used for both the initial the secondary and the final fine tuning.


If you don't like the Hopewell method, What methodology would you recommend? I'm willing to try anything... lol. Especially if it will accomplish the goal in less rounds than the Hopewell method.

garandman,

If you started at zero and only went out by 5-clicks at a time shooting 3-rounds (if the first 2 don't touch no need to shoot the third) with just 30 rds. or less you would have 10 groups and be at 50 shoot another 30rds. and you would be at 100 and 30 more and you will be at 150. but the important thing is you would have 30 groups with a broader range of how different settings shoot.
here is an example of what I am talking about. I used only 51 shots to get to the 80-90 settings. as you can see a 10-clcik spread and really no change on how it shoots. I later found 86 is the overall best setting.

Lee