do tuners "cheat" barrel harmonics or is there another way to duplicate previous barrel

[fseaman]

1/2 turn out (.021")

That's how it is supposed to work. Glad you got it.

 

[fseaman]

Kieth Glasscock has an interesting video on the subject.

It's all true. That's why he no longer uses it.

For some it works easier than that.

 

[Mikecr]

You can develop for shooting at any fixed distance without a tuner. You might end up with a high SD load though.
Could just be that's your best shooting load.

But if you to work with powder node separate from barrel node, especially at a fixed distance, you have the option for lowest SD and best shooting results -with a barrel tuner. Then apply that with LRH, and at least you have a low SD load with a barrel hitting best at one distance. Typically still good at multiple distances (as needed for hunting). Depends on the barrel & system (like bedding).

So I could powder develop across a chrono for an ES under 10fps.
Choose a distance, like 300 or 600yds, dial the tuner into tight hot bore grouping, and eventually cold bore accuracy.
After that, there is no reason to mess with the tuner, or seating, or anything again for the life of that barrel.
It is either good enough, or it isn't.

For those who think a tuner should be optimized for atmospheric changes, that does not apply to hunting. That's point blank BR only.
After all, as a hunter, what would you fiddle with today -without a tuner? NOTHING
And from those in the statistic cult, who can NEVER be satisfied, simply ignore them.

 

[ntsqd]

I suspect that the barrel mass to tuner's moveable mass ratio is very important. Put a 2 oz. tuner on the 1.25" cylinder barrel and I too would doubt that it's going to have much effect. Put a 4 oz. tuner on a pencil barrel and now it should have some effect.

 

[Beluebow]

Tuners absolutely work....how many shots does it take to prove it?

 

[Frank in the Laurels]

..contrary to an above statement, THEY NOT ONLY WORK, THERE MIRACLE WORKERS....Shooting under benchrest rules and conditions out to a 1000 we've found they preform miracle compared to nontuners, will never be without them on any of our comp rifles...

 

[Alex Wheeler]

You can develop for shooting at any fixed distance without a tuner. You might end up with a high SD load though.
Could just be that's your best shooting load.

But if you to work with powder node separate from barrel node, especially at a fixed distance, you have the option for lowest SD and best shooting results -with a barrel tuner. Then apply that with LRH, and at least you have a low SD load with a barrel hitting best at one distance. Typically still good at multiple distances (as needed for hunting). Depends on the barrel & system (like bedding).

So I could powder develop across a chrono for an ES under 10fps.
Choose a distance, like 300 or 600yds, dial the tuner into tight hot bore grouping, and eventually cold bore accuracy.
After that, there is no reason to mess with the tuner, or seating, or anything again for the life of that barrel.
It is either good enough, or it isn't.

For those who think a tuner should be optimized for atmospheric changes, that does not apply to hunting. That's point blank BR only.
After all, as a hunter, what would you fiddle with today -without a tuner? NOTHING
And from those in the statistic cult, who can NEVER be satisfied, simply ignore them.

I have been hearing that for close to 20 years. But no one does it because it just doesnt work. Its a nice theory. But you cant tuner tune a barrel. It will fall apart.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

..contrary to an above statement, THEY NOT ONLY WORK, THERE MIRACLE WORKERS....Shooting under benchrest rules and conditions out to a 1000 we've found they preform miracle compared to nontuners, will never be without them on any of our comp rifles...
View attachment 618324View attachment 618325View attachment 618326

I have not had that experiance. I can only go by my experiance and results. 40+ records and zero with a tuner. Thats not me trying to be cocky at all. Its just a fact I cant deny. And I have put on a lot of tuners. I have had more guys improve by getting them off tuners by getting them on. A lot of thats user error but thats a real problem thats hard to fix.

 

[Mikecr]

no one does it because it just doesnt work.

If you can make a non-tuner barrel shoot, you can make a tuner barrel shoot.
Same with a muzzle break.
Why make anything difficult about it?

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I am refering to tuning for low es then adjusting the tuner for group. A lot of guys have tried that method. It doesnt work.

 

[BSPPC]

I suspect that the barrel mass to tuner's moveable mass ratio is very important. Put a 2 oz. tuner on the 1.25" cylinder barrel and I too would doubt that it's going to have much effect. Put a 4 oz. tuner on a pencil barrel and now it should have some effect.

You CAN get a tuner that is too heavy as it will have a HUGE negative impact.
Years ago I was fooling with tuners on a 1.450" bbl on my rail gun. We put a big, heavy tuner on it and could not keep shots in a 6" group at 100 yards. At each shot you could hear the bbl ring until you reached up and touched it.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

It would certainly be nice to see an independent test done on a tuner. Shoot with no tuner, add a tuner and start at zero, and then observe the group sizes at the different settings.

Last tuner testing I did was in the early 2000s with the Browning BOSS rifles. I would do the two shot groups, and dial one way or the other to see which setting put the two shots closest together. As it was marketed, one could just load to the maximum velocity allowable by safe pressures and just use the tuner to "lasso" all that into harmonious harmonics. Now I wonder if I was only observing the noise within the MOA cone of POI potential of the barrel.

Then there is the question, "Why did Browning stop manufacture of the BOSS?" This one really hits hard for me.

We did lab test them. We also published the controlled lab testing results in Modern Advancements for Long Range Shooting Vol 3, starting on page 57 ending on page 108. We fired over 1800 rounds in our laboratory testing.

In the end we found that marketing claims about the effectiveness of tuners improving baseline mechanical precision in rifles were not substantiated with thorough lab testing.

None of the testing indications that some find in small sample groups held up in large sample (100+ round) groups.

It was more common that settings indicated as "best" created worse shot groups, but not actually statistically significant by any amount.

We did find that adding weight alone without the tuner in some cases may provide benefits, and are testing further on this information. But essentially you could get the same results or better results by using a suppressor instead of a tuner, and would get those results in a number of the cases. But we are researching more into this now.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

Same.

I think the "nay sayers" thought it would be a magic pill and didn' put the time in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

We put in the time to test nearly 2000 rounds on the subject in our state of the art lab....

 

[Brathany]

We did lab test them. We also published the controlled lab testing results in Modern Advancements for Long Range Shooting Vol 3, starting on page 57 ending on page 108. We fired over 1800 rounds in our laboratory testing.

In the end we found that marketing claims about the effectiveness of tuners improving baseline mechanical precision in rifles were not substantiated with thorough lab testing.

None of the testing indications that some find in small sample groups held up in large sample (100+ round) groups.

It was more common that settings indicated as "best" created worse shot groups, but not actually statistically significant by any amount.

We did find that adding weight alone without the tuner in some cases may provide benefits, and are testing further on this information. But essentially you could get the same results or better results by using a suppressor instead of a tuner, and would get those results in a number of the cases. But we are researching more into this now.

Awesome! Who is "we"?