Tuner brakes…

[heat_and_fam]

Tuners have been around a long time and they absolutely do work. They are on at least 90% of the competition 22 riles I've seen and their use is growing. I have one on everyone of my competition rifles and I have tuner brakes where the rules allow. I hunt suppressed but I have used a tuner during initial load development to quickly uncover potential accuracy of a bullet/powder combo and save a little on components. No, you can't make a bad load good, but you can make most any load shoot better. In my experience, I can match the tuning results I get with traditional seating depth adjustments. Especially in guns with long throats or magazine length limitations like ARs.

So in reality, seating depths are just changing the bullets exit time ever so slightly vs a tuner changing the barrel harmonics ever so slightly, both accomplishing the same end result, one with maybe less time and components spent on development…man, I may be talking myself into trying one.

 

[22250imp]

As someone mentioned Browning and Winchester had them years ago. They dropped them due to lack of interest I believe and people not understanding them and using them to their full potential. I have messed with several of them and they usually work very well. Have had two that didn't seem to make much difference on the tuning of them but the rest were all bug shooters with the right tuning.

 

[biednick]

If you want to screw with one there's some available that will mount behind a silencer. ATS makes one I use on my PRS Rimfire rig with a silencer to help with balance. Test it hard if you get one, like 25 rounds at each setting. I am not aware of a single test performed with a statistically meaningful sample size that showed they work or provide repeatable results. Ive never been able to get measurable and repeatable results with more than 10 rounds.

I'd also reccomend listening to Brian Litz's podcast with Eric Cortina on the topic if you're interested in them. I found that podcast very telling. It's basically an hour and a half of Litz explaining the rigerous test he performed and his results while Cortina just says they work but he promised another shooter he wouldn't reveal the secret to using them.

 

[stiff neck]

I'd also reccomend listening to Brian Litz's podcast with Eric Cortina on the topic if you're interested in them. I found that podcast very telling. It's basically an hour and a half of Litz explaining the rigerous test he performed and his results while Cortina just says they work but he promised another shooter he wouldn't reveal the secret to using them.

Litz's test was so seriously flawed, it can be completely ignored. I don't know why EC didn't call him out directly on Litz's total failure to follow the instructions. The test was doomed to fail before the first shot was fired.

There were several major faults. First, EC clearly directs to set the tuner to 0 and then shoot in increments of 2 marks. So 0,2,4,6,8, etc. There are 9 marks per barrel rotation, and a tune is normally found in the first rotation but you can try more. But Litz never tested that way. Instead, he only tested the first mark of each full revolution, for example mark 0,10,20,30,40, etc. Of those rotations, he chose the best one and then proceded to micro adjust the settings, example mark 30 three full turns shot best so then he tried 31,32,33, etc. This alone nullifies the "test". EC NEVER said that's how to test. Litz tested a method that bobody EVER claimed works.

Litz did not say if/when he adjusted the tension screws, he likely did for each mark. EC says never adjust them because that throws off the tune and it's not repeatable.

Litz's guns were not probably accurate enough to notice a fine tune. Litz says he struggled to keep his control groups in the 0.4" to 0.6" range. Maybe his guns were not accurate enough, maybe it was the ammo, maybe it was the shooter. You have to have an accurate system in order to see the difference fine tuning makes.

There's more faults, but I'm tired of typing.

 

[biednick]

Litz's test was so seriously flawed, it can be completely ignored. I don't know why EC didn't call him out directly on Litz's total failure to follow the instructions. The test was doomed to fail before the first shot was fired.

There were several major faults. First, EC clearly directs to set the tuner to 0 and then shoot in increments of 2 marks. So 0,2,4,6,8, etc. There are 9 marks per barrel rotation, and a tune is normally found in the first rotation but you can try more. But Litz never tested that way. Instead, he only tested the first mark of each full revolution, for example mark 0,10,20,30,40, etc. Of those rotations, he chose the best one and then proceded to micro adjust the settings, example mark 30 three full turns shot best so then he tried 31,32,33, etc. This alone nullifies the "test". EC NEVER said that's how to test. Litz tested a method that bobody EVER claimed works.

Litz did not say if/when he adjusted the tension screws, he likely did for each mark. EC says never adjust them because that throws off the tune and it's not repeatable.

Litz's guns were not probably accurate enough to notice a fine tune. Litz says he struggled to keep his control groups in the 0.4" to 0.6" range. Maybe his guns were not accurate enough, maybe it was the ammo, maybe it was the shooter. You have to have an accurate system in order to see the difference fine tuning makes.

There's more faults, but I'm tired of typing.

Cortina disagrees with you. He did address Litz's failure to follow the instructions exactly, but doesn't feel it invalidates the results. He basically said "you didn't do exactly what I said to, but you test is still valid and if you knew the secret I refuse to share you'd be able to show they work."

He also disagrees with your claim about the test gun's precision being inadequate. 1/2 MOA is right in the range he says works well to see improvement with a tuner. Much larger and he feels you have too many other inconsistencies to deal with first, much smaller and he feels you're already perfectly tuned.

Both Litz and Cortina are world class F class shooters. If either of them are unable to shoot well enough for a tuner to matter the idea of discussing them on a hunting forum is laughable.

With a tuner it doesn't matter where you start. Testing each full revolution then making small adjustments at the one that appears to give the best results is no different than making small adjustments from 0. Maybe it wouldn't lead you to the "best" setting as quickly, but if adjusting a tuner made a change it would still show up with the methodology Litz used. The marks are just there to make adjustments easier and repeatable. The values don't matter. If tuners are effective at changing precision making large changes would also create measurable and repeatable changes in precision. I do agree with Cortina's stance that any change, good or bad, demonstrates it works.

 

[FEENIX]

Worth checking out?

For me, yes! I have the EC tuner brake. I have muzzle brakes for nearly the same price, so why not try it myself? It is simply an enhancement tool that is available to end-users. It is not a fix-all tool; yes, it has its limitations. Does it have its place? Yes!

I do find load development fun during the offseason,

Most of us do, with or without a muzzle device.

I also prefer a suppressor,

As others noted, get the suppressor-friendly tuner adapter. I also have suppressors, but I do not have the tuner adapter at this time,

As you can see, there are strong opinions on both sides, and it is up to you to determine which is best for you and satisfy your curiosity. Good luck!

 

[stiff neck]

Cortina disagrees with you. He did address Litz's failure to follow the instructions exactly, but doesn't feel it invalidates the results. He basically said "you didn't do exactly what I said to, but you test is still valid and if you knew the secret I refuse to share you'd be able to show they work."

EC said that Litz's results were valid for the test he performed. However, Litz never tested the way every tuner manufacturer including EC recommends. So Litz's test did not conclude that tuners don't work, it merely concludes that Litz's method does not work.

Litz's test was a Red Herring. Nobody ever claimed they would work via Litz's method. Litz did not even talk to any of the tuner manufacturers or experts before devising a test. Litz instead totally ignored their instructions and made up his own method to test. So when the test showed no positive results, nobody was surprised, because his test was not a good test and was doomed to NOT work. Litz's test answered a question nobody asked: If a tuner is misused, will it work?

EC's secret is NOT how to tune. He literally has YouTube videos on how to tune. His secret is how to KEEP your barrel in tune as conditions change. Others have hinted at the method of maintaining tune, example moving the tuner weight one way or another depending on atmospheric conditions or group shape etc.

EC hinted that Litz's lesser quality gun/load may already be perfectly tuned to it's potential and was not capable of being improved, hence a tuner could only keep it the same or make it worse but not better. Right? You cannot tune a factory Rem700 with FGMM ammo to shoot in the 1s and 2s it's just not going to happen. Your equipment needs to be highly capable in order to percieve small changes in tune.

 

[asd9055]

I have been using tuners since 1997 (The original BOSS) in several rifles from 22-250 to 338WM. Before the BOSS I had friends that used the old rubber dougnut as a tuner. They work. Those who claim they don't work, they never bother to try and understand how.
The advantage they old BOSS had, is that Browing/Winchester gave recommendations for various factory loads. THose were starting points and many times "spot on". I used those "starting points" for my handloads to optimize my "tuning"
For me and a lot of my friends that use them, they work. For those sho claim they dont work, those people are doing something wrong.

 

[Jeffrey Van Zandt]

I must have been living under a rock. But my buddy just told me he loads for whatever speed he wants (say for barrel life/recoil) and runes his load with a timer brake. Makes sense I guess, by changing the weight on the end of the barrel it would allow harmonics to be adjusted to provide an accuracy mode at whatever speed you wanted, within reason.

Are these growing pretty popular? Worth checking out? I do find load development fun during the offseason, and I also prefer a suppressor, so I probably won't be buying one, just curious people's thoughts on them.

we used tuning device on our 3P rifles in the 90s for the high school shooting team and browning had one at one time on some of there hunting rifles. I kown they work on the 22s but just as easy to tune your barrle with your hand loads

 

[Old Rooster]

That takes the fun out of reloading.

That's what I think also.
You can change barrel harmonics by adjusting powder,Or even use a different powder,changing to a different bullet.
The tuners are nice if you don't want to change powders or bullets.Kind of a shortcut!

 

[asd9055]

That's what I think also.
You can change barrel harmonics by adjusting powder,Or even use a different powder,changing to a different bullet.
The tuners are nice if you don't want to change powders or bullets.Kind of a shortcut!

I hear what you are saying, but you can pick a charge at a project velocity and then have the same fun playing with the tuner instead of the charge. More ways than one to have fun I think

 

[biednick]

EC hinted that Litz's lesser quality gun/load may already be perfectly tuned to it's potential and was not capable of being improved, hence a tuner could only keep it the same or make it worse but not better. Right? You cannot tune a factory Rem700 with FGMM ammo to shoot in the 1s and 2s it's just not going to happen. Your equipment needs to be highly capable in order to percieve small changes in tune.

This is the only thing you said I remotely agree with, and you seem to be misunderstanding what Cortina said. Yes, a perfectly tuned gun would shoot worse with a tuner if a tuner had an affect on precision. Cortina's stance is that any change, good or bad, is evidence they work, which I agree with. Litz did not find a repeatable change and no other statistically meaningful test has produced a repeatable change.

Litz's test should have produced a repeatable change. Sure, it might not be the exact method reccomended by most manufacturers, but if moving a tiny weight could affect precision Litz's test would have shown a change in precision.

I will say I disagree with Litz on what "works" means. Any change in precision is evidence they work, whether they make it better or worse. No one has shown they work with a meaningful number of rounds on target.

If you can't keep it in tube what's the point?

 

[Old Rooster]

I hear what you are saying, but you can pick a charge at a project velocity and then have the same fun playing with the tuner instead of the charge. More ways than one to have fun I think

I agree.Sometimes a short cut is a nice thing to have.

 

[stiff neck]

Litz's test should have produced a repeatable change. Sure, it might not be the exact method reccomended by most manufacturers, but if moving a tiny weight could affect precision Litz's test would have shown a change in precision.

That's another flaw in Litz's test. EC says his V1 tuner (the one Litz tested) must move in one direction. meaning ONLY move it in one direction as you adjust it looking for the best setting. EC says to NOT turn it forward, backward, then forward, then backward etc. Kinda like some of the older parallax adj on scopes that had to first be turned to infinity and then rotated backwards to the final setting, and any change meant you had to start over at infinity and adjust it down all over again. Failing to do this will result in inconsistencies and non-repetable results.

Another flaw is adjusting the V1 tuner tension screws. EC says to never touch the tension screws, leave them alone. Because tightening or loosening the tensiin screws can/will "tune" the barrel in it's own way, which it was not intended. Some users were "locking down" the tesion screws after each adjustment, which is not exactly repetable.

The V2 tuner corrected both of these issues by eliminatIng the tension screws and using a tensioning spring inside the tuner.

Litz apparently did not adhere to both of these user instructions, because he ignored the manufacturers instructions and made up his own methods for testing.