PDA

View Full Version : How a tuner really works, Calfee



Kathy
01-18-2008, 11:30 AM
My centerfire friends:

When I developed the first muzzle attached barrel tuners back in the early 90's I believed we used them to "tune for the load" being shot........and I believed that for several years, as did everyone else.

About 5 years ago I ran some experiments, barrel ringing, wrote about it in Precision Shooting several times.

I discovered my friends, that a tuner is not used to "tune for the load" but it is used to "tune for the barrel"...

A properly weighted and positioned barrel tuner does not need to be adjusted.

These are the facts my friends. You can accept it now, or sometime down the road.....but sooner or later you will accept it.

What you folks would be well advised to experiment with, is making the physical size of you guns, barrels, etc., such, that you can use a tuner of the proper weight and still meet the 10 1/2 weight limit.

Your friend, Bill calfee

Mike H
01-19-2008, 12:45 PM
I've been away from these forums for awhile. I see this tuner debate is still rageing. I also see that people are still refusing to listen to someone with more experience with tuners than everyone on the centerfire board put together. Bill is absolutely correct.

Everyone on Earth who has spent a long day at the range playing with tuners knows you can alter the amount of vertical with one. Nothing new has been discovered here. The question is, now what? If all a tuner does is add a fourth variable to the powder charge/seating depth/neck tension equation, why bother?

The answer to that question is that tuners don't work that way. Tuners have no effect on your ammo. They can't, they never come into contact with it. Tuners effect barrel vibrations only. And with the proper weight properly positioned, THEY NEVER NEED TO BE ADJUSTED. They don't need to be adjusted for the weather. They don't need to be adjusted for the load. What a tuner does is give you a rifle that never surprises you. A tuner gives you consistency every time out. Three or four groups into the day and you'll know what to expect for the whole day. If that consistency isn't small enough for you, then you need to look at your ammo (or some other variable), but you don't need to look at your tuner.

This business of trying to make a tuner work within the constraints of some set of rules is silly. It reminds me of the old joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the street light because "the light's better there". If the rules prevent you from using enough weight to make a tuner truly effective, then the whole thing is an exercise in futility.

pacecil
01-19-2008, 01:02 PM
About 5 years ago I ran some experiments, barrel ringing, wrote about it in Precision Shooting several times.
I discovered my friends, that a tuner is not used to "tune for the load" but it is used to "tune for the barrel"...

Thats right Bill - You tune your barrels for AFTER the bullet has left the barrel. The rest of us are trying to tune the barrel BEFORE the bullet has left!

Vibe
01-19-2008, 01:42 PM
Thats right Bill - You tune your barrels for AFTER the bullet has left the barrel. The rest of us are trying to tune the barrel BEFORE the bullet has left!
That is exactly what a barrel tuner is doing as well - tuning the barrel for the moment of exit. I may disagree with Bills description of HOW and WHY it does this, But it does give a more stable muzzle condition upon bullet exit. :D

So was anyone here fooling with them before Browning "patented" the Boss system?:D

jackie schmidt
01-19-2008, 04:35 PM
Many of us who have actually been using, and winning with, tuners in Centerfire Benchrest will pay a lot more attention to what Mr. Calfee has to say when he writes up a report on his first Registered Competition Two-Gun Win, or Grand Agg Win, or a Yardage Win, or heck, even a single group win.
I am of the belief that most of what Mr. Calfee observes in his "barrel ringing" exercises happens after the bullet has aready left the barrel, and probably gone through the target. Also, ringing a barrel in it's "static" condition, trying to find out something, is a far cry from hitting it with a 70,000 psi pressure spike, while a bullet travels down the bore, changing the very vibration patterns he is trying to controle with every .001 inch of its progress.
His basic problem is trying to relate low-pressure rim fire technology with high pressure centerfire technology. The dynamics are so far apart that they are related in just one aspect, in the end, the thing goes "bang".
This is another one of those areas where there are those that sit around and contemplate the issue, theorize about it, and then write about it. Then there are those of us who sit down, draw up something, build it, and then spend countless hours at the range, and in competition, either proving it's worth, or discarding it into the "well, that didn't work" pile of ideas that just did not pan out.
I am not trying to be a smart ass, and I do know trhat Mr. Calfee is well respected in his relm of expertice. But, this is Benchrest.com. Sooner or later, when you come on here, you have to be willing to "walk the walk", and not just "talk the talk". We do not carry a small group around in our wallet. We hang Championship Plaques on our walls.
The single most striking evidence of Mr. Calfees ignorance is his continuing to push that "correct tuner weight" thing. He speaks with the authority of someone who does not have a clue as what we are really doing at the level of accuracy and precision that it takes to win in 100-200 yard Benchrest.
This all might seem rather harmless, except for the fact that shooters log onto this site for one major reason, to gain information on how to improve the agging capability of their set-up in the Competitive Arena. We have an uncanny way of separating the "wheat" from the "chaffe". It's called results.......jackie

Kathy
01-19-2008, 05:16 PM
Friend Jackie:

I just came in and turned on this machine and saw your post.

When a tuner, of the proper weight for the barrel, is used, the muzzle will be completely stopped.........at that point, the tuner will no longer need to be adjusted...

I don't know you my friend.....I'm sure I would like you, and you me..

I am extremely comfortable....

Time will tell if I am a fool, or if...............

Your friend, Bill Calfee

Mike Marcelli
01-19-2008, 05:50 PM
As you know I hired a piano tuner and did it per your suggestions in Precision Shooting Magazine.How did it turn out-My 73 year old father has set 4 records now with 1 still standing and he never touches the tuner.Not bad when you consider he has about 3 years in and didn't shoot a tuner his first year.


Lynn

But Lynn,

How did the barrel with the tuner shoot before you put a tuner on it? While you may believe the tuner made a difference in the way the rifle shoots, it may have made no difference at all. It may just have the preverbial "hummer" barrel.

By way of example, I came real close to setting the HV 100 yd agg and IBS 200 yd Unlimited Group records -- both without tuners and both lost because I err -- choked. I'd be glad to show you a real nice 4 shot .081" 200 yd group to prove it (I think I tossed the others). Truth be told, I had some awesome shooting .22 bullets and a fantastic .22 LV barrel at the time and they made shooting small groups seem like child's play.

I took the same gun, put a new barrel on it, and it shot groups with horrible verticle. I tried putting a tuner on the "verticle" barrel. Guess what? It still shot verticle after the tuner. Admittedly, it shot less verticle, but I never could get the verticle completely dialed out and it had enough verticle that it would never be competitive.

So, here's what I've concluded: (1) some barrels just shoot better than others; (2) some bullets shoot better than others; (3) some scopes hold zero better than others; and, (4) some powders are less effected by certain enironmental changes than others. The addition of a tuner to a system that has a barrel, bullet, or powder problem may show an incremental improvement, but a bummer system will not be magically transmuted into a hummer system. I'm not saying that tuners don't work -- certainly they have been proven to be able to improve the grouping of a particular load to a particular barrel in particular circumstances. However, as pointed out by others in this thread, adding weight to the end of a barrel (and presumably slowing its periodicity at the anti-node) is always beneficial -- especially when we can adjust the load parameters.

Mike Marcelli
01-19-2008, 06:15 PM
Friend Jackie:

When a tuner, of the proper weight for the barrel, is used, the muzzle will be completely stopped.........at that point, the tuner will no longer need to be adjusted...

Your friend, Bill Calfee

Prove it. I'll never utter another word of disbelief if you can prove to me that you can stop the muzzle end of a rifle barrel from vibrating, as the bullet exits, when fired. I'm not talking about holding a metal rod and watching it vibrate as you grip it in different places, I'm talking about a Cu jacketed bullet accellerating from 0 fps to Mach 2.5+ scraping along the interior of a hollow steel tube (which in and of itself stretches and elongates the tube), said bullet developing rotational energy from 0 rpm to approx. 160,000 rpm, pushing a plug of air out of its path (which is also bouncing off the walls of the cylinder) and being followed by 32 - 65,000 PSI of gases, solids and plasma again all bouncing off the interior walls as they careen down the barrel.

I'll even send you a vibration kit complete with accelerometers to attach to the muzzle to prove it stopped. All you'll need is a silly scope.

Mike Marcelli
01-19-2008, 06:38 PM
Mike
The tuner is removable by simply backing it off as it is threaded in place.The gun does shoot very well without the tuner on it.
I do however find it very amusing to read how everybody but 100,200 yard benchrest shooters know anything at all about tuners.In the 600,1000 yard game I shoot mainly with the same guys who shoot against you yourself at places like Visalia.I shoot at Sacramento which is just up the road from you a few hundred miles.If you don't have a degree from MIT I guess you can't successfully use a tuner?
I have never seen Robert Yates win a race but if he wants to give me an engine I'm not going to tell him he must first win the Daytona 500 with himself as the driver before I will believe he knows how to make horsepower.Too bad Bill Calfee doesn't seem to get the same break from a bunch of guys who originaly said tuners would never work and are now using them successfully.
Lynn

Lynn:

Jackie uses a tuner. He's probably one of their biggest proponents. So, I don't think he's saying they don't work. But, I'm not going to try and put any words in anyone's mouth.

My beef, if I even have one, is why it works, not whether it works. I've seen the accelerometer traces of a barrel when fired. If the bullet exits at a peak or valley, i.e., an area of low angular momentun, you get small groups. If it exists during a rise or fall or worst yet the node (the area where the barrel is travelling at its highest angular momentum, you get bigger groups). The longer, time wise, a barrel dwells in a peak or a valley, the more likely the bullet will exit at the peak or valley, and the less succeptible it will be to variations in velocity. The heavier the muzzle, the slower its angular momentum, and the more time it dwells in a peak or valley. (This is the theory espoused for the BOSS system, and it makes scientific sense.)

But in the traces I've seen, there has never been a flat spot -- a spot where, with no addition of an external force (an external energy), the curve simply goes flat, i.e., the muzzle stops moving all together. That violates the laws of physics and quantum mechanics -- and I've studied law. ;)

J. Valentine
01-19-2008, 06:44 PM
So what you are saying Jackie is , " That a gunsmith has to be a champion shot or in the BR Hall of Fame to know anything about BR guns " ???

Mike Marcelli
01-19-2008, 07:08 PM
Mike you sound like a lawyer.
How much experience does Bill Calfee have with a tuner? How do his rifles do in competition? Are they sought after or do they sit on the shelf collecting dust when someone decides to retire from the sport? Is it possible he knows how they work? What is his definition of a stopped muzzle? If a barrel block was put at the muzzle end of the barreled action and held into the stock would that be stopped or would we need to freeze the molecules to -260 Celsius to stop it?
You guys are a very entertaining bunch.
Good Luck wit your shooting.
Lynn

Thanks Lynn, I am a lawyer. But before that I was a chemist (BS, MA). I left USC's PhD program to pursue a legal career, but I graduated with a 3.95 GPA and a couple of published articles in scientific journals (JACS and Journal of Physical Organic Cemistry), so I say this to head off the naysayers - no, I was not asked to leave. Rather, I was asked to stay take an MA (non-terminating degree) and a 1 year leave of absence rather than a MS (terminating degree) to decide if I wanted to be a lawyer. Its been a while, and I can't whip through differential calculus problems anymore, but I still remember the basics like conservation of energy: "A body in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by another force." There is no external force to stop a muzzle from vibrating, so it can't happen -- unless you violate the laws of physics.

As for whether Bill knows why a tuner works, I suspect he knows how they work and has his own reasons for espousing his stopped muzzle theory -- but I could be wrong, so I'll give him the benefit of doubt and not espouse my opinions.

Can Bill build a fine rifle? That does not seem to be a disputable subject. Of course he can. But is building a rifle more art than science?

Actually, people have tried clamping the muzzle end of a barrel to the top of a rail gun. The resulting groups were not impressive. I suspect that the conservation of energy equation kicks in and instead of having the end of the barrel vibrate, the whole platform is made to vibrate with some unanticipated consequences.

JJ-IA
01-19-2008, 07:48 PM
Doesn’t matter how they work.

I think part of the problem is unless someone’s actually experienced the incredible 200-yard grouping ability produced by a working BR rifle (without a tuner & without playing with the powder measure), they just cant understand how little’s left on the table.

The way I read all these tuner threads.
1. Adding -any- weight delays/slows/reduces muzzle motion at the instant of bullet exit.
2. People like cool futuristic clicky adjustable space age things (ie would they still adjust their power measure between matches if it didn’t have a cool clicky dial on the side?).
3. Both the NBRSA & IBS now have a loophole where you can bypass the long established taper rules -but only if- you thread or clamp your motion reducing weight on the barrel and call it a “tuner”.

I’m guessing there will be a lot of new barrel profiles tried in the future, some will even have anodized clicky things on the front. If your existing varmint taper barrel’s working, you could care less. ;)

Jim

bryan
01-19-2008, 07:50 PM
Mike: All the laws of physics mean nothing to me........especially when it comes to a bullet going down the length of a barrel. Varmint Al's stuff is very interesting, as well as everyone else's input, but key factors are not being used. Not that I have an answer, but I do have questions.
1. Barrel temperature rises with each shot.
2. Barrel fouling (and the lubricity of that fouling) changes with each shot.
3. The density of the air in a hot barrel is definately different than in the ambient conditions around the rifle.
4. Temperature of the powder charge (when left in the chamber for a specified length of time before firing) is different for subsequent rounds.....see #1
5. 50 millionths of an inch in bullet diameter or bearing length.
When you consider all the factors involved in putting 5 shots into a hole, I can't imagine how it is done.
Bryan

Charles E
01-19-2008, 08:36 PM
Hi Mike,

I'd say you've about got it, but you need to remember the old saying "You can always tell a Texas Aggie (or substitute your favorite description/institution), but you can't tell him much."

Charles

Mike Marcelli
01-19-2008, 08:41 PM
Mike: All the laws of physics mean nothing to me........especially when it comes to a bullet going down the length of a barrel. Varmint Al's stuff is very interesting, as well as everyone else's input, but key factors are not being used. Not that I have an answer, but I do have questions.
1. Barrel temperature rises with each shot.
2. Barrel fouling (and the lubricity of that fouling) changes with each shot.
3. The density of the air in a hot barrel is definately different than in the ambient conditions around the rifle.
4. Temperature of the powder charge (when left in the chamber for a specified length of time before firing) is different for subsequent rounds.....see #1
5. 50 millionths of an inch in bullet diameter or bearing length.
When you consider all the factors involved in putting 5 shots into a hole, I can't imagine how it is done.
Bryan

Bryan:
I couldn't agree more. There are a number of things we take for granted before we ever get to the barrel. As a bullet maker, you know how critical it is to have every core to seat in the jacket with the same "feel." Ever try to explain that "feel" to anyone? Ever notice how critical obtaining the proper feel is to turning out quality bullets? I tell everyone who expresses interest in making bullets that it will take at least 6 months for them to develop a process that will turn out bullets that they can rely on. Until that time, I warn them that their shooting will suffer.

Then, still dwelling on bullets, you have some hummer jackets and some bummer jackets and they are practically impossible to differentiate except for that "feel."

Barrels: forget about it. Its all a crap shoot.

I'm not a big follower of the changing tune with changing conditions theory. Its my belief that the general tuning problems arise from powder measures not dropping consistent charges over a wide temperature range. That this occurs cannot be disputed. Why this occurs? I have no idea. Its been my general experience that if you load the same weight powder charge, the gun will keep shooting irrespective of the weather conditions. It is true that I've experienced rare times when this was not the case, but I suspect other things (such as an impending scope failure) were causing my poor groups and not the rifle's tune.

Changing fouling? Yea. What about the effects of MoS2 or WS2 on not only fouling, but neck tension? How about changing neck tensions due to work hardening?

I'm getting a headache. Time to grab a beer.

Mike Marcelli
01-19-2008, 09:31 PM
Mike I knew you were a lawyer.
If you look at a sine wave on a piece of paper it crosses a line at 3 points 0 degrees 180 degrees and 360 degrees and has a peak at 90 degrees and a trough at 270 degrees.Pacecil calls the trough an anti-node because if you add it to the positive peak at 90 degree it equals a flat line.
What Bill seems to be saying is in total agreement with your statement that you want the barrel at 90 degrees or 270 degrees to take advantage of the dwell time at each point.If you cut a barrel to length and you are at 0,180 or 360 degrees you are at the point of highest angular momentum.Why would we want to do this? Bill is telling to cut the barrel at the parallel node which would be 90 or 270 degrees.Doesn't that seem to make the most scientific sense? I do realise that the bullet has a influence on te barrel and that is what the tuner addresses in my mind right or wrong once a barrel is properly rung.
I have worked on ground waves used for talking to submarines were a 1/4 wave is thousands of mile long to millimeter and lightwaves in the past for around 22 years.Every wave I have ever tested using Klystrons scalar network analyzers and optical spectrum analyzers tells me there are harmonics,subharmonics,stray and reflected waves present in any wave.When properly Tuned you always get a very happy customer.When not properly tuned you get a whole bunch of the wave reflected back disrupting and destroying your outgoing wave shape and hurting performance.
From what I can see Bill Calfee is talking about shot to shot stopping of the muzzle in a broad sense of the term.A engineer could never understand this but the grunt doing the actual work could.
You should put a 8 twist barrel on one of your bench guns and come play with us at 600 yards.Jackie tried it out.
Lynn

Lynn:

I've read Bill's posts before, and I don't believe that's what he's saying. He means node when he says node and not anti-node. Actually, I believe he is somewhat misusing the term node and is really referring to a condition of zero vibration, i.e., a flat line and not a sin wave. In other words, I believe what Bill is saying is that if you scale the weight of the tuner, according to his model, when the gun goes bang, the tuner will stop all motion at the barrel as the bullet exits the muzzle. Of course, you hit upon the only way this can happen: you must counteract the vibration at the muzzle with an equal and opposite phase vibration. A correctly placed accelerometer should be able to confirm this hypothesis.

As for the 1:8" twist, I've got enough trouble keeping my point blank guns shooting and my bow arm in shape as it is. Maybe someday though . . . . Take care.

bryan
01-19-2008, 09:56 PM
Stephen Perry will tell you the .224 bullets were my wife's work. He's right.
When she first started helping me by doing the core seating, I came home to a bucket full, and 2 small piles. She explained that the 2 small piles had a different feel to the press stroke.....one was somewhat easier and one was somewhat harder that the norm. On weighing those bullets, the variance was a tenth of a grain over or a tenth of a grain under the intended weight!! She has the ability to segregate bullets by that "feel". My feel is a but less sensitive.
I got stupid and sold those dies (Blackmon, steel) and a perenial World Team shooter is using bullets from those dies today.
Whoodathunkit?
Maybe I'll make some bullets in the future, but right now I concentrate on keeping healthy.
Bryan

jackie schmidt
01-19-2008, 10:36 PM
Since I have been one of the proponents of allowing tuners in Centerfire Benchrest from day one, you must be mistaken when you thought you ever heard me say I thought they were of no use..........jackie

Mike H
01-19-2008, 11:49 PM
Jackie,

You were winning before you ever tried a tuner. That you continue to do so proves nothing about your tuner. You guys on this forum are all breathless with excitement because you think you've discovered something. What you've discovered is the exact same thing everyone with a tuner discovers very early in their trials with one. You've all discovered the obvious. Congratulations.

Before anyone bristles, let me say that I've seen some pretty impressive aggs with your name on them. There is no doubt that you are a very talented benchrest shooter. But that doesn't make you an expert on tuners. I'm coming up on 20,000 rounds through a tuner equipped rifle. And my experience with tuners pales to insignificance compared to Bill Calfee's. We are both trying to tell you that you (and others on here) are missing the point. To be blunt about it, if you think a tuner requires constant adjustment, you are making a rookie mistake. For all your undoubted talent, you have yet to discover what a tuner really does.

Now I hope none of this comes across as abrasive. I sincerely wish that every single one of you finds the one true tuner setting for every barrel you own soon. There is only one profound mystery with tuners and it has nothing to do with knowing when and how to twist them. The only question to be answered with a tuner is how do you know when you've got them to the point that they never need to be adjusted again. When all of you have discovered what tuners really do, maybe one of you can answer that question.

JJ-IA
01-20-2008, 01:46 AM
Lynn,
A virus listed on the Mcafee site as “BR_Newbee(D)_Fireform_WrongCharge_almost_kaboom” crashed the forum about a year ago. Quite a few posts and topics were on the casualty list, including Jackie’s.

J. Valentine
01-20-2008, 02:05 AM
I feel what Bill Calfee means by stoping the barrel is :--
If you vibrate a barrel it developes nodes where there is less side to side movement as does many other materials.
If you mark the node closest to the barrel muzzel and try to cut and crown it at that point. All you will do is move the node back away from the muzzel.
However a tuner is a sleeve hanging off the barrel and ineffect lengthens the actual vibrating barrel. If the sleeve is adjustable in length it can be set to move the node back along the barrel closer to the actual crown . Bullet exit point.
That I believe is the operating theory.
But then again what do us " non champion " " chiners " know?

Wilbur
01-20-2008, 03:16 AM
I just did a search on the centerfire forum for "Tuners" I got 268 threads going back several years to when Bill Calfee was having Rob Propst do his posting.There were some real wild posts back then by Dan Hackett and Speedy with lots of mention and quotes back to yourself but not a single post by you still exists?
I don't know why you are mentioned in just about every post and quoted like this-Jackie from post #45 then there is no post 45 by Jackie in the same thread? Jerry Sharrett and all the other tuner posters are still there.
Maybe something happened to the board that erased all of your earlier posts?
Lynn

A little "scare" came along that gave us pause in terms of liability. Jackie's posts were removed at his request. Since, many of us have been more careful with our posts.

Tony Z
01-20-2008, 04:23 AM
For about the 100 th time i have found these threads on tuners very interesting to say the least. I can recall back to the days of BR50 when a certain Bill Calfee published diagrams for all to see of his split clamp tuner for rimfire barrels. As to be expected many went out and built one and off they went and tested it on old Betsy. Since that time, there has been a worldwide change on the build requirements of rifles in BR rimfire rifles where a tuner is seen as a must have item to stay in the race. But that's rimfire.
Now me being a bit like Jackie, even having the same soft spot for the 25 cal and drag racing, going out and building things and trying them only to put them into the, useless, maybe with more work and finally into the yes this is of benefit basket, have been through the tuner thing long before this was talked about on this forum in a centrefire application. They do work very well, but i can garantee you that at some point it will let you down. Something changes in the barrels natural life span of wear and tear that the tuner can not compensate for. Sure you can go back and reset and go out and run with it, but the trust is lost. This does not happen in a couple of thousand rounds, but rather in as little as a few hundred and as usual when one least expects. The Boss patent if one looks very closely at it has one very important addition, and that is a plasticine like substance in the bedding area. I replicated the Boss five minutes after i got a gunshop owner to allow me to dismantle and measure one. It worked great for a short period of barrel life then it went to crap. This was then reset and again the cycle repeated. The only difference between mine and the Boss was the bedding compound and if it required that bedding compound to act as a damper of sorts, i was not interested. Since that time i have tried all sorts of tuners and weights and placement and have come to the conclusion that they have a narrow window of success. Now with a PPC, this window is not that obvious because the accuracy of that cartridge is such that it can shield that early failure. When you put a tuner on something that is not as inherently accurate, this narrow window of accuracy becomes more obvious. A lot more obvious.
Now we come to stretcher tubes. These work very differently as they are a stuctural support that stabilises the muzzle velocity. No amount of filling or trialing with different nut tensions changes anything. As long as there is some tension the whole thing works. If the tube is larger than the barrel and fits directly on the action face, rather than a machined step on the barrel, the better the setup works. There have been a few attempts at bringing a tube gun to the line in point blank BR, but i think that those involved had self admittedly gone about it the wrong way. Stainless tubes, filling the barrel and tube void etc, are complicating a very simple device that does nothing more than what a tuner does by adjustment, without the narrow window. The one interesting point is that a tuner on a rimfire is very good and reliable, but a tube on a rimfire in my attempts have generally shot worse rather than better. This i cannot explain and don't need or want to as a tuner works perfectly. But a tube on an ordinary centrefire barrel can transform it from a bummer to a hummer and it will sustain this until the barrel dies. This does not happen with a tuner and those that are using them now are probably thankful that they are adjustable as they need to be. But whether a hummer can be transformed into truly great with a tube is something that i think point blank won't discover because of the tiny aggs already being achieved. Which now begs the question, how many shoot their barrels to find the smallest agg, then place a tuner on the same to achieve better aggs? This is the acid test.
If i was to ever get interested enough to go back to point blank, i would definetly bypass the tuner and go to the tube as this through my testing over many years has shown the consistancy that tuners do not display.

Tony Z.

IndianaJames
01-20-2008, 08:26 AM
Lynn,
A virus listed on the Mcafee site as “BR_Newbee(D)_Fireform_WrongCharge_almost_kaboom” crashed the forum about a year ago. Quite a few posts and topics were on the casualty list, including Jackie’s.

http://members.sigecom.net/varmint/doh.gif
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Mike Marcelli
01-20-2008, 09:02 AM
Stephen Perry will tell you the .224 bullets were my wife's work. He's right.
When she first started helping me by doing the core seating, I came home to a bucket full, and 2 small piles. She explained that the 2 small piles had a different feel to the press stroke.....one was somewhat easier and one was somewhat harder that the norm. On weighing those bullets, the variance was a tenth of a grain over or a tenth of a grain under the intended weight!! She has the ability to segregate bullets by that "feel". My feel is a but less sensitive.
I got stupid and sold those dies (Blackmon, steel) and a perenial World Team shooter is using bullets from those dies today.
Whoodathunkit?
Maybe I'll make some bullets in the future, but right now I concentrate on keeping healthy.
Bryan

Damn World Team members and Blackmon dies. I sold mine to Ed Adams. Of course, you know how he's done with them.

Gene Beggs
01-20-2008, 09:16 AM
Hi Mike,

I'd say you've about got it, but you need to remember the old saying "You can always tell a Texas Aggie (or substitute your favorite description/institution), but you can't tell him much."

Charles

:D :D Beautiful Charles, I love it !

A & M would not accept me for several reasons, the primary reason being the fact that I had no money. But I figured, "What the 'ell, I'm smart enough to make it in this life without an education; I'll just go to work."

So,, I worked, and worked and worked some more, and by the grace of God and a little help from my friends, succeeded in raising two fine daughters, paying off the mortgage, college educations, weddings, fine automobiles, etc., and even managed to put away a little for retirement. Today, I consider myself among the most fortunate of those who ever lived. I live here in this wonderful country called the United States of America, I'm healthy and free and besides that,,,, I get to shoot every day! :) :) :)


Come on,,,,let's figure this stuff out.

Gene Beggs

Charles E
01-20-2008, 09:34 AM
Now we come to stretcher tubes. These work very differently as they are a stuctural support that stabilises the muzzle velocity. No amount of filling or trialing with different nut tensions changes anything. As long as there is some tension the whole thing works. If the tube is larger than the barrel and fits directly on the action face, rather than a machined step on the barrel, the better the setup works. There have been a few attempts at bringing a tube gun to the line in point blank BR, but i think that those involved had self admittedly gone about it the wrong way. Stainless tubes, filling the barrel and tube void etc, are complicating a very simple device that does nothing more than what a tuner does by adjustment, without the narrow window. That was me, I suppose, and you are right, it was both overcomplicated and in design, ignored an important point. My only excuse was that I was in a hurry; the the barrel I "ordered" was not the barrel I got. Verbal instructions over the phone for something quite different isn't the way to go. I will say that I made one more test with this barrel using a aluminum tube and it shot better than without the tube, but not as well as another plain old Hunter profile barrel (an interesting profile for a LV-HV if you believe in stiffness, BTW). Too small a test to mean anything.

I believe Don Nielson also had two tensioned barrels; one shot great & one not so well. If the tensioning tube is to get serious consideration, we need a bunch more work to figure out what works every time.

Varmint Al did some modeling with the tensioned barrel early on (before he refined the model for bench guns generally), but I didn't like his base assumptions. But I don't have the engineering background to know whether or not I'm correct in this.

pacecil
01-20-2008, 02:59 PM
All the posts before this one have some bit of useful information in them. However some are kinda off base because they come from someone who has mostly only "shooting experience". Others are off because they only apply "science" to the mix - they bring very little learned on the "front lines". And then there are those coming from "thoughts-that-have-been-rattling-around-in my-head". Some demonstrate very clearly that a little bit of learning is a dangerous thing. As I said though, probably all have some value in them.

It seems though there is NEVER any test results given, no numbers, no real measurement made, nothing really concrete as to how much vibration occurs or to a tuners effect. Some say they know how to figure what a tuner should weigh but won't show you how they do this. If some way is suggested to calculate tuner weight it is immediately put down by the "experts". Many say they know how to "tune" a rifle, or a rifle barrel, but never show with numbers how they do this, or even how to test whether it actually been done or not. Many talk of how much this or that improved their accuracy, or their aggs, or scores, or whatever, but they never give a verified, provable amount or number!

I suggest, just suggest, that the bottom line to all this is that the total effect of a tuner on a rifle's accuracy may be very small. So small as to be almost insignificant and thus very hard to measure. This is why nobody can come up with any numbers they can prove are accurate. Accuracy (group size) with modern well made rifles is so good you can't find the slight improvement you get from a tuner or most of the other "improvements" applied to guns nowadays.

From Varmint Al's work I determined with the addition of a tuner you probably could get .01 to .09 min. improvement in accuracy with a centerfire. With a rimfire this falls to .001 to .009 min. improvement. You could take a mean from all this and call it .05 min. with centerfire and .005 min. with rimfire. This is with the normal velocity variations you get with either of these. Remember this is just my take on Varmint Al's results - and he was only working with the recoil effect on vibration, not the bullets effect. There were other data before and in addition to V. A.'s stuff that support this but never the less it still is all approximate. I consider this all still "ball park".

There I've given some "numbers" to use as a starting point. I've told you where they come from and how accurate they might be. Now lets have some more numbers to either support or refute these. Don't tell us how the tuner gives "pretty cloverleaf" groups. or how "much better" you were shooting, or how it "removed the vertical", or how it "helps the aggs", give some test results to show a tuners effect.

None of this is meant to indicate this discussion doesn't serve a purpose. It's good to talk about this and get everybody's ideas. I'd just like to put it on some sort of level playing field where every body is talking about the same thing, that is the SAME tuner effect.

Butch Lambert
01-20-2008, 03:13 PM
I'll take an .050 improvement everyday!
Butch

Roy in NC
01-20-2008, 03:26 PM
.05 MOA is usually enough to move you from first to mid-pack at a 100yd BR match.

FWIW,

Tony Z
01-21-2008, 03:44 AM
I think that the arguement of whether a tuner is worth the effort or not will probably become as perpetual as the arguement of to use moly or not or if a 30 BR can win group aggs and matches.
Its been a long time since i played with a centrefire and tuner so this stuff is slowly coming out of the rycle bin. One point that i failed to mention earlier was one which dawned on me early in my attempts of using tuners on both rimfire and centrefire rifles. Just the addition of the tuner of some substantial weight alsmost always resulted in some sort of group improvement. Especially with some lighter rimfires. This i put down to more a reduction of muzzle moment due to the pendulum effect of simply having weight slowing the movement created by either a flawed shooting setup or stock configuration. When i fitted heavy bored bar stock weights to Field and 3 & 4 P rifles, almost all these rifles performed better both off the bench and in the prone slung position. Not world beating stuff as far as BR goes, but nonetheless a marked improvement. I felt that this was also present in some centrefire rifles. I would challenge that some improvement in a 10 1/2# LV loaded with a tuner that is showing improvement in aggs may be more a taming of a rifle behaving badly. Most all of my tuner testing years back was done in 40 and 50 # HGs so that i was testing the barrel and tuner, not the setup. I wonder if say a tinkerer like me, let's say Jackie, has taken that fine shooting LV barrel and tuner, and stuck it in his Rail. Shoot it bare for an agg and then tune and shoot for agg again. This way a different outcome and conclusion may eventuate.
As i said before, i think that the PPC is so inherently accurate when built right that i think even the slightest improvement will be hard to repeat consistantly. In saying that i think that it will be more likely that the 600 and 1K brigade are more likely to determine the true value of tuners because a minor or near indistinguishable improvement at 100 or 200 yards, could be match winning stuff at 1K. But records at a half inch at 600 and 1 1/2 inch at 1000 yards for a group of five shots, and some astounding 6 match aggs over the course of a year, that is cetainly going to be hard to beat in the short term. So if one can believe that a barrel vibrates in a wave rather that an angular fashion, and that there does exist the phenomenom of compensation, then the theory says that the tuner will work and greatly benefit the LR shooter.

Tony Z.

HovisKM
01-21-2008, 07:28 AM
All the posts before this one have some bit of useful information in them. However some are kinda off base because they come from someone who has mostly only "shooting experience". Others are off because they only apply "science" to the mix - they bring very little learned on the "front lines". And then there are those coming from "thoughts-that-have-been-rattling-around-in my-head". Some demonstrate very clearly that a little bit of learning is a dangerous thing. As I said though, probably all have some value in them.

It seems though there is NEVER any test results given, no numbers, no real measurement made, nothing really concrete as to how much vibration occurs or to a tuners effect. Some say they know how to figure what a tuner should weigh but won't show you how they do this. If some way is suggested to calculate tuner weight it is immediately put down by the "experts". Many say they know how to "tune" a rifle, or a rifle barrel, but never show with numbers how they do this, or even how to test whether it actually been done or not. Many talk of how much this or that improved their accuracy, or their aggs, or scores, or whatever, but they never give a verified, provable amount or number!

I suggest, just suggest, that the bottom line to all this is that the total effect of a tuner on a rifle's accuracy may be very small. So small as to be almost insignificant and thus very hard to measure. This is why nobody can come up with any numbers they can prove are accurate. Accuracy (group size) with modern well made rifles is so good you can't find the slight improvement you get from a tuner or most of the other "improvements" applied to guns nowadays.

From Varmint Al's work I determined with the addition of a tuner you probably could get .01 to .09 min. improvement in accuracy with a centerfire. With a rimfire this falls to .001 to .009 min. improvement. You could take a mean from all this and call it .05 min. with centerfire and .005 min. with rimfire. This is with the normal velocity variations you get with either of these. Remember this is just my take on Varmint Al's results - and he was only working with the recoil effect on vibration, not the bullets effect. There were other data before and in addition to V. A.'s stuff that support this but never the less it still is all approximate. I consider this all still "ball park".

There I've given some "numbers" to use as a starting point. I've told you where they come from and how accurate they might be. Now lets have some more numbers to either support or refute these. Don't tell us how the tuner gives "pretty cloverleaf" groups. or how "much better" you were shooting, or how it "removed the vertical", or how it "helps the aggs", give some test results to show a tuners effect.

None of this is meant to indicate this discussion doesn't serve a purpose. It's good to talk about this and get everybody's ideas. I'd just like to put it on some sort of level playing field where every body is talking about the same thing, that is the SAME tuner effect.


Come on, are you starting this over here on the CF forum also??? You have no understanding of the accuracy necessary to be competitive apparently. This discussion went on on the rimfire board. I'll say this again, .050 is a huge difference....period. I can give you groups with my rimfire with and without a tuner and it is quite large but this gun just hates not having a tuner. If we would wait on science to prove something with these guns actually work, we'd just be getting around to rifling let alone tuners, carbon fiber stocks, locked up scopes...etc. Have you ever shot a mulitple competitve rimfire or centerfire rifles with and without a tuner?

Something you guys might or might not know...the u.s. army depots tune artillery barrels prior to them being put on the artillery pieces. It is done with some very sophisticated frequency equipment to insure that the artillery round leaves the barrel at the same point everytime. Most of what they are looking for is any stresses in the barrel that effect the vibration patterns. The method used is classified, at least it was in 1991, on exactly what they look at and how they adjust for it. However, some barrels (quite a few actually), are rejected because they can not be adjusted for consistant vibration pattern.

Hovis

ShelleyDavidson
01-21-2008, 07:36 AM
.010 is fantastic and .090 is beyond huge when talking about an improvement in agging ability. When aggs are being won with mid .1XX" aggs, any improvement in agging ability is front page news. There just simply isn't room for huge numbers when speaking about improving the agging ability of our equipment.

Shelley

jackie schmidt
01-21-2008, 01:10 PM
I think I know where you are coming from. In reality, a lot of this is hard to prove, and sometimes the theories and ideas hit the road block of the realities of the world.
The one single laboratory that we do have is the Competitive Arena. Shooters hear me say all the time, "I don't trust anything untill I have tested it under match conditions". As a Benchrest Shooter, that is my primary goal, to shoot winning aggs. It is sometimes difficult to explain to shooters who are not involved in Benchrest the difference between a Rifle being able to shoot small groups, and a Rifle shooting competitive aggs. Especially when those competitive aggs have to be shot under the rules and regulations of a Sanctioning Body.
For the rest of the shooting world, I can see where all of this data means more. Not only does it stimulate interesting converstaion, it induces shooters to try different ideas on a wide variety of equipment. Heck, a tuner might not be able to improve a barrel on a given Benchrest Rifle by no more tha, .010. But, if the same technology can be used to turn a shooters nice custon 6x284 Varmint Rifle from a .600 capability, to a .300 capability, that is something indeed..........jackie

Vibe
01-21-2008, 02:38 PM
I think the numbers are clouding your thinking.If a rifle is shooting a 0.600 and a tuner takes it down to 0.300 that is a good improvement.If a rifle is agging 0.160 in a competitive match held outdoors in the real world and you could make it a 0.150 agging gun would you?
Anybody can take a 350 chevy and improve the stock horsepower rating by 75 horses.If you went to a racetrack and offered every competitor there a $100 chunk of steel that would give them 75 horsepower how many could you sell?
Its called diminishing returns.
Lynn
Lynn, as a lay shooter who has only dabbled in the sport of benchrest, the non-competitor perception is that most real competitors passed that point of diminishing returns several thousand dollars ago. :D
None were seen to be slowing down as they passed to a point well beyond it. :D

jackie schmidt
01-21-2008, 06:17 PM
Man,I think you hit the nail on the head.
Backin my Boat Racing Days, my favorite hull was a Biesmeyer, manufactured at that time in Glendale Arizona. These hulls were designed to turn on a dime, handle rough "racing" water, and not get you killed.
You could take a 18 ft Biesmeyer and get 105 mph with what we called a APBA "Super Stock" motor, which was supposed to be representative of a L-88 427 Chevy, a 426 Wedge or Hemi Chrysler, or the 427 crossbolt main Nascar Ford. You could count on an honest 500 hp "at the prop". Most good drivers could do five lap races at an average 90-92 mph
Now we also had a class called K-Boat, which was, more or less,the same hull, with what ever engine you could stick back there and expect to live for 5-laps. Many of us ran rather mildly tuned blown big blocks on methonol, or a more radical injected big block with about 10 percent nitro over the methonol. You could count on about 1400 hp, race ready.
But, with over twice the power, you would be lucky to pick up only 5-7 mph top end.
The old diminishing returns hit you square between the eyes.
Of course, the excelleration out of the turns and speed when the boat was "wet", (having to handle rough water) was "Gosh Awful" with that blown motor. That is where the big difference was, as you could count on lap averages on the same course to be 100+..........jackie

Gene Beggs
01-21-2008, 06:59 PM
OOOOOO,,,,,sounds scary to me Jackie! You're lucky to be alive, man! Glad you have those things out of your system and are now into something much safer.

Take care,, BTW,, have you sent my reamer?

Gene Beggs

Dick Wright
01-21-2008, 07:12 PM
I wonder how many readers know the person that made the last post to Jackie wrote a book about doing spins in a Pitts Special. Said book based on a lot of personal experience.;)

jackie schmidt
01-21-2008, 07:27 PM
It is in the mail.
As for getting it out of my system, old age and multitudes of broken bones took care of most of that.
As I look back, I did try to kill myself several times in my younger years.
But heck, I would have rather went fast for five minutes, than drive the speed limit for my entire life............jackie

Gene Beggs
01-21-2008, 07:30 PM
I wonder how many readers know the person that made the last post to Jackie wrote a book about doing spins in a Pitts Special. Said book based on a lot of personal experience.;)

Hi Dick. Yeah,, that was another life indeed. I also, am lucky to be alive!

Gene Beggs

Gene Beggs
01-21-2008, 07:33 PM
It is in the mail.
As for getting it out of my system, old age and multitudes of broken bones took care of most of that.
As I look back, I did try to kill myself several times in my younger years.
But heck, I would have rather went fast for five minutes, than drive the speed limit for my entire life............jackie

I understand my friend. It's only by the grace of God that there are any grown men walking.

Later,,

Gene Beggs

Butch Lambert
01-21-2008, 08:08 PM
Lynn,
You are a spoiled kid.
Butch

Butch Lambert
01-21-2008, 08:20 PM
Just digging you a little.
Butch

Charlie Murray
01-22-2008, 07:54 PM
Man,I think you hit the nail on the head.
Backin my Boat Racing Days, my favorite hull was a Biesmeyer, manufactured at that time in Glendale Arizona. These hulls were designed to turn on a dime, handle rough "racing" water, and not get you killed.
You could take a 18 ft Biesmeyer and get 105 mph with what we called a APBA "Super Stock" motor, which was supposed to be representative of a L-88 427 Chevy, a 426 Wedge or Hemi Chrysler, or the 427 crossbolt main Nascar Ford. You could count on an honest 500 hp "at the prop". Most good drivers could do five lap races at an average 90-92 mph
Now we also had a class called K-Boat, which was, more or less,the same hull, with what ever engine you could stick back there and expect to live for 5-laps. Many of us ran rather mildly tuned blown big blocks on methonol, or a more radical injected big block with about 10 percent nitro over the methonol. You could count on about 1400 hp, race ready.
But, with over twice the power, you would be lucky to pick up only 5-7 mph top end.
The old diminishing returns hit you square between the eyes.
Of course, the excelleration out of the turns and speed when the boat was "wet", (having to handle rough water) was "Gosh Awful" with that blown motor. That is where the big difference was, as you could count on lap averages on the same course to be 100+..........jackie

Jackie,
we run a similar boat class in Australia but they usually use a V type hull instead of the flat bottom to overcome the choppy water during a race.
The class is called "Blown Alcohol Displacement"
A couple of your Best K Boats came down last year for the World Cup and were very fast in good water but really suffered as the water chopped up.
It was a credit to there drivers they performed so well.
Interestingly the speeds have picked up a bit .
In 1997 the 21 Foot V type boat I crewed on was running around 150 MPH.
It had a 510 Cubic inch Donaven with 1471 HIGH Helix supercharger then we went to a Wipple supercharger.
The team has spent the last couple of years playing with some Drag boats and it looks like we will be doing some Circuit racing soon with our own designed and built "BAD" boat.
The Drag boats we look after also have an interesting top speed comparison compared to Horsepower.
WE are still setting up the new TFH but it will only be going about 10 % faster than the TAH with 250% more power {and 2 proppellers verses one} at the end of the quarter mile when running properly.
A good example of dominishing returns.

I apoligise for the thread hi-Jack,my excuse is most of the crew are shooters and all know the importance of having something in a good state of tune.

Keep smiling,
Charlie
www.badattituderacing.com.au

Dick Wright
01-24-2008, 06:46 AM
Nope, I was referring to Gene. He graciously sent me a signed copy of the book a few years ago.

Judging by the pictures, I'd say Gene's Pitts is bigger than your's.;)

Kathy
02-11-2008, 01:26 PM
Back to front page..

Your friend, Bill Calfee