nodes...

[Beau]

Carp
If your still with me this means we can now shoot a variety of ammo over a period of time and we never have to adjust the tuner.Kind of like the info-mercial "set it and forget it".Right now most shooters are probaly adjusting for weather and lot #of ammo.

Up to this point we have Bill Calfee saying he did it exactly like the rest of us for 20 years.He then goes on to say if we hang the weight out in front of the muzzle a certain distance and the weight is adjusted using a certain method we get a no-tune tuner that shoots very well fully admitting his earlier work was a complete waste of time.He says all of this with 30 years of tuner experience under his belt and many record shooting rifles to back him up.

Waterboy

Lynn,

You seem like an intelligent guy but sometimes you also seem like a yellow journalist. Maybe, I'm just not really catching what you're saying.

I cut your post down to the two paragraphs above for two reasons.

1. Bill Calfee's exact quote is "tuner twisters don't win". I don't think most winners in rimfire, and I'm sticking to rimfire at this point, twist the tuner very much. I said this over ten years ago and was ridiculed.

2. When did Bill admit his earlier work was a complete waste of time and how did you get the idea he has been working with tuners since 1979? Try about 1994 and maybe about 1997 or 98 before you had widespread use.

 

[martin hammond]

if you are fooling with your tuner every time you change targets or ammo your tuner is not set right. if you are changing your tuner and the rifle is shooting better, you better look at your bedding. and the scope mounts. the top and bottom of the action are as important as installing a tuner. if your rifle is bedded properly and the scope is mounted properly you should rarely have to touch the scope or tuner.

 

[wlb]

Is there a relationship between

the weight of the barrel forward of the node and the total amount of weight needed for the tuner (adjusting ring plus any additional weight)?

 

[harrydeneen]

Pacecil

I thought barrels had to be round to shoot , not flatter! Or is that the same as patterns or groups? Please explain! Harry deneen..

 

[dankillough]

Pacecil,

I agree you can find the location of the node by tapping the barrel and finding the dead spot. If you do this on a barrel without a tuner, usually the node is 3-4 inches behind the muzzle. To move the node to the muzzle you must add the tuner plus extra weight. Now I agree with Carp, many of the top shooting rifles including several of the SPEC rifles only have a tuner. They do not have any extra weight. There is no way that the node is on the muzzle of those guns. It is about 2 inches back from the muzzle.

Now how does having the parallel node behind the muzzle help

 

[pacecil]

wlb asked,
Is there a relationship between
the weight of the barrel forward of the node and the total amount of weight needed for the tuner (adjusting ring plus any additional weight)?
If by "relationship" do you mean ; can we do a little math and determine the weight needed, then the answer is, yes. I showed how to do this, at least in a rough way a whole lot of threads back. As usual though, something like this is ignored - it's just considered the spouting of a looney engineer.

I thought barrels had to be round to shoot , not flatter! Or is that the same as patterns or groups? Please explain! Harry deneen.
I know you are joking but I'll play along. (Oh I just remembered something. I never did get an answer to my question about the difference between patterns and groups. Maybe it was lost in a deleted thread!) Anyway you know "flatter" referred to the axis not the diameter.

dankillough asked Now how does having the parallel node behind the muzzle help
Behind the muzzle was never considered an advantage because this is where it always is. However some consider it an advantage if located right at the muzzle. This means the muzzle is moving only in an angular manner so it is felt this helps accuracy. If you can remove the angular motion by declaring the muzzle to be "flat" or "parallel" then you can further help accuracy.

many of the top shooting rifles including several of the SPEC rifles only have a tuner. They do not have any extra weight.
The tuner is the weight. There is no difference in tuners and weight - it's all just weight.

 

[Vibe]

This means the muzzle is moving only in an angular manner so it is felt this helps accuracy.

And together with a consistent time of exit, it has been shown to help in practice.

If you can remove the angular motion by declaring the muzzle to be "flat" or "parallel" then you can further help accuracy.

You can "declare" that a dogs tail is a leg too, but he will still only leave 4 tracks in the snow.

The tuner is the weight. There is no difference in tuners and weight - it's all just weight.

Well weight and distance are what make up the resistive moment - which is why the same "weight" located at differing positions, will have differing results. The question is still, is there a given position where a given weight, will always, under all conditions, provide for an increase in accuracy.

There is no such thing as a "parallel" node. Not in the math, not in the modeling, and not in real life. It's a very poor choice of terminology, though it may make for a fair target for building a tuner.

 

[dankillough]

Pacecil wrote The tuner is the weight. There is no difference in tuners and weight - it's all just weight.

I agree the tuner is the weight and there is no difference in tuners and weight, but the tuner is not enough weight to move the node to the muzzle. You must add additional weight to the tuner to get the node to the muzzle.

I am saying that having the node at the muzzle is not always the best place. My wife's Suhl/Shilen rifle is a good example. I added weight to the tuner to get the node to the muzzle. The gun would not shoot over a 2100 in ARA. I took all of the extra weight off of the tuner and used just the tuner and she shot a 2500 at the ARA Indoor Nationals. The gun has been shooting great ever since. Since then, I have seen many rifles that only use a tuner. There is no way that just a tuner will put the node at the muzzle.

 

[Markbo]

....I agree you can find the location of the node by tapping the barrel and finding the dead spot....

Can you tell me exactly how to do that? I presume with the barrel in the action - hung by the trigger guard? Or with the action in the stock and just holding stock?

I'd like to try this, but want to do it correctly
Thanks

 

[Kent Owens]

dankillough,
I've been seeing in my experiments the exact thing you're saying about the weight. I've been working with an experimental barrel that I had made up and it will shoot very well with a weight added to the tuner or without a weight added. Without the weight I think it's a few X's better over a 25 bull a target.
Sheepishly I thought I had about figured out what barrel contour(weight/length) would work with a specific tuner weight and setting.
Now I have began to rethink the whole tuning concept and see the reality that some barrels need more weight, and some just don't. Barrel dimensions and quality might be the key? Don't know, still working with it. I will have to see over time if the rifle shoots consistently through a wide range of temperatures and conditions without the wieght on the tuner. Before, I thought the added weight to the tuner made them more consistent over a broader range.
Good discussion. Hope you guys can keep it going without it running aground or off into the wild blue yonder. We could actually learn something. Anyway, it's nice thought.

 

[Fred K]

Pacecil wrote The tuner is the weight. There is no difference in tuners and weight - it's all just weight.

I agree the tuner is the weight and there is no difference in tuners and weight, but the tuner is not enough weight to move the node to the muzzle. You must add additional weight to the tuner to get the node to the muzzle.

I am saying that having the node at the muzzle is not always the best place. My wife's Suhl/Shilen rifle is a good example. I added weight to the tuner to get the node to the muzzle. The gun would not shoot over a 2100 in ARA. I took all of the extra weight off of the tuner and used just the tuner and she shot a 2500 at the ARA Indoor Nationals. The gun has been shooting great ever since. Since then, I have seen many rifles that only use a tuner. There is no way that just a tuner will put the node at the muzzle.

I agree Dan, I have two rifles that don't like added weight.
Fred K

 

[Fred K]

Can you tell me exactly how to do that? I presume with the barrel in the action - hung by the trigger guard? Or with the action in the stock and just holding stock?

I'd like to try this, but want to do it correctly
Thanks

I find it best to set the rifle in the rest when checking for the node. For me just taping with my finger works. In most cases the node is from 3 to 5 inches from the muzzle. I use a Stethoscope attached to the trigger guard.
Fred K

 

[dankillough]

Markbo,
I have the barreled action in the stock sitting in the one piece rest just like I shoot it. I tape the stethescope head to the forearm of the stock and tap the barrel with my index finger. Tap it pretty hard. Some rifles are easier to hear than other ones. I am not sure why. I have quit doing this because some rifles seem to shoot better with the node behind the muzzle.

Kent,
I am with you. I sheepishly thought I had it figured out until we got the Suhl/Shilen. It blew all of my rules. Now, I just try everything I have. Tuner, tuner+weight, tuner+short slide, tuner+long slide, then add the mid-barrel tuner. It takes a while but I have not been able to find any short cuts.

 

[martin hammond]

it seems to me there is a little more involved in tuning a rifle than how the barrel vibrates. their are no 2 rifles made that can have the same harmonics, no matter how skilled the smith. the same with tuning a piano or any musical peice. and to say any rifle needs so many ounces or none without actually shooting and testing cannot be done. and I agree there is no shortcut to tuning a rifle.

 

[pacecil]

Per vibe,
There is no such thing as a "parallel" node. Not in the math, not in the modeling, and not in real life. It's a very poor choice of terminology, though it may make for a fair target for building a tuner.
VIBE!!! bite your tongue! When you make statements like that you are likely to get us all thrown out! Deleted that is!

 

[Beau]

I think you could read everything Bill Calfee ever wrote and never find that he said the term "parallel" node was a math, or scientific term. However, it is now a term in real life or maybe shooting rimfire is just a fairy tale (not that Bill Calfee has declared it a term). Point is, the term has been accepted by some people and therefore now exists.

Going back to reading what Bill Calfee has wrote, I think you will find that he explains that it is his term for what he is seeing and there could be a better more descriptive and scientific term.

If you're going to comment, at least read what was written.

 

[mks]

Tune = rising muzzle

The WHOLE idea is to get the bullet to exactly leave the barrel exactly when the barrel is parallel with the line of sight.

Y'all need to visit Varmint Al's website. He provides many of the answers you are looking for. One of the most recited errors I see is that one wants bullet's exiting when the muzzle is "stopped" or "parallel" or somehow stationary. In reality you want the muzzle angle rising when the bullets exit. That way, if the next bullet is slower and has a later barrel exit time, it will leave the barrel with a higher trajectory and have a chance of striking the target in the same place. Tune the barrel to be rising at just the right rate, and bullets with a range of barrel exit times (muzzle velocity) will hit the target in nearly the same spot.

The explanation above is simplified, since bullet trajectory is also affected by the position and linear velocity of the muzzle, but these effects are small compared to that of the angular position.

On Varmint Al's site, you can also see animations of the other modes of barrel vibration (there are more than the one he added to this thread).

Cheers,
Keith

 

[Vibe]

I think you could read everything Bill Calfee ever wrote and never find that he said the term "parallel" node was a math, or scientific term. However, it is now a term in real life or maybe shooting rimfire is just a fairy tale (not that Bill Calfee has declared it a term). Point is, the term has been accepted by some people and therefore now exists.

The term "Assault Weapon" now exists as well....doesn't mean that what it refers to actually is one though.

Going back to reading what Bill Calfee has wrote, I think you will find that he explains that it is his term for what he is seeing and there could be a better more descriptive and scientific term.

One that is less wrong....yep, there are several in fact. Bill refuses to use any of them.

If you're going to comment, at least read what was written.

Pardon me if I laugh hysterically if you think that I haven't.
You must not have read several long multi page threads of Bills to think that THIS poster might not be familiar with this particular dead horse.

 

[Lynn]

Right now with the available ammo on hand you are probaly adjusting your tuner so the ammo you have shoots at its best.At the next match you are now adjusting it again or repeating the same set-up and praying it still works the same way.

If your still with me this means we can now shoot a variety of ammo over a period of time and we never have to adjust the tuner.Kind of like the info-mercial "set it and forget it".Right now most shooters are probaly adjusting for weather and lot #of ammo.

Up to this point we have Bill Calfee saying he did it exactly like the rest of us for 20 years.He then goes on to say if we hang the weight out in front of the muzzle a certain distance and the weight is adjusted using a certain method we get a no-tune tuner that shoots very well fully admitting his earlier work was a complete waste of time.He says all of this with 30 years of tuner experience under his belt and many record shooting rifles to back him up.

Beau
No yellow journalism here just too lazy to look up the exact quotes and dates so I pulled it from my tired memory

I wasn't quoting Bill Calfee with the first quote you pulled and it was tied to another paragraph you didn't pull.I included the first and third paragraphs above.I am looking at all of this from a longrange centerfire point of view and not a rimfire point of view and in centerfire shooting things change.We right now can't go to the range dial in the best tuner setting and use it for the full season.It doesn't seem to stay in tune for even a 3 day match.I was trying to refer to Bill without quoting Bill or paraphrasing what I recalled.

On your second quote I got the numbers wrong.I knew Bill had been working on rimfire rifles for a long period of time and that he had been working with tuners for a long period as well.I just didn't take the time to look up the exact times as it was deemed not necessary to the answer given.My bad on that one.
On his saying he did it all wrong earlier with the earlier tuners he has posted that several times but again that isn't a quote just me paraphrasing.I think it went more along the lines of before I found the parallel node I did it like everybody else and this is wrong or not the right way to do it.Again not a quote.
Waterboy

 

[Lynn]

Pacecil

What happens when the wave reaches the end of the muzzle and gets reflected back onto itself? Can it produce the shape Bill Calls his parallel node?[/B]
The wave is not reflected back from the unsupported muzzle.

If you were to measure to the left and to the right of your anti-node xx-degrees in each direction and measure the amount of barrel bending that takes place and write it down what would happen to your barrel bending numbers if you then added a 13 ounce tuner to the muzzle? Would this look like you flattened out the barrel? Or would it look like the barrel remains the same?
This is a good question. I think the barrel would tend to be "flatter" when the weight is added. I think the measurement you are proposing would become less after you added the weight. Look at it this way. If you were to add a lot of weight it would be like you were adding a rigid support at the muzzle and in effect moving the node right up next to the weight where it would be nearly "straight" and "parallel".


Now do the same thing at the anti-node and what are the results?
That's where we added the weight - at the antinode.

Any waves traveling along the medium in our case a rifle barrel will reflect back when they reach the end.
Not so, waves aren't reflected from the unsupported muzzle.
In a vibrating bar supported at one end, vibrating as we all seem to think it does, there are no harmonics, only the fundamental and an overtone.

Pacecil
First

I am suprised to find out that the wave doesn't get reflected back when it reaches a different medium.

Second
As Beau has stated earlier Bill is telling us to use any terminiology we want.In your response you used the words straight and parallel and I think this is actually what Bill is saying.In my opinion its been a big long communication gap and not some kind of evil plot.

Third
When I said to now place the weight at the anti-node I wasn't talking about a partial wave as being the antinode.I was thinking of extending the waves shape by adding a bloop tube to simulate where the anti-node should be.

Fourth
Harmonics and overtones as used in this discussion go hand in hand in my opinion.We are getting very nit picky me thinks on this one.
Waterboy