nodes...

[Carp]

Lynn,
The amplitude, regardless of barrel diameter, is minute in a rimfire as compared to a centerfire. But the initial amplitude....since a single half wave is what is used until the bullet leaves the muzzle is much, much higher in a centerfire and that could mean more weight is required to get it to be square and perpendicular to the target as the bullet leaves the muzzle. The barrel doesn't wave or move up AND down in this cycle. It only moves up and the muzzle direction is the critical part of a tuner.

Carp

 

[Vibe]

Call Pepsi a Coke long enough and it becomes acceptable. English is full of examples of words that have become accepted. You can say it does not exist in your world and your way of thinking, but you cannot extend that to real life.

By that logic, Ebonics and Spanglish SHOULD be the official laguage of the USA and we should simply give up teaching lanuages in schools. Let the ignorant create their own words.

Sorry. That doesn't work for me.

 

[Lynn]

Carp
I think the arc of a rimfire barrel is something like a couple hundred feet.The muzzles lift is quite small at around 0.016 inches so it always looks flat to the naked eye even though there is still some movement.
The tuners weight is still what tunes the barrel and the Beggs Tuner used in centerfire weighs only 4 ounces.

Vibe
Can we move the anti-node to the muzzle by adding a bloop tube?
Waterboy

 

[martin hammond]

the way I look at it is, all the prep work such as testing ammo, setting the action screws, cleaning the bolt for good ignition, is all tunning the rifle. installing a harrell's tuner and going thru that process is a timing issue then. what I do with the timing procees is 3 speeds of good shooting ammo. 1044 speed, 1056 speed and1077 speed. adding 1/2 oz. weights and grouping when all 3 converge then the timing is set.

 

[Vibe]

Vibe
Can we move the anti-node to the muzzle by adding a bloop tube?
Waterboy

Off hand, I'd have to say no. But, that is assuming that you are wanting the bullet to exit at a point that is always parallel (or never changes angular orientation). If the bullet were exiting at some point during an established, resonant, harmonic...maybe. But our bullets are exiting while there is still a forced oscilation occuring. At any rate, that would be one long and heavy bloop tube, quite possibly adding another 40% to the length of the barrel, provided of course that is was similar in density and modulus to the barrel itself.

Bill's work is on the right track - it's just his terminology and explanation that is completely wrong.

 

[Fred K]

You got that Right Martin !!!!
Fred K

 

[pacecil]

Beau said, The only measurement that I saw was the "ringing". Of course, Bill says that's more to determine weight not placement. Whether he listens or feels or utters and old Cherokee prayer, I have no idea. What I saw him do was shoot, look at the vertical, adjust, shoot, adjust, and call it good, and it was. Now, I will say he has a lot of experience with this same type barrel and action and that may have helped. Of course, he is familiar with the ammo and knows what it will do. Does the Hopewell method, Calfee's method or all tuning methods give the same result? No idea. I haven't tried them all and I don't have a large enough population to give you a good statistical measure. I can say it worked on mine.
I'm curious as to how many shots were used. I think you would agree this would be impossible to do with anything less than two shots. You fire two and if they are in a tight group, you are done - tuner adjusted. If they are in a vertical large group then you adjust the tuner and fire two more shots which if they land together means you are done - tuner adjusted. If your first adjustment wasn't on then you probably have time for another adjustment and two more shots in the few seconds left.
Is this kinda the way it went? If your rifle is very accurate then I can see how this would work. You should win pretty often with that rifle.

 

[Lynn]

Pacecil
I'm not Beau but on my guns a quarter turn of the tuner will bring your groups from bummers to hummers.Here is a picture of my heavygun tuner and you can see the magic marker stripe on it.
I showed a past national champion how easy it was to tune and he made one out of copper tubing and duct tape.I will post a picture of it as well.This was a national event and it worked so easily this is what he used.
Waterboy

 

[Beau]

By that logic, Ebonics and Spanglish SHOULD be the official laguage of the USA and we should simply give up teaching lanuages in schools. Let the ignorant create their own words.

Sorry. That doesn't work for me.

Yeah, well it works for a lot of people. When you order a coke where they serve pepsi and they correct you, it's not because they care what you drink. It's because Pepsi and Coke want to protect their name. If a word or phrase is accepted it becomes a word. Long ago a node was simply a place. Now look at it.

 

[Beau]

Beau said, The only measurement that I saw was the "ringing". Of course, Bill says that's more to determine weight not placement. Whether he listens or feels or utters and old Cherokee prayer, I have no idea. What I saw him do was shoot, look at the vertical, adjust, shoot, adjust, and call it good, and it was. Now, I will say he has a lot of experience with this same type barrel and action and that may have helped. Of course, he is familiar with the ammo and knows what it will do. Does the Hopewell method, Calfee's method or all tuning methods give the same result? No idea. I haven't tried them all and I don't have a large enough population to give you a good statistical measure. I can say it worked on mine.
I'm curious as to how many shots were used. I think you would agree this would be impossible to do with anything less than two shots. You fire two and if they are in a tight group, you are done - tuner adjusted. If they are in a vertical large group then you adjust the tuner and fire two more shots which if they land together means you are done - tuner adjusted. If your first adjustment wasn't on then you probably have time for another adjustment and two more shots in the few seconds left.
Is this kinda the way it went? If your rifle is very accurate then I can see how this would work. You should win pretty often with that rifle.

I don't recall how many shots were used, but one shot would be simply one shot and tell you nothing. I don't think two would tell you much. First of all, you have to understand this and I think a lot of people do not. If ammo has vertical in it, you don't want it. Now I can already hear the wheels turning, because you're thinking but that's what the tuner does, get the vertical out. But no, it's like anything else, you must have a standard. You have to know at least within reason, what the ammo you're using is capable of, and then you tune. So, let's say I shoot a five shot group that does not indicate it will hit the 100 ring of an ARA target everytime (and I'm assuming no outside influence or wind), the I'm not happy. No offense but I'm probably not going to be happy with groups you would love. Then the tuning starts in earnest. However, some guns and some ammo cannot be tuned to shoot consistently well. Just a fact of life.

 

[Beau]

Bill's work is on the right track - it's just his terminology and explanation that is completely wrong.

Vibe,

If you clamp a rod in a vise at one end, and I'm talking about a rod that you can see the vibration. Then you create that vibration, it will vibrate quickly and appear to be an X. In that case, using your terminology, what would you call the intersection of the X?

 

[Vibe]

Vibe,

If you clamp a rod in a vise at one end, and I'm talking about a rod that you can see the vibration. Then you create that vibration, it will vibrate quickly and appear to be an X. In that case, using your terminology, what would you call the intersection of the X?

I'd call it a node, quite possiby "The Node" of the primary harmonic (or is it the second order?), but don't let Bill hear you say it forms an X - he's been VERY adamant that it does not and that it is in fact a straight section. He's wrong in that - but there it is.

 

[Beau]

Bill's going by what he sees. I mean Varmint Al says it is still; doesn't move. So what does Bill Calfee say does not form the X. The node, or the piece of rod?

 

[Lynn]

Vibe
I think Bill says it is flat to his eye and his dial indicators when you add weight out in front of the muzzle.
You already know that as the amplitude drops in value the "X" looks longer to both the eye and the dial indicator.
Waterboy

 

[pacecil]

Beau said, I don't recall how many shots were used, but one shot would be simply one shot and tell you nothing. I don't think two would tell you much. First of all, you have to understand this and I think a lot of people do not. If ammo has vertical in it, you don't want it. Now I can already hear the wheels turning, because you're thinking but that's what the tuner does, get the vertical out. But no, it's like anything else, you must have a standard. You have to know at least within reason, what the ammo you're using is capable of, and then you tune. So, let's say I shoot a five shot group that does not indicate it will hit the 100 ring of an ARA target everytime (and I'm assuming no outside influence or wind), the I'm not happy. No offense but I'm probably not going to be happy with groups you would love. Then the tuning starts in earnest. However, some guns and some ammo cannot be tuned to shoot consistently well. Just a fact of life.
I know this horse must be still dead but anyway.....You said Calfee's tuning just took seconds, so I figured he must have done it with only a few shots. Now you say, or at least I infer, he fired a lot of shots. Ok we'll just say he fired quickly and was able to work very fast.
Now, I understand better than anyone how many shots it takes to determine what a rifle, ammo,or tuner will do. But it seems I see over and over again that many shooters "learn just how their gun is shooting" with very few shots - just like you and Calfee did when you "tuned "your gun in "seconds". Just like Hopewell does with 2 shot groups. Just like a whole lot of shooters do when they twist their tuner, fire several shots and declare "it's tuned". That statement about, you're not happy with groups I would love, is a little bit off. I've never seen a series of group I loved! Their might be a group or two in the series I like but that's the problem, single groups don't mean a thing. Groups with rimfires are all over the map, and I have never seen a tuner that could change this fact. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A TUNER THAT WOULD ELIMINATE LARGE GROUPS!
So, even though I know you don't like it I have to throw some numbers in here. Most BR shooters seem to say a gun must shoot under .25 groups to be competitive. Groups up to .40 or .50 would be disastrous. Tuning if it's effective must then produce a gun that always is under .25. Have you ever seen a gun that was always under .25? To get this in all the guns I've had experience with, tuned or otherwise, you simply have to "throw out' the .40 or .50 groups as , "your errors", "caused by conditions", or the best, "out of tune". So, I guess I would agree with your last sentence, but I might change it a little and say there are no rimfires you can tune to shoot consistently.

 

[pacecil]

Come on now!!!!

Beau, Lynn, and some others are completely missing a point here. They keep saying Bill is just saying he sees something in the vibrating barrel that he calls "parallel" or "straight" or "stopped". We are just misunderstanding his "words", or we are misunderstanding his meaning. Bulls***!!! For God's sake, he drew a picture of what he saw - is everyone blind!!!!!

 

[Beau]

I think you misunderstood what I meant or maybe I wasn't clear. If you've ever seen someone that knows how to adjust a scope, they'll shoot a shot and adjust it and the next shot will be almost dead on. And it's not simply bringing the center of the crosshair into the previous shot. I mean they don't even look. They just know the minutes the scope adjusts and they can look at the target and realize how many minutes it's out and boom there you go, adjust it. Bill has done that as well and I've seen it. It's intelligence and experience and that's about it, but most people can't dial in and out all day. Bill probably can.

Okay, when I said he adjusts the tuner in seconds that's what I meant. Adjusting the tuner. He shoots the shots, I don't know how long that takes, then makes a fairly large adjustment to the tuner, then he shoots again, at which point he may be satisfied or he may make another fairly large adjustment, but he doesn't "hunt and peck" five clicks at a time; he knows about where he wants to go after the first shots. So when I say he adjusts the tuner in seconds, that's what I'm talking about, actual tuner adjustment time(and I can predict what you'll say, but it isn't the same, you just have to see it). It rarely takes over two rounds of shots for him to get it where he wants it. Again, it's probably experience with both the barrels and the action.

Now, you want to answer that question that I asked Vibe. He doesn't seem to want to. The rod vibrates in an X pattern. What is the intersection of the X called in your terminology and is there any point it actually stops? By the way, if the arm of the X is moving one way past the intersection, does it move the other way on the other side? These are serious questions (or at least as serious as you can get with this stuff). I really want to know.

 

[Beau]

Beau, Lynn, and some others are completely missing a point here. They keep saying Bill is just saying he sees something in the vibrating barrel that he calls "parallel" or "straight" or "stopped". We are just misunderstanding his "words", or we are misunderstanding his meaning. Bulls***!!! For God's sake, he drew a picture of what he saw - is everyone blind!!!!!

Pacecil,

I can tell you what he saw; I saw it today and I know why he calls it the parallel node, whether that's the best terminology or not, it may fit. It's the intersection of the X on a vibrating rod. Not a swaying rod, but one that vibration has been set up in. The rod only appears to be X shaped because the vibration is so fast it makes it look like an X, but it is going back and forth (vibrating not swaying). Doesn't matter where you induce the vibration, the intersection is the same place. I imagine most materials will vibrate the same way regardless of how we are able to see them.

By the way, I'm not missing any points yet, because I've drawn no real conclusion. Look back at my posts if you don't believe that.

 

[pacecil]

Beau....

The barrel is moving about the node exactly like a tettor totter moves around it's pivot. The node is always stopped. As the barrel aligns with the axis it becomes parallel to the axis and is straight over it's entire length. If you look at the barrel at the extremes of it's cycle it doesn't appear to form an X, it does form an X.
You mentioned "swaying" The way we're going in this forum I'll just assume I know what you mean and say that on top of the vibration we are talking about here the barrel is in fact also "swaying" - but that's another discussion.
There was one other point I meant to add that you asked about. I'll just throw it in here. The barrels pivot about the node does not have the same amplitude on each side. The amplitude is getting smaller with each cycle. The vibration is just dying down.
Now comes the disclaimer. Everything I'm talking about here applies to natural vibration and may not apply to the forced vibration before the bullet leaves the barrel.

 

[Beau]

Everything on this forum is taken to an extreme. The reason I say that it appears to form an X is because I don't want somebody to say "how can a round barrel get an X shape", in other words go from being round to a solid X. So, I said it appears to form an X simply because the barrel is still round and not X shaped. In other words, I put my qualifier in first.

When I'm talking about swaying I just mean to say you don't put the rod in the vise and move the very tip end to induce movement; just trying to describe what Bill is doing. I would agree, the barrel probably also sways.

What you said about the teter toter is almost (I won't say exact because I'm not exactly sure) what Bill is saying about the node staying parallel to the axis, thus the name the "parallel node". There could be better terminology and he freely admits that.

What you say about the amplitude dying down is exactly what Bill says.

Now you have the information. Can you reconcile what you say with what he says? Can it be reconciled at least from an engineering point of view? And then, of course, we always, have the issue of "stopped".