My problem with the "parallel node"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan, Well said on the subject I could not said better my self. It make sick for folks to talk about people who been there and done it, if it works run with it. Several ideas that Mr. BC has talked about I've try on building these 22 rifle has worked for me and I'm still going to read on about it. Doug
 
Beau said:
Marty,

The barrel on the gun I shoot the most (I have more than one) is just a little under 24". Maybe 1/8" under. The diameter is .900 except that it has been turned down slightly at the front and back. You can read that in the book under "A Rifle's Tale" to determine the reason.

I have ammo that runs from 1047 to 1071 but no 1078 but I could have had some. It would not have been much. I can see by your question the fundamental difference in the way you see a tuner works and the way that I shoot. I don't expect them to go in the same hole, nor do I want them to. What I want them to do is group very well. That's the initial test. The second test is centering the bull across the target. Whether or not they go in the same hole at 50 yards is of no concern to me. I have a scope to zero for that. If the ammo will group and go across the target in what I describe as an "easy" manner, I can do pretty good with it. The 1047 speed ammo you refer to I had very little of, but I did almost win a tournament with it in Chattanooga. Why did I lose? I suspect there is one variable that you never consider and that's the shooter. I have a lot on my mind and it tends to wander. When it does, my scores will go down. I barely lost, but it was still second just because of not keeping my mind on what I was doing.

All ammo is not created equal. I know you believe 80% or so is, but I think it's more like 30% that is actually what I call "good". If I buy it, I consider it "good" although I may choose to sell some on occasion simply because I know I will shoot other ammo predominately. Now you believe you can tune the ammo but the fact remains, and I'm not trying to insult you, your scores do not indicate that. I know you point out that you shot some 250's in IR but so what? I shot several 250's last year including one 250-23X and one 250-18X and that was on just a few IR targets because I generally used those matches to test ammo. Now if, as you say, my gun is out of tune, I must be one hell of a lot better shooter than you are, or my gun is somehow vastly superior to yours. Well, if either one of those is true, and I'm not saying they are, you don't have the equipment or ability to test tuners. I mean you're killing yourself before you start. And don't post any pictures of groups or targets that you shot when you chose. I have all kinds of those that are much better than the results of matches.

Show me match results only. When you start turning ARA scores over 2000 average and IR scores with a significant number of 250's, I'll start to sit up and take notice. I'm not saying at all that your research and analysis is not important or on the correct path, but until you eliminate all other variables, you prove nothing. No argument or insult, it's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

Beau, please tell me what I don't have, or tell me what I should have to properly test tuners. I'm going to bet it's a lot more than a truck antena or a welding rod in a vice and a hammer to whack it with or a tuner tied to a string hanging from the ceiling and sitting on a baby scale. so beau please tell me other than a string, baby scale, truck, vise, welding rod,hammer what else do I need, maybe I just might have it. marty
 
Marty
You have been told at naseum what you need but here it goes again.
You need a fixed tuner body that will place the weight 2.25---2.75 inches in front of the muzzle.
You need weights that can be attached rigidly to the tuner body that are weight concentric and around 1/4 ounce each.
You need to understand the difference between just closing up the vertical spread and making your tuner work over a wider range of different velocity ammunition.
You need to sit back for a while and listen because the mind is like a parachute and only works while its open.
Once you figure it out you can then get an adjustable tuner of same weight if you so choose.
Waterboy
 
Lynn, how about a 4.7oz tuner to start with so that if you need that 1/4oz weight you are not already 1 1/4oz overweight???? or is butchers string, baby scale, carpenters hammer, vise, welding rod, styrofoam "it must make stuff lighter when placed on the baby scale" who knows? brass hammer and finally a 8.7oz tuner that is at least 3.50z overweight. sounds more like a scavenger hunt than a method for tuning a rifle...........
 
Beau said:
Okay, I'm not the stopped muzzle expert. As I've said, I do what works for me. I've tried many methods that do not work for me, if one did I would use it. Anyway, the idea is the elevation of the muzzle in this case is caused by the angle of the rest. In general, if you pull your rifle back in its rest, it will elevate the POA. The slower bullet moves the rifle back further and, therefore, raises, the muzzle further. Of course, if it's tracking straight back, this changes things, but neither case really involves the stopped muzzle theory. You have to keep in mind that the rise of the muzzle is due simply to the angle of a standard rest set up.
Click to expand...


This is an interesting theory. If true it ought to be possible to tune a rifle with a rail on the bottom of the buttstock with an adjustable angle.
 
martyh said:
Beau, please tell me what I don't have, or tell me what I should have to properly test tuners. I'm going to bet it's a lot more than a truck antena or a welding rod in a vice and a hammer to whack it with or a tuner tied to a string hanging from the ceiling and sitting on a baby scale. so beau please tell me other than a string, baby scale, truck, vise, welding rod,hammer what else do I need, maybe I just might have it. marty
Click to expand...

I believe Beau did tell you plain and clear when he said: "Show me match results only. When you start turning ARA scores over 2000 average and IR scores with a significant number of 250's, I'll start to sit up and take notice. I'm not saying at all that your research and analysis is not important or on the correct path, but until you eliminate all other variables, you prove nothing. No argument or insult, it's just the way it is."

Until you do that you are just feeding your psychotic need for attention.
 
martyh said:
Beau, please tell me what I don't have, or tell me what I should have to properly test tuners. I'm going to bet it's a lot more than a truck antena or a welding rod in a vice and a hammer to whack it with or a tuner tied to a string hanging from the ceiling and sitting on a baby scale. so beau please tell me other than a string, baby scale, truck, vise, welding rod,hammer what else do I need, maybe I just might have it. marty
Click to expand...


Marty,

I'm not comparing you to anybody else. As far as I know, except for the people building and experimenting with new type tuners there is nobody else who is currently experimenting with tuners with the enthusiasm you show. However, scores tell the story, and yours do not indicate that you've ever developed anything earthshaking and doing it the way you're doing it, you will never prove anything. Based on your scores, you either are a poor shooter or you have poor equipment. Sure, every now and then you shoot a decent score but you're inconsistent. I'm not saying either of those is true, but if you are a poor shooter, you're simply not qualified to test tuners. If you have poor equipment, you are testing without eliminating a huge variable, which is the equipment. If neither of these are true, then you must be making things worse with your tuners and tuning methods. What other explanation is there? Scores, Marty. Match scores. Show me those. I'm not asking a lot. A 2000 agg in ARA is not difficult. I made major mistakes this past year and still agg's better than 2000. Consistent, not intermittent, 250's should be obtainable if you theories are better than others and you put them into practice. Simple as that.
 
Beau:

You're working way too hard at this stuff. The beauty and magic of the internet means you don't need good equipment or shooting talent. You don't need to spend so much time out in the weather. You don't need to waste money on various lots of expensive ammunition, and you dont need to travel to shoot. And you don't need to know how to read the wind.

The internet allows you to research, design, analyze, build, troubleshoot, tune and evaluate all in comfort. You can sit in a nice comfortable chair, in your underwear, in the basement in front of a computer and do all that, and pontificate about it as well.

I do. ( while I lick the salt from the chips off my fingers )

regards,

Dan
 
Dan said:
This is one of the most fascinating threads I have read on this forum, ever. I say that for two reaons.

First, it is very diverse technically, and has helped me visualize a number of things I have simply looked at as voodoo over the years.

Second, it is also like sitting in an airport or similar location to "people watch", as the various contributions, as well as reactions to them, disclose a lot about the participants.

I have worked for over 30 years in a field populated by engineers and "hands on" folks. I have made my living for the most part as an engineer who can speak english. I take the technical stuff and translate it for lay people like regulators or legislators. I am a professional witness of sorts.

What I "think" I see going on is a very classic example of design versus build. The engineers and designers here are a little different in that most of them also get hands on. But still, it is essentially a social conflict between the college mind and the builder mind.

The engineer/designer can explain why or predict what will happen, and illustrate data to support these assertions.

The builder guy has experience in putting into real world terms what the designer comes up with. The builder guy does this without the deep technical expertise, but WITH an incredible sense of what looks and feels right. Mechanical genious cannot be taught, it just exists because of a certain set of skills that some seem to be born with.

What occasionally happens over time is that builder guy becomes expert in what he does to a point where he is regarded to be as knowledgable as the designer/engineer. This occurs because of physical results rather than the more academic process of publication.

Builder guy wants to teach what he knows. He develops his own jargon that is used to explain what he does by touch and perception.

The engineer/designer can look at the end result and disect it technically and more accurately than builder guy. And this causes the engineer/designer to take issue with the inaccuracy of builder guy's jargon. To add frustration to this, many engineers cannot duplicate builder guys product, even though they know how and why it works better than builder guy does.

This conflict has no end and no resolution until and unless there comes to pass a masterful builder guy, best in all the land, who is also an engineer/designer. I fear that the existance of such an individual would be like matter and anti-matter and some cataclismic event would occur.

I will now go back to sitting on the fence, as that is where the view is best.
regards,
Dan
(post little and listen a lot)
Click to expand...
Very well said Dan. Most of the time I find myself arguing the point of the builder to the engineer/designer group. Though I have the engineering background - almost all of my experience was in design and build of prototype equipment - I had to do both design AND build (and tweak when required).

Someone recently posted a link to a barrel maker who is testing with a rig that looks like it completely eliminates the vertical compensation of any tuning method. Which holds barrel motion almost entirely parallel to the recoil direction.
http://www.border-barrels.com/articles/rimfire_tests.htm
http://www.border-barrels.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/velocity_dispersion.htm
free_recoil_rest.jpg
 
Beau, you don't quite understand tuning. someone, anyone, even with 2lbs of weight on the end of a rifle is capable of shooting a awesome score, say 2500. if and that's a big if they have everything in perfect working order including killer ammo. when, not if but when there is a break down in once what was perfect ideal conditions that rifle that shot a 2500 is capable of a 1700 and the reason? it is tuned sitting on the edge of a cliff. everybody is clamoring about the turbo, took top 6 places, do you know what it's average finish was? how about 37th. 40x didn't finish in the top 6 it's average was 41st, suhl 40th. does that mean 6 turbos were awesome and 27 were less? the way you guys figure it would be. when you look at a couple awesome scores and ignore everything else all you are doing is looking at the top scores.. forgot to add this, stith stocks were used in the top 3 turbos, is it the stith stocks or turbo actions?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vibe: Thanks for that link. It was lost in cyberspace and finally some staticical information that we can trust. All the other info we have read, just proves some of them stayed in the Holiday Inn at one time or another.
 
free_recoil_rest.jpg

Vertical Dispersion with Velocity

Excerpt from: http://www.border-barrels.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/velocity_dispersion.htm

It has to be concluded that for a rimfire rifle to have any pretensions to accuracy, it has to have some degree of positive compensation to account for velocity dispersion. It should also be noted that many attempts to show a correlation between muzzle velocity and fall of shot on the target have not shown positive results. Such tests are usually performed using conventional target rifles or bench rest rifles, where free recoil allows the consequent rotation of the rifle about its centre of mass, which is usually below the bore line. On the basis of the tests reported above, it can be reasonably concluded that this rotation about the centre of mass is converted into rifle dynamics which usually result in some degree of positive compensation in such conventional rifles.
Click to expand...

Good find Vibe. The excerpt is very interesting. From the Drop vs Muzzle Velocity chart at that page, the 1035 fps vs 1075 fps 22LR ammo would have a 0.369" vertical difference at 50 yards with a fixed muzzle. For a rifle w/wo a tuner, something must be going on to reduce that amount of vertical dispersion.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
coyotel.gif
 
Fred J said:
Vibe: Thanks for that link. It was lost in cyberspace and finally some statistical information that we can trust. All the other info we have read, just proves some of them stayed in the Holiday Inn at one time or another.
Click to expand...

As much as I would like to take credit for finding that article - I can't. It was included in a post to me by Peter Neuberger over on Mike Rosses Delphi forum. But I recognize good info when I see it.
 
Last edited:
take a look at the top of the page, this is meters they are testing at
 
it appears that a dropper due to low velocity would be near non existent.
 
martyh said:
Beau, you don't quite understand tuning. someone, anyone, even with 2lbs of weight on the end of a rifle is capable of shooting a awesome score, say 2500. if and that's a big if they have everything in perfect working order including killer ammo. when, not if but when there is a break down in once what was perfect ideal conditions that rifle that shot a 2500 is capable of a 1700 and the reason? it is tuned sitting on the edge of a cliff. everybody is clamoring about the turbo, took top 6 places, do you know what it's average finish was? how about 37th. 40x didn't finish in the top 6 it's average was 41st, suhl 40th. does that mean 6 turbos were awesome and 27 were less? the way you guys figure it would be. when you look at a couple awesome scores and ignore everything else all you are doing is looking at the top scores.. forgot to add this, stith stocks were used in the top 3 turbos, is it the stith stocks or turbo actions?
Click to expand...

Marty,

Let's say you develop or improve a product designed to lend more power and speed to a race car. Now with your current methods, you would throw it in a Chevette, get on the track with real race care drivers with real race cars and take off. Then after you were sucked into the combustion and blown out the exhaust of a real race car by a real driver, you would happily declare victory. Now you may know, since it is your car, that you actually improved the performance of the Chevette, but you haven't proven anything at all. Get better equipment and get better at using it, then you may be on to something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top