Setting up a tuner?

A couple of thoughts.

You are going to get alot of different strategies on tuning a tuner, so use the one from someone you trust or that works for you.

3 shot vs 5 shot groups.....if you fire even 2 shots and it is throwing all over the place, why waste the other shots on that setting? I don't. Once you are getting things close, then you definetely want the 5 shot group.

I utilizing an ARA target I use the top 2 corners of each of the 25 targets and set my scope a couple clicks high. Once I determine what incriments I am going to click the tuner for course tuning. I will write the tuner settings on the target I am about to shoot and as long as I don't shoot the wrong target with the wrong setting I should have a well documented test. The reason I only use the top 2 corners is if I think I screwed up the group then I can drop directly down and shoot the bottom corner at the same setting. You can also do this to do your test again if you would like to see if you get the same results twice in a row.

Once you have an idea of what range you want to lower your incriments of tuner clicks to fine tune, then you put up another target with those numbers written on it. Test some more.

I have done a test or two trying to remember where the tuner was set for a particular group on a target then afterwards started thinking OK was that group 170 or 175? Then you lose confidence in the results of your whole test!

Butch Hongisto showed me a different way which is where he had a target hanging and another target on the bench and as we shot groups at different settings he made notes on the target at the bench and merely lay the two side by side to know what groups were at which settings.

Sorry no actual tuner setting secrets here that have not already been discussed but just a couple of ways to document your test.

Charlie
 
42 yards

I've tested ammo at 42 yards, and here's why. That all the space available. That probably the reason the so call professor tests at 42 yards. That's all the room he has in his test chamber (Basement). It's totally different outside at 50 yards in the wind.
 
Reason I don't shoot good

Fred J said:
I've tested ammo at 42 yards, and here's why. That all the space available. That probably the reason the so call professor tests at 42 yards. That's all the room he has in his test chamber (Basement). It's totally different outside at 50 yards in the wind.
Click to expand...


Now I know why I don't shoot as good as you guys: First, We don't have a basement here in California, and Second my house isn't 126ft, (42yds) long. :eek: Bummer!
 
You gotta remember where Fred is from.

dave92029 said:
Now I know why I don't shoot as good as you guys: First, We don't have a basement here in California, and Second my house isn't 126ft, (42yds) long. :eek: Bummer!
Click to expand...

You gotta remember where Fred is from....right Fred...EVERYTHING IS BIGGER IN TEXAS.

Charlie
 
Not my place

There have been occasions where we were able to use some vacant warehouses to do some testing. Unfortunately that 126 to 130 ft was all that was available.
My personal preference, is to test under the same conditions I'm going to compete in, and that is outside. For the record, some of those Custom rifles that were tuned in that 42 yard test facility woun't shoot for crap in the South Texas Conditions. Now some of those customs, after they were re-barreled, did extremely well in Bill Myer's Chicken Barn.
 
dankillough said:
Mooseyard,

I recommended that you try pacecil's request so you could prove to yourself that the tuner works. I know that if you tried it, you would prove that it works. Sometimes you have to try these things so that you will not question them. These rimfires have so many variables, that anytime you can prove or disprove that something works, you need to do it. You need to do it to erase the questions in the back of your mind that you will have when the gun does not shoot good.

I recently had a bad match, and I did not sleep for 2 days because I was trying to figure out what happened. Is my gun tuned correctly? Do I have the correct amount of weight on the tuner? Is my tuner on the right setting? Maybe I do not need the mid-barrel tuner?

So, I went through the process of tuning my rifle on 4 different occasions. I checked anything and everything I could think of. Turns out that it was my trigger. I still do not know exactly what was wrong with the trigger, but a new trigger fixed the problem. Gun shoots great now, and I know without a doubt that my gun is tuned correctly. Now if this happens again, I will absolutely know that it is not my tuner.

I do not agree with pacecil about tuners, but I do agree with him that we need to test everything we try. I think a large number of shooters will change something and then shoot one great group and think they have found something. If it truely helps, it will shoot better consistently not every once in a while.

I hope this helps, and remember to test, test and then test again,

Dan Killough
Click to expand...


I understand what you are saying Dan, but I really have no doubt that a tuner effects accuaracy. Sometimes you have to have a little faith.
 
To mooseyard...

Don't pay attention to Tim and some others. They probably mean well but seem to have a little trouble expressing themselves on this forum. Tim may just be inexperienced but I have noted he seems to go ballistic when something is posted that he doesn't understand.

What I recommended you try is exactly what all good shooters will do when they are adjusting their tuners. They shoot a series of groups to find the best setting and how the rifle is shooting. Some use two shot, some three shot, and some five shot groups. After they find a setting they think is good, they then shoot a second series to verify and confirm what occurred during the first series. The second series of shots may be in competition or it might be just practice but you have to keep track of ALL groups and evaluate and compare what happens during both series of groups. This is pretty much common sense - it's not rocket science!
 
pacecil said:
Don't pay attention to Tim and some others. They probably mean well but seem to have a little trouble expressing themselves on this forum. Tim may just be inexperienced but I have noted he seems to go ballistic when something is posted that he doesn't understand.

What I recommended you try is exactly what all good shooters will do when they are adjusting their tuners. They shoot a series of groups to find the best setting and how the rifle is shooting. Some use two shot, some three shot, and some five shot groups. After they find a setting they think is good, they then shoot a second series to verify and confirm what occurred during the first series. The second series of shots may be in competition or it might be just practice but you have to keep track of ALL groups and evaluate and compare what happens during both series of groups. This is pretty much common sense - it's not rocket science!
Click to expand...

Hide the children and the likker he got out again!!!!!!!
 
Mooseyard said:
I was a little concerned because it didn't seem like his testing was going to show anything related to setting the tuner, but then Dan chimed in and told me to try it. I guess I'm going to stick with the general thinking that tuners are good and have a purpose. I'm not going to waste my precious time or ammo testing someone elses theory.
Click to expand...

Mooseyard, you have to go back and search some of friend Cec's early work. The hypothysis is, I believe, that if you shoot enough groups either with or without the tuner you will see that the spread on the groups at some point somewhat evens out, thus proving that with enough testing you will see that tuners really do not work, folks just simply rely on too small a sample to determine a tuner works. So while you asked, in earnest, for help, and got some, Cec's response was designed for you to answer his point not yours, i. e. the BS tag.
 
Last edited:
Tim -

New to forum and don't shoot benchrest. I do shoot smallbore prone, however, starting just this past yearand was reading a few posts here. You said that the hypothesis that a sufficient sample size might indicate that a tuner may not make a difference and then indicated that this line of reasoning is BS. If proper testing indicated that a procedure or device was not beneficial, why wouldn't you want to know this information? And why ridicule somebody for questioning this? I don't mean this as any kind of flame, but wondering if I am missing something important here.

D Lindenbaum
 
Mr Lindenbaum, this is an old chestnut b/t 2 gents who disagree. Cecil is right, if after a large sample there is no difference, then there is no flippin' difference atrributable to tuner setting. You can shorten testing and make a robust design by doing A vs B vs A vs B and if you see a marked difference, you have your answer. I've done the tuner setting comparisons a few times, and found reliable improvement at 2 settinngs, and pretty clear findings of El Crappo Grande results at a few settings. I concluded that, like nealy everyone else has found, the tuner improves group size at some settings. I think you'll find the same.

Ben
 
dlinden said:
Tim -

New to forum and don't shoot benchrest. I do shoot smallbore prone, however, starting just this past yearand was reading a few posts here. You said that the hypothesis that a sufficient sample size might indicate that a tuner may not make a difference and then indicated that this line of reasoning is BS. If proper testing indicated that a procedure or device was not beneficial, why wouldn't you want to know this information? And why ridicule somebody for questioning this? I don't mean this as any kind of flame, but wondering if I am missing something important here.

D Lindenbaum
Click to expand...

Well that's a pretty valid question let's see if I can articulate an acceptable answer. It seems "member A" a hypothetical member, is an engineer. As such, there is a requirement to show a valid test or a proven calculation that shows in absolute terms that a devise,such as a tuner, can be PROVEN to show some measurable improvement in results.
Now I supose on some level we occaisionly stumple across some stuff that works and we may not know the exact reason but we recognize the fact none the less.
Now "member A" has given lots of information as to barrel vibrations, stress modulation of metals. etc, etc. and that's all well and good but when some poor soul "newbie" comes looking for help under the assumption some folks shoot a few rounds at a target in a match as opposed to with a keyboard only then you might find that helpfull.
 
ThaiBoxer said:
Mr Lindenbaum, this is an old chestnut b/t 2 gents who disagree. Cecil is right, if after a large sample there is no difference, then there is no flippin' difference atrributable to tuner setting. You can shorten testing and make a robust design by doing A vs B vs A vs B and if you see a marked difference, you have your answer. I've done the tuner setting comparisons a few times, and found reliable improvement at 2 settinngs, and pretty clear findings of El Crappo Grande results at a few settings. I concluded that, like nealy everyone else has found, the tuner improves group size at some settings. I think you'll find the same.

Ben
Click to expand...

Ben, I may be wrong but if you've been following this line of Tuner threads from the beginning then the tests are not designed to test if there's a few settings but to show that with a big enough sample you will see that a plain barrel and one with ANY tuner will show the same dispersions, therefore you do not need any tuner.
 
My understanding on Cecil's objections have been that it takes on enormous amount of shots fired to find meaningful, statistically significant differences between barrel and barrel with tuner, and I critiquesd that as statistical nihlism, i.e. "we can never know if is really different". My read is that Cecil has thought that the amount of variance within one condition is greater than the measured differences. I think he's right in a sense, b/c you can have some pretty broad variance within a rifle in condition A over time, and shooting a few good groups in A and a few worse groups in B may be misleading, and this is a problem when choosing among 3 "pretty good" settings, looking for Numero Uno. I think he is wrong in that differences can be rather striking, the way good ammo stands our from bad, very quickly. Three 5 shot groups that make a .35" hole in the paper are hard to chance into. Alternating settings ABAB can parse away some of the mystery, too.

I wish I knew how to figure the probability of a series of 3 really good groups of 5, but I don't. I just compared means and std deviation when picking ammo, and once a repeated-measures ANOVA.

Cecil, if I misstated your position, I had no malicious intent.

Ben
 
To ThaiBoxer,
You didn't misstate my position. You may have put it much better than I did. You've a good understanding of what is being said here - and also you have a good reading on the people who are saying it.

To dlinden,
Thanks for confirming what I was trying to say. Like you I'm also a prone shooter rather than a BR shooter. However, probably both of us know how to learn how a gun performs by shooting a lot of groups from a bench, as well as prone.

To Beau,
You're inferring incorrect information and making bad assumptions by "reading between the lines"!

To Mooseyard,
Hope all this hasn't confused you. All (most of us) are trying to say is: Shoot a lot of groups trying different tuner settings, then shoot a lot more groups to confirm, then look it all over and make up your own mind.

To Tim,
Have a nice day!
 
And finally folks we have a definative statement, and I quote "I don't shoot benchrest", enough said.
 
To Tim...

Since the only place I find your quote (I don't shoot benchrest) is in dlinden's post I assume what ever disdain you feel for non BR shooters should be applied to him. You might be surprised at how well a shooter who doesn't do exactly what you do could evaluate his equipment. In other words - you ain't the only one with the ability and knowledge to get the best accuracy out of his gun and tuner.
 
pacecil said:
To Beau,

You're inferring incorrect information and making bad assumptions by "reading between the lines"!
Click to expand...

Pacecil,

Unless you're crawdaddin' I stand corrected. My apologies to you sir. You are obviously, along with everyone else here, head and shoulders above the masses in knowledge and intelligence.
 
Cadillac Jack-bass Rods

Are you going to auction off any of those Bass Rods, & if so will you ship to Virginia..I think my money is as good as somebody's in Ca.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top