Did you actually look at the data supplied by Varmint Al? The barrel actually showed the least vertical dispersion with no tuner. Take a look at the facts before flying off the handle.
Did you actually look at the data supplied by Varmint Al? The barrel actually showed the least vertical dispersion with no tuner. Take a look at the facts before flying off the handle.
It's the same with rimfire IMO. If you could ever find the perfect lot of ammo for a RF rifle for a given condition you would not need a tuner. We RF shooters are tuning the rifle to the ammo same as CF. CF just has more tools to work with. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
D
Dan
Guest
Stopping the muzzle
I usually just sit back and listen to those here that are much smarter and more experienced than am I. I am not a competetive benchrest shooter, but am always trying some of the things you folks offer up. I have added commercial and homemade tuners to some of my guns for several years now, and am convinced they make a difference in both rimfire and centerfire applications. Some time ago, a fellow at one of the clubs I belong to asked for a real world, simple example as to how a tuner functions. I searched here and read everything I could. I finally came up with a rather simplistic visual aid that I believe shows how a barrel tuner functions.
I like to use a fly rod because of the length and flexibility. These provide an exaggerated example for the eye to see. Ideally, the best thing to use would be a straight, non-tapered rod because of the more uniform way nodes would be developed. However, standard rods are tapered and this will affect how the nodes develop.
If we take a fly rod, held out horizontally, and using wrist motion whip the grip up and down, you will see nodes develop along the length of the rod. These are naturally occuring points that are derived by a combination of mass and shape along the length of the rod. These points provide pivots where the rod will rotate in the vertical axis. If we then use an iterative process to add mass in increasing amounts at the end of the rod, eventually we will reach a point where the movement of the rod at the end will not be able to overcome the inertia of the added mass, almost as if someone was holding the tip as you continued to move the rod. The end of the rod will become a pivot point and there will be nodal amplitides (one or more) between it and the grip, but the end (muzzle) will not have any vertical travel. This corresponds to the tuner described by Mr. Calfee and its affect. If, once the desired weight is found, you thne vary the speed at which the rod is oscillated, you will see that even with variance in speed, the end stays put. I may be wrong, but I believe this phenomenon illustrates why Mr. Calfee believes that regardless of varying loads being used, the muzzle stops when the ideal weight is found.
I know that tuner theory first required re-tuning when load or ammunition was changed. I believe at that point we as a group just had not observed everything there was to see. This idea continues to be refined as we experiment.
I am not trying to offer anything earthshaking here, as you guys seem to have already figured it out, but I like nice simple visual examples. They tend to take the "black majic" out of these discussions for the casual observer.
I appreciate your indulgence.
Dan
I usually just sit back and listen to those here that are much smarter and more experienced than am I. I am not a competetive benchrest shooter, but am always trying some of the things you folks offer up. I have added commercial and homemade tuners to some of my guns for several years now, and am convinced they make a difference in both rimfire and centerfire applications. Some time ago, a fellow at one of the clubs I belong to asked for a real world, simple example as to how a tuner functions. I searched here and read everything I could. I finally came up with a rather simplistic visual aid that I believe shows how a barrel tuner functions.
I like to use a fly rod because of the length and flexibility. These provide an exaggerated example for the eye to see. Ideally, the best thing to use would be a straight, non-tapered rod because of the more uniform way nodes would be developed. However, standard rods are tapered and this will affect how the nodes develop.
If we take a fly rod, held out horizontally, and using wrist motion whip the grip up and down, you will see nodes develop along the length of the rod. These are naturally occuring points that are derived by a combination of mass and shape along the length of the rod. These points provide pivots where the rod will rotate in the vertical axis. If we then use an iterative process to add mass in increasing amounts at the end of the rod, eventually we will reach a point where the movement of the rod at the end will not be able to overcome the inertia of the added mass, almost as if someone was holding the tip as you continued to move the rod. The end of the rod will become a pivot point and there will be nodal amplitides (one or more) between it and the grip, but the end (muzzle) will not have any vertical travel. This corresponds to the tuner described by Mr. Calfee and its affect. If, once the desired weight is found, you thne vary the speed at which the rod is oscillated, you will see that even with variance in speed, the end stays put. I may be wrong, but I believe this phenomenon illustrates why Mr. Calfee believes that regardless of varying loads being used, the muzzle stops when the ideal weight is found.
I know that tuner theory first required re-tuning when load or ammunition was changed. I believe at that point we as a group just had not observed everything there was to see. This idea continues to be refined as we experiment.
I am not trying to offer anything earthshaking here, as you guys seem to have already figured it out, but I like nice simple visual examples. They tend to take the "black majic" out of these discussions for the casual observer.
I appreciate your indulgence.
Dan
The question by pacecil was in regard to the specific results just posted by Al. Did you even bother to look at them?
a little background..
I have actually been playing with tuners off and on for the last 2-3 years. I was one of a very few who shot a tuner at the Super Shoot and some Southeast region NBRSA matches last year. I believe that tuners can be a valuable tuning tool and plan to continue testing with them this year. I do have issues with Mr. Calfees descriptions of how the tuners work and disregrad for important issues with using tuners on centerfire BR rifles. The only "proof" we ever get of his concepts is a quotation of what he has state in the past. Varmint Al has obviously spent untold hours developing his model and providing us with data supplied from sophisticated engineering tools, but the results are totally ignored by Mr. Calfee.
FWIW,
I have actually been playing with tuners off and on for the last 2-3 years. I was one of a very few who shot a tuner at the Super Shoot and some Southeast region NBRSA matches last year. I believe that tuners can be a valuable tuning tool and plan to continue testing with them this year. I do have issues with Mr. Calfees descriptions of how the tuners work and disregrad for important issues with using tuners on centerfire BR rifles. The only "proof" we ever get of his concepts is a quotation of what he has state in the past. Varmint Al has obviously spent untold hours developing his model and providing us with data supplied from sophisticated engineering tools, but the results are totally ignored by Mr. Calfee.
FWIW,
Roy In NC More Background.
Roy I as well have been shooting tuners for longer than most here but I do it in 1000 yard competition.I and my father or the only shooters I see using them at all.I catch lots of flak.
Bill Calfee and Varmint Al seem like they are on the vary same page to me.The terminology isn't the same but what they are saying is and we have a bunch that doesn't understand either group.
They both seem to be saying the barrels wavelength is more or less fixed.Again they use different methods and terminology but essentialy thats what they are saying.
When Bill Calfee talks about the parallel node and Varmint Al talks about a anti-node from the descriptions given same thing.
When Bill Calfee says the parallel node never moves but it changes he seems to be saying the wavelength doesn't change but its amplitude does.Varmint Al seems to dsay the same thing again using different terminology.
I think they are using different words to convey the same message tuners work.
Lynn
Roy I as well have been shooting tuners for longer than most here but I do it in 1000 yard competition.I and my father or the only shooters I see using them at all.I catch lots of flak.
Bill Calfee and Varmint Al seem like they are on the vary same page to me.The terminology isn't the same but what they are saying is and we have a bunch that doesn't understand either group.
They both seem to be saying the barrels wavelength is more or less fixed.Again they use different methods and terminology but essentialy thats what they are saying.
When Bill Calfee talks about the parallel node and Varmint Al talks about a anti-node from the descriptions given same thing.
When Bill Calfee says the parallel node never moves but it changes he seems to be saying the wavelength doesn't change but its amplitude does.Varmint Al seems to dsay the same thing again using different terminology.
I think they are using different words to convey the same message tuners work.
Lynn
P
Pete in Surry
Guest
I find it interesting
That there are two tuner systems that seem to work. One does not seem to rely on stopping the movement, if you will but works with the movement, depending on the atmosphere / Am I all wet here or is that how it seems ?
That there are two tuner systems that seem to work. One does not seem to rely on stopping the movement, if you will but works with the movement, depending on the atmosphere / Am I all wet here or is that how it seems ?
I guess that is the point of my posts - the theories espressed by Calfee and Varmint Al are VERY different.
If you look at Calfee's articles and diagrams in Pecision Shooting, it is obvious that he believes are a straight section of the barrel is STOPPED at the NODE position of the wave. He believes that if you can move this parallel section of the barrel to the crown, any load will shoot to its potential and no further tuning is necessary.
Varmint Al's analysis suggests that the barrel should be tuned such that the angle of exit is on the rise. This results in higher velocity rounds exitting the muzzle at a lesser angle than slower rounds and thus offsetting the point of impact variation caused by the differring speeds. This thoery shows that the NODE is the point of greatest angular velocity and those variations in velocity with the muzzle at that location should produce the MOST shot dispersion on the target.
Thus, the theories seem like almost completely opposite to me!
I certainly stand to be corrected if I have mis-represented the theories of either of these gentlemen.
If you look at Calfee's articles and diagrams in Pecision Shooting, it is obvious that he believes are a straight section of the barrel is STOPPED at the NODE position of the wave. He believes that if you can move this parallel section of the barrel to the crown, any load will shoot to its potential and no further tuning is necessary.
Varmint Al's analysis suggests that the barrel should be tuned such that the angle of exit is on the rise. This results in higher velocity rounds exitting the muzzle at a lesser angle than slower rounds and thus offsetting the point of impact variation caused by the differring speeds. This thoery shows that the NODE is the point of greatest angular velocity and those variations in velocity with the muzzle at that location should produce the MOST shot dispersion on the target.
Thus, the theories seem like almost completely opposite to me!
I certainly stand to be corrected if I have mis-represented the theories of either of these gentlemen.
Last edited:
V
Varmint Al
Guest
You have stated my FEA results correctly and maybe better than I have. Sometimes I get too blinded by all of the details. Engineers have not been noted for expressing themselves well.
Al, You are wrong with the different ammo speed in Rimfire. Their are 2 guns here Right Now. With The proper ammount of weight on the tuners. That will shoot 1046 and 1075 in exactly the same spot. Also With both of these guns you can now move the tuners in one complete turn or out one turn and they don't change. You are looking at very small changes on your computer THAT DON"T show up at the range. AS CALFEE SAID. Get the weight right and it will shoot the best that barrel has to offer.
Dusty Stevens
Hollow Point Dispenser
why hasn't anybody took any hi-speed videos of a barrel with different tuners on it like folks do shooting bows and checking their rests and releases?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BCM88eVzp9I&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BCM88eVzp9I&feature=related
The motionof a barrel in absolute numbers is VERY small.
You would need at least some system to make the motion apparent.
For many critical things mirrors and lasers are used to create a 'spot' that moves by a large enough amount to be discernable.
Of cousre this has an effect on the device being measured, but the measurments i have worked on have always involved large enough equipment that a small 1st surface mirror adding no significant mass to the system under test.
J
J. Pendergraft
Guest
If you look at Bill Myers results which are substantial in number, Varmit Al's modeling doesn't seem to match the real world results reported by Bill. I'm more interested in real world results than theory. A tuner that has to be adjusted at the bench has no value to me since I am shooting at 1000 yds. I want a tuner that can be set and left alone. I think I have that on a rifle now but it will take a bit more time for me to say for sure. I calculated the weight and placement by ringing the barrel and listening with a mechanics stethoscope. To my ear it sounds like the dead spot is at the muzzle. I don't know if this is a node, antinode or something in between but it definitely does not have the ring that other points along the barrel have. My tuner of course adds weight in front of the muzzle. I see no purpose in insulting anyone regarding their opinion. I don't think anyone posting here knows the whole science behind what we are discussing. How can one argue with real world results? Isn't that what we are after? As long as it works I can live without knowing exactly why.
Dusty Stevens
Hollow Point Dispenser
Joel
I agree with you completely. That's why I kept referring to the theories. I think it's safe to the say that the computer model of the rifle may not be perfect yet, but I believe it presents a much more accurate portrayal of why tuners work. As you say, the real proof will be in the real world performance of tuners.
I agree with you completely. That's why I kept referring to the theories. I think it's safe to the say that the computer model of the rifle may not be perfect yet, but I believe it presents a much more accurate portrayal of why tuners work. As you say, the real proof will be in the real world performance of tuners.
Gordon E
Gordon when you shoot two shots at the same velocity we expect them to go through the same hole with all things being equal.
If we shoot two shots with varying muzzle velociies we would expect them to impact differently on the target.
In order for two shots with different velocities to impact at the same point on the target Varmint Al has shown that the muzzles position must vary a small amount.
In my actual testing of a centerfire rifle with a tuner it is easy to get a wide range of velocities through the same hole just as you have done with your rimfire.
Me and you are in total agreement.
What is happening here however is if we are shooting different velocity bullets into the same hole some say the muzzle is stopped while others say it is still moving.It is a matter of wording only and that is the whole debate in a nutshell.
If looked at under scientific means the muzzle flexes up and down at a point that looks to the naked eye like it is standing perfectly still.
We have common sense folks posting and those that insist anything by Bill Calfee must be wrong because they don't understand what he is saying.
If you do a wikipedia search for the stopping of all motion you will clearly see nothing on this planet has ever been stopped.We are simply arguing over symantics here.
Lynn
Gordon when you shoot two shots at the same velocity we expect them to go through the same hole with all things being equal.
If we shoot two shots with varying muzzle velociies we would expect them to impact differently on the target.
In order for two shots with different velocities to impact at the same point on the target Varmint Al has shown that the muzzles position must vary a small amount.
In my actual testing of a centerfire rifle with a tuner it is easy to get a wide range of velocities through the same hole just as you have done with your rimfire.
Me and you are in total agreement.
What is happening here however is if we are shooting different velocity bullets into the same hole some say the muzzle is stopped while others say it is still moving.It is a matter of wording only and that is the whole debate in a nutshell.
If looked at under scientific means the muzzle flexes up and down at a point that looks to the naked eye like it is standing perfectly still.
We have common sense folks posting and those that insist anything by Bill Calfee must be wrong because they don't understand what he is saying.
If you do a wikipedia search for the stopping of all motion you will clearly see nothing on this planet has ever been stopped.We are simply arguing over symantics here.
Lynn
Kent Owens
Well-known member
Gordon,
I believe you. The tuner hasn't been moved since I first set it on my 10.5lb. 40X rimfire BR rifle, a couple of years ago.
At the 2006 IR5050 NAtionals, Wilbur and I both shot the rifle, mine. On Sunday, WIlbur finsihed second and I finished first. He was shooting 1074 speed ammo and I was shooting 1046
If he had been a few thousandths closer on a couple of bulls he would have finished first and I'd have been second. I was just lucky.
Truth is, it's not a concept with rimfires, it's reality. I don't know all the engineering reasons why it works, and really don't even care, but I know it works and thats what counts. Some places simple logic just don't seem to want to apply. If you get the right weight for the barrel and it's set on the right spot, it's tuned. Man, don't you just love to see folks wringing their tuners at a match? They're huntin'.
*One more thing, but I switched barrels to another barrel, different twist made by the same guy and same length and contour. I used the exact same tuner and same weight and the rifle shoots as well with the different twist barrel as it did with the other one. Luck, maybe, but in theory the same length and weight barrel must take bout the same amount of tuner weight. That one did.
I believe you. The tuner hasn't been moved since I first set it on my 10.5lb. 40X rimfire BR rifle, a couple of years ago.
At the 2006 IR5050 NAtionals, Wilbur and I both shot the rifle, mine. On Sunday, WIlbur finsihed second and I finished first. He was shooting 1074 speed ammo and I was shooting 1046
If he had been a few thousandths closer on a couple of bulls he would have finished first and I'd have been second. I was just lucky.Truth is, it's not a concept with rimfires, it's reality. I don't know all the engineering reasons why it works, and really don't even care, but I know it works and thats what counts. Some places simple logic just don't seem to want to apply. If you get the right weight for the barrel and it's set on the right spot, it's tuned. Man, don't you just love to see folks wringing their tuners at a match?
They're huntin'.*One more thing, but I switched barrels to another barrel, different twist made by the same guy and same length and contour. I used the exact same tuner and same weight and the rifle shoots as well with the different twist barrel as it did with the other one. Luck, maybe, but in theory the same length and weight barrel must take bout the same amount of tuner weight. That one did.
Last edited: