Tuner expert interpreter...Lynn equivalent

Hi guys,

I think that in reality - and being practical - the only view that matters is determining what works for you. As a suggested in another thread - we each have dfferent rifles, different set-ups, ammunititon and shooting styles. I mentioned, my Anschutz 64 MSR - certainly a rifle that essentially isn't a patch on the American equipment but using the Lowey tuner and putting some effort into testing - I got it to work - and work well.

The one point I will make here - and again - talking only from personal experience - I recently changed up to a faster ammo (still Eley Match) and found that 'suddenly' I was shooting all over the place - I realised the tuner was having an impact so experimented by moving the tuner a half turn, shooting, moving again and you could literally 'see' the vertical and the ragged shots disappear. One final quarter turn and we're back in business.

So for me - and it's just my view - a) Tuners do work and b) they do need to be adjusted (for speed) but hey - It's just what I'm doing

Lastly - If someone can tell me how to upload photos - I'll show you the results of my testing and explain the proces as I've kept the targets

Cheers from downunder

Cary
 
I'm not a great gunsmith or even a good gunsmith. I might could install a barrel. From what I've read you and I are pretty much on an even keel there. I don't know what you refer to as to making stuff up so I can't comment on that. However, I don't understand a lot of what you write, primarily because of the way you write, but I don't accuse you of making it up. So, maybe you just don't have the understanding. Still, you sure don't have the recored.
 
Well, if only one is charging, I would shoot that one. If two are charging, if I'm not fast or have an automatic probably SOL. Most likely SOL anyway unless it's a big gun. But if you're talking about mirage, then inferior mirage would make a target appear lower than it really is, thus with strong long distance mirage, you see the guy walk on water or appear to even though there is no water or there could be if it's close to a shoreline. I mean there's no argument there, that's a well knows phenomena. Superior mirage, which if I recall correctly does not occur often, will do the opposite. If you apply that to a target, you interpret the target as moved although of course it's only bended light and the target is exactly where it was. I love to shoot a boil myself because I usually do well but then I realize where the target is and not where it appears to be. I don't like to shoot a running boil, although it will do the same thing only horizontally. You have to remember if you're shooting IR 50/50, you don't have to have three feet of optical dispersion to cause a problem. An eighth inch will cause your scores to be lower unless you hold for the mirage or refuse to shoot it, which is the case with me if possible. Now you can have wind going one way and mirage appearing to go the other. Which do you shoot? Bet on the mirage but it's a risk. Now tell me why.
 
Well, again I don't have the book. But if it references the date I probably have the PS mag. But, and keep in mind I don't know exactly what you are referencing, just because something is difficult does not mean it can't be done. I think the key would be if he said it can't be done then said he had one shooting very well. I would see that as a contradiction, but I do not see saying it's difficult, which I understand it is, and then doing it as a problem. Bragging maybe, but not a contradiction.
 
Martin
I have been refraining from posting to you directly but as you are so wrong here I will put it in print.
Can You Martin Hammond put the crown of the barrel on a node or anti-node without the use of a tuner or muzzle weight?
That is what Bill Calfee was reffering to in his book.
Also does a bar of steel in a vice have a different kind of vibration pattern than a car antenna or a bar attached to a receiver or are all the vibrations basicaly the same.In short what is so different about a a steel barrel versus a steel bar versus an antenna?
Lynn
 
Martin, you obviously have no machining experience or you would have understood Calfee's explanation of why it is difficult to thread an Anschutz action to BENCHREST standards.
You obviously have little or no understanding of physics or how physical laws are established or you would know the basic pattern of how things vibrate and that that pattern has been known (observed) and accepted for several hundred years--thus the reference to Laws of Physics. I don't know if that law has a specific name but I've never seen a printed exception to it for round bars--with or without a hole in them.
You obviously have little competitive BENCHREST shooting experience.

Yet you fault a man who has actually machined Anschutz actions, you deny the observations of hundreds of physicists over a long span of time, and you tell 90% of shooters who have accomplished more in one day than you have in your life that they know nothing about tuning rifles.

Meets my definition of egomanic.
 
Scientist and great minds thought the earth was flat for 1000's of years! Everyone will find "stuff" to hang their hat on to make their view come out true- joe
 
Martin, its time for you to consider hybernation for these winter months,you are exceeding your limits of usefulness,so be a good lad and get your Oreos and milk and go to sleep and dream up some more anti Calfee BS and come back after we boot Obama from office. WJC
 
Last edited:
Martin some of us come hear to learn. You have the ear of some pretty good shooters but this wallowing in the mud with Calfeeites diminishes your thoughts. Regardless of what people think Rimfire would be in the exact same place without you, me or Bill -maybe even farther ADVANCED.

It is hard not to fight, even i slip up, lol! Bill does have an excellent trait =just start a new thread when someone wants to argue. Joe Friedrich has an excellent view of life, try to follow his footsteps at times. joe
 
martin hammond said:
1735 that's the year the church in rome stopped prosecuting, locking up and throwing away the key for stating the earth wasn't the center of the universe. fast forward to the year 2000 any one who challenged calfee was tarred and feathered, belittled made fun of trashed. no matter what jibberish was forthcoming. then 2009 and finally the apostles and I am who am are challenged, what did they do? they took their marbles and went home. doing nothing but sitting around playing stick in the mud and deciding how wonderful these sticks are made.
Click to expand...

You and the apostles? And you accuse someone else of having a big ego? Let's see 2009. From what I understand, you challenged someone to play the game your way in order to prove your tuning methods were valid and others were not. The challenge, if I got the story right, was accepted and the results were according to your own standards that the rifle was in tune. So contrary to all evidence you declared victory. Did your apostles agree with you? Because if they did, you really shouldn't be talking about other people drinking the kool aid. From what I gathered, nobody paid a lot of attention to you in 2009 and still don't today. Persecution I guess. But you'll have your day when you and the apostles are proven correct.
 
martin hammond said:
just a thought, you have no idea why I challenged Beau to do that. think about what I've been saying a slow round leaves the barrel on an upward swing. beau told everyone he had a flyer using 1047 speed tenex, he also told everyone his rifle was tuned for 1061 speed. I found out from the test what I wanted to find out. just think about what happened and you will realize what happened.
Click to expand...

I don't really know what happened. I do know that the challenge was for a shooter to mix two extreme speeds (well about 30 fps if you want to call that extreme) and shoot it as one. From what I understand that shooter either won the match or every target shot with the mixed ammo, and you then declared victory when the proof was against you. So, your MO is just to go ahead and decide how things will work and then declare that you were correct no matter what? You're saying it was 1047 and 1061 which is only 14fps. My understanding was that it was a greater spread than that.
 
Marty, Martin or whatever you prefer, If you really knew what the majority of veiwers thought about all your rambling BS you would take Slick Willy's advice.
Gene
 
justathought said:
I don't really know what happened. I do know that the challenge was for a shooter to mix two extreme speeds (well about 30 fps if you want to call that extreme) and shoot it as one. From what I understand that shooter either won the match or every target shot with the mixed ammo, and you then declared victory when the proof was against you. So, your MO is just to go ahead and decide how things will work and then declare that you were correct no matter what? You're saying it was 1047 and 1061 which is only 14fps. My understanding was that it was a greater spread than that.
Click to expand...

JAT,

I don't want to start an argument with Martin, but I need to set a few things straight.

Number 1: My tuner is locked in place and I can state without doubt that I never said that my rifle was tuned for 1061 speed ammo simply because it is not; I believe it was originally tuned witn 1052 and 1068 speed. It has been locked since the tuner was put on and there has been no variation. I may have been shooting 1061 at one particular time but I currently use the same setting with ammo from 1047 speed to 1073 with decent success. The tuner setting stays in the same place. I do not have any faster ammo, but I don't think it would be a problem.

Number 2: I do not recall saying I had a flyer with 1047 Tenex although I could but the terminology does not sound like me.

Number 3: The mixed ammo was a 30 FPS spread. I don't recall the exact velocities but it was 30 FPS. Martin had it send to me by Dan Killough and another shooter mixed it up. I don't recall if I won or not, but I had a 2200 or better agg with it. There wasn't enough of it to shoot the entire match but I really wish there had been.

I won't comment on this anymore unless Martin grossly misstates something that pertains to me.
 
justathought said:
I don't really know what happened. I do know that the challenge was for a shooter to mix two extreme speeds (well about 30 fps if you want to call that extreme) and shoot it as one. From what I understand that shooter either won the match or every target shot with the mixed ammo, and you then declared victory when the proof was against you. So, your MO is just to go ahead and decide how things will work and then declare that you were correct no matter what? You're saying it was 1047 and 1061 which is only 14fps. My understanding was that it was a greater spread than that.
Click to expand...

JAT,

I don't want to start an argument with Martin, but I need to set a few things straight.

Number 1: My tuner is locked in place and I can state without doubt that I never said that my rifle was tuned for 1061 speed ammo simply because it is not; I believe it was originally tuned witn 1052 and 1068 speed. It has been locked since the tuner was put on and there has been no variation. I may have been shooting 1061 at one particular time but I currently use the same setting with ammo from 1047 speed to 1073 with decent success. The tuner setting stays in the same place. I do not have any faster ammo, but I don't think it would be a problem.

Number 2: I do not recall saying I had a flyer with 1047 Tenex although I could but the terminology does not sound like me.

Number 3: The mixed ammo was a 30 FPS spread. I don't recall the exact velocities but it was 30 FPS. Martin had it send to me by Dan Killough and another shooter mixed it up. I don't recall if I won or not, but I had a 2200 or better agg with it. There wasn't enough of it to shoot the entire match but I really wish there had been.

I won't comment on this anymore unless Martin grossly misstates something that pertains to me.
 
i'm with justathought.

i can't say you don't know what your talking about. i can say however that the way you try to convey information to others makes it just about impossible for anyone to understand. it's almost as if you were talking in riddles on purpose. maybe i'm just to simpleminded to understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top