Tuners and “The Hopewell Method”

Looks like you have to much tuner weight. Remove the extra tuner weight try again.

Fred K
 
I read somewhere that you want to set the tuner mid way (250) and then take 5 shot groups adding .5 ounces each group. what your looking for is the smallest group size. shoot groups that keep shrinking until you see the groups start to open up again. once you see the groups opening back up, remove the weights back to the smallest group and then go back to the hopewell method and start back at 0 and work thru the range to 500. the rest you know.
 
not related

this tuner stuff reminds me of Tiller tuning a compound bow..
you set up multiple targets, fire groups, move nocking point and turn limb bolts quarter turns until you find the sweet spot..takes friggen hours, and lots of patience...building and tuning arrows , takes friggen hours..
but it's less expensive by far......sometimes it's not the bows fault, it's the INDIAN:D
i'm saving all this tuner info for future reference..good stuff:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In an earlier thread I said:
It appears to me the Hopewell method simply allows you to select the best spot in one particular tuner revolution by firing a 10 shot group made up of shots at five different settings. The idea the 10 shot group with the least vertical has in it a sweet spot doesn't hold water. You may be looking at vertical caused by poi change rather than spread caused by bullet dispersion. You are simply choosing, almost at random, one revolution and firing two five shot groups at different settings, and then taking the best average as your sweet spot. You may have selected a spot within that one revolution, but no way to determine if it's the best one in all the tuner settings.

In that thread I also proposed a method that I thought might work. If you, or anyone, are interested I could go over it again. Let me know.
 
“pacecil”,

Post to my blog if you wish but it appears no one has any interest or else they’ve totally misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I had a feeling that would happen and probably should just keep testing instead of sharing.

You should be familiar with that because I’ve read most of your posts over the years and have seen you be ignored and misunderstood also.
BTW, I happen to agree with the majority of your posts, but then I’m just a keyboard shooter….like you. :D

Landy
 
I went through your blog and thought you said the Hopewell method simply doesn't work. I have a feeling we both understand why. Maybe I missed your point - were you trying to get someone to tell you why, or to give their experiences to show that it does work????

There may be a point, or principle, I probably shouldn't mention here, but I'll do it anyway just to stir things up:
A tuner must function as everybody thinks it does for the Hopewell (or any method) to work.
 
I went through your blog and thought you said the Hopewell method simply doesn't work. I have a feeling we both understand why.
I have that same feeling but apparently my writing skills are too inept to make that point to anyone else “or” perhaps I haven’t given it enough time yet?

Maybe I missed your point - were you trying to get someone to tell you why, or to give their experiences to show that it does work????
Both actually, but in the latter case, with enough additional testing that you could actually prove it, because if it “is” provable….it’s gunna take a hell of a lot of shots!

There may be a point, or principle, I probably shouldn't mention here, but I'll do it anyway just to stir things up:
*A tuner must function as everybody thinks it does for the Hopewell (or any method) to work.*
I think we’re on the same page on this issue but I can only handle one controversial subject at a time.
With this post I’m done here and I’ll only be at the blog. The rimfire Benchrest forum is a scary place for a keyboard shooter.

Landy
 
Have you been playing with the Beggs tuner on the 22 he built for you, or have you only been playing with the Harrel/Hoehn?
 
B. Harvey said:
Have you been playing with the Beggs tuner on the 22 he built for you, or have you only been playing with the Harrel/Hoehn?
Click to expand...

I haven’t shot the Ultralight enough to say "anything definite", but thus far I haven’t been able to change the size or shape of the groups with the tuner and I haven’t talked to Gene for a couple of months, so I don’t know if he’s had any success or not either.

I did have a conversation with Bill Myers on an unrelated matter shortly after I got it and we both thought it would take a lot more weight than 4 oz to be effective. I was pretty sure this would be the case before I bought it but I saw so many interesting possibilities with it that it didn’t matter to me if the tuner worked or not.

After I shoot it some more with greater weights, I may modify it like Joe Fredrichs did or mount it in a rail gun for some comparison testing.
 
pacecil said:
In an earlier thread I said:
It appears to me the Hopewell method simply allows you to select the best spot in one particular tuner revolution by firing a 10 shot group made up of shots at five different settings. The idea the 10 shot group with the least vertical has in it a sweet spot doesn't hold water. You may be looking at vertical caused by poi change rather than spread caused by bullet dispersion. You are simply choosing, almost at random, one revolution and firing two five shot groups at different settings, and then taking the best average as your sweet spot. You may have selected a spot within that one revolution, but no way to determine if it's the best one in all the tuner settings.

In that thread I also proposed a method that I thought might work. If you, or anyone, are interested I could go over it again. Let me know.
Click to expand...

The Hopewell method would work if 1) the tuner's effect on POI change were small compared to that on bullet dispersion, and 2) the distance between sweet spots was much greater than 100 (the range of settings for each 10 shot group). From Landy's data, it appears that condition 1 may be true, but from other's responses it seems that condition 2 does not hold. To find the global minimum of a function with multiple minima, it is necessary to sample the function at a frequency greater than that of the frequency of the local minima. In other words, if the local sweet spots are expected to be, say, 50 clicks apart, then you need to shoot groups at settings 10 or 20 clicks apart throughout the whole range of the tuner to find the one best sweet spot. Averaging the results over 100 clicks won't do it. (Cecil, I apologize if you already explained this in the other thread.)

The other problem that you (Landy) have identified is that there must be enough sample points at each setting to identify the signal from the noise. Confidence is something that can be quantified by a statistical procedure called Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). ANOVA is built into Excel and is easy to use. Basically, ANOVA can take the 'distance from center' data from the GAP program and tell you the confidence level that one group is better than another. A 'p-value' of 0.05 if often used as a threshold, which means that there is 95% confidence that the smaller group is actually better and not just the result of randomness. (It appears that the GAP software has some statistical analysis capabilities, but the website doesn't give all the details. It looks like it calculates confidence intervals, rather than ANOVA confidence levels, which are different but nonetheless useful.) Send me an email if I can help.

Cheers,
Keith
 
I'll have to admit I have never had much luck with Hopewell procedure. The only method that works for me is start at 200 or close to it. Shoot 3 rounds and then click up 10 clicks and then down 10 clicks from the start. I continue this procedure at 10 clicks up and down until I find two sweet spots. At these two sweet spots I select 5 clicks up and down until I find the best spots. Then I use 2 clicks to continue. Usually the broadest spot is the best but not always. To determine the best spot I shoot a high velocity FPS round and a low velocity FPS round. In most cases the one that has the least vertical spread is the best one.
At any time I'm not sure of a step I repeat it.

Fred K
 
Fred K

This is not a trick question, and I know it has been asked many times before, but I want your take on it.

Do you change your tuner / muzzle device setting when you change ammo lot/ FPS, or does one setting on the tuner shoot best for all lots /FPS ammo?
 
Keith23
No Mr T. I don't change the tuner with the same type of ammo say Eley. That is the nice thing about the correct sweet spot. Going from Eley to Lapua requires a click or two. Of course one would not do this during a match.
Fred K
 
Hopewell is a gentlemen from Indiana. I met him once at Livonia. He is a very nice gentlemen and gave me a copy of his method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top