Litz says no evidence for tuners

[grauhanen]

This post is by way of an introduction to the topic. When someone of Bryan Litz's stature does testing on something like rimfire barrel tuners, it's worth taking a look. There's not much published about it that originates with professional ballisticians or similar "experts". My own opinions are not expressed in this post. I'm just sharing information.

In the fall or early winter of 2022, Bryan Litz published his latest book, Modern Advancements In Long Range Shoooting, Volume III, published by Applied Ballistics LLC, 2022. It has a full chapter called "Barrel Tuner Testing".

What does Litz say? The "article" below is not real, but the contents convey the essential findings of Litz's rimfire tuner testing. The words attributed to Bryan Litz are in fact his own.



As noted above, Litz's words in the "article" come from the "tuner chapter" in the new book. The chapter is from pages 57 to 108 and includes discussion and analysis of barrel tuner testing on rimfire and centerfire rifles. The focus here is on the rimfire tuner testing.

What did Litz do and how did he test?

The Litz Applied Ballistics team tested a CZ 457 that has a Bartlein 1:12" twist barrel and a match chamber. The tuner was an ATS Hunting/Competition tuner.

Below, from page 60, are the details on the equipment used.



The following is a brief description of the testing.

To establish a control baseline, the rifle was first tested without the tuner. Testing with the tuner was done systematically, with a sweep of groups shot at "course" settings of 1/2 a tuner turn. The "best" and "worst" results were identified and retested. Repeated testing showed that the "best" and "worst" tuner settings did not continue to be the "best" and "worst". In fact, in some testing, the setting that produced the worst group in the intitial sweep ended up producing a better group than produced by the best setting in that initial sweep.

No doubt these kinds of results were frustrating for the testing team. They discussed the matter with the tuner manufacturer who thought the testing with settings of 1/2 a turn were too course to find an optimal setting. The team followed the advice to test at smaller increments, a "fine" sweep through the tuner settings.

Prior to the fine sweep testing, a new control baseline set of groups was shot without the tuner. This time the control baseline had better results than were intitially achieved. This was thought to be possibly due to the shooter "had refined some elements of how the gun was being shot" but in the end the reason was undetermined.

The fine sweep testing at smaller increments produced similar results as the course sweep testing. In other words, initial tuner settings that produced good or bad results could not be repeated with further testing.

Regarding Litz's conclusions about the rimfire barrel tuner testing, below are the salient points from page 72.



To summarize, Litz's team shot some 800 rounds through what should be a good rifle. They did not find any tuner setting that made a difference to the precision of the rifle. Regardless of setting, they found no evidence that the tuner made a difference. The testing results with the tuner remained impossible to repeat. Intitial testing that produced good results at certain settings didn't produce good results later. Similarly, settings that were supposed to be "bad" could later produce very good results. In short, there were no tuner results that were reliably repeatable.

In the second post in this thread, some questions arising from the Litz information are posed. Please keep in mind that the Litz information is Litz's information. I'm not saying yet what I make of the Litz testing. I apologize if I've made errors above.

 

[grauhanen]

Some questions raised by the Litz information are included below.

If tuners do work, and I believe they do, why didn't Litz find evidence to support it?

If Litz's rimfire tuner testing has shortcomings, what are they? How would they affect his findings?

What can the answers to questions like those above mean for the many shooters, including some who read these pages, who are thinking about getting a tuner or may have one?

What does this mean for those who have experienced frustration with tuners and are not sure that things are working as they should?

Further questions will undoubtedly come up.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

I think the answer can be found in statistics and probability math .... which I am terrible at and gives me a headache. The Winning in the Wind guy did a video looking at the statistics of group measurements and found that in order to show a statistically relevant difference in accuracy, one would have to fire hundreds (yes hundredsss) of rounds into a group.

Basically we are fooling ourselves thinking that. 5-round group size gives us any relevant information on the accuracy of that load or combination.

IF the above is true then it would be impossible to use small groups to determine the efficacy of a barrel tuner.

 

[Biologist]

Without reading the study myself, and just going with the info presented, I have many questions about was this even a valid scientific test? I stand to be corrected on what follows, as I am taking this at face value of the information presented.

The information states that the shooting was done in the prone position with a bipod and rear bag. This opens up a can of worms for a plethora of un-controlled variables that destroys the test's validity.

The only way to test for the effects of a tuner is to clamp the rifle into the rigs like Lapua and Eley use in their test tunnel labs, in order to eliminate the shooter's muscle and skeletal variability. There should be no human holding the rifle, no bipod, no rear bag.

There is still scientific debate on whether or not a solid clamped rimfire barreled action, as is done in the test labs, creates unnatural harmonics that otherwise would not happen when the rifle is allowed to free recoil, or have energy absorbed by the shooter's body. I am sure they have thought of this and have equipment that lets the test rifle recoil on a slide of some sort, in order to test if this is an issue. In centerfire of course, the rail gun guys have this recoil function well engineered to deal with this very issue of nullifying nasty feedback harmonics. The human body and friction on sandbags also helps to absorb energy and reduce the feedback harmonics when the rifle mass "wants" to move backwards. But a human body cannot possibly be consistent in this controlled free recoil.

From the reading and equipment list, they were attempting to simulate the true competition situation that rimfire PRS shooters would be doing, which is great, and useful, don't get me wrong. However that methodology introduces all kinds of user interactions for opening up groups and affecting score on bullseye targets that cannot possibly be held consistent.

My hypothesis: Simulating real rimfire PRS situations is not the way to control variables in order to test if barrel tuners make a difference.

MDT chassis: These have notoriously bad buttstock keels, or total lack thereof, for tracking in a proper bench rest rabbit ear bag. MDT's accessory bag rider is the wrong shape for tracking inside a proper eared BR rear bag. The MDT chassis itself is superb, but its buttstock is not made properly for true bench rest precision IMO. Its made for PRS where a large surface area is made to sit in a squeezed rear bag or other surface.

Benchrest buttstock keels are trapezoidal in shape with a flat bottom, designed by the user, and the width of these are matched to the sewn width of the base of the custom rear bag rabbit ear bag (see below for more on rear bags). Bench rest shooters specify the sewn width when ordering custom rear bags to fit their rifle's specific buttstock keel so that it will track backwards perfectly straight.

Bipod: No high precision/high accuracy tests can be done with a bipod to test a tuner, or other rifle and ammo components. A bipod is a handicap specified by the rules on purpose to simulate a field shooting equipment condition where shooters would not be lugging around heavy steel/iron mechanical front rests. Benchrest rifle forearms have a flat (or bi-railed) 3 inch forearm base (or wider when rules allow) to resist torque, provide free recoil on flat sandbags on mechanical BR rests. These VERY heavy front BR mechanical rests have squeezer sides for the forearm for this solid support and recoil tracking straight back. If a bipod shoots better precision and accuracy than a heavy mechanical front rest, then benchrest and F-open shooters would use it. Bipods are used in competition as an applied restriction in gear where a heavy mechanical front rest is not allowed by the rules (or its impractical such as in PRS barricade shooting), meaning that the shooter requires considerable skill using the bipod to compensate for the advantages of the heavy mechanical front BR rest.

Rear bag: The AG Schmedium plus the bipod indicates that shooters were holding the rifle with muscles and skeleton, squeezing the rear bag to adjust for elevation and windage, and this cannot possibly be as accurate or precise as a clamped in barreled action in a tunnel testing facility, and as mentioned above, it will not provide equivalent accuracy and precision of heavy BR mechanical rest support equipment where geared wheels, rods or joysticks are used for fine elevation and windage adjustments, fully supporting the rifle, and the shooter may only be touching the trigger.

12 oz trigger: Rimfire open benchrest shooters use triggers down to 1 to 2 oz for a reason: less shooter induced error. But by the rules they are single loading at the bench, NOT feeding from a magazine, and not moving. Rimfire PRS shooters use magazine fed rounds and are moving with a loaded rifle and manipulating it on barricades in a variety of shooting positions, and under stress of the clock. Therefore of course the trigger must be a heavier pull for obvious safety reasons. The 12 oz trigger, while excellent and safe for rimfire PRS purposes, will induce some inaccuracy and loss of precision from the shooter's movements, especially when under duress of difficult physical positions and time limits. The info above stated that the shooting position was prone using bipod and rear bag, which is good for simulating the most stable position a rimfire PRS shooter would be in, but it does not allow for control of all variables - very good, but not sufficient.

I don't mean for this to be a rant, and as stated above, I stand to be corrected if I am missing something from their testing methodology.

In a related topic, I am continually disappointed in seeing all the great videos on YT that purport to be testing ammo, or tuners, or other gear, and yet they are shooting outside in windy conditions, with not fully supported rifles, with rifles starting from a clean condition and being progressively fouled (which can affect POI and group size as the internal chemistry of the bore gunk changes), where their muscles are inconsistently moving to control the rifle - these tests of specific equipment are all mostly bogus. Great intent, great entertainment, but these are not scientific tests.

Videos of testing rimfire gear in laboratory shooting tunnels is incredibly boring to watch. I get it. But it has to be done in a lab if you want to test specific devices like tuners.

And....the ammo was SK LR Match, which is going to have some crazy random fliers, guaranteed. And how many lots of this ammo did they test, to reduce or eliminate lot to lot inconsistencies?

BTW, I am a big fan of Brian Litz. I have not read his books, but I catch as many YT videos as I can of him taking about stuff. I have learned a huge amount from him from his online presentations.

 

[Juster]

It is possible that all tuners are the same, but also that some way work, some not. Litz makes no claim about all tuners, just one tuner on one barrel.

 

[emerson]

Without reading the study myself, and just going with the info presented, I have many questions about was this even a valid scientific test? I stand to be corrected on what follows, as I am taking this at face value of the information presented.

The information states that the shooting was done in the prone position with a bipod and rear bag. This opens up a can of worms for a plethora of un-controlled variables that destroys the test's validity.

The only way to test for the effects of a tuner is to clamp the rifle into the rigs like Lapua and Eley use in their test tunnel labs, in order to eliminate the shooter's muscle and skeletal variability. There should be no human holding the rifle, no bipod, no rear bag.

There is still scientific debate on whether or not a solid clamped rimfire barreled action, as is done in the test labs, creates unnatural harmonics that otherwise would not happen when the rifle is allowed to free recoil, or have energy absorbed by the shooter's body. I am sure they have thought of this and have equipment that lets the test rifle recoil on a slide of some sort, in order to test if this is an issue. In centerfire of course, the rail gun guys have this recoil function well engineered to deal with this very issue of nullifying nasty feedback harmonics. The human body and friction on sandbags also helps to absorb energy and reduce the feedback harmonics when the rifle mass "wants" to move backwards. But a human body cannot possibly be consistent in this controlled free recoil.

From the reading and equipment list, they were attempting to simulate the true competition situation that rimfire PRS shooters would be doing, which is great, and useful, don't get me wrong. However that methodology introduces all kinds of user interactions for opening up groups and affecting score on bullseye targets that cannot possibly be held consistent.

My hypothesis: Simulating real rimfire PRS situations is not the way to control variables in order to test if barrel tuners make a difference.

MDT chassis: These have notoriously bad buttstock keels, or total lack thereof, for tracking in a proper bench rest rabbit ear bag. MDT's accessory bag rider is the wrong shape for tracking inside a proper eared BR rear bag. The MDT chassis itself is superb, but its buttstock is not made properly for true bench rest precision IMO. Its made for PRS where a large surface area is made to sit in a squeezed rear bag or other surface.

Benchrest buttstock keels are trapezoidal in shape with a flat bottom, designed by the user, and the width of these are matched to the sewn width of the base of the custom rear bag rabbit ear bag (see below for more on rear bags). Bench rest shooters specify the sewn width when ordering custom rear bags to fit their rifle's specific buttstock keel so that it will track backwards perfectly straight.

Bipod: No high precision/high accuracy tests can be done with a bipod to test a tuner, or other rifle and ammo components. A bipod is a handicap specified by the rules on purpose to simulate a field shooting equipment condition where shooters would not be lugging around heavy steel/iron mechanical front rests. Benchrest rifle forearms have a flat (or bi-railed) 3 inch forearm base (or wider when rules allow) to resist torque, provide free recoil on flat sandbags on mechanical BR rests. These VERY heavy front BR mechanical rests have squeezer sides for the forearm for this solid support and recoil tracking straight back. If a bipod shoots better precision and accuracy than a heavy mechanical front rest, then benchrest and F-open shooters would use it. Bipods are used in competition as an applied restriction in gear where a heavy mechanical front rest is not allowed by the rules (or its impractical such as in PRS barricade shooting), meaning that the shooter requires considerable skill using the bipod to compensate for the advantages of the heavy mechanical front BR rest.

Rear bag: The AG Schmedium plus the bipod indicates that shooters were holding the rifle with muscles and skeleton, squeezing the rear bag to adjust for elevation and windage, and this cannot possibly be as accurate or precise as a clamped in barreled action in a tunnel testing facility, and as mentioned above, it will not provide equivalent accuracy and precision of heavy BR mechanical rest support equipment where geared wheels, rods or joysticks are used for fine elevation and windage adjustments, fully supporting the rifle, and the shooter may only be touching the trigger.

12 oz trigger: Rimfire open benchrest shooters use triggers down to 1 to 2 oz for a reason: less shooter induced error. But by the rules they are single loading at the bench, NOT feeding from a magazine, and not moving. Rimfire PRS shooters use magazine fed rounds and are moving with a loaded rifle and manipulating it on barricades in a variety of shooting positions, and under stress of the clock. Therefore of course the trigger must be a heavier pull for obvious safety reasons. The 12 oz trigger, while excellent and safe for rimfire PRS purposes, will induce some inaccuracy and loss of precision from the shooter's movements, especially when under duress of difficult physical positions and time limits. The info above stated that the shooting position was prone using bipod and rear bag, which is good for simulating the most stable position a rimfire PRS shooter would be in, but it does not allow for control of all variables - very good, but not sufficient.

I don't mean for this to be a rant, and as stated above, I stand to be corrected if I am missing something from their testing methodology.

In a related topic, I am continually disappointed in seeing all the great videos on YT that purport to be testing ammo, or tuners, or other gear, and yet they are shooting outside in windy conditions, with not fully supported rifles, with rifles starting from a clean condition and being progressively fouled (which can affect POI and group size as the internal chemistry of the bore gunk changes), where their muscles are inconsistently moving to control the rifle - these tests of specific equipment are all mostly bogus. Great intent, great entertainment, but these are not scientific tests.

Videos of testing rimfire gear in laboratory shooting tunnels is incredibly boring to watch. I get it. But it has to be done in a lab if you want to test specific devices like tuners.

And....the ammo was SK LR Match, which is going to have some crazy random fliers, guaranteed. And how many lots of this ammo did they test, to reduce or eliminate lot to lot inconsistencies?

BTW, I am a big fan of Brian Litz. I have not read his books, but I catch as many YT videos as I can of him taking about stuff. I have learned a huge amount from him from his online presentations.

I concur about SKLRM being too inconsistent to use for testing such a thing.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

It is possible that all tuners are the same, but also that some way work, some not. Litz makes no claim about all tuners, just one tuner on one barrel.

They all work on the same basic principle. If one doesn't work then the rest won't either ... because the physics are the same.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

Without reading the study myself, and just going with the info presented, I have many questions about was this even a valid scientific test? I stand to be corrected on what follows, as I am taking this at face value of the information presented.

The information states that the shooting was done in the prone position with a bipod and rear bag. This opens up a can of worms for a plethora of un-controlled variables that destroys the test's validity.

The only way to test for the effects of a tuner is to clamp the rifle into the rigs like Lapua and Eley use in their test tunnel labs, in order to eliminate the shooter's muscle and skeletal variability. There should be no human holding the rifle, no bipod, no rear bag..

Who decides what is "valid science?" How is a scientific test validated?

If a device is incapable of producing a difference under real world usage conditions, then it doesn't work. If the thing can only show a difference under conditions no user would ever employ then what is its worth? If the thing only shows a difference when fixed down in a manner that no user would ever employ, is that even a valid test? The fixturing itself becomes problematic and likely influences the results.

This is kind of like testing the aerodynamics of a minivan, when strapped to a 500 mph rocket sled. Who cares if the results are scientific or statistically relevant, the minivan will NEVER go that fast in the real world, thus the results are invalid.

With respect to the ammo maker's test rifles. They are testing the ammo, not the rifle and most likely the reason they use a clamped down rifle is for ease of use.

 

[grauhanen]

Some preliminary observations.

The most recent post asks a good question.

Who decides what is "valid science?" How is a scientific test validated?

The vast majority of .22LR testing we read about in places including forums, articles published online or in magazines, and youtube videos are definitely not scientific, despite any protestations to the contary that might accompany them.

There is a "scientific method" that can be followed to make testing more scientific and test predictions or hypotheses. The basic elements include conditions that are as controlled as possible and that observations and results must be repeatable. When observations and results are not repeatable, the test cannot be remotely considered to be scientific in any sense of the concept. Scientific tests must be reproducible and are validated by peer review.

__________________________

The failure of the Litz team to find repeatable results suggests either the test wasn't scientific or that there were unknown (and therefore unanticipated) variables that affected the results. When baseline testing results without the tuner were conducted on two different occassions produced very different results, Litz reached the latter conclusion. While testing was repeated, results could not be. That's a failure of the scientific method used.

What were those unknown variables?

I believe the foremost unknown variable that affected the results was correctly identified above. The testing was not controlled because of one important part -- the ammo.

And....the ammo was SK LR Match, which is going to have some crazy random fliers, guaranteed. And how many lots of this ammo did they test, to reduce or eliminate lot to lot inconsistencies?

I concur about SKLRM being too inconsistent to use for testing such a thing.

SK ammo is too inconsistent to use in tuner testing, no matter the variety. It has too much variation within a lot to be a reliable ammo -- e.g. MV variation, trajectory variation for other reasons. Reliably consistent ammo is an essential control in any rimfire tuner testing. Ammo that produces inconsistent baseline control groups (groups shot without the tuner), can't be used in tuner testing. When it is, it's impossible to know whether results are due to ammo inconsistency or due to changes in tuner settings.

This has obvious implications for those testing tuners. It's impossible to get reliable results when ammo being used is not consistently consistent. It's impossible to get reliable results that are not repeatable. Shooters often post results in forums that are claimed to show how a tuner has improved the results. Just as often, these results are the product of poor ammo selection and insufficiently repeatable testing.

In short it's a fool's errand to test a tuner with inconsistent ammo and with testing that's not repeated or repeatable. Anyone looking to get a tuner and use it with effectiveness must first commit to using ammo that's selected as being consistently consistent. Using ammos such entry level grades of Eley or RWS or SK or worse will result in failure and frustration. This is what happened with the Litz rimfire tuner testing.

Other observations to follow.

 

[dan belisle]

They all work on the same basic principle. If one doesn't work then the rest won't either ... because the physics are the same.

Yes, altering barrel vibrations just doesnt work. Oh wait, anyone who has bedded a rifle or shimmed a fore end knows that it does change grouping and POI. And that is what a tuner does as well. I think I fall into the probability math camp. - dan

 

[waynewjw]

So if SK LR Match is considered inconsistent, what rimfire ammo does everyone consider consistent? I’ve used SK, RWS and achieve some excellent accuracy for precision matches, no tuner involved. I’m going to start testing an almost built T1X in an MDT Oryx chassis. Need to fit rails, scope, etc. break it in and then attach a Spearhead tuner to see what results are achieved. Will be interesting in light of the Litz conclusions.

 

[Grizzlypeg]

I've watched countless youtube videos where a rifle is tuned, using a tuner, judging by 3 shot groups. I haven't seen one yet, where the shooter then demonstrates consistent improvement of groups at the found ideal setting of the tuner. IE, the guy shoots 8 groups and finds which one is the best setting. But I've never seen where he then shoots 8 more groups at that setting and demonstrates the improvement.

 

[Jahnj0584]

Why are people so strongly FOR a tuner? Is it to cope with the fact you spent $270 for yours?

 

[I Dont Care About You]

Some preliminary observations.

The most recent post asks a good question.



The vast majority of .22LR testing we read about in places including forums, articles published online or in magazines, and youtube videos are definitely not scientific, despite any protestations to the contary that might accompany them.

There is a "scientific method" that can be followed to make testing more scientific and test predictions or hypotheses. The basic elements include conditions that are as controlled as possible and that observations and results must be repeatable. When observations and results are not repeatable, the test cannot be remotely considered to be scientific in any sense of the concept. Scientific tests must be reproducible and are validated by peer review.

Agreed and correct.

The failure of the Litz team to find repeatable results suggests either the test wasn't scientific or that there were unknown (and therefore unanticipated) variables that affected the results.

I would argue that Litz's results were repeatable ... the tuner did not make a difference. Like it or not that is a repeatable result. Its not the result anyone wanted but its a result and it was repeated. Scientific tests are not always about a viewable result. There is always the possibility of a null result, or no difference.

I believe the foremost unknown variable that affected the results was correctly identified above. The testing was not controlled because of one important part -- the ammo.

Reliably consistent ammo is an essential control in any rimfire tuner testing. Ammo that produces inconsistent baseline control groups (groups shot without the tuner), can't be used in tuner testing. When it is, it's impossible to know whether results are due to ammo inconsistency or due to changes in tuner settings.

This has obvious implications for those testing tuners. It's impossible to get reliable results when ammo being used is not consistently consistent. It's impossible to get reliable results that are not repeatable. Shooters often post results in forums that are claimed to show how a tuner has improved the results. Just as often, these results are the product of poor ammo selection and insufficiently repeatable testing.

In short it's a fool's errand to test a tuner with inconsistent ammo and with testing that's not repeated or repeatable. Anyone looking to get a tuner and use it with effectiveness must first commit to using ammo that's selected as being consistently consistent.

This brings me back to my previous assertion, that if a device only works under ultra specific conditions that a normal user won't employ, does it really work? and even if it can be shown to produce a statistically significant difference, is it even worthwhile when used under any conditions other than the ultra specific conditions needed to show that statistical difference?

At this point, we also have to consider the shooter himself. If the tuner only works with the best ammo and in the best rifle, while shot from the best mechanical rest, then the shooter becomes the weak link. Marksmanship is performed in the real world, with real atmospheric conditions that a marksman must understand and compensate for. Benchrest shooters shoot into the weather conditions in order to produce the best groups. Shooting is as much art as it is mechanics.


I'd like to state, that I am not against tuners and I don't know if they work or don't work, and honestly don't much care either way. I am simply trying to point out the things that I believe are not being considered here when it is decided that Litz is wrong and his examinations flawed. People who have never worked in science saying that Litz's tests were not scientific because they couldn't show a consistent result or even the result some may want or expect them to show.

There is a great deal of, "well everyone knows" kind of information out there, that it turns out when you actually look at it, everyone doesn't know because it is simply wrong. I like to try stuff for myself. It makes like more interesting and I learn stuff that everyone doesn't actually know.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

I've watched countless youtube videos where a rifle is tuned, using a tuner, judging by 3 shot groups. I haven't seen one yet, where the shooter then demonstrates consistent improvement of groups at the found ideal setting of the tuner. IE, the guy shoots 8 groups and finds which one is the best setting. But I've never seen where he then shoots 8 more groups at that setting and demonstrates the improvement.

This is correct. Regardless of the tuner or ammo or whatever is being tested, 3-shot and even 5-shot groups are statistically invalid. Such a small group cannot possibly show a statistically significant difference.

Many years ago a friend lent me one of those cartridge measuring tools, where you spin the thing against a dial gauge to measure runout. I spent hours sorting finished rounds into neat little piles. Then, at the range, when I had finished "testing" all my little piles of ammo to find out which one shot best, I was left with the pile of rejects. These were the worst of the worst, with the biggest runout variations. To avoid having to pull all those rounds, I decided to shoot that pile so I could see how much worse they were compared to the best groups. Surprise, surprise, the worst ammo produced groups that were exactly the same as the best groups. I gave that annoying little measurement tool back to my buddy and have never measured ammo runout since.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

Why are people so strongly FOR a tuner? Is it to cope with the fact you spent $270 for yours?

Choice-supportive bias is a very strong emotion. NOBODY wants to admit they were stupid and bought something that was a waste of money. Thus they will go to extreme logical lengths to justify their purchase.

 

[Grizzlypeg]

There is certainly good reasoning on why it would work on a centrefire rifle with a light barrel. High speed photography enables us to see the significant oscillation of a light barrel firing a powerful cartridge.

 

[Mystic Precision]

rimfire ammo is at best, irratic... and that is all the way to the highest grades you can buy. the percentage of 'outs' increases with a decrease in its grade/price... and the lot lottery. There is no way around this and no form of sorting will change this. So testing ONE barrel with ONE lot of some mid grade ammo, only proves what that combo did under the test conditions... no more, no less.

I will make this very simple - what is a tuner? A mass attached to the end of a barrel used to affect the barrel harmonics to help find a better marriage between GOOD MATCH ammo and a GOOD barrel. This mass has to be heavy enough to affect a change and be able to be moved precisely on said barrel. that's all there is to this 'tech' and it can be a very simple device.

If you don't already have a tuner and want to know if worth the investment, super easy test. Shoot 3X5rds at 100yds/m with your best ammo (hopefully, it will say Lapua, or Eley Match and higher on the box). If you have a 0.9 to 0.92 HB.. or a sporter barrel, clamp on 7 to 9oz of wheel weights using a hose clamp. If you have an MTU or truck axle, you will need a MIN of 1lb (think tuna can as a minimum and likely heavier would be better)

Was there a change in the group orientation, shape and/or size with the next 3X5rds groups? If yes, then this barrel can be affected by a tuner... if no, enjoy not needing a tuner for as long as this batch of ammo lasts.

I am sure the debates about math this and stats that will explode... but, but, but... this tool is really that simple.. it either does something with your combo, or it doesn't. If it affects the combo, then it can prove useful to marriage GOOD ammo with the GOOD barrel.



Built my own tool less tuner. Did it have an affect you would expect with a tuner - positive and negative? YEP Did it help a great lot of Lapua CX ammo work with a previously demonstrated, good shooting rifle? YEP

That is all I need to know about tuners.... and yes, I have a barrel that shows no benefit to using a tuner with my current range of ammo types and lots. But that might change down the road as my ammo changes.

It really is that simple...

Jerry

 

[I Dont Care About You]

There is certainly good reasoning on why it would work on a centrefire rifle with a light barrel. High speed photography enables us to see the significant oscillation of a light barrel firing a powerful cartridge.

Yep, and I agree, in theory, tuning the harmonics of a rifle barrel should work.

Years ago I was involved in a test on the cryogenic treatment of rifle barrels. We used three shooters, including a benchers champion and we used multiple different rifles of different calibers. The long and the short of it was that cryogenic treatment helped the most with crappy barrels, because clearly they had the most internal stresses. Good quality barrels mounted properly in a high end action and bedded properly saw much less improvement from cryogenic treatment. Cryogenics was all about reducing internal stresses in the metal, which ultimately affect the harmonics of the barrel.

I think Jerry has a valid point as well, and as an experienced shooter he is pre-conditioned to be able to realize the improvements of a tuner, where the majority of shooters are simply not.

 

[Biologist]

If you want to see how to far better control variables for rimfire shooting experiments (for scientific tests or for competition), have a look at these two videos linked below which display the gear allowed in the "Unlimited" benchrest discipline: one-piece rests. These are not allowed for limited benchrest which is what I shoot at my local club, because (a) these one-piece rests are so good, that they make it unfair for those who don't have one, and (b) they reduce the physical marksmanship skills to about zero. These one-piece rests reduce the variables to then hyper focus on the mental skills of the shooter to read the wind + flags + mirage, and the other variables are the rifle + ammo. Don't underestimate the difficulty and high skill required in the mental wind reading game. The wind reading game is almost always the deciding factor when shooter's equipment and ammo quality is equal (and your perfect score is not ruined by a bad round flier or two in the box....which usually happens with all mid-grade ammo, and sometimes with lots of top grade ammo).

Note also the design of the stocks, and how fine the fit is on the buttstock keel and the rear bag fit, or rear delrin rollers. One video shows the custom rear bag fit, one shows the rollers.

In the first video, note that the bench is concrete, and the floor is concrete. (Those who have shot BR on both concrete/concrete, and a wooden bench, on a wooden floor, or shifting gravel floor will know what this means).

In the first video, this champion shooter has a custom tuner with 7 (count'em 7) different adjustments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvEB0UtuFME

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-AYV1CB0bw

The scientific question about tuners is not if they "work" per se, because all weight added to a resonating metallic tube will affect the harmonics. Its a "known known". People who state that tuners don't work are wrong physics-wise. Tuners indeed 'work" in the scientific meaning of thermodynamics and "work". Its the effect on the resonance that is unknown until its tested, with all other variables eliminated, or if not eliminated, statistically controlled for (and the latter always has error fuzz around the data).

A weight and its position on the barrel can both dampen or increase resonance. You won't know until its tested (a known unknown). And its barrel-specific and location-specific. And the contact of the stock with the action, and the stock material will also affect resonance based on how it absorbs and dissipates energy.

The practical question for rimfire shooters is: Does the tuner specific design being tested on my rifle affect group size or score to the degree that it can be measured on target?

In order to answer this question, the Litz test as described cannot possibly test this question for tuner effects with bipods, squeeze bags, shooter error, and ammo used. So its results are null and void for the question being asked. If the tests were done outside with air movement, that also invalidates the test from the get-go. Tests must be done inside with air movement variables eliminated in order to answer the question.

In science, the formulation of the question is all-important.