Litz says no evidence for tuners

[Mystic Precision]

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.

Appreciate your confidence in my skill set.... I have had the pleasure of shooting alot, over a huge range of platforms so get to see the good, bad and ugly. Reloading Centerfire for high level F class competition, teaches you alot of what affects the ammo... and by extension, rifle. Returning back to rimfire after many years away, the same issues prevail but today, shooter are more inclined to throw buckets of money at the problems, often not understanding what helps and what doesn't.

The Number1 thing rimfire shooters have to understand... their ammo, more then likely, SUCKS. With my own lot testing of mid grade types, I have seen lots where 30% flyers occured. That can be as little as 1 flyer in 1- 10rds mag, followed by a crap ton of outs in the next... or just a frustrating average of 2 to 4 outs each mag. Some lots are way better... some boxes within that lot are way worst.

Why some shooters can't repeat their results.... it may not be them nor their rifle... and why after dropping huge dollars on the 'best' rifles, their on target results don't really change all that much (100yrds to 400yds) vs less costly/fancy customs and even factory rifles costing peanuts. Rimfire ammo IS the rate limiting step.

So the holy grail of this game is to find that lot of affordable ammo that behaves ie puts bullets in a group small enough to be desireable, and then buying ALL OF IT.

OR... using a device that can help marriage GOOD ammo with a GOOD barrel.



Maybe this will help demonstrate what I mean... this is a Scorpio (Annie clone) with a tuner, shooting Lapua XACT at 100m (not 100yds at indicated on target). Conditions are near fantastic with little to no wind, no mirage. I am on a stable rest with my MPOD and rear bag... as stable as a rifle can be. High mag scope with very clear glass and a fine aiming dot.

I have circled the fliers in this very expensive ammo type (and why these 2 bricks sat around unsold for so long.. until unfortunately, I bought them).

How do I know these are flyers? Because with the same hold through out the group, the shots were landing on top of each other and then a ZINGER... no change in condition, next shot, same hold, right back into the group. And like every good flyer, there is no rhyme nor reason to where it ends up.... nor how far away from group it lands. Nor which shot the flyer will occur.

So I have a system where the CORE of the combo is around 0.8/0.9" at 100m... with outs pushing the group much larger. If you have an ammo type, where the number of flyers was much higher, the results are going to vary a ton from group to group... and random rarely repeats.

If you are going to the expense of adding a tuner, use the HIGHEST grade of ammo you can find and a couple of lots just in case... or just accept the good and bad of your current batch of ammo and do your best to mitigate the outs. Hopefully, the out still lands in a useful location on your target.

I am starting to see alot of upside to an AIR RIFLE...

Jerry

 

[dan belisle]

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.

Agree. Too many variables. - dan

 

[grauhanen]

Biologist's observations and review of the Litz rimfire tuner testing from a scientific point of view are sound. I will add to his excellent observations some of my own.

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.

It certainly has shortcomings as far as a strictly scientific test is concerned. At the same time, it's possible that the testing didn't intend to be completely scientific. It raises the question of why the Applied Ballistics team strayed from centerfire testing in general to testing rimfire. It may be that there is increasing pressure from rimfire enthusiasts with some familiarity with Litz's work to see some information from Applied Ballistics on the topic of rimfire in general and tuners in particular. After all, it may not be unfair to say PRS-style and ELR rimfire shooting has grown in popularity over the last five or six years like no other shooting sport.

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.

This is perfectly valid from a strictly scientific testing methodology point of view. In practice, however, when shooters test tuners they must test in the field where there is no vise and they must hold the rifle with some accoutrements.

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.

It's a good point that it remains unclear what influence, if any, the use of a vise may have on results. It's not known if any rifle or ammo testing facilities regularly, if ever, use a vise system that allows for any rimfire rifle recoil. Nevertheless, rigid recoilless vise or not, it is the only way to test without the possiblity of human influence or error.

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.

I agree that from a scientific testing methodology perspective simulating PRS situations (if that was attempted) is not a good approach to controlling variables. While the testing was always at 50 yards from a fixed shooting position, it nevertheless remains unclear if this would make it altogether impossible to "test if barrel tuners make a difference." On the other hand, if it did, it has important implications for PRS shooters and the use of tuners because it might mean that PRS shooting with a tuner is an ineffective use of time and resources.

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.

This observation is important.

When RFBR shooters prepare to shoot, they do so from solid, fixed benches, often made of heavy material like concrete. They use heavy front rests and rear bags, or preferably one-piece shooting rests. The rifle is set up as exactly the same on the rest from one shot to the next. When they test tuners, they repeat the set up as exactly as possible for each shot. They don't want new variables because these can compromise the effort to find the best setting.

When PRS shooters do their thing, there is much less of the shot-to-shot similarity found in RFBR shooting. There should be no doubt that this can have important implications for PRS shooters and the use of tuners.

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.

Scientific testing must always be done in controlled conditions. The difficulty for shooters is that they must test their rifles and devices like tuners in the field without the benefit of conditions that are always controlled.

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?

This is the key point. I'm very surprised that the Litz Applied Ballistics team testing the tuner on a rimfire rifle failed to understand that using inconsistent ammo could not possibly give the results that were desired. It was an exercise that was doomed to failure. It's no wonder that the Litz team found frustration and no evidence that a tuner made a real difference in the results.

Anyone from the competitive RFBR world, where rimfire tuners have been used continually and successfully for well over a decade, almost two, could have predicted the failure to find data to support the idea that tuners can make a difference.

I suspect that at least part of problem was misapprehension about the efficacy of rimfire tuners. All too often shooters with limited experience with rimfire tuners make the assumption that they make a big difference and that tuners can make significant improvements in the performance of a rifle and ammo. They don't and they can't. Without a more realistic understanding of what tuners can and can't do, disappointment is inevitable.

More on this point to come.

 

[grauhanen]

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.

That's a good and important question.

SK ammos in general, regardless of variety (i.e. LR Match or Biathlon Sport or Rifle Match or Standard Plus) are not consistent ammos. There's just too much variation in quality and performance within any variety or batch of any entry level match ammo.

Many shooters may be pleasantly surprised when they use entry level match ammos and compare the results to other inexpensive ammos. They often find that an SK ammo (or similar variety of Eley or RWS) can produce significantly better results than other inexpensive ammos. But they don't produce consistently consistent results. For example, if five or ten consecutive five-shot-groups are shot at 50 yards, the groups will not be of a consistently small size. When the group sizes vary to a significant extent, the ammo shouldn't be considered consistent.

To find consistent ammo is not simply a matter of being willing to pay more. Certainly higher priced ammo may have a better chance to produce consistent results, but there is no shortcut to consistent performance. Even more expensive ammo will vary in performance by lot. To find really consistent ammo, it's invariably necessary to lot test. Lot testing can be time consuming and costly, which explains why most casual shooters rarely do it.

At the same time, it's important to note that many average factory barrels are at least partly responsible for inconsistent results downrange.

Getting consistent results means having a good barrel and testing ammo carefully. It's not the product of buying a certain make or variety of ammo.

 

[rar]

very interesting topic.

 

[windage]

I would think there would be more barrel whip in a centerfire rifle on average compared to a rimfire rifle, therefore tuners would have more of an affect on centerfire rifles then rimfire rifles? Ruger seems to think they are worth it since their mini 14 target model has a tuner from the factory.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

I would think there would be more barrel whip in a centerfire rifle on average compared to a rimfire rifle, therefore tuners would have more of an affect on centerfire rifles then rimfire rifles? Ruger seems to think they are worth it since their mini 14 target model has a tuner from the factory.

There is a saying that, fishing lures are designed to catch fishermen, not fish.

Just because a rifle is sold by the factory with an accessory doesn't mean anything other than the factory believes that accessory will help sell the rifle and add profit.

 

[The ROC]

I am starting to see alot of upside to an AIR RIFLE...

Jerry

Noooooooooooo!!!!

Please don't lead me back into that rabbit hole. I sold off all my PCP's and tanks afew years ago but your comment just had me visit AGS website and those portable air compressors look nice.

Maybe time for a trip to their store in Peterborough is on the to do list.

 

[Big Bad]

It would be more scientific to repeat the test on several makes of rifle and under different conditions. Posting results where N=1 is not exactly what you would call a publishable result in the science world. Or what's left of it.

 

[dan belisle]

I would think there would be more barrel whip in a centerfire rifle on average compared to a rimfire rifle, therefore tuners would have more of an affect on centerfire rifles then rimfire rifles? Ruger seems to think they are worth it since their mini 14 target model has a tuner from the factory.

Winchester and Browning ran BOSS tuners for a while too. I played with them on a few rifles, they worked on those rifles. While a rimfire will vibrate less, it will still vibrate and anything that modifies those vibrations is going to affect accuracy, one way or another. We know it works, we just arent really good at controlling it. - dan

 

[Longstud]

[. We know it works, we just arent really good at controlling it. - dan[/QUOTE]

Well said and in my opinion exactly. Many different BR shooters use tuners with great results.

 

[grauhanen]

Although the focus in this thread is rimfire, as a point of interest the Litz Applied Ballistics team tested tuners on three F Class centerfire rifles as well and reported the results and findings in the book referred to above. Litz himself did the testing with one of them, his own .308 Win., firing around 575 rounds. Another 450 rounds were tested in the other two rifles. None of this testing found evidence that tuners made a difference.

The chapter summary from page 108 of Bryan Litz, Modern Advancements In Long Range Shooting, Volume III, published in 2022 by Applied Ballistics, LLC sums up the tuner testing findings.

Litz notes that over 1800 rimfire and centerfire rounds were fired across four different rifles with four different tuners. All groups were measured and all trends were statistically analyzed. Below are some of the most significant findings, which apply to both the rimfire and centerfire testing.



Litz promises to further investigate the effect of attaching static weights to the muzzle and to publish the findings in a future volume of Modern Advancements.

 

[Mystic Precision]

Noooooooooooo!!!!

Please don't lead me back into that rabbit hole. I sold off all my PCP's and tanks afew years ago but your comment just had me visit AGS website and those portable air compressors look nice.

Maybe time for a trip to their store in Peterborough is on the to do list.

After spending almost $900 to secure 2 precious bricks of unicorn tears... then it shooting like MEH, you kinda haveta accept it ain't getting any better.

FX Pantera changed the narrative (I compete in PRS).. waiting on G2 or G3 to sort out some ergonomic and packaging options.

and the likelihood of a supply problem for air.... not high. And I can tune the entire system... with a knob.

And if I really want to, I can even make my slugs.

I am tired of flyers....

Jerry

 

[Mystic Precision]

I don't run a tuner on my CF rifles... don't need to cause I reload and can tune my ammo to the barrel. Litz is well aware of this.

Putting a tuner on a barrel/ammo combo IN TUNE will have the grand effect of, at best nothing... typically, make things worst.

I am also sure he fully understands the basic physics that the tuner is premised on... and that AN AFFECT, will occur. Pos/neg affect is irrelevant.

not sure what nit he is trying to pick but such a waste of resources.

Jerry

 

[grauhanen]

Whether or not the testing Litz did can be strictly defined as "scientific" is perhaps not really all that important. It's purpose was hardly the accumulation of scientific data. The testing sought evidence for the efficacy of tuners. Do they work? Do they improve precision?

As noted in a previous post, when rimfire shooters attempt to use tuners they must do so in conditions that are probably no better than those used by the Litz team. They use them in the conditions that prevail wherever they shoot. Nevertheless, serious RFBR competitors who invariably shoot with tuners use solid and stable benches (often concrete), solid and stable heavy front rests with suitable rear bags or, perhaps better still, one-piece rests, and they set up their heavy rifles on the rest exactly the same from shot-to-shot.

Serious RFBR shooters typically use barrels that are known to shoot very well. They use ammo they have carefully selected by testing different lots of the best match ammo. It's not usual for serious BR shooters to use ammo that's not the product of lot selection.

Serious RFBR shooters don't expect magic from their tuners. They understand that tuners are incapable of causing significant improvement in the performance of rifle and ammo. They appreciate that properly set tuners will provide a degree of improvement in the performance of the rifle and ammo. When everything is set up optimally -- the bench and rest and rifle set up on them, the ammo selection, the correct tuner setting -- the results with the tuner will be somewhat better than without.

How much of a difference tuners make is not clear. But it's certainly not an amount that's so significant that it is apparent with the rimfire testing done by the Litz team. Precision improvement is certainly not achievable with inconsistent ammo, especially of the entry level grade like the SK LRM used in the Litz testing.

Rimfire shooters looking for improvement in precision with tuners may be well served by looking elsewhere. Rimfire tuners don't work magic. They work best in conditions that are as controlled as possible, the kind of shot-to-shot set up repeatability characteristic of serious rimfire benchrest shooting. And they require the use of rifles/barrels that can shoot carefully selected lots of top tier match ammo to its highest potential.

When they have those ingredients, tuners can bring about an improvement in results that is measureable by improved scores in benchrest competition. Even here the best results are from shooters who obviously know how to shoot but also how to read changing conditions and effectively apply that information from one shot to the next.

The bottom line in this post? Don't get a tuner thinking that it will be a quick or easy path to improved results. Get a tuner if you have a good rifle with a good barrel, can and will lot test for the best ammo, and have a shooting set up that's solid and repeatable for each shot. On top of that get wind flags, learn to use them effectively, or shoot when conditions are as windless and without air movement as possible.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

Although the focus in this thread is rimfire, as a point of interest the Litz Applied Ballistics team tested tuners on three F Class centerfire rifles as well and reported the results and findings in the book referred to above. Litz himself did the testing with one of them, his own .308 Win., firing around 575 rounds. Another 450 rounds were tested in the other two rifles. None of this testing found evidence that tuners made a difference.

The chapter summary from page 108 of Bryan Litz, Modern Advancements In Long Range Shooting, Volume III, published in 2022 by Applied Ballistics, LLC sums up the tuner testing findings.

Litz notes that over 1800 rimfire and centerfire rounds were fired across four different rifles with four different tuners. All groups were measured and all trends were statistically analyzed. Below are some of the most significant findings, which apply to both the rimfire and centerfire testing.



Litz promises to further investigate the effect of attaching static weights to the muzzle and to publish the findings in a future volume of Modern Advancements.

Interesting and pretty much buries the notion of spending big money on what is no better than a simple weight.

 

[Mystic Precision]

I put theory to the test... works just like any other commercial tuner I have used. Just needs to be heavy enough to have an affect. Adjust incrementally and then lock it in place.

Very simple tech

Jerry

 

[Grantmac]

After spending almost $900 to secure 2 precious bricks of unicorn tears... then it shooting like MEH, you kinda haveta accept it ain't getting any better.

FX Pantera changed the narrative (I compete in PRS).. waiting on G2 or G3 to sort out some ergonomic and packaging options.

and the likelihood of a supply problem for air.... not high. And I can tune the entire system... with a knob.

And if I really want to, I can even make my slugs.

I am tired of flyers....

Jerry

I'm on the fence about the Panthera as well. If they got the ergonomics closer to a rifle plus found a way to prevent double feeds (Air Arms and HW do) it would be a slam dunk.
There are slugs now with higher BC and faaaaar better consistency than any rimfire ammo for about half the cost of Center-X

 

[Mystic Precision]

Things I would suggest to FX:

Smaller air tanks with a QD set up... enough air for 15 to 20 shots... change the mag, change the air bottle. Put it where the AICS mag would typically go.
Allow for an adjustable buttstock
change the air plenum so you dont need such a crazy long barrel. wider is ok in what we would call the receiver... use the 'buffer' tube to hold the air.
sort out any feed issues
varying barrel twist rates (this already exists???)

Maybe in G2 or G3... but it most certainly shows a tech that solves the problems in rimfire.

top off your air tanks at lunch... shoot all day.

limit to 40gr at 1085fps or slower... no difference between bang and puff. Shoot whatever you feel on the same course of fire.

I suspect a number of the other air rifle companies will be taking heed and we might just see a burst of new designs in the coming year(s)

could be very interesting... unless rimfire ammo makers put some serious effort in actually making better match ammo... at competitive pricing. Costs per slug could come down if volume surged and it was made locally.

And making your own slugs is definitely not out of the question.

Jerry

 

[SigWig]

22lr has a lower vibration frequency then center fire causing a higher amplitude. If that does make sense then I'll argue to you, the bullet is in the barrel longer (going slower) causing more effect.

Wtf is Jefferson to straighten you guys out?

Cheers Saturday night eh!