What should a tuner be expected to do?

To conclude that there is a "there" there (as Karl @ Inrange TV would say), I need my tuner to show me better groups on large sample sizes on setting X than some of the other settings. Then I need to be able to move it away from X, and then back to X, and have it perform as it did the first time. Then I need it to perform as it did the first time at a later date and in different weather conditions.

If it can't do this, it's not useful.

In my testing, I do think that if I was given a 1 hour timeframe at a range with calm wind, I could find a setting X that is better than random settings and better than no tuner. But I have yet to convince myself that the other conditions I mentioned above can be met.
 
Last edited:
adamg said:
To conclude that there is a "there" there (as Karl @ Inrange TV would say), I need my tuner to show my better groups on large sample sizes on setting X than some of the other settings. Then I need to be able to move it away from X, and then back to X, and have it perform as it did the first time. Then I need it to perform as it did the first time at a later date and in different weather conditions.

If it can't do this, it's not useful.

In my testing, I do think that if I was given a 1 hour timeframe at a range with calm wind, I could find a setting X that is better than random settings and better than no tuner. But I have yet to convince myself that the other conditions I mentioned above can be met.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your research. Until I see results the way you describe, I will wait.
 
There are probably enough shooters who view this forum who could respond to a new and different thread about using tuners without success. It could be a lively and lengthy one. It wouldn't surprise experienced shooters if there were many readers who've tried tuners only to find that the results were inconclusive or non-existent. But that is another topic.

This thread is about what a tuner ought to do when it is working as it should. For example, in post #8 Toolman said that he knows his tuner works when he sees a real if subtle reduction in vertical dispersion.

partial said:
... and they are super ugly and cumbersome!
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that serious shooters aren't primarily moved by aesthetically pleasing solutions. Why do you think they are cumbersome? They are meant to be used off the bench, not for activities like hunting.
 
grauhanen said:
.... It wouldn't surprise experienced shooters if there were many readers who've tried tuners only to find that the results were inconclusive or non-existent. But that is another topic.

This thread is about what a tuner ought to do when it is working as it should. ...
Click to expand...

Agreed: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

But it can help guide inquiry to consider why a particular method failed to show significant results.
 
alpining said:
But it can help guide inquiry to consider why a particular method failed to show significant results.
Click to expand...

To simplify things with the question of what tuners ought to do, it may be more helpful to ignore methods that either failed or were inconclusive. Tuning methods is not the focus of this question.

What should a shooter see on target when the tuner is doing its job?
 
grauhanen said:
To simplify things with the question of what tuners ought to do, it may be more helpful to ignore methods that either failed or were inconclusive. Tuning methods is not the focus of this question....
Click to expand...

I agree with the last part. The "particular method" that I refer to is the particular method of testing. Not the particular method of tuning.

If you ask a question in the "wrong" way, you're never going to get a useful answer. But if it's the right question, and data was collected in a sound manner, then even inconclusive results can tell us something useful about what we're trying to measure.


Sorry, I get pedantic, but it does matter. I like the rephrasing of your question and would like to see more responses to it:

grauhanen said:
...What should a shooter see on target when the tuner is doing its job?
Click to expand...
 
This was done within the last 60 minutes.

And before anyone says anything stupid like “inconclusive because not enough rounds fired” keep in mind that my range is in my backyard and I’ve been doing this for several years now. I’ve lost count how many times.

Each time I do this I get the same result, a slight reduction in vertical.

Today’s conditions were good, warm, sunny and the wind was from my back and not much of it.

No tuner, .588” gross vertical.
IMG_0242.jpg

With tuner, .470” gross vertical.

IMG_0244.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0242.jpg
    IMG_0242.jpg
    30.2 KB · Views: 168
  • IMG_0244.jpg
    IMG_0244.jpg
    26.1 KB · Views: 170
Toolman said:
This was done within the last 60 minutes.

And before anyone says anything stupid like “inconclusive because not enough rounds fired” keep in mind that my range is in my backyard and I’ve been doing this for several years now. I’ve lost count how many times.

Each time I do this I get the same result, a slight reduction in vertical.

Today’s conditions were good, warm, sunny and the wind was from my back and not much of it.

No tuner, .588” gross vertical.
View attachment 686953

With tuner, .470” gross vertical.

View attachment 686954
Click to expand...

Thanks, Toolman. That is a good visual aid for illustrating the reduction in vertical dispersion.
 
alpining said:
I agree with the last part. The "particular method" that I refer to is the particular method of testing. Not the particular method of tuning.

If you ask a question in the "wrong" way, you're never going to get a useful answer. But if it's the right question, and data was collected in a sound manner, then even inconclusive results can tell us something useful about what we're trying to measure.


Sorry, I get pedantic, but it does matter. I like the rephrasing of your question and would like to see more responses to it:
Click to expand...

Asking questions the best way can indeed be difficult. Anyone who's spent time teaching or in classrooms can attest to that.

This thread is not concerned with methods of testing or inconclusive outcomes because they aren't the product of the tuner doing what it ought to be doing. Toolman, for example, has offered a good illustration above, and we don't need to know how he tested or anything about his inconclusive results.

Pedantry aside, this thread is concerned only with what appears on a target when the tuner is doing its job.
 
Keeping track of the number of Harrell tuners I have owned escapes me.
I do believe they all worked based on testing of ammunition without a tuner and then finding the sweet spot with the tuner.
A friend who did comprehensive test without the tuner to determine the best ammunition but when he put the tuner on it remained set at zero.
I currently only have one and that is on my Remington 40XB. Of the four or five that wore Harrel tuners, al of those rifles have been moved to new homes.
Since the setting was established it has not been off nor cleaned. Stick with what is working.
One was removed from a CZ455 Varmint . . . ONCE . . . and the results could not be duplicated before it was sold.
Like so many things in life, luck has a lot to do with what we do.
 
I'd like to see a tuner test showing a group series shot at the various settings. full in to full out or however it is described
that way the effect on a group size could be seen as it goes toward, through and past the sweet spot

would expect similar results using a Simms LimbSaver Barrel De-Resonator for $20
though the added tuner weight to the forward end may have some complementary benefits to balance
 
grauhanen said:
You're stubbornly clinging to your unrelated position.

The issue is and remains what is seen on target as a result of tuners doing its job. How the tuner gets to the point that it does the job is not relevent.
Click to expand...

in Toolmans example of with and without, it indicates nothing more than what an added weight would do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom