Litz says no evidence for tuners

Janeau said:
Tuner work. They are in use on Olympic gun for a decade.
They are used on the most accurate guns ..Benchrest gun. Period.
The winners use tuner..so the other can yap against it..who care..when you are in the low end of scale..nobody listen to looser ways of doing things and even care less for their opinions.
Click to expand...

Some further clarity is needed. Some ISSF shooters use extension tubes with a tuner or moveable weight, but the majority don't. Watch the video posted in a previous thread.

__________________

Tuners work. They are used on rimfire BR rifles, where their effectiveness is arguably greatest. The do not, as Matthew Good once put it, turn crap into solid gold. If anything, the Litz tuner testing showed how difficult it is to get reliable and repeatable results with a rimfire tuner.

Consider the following. When serious competitors lot test -- as do RFBR shooters and ISSF 3P shooters -- they invariably select lots that have a small ES (extreme spread). If they select a good shooting lot that has an ES of 30 fps, the maximum vertical caused by MV variation at 50 yards will be .22". That's the worse case scenario in a box of ammo. The majority of rounds in a box that has an ES of 30 fps will be much closer in MV and vertical dispersion will be even less.

Nevertheless, lots with an ES as high as 30 fps usually aren't good enough. With a better lot of match ammo with an ES of 20 fps, the maximum vertical dispersion at 50 yards will be .15". Again, that's a worse case scenario with a box of that ammo. The majority of shots in a box with an ES of 20 will be much closer in MV and vertical will again be even less.

A lot with an ES of 10 fps will experience a maximum vertical dispersion caused by MV variation of .08" or less.

How much "improvement" does a tuner have to do? On the various BR competition targets in use, a rifle with a good barrel and a well selected lot of ammo, the tuner doesn't have a great deal of room to add improvement. It does improve results for shooters who use them in the best conditions and with a good barrel and good ammo. But it doesn't cause RFBR shooters to rack up perfect scores.

To score 10's across the board in ARA, for example, requires that all shots to have an on-target ctc of .276". A 10X requires more accuracy, and this no doubt, is much more challenging. As always, even with a very good rifle, very good ammo, and a properly set tuner, it's up to the shooter to read conditions effectively.

 
Donny Fenn1 said:
About a million years ago I used to subscribe to "Accurate Shooter" magazine/newsletter. To this day I remember an article where they talked about possibly cancelling BR50 as a competition. There was no way the 22LR ammo even in match rounds of the the same lot could be considered consistent enough for benchrest in a match setting. The uproar from rimfire shooters basically came down to "we know! But it's fun" so maybe Mr. Litz blaming the tuner comes down the same thing? You can set the tuner for one box or brick of ammo but the next box or brick will not be the same?
Click to expand...

Shooters have to understand what their ammo can and what it cannot/will not do. All too often, a shooter gets a rocking 5 or 10rds group with a mid grade ammo type and calls it good... only to be disappointed the next outing, or as quickly as the next mag.

As I have said earlier, rimfire ammo SUCKS... and some lots suck more then others. Using higher grades usually offer a lower level of suck but I have yet to shoot any ammo that was suck free.

So when a shooter goes to test and tune, they have to first understand the mechanical limits of their system. They have to figure out what percentage of flyers they will get in that lot of ammo... and how big that disperses their group.

Youtube and posts might indicate that some wonder PRS rimfire rifle or building technique will group 1/2" at 100yds 'all day long' and have a 10rds group to point their finger towards.... expand that to 10X10rds and voila, not going to hold anywhere near that if you count every shot. Just look at the results from the 100yd/m challenge in this forum. All sorts of rifles using different types of good quality ammo and what are the results?

What is realistic? From all the lots of Lapua CenterX I have shot and seen fired, at 100yds, around 1" is all I would expect (and this may not happen)... and that is the average over multiple groups. yes, you should pull a box out of each brick to sample a group so you can confirm the range of dispersion. So if I did have a case, I would pull a 10rd group out of a box from each brick... voila, decent sampling and a solid understanding of what you have bought.

Given the above, I dont fuss with my tuner setting once I am in this accuracy range. More important is seeing how the ammo changes with temp.. and it will.

With lower grades of ammo, the odds of having a higher percentage of flyers goes up. That is how ammo is graded and boxed... I suspect some types will even mix production from a few machines that have shot 'close enough' into the same lot. What we see on target is more flyers with wider dispersions around a fairly decent size core group... if the larger average still allows you to hit all your targets at typical distances, then the ammo is 'good'. Otherwise, use it for practise and invest in a higher grade for competition.

This dispersion is really easy to test at longer distances... why testing at 50yds is a big waste of time unless the furthest you shoot PRS is 100yds/m. I shoot at 100yds/m as a min, quickly go to 200 and confirm at 300... yes, you can test grouping at 300yds even on a windy day. In fact, that is the best time to confirm. If a combo doesn't track in testing, how will it track in a match? Successful competitors test over the widest range of conditions to understand the good, bad and ugly of their system.. fix what they can, be aware and manage what they can't.

From my CX example above, if 6 groups were 1", 2 groups were 3/4" and 2 groups were 1 1/4", my tuner setting is correct and needs no further adjustment... pending ambient weather changes. Once you have your tuner set for one lot of a good quality ammo, future lots will not be wildly different (if it is, change lots right away).. so it is easy to maintain.

Tuners can't get rid of flyers ... and when you understand the mechanical limits of your combo, tuner settings are repeatable and consistent.

Jerry
 
Want to try a tuner for very little money?

Find a cheap pull-down or pull-out facet with the 2 piece weight that screws onto the pull-out hose. Install on your RF barrel.

Made a difference on a Cooey 75, a Winchester 750, an Army & Navy, but not on a S&L M77 or a S&L M61.

Seem to recall reading a couple of articles in in Precision Shooting about tuners that worked fairly well on long, thin barrels, but not so much on short heavy barrels.

In my mind at least, that points back to barrel harmonics, which, IIRC, was what the original manufactures said they were made to control.

My $0.02 Cdn.
 
grauhanen said:
Some further clarity is needed. Some ISSF shooters use extension tubes with a tuner or moveable weight, but the majority don't. Watch the video posted in a previous thread.

__________________

Tuners work. They are used on rimfire BR rifles, where their effectiveness is arguably greatest. The do not, as Matthew Good once put it, turn crap into solid gold. If anything, the Litz tuner testing showed how difficult it is to get reliable and repeatable results with a rimfire tuner.

Consider the following. When serious competitors lot test -- as do RFBR shooters and ISSF 3P shooters -- they invariably select lots that have a small ES (extreme spread). If they select a good shooting lot that has an ES of 30 fps, the maximum vertical caused by MV variation at 50 yards will be .22". That's the worse case scenario in a box of ammo. The majority of rounds in a box that has an ES of 30 fps will be much closer in MV and vertical dispersion will be even less.

Nevertheless, lots with an ES as high as 30 fps usually aren't good enough. With a better lot of match ammo with an ES of 20 fps, the maximum vertical dispersion at 50 yards will be .15". Again, that's a worse case scenario with a box of that ammo. The majority of shots in a box with an ES of 20 will be much closer in MV and vertical will again be even less.

A lot with an ES of 10 fps will experience a maximum vertical dispersion caused by MV variation of .08" or less.

How much "improvement" does a tuner have to do? On the various BR competition targets in use, a rifle with a good barrel and a well selected lot of ammo, the tuner doesn't have a great deal of room to add improvement. It does improve results for shooters who use them in the best conditions and with a good barrel and good ammo. But it doesn't cause RFBR shooters to rack up perfect scores.

To score 10's across the board in ARA, for example, requires that all shots to have an on-target ctc of .276". A 10X requires more accuracy, and this no doubt, is much more challenging. As always, even with a very good rifle, very good ammo, and a properly set tuner, it's up to the shooter to read conditions effectively.

Click to expand...

Grauhanen,

A tuner - be a bloop tube with weight - or any weight at the end of the barrel that is moved to reduce the barrel harmonics, only act on vertical - not on lateral at all. A weight moved along the barrel is a tuner.

Rimfire ammo is not selected by SD or ES but by group size.
Maybe a trip to Lapua testing facility will enlighten some.
https://www.lapua.com/support/rimfire-test-shooting/

As for what is used by Olympic shooters ..I know a bit..:) Nobody will show up at training or competition without one. It’s a must. Trainers will not let their shooters use gun or gear that impair their chance to get the best they can give.
Look any .22 competition videos - last 10-15 years - any - and all you see is tuners on those guns.

Jerry got it right - rimfire ammo suck - from lot to lot it vary so much, you need time and money to find whats work best for that gun.
 
Last edited:
Janeau said:
Grauhanen,

A tuner - be a bloop tube with weight - or any weight at the end of the barrel that is moved to reduce the barrel harmonics, only act on vertical - not on lateral at all. A weight moved along the barrel is a tuner.

Rimfire ammo is not selected by SD or ES but by group size.
Maybe a trip to Lapua testing facility will enlighten some.
https://www.lapua.com/support/rimfire-test-shooting/

As for what is used by Olympic shooters ..I know a bit..:) Nobody will show up at training or competition without one. It’s a must. Trainers will not let their shooters use gun or gear that impair their chance to get the best they can give.
Look any .22 competition videos - last 10-15 years - any - and all you see is tuners on those gus.

Jerry got it right - rimfire ammo suck - from lot to lot it vary so much, you need time and money to find whats work best for that gun.
Click to expand...

Janeau,

You're right that a tuner can only affect vertical dispersion. No one here, certainly not me, said anything to the contrary. As a result, it's unclear why you made the point.

It's true that few, if any, serious BR shooters -- or serious position shooters, for that matter -- use a chronograph to select ammo. The results on target are always more important and conclusive. Again, no one, certainly not me, said otherwise. And again, it's not clear why you brought up the point.

That said, no ammo that shoots very well will have a wide ES or a large SD. Invariably, ammo that shoots very well will have a small ES and SD.

You say you "know a bit" about position shooting, specifically that "Nobody will show up at training or competition without one. It’s a must. Trainers will not let their shooters use gun or gear that impair their chance to get the best they can give." (That sounds very overstated. Even those coaches who may desire that their shooters use a tuner will understand that they will not likely benefit less experienced shooters who are still learning to shoot consistently.)

In any case, it's possible you don't know as much as you think you do. Despite your claims, the fact remains that some 3P shooters use tuners, but not all of them, and certainly not a majority.

Perhaps you may not know the difference between what is a tuner and what is a barrel extension. This very issue was inconclusively discussed in a previous thread.

None of the rifles below have a tuner.







The following 3P barrel devices are available from a top shooting equipment supplier. How many are tuners?




 
Just a question and I realize the above metal devices are used to gain distance between sights for more precise aiming. If a piece of metal attaches to the barrel, does that not change the barrel harmonics? Does changing the barrel harmonics not therefore include that a harmonic barrel tuners been added wether adjustable or not? Can in fact a device added to the muzzle not perform two functions simultaneously? Ive noticed some are Carbon tubes but anything added to a barrel will change the harmonics. What was the twist in the actual barrel tested by Litz. 1in 12 or 1in 10 and why would this be used when the standard has always been 1in16. Just thinking Anschutz amongst all the most accurate rifle builders use this for 100 and in.
 
Last edited:
ANYTHING that touches the barrel, affects its harmonics... including a finger trying to hold down a forend.

Why we go to lengths to free float the barrels...

A tuner is just an easily adjustable attachment.

Jerry
 
"Extra" weight at the muzzle may affect how the rifle shoots. Some shooters report that adding or removing someething like a front aperture sight can change how the rifle shoots. At the same time, adding some weight to the muzzle may not affect how the rifle shoots.

What makes a tuner different than muzzle extension tubes, even those with added mass, is that a tuner has an adjustable, moveable weight. The ability of a tuner to adjust where its weight is with regard to the muzzle itself is what makes it potentially very useful. If the weight has no positive effect at one position, it can be adjusted to another. On the other hand, fixed weights, if they do in fact effect a change, are literally more hit and miss. The results could easily be worse.

Some shooters believe that an added extension tube such as one made of carbon fiber has an effect that's the result of its length more than its weight.

Others believe that a carbon tube added to a standard-type of tuner such as a Harrells. The tuner deals with barrel vibrations, while the tube itself is supposed to have a positive effect on gas blowout at the muzzle. A key advocate of this approach is Don Blue, a RFBR shooter and rifle builder.
See this thread, especially post #25 for the theory https://www.rimfirecentral.com/threads/don-blue-carbon-fiber-extension-tube-on-a-harrell-tuner.1168585/
 
Of course, what's sorely lacking are published results, either online or in print, of rimfire tuner testing that begins to approach scientific rigour. Litz's testing, for all its shortcomings and problems, is one of the very few studies that is available. More studies are needed.

Nevertheless, Litz's testing reinforces important implications for shooters thinking that tuners are a shortcut to improved rimfire performance. It's very likely that many shooters have used tuners but, like Litz, found few if any tangible, positive results. Unfortunately, these shooters rarely post about their failure to find real improvement. Understanably perhaps, few like to talk about failures.

At the same time, many shooters claim great success with a tuner on a modest factory rifle with only modest ammo. These shooters show a target or two with groups shot at different settings and report they've identified what works best -- all without continuing testing to show repeatability. But they never revisit their claims and report on continuing success or, more likely, the failure to find it. Meanwhile, shooters unfamiliar with tuners read these posts and think they have found an answer.
 
grauhanen said:
Of course, what's sorely lacking are published results, either online or in print, of rimfire tuner testing that begins to approach scientific rigour. Litz's testing, for all its shortcomings and problems, is one of the very few studies that is available. More studies are needed.

Nevertheless, Litz's testing reinforces important implications for shooters thinking that tuners are a shortcut to improved rimfire performance. It's very likely that many shooters have used tuners but, like Litz, found few if any tangible, positive results. Unfortunately, these shooters rarely post about their failure to find real improvement. Understanably perhaps, few like to talk about failures.

At the same time, many shooters claim great success with a tuner on a modest factory rifle with only modest ammo. These shooters show a target or two with groups shot at different settings and report they've identified what works best -- all without continuing testing to show repeatability. But they never revisit their claims and report on continuing success or, more likely, the failure to find it. Meanwhile, shooters unfamiliar with tuners read these posts and think they have found an answer.
Click to expand...

A very sound description of what I see too.
 
grauhanen said:
Of course, what's sorely lacking are published results, either online or in print, of rimfire tuner testing that begins to approach scientific rigour. Litz's testing, for all its shortcomings and problems, is one of the very few studies that is available. More studies are needed.

Nevertheless, Litz's testing reinforces important implications for shooters thinking that tuners are a shortcut to improved rimfire performance. It's very likely that many shooters have used tuners but, like Litz, found few if any tangible, positive results. Unfortunately, these shooters rarely post about their failure to find real improvement. Understanably perhaps, few like to talk about failures.

At the same time, many shooters claim great success with a tuner on a modest factory rifle with only modest ammo. These shooters show a target or two with groups shot at different settings and report they've identified what works best -- all without continuing testing to show repeatability. But they never revisit their claims and report on continuing success or, more likely, the failure to find it. Meanwhile, shooters unfamiliar with tuners read these posts and think they have found an answer.
Click to expand...

In other words, we just don't really know anything except the fact that anything that touches the barrel affects it, and therefore the shot. - dan
 
In doing more online research into this topic, I looked at Nordic Marksman website for the bloop tubes with tuners, and what caught my eye was the Guy Starik Carbon Tube barrel tuner....., and one that fits my rifle just so happens to be in stock, and in red and black (which would look very nice on my rifle!). Oh, do I want to try out this bloop tube tuner! (But I have to hold back a purchase for now due to budget limitations).

So I looked up Guy Starik's website, and watched his two videos on the tuner.
https://www.starikshooting.com/

The website describes the theory. The videos are short duration (3 to 3.5 min), and well done, informative, well worth your time to watch if you have never seen these, and especially worth your while if you are a skeptic.

He uses a proper laboratory testing facility with rifle clamp, shooting tunnel, and an electronic POI sensor and computerized group dispersion measurement system.

In video #2 linked below, he shows the tuner being used to decrease group vertical dispersion of two lots of Eley Tenex ammo that have been tested to be 30 fps muzzle velocity difference. Normally this 30 fps velocity difference would result in vertical dispersion of about 5mm at 50m, which does show on the measurement screen. On his website he posts a data example showing 0.24" vertical dispersion at 50m between rounds going 1035 and 1075.

As we all know, a 30 fps difference, round to round in a single lot of mid-grade target ammo is typical. And removing all other variables, this accounts for how difficult it can be to acheive the 1/2 inch group challenge, and how the ammo can lose you a match.

In his tests, he claims that his tuner can create "positive compensation" to improve the group's precision of rounds with a different velocity up to about 30 fps difference, thus reducing vertical dispersion.

Caveat: I am well aware that he is selling a product. As a science professional, I "believe" nothing, and I keep an open mind. I look for repeatable experimental evidence, control of variables, Type 1 and Type 2 errors, etc.

Video 1 about the tube.

Video 2 about how the tuner works, and showing his electronic testing facilities. He suggests shooting 10-shot groups using 5 rounds each of the two different known velocities, and then using the tuner to reduce the vertical dispersion. I did not hear him say that this works every time for any ammo, for any rifle, nor does it say that in text on his website. So integrity-wise, I give him credit that he is offering you a high quality equipment option, and then its up to you to determine how to use it and to see if it works for you.


Interestingly, in both videos he is also using a rubber deresonator dampener weight ("tuner") part way down his barrel. I use a Limbsaver Deresonator on some of my rifles, and I "think" they make a difference, but there is no way I can "know" without being able to test it scientifically in a proper shooting lab.
 
Juster said:
If the barrel accidentally left the factory with harmonics compensating for velocity variation right out of the box, a tuner might not help at all.
Click to expand...

Whether by accident or a product of a barrel's dimensions (length and diameter), the occurance of what appears to be positive compensation has ostensibly been documented with tuner-less barrels.

The drop curve shown below (taken from George Frost, Ammuntion Making, p. 126) was calculated in the 1930s for a Winchester 52 rifle shooting at 100 yards.



According to Frost, "Years later the same test was repeated with modern instrumentation and over a wider range of individually measured velocities. The newer
results only refined those from the earlier test; there was no basic change in the drop curve."

If this is correct across other barrels, it suggests that some barrels may shoot with less concern for round-to-round MV variation at certain distances, providing that ammo of the right MV range is used.

Of course, there may not be a way to calculate in advance at what distance this occurs, nor what ammo velocity range is required. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem out of the question that a barrel may have the correct static mass already built in to act as a tuner and show positve compensation at a certain distance with ammo of a particular MV range.
 
I wonder how long till someone figures out how to build a tuner that measures and monitors the harmonics and auto tunes if it senses a "lot change".... :)

One good thing about tuners or perhaps 2, is it gives "tweekers" something to play with and it can potentially increase a shooters confidence if it helps them "believe" their rifle and ammo are tuned and ready to win.

It's interesting that everyone seems to agree that even the best rimfire ammo is inconsistent, and then some lament the inconsistent results that tuners provide.
 
This leads to what's probably the more important question of how tuners work, how they improve the relationship between rifle/barrel and ammo.

As Biologist notes, Starik relies on the theory of "positive compensation" to explain how his and other tuners work.

Is Positive Compensation the best explanation for how tuners work? If it is, does it have any implications for non-benchrest shooters wishing to use tuners?

How Positive Compensation (PC) works.

Starik briefly explains in the first video linked above how PC works and he also does so on his product's webpage from which the following explanation is is taken.
(See https://www.starikshooting.com/starik-carbon-tube/theory/)

As a bullet speeds through the barrel it creates a whipping effect in the barrel, much like a Sinus wave form. This is minute of course, but it does mean that a faster and a lower bullet will launch from the crown of the barrel at a slightly different angle within that sinus wave form. This leads to a vertical displacement on the target. Bearing in mind that even with good ammo, the variance in speed can be as much as 30 fps – this is a big deal! Usually, the faster bullet will hit higher on the target, and a variance of 30 fps will translate to about 5mm height difference on a 50m target. Too much! Way too much. [In the video he says it's a 7mm difference. It's about 6.3mm]



[This image, which was reproduced on the Starik site, was originally from http://m.varmintal.net/a22lr.htm]

In order to compensate for the variation in velocity, we need to verify that both slow and fast bullets will exit the barrel on the upper slope of the cycle, so that slower rounds, which stay longer in the barrel, will exit it on a higher angle than faster rounds, thus compensating for the difference in velocities, and avoiding vertical dispersion. This is called “positive compensation”.



[This image, which was also reproduced on the Starik site, was originally from http://m.varmintal.net/a22lr.htm]

______________________________________


To sum up, according to positive compensation, at a given distance, when a tuner is properly set it will compensate for MV variation and cause the rounds to strike the target at the same point by avoiding velocity differences. In other words, when shooting at a certain distance a correctly set tuner causes both faster and slower rounds to strike very nearly in the same place.

If PC explains how tuners work, it means that settings work for one distance only. If a barrel/tuner is set to work at 50, it can't work at 100.

At the same time, many shooters claim that their tuners work at both 50 and 100. If they are correct, is Positive Compensation a valid explanation for how tuners work? (It's worth remembering that beyond 100 it's increasingly difficult to get reliable, repeatable testing results for ammo, let alone tuners.)

Is it possible for a .22LR tuner to alter the trajectories of rounds with different MVs so that they all have a similar POI at an infinite number of distances?
 
Best shooters in the World ..shoot with tuners..South Africa World shoot just ended..Erik Cortina is the new 2023 F Class champion by the way…

All guns that can be seen on videos- from every country participating - have tuners…that should tell some ‘nays sayer’ something.
 
If you could determine vertical vs horizontal stringing by careful measuring and using an app to do the statistics, you might be able to estimate the benefit of using positive compensation at a given range. Assuming the vertical stringing is caused by velocity variation. You may find that it is insignificant to you.
Like a lot of things, if you have to use special equipment and statistics to detect a difference then there isn't really a practical difference. Unless you are competing at a high level.
So for a lot of people, there would be no benefit, especially if you are shooting at different ranges.
 
At any time I may be corrected but as i see it . . . one rifle, one barrel with a 1 in 12 twist, one tuner and one brand of ammunition.

He certainly kept the variables to a minimum but that does not make it scientific.

The results he got is exactly what I would expect.

Off hand he should take those results to the media to see what conclusions they might draw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom