Litz says no evidence for tuners

Janeau said:
Look who is shooting with a tuner these days ? Brian Litz..it’s on youtube…only fool don’t change their mind…
View attachment 668824

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0RC17Dbtws
Click to expand...

The image shown not doesn't appear in the youtube video linked above. If you actually heard tuners discussed in the video in question, please let us know where in the video it was.

Meanwhile, of more interest is the "tuner" you see on the end of the muzzle of the rifle allegedly being used by Bryan Litz. If you are able, please tell readers more about this "tuner".

To help readers, a larger image of the rifle and its muzzle is shown below.




Whatever it is at the muzzle, it may not be a tuner or anything adjustable.

It's reminiscent of some sporter class BR rifles that are made for competitions in which a tuner is not allowed. Some shooters/rifle builders overcome that by building in a "fixed" type of tuner, which is nothing more that a static weight, the mass of which is carefully estimated to be helpful. Of course, it's possible it's not related to a tuner at all.

Note that none of the rifles below has a tuner.






 
dan belisle said:
Machining a bell end on the barrel would change it's harmonics compared to a straight profile, and therefore perform somewhat the same function as a tuner, without the adjustability, would it not? - dan
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. That's the essential idea. A tuner set at the setting that produces optimal results is itself a static weight at a certain distance past the muzzle.

The trick always is to find how additional weight somewhere on the barrel will affect performance. For example, some BR shooters use "mid-barrel tuners" which are weights positioned on the barrel mid-way between the breech end and muzzle. Like a tuner located at the muzzle, the mid-barrel tuner is not a shortcut to improved results.

Below are two rifles with mid-barrel tuners. Shooters may use a mid-barrel tuner with or without a muzzle tuner.





Below, an example of mid-barrel tuner sold for .22LR BR, followed by a Limbsaver-type of barrel resonator, which is popular among casual shooters looking for performance changes but undoubtedly less common among serious BR shooters. The last picture is that of a mid-barrel weight made for Anschutz rifles with a 22mm barrel (it will fit any Walther, FWB, or other rifle with a similar barrel diameter).

Some very serious BR shooters say that a mid-barrel tuner can help some rifles. The key, as always, is reliable, reproducible testing results to confirm mid-barrel tuner position with respect to effectiveness.





 
Janeau said:
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.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong I think Erik Cortina is down in the World Championship standings at the moment. He won the South African Nationals last week .
The leader boards for the World's are in the competitive long range shooting forum .
Cat
 
Last edited:
Biologist said:
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 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.
Click to expand...

I looked at those but both the short and the long carbon tubes are designed to allow the installation of a second front sight, something that I have zero need of and even less desire for. My Anschutz 64 is already plenty long enough and I have no wish to add the hassle of trying to handle a barrel that's that much longer with a presumably somewhat fragile carbon tube at the end.
 
Big Bad said:
I looked at those but both the short and the long carbon tubes are designed to allow the installation of a second front sight, something that I have zero need of and even less desire for. My Anschutz 64 is already plenty long enough and I have no wish to add the hassle of trying to handle a barrel that's that much longer with a presumably somewhat fragile carbon tube at the end.
Click to expand...

It's true that few if any shooters have need for a second front sight when one is what's needed. The Starik carbon tube extension does two things. One is to provide an extension on which to put the original front sight (not a second one). The longer sight radius is helpful to shooters using a front sight. That purpose is not relevant when using a scope.

The second purpose of the carbon tube is to meet precise length requirements. Starik tuner tubes are designed to work using the PRX theory (the Purdy Prescription -- "PRX" -- developed by Tony Purdy), which asserts that it's possible to calculate correct tuner settings based on barrel length and harmonics.

The Starik tuner is especially for 3P and prone shooters, not so much for casual, BR, or any other .22LR shooters. As a result, any concerns about the fragility of the carbon tube are not relevant.
 
Grantmac said:
The carbon tube also removes for transport and storage. That's why there is an indexing fixture which stays on the barrel.
Click to expand...

To be clear, Starik tuner's carbon tube itself is not removable. The tube is attached to the tuner. Of course, the entire tuner tube device can be easily removed and returned to place by means of the indexing collar.

 
dan belisle said:
Machining a bell end on the barrel would change it's harmonics compared to a straight profile, and therefore perform somewhat the same function as a tuner, without the adjustability, would it not? - dan
Click to expand...

What's important to note in the pics above your post, is that the muzzle is back bored several inches into the bell. Bill Calfee's thoughts on muzzle devices is that a certain amount of weight extended a certain distance beyond the muzzle is required to place hmmm how to term... the "flex node" for barrel oscillations right at the muzzle. Imagine a fishing pole, give it a whip, you'll see the "node" some inches back from the tip of the pole, that's like a bare barrel firearm (exaggerated, but the demonstrable forces at work observable). The goal is to "trick" the barrel into thinking it is longer than it is, moving the node from behind the muzzle to exactly at the muzzle.





My other photo hosting site is acting up at the moment, maybe I'll revisit later and try to find a target demonstrating what I look for in testing a tuner.
 
RabidM4U5 said:
What's important to note in the pics above your post, is that the muzzle is back bored several inches into the bell. Bill Calfee's thoughts on muzzle devices is that a certain amount of weight extended a certain distance beyond the muzzle is required to place hmmm how to term... the "flex node" for barrel oscillations right at the muzzle. Imagine a fishing pole, give it a whip, you'll see the "node" some inches back from the tip of the pole, that's like a bare barrel firearm (exaggerated, but the demonstrable forces at work observable). The goal is to "trick" the barrel into thinking it is longer than it is, moving the node from behind the muzzle to exactly at the muzzle.





My other photo hosting site is acting up at the moment, maybe I'll revisit later and try to find a target demonstrating what I look for in testing a tuner.
Click to expand...

So, whether you are modifying barrel harmonics through barrel shape and machining, or using a variable device, the idea is the same. As stated earlier, the problem is consistency in those modifications for the purpose of achieving smaller, more repeatable groups. And we aren't there yet. - dan
 
dan belisle said:
So, whether you are modifying barrel harmonics through barrel shape and machining, or using a variable device, the idea is the same. As stated earlier, the problem is consistency in those modifications for the purpose of achieving smaller, more repeatable groups. And we aren't there yet. - dan
Click to expand...

Until the ammo is itself consistent and repeatable, shooters are going to chase their tails hoping a machine can solve the problem

I don't see the ammo getting any better

I think the next evolution will not involve rimfire ammo.

Jerry
 
dan belisle said:
So, whether you are modifying barrel harmonics through barrel shape and machining, or using a variable device, the idea is the same. As stated earlier, the problem is consistency in those modifications for the purpose of achieving smaller, more repeatable groups. And we aren't there yet. - dan
Click to expand...

As Jerry says in the previous post, ammo is not likely to change for the better anytime soon. The thing is that ammo is as good now as it's ever been. Tuners work their stuff on good ammo. They can't change inconsistent ammo into something else.

First, if you want to use a tuner, start with very good ammo. There's no alternative.

Second, it's also necessary to use an appropriate barrel that's also very good. If a barrel is too short and bull contoured, it won't respond well to a tuner. The best candidates include barrels that are about 24" - 26" in length and about .850 - .900" in diameter. A tuner can't do its stuff on a barrel that itself can't shoot consistently well.

Finally, set up the rifle so that it is able to shoot under as consistent conditions as possible for every shot. This means being set up on as stable a bench as possible and on a stable rest. The rifle must be positioned the same way from shot-to-shot. When rimfire BR shooters seek thee greatest shot-to-shot consistency, they use free recoil technique. This removes the shooter from adding or contributing to inconstent hold.
 
In my personal testing I have found no consistent preference that stands up over time. We may find something that shows a slight improvement on the day of testing but hours later the results are again mixed. The next day mixed further still.

Having said all that I luv my tuna can because it significantly improves the balance of my rifle for PRS.

I have no reason to believe a tuner will hurt you, but in may help even if only to improve your confidence.
 
There’s a guy on YouTube running all sorts of tests to get to the bottom of this from a purely scientific perspective. Honestly, mind boggling. Glad there’s other people in this world willing to go the distance. I can’t fathom trying to do any of what he is attempting.

YouTube Handle: Tuner Plinker
 
rubberdonuts said:
There’s a guy on YouTube running all sorts of tests to get to the bottom of this from a purely scientific perspective. Honestly, mind boggling. Glad there’s other people in this world willing to go the distance. I can’t fathom trying to do any of what he is attempting.

YouTube Handle: Tuner Plinker
Click to expand...

He taps the barrel and uses a frequency analyser app to find the loudest harmonic, and adds shaft collars to shift the frequency depending on the velocity of the ammo. Not sure what the equation for the frequency is. But I suppose that ought to work, and you can do that in your living room.
 
Juster said:
He taps the barrel and uses a frequency analyser app to find the loudest harmonic, and adds shaft collars to shift the frequency depending on the velocity of the ammo. Not sure what the equation for the frequency is. But I suppose that ought to work, and you can do that in your living room.
Click to expand...

Check his latest videos shooting live ammo. Has more connections on that barrel than a body on life support.
 
Last edited:
grauhanen said:
To be clear, Starik tuner's carbon tube itself is not removable. The tube is attached to the tuner. Of course, the entire tuner tube device can be easily removed and returned to place by means of the indexing collar.

Click to expand...

And that on-off feature allows for completely reproducible results? Strikes me that in its own way it would be like dismounting and remounting a scope it and expecting it to remain absolutely on zero.
 
I have considered trying a tuner, but up until now, felt I need to "level up" any other varriables such as bedding, floating and ammo.

Presently, the most accurate .22 I have is an old Brno Mod 4; so why is it so accurate? It has a super premium trigger, the action is steel pillar bedded, the barrel (while I never measured it) is straight, and about an inch in diameter, and it has a "tuning" screw which applies spriing tension to the barrel at the front of the fore-end. All these features are from the factory way back in 1956.

Does the tuning screw have any effect on grouping?

Yes it does. Loosened, which allows the barrel to free-float, opens up the groups to an inch or better at 50 yards, as it is tightened bit by bit, the groups tighten up, and about one turn before bottoming out, one ragged hole at 50 yards. This is with basic CCI STD Vel ammo.

My friend with an Anschutz built rifle also has a "tuning screw" and has observed a similar effect.

So, while I believe a tuner could certainly have an effect, it could also certainly have a negative effect.

Mixed results with tuners day to day I think can be put down to normal, as who here has not shot tighter groups one day vs another with any given rifle?

View attachment 670826
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom