Lowey Tuner - anyone use one?

G

grauhanen

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
GunNutz
Rating - 100%
178   0   0
Location
Northeastern Ontario
A wait of seven weeks and two days since it was shipped from Australia was needed for this tuner to make it to its destination.

Lowey asked for measurements at four 10 mm intervals from the muzzle. They were .936" at the muzzle, .937, and two more at .936. The tuner measures .937" from Lowey, and it fits the barrel end like a glove.

If anyone has experience with using a Lowey tuner, any tips or suggestions on it's use would be appreciated.

 
Are you looking for a "how to put on the end of the barrel" guide? Or just general insights on finding the sweet spot? I'm at the range now with a Harrell on my XXII.
 
set the tuner at zero, shoot 2 shots
rotate the adjustment knob one full turn, take two shots and repeat until you shoot a 10 shot group

start another 10 shot group after you've fired 10 shots and repeat shooting 10 shot groups until your out of adjustment
this will narrow down where on the tuner the sweet spot is and you can go back and fine tune from there using smaller increments on the adjustment knob
 
yodave said:
set the tuner at zero, shoot 2 shots
rotate the adjustment knob one full turn, take two shots and repeat until you shoot a 10 shot group

start another 10 shot group after you've fired 10 shots and repeat shooting 10 shot groups until your out of adjustment
this will narrow down where on the tuner the sweet spot is and you can go back and fine tune from there using smaller increments on the adjustment knob
Click to expand...

Thank you. That's the kind of information I'm looking for.
 
these aren't written for your brand of tuner but the theory is still the same so make the adjustments to your scale..........

1. Set you tuner to "0" and fire two shots.
Turn tuner one complete revolution (25 clicks) and fire two shots, continue this until you reach "100".
You now have a 10 shot group, all shot at the same POA.
2. Repeat step one from "100" to "200"
3. Repeat Step one from "200" to "300".
4. Repeat Step one from "300" to "400"
5. Repeat Step one from "400" to "500".

You now have five 10-shot groups. One of the 10-shot groups will show the smallest vertical stringing.
You should have used only 50 rounds so far.
Let's say that you find that the "200" to "300" group shows the least vertical stringing.
6. Starting at "200", shoot 2 five shot groups. Shift to a different POA for each group.
7. Repeat at "225", "250", "275" and "300"
8. One of these settings will show a decrease in group size.
Example: "250" showed the smallest group.
9. Now, start at "245" and shoot a five shot group at 245, 247, 249, 251, 253 and 255.
You will locate the "sweet" spot of your rifle barrel.
10. If you have any doubts, start over at Step #6, and redo the testing.

This is also known as "The Hopewell Method"
 
Not to be cantankerous, but is there an explanation on the "science" behind the Hopewell Method? I'm interested, having just acquired a tuner myself, and am now back home after spending the morning playing with it and the Hopewell Method. From what I just experienced, it reads as "Tuning a rimfire is a blind witch hunt, and this is just a way to roll through many tuner settings without burning excessive ammunition." What's to say that the "ideal" setting isn't buried somewhere in one of the "zones" that the Hopewell Method might lead a shooter to gloss over? That's why I want to know if there is some science behind the method, otherwise... We face an arduous task of testing every single setting on the tuner (about 500 on the Harrell), then adding one weight or the other, perhaps both, and this is only for one brand and lot of ammunition :sok2 Just a click or two can turn what seems like a good setting into a poor one (or perhaps the good results leading us to more testing in this zone were merely a fluke). Vertical dispersion is the main focus to try and tune out, you may notice at some nodes that horizontal is added, a sure sign of an unstable tuning zone. The calmest conditions possible should be sought, and a chronograph is indispensable. You need to be able to call your shots, or identify an out of spec round that might contaminate your data (a tuner can only do so much with large velocity swings).

It really seems to just boil down to getting out there and burning ammo while spinning the tuner settings and taking detailed notes. Analyze results, repeat test with settings that looked good, move up/down a few clicks from this spot. There's no other way to know if you are "in tune" than to send lead downrange and observe the results... or is there?

I quite like Geoffrey Kolbe's experiment, attaching a sensor to record muzzle movement in the vertical axis and a muzzle gate to determine the exact moment the bullet left the barrel. This allowed him to graph the barrel movement as the bullet exits the muzzle, and a single shot with this apparatus told him whether or not the barrel was in tune. Further, an "ideal" tune is achieved when the muzzle is moving up at the moment of bullet exit, at a certain rate in MOA per second, specific to the distance being targeted, and muzzle velocity. Kolbe's apparatus displays this important information. It is very curios why nobody else seems to have picked up where he left off, confirmed his results, and expanded on it (chart how barrel movement is modulated through all 500 tuner settings, perhaps?). It would be great if the Lapua, RWS and Eley ammo testing centers utilized this equipment to pair their best lots to the shooter's ideal tuner setting. http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/tuning_a_barrel.htm

It's easy to get lost or overwhelmed when hunting for that "perfect" setting, maybe half the magic is knowing when to say "good enough" at a certain point? If you'd like, I can post a pic of my target showing groups shot following the Hopewell Method. I don't know enough at this point to fully and critically analyze it, but it's information and something to compare your own test results to (not in a competition sense, just how groups tighten and disperse with tuner settings).
 
RabidM4U5 said:
Not to be cantankerous, but is there an explanation on the "science" behind the Hopewell Method? I'm interested, having just acquired a tuner myself, and am now back home after spending the morning playing with it and the Hopewell Method.
Click to expand...

the explanation is pretty easy.......your changing the vibration characteristics of the barrel and at what part of the oscillation the bullet is leaving the muzzle, tuning the vibration so the muzzle is in the same spot everytime the bullet leaves, thus reducing group size and group variation
 
yodave said:
the explanation is pretty easy.......your changing the vibration characteristics of the barrel and at what part of the oscillation the bullet is leaving the muzzle, tuning the vibration so the muzzle is in the same spot everytime the bullet leaves, thus reducing group size and group variation
Click to expand...

That is the "function" of the tuner, yes. To clarify my question, is there some science to back up the Hopewell Method as leading the shooter to their ideal tuner setting? Is the absolute ideal setting indeed contained within the scale interval of the 10 shot group that had the least vertical dispersion? How is that proven? Or is it all just a shot in the dark and 9 times out of 10 the shooter gets lucky and finds a setting that is "good enough" this way? My head is spinning with the amount of ammo required to even start forming conclusions about playing with these tuners. Someone's gotta pick up on Kolbe's work, love to see the Hopewell Method graphed with the equipment Kolbe used.
 
RabidM4U5 said:
That is the "function" of the tuner, yes. To clarify my question, is there some science to back up the Hopewell Method as leading the shooter to their ideal tuner setting? Is the absolute ideal setting indeed contained within the scale interval of the 10 shot group that had the least vertical dispersion? How is that proven? Or is it all just a shot in the dark and 9 times out of 10 the shooter gets lucky and finds a setting that is "good enough" this way? My head is spinning with the amount of ammo required to even start forming conclusions about playing with these tuners. Someone's gotta pick up on Kolbe's work, love to see the Hopewell Method graphed with the equipment Kolbe used.
Click to expand...

this in fact proves to me without a doubt that you have no concept of the hopewell meathod and your chasing your own tail......reread the instructions slowly and take notes, from that point forward if it still doesn't make any sense please sell your tuner

for everyone else understands that shooting all of these 10 shot groups with the adjustments after every 2 shots understands that it is mearly to narrow down where the sweet spot in in the range of adjustment, there is about 500 possible locations to set the tuner to find the sweet spot, the hopewell method narrows those possibilities down to a far smaller range in just 50 shots, from there further testing can be done to your satisfaction depending on how fine you want to do your testing.........
 
Alright, you don't seem to understand what I'm getting at, and don't have an answer to my question. No need to get personal, so let's drop it there. It's kinda inappropriate to tell someone to sell their tuner just because they're thinking outside of the box, btw, or to pass judgement on what you "think" I have a "concept" of :)

I assure you I had no difficulties in executing the method as I was shooting today. Just thinking about the deeper meaning, 99% of shooters wouldn't, them being satisfied to find a seemingly good setting after working through the method. If you were at the range with me, you'd probably smack me upside the head saying "You finally got it shooting good, dummy, what are you worried about? Leave it alone!" :d
 
oh I get that you want it spelled out with graphs and proof from a laboratory, based on a million dollars worth of research grants, proven to be accurate by 4 teams of scientists followed by a slide show presentation showing all sorts of evidence gathering gizmos wired up to a barreled action in a zero gravity test lab along with colorful labels and calming music........but guess what......that's never going to happen based on the scientific proof and research put behind the instrumental marvel breaking work done to prove that some people just need to accept magic and voodoo for what it is and to learn to accept that some things will never be laid out in such a way that you can plagiarize a university thesis off it......I've passed on enough information on the subject to you in 3 or 4 threads now to keep you reading for a year, yet your still want to argue that it doesn't prove anything, well it does but I think the problem is you understand harmonics about as well as understand the load calculations in a 15 amp circuit given that the main feed of wire must first travel 80 feet in somewhat something that does not represent a straight line.......does it matter that the wire has to bend around a corner??? can you prove it scientifically that it doesn't??? I need a graph and a chart
 
Your tuner might work better with one of these "harmonic"as on it :p



You're so far off the mark with what you think I think I doubt this conversation is salvageable. There was really no need for you to become so curmudgeonly about it.

I'm not arguing about whether or not tuners work, they do. I'm not arguing that tuners modulate barrel harmonics, they do. I was specifically asking if the Hopewell Method scientifically indicates the scale gradient in which the ideal tune lies. Given your responses, and lack of ability to explain it, the answer would seem to be, as I suspected, no, it is just a "hunt and peck" system that has shown good odds of randomly finding potential accuracy nodes to explore. Potential nodes to explore, worth repeating. What is going on at each of those nodes? Why is one more stable than the other? You think me stupid for wanting to have a deeper understanding of this? I should just blindly accept the "voodoo" and not ask why it works the way it does?

Sorry I was excited by Kolbe's research, I think he was on to something ground breaking that would really shed some light on the mysteries of barrel tuning. Shame you are so pessimistic about any further studies being done, this is something everyone interested in rimfire accuracy should be supporting. Maybe the ammo suppliers prefer to have shooters burning bricks trying to find their ideal tune....

What gauge wire for the 15 A circuit and what voltage? I'll have your graph whipped up in no time.
 
if you've got good ammo.......and a good rifle.......you will see the results from the hopewell method almost instantly.....

things a Tuner don't do........make a okay rifle a accurate rifle.....they also don't make crappy ammo shoot any better...

you've got to start with the ammo that your rifle likes, and a lot number of that ammo that is the most accurate for your delivery system, and yes hard hold versus free recoil will affect which ammo your going to have the best results from so you need to start off with the appropriate components.

If your hoping a tuner will enable you to shoot great groups with run of the mill bulk pack ammo your sadly mistaken, unless of course your as fortunate as myself and Got Juice to have an overwhelmingly large supply of a certain Federal American Eagle ammo from roughly 10 years ago....rumors are that it may be ammo from the set up of a federal match machine.

When you see the first 5 shots get you a 3/4 inch group, the second group at 1/2 inch, 3rd group at 1/4 inch and the 4th group back out to 5/8's and the subsequent groups getting even larger you know where to concentrate your testing. Setting back on the "3" setting on your tuner you know the sweet spot is somewhere below 3 or somewhere above 4, so you can narrow your search down to this area, 3.5 may or may not the middle of this "node" it could be falling off at 3.25....

If you shoot 5 shot groups at every full revolution of the dial from 3.25 and up and what the group sizes you will see the shape of the group change and overall group size either shrink or get larger, again this narrows down the search and the amount of the scale you need to pay attention to, you may experience 2, 3 or 4 groups now that are all about the same size and dispersion, but you have it nailed down to 3 revolutions of the dial so now you can start shooting groups adjusting quarter or half turns of the tuner depending on how many groups you get that fill that "node" and thus again reduce the amount of adjustment on the scale you need to test, this is repeated until you get down to a very small search area......and then it all comes together....

Here is the issue......every barrel is different, every rifle is different and so there is no short cut or best answer for your question, interestingly the published velocity on my ammo is the mean average of 25 rounds through 4 different test rifles....so when I shoot that ammo through my rifle over a chrony I can find a difference of plus or minus 42 feet per second from that number depending on which rifle I am testing it in, yes some of my rifles shoot faster ten published speeds and some shoot slower, does it matter?? No because I only care about lot numbers when testing, velocity means nothing as it is not a key component to accuracy.......One lot number of Eley ammo may shoot particularly well in 3 rifles, yet in the forth it will not even group.....if you cannot find an ammo that will hold 1/2 inch or under at 50 meters prior to installing your tuner you will not have an ammo type that can even be tuned

From my testing of about 10 000 rounds a year in various rimfire rifles I dare say that action screw torque testing is first, foremost, and paramount before one even puts a tuner on the end of their barrel, and even before the addition of a tuner one must tune the balance point of the rifle, doesn't matter which is done first but to tune the balance point one has to draw index marks on the stock, I use green painters tape, and shoot 5 shot groups moving the rifle either forward or backwards on their front rest, most good rests have an adjustable stop for just this reason, world class benchrest shooters actually use kitchen scales to find the balance point and install weights to the stock if required....how critical is it?? well 3/4 inch farther forward on my front rest opens my groups up from and average of .2 up to well over .5
 
Tuner testing and adjustment at 100 yards.....10 shot groups shot from 0-1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4,5 and 5,6 this set the ability for me to drop back and tune between 3.5 up to 4.5, again down to 3.4-3.7 and finally into rough 3.612 for the sweet spot......my numbers might not mean much to you but I know what they are


18699764_1676659805974943_1432356806764149403_n.jpg
 
Thank you, Dave, glad we could get past that.

Here's a case study for ya, my 50 yard results running through the Hopewell Method this morning. I did the coarse testing with SK Std +, then the fine tuning with Rife Match. Yeah, I know... use one the whole time, but that's what I brought with me for 50 yards. For 100 yards I had more Center-X and Midas +. This rifle without the tuner has been very picky, SK shot like a shotgun, RWS R100, Midas and X-Act the only ones that stood out shooting under 1/2", but at 100 all fell apart except Midas. A dramatic improvement with SK seen, then exploring some of the "tune" nodes, they're not as stable as hoped. Bare rifle Midas is more consistent. Over the Chrony, ES and Std Dev #'s of all SK and Lapua that I have are very similar, the ammo isn't "bad", Avg Velocity difference between the types is really all that is of note. The bare rifle target results from a previous day are shown second.





I don't know how much further I'm going with the tuner on this rifle, the tuner is meant for a different rifle that I'm still waiting on the barrel to be delivered. Just happened the unbored tuner fit the XXII perfectly so why not play with it... :)

So for Glenn, the cherry picking target in jaia's google drive is a good one to use for tuner testing, a lot of data can fit on one page. Does your Lowey have the ability to accept extra weights? I think I should add some to mine next time I try it, and since I was considering getting a Lowey as well, if it can't take extra weight I may change my mind about it.
 
Okay, I see multiple issues..........

multiple types of ammo.......everyone is going to need to be tested separate and a 3 ring binder of info kept for each
Distance......you may have to tune each ammo to the distance you want to shoot, and each distance may be it's own number on the dial
cross contamination........if your not cleaning good between ammo swaps then fouling the barrel with 5-10 shots before shooting groups I would say any and all information that you have gathered thus far may be of no use, some bullet lubes work good together and others do not

Why do I tune with a clean barrel?? because I know how to get back to clean, I do not know how to get to the fouling of 732 rounds fired without shooting 731 foulers first.....how do I know when to clean??......you'll see the groups open up....could shoot like a hot damn, you stop for a drink and a bathroom break.....and BAM.......rifle don't shoot so good no more.......
 
There's a good deal of helpful information here and I appreciate the insights. Fortunately, I'm going to be able to be patient with getting to know my tuners. (I have a new and never tried Harrell as well.) I will have all summer and fall if necessary to figure them out. There doesn't appear to be any "shortcuts" to achieving the best results.

The Lowey tuner does not have "extra" weights like the Harrell tuner, which has optional weights that can add up to something that seems very heavy. It's hard to imagine using all the extra weights that are with the optional weight set, but I guess I'll find out. I don't think the Starik tuner available for Anschutz rifles from Nordic Marksman has extra weights, either.

Thanks, Rabid, for the suggestion about the cherry picking target. I have it as a pdf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom