Tuna can

Dave64

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
26   0   1
Location
BC
Tuna Can tuners anyone have one or tried one tough web page to maneuver couldn’t get details or thaaaat could totally be me!
Available from any dealers? Thank you in advance!
Cheers!
PS. Paul from Reddknobb did get back to me super guy mans bin too busy to dial his web page drop him a email all product sold is purchasing more material if you want one GET ON LIST!
product looks awesome.
 
Last edited:
The Tuna Can* rimfire barrel tuner and other goodies are available from Paul Barrette at ReddNobb. If you would like one, send him an email for pricing and availability.

They are customizable to some extent and available in different Cerakote colours. They are proving quite popular with CRPS and PRS Rimfire shooters.

K5YZk88.jpg


Here's an in depth look


*Does not contain tuna. Is not a can.
 
Last edited:
The Tuna Can* rimfire tuner and other goodies are available from Paul Barrette at ReddNobb. If you would like one, send him an email for pricing and availability.

They are customizable to some extent and available in different Cerakote colours. They are proving quite popular with CRPS and PRS Rimfire shooters.
Holy hell man that looks good! I’m on the list!
K5YZk88.jpg


Here's an in depth look


*Does not contain tuna. Is not a can.
Holy hell man that looks good! I’m on the list
Good video Johnny Boom!
 
Last edited:
What's his price?


Tuna Can tuners anyone have one or tried one tough web page to maneuver couldn’t get details or thaaaat could totally be me!
Available from any dealers? Thank you in advance!
Cheers!
PS. Paul from Reddknobb did get back to me super guy mans bin too busy to dial his web page drop him a email all product sold is purchasing more material if you want one GET ON LIST!
product looks awesome.
 
The video can make a very positive impression on shooters looking to improve their results, especially at longer ranges. It promises better results with good ammo and better results even with ammo that doesn't group well.

According to Yannick (the guy in the video) from Canadian Precision Shooting, the tuner was tested with eight to ten different types of ammo and altogether some 500 rounds were tested in two different rifles, a CZ 455 and a Ruger Precision.

Yannick says the tuner doesn't change the ammo's muzzle velocity (MV) or extreme spread (ES). What the tuner does is improve the results of ammo that has good ES and SD (standard deviation), even if that ammo doesn't group well. The best results with the tuner come with ammo that already groups well without the tuner.

The video says the tuner is easily adjusted to the best setting by shooting five or ten shot groups at 50 yards and then identifying which setting produced the best results. According to Yannick, "for good ammunition you can expect from 30 to 45 percent better accuracy over not using a tuner."

With what is described as "bad ammunition" (which gave the least desirable results in the testing results, none of which are shown in the video) Yannick says "you can get 15 to 65 percent increase in accuracy."

The video notes the qualifier that the tuner may require some adjustment when shooting in different temperatures, such as between summer and winter.

What is very important, is that Yannick says that the tuner's impact on vertical spread seen at 50 yards is also seen at 200. He gives the example of a five-shot group at 200 yards in which the ammo ES was between 1014 fps and 1058 fps, an ES of 44 fps. According to the video, at 200 yards this ES alone would result in a vertical spread of three inches. Yannick adds a further expected one inch of vertical (.25 MOA) resulting from the "accuracy of the rifle" (around 10:30 in the video). According to Yannick, this means that a vertical spread of four inches is to be expected. The group itself was less than two inches at 200 yards (see image from video shown below). Yannick says this confirms that the tuner has a positive effect on vertical spread.

Yannick sums up the tuner's performance, saying that the tuner's effect at close range was reproduced at longer range. He concludes that "if you can get smaller group size at 50 you're going to get smaller group size at 200."

Below is the target shown in the video that offers confirmation that the tuner improves vertical spread at 200 yards.





I have a couple of questions that perhaps someone can help with.

The first is why do the bullet holes on the target appear to have such a large diameter? Below is a close up with the tape measure shown in the video as a scale. They look significantly larger than the holes typically left by a .22LR bullet. Are they .30" or more?




My second question has to do with the graph shown in the video at about the 10:30 mark. While the horizontal axis is unlabelled, the vertical axis is labelled "Bullet Drop (Inches) - Each line represents one inch change".

What is this graph supposed to show?

 
What is this graph supposed to show?


The different bullet drops based on the extreme spread alone, listen at 10:35 in the video. I'm guessing the blue line is the highest velocity, the red is the average of the group, and the yellow was the slowest.

And the "holes" on the target are from the sticker on a steel target. Hence they look bigger then .22, but that's from the lead splatter stripping the sticker.
 
There is no contact section on his website. Do you have contact info for him?

The Tuna Can* rimfire tuner and other goodies are available from Paul Barrette at ReddNobb. If you would like one, send him an email for pricing and availability.

They are customizable to some extent and available in different Cerakote colours. They are proving quite popular with CRPS and PRS Rimfire shooters.

K5YZk88.jpg


Here's an in depth look


*Does not contain tuna. Is not a can.
 
The different bullet drops based on the extreme spread alone, listen at 10:35 in the video. I'm guessing the blue line is the highest velocity, the red is the average of the group, and the yellow was the slowest.

And the "holes" on the target are from the sticker on a steel target. Hence they look bigger then .22, but that's from the lead splatter stripping the sticker.

Indeed. The explanation for the size of the holes may make sense.

With regard to the graph, if the lines represent rounds at different velocities, with, as you suggest, blue representing the fastest MV, yellow the slowest, and red the average, does it account for why the three lines intersect the line of sight at the same distance? (For ease of reference, the graph is reproduced below.)



The horizontal axis represents distance (presumably), while the vertical axis represents bullet drop in inches (with each line representing an inch).

If the coloured lines intersect at the same distance in order to show the results of the tuner -- that is causing rounds with different MV's to have the same POI -- it seems to leave the question of what happens to the POI at other distances, either at 50 or 100 or beyond 200 (or whatever the distance is at the intersection)?

Related to this, the video says "if you can get smaller group size at 50 you're going to get smaller group size at 200." Does this mean that with the tuner results will be improved at every distance?

More specifically, can a tuner improve results by producing smaller groups at 50 and, as the video suggests, without altering its setting, produce improved, smaller groups at 200?
 
Indeed. The explanation for the size of the holes may make sense.

With regard to the graph, if the lines represent rounds at different velocities, with, as you suggest, blue representing the fastest MV, yellow the slowest, and red the average, does it account for why the three lines intersect the line of sight at the same distance? (For ease of reference, the graph is reproduced below.)



The horizontal axis represents distance (presumably), while the vertical axis represents bullet drop in inches (with each line representing an inch).

If the coloured lines intersect at the same distance in order to show the results of the tuner -- that is causing rounds with different MV's to have the same POI -- it seems to leave the question of what happens to the POI at other distances, either at 50 or 100 or beyond 200 (or whatever the distance is at the intersection)?

Related to this, the video says "if you can get smaller group size at 50 you're going to get smaller group size at 200." Does this mean that with the tuner results will be improved at every distance?

More specifically, can a tuner improve results by producing smaller groups at 50 and, as the video suggests, without altering its setting, produce improved, smaller groups at 200?

That’s a great question. I’ve heard sound impassioned presentations on both sides of the discussion about whether tuners optimize for a specific distance. A tuner is about the same as a brick of Tenex.
 
Indeed. The explanation for the size of the holes may make sense.

With regard to the graph, if the lines represent rounds at different velocities, with, as you suggest, blue representing the fastest MV, yellow the slowest, and red the average, does it account for why the three lines intersect the line of sight at the same distance? (For ease of reference, the graph is reproduced below.)



The horizontal axis represents distance (presumably), while the vertical axis represents bullet drop in inches (with each line representing an inch).

If the coloured lines intersect at the same distance in order to show the results of the tuner -- that is causing rounds with different MV's to have the same POI -- it seems to leave the question of what happens to the POI at other distances, either at 50 or 100 or beyond 200 (or whatever the distance is at the intersection)?

Related to this, the video says "if you can get smaller group size at 50 you're going to get smaller group size at 200." Does this mean that with the tuner results will be improved at every distance?

More specifically, can a tuner improve results by producing smaller groups at 50 and, as the video suggests, without altering its setting, produce improved, smaller groups at 200?


No. The curves are not actual drops, he used a ballistic calculator to determine the different drops due to velocity spread alone. As such, he would have to have put in a zero distance for each different calculation. That is why they all intersect at one point.
 
No. The curves are not actual drops, he used a ballistic calculator to determine the different drops due to velocity spread alone. As such, he would have to have put in a zero distance for each different calculation. That is why they all intersect at one point.

Then the calculations and graph are flawed, as they show various launch angles to hit the pre set zero point, where in reality your launch angle would not change as you never know what the velocity will be so your launch angle is consistent.
 
Then the calculations and graph are flawed, as they show various launch angles to hit the pre set zero point, where in reality your launch angle would not change as you never know what the velocity will be so your launch angle is consistent.

Launch angle? If you re-arrange the lines so that they are all parallel at the very beginning, the vertical spread at the end will be larger. But in that case, there is no zero distance, so how can you measure how much drop there is, you wouldn't have a reference point to measure from.
 
Launch angle? If you re-arrange the lines so that they are all parallel at the very beginning, the vertical spread at the end will be larger. But in that case, there is no zero distance, so how can you measure how much drop there is, you wouldn't have a reference point to measure from.

Yeah, you see the yellow line take the highest arc before the zero point, yet it hits the lowest at distance. The blue line takes the lowest arc before the zero point, yet hits highest at distance. This is a factor of launch angle. My laptop died the other day so at the moment I'm not able to do the calculations and show real life vertical spread due to velocity variation without the skewing of a zero point and launch angle involved. I'll get back on this within the next week.

*edit* You are correct that the vertical spread will be larger if launch angle is not adjusted for velocity variation. When you use ballistic calculators, they adjust the launch angle so that your zero point is hit no matter the velocity entered, when in reality your launch angle is static.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom