Tuna can

grauhanen said:
What is the weight of the Tuna Can tuner and the Tuna Roll (referred to above in post #78)?
Click to expand...

Mine is just over a pound, 477 grams. The weight really helps with the balance, although it could use more weight in the front.

7VjrGxX.jpg


I don't have a Tuna Roll handy, but I believe they are half the weight of the Tuna Can.

The ROC said:
Interesting read written by Bill Calfee.... The Calfee Rimfire Barrel Device

Scroll to page #9

https://books.google.ca/books?id=FVZobBHiKNoC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=preload+spring+rate+for+22lr+firing+pin+spring&source=bl&ots=pih19hjY5x&sig=ACfU3U3o9BruLw3jLqeFpMBQaLvy5fAbRQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiTx6-nlZvyAhVRHM0KHfeLDPYQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=The%20Calfee%20rimfire%20Barrel%20device&f=false
Click to expand...

I read most of Calfee's book over the holidays. Some interesting nuggets.
 
The ROC said:
I was going to buy one of his books but Calfee is on so many forums that I decided to skip the book and just read the discussion forums.

Here's another interesting read by Calfee for anyone interested. It's a PDF download.

http://www.natives.qldrifle.com/Barrel Tuning - why they work.pdf
Click to expand...

You will be surprised to learn that Calfee posts on only one forum, and it's been that way for years. Many of the posts he made years ago no longer exist as they have been deleted. The pdf is part of the only book Calfee has written, The Art of Rimfire Accuracy, on pages 277 - 285.
 
gallen270 said:
Ordered one. Results here look good. Reading this forum gets expensive.
Click to expand...

You may have misread things. While the Tuna tuner may work, there is little evidence posted in this thread that verifies the claims of improved results.

Three months ago, Tuna enthusiasts were asked to show that the tuner works as suggested. Rather than showing one or two single groups, which may be nothing more than random acts of accuracy, the performance of the tuner needs to be verified with a number of consecutive groups shot at the best setting. These results need to show consistent improvement over results obtained with the same rifle and ammo without a tuner.

To date no such information has been posted by Tuna shooters.
 
grauhanen said:
You may have misread things. While the Tuna tuner may work, there is little evidence posted in this thread that verifies the claims of improved results.

Three months ago, Tuna enthusiasts were asked to show that the tuner works as suggested. Rather than showing one or two single groups, which may be nothing more than random acts of accuracy, the performance of the tuner needs to be verified with a number of consecutive groups shot at the best setting. These results need to show consistent improvement over results obtained with the same rifle and ammo without a tuner.

To date no such information has been posted by Tuna shooters.
Click to expand...


20210815-220659.jpg


Screenshot-from-2021-08-15-22-13-33.png



RWS Target Rifle testing:

Screenshot-from-2021-08-15-22-26-56.png


All shot at 49yards, 5 round groups, from a bench.
Not a benchrest shooter, used bipod and rear bag.
Note 30deg shift in temp did not affect node.
Scrubbed/cleaned barrel tests had bore fouled with 10-15 round before starting.
Rifle averaged 0.6" without tuner, which is roughly the same as the groups at the out of tune settings.
Node not only shrank groups, but made group size more consistent.
 
Alpheus said:
20210815-220659.jpg


Screenshot-from-2021-08-15-22-13-33.png



RWS Target Rifle testing:

Screenshot-from-2021-08-15-22-26-56.png


All shot at 49yards, 5 round groups, from a bench.
Not a benchrest shooter, used bipod and rear bag.
Note 30deg shift in temp did not affect node.
Scrubbed/cleaned barrel tests had bore fouled with 10-15 round before starting.
Rifle averaged 0.6" without tuner, which is roughly the same as the groups at the out of tune settings.
Node not only shrank groups, but made group size more consistent.
Click to expand...

To which results are you referring as more consistent and smaller?

It's important to remember that it's not unusual for most lots of ammo such as SK Rifle Match and RWS Target Rifle to produce various group sizes. Shoot ten groups and some will happen to be smaller, while others will be larger. It's impossible to know when the ammo is randomly more or less accurate rather than an effect caused by the tuner setting.

The target shown has ten five-shot groups of varying size. If the numbers beside each group (e.g. from the top row 0, +2, +4, +5 with three more on the middle row and three on the bottom) indicate tuner settings, only two appear to have two groups (+4 and +5). All other settings show one group. Ten groups produced with eight different tuner settings doesn't really show anything that can be considered as verification of the tuner's performance. Two smaller groups out of ten may be happenstance rather than the result of the tuner.

The graphs illustrate a variety of group sizes, regardless of tuner setting.
 
grauhanen said:
Three months ago, Tuna enthusiasts were asked to show that the tuner works as suggested. Rather than showing one or two single groups, which may be nothing more than random acts of accuracy, the performance of the tuner needs to be verified with a number of consecutive groups shot at the best setting. These results need to show consistent improvement over results obtained with the same rifle and ammo without a tuner.

To date no such information has been posted by Tuna shooters.
Click to expand...

I posted 5x5 shot groups from my testing a while ago. Post #69.

https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...0-Tuna-can?p=18189236&viewfull=1#post18189236

I'm not really playing around with Tuna Can settings at this time because I'm shooting matches. I'll test again when the weather gets a bit colder.
 
Last edited:
grauhanen said:
To which results are you referring as more consistent and smaller?

It's important to remember that it's not unusual for most lots of ammo such as SK Rifle Match and RWS Target Rifle to produce various group sizes. Shoot ten groups and some will happen to be smaller, while others will be larger. It's impossible to know when the ammo is randomly more or less accurate rather than an effect caused by the tuner setting.

The target shown has ten five-shot groups of varying size. If the numbers beside each group (e.g. from the top row 0, +2, +4, +5 with three more on the middle row and three on the bottom) indicate tuner settings, only two appear to have two groups (+4 and +5). All other settings show one group. Ten groups produced with eight different tuner settings doesn't really show anything that can be considered as verification of the tuner's performance. Two smaller groups out of ten may be happenstance rather than the result of the tuner.

The graphs illustrate a variety of group sizes, regardless of tuner setting.
Click to expand...

The paper target is of SK test #5 and 6. I didn't post photos of all the tests, that what the graphs are for...... You can see the screenshots, right?
For example, setting +4 and +5 both had 4 groups shot. Cursory examination of the table would tell you I shot a total of 240 rounds of SK at a variety of settings. You see the table, right? You see how there are 48 different group sizes listed under 6 test runs? 48 groups times 5 rounds per group equals 240 rounds. And the graphs are made from the table results. You do know how to read the line graphs, right? Vertical axis is group size, horizontal axis is tuner setting, by the way.

What do you mean a rifle doesn't always shot the same sized group every time? That can't be right. You must be mistaken, in all my years of shooting, every group I've ever shot out of the same rifle is exactly the same size.
/sarcasm.

Setting--- Average group size. In inches. Imperial inches. At 49 yards.
0 ---0.667
2 ---0.762
3 --- 0.371
4 ---0.353
5 ---0.523
6 ---0.674
8 ---0.600
10 ---0.532
12 ---0.596
14 ---0.770
15 --- 0.863
16 ---0.638
17 ---0.754
18 ---0.515
19 ---0.455
20 ---0.673
21 ---0.427
22 ---0.614
24 ---0.582


Notice how setting 4 had the smallest average group size? For SK and RWS. Next, do you see how all the groups at 4 were all smaller then 0.6"? Look at the graph if you are lost. And see how every other setting had groups above and below 0.6"?
So that setting had the lowest average group size, that would be the "smaller" part. And all groups shot with that setting were below 0.6", that would be the "consistent" part.
 
Johnny Boom said:
I posted 5x5 shot groups from my testing a while ago. Post #69.

https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/for...0-Tuna-can?p=18189236&viewfull=1#post18189236

I'm not really playing around with Tuna Can settings at this time because I'm shooting matches. I'll test again when the weather gets a bit colder.
Click to expand...

If I understand correctly, the notation of 0.1.0 is a tuner setting and it has the smallest average, .391", of the four rows of groups. If this is correct, and it's the best setting, it's notable that the groups in that row in size from the smallest of .281 to as large as .481" with three of the five groups over .4". That's a lot of group size variation. Three of the groups are larger than two of the groups in the top row, which is without the tuner.

The second row results should not be viewed as evidence that the tuner works to shrink groups at that setting.

On a more general note, it's important to keep in mind that ammo that doesn't shoot with consistency is not something that should be used to assess tuner performance. Furthermore, if a rifle isn't capable of producing consistent results, it will be difficult to improve with a tuner. A tuner is not a device that will turn either inconsistent ammo or an inconsistent shooting rifle into something else.
 
Alpheus said:
The paper target is of SK test #5 and 6. I didn't post photos of all the tests, that what the graphs are for...... You can see the screenshots, right?
For example, setting +4 and +5 both had 4 groups shot. Cursory examination of the table would tell you I shot a total of 240 rounds of SK at a variety of settings. You see the table, right? You see how there are 48 different group sizes listed under 6 test runs? 48 groups times 5 rounds per group equals 240 rounds. And the graphs are made from the table results. You do know how to read the line graphs, right? Vertical axis is group size, horizontal axis is tuner setting, by the way.

What do you mean a rifle doesn't always shot the same sized group every time? That can't be right. You must be mistaken, in all my years of shooting, every group I've ever shot out of the same rifle is exactly the same size.
/sarcasm.

Setting--- Average group size. In inches. Imperial inches. At 49 yards.
0 ---0.667
2 ---0.762
3 --- 0.371
4 ---0.353
5 ---0.523
6 ---0.674
8 ---0.600
10 ---0.532
12 ---0.596
14 ---0.770
15 --- 0.863
16 ---0.638
17 ---0.754
18 ---0.515
19 ---0.455
20 ---0.673
21 ---0.427
22 ---0.614
24 ---0.582


Notice how setting 4 had the smallest average group size? For SK and RWS. Next, do you see how all the groups at 4 were all smaller then 0.6"? Look at the graph if you are lost. And see how every other setting had groups above and below 0.6"?
So that setting had the lowest average group size, that would be the "smaller" part. And all groups shot with that setting were below 0.6", that would be the "consistent" part.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, sarcasm does nothing to strengthen the case.

It's a weak standard to argue that the proof of the tuner doing it's job is that all groups shot with the tuner setting at 4 gave results under .6" at 50 yards.

At that setting the results included a wide variety of group sizes, some of them twice the size of the smallest. That definitely isn't evidence that the tuner is doing its job. Why aren't the results more consistent? Of course, it's possible that this is as good as this tuner gets, and I wish you the best of luck with your shooting.

As a general point, readers interested in tuners should appreciate that tuners work best when ammo is consistent. They can make consistent ammo a little better in a rifle that shoots well. They don't make inconsistent ammo into something it isn't. And they won't make an inconsistently shooting rifle into something else. Shooters attempting to use a tuner to improve their results should use the best shooting ammo they can get. Without it, it's impossible to know for sure what results are because of a correct tuner setting or not. Rifle and ammo must be good before tuning. Many shooters with successful rimfire tuner experience understand that without good ammo it's little more than self-flagellation to tune with poorly or inconsistently shooting ammo.
 
*lawrence said:
Enough faffing, I ordered one today...
Click to expand...

Did you order the Can or the Roll?

Setting #5 on my Can works good with my batch of CCI SV. Worked well for my last PRS match.

As for my batch of Eley/Rem Match my rifle shoots them better without the Can. Setting #2.25 gets me an average of 0.352" @ 50. Without it, last weekend's group averaged 0.254"

I've got a 16" Lilja barrel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom