Tuning at 100 yards
- Thread starter grauhanen
- Start date
Some thoughts on tuning at 100.
It's much more difficult to find an effective tuner setting at 100 yards than it is at half the distance. Why?
Even in the calmest conditions, an unavoidable problem is that results are more unpredictable as distance increases. At 100 it's not unusual to see considerable variation in group sizes even with very good ammo. As a result it's much more difficult to know when the tuner is making the difference or if it's the ammo and not the tuner.
This can be a problem at 50 yards, but it's much more likely to have relatively consistent results at shorter distances than longer ones. It's possible to see how the bare barrel can shoot with good ammo. Group sizes will be similar. When changes are caused by tuner adjustments, it's easier to recognize them and know when the tuner is being effective.
The further the target distance, the more challenging it becomes to recognize when the tuner is being effective. One or a few smaller groups means nothing if it's not possible to confirm that it is the tuner and not ammo variation that is the cause.
It's much more difficult to find an effective tuner setting at 100 yards than it is at half the distance. Why?
Even in the calmest conditions, an unavoidable problem is that results are more unpredictable as distance increases. At 100 it's not unusual to see considerable variation in group sizes even with very good ammo. As a result it's much more difficult to know when the tuner is making the difference or if it's the ammo and not the tuner.
This can be a problem at 50 yards, but it's much more likely to have relatively consistent results at shorter distances than longer ones. It's possible to see how the bare barrel can shoot with good ammo. Group sizes will be similar. When changes are caused by tuner adjustments, it's easier to recognize them and know when the tuner is being effective.
The further the target distance, the more challenging it becomes to recognize when the tuner is being effective. One or a few smaller groups means nothing if it's not possible to confirm that it is the tuner and not ammo variation that is the cause.
If a tuner setting that works at 50 will also work at all other distances, it makes sense to do tuner testing at that distance. Attempting it at long distances is likely to produce inconclusive results at best. A worse result is that it wastes ammo and time.
This does, however, raise the question as to whether an effective tuner setting at 50 yards also works effectively at all distances further out.
At 50 yards a tuner mitigates differences in muzzle velocity between rounds so that they arrive at the target at a very similar POI. In other words both faster and slower rounds have the same POI because the tuner eliminates or minimizes vertical dispersion. This is referred to as positive compensation.
A problem arises. If tuners work by inducing positive compensation that means that rounds with different MVs are converging at the same point. If the tuning is done at 50 yards, the rounds converge (or meet) at the same POI at 50. Can they converge more than once? The answer seems to be "no".
This does, however, raise the question as to whether an effective tuner setting at 50 yards also works effectively at all distances further out.
At 50 yards a tuner mitigates differences in muzzle velocity between rounds so that they arrive at the target at a very similar POI. In other words both faster and slower rounds have the same POI because the tuner eliminates or minimizes vertical dispersion. This is referred to as positive compensation.
A problem arises. If tuners work by inducing positive compensation that means that rounds with different MVs are converging at the same point. If the tuning is done at 50 yards, the rounds converge (or meet) at the same POI at 50. Can they converge more than once? The answer seems to be "no".
What is it about this thread that draws me back over and over and over yet again like a moth to a candle flame…I can’t help myself…so much information to decipher, the morphology of fishing tackle swivels to wind flags improvised from prospecting tape…brilliant!! And then the phrase ‘inducing positive compensation’ in regards to tuners opened up another tangent in thinking about all the variables in long distance consistent accuracy. I will sit on the sidelines and keep returning to this thread. In the meantime I’m blessed that all my rimfire rifles shoot 1/4 MOA groups at 100 yards and will prove it at some future date by posting my targets…as soon as I can figure how to remove powder burns on the paper targets well enough to avoid detection and being called out by other master sniper CNGers on this thread.
Practice at all distances is worth doing. Sometimes it's indoors at 25 yards or nothing, due to weather or darkness, maybe you have access to 50 and/or 100 when conditions are decent, maybe opportunities to go far beyond that are infrequent, but taking advantage of all of these makes a better shooter who knows the whole trajectory of their rifle and its ammo and tuner and other gear as applicable.
Kolbe said that the rate of rise characteristic of his barrel/tuner combination was in the range needed to affect PC at 50 yards. Given the additional drop differential between the fastest and slowest rounds at 100 yards it is quite unlikely that full PC would be attainable. But the compensation possible is better than nothing.
It is important to say that each tuner setting exploits a window of barrel movement, the duration of which is equal to the difference in exit times between the fastest and slowest rounds. Repeatable improvements are hard to detect but it is helpful to shoot every setting or every second setting for a rotation or two. I do every 2nd for 1.5 revolutions. This assumes a tuner that moves one thous per click. This way one can see the rise and fall of the group center as well as the variation in group vertical. My final pass is every click.
I shoot equal amounts of SK and Lapua and have seen the opinion where SK may not be of sufficient quality to be tuned. I find it can be done but it usually requires ignoring the real screwball rounds. Lapua can be as difficult at times if the ES/SDs are tight ... producing less vertical for the tuner to compensate for.
I would further recommend testing at least two tuner weights. The results will dictate if more weight tests are worthwhile and which direction to go. The weight test I use is akin to a Hopewell. For that reason it gives you info on both the best weight to use but what range of tuner settings to investigate further. I shoot 10 shot groups every revolution(25 clicks,25 thous) for the entire tuner range. Graph the group sizes vs setting and look for the weight that performs best overall. Then look for ranges that do well and are stable. The best range may not produce the tightest group in one test but it will be broad and stable. I know this is a lot of work/ammo but it only needs to be done once per barrel. The weight/setting range combos are well known to ARA UL shooters with very similar barrel lengths and profiles. I'm the fool with a 22 inch Kukri so I did the test.
Note, I'm strictly a 50 yard guy. I'm not putting this out here to tell 100 yard and further guys what to do because I have no experience. I just want to give Mr.Bill something more to ponder.
It is important to say that each tuner setting exploits a window of barrel movement, the duration of which is equal to the difference in exit times between the fastest and slowest rounds. Repeatable improvements are hard to detect but it is helpful to shoot every setting or every second setting for a rotation or two. I do every 2nd for 1.5 revolutions. This assumes a tuner that moves one thous per click. This way one can see the rise and fall of the group center as well as the variation in group vertical. My final pass is every click.
I shoot equal amounts of SK and Lapua and have seen the opinion where SK may not be of sufficient quality to be tuned. I find it can be done but it usually requires ignoring the real screwball rounds. Lapua can be as difficult at times if the ES/SDs are tight ... producing less vertical for the tuner to compensate for.
I would further recommend testing at least two tuner weights. The results will dictate if more weight tests are worthwhile and which direction to go. The weight test I use is akin to a Hopewell. For that reason it gives you info on both the best weight to use but what range of tuner settings to investigate further. I shoot 10 shot groups every revolution(25 clicks,25 thous) for the entire tuner range. Graph the group sizes vs setting and look for the weight that performs best overall. Then look for ranges that do well and are stable. The best range may not produce the tightest group in one test but it will be broad and stable. I know this is a lot of work/ammo but it only needs to be done once per barrel. The weight/setting range combos are well known to ARA UL shooters with very similar barrel lengths and profiles. I'm the fool with a 22 inch Kukri so I did the test.
Note, I'm strictly a 50 yard guy. I'm not putting this out here to tell 100 yard and further guys what to do because I have no experience. I just want to give Mr.Bill something more to ponder.
Have mercy dear Lord…my brain is going to explode. Someday, somewhere and somehow we have to get all of the above characters in this thread together (in a locked padded room) over a few bottles of adult beverages and tell each other what we really mean ….im buying…. Cheers !!
Pity how some can not trust the target and their own results. There is NO real difference testing at longer distances... the good is more impressive... the bad is far easier to detect cause the divergence will be proportionally much larger. Want to see this? put up a target at 200yds and shoot it with your best everything.
Why keep making excuses? If it is windy, don't shoot... if you want to learn, put up flags so you know what is happening. Don't feel confident in the flags, put up more... like every 5yds if that is what it takes to eliminate your fears. Go so far as to make then similar in height to the trajectory of the bullet.... cause the air 1 ft above or below might be different.
It really is this simple... rimfire ammo is pretty crappy from a true precision/match ammo perspective. Results will vary cause the ammo is not/will not ever be 100% consistent. I am getting the feeling that 20% outs is the norm... the more money you pay, the closer that out is from center.
Pro tip, cut the targets shot on the same page with the same lot and settings, and overlay them (assume you are using the same POA). Notice a trend on where the flyers go? Some of the lots tested show a distinct location for flyer impacts.
Jerry
Why keep making excuses? If it is windy, don't shoot... if you want to learn, put up flags so you know what is happening. Don't feel confident in the flags, put up more... like every 5yds if that is what it takes to eliminate your fears. Go so far as to make then similar in height to the trajectory of the bullet.... cause the air 1 ft above or below might be different.
It really is this simple... rimfire ammo is pretty crappy from a true precision/match ammo perspective. Results will vary cause the ammo is not/will not ever be 100% consistent. I am getting the feeling that 20% outs is the norm... the more money you pay, the closer that out is from center.
Pro tip, cut the targets shot on the same page with the same lot and settings, and overlay them (assume you are using the same POA). Notice a trend on where the flyers go? Some of the lots tested show a distinct location for flyer impacts.
Jerry
There is a real difference testing at longer distances. Saying that it doesn't matter what distance tuner testing is attempted is not good advice to offer shooters who may look for guidance. Distance matters.
Tuner testing is not simply about shooting at long distance with a tuner at random settings and picking the one with the best results. No one can reliably know whether results caused by the tuner or wind and ammo variation or something else.
Rimfire tuner testing is about is finding a good, effective tuner setting and verifying by repetition that it works. Without the verification -- the proof -- it's never more than simply shooting with a tuner.
It can be challenging enough to find and confirm a tuner setting at 50 yards. If a shooter can't verify what effect the tuner is having at 100, he can't know if the setting is indeed a good one. Testing further out only exacerbates all the problems faced with testing at 100 yards.
A whole bunch of shooters have moved way beyond these concerns. They use tuners, shoot at very long distances with the 22LR and hit stuff with precision and consistency.
Going round and round with the same concerns doesn't change the fact that there is a process, it is being used, shooters have good results (within what the ammo will allow) and have stopped worrying about the little stuff ie the inevitable flyers.
sorry but this is now very old news.
Jerry
Going round and round with the same concerns doesn't change the fact that there is a process, it is being used, shooters have good results (within what the ammo will allow) and have stopped worrying about the little stuff ie the inevitable flyers.
sorry but this is now very old news.
Jerry
Jerry, you're putting the cart before the horse.
There's a whole bunch of shooters who have moved to a variety of things in the effort to achieve better performance, including tuners, fast twist barrels, faster match ammo. You confuse movement to such things as proof that they all work. Just because a bunch of people believe something doesn't necessarily make it so.
Here's something irrefutable. There's no body of reliable testing evidence that show how well any of these things work. There's no accumulated reliable testing data regarding how well tuners work at long distances. There's no accumulated testing data regarding how well fast twist barrels work at long distances. Same thing for faster match ammo. There are anecdotal reports. But no reliable testing data. None.
Why? The further the distance the more unreliable the evidence becomes. As long as testing is done outdoors, as it must be for long distances, this problem is unavoidable and insurmountable. That doesn't mean the things don't work, at least a little or sometimes. It's just that it's so very difficult to accumulate reliable data at longer distances.
Of course that doesn't stop shooters from leaving no stone unturned, not trying everything possible. It becomes a belief that it must work.
Faith is like that -- belief without reliable evidence.
In your infinite wisdom. Have you every tested different lots at 50 and then shot the same lots at 100 and beyond too notice the best grouping at 50 was not the best at 100 . Sometimes the poorer grouping lots at 50 shine at 100 and beyond. Testing at distance does matter. Once you stop worrying about the little stuff that’s when things stop working according to plan. I think it’s the difference in hitting a steel plate at 350 and paper bench shooting. They’re two completely different categories and members are talking about two completely different worlds. In our realm Jerry we are happy to ring the steel in all our different distances and positions. What’s great to us won’t cut it off the bench in a match. I personally think the more testing the better and also realize the limitations are directly linked with ammo quality. When positives can be learned without spending the time and all the money on ammo, I’m good with that.Cheers
Well, a couple of things come from the inevitable destination...
1) do the test your way and create this body of data you feel is needed. Mostly because only you will feel that the data is worthy if only you did it
2) stop trying to believe the world can never be resolved and learn from those happily living in it and doing very well. ALL the points you say can never be proven, have... at least to the many who are having fun hitting small targets at distance.... been demonstrated all over the world
If your point is to create gotcha posts so you can continue the mantra of 'proof'... not enough, can never be enough, don't trust... have at it. As already been commented by some, gets boring, solves nothing, many, and I do mean many, have just moved on.... cause our targets seems to be telling us all that we need to know.
You want to learn... build a robust, double blind test that meets all your needs and criteria. If you want to share, by all means. Asking the rest of us delusional shooters to chime in so you can continue to critique based solely on your OPINIONs, gets real old real fast.
And always nice to state the goals and objectives so that others actually know your point.... the 2 pages later, well, it doesn't apply because of this and that... again, childish style and boring.
but you do you ... the rest will just decide if they want to bother.
Jerry
PS... you do have a very good shooting rifle, and lot C Midas, would work very well for any rimfire shooting at 100yds. Enjoy whatever end use you desire be it competition or fun. Your process did work... you just have to believe it actually did work. The ammo is running around 20% flyers... pretty much like everything else we shoot. The lot C just seems to keep them closer to the important parts of the target better then other lots.
1) do the test your way and create this body of data you feel is needed. Mostly because only you will feel that the data is worthy if only you did it
2) stop trying to believe the world can never be resolved and learn from those happily living in it and doing very well. ALL the points you say can never be proven, have... at least to the many who are having fun hitting small targets at distance.... been demonstrated all over the world
If your point is to create gotcha posts so you can continue the mantra of 'proof'... not enough, can never be enough, don't trust... have at it. As already been commented by some, gets boring, solves nothing, many, and I do mean many, have just moved on.... cause our targets seems to be telling us all that we need to know.
You want to learn... build a robust, double blind test that meets all your needs and criteria. If you want to share, by all means. Asking the rest of us delusional shooters to chime in so you can continue to critique based solely on your OPINIONs, gets real old real fast.
And always nice to state the goals and objectives so that others actually know your point.... the 2 pages later, well, it doesn't apply because of this and that... again, childish style and boring.
but you do you ... the rest will just decide if they want to bother.
Jerry
PS... you do have a very good shooting rifle, and lot C Midas, would work very well for any rimfire shooting at 100yds. Enjoy whatever end use you desire be it competition or fun. Your process did work... you just have to believe it actually did work. The ammo is running around 20% flyers... pretty much like everything else we shoot. The lot C just seems to keep them closer to the important parts of the target better then other lots.
You may have missed that during the testing in this thread I used two rifles equally.
______________________________
Jerry, this thread was about tuning at 100 yards, as the title indicates. If you find this two-page thread too long, keep in mind it was an on-going exercise with results added as they were obtained on different days. I couldn't know what those results would be until the shooting was done.
You disagree with the conclusion reached at the end that it's very difficult to tune at 100 yards. You say that it's not difficult and it doesn't matter what the distance is. I wonder if anyone serious would agree.
Im thinking your under the dilusion that others dont find it intertesting. If its so old and boring or whatever then just take ur buddies like OkayShooter and go somewhere else. Personally he shouldnt have a valid firearms license thru his own admission. But hey he was in the military so hes exempt. Ive noticed your no longer a site sponsor so not really sure if thats the bug up your Axx. Im quite sure youve noticed how many times Ive directed members on here to your business. PS hundreds of rounds at a hula hoop proves sweet FAll. If this is your mantra of precision and accuracy I can see where the problems arise. 9 out of 10 on a 1/3 IPSC at 425yards is more closely representitive of accuracy. Ask me and the other 100 plus that watched it how I know? Oh it had a target flasher and the first round was the only miss. The shooter spotted his own round and made the correction with his Vudoo and Vortex Razor 4.5-25x56. Then it was nine light bulbs in a row. 70 shooters had tried previous and not one impact. Special shooter or gun? NO just someone that was tuned with their equiptment and had the dope and the ability, Like youve said its a process but different for different disciplines. I admire your knowledge and freedom of giving it out but youve become very sour Jerry.
An update on tuner testing at 100 yards.
I thought I'd try a different rifle. The previous rifles were not Anschutz so this time I used one with a Starik tuner, not the Harrell and Holeshot used on the others.
Yesterday I used Center X ammo. I shot fifteen groups with the tuner before I was interrupted and stopped shooting. This was the tuner setting that gave the .4ish ten shot group shown yesterday in another thread. With the tuner the fifteen Center X groups averaged 0.915".
Does this represent success?
I thought I'd try a different rifle. The previous rifles were not Anschutz so this time I used one with a Starik tuner, not the Harrell and Holeshot used on the others.
Yesterday I used Center X ammo. I shot fifteen groups with the tuner before I was interrupted and stopped shooting. This was the tuner setting that gave the .4ish ten shot group shown yesterday in another thread. With the tuner the fifteen Center X groups averaged 0.915".
Does this represent success?
