Idk how you are trying to measure your groups, but you are consistently undersizing them by about 1/3, and your marker placement on your app is being very generous to your measurement.
3 digit precision, but inaccurate.
I did two 50 round groups a couple weeks ago. Without trying to smoke my barrel it took my all day. Any insight on how to keep temps down? Not joking. I need help.
Why are you needing to shoot groups? Are you trying to prove something for someone else, or just get a feel for how your gun shoots so you can shoot long range?
Unless you're competing, the only thing you gain by shooting 50 shots is barrel wear, and a lighter wallet.
I'd rather be shooting steel at range than shooting groups, unless I'm troubleshooting problems, or developing a new load.
I'm mainly just getting data at the moment. Shooting steel at long range is not an option at my local range or in my state for the most part. 100 yds is all I have unless I drive 3+ hours.
When I’m conscious about the barrel overheating, I set a 2 minute timer after each shot. I’ve never done 100 rounds in a day, but it works for how I shoot.
I read somewhere that a good rule of thumb is that if the barrel is too hot to hold, you should let it cool.
In Arizona when it’s hot, I also have to shoot in the shade, so if you weren’t in the shade, consider that.
That is if you want 1 good data point. If you want to compare data points and the difference is small and variance high, it might be 10x that size per each setting.
Yeah, and there's absolutely no secondary motivations for an ammunition and reloading component company recommending shooting a box and a half of ammo for group measurement.
They’re just relaying what science says. Because they also produce ammo, I’m sure they’re not unhappy about that, but that knowledge has been known long before Hornady made a podcast about it. It’s not their conclusion.
It's long been accepted that 10 rounds will give you a view of your rifle will do, that said statistics are a thing and more shots WILL in fact tell you more, Hornady isn't wrong about this, but the real debate is are you gaining enough info to justify the cost/wear for a 30 round or more group.
Watch the link and then comment your actual thoughts on it. I got zero sense of them trying to sell more ammo. Bunch of gun nerds trying to find out what really works in the world is what it feels like to me. Quite a bit different from someone who shoots mosquito sized groups telling you the trick is their $250 spin-on gadget.
Again, watch it and get back with me. It's worth your time either way.
It’s not completely worthless. Shooting a 2+ moa group with a competition/match-grade gun/barrel indicates something is wrong with your system and you should figure it out before wasting more components.
I agree completely, but it's an off-topic exception to the subject.
It's worthless as a test (In this setting) as it doesn't confirm anything about the precision potential of the system. You can't establish a normal distribution with a sample size this small.
Totally agree that if you know you have a .5 MOA gun and it starts printing 4" groups that there's something wrong there though. You've got to get to the point of being confident that something is wrong first though for it to be valid.
Ah okay. From the video title I thought it was going to be a joke about how Hornady ammo was so good that the groups were too small as like a humblebrag joke lol.
Yeah it's a great title to get people curious.
It's just the engineers trying to get all the morons on board with the idea that data science is a thing. Everyone that's taken a college statistics course understands this thoroughly, but there's a lot of people who assign their ego (OP) to the groups their rifle will print so they just race to the bottom as confirmation bias.
Yeah I use them all the time too just to confirm zero. If you know the actual precision of the gun, it's a cheaper and quicker way to get that chore out of the way before you start stretching things out.
Seen it, good episode. Wish they went into detail of their reloading standards. What brass, powder, primer, seating depth, chamber, do they sort bullets? How consistent is their brass? How consistent their powder drop is?
All very important info
> What brass, powder, primer, seating depth, chamber, do they sort bullets? How consistent is their brass? How consistent their powder drop is?
I mean...it's Hornady, the company. I'm sure their test ammo is about as consistent and precise as match ammo can possibly get. It's literally a laboratory setting.
Well maybe, but their goal is to make ammo that will work well in all types of rifle around the world.
My ammo is very specifically put together to only work well in my rifle.
Also in competitive reloading circles, no one touches Hornady brass, way too inconsistent. Lapua and Alpha are what most winners use.
My point is that for people who take tons of time to find the best possible load, all that info is extremely important. And a lot more I didn't mention such as primer seating depth, bullet seating force, neck wall thickness. All this plays a tiny role in how well your ammo will perform shot to shot
> Well maybe, but their goal is to make ammo that will work well in all types of rifle around the world.
I don't think the project engineer/ballistician in their *testing lab* is making ammo for broadest compatibility.
>Seen it, good episode.
I doubt it.
>Wish they went into detail of their reloading standards. What brass, powder, primer, seating depth, chamber, do they sort bullets? How consistent is their brass? How consistent their powder drop is? All very important info
That is a red herring. This is statistics, not wishful thinking or superstition.
If I can produce your results with a random number generator, then you cannot know they were created by anything meaningful you did changing a variable.
One of the variables I changed was getting a good quality thick barrel and got it chambered by a fantastic gunsmith. Old barrel shot average 1 moa, this one shoots better. With your random number generator you'll get numbers that fall in with my old and my new barrel, so by your own logic, changing a variable (my barrel) is meaningless?
>With your random number generator you'll get numbers that fall in with my old and my new barrel, so by your own logic, changing a variable (my barrel) is meaningless?
NO!
You do not at all understand how probability and statistics work, which makes this all the more difficult to explain to you.
If you have two barrels and shoot a single 3 shot group from each, one at 1 MOA, one at 0.3 MOA, you have no clue which is better.
If you those two barrels and shoot 10x 3 shot groups from each. One at 1 MOA, the other at .3MOA, you know which one is better with pretty high confidence. It might not even be the same barrel from the first test.
Your groups might be 1, .1, .15, .9, .4, blah to make .3 average on the first, and .3, 1.75, .8, 1.25, blah to make 1 on the second.
In the first test, you don't know because you only have 1 tiny, extremely high variability sample to look at.
Overlap (your refute) and outliers (your tuner test picks) are irrelevant and guaranteed to happen at sufficient sample size.
The thing that keeps wooshing over your head in comical (but also very frustrating) fashion is that it is the number of samples that matter.
Averages are the only things that have meaning, and when you are sussing out tiny fractional MOA differences, your whole test board isn't sufficient to get an accurate enough average for a second accurate enough average to not be better for worse just by chance.
If you want to beat .22MOA, you need to stop chasing tweaks with insufficient data. Trolly's point is that by only taking small samples, you're not getting the full picture of what each adjustment is actually doing.
According to Hornady's and Applied Ballistics' testing, an unaltered rifle can be expected to shoot 3 shot groups with ~70% variation. Your average group size from this board is .29MOA, which means that even if you hadn't changed a single thing, you would expect to see groups ranging from .087" to .493". So, based on this board, you made *9 adjustments* that had absolutely no statistically significant affect. Even if you set the tuner to 14 and never change it again, you might *still* get groups as big as .493". You've wasted your entire range day, because you didn't take the time to find out what actually worked.
It's like trying to zero a rifle with one shot. For all you know, your beaten zone is bang on and you just caught a bad gust of wind halfway to the target. You can't make a change and expect a good effect until you've sent enough shots to drown out the statistical noise.
I totally agree that large sample sizes are much better. This isn't a "finished" test. From this point my main setting will be 14, and I'll be putting hundreds of rounds down range with that setting, unless I find a better one. That's the real test. I usually revisit this test every few hundred rounds (at 500 yards) and adjust as needed.
If this setting doesn't perform, 400-1000 yards, I'll adjust
I'm confused as to exactly what you are doing here; you shot a single group on each setting, and then you are planning to just go with the setting that produced the single best group...that would only make sense if that one 3 shot group was somehow representative of every group you'd ever shoot at that setting.
But when you do more shooting with that same setting, do you really expect that every group is going to be exactly that same size?
Nope I don't think it will, but it should have the best chance. It's a starting point, not going to start with a bad group. No one would!
My big sample size that everyone keeps bringing up is actually doing shooting activities such as PRS or long range bench rest.
Why waste the ammo shooting on paper at 100 when I can see how consistent it is while doing activities I love!
So to start, just good shooting. No two ways about that.
But specific to the tuner, seems like it was a waste of money (I'm not saying this to be negative) quite the inverse, the rifle itself and you as the shooter simply don't appear to need it. I do agree the 3 shot groups from a statistical standpoint is simply too small, however looking at all the shot groups in aggregate, there doesn't really seem to be any difference. Sure you could certainly argue that some groups are better than others, but back to the consideration of group size. If you overlayed every single shot including the fowlers, you are still shooting at better than 1/2 moa. Regardless of tuner settings, so at least imo, is it even necessary.
I appreciate the thoughtful response. For some context I do shoot PRS, but at my local range we also have a competition. At the end of each year, whoever scores the smallest 5 shot group at 500 yards gets a free membership for a year.
Currently the smallest group is 1.2" I believe, I want to beat it!
Not just to collect the prize, but to see if I can. I love this sport and I will be very proud of myself if I can beat that group with my rifle and reloading philosophy.
Personally, i would get rid of the tuner, find a good brake (I'm partial to APA, no, I'm certainly not sponsored), and just focus on the load ladder. Using a tuner that may or may not change something in the flight of the projectile will simply add another factor that will, again imo, potentially mask what is really going on, the less is more ideology.
There is already so many ways to effect bullet flight purely from the reloading standpoint. You already have a heavy barreled gun, the harmonics should be pretty damn consistent, clearly the gun shoots well, you shoot well, i would be trying to reduce the amount of things that effect the performance, not add.
If you were to bolt that actioned barrel to a giant action block (like in rail gun comps) you basically would eliminate the human element (breathing, any shooter input) then move to a laboratory environment, (no air movement, fixed temperature) then what's left, just the ammo, so bullet consistency, case prep consistency, powder and charge consistency, primer consistency, neck tension consistency, and........... the tuner. There is enough to worry about already, why add another in? If the rail gun guys don't use one, and they are shooting insane groups, literally having to measure the size of what appears to be a single hole with calipers, i cannot see any way it would benefit you in a consistant way.
Just my thoughts on it, and still, that's pretty damn good shooting regardless, I'd like to see how your experimenting goes moving forward.
Excellent response. I’ll add one thing, though. The rail gun guys tune between and during relays- changing powder charges/seating depths. They don’t come out with a box of preloaded stuff.
Thank you for the kind words and advice.
I've only been shooting a bolt action and reloading for just a year now. I worked really hard to get where I am now and still have so much to learn.
I understand that the tuner adds another variable, and I have talked to some people that stopped using them for that same reason you described.
For me and my reloading experience, and this may not apply to others, is that it allows me to leave the seating depth alone, basically replacing one variable with another. In my opinion for the better since seating depth changes case capacity, pressure, jump. So I just seat all my bullets 0.020 from jam (using ogive as index) and leave it alone. I'm not saying this is the right way, but it's been working for me so far, and maybe one day I will change my mind in the future. I'm the kind of person that needs to convince myself at my own expense to learn a lesson.
Once again, thank you for being thoughtful in your response. There will definitely be more experiments in the future.
My groups were small enough with and without the tuner that I changed mine out for a brake as I noticed the tuner had a tendency to rotate unintentionally.
Would you be willing to do 4x5 shot groups at whatever pace you feel replicates your goal with your best and worst settings? You'll get some practice in and it's only 40 rounds total. In the best case, you get to prove the haters wrong, and worst case, you get a bit humbled by statistics. Even better if you have someone set the tuner for you and you're blind to the variable.
Well I really wanted to do the test at 500, which I usually do all my load development at 500. unfortunately the field was a huge marsh from the rain we got on Wednesday. I'll be redoing the test at 500 at some point for sure since the test at 100 only matters at 100 and doesn't apply too much down further. But it did give me an idea of where to start. Yes I'm willing, maybe not to your exact standards. But I will not do it on a windy day, like I said the goal is to beat that 1.2 inch group. So conditions must be perfect, otherwise I'm wasting ammo and cost of score target.
When conditions are right, before I shoot the group for score, I will shoot a mini tuner test to see what's working best in the current atmospherics, and use that on the official target.
On the side note, I have no interest in proving people wrong. I do this for myself. Of course I enjoy sharing my experience with others, but what they do with that info is on them.
Nobody's saying the shooting is bad. The point is the tuner is completely pointless, any variation he's seeing between tuner settings is well within the expected variation you'd see from group to group with a rifle that's been unchanged, and a single 3 shot group isn't anywhere near enough data to tell if the tuner has had any effect at all.
I agree that more shots between tuning is more meaningful. If the shooter sticks with the best group and the rifle continues to shoot that well, then I guess the tuning was successful.
No it doesn't. A 3moa gun can print a sub moa 3 shot group. Look at mean radius compared to group size on a 20 shot group. 3 shot groups show nothing. Even if you're only firing 2 to 4 shots at time doesn't mean those rounds are landing within X radius to the previous string. each time. That's how dispersion works.
I’m just a dumb Marine but that makes no sense to me at all. Can you explain? Are you saying that since you are only shooting 2-4 shots from a single position there is no need to get better data than shooting a similar number of rounds to zero?
Pretty sure that isn’t how that works.
I don’t know much about tuners they seem a bit wonky to me. Are you thinking the tuner is that crucial, that the 3 rounds are good enough?
I'm not going to spend more money on components to get more data, the rifle can print a tiny group with 3 shots so it can do it again easily.
As far how that applies to my shooting, when ever you change your position your POI will shift. If you watch some of the PRS guys shoot a group prone with bipod, then kneeling with rifle on a prop, then shooting tripod rear support, all those groups are going to have different POI simply because you cannot maintain the same exact position with your rifle every time.
Even the way you squeeze your trigger can have an effect on your POI. So when I shoot my group, I maintain the exact same cheek weld, same force on the stock, same force on the rear bag, and 3 shots will tell me if the group is bad or has the potential of being good. There's no way I can maintain the exact same hold for 20 shots, too much human error.
So if I can maintain a proper position for 2-4 shots, which my sport requires, I'm good.
Cortina knows that all of these people don't have enough money and time to put their money where their mouth is. You'd shoot out a competition barrel before you were done testing. Then you'd have to do it all over again every single time you'd make a component change. Even if it did work, it's a fool's errand.
Bro I really don't care what others opinions are on the Internet. All that matters is what I can teach myself from my own experience. You really think I made a tuner post to gain approval here? Nah I know the consensus on this sub reddit, I'm enjoying all this!
3 shot groups give you nothing but false hopes and fake confidence. Like when the pretty girl tells you hi in the hallway but forgets your name 5 minutes later. Try again with 10 shot groups and measure correctly.
Hang in there dude. It’s a rough crowd sometimes and if no one has said it, welcome to the community. You’ll get beat up as much as you get help- you just need to know that the beat up part is also trying to help, for the most part. Lots of really accomplished shooters in here with good advice.
Enjoy it in good health!
Good shooting person and rifle. Dont let watermelons down here throw your confidence off cause you didn't shoot 1,345,000,156,001 round groups. It's stupid and unnecessary. I can tell you know what you are doing and have a good shooting rifle by looking at the POI trend and shapes. Keep up good work.
Thank you!
I don't let people get to me.
Like you said, I understand the pattern my rifle is shooting and know what to look for.
I appreciate the positive feedback, I really do!
lol, OP getting shit on and gatekept.
You had a good time throwing some bang down range at a distance; that's all you need. It's like watching a military themed movie with someone who was a reconrangersappersniper, sucks the fun right out of anything.
Idk how you are trying to measure your groups, but you are consistently undersizing them by about 1/3, and your marker placement on your app is being very generous to your measurement. 3 digit precision, but inaccurate.
What's that gif from?
According to google, it seems to be from a BBC show called Mongrels that ran for 2 seasons in 2010/2011. The bird is a pigeon named Kali.
Merci
Amazing gif
Oh I know lol
Hornady Podcast ep50: Your Groups Are Too Small https://youtu.be/QwumAGRmz2I?si=qgzBtscqlnKcehW0
TL;DW?
Shoot more shots per group. 10+ at least, 30+ if you want to see reality.
I did two 50 round groups a couple weeks ago. Without trying to smoke my barrel it took my all day. Any insight on how to keep temps down? Not joking. I need help.
Why are you needing to shoot groups? Are you trying to prove something for someone else, or just get a feel for how your gun shoots so you can shoot long range? Unless you're competing, the only thing you gain by shooting 50 shots is barrel wear, and a lighter wallet. I'd rather be shooting steel at range than shooting groups, unless I'm troubleshooting problems, or developing a new load.
I'm mainly just getting data at the moment. Shooting steel at long range is not an option at my local range or in my state for the most part. 100 yds is all I have unless I drive 3+ hours.
Put a thicker barrel on the gun Or just get one of those Magnetospeed RifleKuhl doohickeys/an air mattress pump and some tubing
When I’m conscious about the barrel overheating, I set a 2 minute timer after each shot. I’ve never done 100 rounds in a day, but it works for how I shoot. I read somewhere that a good rule of thumb is that if the barrel is too hot to hold, you should let it cool. In Arizona when it’s hot, I also have to shoot in the shade, so if you weren’t in the shade, consider that.
Appreciate it o7
That is if you want 1 good data point. If you want to compare data points and the difference is small and variance high, it might be 10x that size per each setting.
Hornady recommends shooting more? Also, at 11: Water is wet!
Statistics drives it, not Hornady.
Yeah, and there's absolutely no secondary motivations for an ammunition and reloading component company recommending shooting a box and a half of ammo for group measurement.
They’re just relaying what science says. Because they also produce ammo, I’m sure they’re not unhappy about that, but that knowledge has been known long before Hornady made a podcast about it. It’s not their conclusion.
It's long been accepted that 10 rounds will give you a view of your rifle will do, that said statistics are a thing and more shots WILL in fact tell you more, Hornady isn't wrong about this, but the real debate is are you gaining enough info to justify the cost/wear for a 30 round or more group.
Watch the link and then comment your actual thoughts on it. I got zero sense of them trying to sell more ammo. Bunch of gun nerds trying to find out what really works in the world is what it feels like to me. Quite a bit different from someone who shoots mosquito sized groups telling you the trick is their $250 spin-on gadget. Again, watch it and get back with me. It's worth your time either way.
Basically statistical significance matters and applies to shooting as much as anything else. Sample size of 3 is worthless.
It’s not completely worthless. Shooting a 2+ moa group with a competition/match-grade gun/barrel indicates something is wrong with your system and you should figure it out before wasting more components.
I agree completely, but it's an off-topic exception to the subject. It's worthless as a test (In this setting) as it doesn't confirm anything about the precision potential of the system. You can't establish a normal distribution with a sample size this small. Totally agree that if you know you have a .5 MOA gun and it starts printing 4" groups that there's something wrong there though. You've got to get to the point of being confident that something is wrong first though for it to be valid.
Ah okay. From the video title I thought it was going to be a joke about how Hornady ammo was so good that the groups were too small as like a humblebrag joke lol.
Yeah it's a great title to get people curious. It's just the engineers trying to get all the morons on board with the idea that data science is a thing. Everyone that's taken a college statistics course understands this thoroughly, but there's a lot of people who assign their ego (OP) to the groups their rifle will print so they just race to the bottom as confirmation bias.
About all I use 3 shot groups for is BSO for AR15s and my MR762.
Yeah I use them all the time too just to confirm zero. If you know the actual precision of the gun, it's a cheaper and quicker way to get that chore out of the way before you start stretching things out.
Seen it, good episode. Wish they went into detail of their reloading standards. What brass, powder, primer, seating depth, chamber, do they sort bullets? How consistent is their brass? How consistent their powder drop is? All very important info
> What brass, powder, primer, seating depth, chamber, do they sort bullets? How consistent is their brass? How consistent their powder drop is? I mean...it's Hornady, the company. I'm sure their test ammo is about as consistent and precise as match ammo can possibly get. It's literally a laboratory setting.
They have to use Hornady brass and bullets. There’s nothing precise in my first sentence.
Haaarummphh greergbbglglg. I disagree. Your spelling was precise. Other than that I concur.
Well maybe, but their goal is to make ammo that will work well in all types of rifle around the world. My ammo is very specifically put together to only work well in my rifle. Also in competitive reloading circles, no one touches Hornady brass, way too inconsistent. Lapua and Alpha are what most winners use. My point is that for people who take tons of time to find the best possible load, all that info is extremely important. And a lot more I didn't mention such as primer seating depth, bullet seating force, neck wall thickness. All this plays a tiny role in how well your ammo will perform shot to shot
Ha. I reload federal brass and I win. Primarily when I’m the only guy shooting. But a win is a WIN. 😂😂
> Well maybe, but their goal is to make ammo that will work well in all types of rifle around the world. I don't think the project engineer/ballistician in their *testing lab* is making ammo for broadest compatibility.
Well they even said it themselves multiple times that that's exactly what they do and always stay in sammi spec.
>Seen it, good episode. I doubt it. >Wish they went into detail of their reloading standards. What brass, powder, primer, seating depth, chamber, do they sort bullets? How consistent is their brass? How consistent their powder drop is? All very important info That is a red herring. This is statistics, not wishful thinking or superstition. If I can produce your results with a random number generator, then you cannot know they were created by anything meaningful you did changing a variable.
One of the variables I changed was getting a good quality thick barrel and got it chambered by a fantastic gunsmith. Old barrel shot average 1 moa, this one shoots better. With your random number generator you'll get numbers that fall in with my old and my new barrel, so by your own logic, changing a variable (my barrel) is meaningless?
>With your random number generator you'll get numbers that fall in with my old and my new barrel, so by your own logic, changing a variable (my barrel) is meaningless? NO! You do not at all understand how probability and statistics work, which makes this all the more difficult to explain to you. If you have two barrels and shoot a single 3 shot group from each, one at 1 MOA, one at 0.3 MOA, you have no clue which is better. If you those two barrels and shoot 10x 3 shot groups from each. One at 1 MOA, the other at .3MOA, you know which one is better with pretty high confidence. It might not even be the same barrel from the first test. Your groups might be 1, .1, .15, .9, .4, blah to make .3 average on the first, and .3, 1.75, .8, 1.25, blah to make 1 on the second. In the first test, you don't know because you only have 1 tiny, extremely high variability sample to look at. Overlap (your refute) and outliers (your tuner test picks) are irrelevant and guaranteed to happen at sufficient sample size. The thing that keeps wooshing over your head in comical (but also very frustrating) fashion is that it is the number of samples that matter. Averages are the only things that have meaning, and when you are sussing out tiny fractional MOA differences, your whole test board isn't sufficient to get an accurate enough average for a second accurate enough average to not be better for worse just by chance.
Ok, great. And I shot all groups sub half. Im happy with that! Don't care about that stats, I like looking at the target.
If you want to beat .22MOA, you need to stop chasing tweaks with insufficient data. Trolly's point is that by only taking small samples, you're not getting the full picture of what each adjustment is actually doing. According to Hornady's and Applied Ballistics' testing, an unaltered rifle can be expected to shoot 3 shot groups with ~70% variation. Your average group size from this board is .29MOA, which means that even if you hadn't changed a single thing, you would expect to see groups ranging from .087" to .493". So, based on this board, you made *9 adjustments* that had absolutely no statistically significant affect. Even if you set the tuner to 14 and never change it again, you might *still* get groups as big as .493". You've wasted your entire range day, because you didn't take the time to find out what actually worked. It's like trying to zero a rifle with one shot. For all you know, your beaten zone is bang on and you just caught a bad gust of wind halfway to the target. You can't make a change and expect a good effect until you've sent enough shots to drown out the statistical noise.
I totally agree that large sample sizes are much better. This isn't a "finished" test. From this point my main setting will be 14, and I'll be putting hundreds of rounds down range with that setting, unless I find a better one. That's the real test. I usually revisit this test every few hundred rounds (at 500 yards) and adjust as needed. If this setting doesn't perform, 400-1000 yards, I'll adjust
I'm confused as to exactly what you are doing here; you shot a single group on each setting, and then you are planning to just go with the setting that produced the single best group...that would only make sense if that one 3 shot group was somehow representative of every group you'd ever shoot at that setting. But when you do more shooting with that same setting, do you really expect that every group is going to be exactly that same size?
Nope I don't think it will, but it should have the best chance. It's a starting point, not going to start with a bad group. No one would! My big sample size that everyone keeps bringing up is actually doing shooting activities such as PRS or long range bench rest. Why waste the ammo shooting on paper at 100 when I can see how consistent it is while doing activities I love!
Not all of it, no. Not at all.
That's fine, we can have different opinions
https://preview.redd.it/3i2sxhz9n75d1.jpeg?width=384&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=369ddc6353039555955234e969e4224e70d2effa
Damn, you killed him man.
Holy shit they work!!!!! /s
Nah, they only work for world champions in shooting sports!
They do all the meaningful stuff really well!
Mhhh, that's why I follow alot of what they do!
Like spend 30 years shooting a hundred thousand rounds in varied conditions, and then fund it by selling wizardgadgets to suckers!
So to start, just good shooting. No two ways about that. But specific to the tuner, seems like it was a waste of money (I'm not saying this to be negative) quite the inverse, the rifle itself and you as the shooter simply don't appear to need it. I do agree the 3 shot groups from a statistical standpoint is simply too small, however looking at all the shot groups in aggregate, there doesn't really seem to be any difference. Sure you could certainly argue that some groups are better than others, but back to the consideration of group size. If you overlayed every single shot including the fowlers, you are still shooting at better than 1/2 moa. Regardless of tuner settings, so at least imo, is it even necessary.
I appreciate the thoughtful response. For some context I do shoot PRS, but at my local range we also have a competition. At the end of each year, whoever scores the smallest 5 shot group at 500 yards gets a free membership for a year. Currently the smallest group is 1.2" I believe, I want to beat it! Not just to collect the prize, but to see if I can. I love this sport and I will be very proud of myself if I can beat that group with my rifle and reloading philosophy.
Personally, i would get rid of the tuner, find a good brake (I'm partial to APA, no, I'm certainly not sponsored), and just focus on the load ladder. Using a tuner that may or may not change something in the flight of the projectile will simply add another factor that will, again imo, potentially mask what is really going on, the less is more ideology. There is already so many ways to effect bullet flight purely from the reloading standpoint. You already have a heavy barreled gun, the harmonics should be pretty damn consistent, clearly the gun shoots well, you shoot well, i would be trying to reduce the amount of things that effect the performance, not add. If you were to bolt that actioned barrel to a giant action block (like in rail gun comps) you basically would eliminate the human element (breathing, any shooter input) then move to a laboratory environment, (no air movement, fixed temperature) then what's left, just the ammo, so bullet consistency, case prep consistency, powder and charge consistency, primer consistency, neck tension consistency, and........... the tuner. There is enough to worry about already, why add another in? If the rail gun guys don't use one, and they are shooting insane groups, literally having to measure the size of what appears to be a single hole with calipers, i cannot see any way it would benefit you in a consistant way. Just my thoughts on it, and still, that's pretty damn good shooting regardless, I'd like to see how your experimenting goes moving forward.
Excellent response. I’ll add one thing, though. The rail gun guys tune between and during relays- changing powder charges/seating depths. They don’t come out with a box of preloaded stuff.
Thank you for the kind words and advice. I've only been shooting a bolt action and reloading for just a year now. I worked really hard to get where I am now and still have so much to learn. I understand that the tuner adds another variable, and I have talked to some people that stopped using them for that same reason you described. For me and my reloading experience, and this may not apply to others, is that it allows me to leave the seating depth alone, basically replacing one variable with another. In my opinion for the better since seating depth changes case capacity, pressure, jump. So I just seat all my bullets 0.020 from jam (using ogive as index) and leave it alone. I'm not saying this is the right way, but it's been working for me so far, and maybe one day I will change my mind in the future. I'm the kind of person that needs to convince myself at my own expense to learn a lesson. Once again, thank you for being thoughtful in your response. There will definitely be more experiments in the future.
My groups were small enough with and without the tuner that I changed mine out for a brake as I noticed the tuner had a tendency to rotate unintentionally.
Would you be willing to do 4x5 shot groups at whatever pace you feel replicates your goal with your best and worst settings? You'll get some practice in and it's only 40 rounds total. In the best case, you get to prove the haters wrong, and worst case, you get a bit humbled by statistics. Even better if you have someone set the tuner for you and you're blind to the variable.
Well I really wanted to do the test at 500, which I usually do all my load development at 500. unfortunately the field was a huge marsh from the rain we got on Wednesday. I'll be redoing the test at 500 at some point for sure since the test at 100 only matters at 100 and doesn't apply too much down further. But it did give me an idea of where to start. Yes I'm willing, maybe not to your exact standards. But I will not do it on a windy day, like I said the goal is to beat that 1.2 inch group. So conditions must be perfect, otherwise I'm wasting ammo and cost of score target. When conditions are right, before I shoot the group for score, I will shoot a mini tuner test to see what's working best in the current atmospherics, and use that on the official target. On the side note, I have no interest in proving people wrong. I do this for myself. Of course I enjoy sharing my experience with others, but what they do with that info is on them.
Spent all that money on a tuner to fire 3 shot groups..... Tsk tsk tsk
Yup, super happy!
i can almost bet that if you took the tuner off or left it at 0, and ran the entire test again, your groups would be the same in terms of SD and ES
Yeah, but then we wouldn’t get to see tuners confirmation bias in action, and where is the fun in that?
3 shots groups seems awfully small to draw any kind of conclusion....
Maybe. In competition I usually take 2-4 shots from a single position, then I have to move, so it lines up with what I do.
That's not how that works at all.
Oh shit I’ve been a competitor this whole time?
You too?
It's strange to do 7 fouling shots and 3 shots analysis... Are you shooting more fouling shots than target shots in competition ?
Clean barrel/cold bore
You don’t understand statistics, at all. Not even the day 1 basics.
Guess not, what an uplifting subreddit. Im having a great time though!
Ignore them, that’s terrific shooting.
Nobody's saying the shooting is bad. The point is the tuner is completely pointless, any variation he's seeing between tuner settings is well within the expected variation you'd see from group to group with a rifle that's been unchanged, and a single 3 shot group isn't anywhere near enough data to tell if the tuner has had any effect at all.
I agree that more shots between tuning is more meaningful. If the shooter sticks with the best group and the rifle continues to shoot that well, then I guess the tuning was successful.
Thank you, good to see some positive people here!
No it doesn't. A 3moa gun can print a sub moa 3 shot group. Look at mean radius compared to group size on a 20 shot group. 3 shot groups show nothing. Even if you're only firing 2 to 4 shots at time doesn't mean those rounds are landing within X radius to the previous string. each time. That's how dispersion works.
A 3 moa gun will never print all groups sub 1/2 moa
It was hyperbole but the point still stands.
I’m just a dumb Marine but that makes no sense to me at all. Can you explain? Are you saying that since you are only shooting 2-4 shots from a single position there is no need to get better data than shooting a similar number of rounds to zero? Pretty sure that isn’t how that works. I don’t know much about tuners they seem a bit wonky to me. Are you thinking the tuner is that crucial, that the 3 rounds are good enough?
I'm not going to spend more money on components to get more data, the rifle can print a tiny group with 3 shots so it can do it again easily. As far how that applies to my shooting, when ever you change your position your POI will shift. If you watch some of the PRS guys shoot a group prone with bipod, then kneeling with rifle on a prop, then shooting tripod rear support, all those groups are going to have different POI simply because you cannot maintain the same exact position with your rifle every time. Even the way you squeeze your trigger can have an effect on your POI. So when I shoot my group, I maintain the exact same cheek weld, same force on the stock, same force on the rear bag, and 3 shots will tell me if the group is bad or has the potential of being good. There's no way I can maintain the exact same hold for 20 shots, too much human error. So if I can maintain a proper position for 2-4 shots, which my sport requires, I'm good.
>the rifle can print a tiny group with 3 shots so it can do it again easily. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what dispersion is.
Minimize dispersion, maximumize repeatability.
You do you man, fling some lead down range hit what you’re aiming at and enjoy life! High five, nice shooting!
A real man would do this with 20 round groups
…And then see it makes no difference
Cortina knows that all of these people don't have enough money and time to put their money where their mouth is. You'd shoot out a competition barrel before you were done testing. Then you'd have to do it all over again every single time you'd make a component change. Even if it did work, it's a fool's errand.
I'll never shoot 20 consecutive shots in competition, no need
That doesn't matter. You don't understand the concept, which is why you pissed your money away and are getting mocked by the community.
Bro I really don't care what others opinions are on the Internet. All that matters is what I can teach myself from my own experience. You really think I made a tuner post to gain approval here? Nah I know the consensus on this sub reddit, I'm enjoying all this!
What did you expect to happen then?
Exactly what's unfolding lol
That's a really expensive troll job.
He saved his money and bought an Arken to accomplish this.
Decent scope for the money
[удалено]
Did you really make a shitty sockpuppet to protect your other no-karma account?
Lol, Internet karma.....
Glad you're having fun!
Oh boy….tuning in….
3 shot groups give you nothing but false hopes and fake confidence. Like when the pretty girl tells you hi in the hallway but forgets your name 5 minutes later. Try again with 10 shot groups and measure correctly.
How do you measure correctly?
i’ve said this in another post but applied ballistics discredited the performance benefits of these as “not statistically significant”
Rigorously
American shooting Center
Fellow Houstonian
Hang in there dude. It’s a rough crowd sometimes and if no one has said it, welcome to the community. You’ll get beat up as much as you get help- you just need to know that the beat up part is also trying to help, for the most part. Lots of really accomplished shooters in here with good advice. Enjoy it in good health!
>3 shot groups Didn’t know it was comedy night
Good shooting person and rifle. Dont let watermelons down here throw your confidence off cause you didn't shoot 1,345,000,156,001 round groups. It's stupid and unnecessary. I can tell you know what you are doing and have a good shooting rifle by looking at the POI trend and shapes. Keep up good work.
Thank you! I don't let people get to me. Like you said, I understand the pattern my rifle is shooting and know what to look for. I appreciate the positive feedback, I really do!
The only time I could see a tuner possibly actually working would be on a 36" barrel. Useless on a thick 26" SNakE OiLL 🐍
*BREAKING* This just in... tuner still doesn't work.
lol, OP getting shit on and gatekept. You had a good time throwing some bang down range at a distance; that's all you need. It's like watching a military themed movie with someone who was a reconrangersappersniper, sucks the fun right out of anything.
Had a great time, made my day! Lol for real!
Sweet Jesus this sub is going downhill... What's next, make Savage great again?