So are you a fan of these tuner brakes Rob? I only know two people who've tried them and neither had repeatable results. They were great brakes but the tuning aspect was questionable, and the ideal setting seemed to change with environmentals. For those reasons I've held off, but I'll be getting a second barrel soon and was looking into a brake for it
They work, he and many others have shown they work and well. I own one myself and will be purchasing another in the next few days. The work as good as the operator. You need to be sure that they are mounted on tight and that when you do have it set that the tuner isn't loose when shooting as well. They can be moved if they are not tightened securely. Fact is they do work. Not everyone will benefit because many people will over adjust or just keep chasing the ghost with adjustments when they get a flyer. These brakes are reasonably priced because brakes without tuners often cost nearly as much.
I have always found 1 full turn of the tuner to be sufficient to tune loads for my use. The tuners are designed I believe to do 2 full revolutions However.
Those groups are all statistically the same. The best and worst aren't even close to being different enough to be sure they aren't from the same populations. The additional shot at 4 is a great example of why small sample shots are misleading. 4 looked far and away the "best" until you took one extra shot which brought it in line with all the others. It wasn't just wind it also made the group larger vertically. Most people don't shoot that extra shot and just go on believing that the tuner setting has made a large difference. Obviously you may as well still choose the smallest group as it has a larger probability of being smaller over time but it's very likely that if you shot larger samples at all those settings they would end up being the same over time.
@@RobsReloading Makes sense. Good luck with your testing. I've done large sample size testing on two different gun/barrel combinations and found that the only significant difference was when the tuner was either on or off and the settings showed no significant difference. There are also no large sample size tests anywhere that show that changing a tuner setting changes the accuracy/precision. I'm not claiming that they can't make a difference because every gun is different but you'd think that someone would have shown it conclusively by now. Keep in mind that if you shoot a single 5 shot group to compare to another with a single variable change the larger group needs to be over double the size(~120%) to be 90% sure they are different. If one group was 0.75" the other would need to be about 1.67".This requirement goes down for every extra shot you take. At 5x5 shot groups this difference drops to 42% larger. 0.75" and 1.0" would be enough to be 90% confident.
@@RobsReloading Yes, at least in terms of Jam vs Jump. I was breaking in and load testing a new 30BR barrel I chambered for the upcoming benchrest season and I was able to prove that it preferred jam to jump to statistical significance with 109 total shots using the mean radius of all the groups from each over layed. The jump groups ended up being approximately 35% larger than the JAM(0.135", 0.0998" @ 100 yards). Seating depth can have a more significant difference in peak pressure and muzzle exit time. Where if you look at the amplitude/frequency variance of tiny tuner movements on muzzle position they are much less substantial. Adding the tuner itself can make a large change as the weight changes both the frequency and amplitude by a significant amount. It usually lowers the amplitude which is why people can see large differences in hunting style rifles. The less rigid a barrel the more POI and amp changes you will see with a given weight. I've seen differences that may end up being significant to 90% or above in different seating depths that within jump/jam respectively but I haven't proven it conclusively. I believe seating depth does matter in overall accuracy/precision.
I think that somewhere between Hornady belief that almost nothing matters beyond choosing a good bullet and powder and the guy that believes that you need to test 0.1gn increments(they never test with large samples) is the truth. I'm not saying Hornady is presenting bad data but they also don't use high resolution systems with top end components and fire arms in their testing. Hornady components just aren't very uniform or consistent when compared to say lapua and Berger. So it's likely that their system is not consistent and accurate enough to display the differences that you can see with a benchrest gun using the best brass, bullets, actions, barrels that are available. I don't believe accuracy gains are linear. So if I've got a benchrest gun and I shoot 5x5 shot groups which average 0.250" if I make a change which shrinks or grows that group by 0.050" it's a large percentage of the whole and therefore easier to see above the noise. If you've got a gun that averages 0.5" or greater that same 0.050" change is going to be very hard to isolate and prove to statistical relevance. Also if the noise/inconstancy in the less accurate system is high enough then you may never see a difference because it's completely lost in the background noise level which is causing high group variance. You aren't going to see the benefit in a 0.050" change when something else is causing a 0.300" ES in group size. Unfortunately there's literally no way to know how every gun is going to respond to given changes. Even barrel to barrel they can respond differently. People are also a constant supply of noise. I find it very silly when people only test at long range to decide the best load. You're just adding more variables you can't control and it automatically increases group size variance independent of anything else.
Easy to make requests on someone else's dime. He has a lot of experience with these tuners and was giving a limited demonstration. Watch his other reviews with the EC-Tuners.
So... 1 more variable added to the mix, with no measurable difference in performance. "Clearly had a node in the middle there between 4-6," - by that you mean the largest groups of the day? Seems legit.
This was a quick demo. Not really much showed. It would take more testing if this was in fact to tune the brake to get its best group. He's just testing the brake. If you want to see someone tune a load there are plenty of other videos on UA-cam with people shooting many more shots. Try Ultimate Reloader.
Hey Rob i would love to see a test if you're willing. Take your best setting shoot a 10 shot group and your worst setting and shoot a 10 shot group .
You will see this exact test on Saturday I filmed it yesterday. Interesting results
@@RobsReloading awesome thank you!
So are you a fan of these tuner brakes Rob? I only know two people who've tried them and neither had repeatable results. They were great brakes but the tuning aspect was questionable, and the ideal setting seemed to change with environmentals. For those reasons I've held off, but I'll be getting a second barrel soon and was looking into a brake for it
I find they work very similar to seating depth. Day to day variance in loads is still there.
They work, he and many others have shown they work and well. I own one myself and will be purchasing another in the next few days. The work as good as the operator. You need to be sure that they are mounted on tight and that when you do have it set that the tuner isn't loose when shooting as well. They can be moved if they are not tightened securely. Fact is they do work. Not everyone will benefit because many people will over adjust or just keep chasing the ghost with adjustments when they get a flyer. These brakes are reasonably priced because brakes without tuners often cost nearly as much.
I have questions of dominance. I would like to test by turning the whole brake by the same increments.
that's pretty sweet. ove been thinking about using a tuner. it looks like settings 0 and 2 are the most consistent.
considering it's a BRA, these are pretty big groups you produced at 100yards.
its 200 yards
@@SigmaBallistics at 200yds is decent. congrats!
Good results. Thank you.
I don't think you tested nearly enough of the range of the tuner. It looked like POI was trending down and you needed to keep going.
I have always found 1 full turn of the tuner to be sufficient to tune loads for my use. The tuners are designed I believe to do 2 full revolutions However.
Okay, this is at 200 yards. You said 100 yards in the video. I was confused by what you meant by it "wanting to group". It makes sense now.
Yes 200yds
Those groups are all statistically the same. The best and worst aren't even close to being different enough to be sure they aren't from the same populations. The additional shot at 4 is a great example of why small sample shots are misleading. 4 looked far and away the "best" until you took one extra shot which brought it in line with all the others. It wasn't just wind it also made the group larger vertically. Most people don't shoot that extra shot and just go on believing that the tuner setting has made a large difference. Obviously you may as well still choose the smallest group as it has a larger probability of being smaller over time but it's very likely that if you shot larger samples at all those settings they would end up being the same over time.
More testing is definitely needed and will be done. This is just the initial test with this tuner
@@RobsReloading Makes sense. Good luck with your testing. I've done large sample size testing on two different gun/barrel combinations and found that the only significant difference was when the tuner was either on or off and the settings showed no significant difference. There are also no large sample size tests anywhere that show that changing a tuner setting changes the accuracy/precision. I'm not claiming that they can't make a difference because every gun is different but you'd think that someone would have shown it conclusively by now. Keep in mind that if you shoot a single 5 shot group to compare to another with a single variable change the larger group needs to be over double the size(~120%) to be 90% sure they are different. If one group was 0.75" the other would need to be about 1.67".This requirement goes down for every extra shot you take. At 5x5 shot groups this difference drops to 42% larger. 0.75" and 1.0" would be enough to be 90% confident.
@@MMBRM have you found that seating depth significantly changes group size?
@@RobsReloading Yes, at least in terms of Jam vs Jump. I was breaking in and load testing a new 30BR barrel I chambered for the upcoming benchrest season and I was able to prove that it preferred jam to jump to statistical significance with 109 total shots using the mean radius of all the groups from each over layed. The jump groups ended up being approximately 35% larger than the JAM(0.135", 0.0998" @ 100 yards). Seating depth can have a more significant difference in peak pressure and muzzle exit time. Where if you look at the amplitude/frequency variance of tiny tuner movements on muzzle position they are much less substantial. Adding the tuner itself can make a large change as the weight changes both the frequency and amplitude by a significant amount. It usually lowers the amplitude which is why people can see large differences in hunting style rifles. The less rigid a barrel the more POI and amp changes you will see with a given weight. I've seen differences that may end up being significant to 90% or above in different seating depths that within jump/jam respectively but I haven't proven it conclusively. I believe seating depth does matter in overall accuracy/precision.
I think that somewhere between Hornady belief that almost nothing matters beyond choosing a good bullet and powder and the guy that believes that you need to test 0.1gn increments(they never test with large samples) is the truth. I'm not saying Hornady is presenting bad data but they also don't use high resolution systems with top end components and fire arms in their testing. Hornady components just aren't very uniform or consistent when compared to say lapua and Berger. So it's likely that their system is not consistent and accurate enough to display the differences that you can see with a benchrest gun using the best brass, bullets, actions, barrels that are available. I don't believe accuracy gains are linear. So if I've got a benchrest gun and I shoot 5x5 shot groups which average 0.250" if I make a change which shrinks or grows that group by 0.050" it's a large percentage of the whole and therefore easier to see above the noise. If you've got a gun that averages 0.5" or greater that same 0.050" change is going to be very hard to isolate and prove to statistical relevance. Also if the noise/inconstancy in the less accurate system is high enough then you may never see a difference because it's completely lost in the background noise level which is causing high group variance. You aren't going to see the benefit in a 0.050" change when something else is causing a 0.300" ES in group size. Unfortunately there's literally no way to know how every gun is going to respond to given changes. Even barrel to barrel they can respond differently. People are also a constant supply of noise. I find it very silly when people only test at long range to decide the best load. You're just adding more variables you can't control and it automatically increases group size variance independent of anything else.
How much hp with this tuner!?
Keep going. 10 12 14
Easy to make requests on someone else's dime. He has a lot of experience with these tuners and was giving a limited demonstration. Watch his other reviews with the EC-Tuners.
is it 100 or 200 yards? im assuming 200 by the groups but you did say 100 in the beginning
200yds
Yes he did say 100 in the beginning
I don’t know why you ues a tuner on a 6BR as I have one and don’t shoot with a tuner and I shoot a lot better that that 200 yard all in the same hole
Sure, same hole 200 yards all the time.
So... 1 more variable added to the mix, with no measurable difference in performance. "Clearly had a node in the middle there between 4-6," - by that you mean the largest groups of the day? Seems legit.
This was a quick demo. Not really much showed. It would take more testing if this was in fact to tune the brake to get its best group. He's just testing the brake. If you want to see someone tune a load there are plenty of other videos on UA-cam with people shooting many more shots. Try Ultimate Reloader.