Minimum taper, thicker diameter and shorter length all add up to less whip movement at the muzzle which will make load development a lot easier in the absence of a tuner, by varying the load to optimize barrel time and thus bullet exit time. A tuner allows the whip to be adjusted to the particular barrel time of that particular load in that particular barrel, to ensure bullet exit at one end or the other of the whip cycle. Both methods work, one by adjusting the barrel time (via the load) to coincide with the whip cycle and the other by adjusting the timing of the whip cycle (via the tuner) to coincide with the load's barrel time. Both methods will lead to better accuracy by ensuring that the bullet exits the muzzle at either one end or the other of the whip cycle, when the muzzle is 'dwelling' for a moment as it first slows, then stops, and then finally reverses its whip movement. Which method is better? I believe it will vary by the particular barrel and chambering, and I further believe that no mathematical formula will ever be developed that will accurately and reliably predict anything for more than one barrel or one type of barrel at a time. Reason? There are far too many variables in the manufacture and fitting of rifle barrels for anyone to be able to make an accurate prediction of their exact movements. A few variables: installation torque, thread fit, type of action, type of breeching, exact chambering, throat shape, fit of forearm, perpendicularity of breechblock face, mating of barrel shoulder with receiver face, action of cutters and/or buttoning heads when forming the barrel's bore and rifling, the particular batch of steel from which the barrel was made, anything attached to the barrel such as scope mounts or similar, etc etc ad infinitum. Very interesting, JMO, regards, Joe
|