Chronographs

[noisewaterphd]

All I know is that on that day we compared 10 shot strings from a 22 LR, a .308 Win and a 243 Win through mine and the Oehler simultaneously (mine was set up in front of the Oehler at 15' from the muzzle) and the results were virtually identical. Similar results were obtained with 2 other chronographs set up in the same way. We were outdoors using the factory shades on the screens. The results were within the shot to shot variation of the 10 shot groups.

Ya, the problem with any significant variation in the chronograph though, is that you now have any number of possible combinations, from either side of the variance being combined for a single reading. In the end this makes your averages and SD useless. At best you get a higher SD than reality, at worst you get a smaller SD than reality along with a false sense of confidence.

The Chrony's results are also very similar to the "shoot through printed circuit, light box chronograph". So, using your figures and the .243 at 3000fps: you are saying that the cheaper chrono's are within .3% of actual velocity 60% of the time, .6% of actual velocity 40% of the time, and at worst (total spread) within 1.3% of actual velocity. Not to quibble but it is also likely that they are dead on a certain percentage of the time.

Yes, they will most certainly be dead on at some point.

You Sir, must load awful good ammo because (outside of the 22LR, none of the high power ammo we fired was less than 50 fps or so extreme spread for 10 shots. My 308 and the Oehler owners 243 are both sub moa rifles at 100 yds. So just how far do you have to shoot where +/-20 fps velocity numbers make a critical difference? It has been my experience that the load with the most consistent numbers is not always the most accurate. I have never been able to sight a rifle in for distance with a chronograph, I still have to shoot the darn thing and make my own range card. Published BC's don't always correspond with the results I get either. So just how far are you shooting anyway?

Yes, I take great care, and great pride in the manufacture of my rifle ammunition. I always shoot for a single digit ES. It's tedious, with a *lot* of brass work, but usually possible, given quality components.

The numbers make a difference as soon as you shoot past the "zero" for your velocity/BC. At this point accurate data will tell you your vertical.

Agreed, never trust a published BC, you have to find it for yourself. But, once you know it, and you know your real velocity numbers you can reliably dial a scope every time at nearly any distance (given a quality scope with repeateable adjustments. Not as common as one would think).

I am undoubtedly using a chrono for different purposes than you. I feel reasonably sure that the average of 10 shots is giving me numbers that are workable for my purposes. I would love to have an Oehler, but I just don't see enough of an advantage in convenience nor accuracy to pay the difference in price.

That's fine, I totally understand that. It has everything to do with acceptable tolerances for the task at hand. And that will be different from person to person.

I had no intention of belittling the more affordable chronographs in my original post. I used loose terminology, in haste, partly to paint a clearer picture of my message. I would bet that the majority of my shooting through a chronograph is still using my Chrony, or Caldwell, not my Oehler. There is a convenience factor invloved, if I'm not working on precision loads, the Oehler isn't needed.

I also realize that the Oehler is expensive. It was not a "drop in the bucket" for me, it was a pretty major purchase. If you can't afford an Oehler, that is fine. I think a cheap chrony is better than no chrony. You just have to be aware of the limitations.

And, don't pull your hair out when you can't hit a single digit ES using something like the Caldwell, it very well could be out of your control. I learned all of this the hard, and expensive way. Just trying to save others some grief, not start a brand war.

[knuckleball]

Oehler's patent's and chronographs showed up over 30-40 years ago with the same accuracy/precision they have now. All these budget chronos were not around back then and the few that were did give never ending problems.

Just looked at my receipt and it was 1991 when I bought my Oehler 35P. We would think progress would be made as time moves on...

[ole 5 hole group]

I purchased the Oehler 33 back in the early 70's and the 35P when I felt the need to do so. They are one-time purchases and will last a life-time if properly cared for.

If you feel you have a need for a chronograph - saving until you can purchase the best on the market (within reason of course) is never a bad thing.

[TXGunNut]

No the wave of the future is the doppler radar units - nothing to attach just set it up so it looks down range. -Artful


Wow, at the very least a major game-changer. It may be a little soon but I think the chronograph as we know it just became obsolete.

[dragon813gt]

No the wave of the future is the doppler radar units - nothing to attach just set it up so it looks down range. -Artful


Wow, at the very least a major game-changer. It may be a little soon but I think the chronograph as we know it just became obsolete.

If the Doppler units live a long life and work well than you are correct. Mine will be here on Monday. There is currently an issue getting them in the hands of shooters. The technology should get better w/ time as well. We are in the early generations. I'm just glad I will be able to set it on the table and go about my business. And no chance of shooting it :laugh:

[NavyVet1959]

No the wave of the future is the doppler radar units - nothing to attach just set it up so it looks down range.

Sometimes you don't need to find a more complex solution to a problem since the original one worked well enough. Just like some people will pay extra for an automatic transmission, many of us are quite satisfied with a manual one (even if it wasn't cheaper). Why use a cell phone or a GPS just to get the current time when a watch works well enough?

[Artful]

Sometimes you don't need to find a more complex solution to a problem since the original one worked well enough. Just like some people will pay extra for an automatic transmission, many of us are quite satisfied with a manual one (even if it wasn't cheaper). Why use a cell phone or a GPS just to get the current time when a watch works well enough?

As a Futurist I find your prognostication skill lacking.

You do know that there are car models that are now not even offered with a manual transmission option...

I remember the first chronograph my old gun club in Oregon bought
- it had little paper screens with a copper wire pattern
- you changed them after every shot because the bullet hole thru the copper was what tripped and stopped the timer.

I still own wrist watches, and a Map and compass but
seldom use them anymore as my cell phone allows all that functionality in one unit.

Progress does not force you to change equipment in most cases
- but sometimes it limits what technology you can keep using.

Buying 8-track tapes, Cassette tapes, Beta Video Tapes, Laser Disc's all are getting hard to find for a reason.

[TXGunNut]

I'd never heard of one of these machines until the teaser from Hornady in which a Doppler unit played a supporting role. It's a natural progression from the chronographs we've been using for over 20 (30?) years. More data, the data is more accurate and it's easier to use. What's not to like?

[NavyVet1959]

I'd never heard of one of these machines until the teaser from Hornady in which a Doppler unit played a supporting role. It's a natural progression from the chronographs we've been using for over 20 (30?) years. More data, the data is more accurate and it's easier to use. What's not to like?

More complexity, more things to go wrong, more expensive to fix? If they get cheap enough that when they break, you just throw it away and buy another one instead of sending it to a technician, *then* I might consider it. I used to work on radar units, but they were very antiquated compared to what you see these days. Tubes, anyone?