So if I understand you correctly, one must have more than one chrony (in your case triplicate .... yikeslightbulb) to eliminate the guess work. Then the same is true for scales when we weigh powders in reloading, otherwise it's nothing more than than gut-feeling guess- and nothing more. Furthermore, back up for rangefinders, gizmos to measure the environmental information (wind, temp, altitude, baro, etc), etc ... that could get very expensive if we do not trust the single unit we have. Every unit has a tolerance (+ or - of acceptable error), my chrony claims 99.5% accuracy ... and that's good enough for me ... and yes, it's meaningful enough for me.
gun)
You misunderstood if you presume anything I posted is a 'must have' for either you or any other reader. If your chronograph is good enough and meaningful enough for you, then you should be happy as a plum, whether your unit meets its claimed standard of performance or not, or whether or not you have any idea if it meets its claimed standard of performance or not. I'm happy for ya, that you've found and own everything you care to have in the way of a chronograph.
For nothing other than the sake of discussion, does your chrony claim 99.5% accuracy when it malfunctions? Or do you presume it's without error. If you accept that your chrony is not infallible, do you have any idea how often you're receiving data substantially failing to meet the 99.5% accuracy claim? Have you recorded any significant number of bullet velocities fired over it while employing it in tandem with another chronograph?
The examples of the other data recording equipment you referenced in the effort to justify a chrony is 'good enough' share little in common with an instrument intended to record the velocity of a bullet.
Your comparative example #1) The weight of a powder charge (or anything else) placed on a balance or digital scale can be re-weighed over and over again in order to establish reproducibility of the weight and establish the likelihood of good weight data. Furthermore, scales often come with a calibrated weight of absolutely known mass, to verify the calibration and accuracy of the scale. If your's doesn't, or if you've never checked the calibration of your scales, then good enough for you and meaningful enough for you doesn't equate to good enough and meaningful enough for everyone else.
Your comparative example #2) Rangefinders can (and commonly are, by the cautious user) be employed repetitively on any target of value in order to obtain multiple and repetitive readings. Obtaining multiple and repetitive distances to the target helps ensure the instrument is functioning properly and that the recorded distance is valid/accurate. Steps that can be taken to increase the odds that the distance recorded to the target is indeed a correct distance and that the rangefinder instrument is behaving in accordance with the level of advertised accuracy.
Your comparative example #3) A weather meter to establish wind, temperature, and pressure/altitude. Wind and temperature are data that the human senses have some ability to recognize. The range of station pressures and elevations can be reasonably pre-established for any hunting location with nothing more than a USGS topographical map. If one's level if interest in attaining accuracy and reliability is keen, these type of data can be reinforced and tested through additional means and methods.
Can you describe how you verify that your chrony has functioned properly? What human senses are capable of estimating/evaluating the speed of the bullet? How does one capture multiple and repetitive data for any single bullet fired over their chronograph? Good enough and meaningful enough? For what purpose? For who's uses?
