Best Cheap Chrono??

[Pdvdh]

I never insulted no one or took offense intended or otherwise. However, below is what you stated ...

If it's nothing more ... then what is it?

Perhaps you have your answer, in my post immediately preceding yours. A person is unable to provide any reliable comment on the relative dependability and accuracy of their chronograph if they've never had the ability to identify the data that was not dependable, and not accurate.

If this doesn't answer your question, then I honestly don't understand your question "If it's nothing more ... then what is it?"

The size and color of the font you're using is really not necessary for my understanding and/or comprehension.

 

[FEENIX]

Perhaps you have your answer, in my post immediately preceding yours. A person is unable to provide any reliable comment on the relative dependability and accuracy of their chronograph if they've never had the ability to identify the data that was not dependable, and not accurate.

If this doesn't answer your question, then I honestly don't understand your question "If it's nothing more ... then what is it?"

The size and color of the font you're using is really not necessary for my understanding and/or comprehension.

If comprehension is not an issue then elaborate your own quote. According to your quote any effort with less than one chrony to compare reading is basing their opinion on a gut-feeling guess - and nothing more. Thus effort of end-user with a single chrony is useless, meaningless, etc ... enough said.

I'm done. Thanks!


To the OP,

I hope you get a simple and basic recommendation to your post. Good luck!

 

[Trickymissfit]

Yeah, I understand, and that's really all I was shooting for. It's difficult to know what everyones' intended use of a chronograph entails. Which means it's also difficult to provide meaningful feedback to questions unless the specifics of the intended use are defined.

If a person isn't too concerned about the legitimacy (accuracy) of the recorded velocities, and the shot to shot dependability of those recorded velocities (precision), then a chronograph that provides a number most of the time may be acceptable.

Any chronograph user should understand that all chronographs will ocassionally produce bad data. Sometimes the bad data is plainfully obvious. For the times when the error is not plainfully obvious, the only way to determine whether or not the data is valid, or if the chronograph burped in the heat of the action, is to have a second confirmatory recorded velocity. As I've posted in the past, this can be accomplished by setting up two chronographs in tandem such that both units record each and every shot fired, or by purchasing an Oehler 35P with the proof channel, which provides the second confirmatory recorded velocity with each and every shot.

Anybody posting comments in response to the original poster's question that hasn't used their chronograph in tandem with a proof chronograph for an extended period of time, is basing their opinion on a gut-feeling guess - and nothing more.

Based on my fairly extensive experience shooting over triplicate chronographs, I can assure every reader that bad chronograph data is produced on a reasonably frequent basis. And I mean data that's plausible, within the realm of possibility, yet clearly in error. Without a second recording of the velocity, there is no reliable method to even begin to determine if the recorded velocity is correct or not. The operator is left to their conclusion which is based on nothing more than their best guess...

I think the real reason folks tend to argue this is better than that or this is a better buy is because most lack the knowledge of how it works electrically. We have no serious way to send an object thru the thing that is extremly consistent without a $250K investment. years back I had about a dozen .223 cases that were nearly identical in all measurments, and the numbers showed up on the Ohler and the Pact. (might as well have been identical). That's as close to what I would call a proof load as I've ever gotten, and even then an hour difference often made changes. I just fighting it. As long as I saw consistent numbers, I just never worried all that much.

I tend to fiddle with something more than a lot of guys want to, and that maybe one of my downfalls. I think I see that in your methods as well, and I do respect that. Always seeking another 1/10th of a percent can and will drive you nuts over time. I don't think there is a perfect chronograph built for me anyway. And to seriously calibrate one would almost mean that I'd have to shoot in doors in a controlled enviorment. I can't do that.
gary

 

[Trickymissfit]

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)

there is still a small (really very slight) problem with shooting thru more than one chronograph in tandem. The cells are not in the same place, and the projectile is either gaining or loosing velocity as it travels. Now I know we are picking it apart here, but it's just a matter of fact. Another factor is that to do a seriously good test on a unit of one kind or another you normally have to have a minimum of three identical units to caompair to. I doubt any of us have that. (in otherwords three Pacts, three Ohler 35's, or whatever). No mixed bags here. Otherwise all data is just in theory with nothing down in concrete. It's not all that hard to do, but the next problem is that most chrongraphs have a limited range they'll read thru. The only chronographs I've ever messed with are Ohlers and Pacts in the shooting world. (have used many others in industrial uses). I just don't worry too much about .0025% difference, and I've notice that if one thru the shot out the other did as well. Good enough for me.
gary

 

[Pdvdh]

there is still a small (really very slight) problem with shooting thru more than one chronograph in tandem. The cells are not in the same place, and the projectile is either gaining or loosing velocity as it travels. Now I know we are picking it apart here, but it's just a matter of fact.
gary

Gary,

The midpoint of the bullet travel across my skyscreens is at the identical location. All six skyscreens are mounted on the same rail. The spacing between the 3 sets of skyscreens is 4 1/2', 5', and 5 1/2 feet. Your concern is insignificant with this setup. I'm catching the average speed of the bullet across virtually the same exact distance of bullet travel, at the same location in flight.

The skyscreen in the middle is the Proof channel skyscreen of the Oehler 35P, which is basically the mid-point of the other three sets of skyscreens. I actually obtain four recorded velocities for each bullet fired. Which is how I'm able to identify faulty performance from one or more of the units.

My offending comment, from FEENIX's perspective, is that if a chronograph owner/operator isn't able to identify the frequency of faulty performance from his brand and model of chronograph, then that owner/operator can offer nothing more than a guess as to the dependability and accuracy of their brand and model of chronograph. I wasn't able to identify the flawed velocity data until I began to operate at least two chronographs in tandem, which I did for many shooting sessions over the period of about 1 1/2 years. Since then I added the Oehler 35P to the mix and I now receive 4 recorded velocities per shot. So when I say chronographs will fail to meet their advertised accuracy more commonly than most owners are aware of, I have some documentation to support that statement.

 

[Trickymissfit]

Gary,

The midpoint of the bullet travel across my skyscreens is at the identical location. All six skyscreens are mounted on the same rail. The spacing between the 3 sets of skyscreens is 4 1/2', 5', and 5 1/2 feet. Your concern is insignificant with this setup. I'm catching the average speed of the bullet across virtually the same exact distance of bullet travel, at the same location in flight.

The skyscreen in the middle is the Proof channel skyscreen of the Oehler 35P, which is basically the mid-point of the other three sets of skyscreens. I actually obtain four recorded velocities for each bullet fired. Which is how I'm able to identify faulty performance from one or more of the units.

My offending comment, from FEENIX's perspective, is that if a chronograph owner/operator isn't able to identify the frequency of faulty performance from his brand and model of chronograph, then that owner/operator can offer nothing more than a guess as to the dependability and accuracy of their brand and model of chronograph. I wasn't able to identify the flawed velocity data until I began to operate at least two chronographs in tandem, which I did for many shooting sessions over the period of about 1 1/2 years. Since then I added the Oehler 35P to the mix and I now receive 4 recorded velocities per shot. So when I say chronographs will fail to meet their advertised accuracy more commonly than most owners are aware of, I have some documentation to support that statement.

I said the difference would be very slight, but the laws of physics dictate that there is a difference.
gary

 

[Pdvdh]

I said the difference would be very slight, but the laws of physics dictate that there is a difference.
gary

I presumed you meant that the skyscreens were placed in series, one set after the other, after the other. In a progressive fashion such that the bullet would be slowing and velocities recorded would be materially different. You just gave full meaning to the statement: "Now I know we are picking it apart here..."

 

[FEENIX]

 

[Pdvdh]

I'm done. Thanks!

Guess you didn't really mean it. Such a shame.

 

[FEENIX]

Guess you didn't really mean it. Such a shame.

 

[Pdvdh]

Poor soul.

 

[FEENIX]

Poor soul.