Update
Shot some more with the Labradar yesterday and think I have the .22 cal issue figured out.
All the .224 bullets I've been testing so far have been Full Metal Jackets; cheap fodder I use for instrumentation testing like this. If you recall what the base of an FMJ bullet looks like, it's not really flat, but more concave or dished. Radar needs a flat surface to 'bounce' off of and be reflected back.
Yesterday I tried some conventional 69 grain BTHP bullets and the Labradar was able to track them. It had trouble tracking with my big Oehler chrono in the way, but when I moved that and gave the Labradar a clear view, it tracked every shot. Although the velocities could not be directly verified with another chrono, were the same as the Oehler was reading before it was moved.
Sorry for the misleading info on 22 cal initially; that's how it goes with 'preliminary' testing; you're getting it hot off the presses.
After numerous range sessions, I can say the Labradar is a very accurate unit capable of tracking most bullets we care about. As long as your bullet has at least some flat area at the base, it should track fine. Not too many precision shooters handloading FMJ's, and it's even possible that the developers will push a firmware update to fix the issue in the near future.
As the first of it's kind tech (for recreational shooters), I'd say the Labradar has succeeded in meeting it's lofty expectations which I'm very happy to see. The more accurate chronographs that are available, the more accurate trajectory prediction gets and the fewer complaints I get about my BC's and ballistic apps being 'wrong'
-Bryan