Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters chrony chronograph

I have had a Shooting Chrony for many years (second or third generation) and a good friend bought a Pro Chrono, which was not in production when I bought my Chrony. We set both up and shot strings through both. The velocity results were near identical. The big difference was that I had several shots that didn't register on the Chrony, while his Pro Chrono registered every shot. If the Pro Chrono had been available when I bought my Chrony, I would have gotten the Pro Chrono, but I will keep using mine until it dies.

I finally lost one of the sky screens for my Chrony....and used the opportunity as an excuse to buy a Magnetospeed.

Years ago, we had finished shooting rifles and I wanted to check the scope on my Winchester 1300 with rifled barrel. We set the Chrony to one side, out of the line of fire, and with the first shot, it and the tripod went cart-wheeling over. We learned that the sabots on (at least certain) slugs separate to the side very quickly and with a great deal of force. The only damage was to one of the rods (where the sabot piece hit and caused the excitement). We also learned that one does not want to be anywhere to the side of the muzzle of a gun firing a sabot slug.

Does this qualify as a good excuse to get a ProChrono to replace my 20 year old Chrony? After hundreds of rounds over it, one finally nicked it. I did go through the info in this thread and searched all of Mule Deer’s posts in the last year about a replacement and it looked like ProChrono was a slam dunk. I did go with the DLX, which should arrive next week.

Hi Steve;

I've been a handloader for four decades at least, and have handloaded most common cartridges from the .22 Hornet to the .458 Win Mag, and in some of those it's been multiple versions. (never the .303 Brit, though). In starting out, I went by "the book" cautiously. Over time, as I purchased more manuals and rifles, I learned there were discrepancies, not only in rifles but manuals, and sometimes in new publications of manuals by the same company, or near extreme results from similar cartridges testing near identical bullets from the same length test barrels. I'm quite sure that by now I have enough experience and know how to be aware when "something is rotten in Denmark". Internal "politics" is involved, such as "who did the testing on cartridge A?" It's not always the same member of the "team". I know that from conversations with some of the chief ballisticians. For now, just two examples:

Example 1: A number of years ago, I was doing a lot of firing handloads from several .300 Win Mags. I got to know pretty much what each could give me (safely) considering brand and barrel length -- which varied by as much as 200 fps by the same bullet fired from 24" or 26" barrels. The 26" was a Browning and had a "fast" barrel. But over the course of time, I purchased the latest Hornady manual that seemed OK until I read the data for their 220gr. It consistently showed a max of 2500 fps for that bullet. I knew better, so contacted Hornady using their "help" service. I knew it was late in the day (right on their closing time) but was hopeful. It turned out that the head ballistics guy had just turned out the lights and was heading for the door when the phone rang. He went back to the phone and I was on the other end. I asked why a max of ONLY 2500 fps for that 220gr. He was straightforward and apologetic: "We had a young man do those tests and when recoil got to be too much for him (shooting a REAL rifle) he cut it off and that's what went into the computer. When pulled for printing it included "2500 fps maximum" for all loads for the 220gr." To my knowledge that was never officially corrected until the following edition that included some at 2700 fps. It was the 4th edition that showed five "maximum loads-use with caution" and two maximum at 2400 fps. I told him "Those are .30-06 loads", and he agreed.

Example 2: Recently in my blog writing, the theme was "What are Mediums?" Among those the .338 Win Mag and .358 Norma Mag were included and compared. There's minimal difference in capacity and shape -- in fact, .358 Norma cases can be fireformed from .338 Win cases and necked-up. Nosler #6 manual had used data for two equal-length test barrels (24") from two sources (Lilja and Wiseman). Since the larger bore of the two would be expected to, at the very least, equal or slightly outperform the smaller bore due to a better expansion ratio, a better MV should be expected from the .358 Norma over the .338 Win from 250gr Partition bullets fired froim each... assuming equal PSI. Right? Instead of getting similar results, or better, from the Norma, my "unprofessional" knowledge of ballistics was insulted from these results: 2628 fps from the .358 Norma as "max", and 2780 fps from the .338 Win! I knew from experience that the .338 Win number was believable whereas those for the .358 Norma were well below par even though I'd never owned, used or even seen a .358 Norma to this day at age 85! Those are a couple of examples only, but there's a multitude of others scattered in manuals over the years! Yeah, I still use 'em but only consider them for what they're worth, and usually NOT $50 Cdn! I use my judgment based on experience and have never "blown up" a rifle nor been harmed by one, nor had to pound open an action with a mallet! A few loose primers?Yep -- blown primers? 5 that I can recall, and those caused mostly by "book loads".

And, despite ideas that come from "somewhere", ALL manuals have this disclaimer: "Approach maximum loads with caution. If there are SIGNS of excess pressure, reduce loads by a couple of grains." And we have this myth "out there" --- "don't trust signs of excess pressure", yet ALL pros do or they wouldn't include such a disclaimer in their manuals.

With all due respect...

Bob
www.bigbores.ca

Ive compared my shooting chrony to every chronograph i can find including the high end ones. It works fine. Throws more errors and you always have to use the shades which are a huge PITA btw...but its over 20 years old and works fine. Its never been more than 20 or 30 fps off when going back to back with my magneto speed.

The best...no. But it does work. Mine is a backup now but i literally set it up and used it yesterday in the snow...worked fine.

Think of it this way guys. When i was an extremely poor 18 year old living on my own and wrenching on cars for a living to put myself through college...cheap products like this and the lee anniversary kit made it possible for me to make good quality safe ammo. I hope i never have to use products like that stuff again but you know what? I would if it was all i had...and id still enjoy it

There will always be discrepancies.

When I was still in the service, and had access to more and better equipment, I learned several lessons that were unrelated to that equipment and all the check lists. The first, and most important, was the human element. People are different. Their thought processes are different. Their educational backgrounds and experience are different. For that reason, I trust no one. I have more faith in documented experiments. In other words, I trust companies that have R&D departments much more than casual observers or comments on a webboard. I am more likely to believe credentialed people. I don't ignore what I read from other sources, but it needs to be checked out, if possible.

I am not talking about anyone here, but when someone says they have been doing something for many years, they still have to show me. Saying that they have reloaded for 50 years proves nothing. Shooting a 270 since 1960 proves nothing. All that means is you may have been doing something wrong for a long time. I have to see competency and documented work. Even then, I will evaluate their efforts and perform my own tests, if possible. It is not an insult to say, "Show me." or "How did you come to this conclusion?" It demonstrates that an individual is acting responsibly. He's curious. We could go on at length about scientific method.

Reloading manuals have warnings because end users are amateurs. Most are not ballisticians, chemical engineers or technicians. Reloaders aren't using their test methods and equipment. They don't know who will use their data. Publishers of these manuals know that virtually no one has the equipment, the expertise in data collection or know how to properly interpret that data. Readers are end users. Hobbyists. What we see in manuals is the dumbed down, layman's version. Companies know that this synopsis is all a reloader needs.

There are many things we don't see. The chemical make up of the propellant/primers. Calibrated test equipment and the type and the make/model of the equipment itself. When it was certified as serviceable. Any other devices that are being used in the evaluation - rifles/universal test barrels have to be serviceable and clean. How is pressure testing done? The weather. Test location(s) The analytical software. The experience of the operators/testers is important as well.

Would your average end user even understand any of this? Most people only want to know how much powder to put into a case. Only a few even care about whose cases were used, the powder or the barrel length.

These companies put a lot of effort into production of their manuals. Sometimes, despite their best efforts, errors occur. The one that sticks in my mind was the Barnes overpressures of many years ago. Improper info was published. Whoops! That's why there are warnings and minimum loads.

The final thing I would like to mention are the disagreements. First, between credentialed people. They happen. Usually, the discussions are amicable. Talk is productive. Sometimes, the individuals involved work things out. More or different testing happens. Other times however, the two have to agree to disagree. I have seen this many times while in uniform. Perhaps you have seen this too.

On webboards like this, disagreements also happen. On webboards however, discussions inevitably turn into mud slinging matches. Discussions here rarely happen between qualified people. It's usually which powder someone says is best, and they know because they have been reloading for over 50 years! And chest beating. And one-upmanship. Or calling someone's opinion or competency into question.

"I have been shooting the 22-250 for over 50 years!" (Yeah? So?)
"I was reloading when you were still [bleep] your diaper!" (What's your point? You're still an idiot!)
"Are you calling me a liar?" (Yes. Yes I am.)

And that's where I'll end.

Spin it how you may, glad you had more success with one than anyone I know................POS !!!!!!!!!

I shot holes in two shooting Chronys and two Pro Chronos first time out of the box.
Then I decided I can't be trusted with a handgun over a chronograph..... until I can hit the target every time.
I have not shot a hole in chronograph in 15 years.


But those short term relationships with shooting chrony taught me they are hard to trigger.

You make some interesting points.

That said, nobody is ever going to convince me that having accurate velocity data from a chronograph while working up loads isn't better than not having said accurate velocity data.

😉

I am not attempting to change anyone's mind. I merely point out that a chrono is not necessary. Many reloaders don't own one. They are an optional accessory. That's all.

I've got one of the original ones...... misses a shot every now and then. Used a friends Lab Radar the other day........
Both units read within just a few fps of each other.
Don't need to calculate BC or record velocity at distance. Just want an idea how fast they're going.
Are more expensive units better ? Probably.
Is it good enough for what I do ? Yeah.
That being said.... I wouldn't replace it with another. There are too many other good options for units that don't break the bank ......
But I won't replace it till it quits ! LOL

I don't see them as an optional accessory at all, but an often ignored necessity. There is not one single tool that is more useful for shooters, and even more so for handloaders.

Guessing isn't my thing in general, and really isn't when it comes to contained explosions right by my face.

Without a chronograph, you're guessing.

Maybe educated guessing, but guessing nonetheless......

They are still an optional accessory.

A few of you want them., but they are not a requirement. 😄

I agree with Steve, partly because I handloaded for around 18 years before buying my first.

We also don't need a press, or even a scale. There are ways to get around both, thanks to Lee Precision, if we're willing to accept certain limitations.

But like a press, a chronograph saves time, in more than one way. While many handloaders aren't interested in saving time (though many of them don't consciously realize it), because their loading bench is their "safe place." away from the distractions of so-called reality, some handloaders do like to save time.

Agreed

Oh, I agree. I just use one every time I'm working up a new load.

More data > less data.

Optional? True, but if you are shooting a lot at extended ranges with pre-plotted ballistics...you can save a ton of ammo with data from a chrono, and with uncertain supply chains and increased prices of components due to demand...the chrono is the cheapest investment, 2nd only to good optics. Just one more half baked opinion.

A good ballistics program can give your velocity according to your drops at distance based on sight in distance. No more ammo needed than shooting a over a chronograph and then shooting distance