40 YEARS WITH CHRONOGRAPHS



Many handloading hunters may not believe this, but most of us don't really need a chronograph to develop or use handloads in the field. I know this partly because of taking a big bunch of varmints and several dozen big game animals before buying my first chronograph 40 years ago.

It was not purchased at a store or through a catalog, but by writing letters on actual paper with a typewriter, then putting them into an envelope, attaching a stamp, and mailing the envelope to the Custom Chronograph Company in Washington state, a company I'd read about in HANDLOADER'S DIGEST. It may seem incredible that electronic chronographs even existed in those primitive days, but circumstantial evidence suggested they did, including the increasing number of articles in gun magazines that listed chronographed velocities of handloads. Some articles even included photographs of the author using the chronograph, though usually in black and white. This wasn't because color photography didn't exist, but because most gun magazines only used color on their covers.

Chronographs were similarly semi-primitive. I purchased the Custom Chronograph partly because the owner of the company (and, I eventually realized, its only employee) offered me a 50% discount, because I'd published a handful of gun articles, accompanied by photos taken with black-and-white film. Even the half-off price was equivalent to about 300 of today's dollars, a good-sized chunk of cash to a young writer, still attending college part-time.

After snail-mailing a check, the package arrived in about a week. Upon opening it, there was the first chronograph I'd actually laid eyes on, or rather its various parts. Its heart was a square metal box about the size of half a loaf of bread, with a dial in the middle that could be clicked to ten numbers from 0-9, circling the dial like the face of a clock.

Two pairs of wires ran from the back of the box, a short pair to be hooked up to an old-fashioned 6-volt battery about half the size of the box, and a pair about 20 feet long to hook up to the bullet sensors. The package included two kinds of sensors, one a pair of light "screens," just then becoming cutting-edge chronograph technology, along with a pair of "break-screen" holders, and a few hundred break screens

Up until then, break-screens were standard, usually paper with a grid of glued-on metal foil. The screens were stretched across a pair of clip-holders connected by the wires to the chronograph. A bullet had to be shot through both screens, and after the shot, you turned the dial around the face of the chronograph box. Little red lights would turn on next to some of the numbers. You wrote them down, then looked up the sequence in an accompanying booklet, which provided the velocity of the shot.

Even though break-screens were quite accurate, they had several disadvantages. You had to replace both screens after each shot, which cost both time and money, and you could not shoot a group at the same time. Passing through two layers of paper and foil might slightly deflect a bullet, even if you could aim around the screens.

Which is why light-screens were developed. They could sense objects flying through the air above their slots, and didn't have to be replaced after each shot, saving considerable time and money. However, they cost more up front: If I recall correctly, the light-screens were half the total price of the Custom Chronograph.

Like a good little journalist, I decided the break-screens had to be tested, both to determine how they worked, and to have something to compare to the light-screen results. Neither the break-screen holders or light screens were already "set up" in a single unit, like most chronographs are today, so I screwed them precisely two feet apart onto a short 2x4, then epoxied an appropriate-sized steel nut into the bottom of the 2x4, so it could be mounted on my camera tripod. All of this might seem like considerable trouble, but in theory I'd get paid for my trouble by selling more gun articles.

I first tested the chronograph with some .22 Long Rifle ammo shot from my old Marlin Model 81 bolt rifle. They chronographed exactly the same through both the break and light screens--and also just about matched advertised velocity. After that I only rarely used the break-screens, usually to confirm readings with faster centerfire rounds, but never did use up my supply of screens. (I also saved that particular batch of .22 ammo, to use as a function-check in case the chronograph gave questionable readings.)

Back then I lived in Missoula, Montana, and did most of my test shooting at a rifle range on its outskirts, long before the land became a subdivision and the range had to move further into the boonies. It was a semi-public range, requiring a yearly membership fee paid at a local store named the Hunting Shack that sold handloaded ammunition. The store's owner eventually also decided to move to a more rural area 30 miles away, where locals wouldn't become alarmed by an ammo factory in their midst. (Today Missoula is almost as "politically-correct" as Portland, Oregon. Eileen and I moved away in 1986 for several reasons, including having to fight city-type traffic for close to an hour after a day of float-fishing the Bitterroot River.)

The Custom Chronograph worked well for the next dozen years, and I learned many things. First, most handloaders over-estimate the velocity of their ammo, apparently because that's part of handloader DNA.
But back then it was also partly due to the fact that back then many sources of loading data used longer barrels than found on most sporting rifles. Still, it was mostly our fault, because we usually looked through such several data sources, picking the one with the highest velocity for our load, even if it used different components.

My early chronograph results naturally involved handloads in my then-small collection of centerfire rifles. I'd tried to semi-scientifically estimate their velocities already, by sighting-in precisely at 100 yards, then shooting a target at 300 to confirm "drop," and compare the drop to the trajectory tables found in the back of most handloading manuals back then.

Range-shooting indicated my primary .270 Winchester handload, a maximum charge of the old mil-surp H4831 and a 150-grain spitzer, got a muzzle velocity of just about 3000 fps. This stroked my handloader's optimism--but according to the Custom Chronograph turned out to be wrong. Instead the velocity was around 2850 fps.

This dose of reality nearly ruined the load for me, despite it having taken plenty of animals out to well over 300 yards, all dying quite promptly. It occurred primarily because I didn't know much about those ballistic tables. They had two limitations, one relatively small and one pretty major.

First, all were based on a scope mounted with the reticle 1.5 inches over the bore. This was pretty close to average in those days, but I suspect the rings used on my .270 resulted in a little more height--which results in less drop at longer ranges.

More important was the fact that the trajectories were based on so-called "standard atmospheric conditions" of 59 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level. (There's also a standard humidity level of 78% and a barometric pressure of 29.53 inches, but those have a far smaller effect than elevation and temperature.) I was shooting at around 3500 feet above sea level, usually during summer in temperatures of 70-some degrees. As a result the air was thinner, and the bullets flew flatter.

I also learned about handloaders' optimism when other shooters at the range asked if they could take a few shots over my chronograph. This only happened once or twice a year, because even then my schedule was pretty flexible, so most often I'd be at the range on a weekday morning, partly to avoid wasting other shooters' time while setting up the chronograph. But ALL the other shooters who shot some rounds over the Custom Chronograph were disappointed by at least 100 fps. One strongly suggested the chronograph was wrong, because "their" velocity came from an official handloading book.

Other people I met later had similar experiences. My fellow gun writer John Haviland purchased his first chronograph a couple years after I bought mine, discovering the 160-grain 7mm Remington Magnum handload he'd used for years did not get 3000 fps, as "the book" stated. Instead it got around 2700, about like a 7x57 loaded to modern pressures--yet had killed a bunch of deer, black bears and elk pretty darn quickly. John never noticed the difference, because he mostly hunted in the heavily timbered mountains west of the Continental Divide, where ranges rarely exceeded 200 yards.

As I understood the ballistic tables better, I got pretty good at predicting trajectory at longer ranges using various sight-in heights at 100 yards (back then we didn't have "dialing" scopes that worked consistently). I used graph paper, because personal computers and ballistic programs hadn't yet appeared, but the hand-drawn graphs worked pretty well.

During the 1980s I used an old, but accurate, Remington 722 .257 Roberts inherited from my grandmother for pronghorn hunting, not just for my own antelope but when guiding for a central Montana outfitter. The handload was pretty warm, pushing a 100-grain Nosler Partition to around 3250 fps, but when sighted-in three inches high at 100 yards, I could kill a pronghorn by holding in the middle of its chest out to 300 yards. At longer distances the drop matched my graph closely:

350 -6
400 -12
450 -18
500 -27

I also learned to use the plex reticle on the 3-9x Weaver mounted on the .257 to bracket an antelope and estimate range. I killed several of my own antelope at ranges out to 450, and one wounded by a client at 550 (though only after an initial "ranging shot.")

Of course, these days we know a .25 caliber with relatively light, flat-base bullets is a poor choice for such shooting, but among other factors the rifle shot 100-grain Partitions very well. In fact, it was the first big game rifle I handloaded for that would consistently put five rounds (not just three) inside an inch at 100 yards. Years later, after meeting the head bullet designer at Nosler, I discovered the accuracy was probably due to the warm powder charge. The stiff kick in the bullet's butt probably "bumped up" the exposed rear core a little, making it fit the bore better.

In the early 1990's the Custom Chronograph quit working. The company was no longer listed in HANDLOADER'S DIGEST, but the phone number in the old edition where I'd read about them still worked. It turned out the owner was a rancher who'd made chronographs on the side for a while, but eventually couldn't compete with newer, cheaper light-screen chronographs with digital readouts.

He said he could probably repair mine, but instead I decided to move on, purchasing a newer one from L.L. Bean, on sale for $50. It was much like most of the inexpensive light-screen chronographs sold today, a complete unit with a digital readout that used a compact 9-volt battery. I still had some of the .22 ammo first used to test the Custom Chronograph, and the new chronograph gave almost exactly the same reading.

Eventually, however, I went through three of those chronographs. They all worked for a while, but eventually went bat-crazy in some way. One started giving readings up to 150 fps different when the sky was sunny or cloudy, even with the chronograph shaded. One even died when I "accidentally" shot it, perhaps due to a subconscious wish.

By that time a much bigger chunk of my income came from gun writing, and my overall income was pretty good as well. I started looking for a better chronograph. By then I'd had the opportunity to visit several professional ballistic labs, and every one of them had an Oehler chronograph, though always big professional models--like the one in the opening photograph.

Luckily, about then Ken Oehler decided to start making his 35P for handloaders again. I immediately ordered one, and not only discovered it was very insensitive to light variations, but also provided a double-check of velocities, thanks to THREE light-screens, set up in-line with each other. This may not be a big deal to the average handloader, but it was to a gun writer who needed consistently accurate information. Because of it's 3-screen length, the 35P took longer to set up than my previous chronographs, but after reading Ken's excellent instructions, not much.

However, by that time I was doing so much gun writing that, again as a good little journalist, I needed to try other chronographs, because readers asked about them. So I did, and over the years have used at least a dozen models, thanks in part to so many friends buying chronographs. They all worked, at least most of the time, but I never regretted acquiring the 35P.

Right now, in fact, I have five chronographs, though one is on loan to a young friend who couldn't afford one, but does the reloading for all his extended family's rifles. It's a cheaper model, costing around $100, but works far better than the model purchased from L.L. Bean. I know this because of testing it thoroughly against the 35P.

It provided very close to the same average velocities, though since the screen spacing is only a foot, is pretty useless for any sort of statistical analysis. However, it works fine for doing preliminary work, and also functions as a back-up in case the 35P ever needs repairing. (However, so far only the cheaper back-up has had to be repaired, due to an unexpected gust of wind blowing its tripod over one day at the range.)

I've also mostly kept up with the "beyond light-screen" technology in newer chronographs, finally breaking down this year and buying a Labradar. So far I really like it, but unlike the Oehler, the Labradar doesn't provide a double-check of velocities--which is why Bryan Litz uses two Labradars. Since they cost almost as much as an Oehler 35P, a pair is pretty pricey. Consequently the Oehler 35P is still my primary chronograph.



But does the average hunter/handloader really need something that expensive or precise? Well, no, unless of course they're OCD enough to do real statistical analysis of their handloads. Quite a few handloaders supposedly do this anyway with cheaper chronographs, partly because several models include a standard deviation (SD) function. But unless you're using a far more precise chronograph this is a waste of time.

My inexpensive back-up unit, for instance, is a Competition Electronics ProChrono Pal. The light-screen spacing, as in many low-priced chronographs, is only a foot. With typical rifle handloads going somewhere around 3000 fps, this results in rounded-off readings, not truly precise readings. (This is exactly why most inexpensive chronographs often provide two or more readings in a string of velocities that are exactly the same.)

Also, most handloaders use the SD calculator on a 3-5 shot string, which is as useless as measuring smokeless powder by eyeballing the amount in your scale's pan. Ammo companies don't even bother calculating SD for a certain load until they've chronographed several dozen shots.



Finally, the two really important things for any hunting handload are sufficient accuracy for the job, and where the bullets land at different ranges. Both are easily discovered by actual shooting at the distances you usually hunt, in the same weather conditions--which should be done anyway if you shoot animals beyond 200 yards. Even the finest chronograph and computer ballistic program won't exactly predict the trajectory of any load beyond 200 yards, when fired in your rifle under typical hunting conditions.

I often test handload trajectory in the field, and not just at paper targets or steel gongs, but by shooting at sandy cutbanks. This is easy to do when prairie dog shooting, because most PD towns lie amid cutbanks of various heights. Usually you can see not only where bullets land, but groups formed by the small craters in the sand. Of course, you may not be able to do that, at least not easily, but actual shooting at some sort of a range is more important than chronographing and calculating.



In fact, I'll admit to not even chronographing some handloads before they go hunting. A few years ago I purchased an inexpensive Husqvarna .243 Winchester on the Campfire Classifieds--not because I needed another .243, but because the price was too good to pass up. Eileen noticed the little rifle, and decided she liked it a lot, so it became hers.

I "worked up" a handload by seating 100-grain Nosler Partitions over 42 grains of H4350. When we sighted-in the rifle, they grouped under an inch at 100 yards, but we were pressed for time before antelope season opened, and I didn't bother chronographing the load. (However, I guessed, based on plenty of .243 experience, it would go around 2900.)

Despite not knowing the exact muzzle velocity, Eileen killed a doe cleanly at just under 250 yards. When I finally got around to chronographing the load, the average was 2912 fps--but it wouldn't have mattered if it had been 2800 or 3000, something I also know from plenty of .243 experience.

In reality, most handloading hunters buy a chronograph so they can brag about how fast their loads are going--and even then often fudge the numbers a little. I also learned this shortly after affordable chronographs first became available, when a good friend phoned one evening, after taking a few shots over another friend's new chronograph. The first words out of his mouth were, "Thirty-one ninety!" This turned out to be the velocity of the FASTEST shot from his 130-grain .270 Winchester load, not the average.

Plus, as John Haviland discovered, 7x57 Mauser ballistics work pretty well even from a 7mm magnum at the ranges most of us hunt, both in hitting and killing big game. Which is one reason John eventually switched to the modern version of the 7x57, the 7mm-08 Remington, a few years ago--which has killed elk as handily as his 7mm magnum.

Do most hunters actually need a chronograph? It depends on how you define need, though according to rifle-loony "logic," need has nothing to do with it. Unless, or course, you're a gun writer who needs to provide velocities in his articles--the reason for purchasing my first chronograph 40 years ago.

Nice read.
Thanks

Thanks. I use the Prochrono B and a Labradar. They both work but the Labradar works well with the PCP airguns we play with. We shoot to get data which works well for us. Shooting a pigeon at 182 yards gets a certain specific point on the reticle and wind gives how much to go into the wind. The resultant SMACK! from a pellet out of a bullpup with an LDC is so gratifying. You may have to experience it to believe it. If you varmint hunt with suppressed guns it won't be a big surprise. The Chrono or the radar are something that gives you instrumental facts. What you do with them will justify the expense. Be Well. Rusty

Still chuggin' along using my Oehler 33 from the 80's.......

aalf,

One of my buddies still has his as well. Ken has repaired a couple of times, if I recall correctly--once because of a wind accident like the one with my ProChrono.

Is it really possible to distinguish altitude and barometric pressure effects?

Altitude is often estimated from relative air pressure is it not?

Granted temperature tends to fall with altitude and so might humidity (humidity is often relative humidity and measured with a "sling") so air density has many inputs on a given day. Then too there are gravity effects with distance from a center of mass but aren't those trivial, even for big gun naval gun fire, for external ballistics? Weather reports and such are usually reported as sea level equivalent to be useful across a reporting area.

What effect, apart from barometric pressure, might elevation that is altitude by itself have?

Excellent read... Got my first chronograph in 1997. The base model shooting chrony. Sent it back to the company in 2007 for an upgrade with more memory and a readout screen that could sit right on the bench next to you while in use. It's been checked against a couple other chrono's over the years and seems accurate enough for my amateur usage. Either that or both chrono's were uniformly inaccurate.. Some years ago I did some research on bullet drop from 100 to 200 yds. with a .303 British,( not exactly considered a flat shooter) based on velocity data from the shooting chrony and Ballistics program data from the old "Load From A Disc" computer program that's now history. Based on the B.C. of the bullet I was using and the velocity I recorded the Load From Disc program made a pretty good prediction of what kind of drop I should see. It was close enough to give me a little faith in both the chronograph and the ballistics program. For us old guys it's amazing to think that chronographs would someday be so common and affordable ; along with being able to teach us much more than just muzzle velocity..

Clark,

Yes, the effect of altitude is essentially barometric pressure--but altitude affects barometric pressure far more than localized weather at the same altitude.

Enjoyed reading that. I have a CED Millennium chronograph (their first model), but haven't used it. Moved shortly after I bought it and the closest range doesn't allow their use. The other range just isn't close enough. I rely on book data and the target to develop loads. I did set the Millennium up once in the back yard just to function test it by throwing little foam golf balls through it. Didn't work at first. Had to throw them hard enough to exceed 50 fps and then it registered. It does have a 2 ft spacing though and optional 4, 6 and 8 ft mounting brackets can be used with it. Maybe one of these days I'll get to play with it. The tripod is an older aluminum one that belonged to my father. I'll keep that cautionary note in mind about the wind and add some weight for ballast.

They're funny things, as far as how they've influenced handloading---at least in my experience. I remember making the decision to get my first one back in the early 90s. I was convinced that I'd have all the answers to all the questions I ever had. Once I began using it, I realized I had only more questions and few of the answers I expected.

The point that a guy can get by without one is not lost on me, and despite their limitations, I'd never be without one these days. Mine have kept me out of trouble for the most part.

As has mine.

Interesting. Gave me a little more insight into how the really early digital chronos were made. Bet the battery didn't last long.

I bought a rebuilt Chrony a couple decades ago.
Still going strong.

Great article! Thanks for sharing.

I was too cheap to pay for the "P" version of the Oehler 35 when I bought it about 15 years ago, but the 35 provided great service. After a year and a half of owning a Labradar, I gave the Oehler away to a friend. It was hard to get the Oehler screens to stay put in our windy conditions, which limited the amount of days per year that I could use the Oehler. Wind caused many wasted trips to the range. Now, I can set up in 5 minutes in conditions that would frustrate my Oehler (or me), including an indoor handgun range.

So far, using my notes for comparison, Labradar velocities are consistent with my older Oehler data.

Yeah, wind can be a factor, especially in Wyoming! What part do you live in?

So far, buying new guns has used up my chronograph budget. As you said, one can get by very well without one, especially when they stay solidly in the low and middle range of the load tables as I usually do. Not much need for eye-bleeding velocity around here, and barrel life of well-liked and dependable rifles is more important than a little more speed. When I eventually make the jump, it will probably be for a Labradar, having suffered through the gyrations of others setting up their screens on ranges I was using. Charlie Petty seems to like his pretty well, based on articles I've seen, and now you've confirmed his opinion for me.

Same here. Bought my 33 in 1981


PIX for demo only.



NO repairs but had to replace the skyscreens with new edition.
The new screens came with the difussers. I normally graph when cloudy and don't use them.






It seems to me that ALL of us GOT BY w/o a chronograph for a while.

But WITHOUT one WE were only GUESSING about velocity (speed). And I agree, mine has kept me out of trouble as well.

Jerry

"Staying out of trouble" (avoiding high pressures) thanks to your chronograph is a relatively new concept. When affordable chronographs first appeared, the point seemed to be getting the highest velocity possible, so you could brag to your buddies, with actual numbers to back up your brag.

Cheyenne.

John, your description of using the Custom Chronograph with the break-screens brings back memories. I bought one in 1979 (partnering with a friend of mine) by driving to the owner of Custom Chronographs house and buying directly from him as he only lived about 30 miles away from where I lived at that time. I also set it up on a wooden 2x4 and clamped that to a old camera tripod.

I never had sky-screens for mine and eventually bought out my friend's share of the chronograph along with his extra break screens. That old Custom Chronograph always worked even though it might set around for years between uses. I was very frugal with the use of it because after Custom Chronographs went out of business I had no supply of additional break-screens. It probably would still work if I hadn't throw it away a few years ago. My friend didn't use it much perhaps because his velocities were over 200 fps less than he thought they were doing in his modified M 94 Swedish Mauser carbine in 6.5X55. Another friend was also disappointed in his 270 Winchester hand loads velocities. I used it mainly with my dearly beloved 7X57 and since I had settled on a good load for that rifle had little need to chronograph loads as I had few if any other rifles at the time in my life.

JB, thanks for another informative article. I'm on my third chrono. First was a Shooting Chrony, then a Pact timer with the chrono mod in it. Now a Pro Chrono Digital. The Pact was good for years then began to show faster than normal readings, especially when the battery voltage dropped. It is too old to be repaired now they tell me, (1985 vintage). The Pro Chrono is a pleasure to set up and use.

I usually record "extreme spread" instead of SD. Is it equally worthless with a small number of shots?

MD,
Great article,
I had a Shooting Chrony pro for several years, and like some of yours it went bat [bleep].. Worked well for several years. I now have a Labradar and love it. So easy to setup and use. The SD card and the excel spreadsheet make things easy to track and sort. Helps to confirm and get better handloads with real world data not just a guess and depending on what the "books" say it should be.

Great article. Beware though, excessive use of chronographs can cause mental illness. At one time I owned 3 of the darn things...and had them set up to operate simultaneously...because I didn't "like" the numbers I was getting. Imagine, if you will, a proven rifle load, same batch of carefully handloaded ammo, same rifle, same atmospheric conditions within 2%....and getting velocities up to 80 fps different on successive days. Two Oehler's and a Pact. Which verified each other, seldom showing much more than 8 fps variance. Aaaargh. Doctor friend prescribed selling two chronographs and daily infusion of alcohol, flavored with juniper berries. I'm taking it one day at a time.

thanks for the great article on chronographs Mule Deer ! when Ohler started selling 35p chronographs to public again i purchased one also, its by far the best chronograph made and i own 2 other brands too.but as i get older i use chronographs less every year for my rifles but for archery i have one set up in the basement . i also looked up the price on the LabRadar chronograph and for the package its just under $600.00 it would be nice to own but for me i own 3 already i don`t need another one anymore. thanks again,Pete53

I started loading back in the 50s and all I had to go by for velocity was the manuals and they were not as trustworthy as I would have liked. When I had access to proper test equipment and a decent lab I designed a chronograph in the later 60s. It wasn't even as "user friendly" as the one described. It had wire screens and it just gave a binary read out that had to be manually converted. At least it told me the velocity and it was more or less correct. Built out of outdated parts and hand wired it had few saving graces. Questionable results meant a trip back to the office and a calibrated scope.

I love my pro chrony. accuracy is close enough and the very occasional failure to read are not a problem big enough to worry about.

Started out with a Chrony back around '99 and it still works fine albeit at the home of a friend. Pro Chrono showed up several years back and I have no problem with its performance. I never was one to pursue high velocity with any firearm, preferring precision instead. I was a bit bemused to discover that low velocity spreads were not the Holy Grail. That came to light one day when a 5 fps spread was FAR less precise than 25 fps, this with a .338 Win.

Another surprise came from following the suggestion of a Hodgdon rep who suggested I could fill a .22 K/Hornet case safely with their magical Lil Gun. It was a Ruger #1 and I was amazed to see excellent groups with 40 gr bullets that were topping 3400 fps with something around 13.5 gr of powder. Hey, I didn't need a .222 after all!

Until the primer pockets grew.

They are a useful tool, but not nearly as useful as a functional brain.

John, thanks for the telling, very well done!

I do too, have had it for 20 years.

Wonderful article, really enjoyed it.

Still using my Magnetospeed.

Mule deer: Labradar chronograph have you used one much ? i wonder what would happen to this type of chronograph during cold weather will it freeze up ? or if left in vehicle over night in the cold winter would it freeze up and break ? in a heated shooting house with small windows that the barrels are poked out ,i suppose this type chronograph would still have to be outside somehow ? my ohler just stays in shooting house year around cold or warm and it just works as long as it has a fresh battery.but i do see the Labradar works better in low light conditions and thats positive thing and like that feature.

Great article John--enjoyed the read, and in a sense, a look back into the world of the later 1970's.

Back in 1977, I would often see this older guy at the range, shooting his wildcats--he was a dedicated looney.

He always had the "ancient" unit along, and one day he asked me, "Do you know what that is??? It's a CHRONOGRAPH !"

He spoke about it in near mystical tones, as if he had the secrets of atomic energy at his disposal within that device....

Pete,

Just bought my Labradar this spring so haven't used it in real cold, but the directions say it shouldn't be used in real cold, as I recall not below about +20 Fahrenheit.

However, it would NOT have to be outside a shooting house, because in fact it needs to be at least a little bit BEHIND the muzzle, and farther back when shooting rifles with muzzle brakes. In the photo, the muzzle of the 7mm magnum I'm shooting is 1-2" in front.

It also supposedly doesn't work with bullets below .20 caliber or velocities much above 3900 fps. Some users have reported occasional exceptions, but so far mine has not worked when I tried it with .17 caliber bullets or .20's at 4400.

I knew that guy.....and miss him.

Jerry,

Glad you enjoyed it!

That's funny about the old wildcatter! Was that at the Logan range? I only shot there once, to sight-in my Savage 99 .308 before the 1967 season. The next year my family moved to Boise, and while I came back to Bozeman a few years later, only stayed a little while before moving on. Never have shot at Logan again except for a Sporting Clays deal maybe 15 years ago.

Not long after purchasing the Custom Chronograph, I tried even harder to avoid other shooters at the range, not just because some got mad when velocities didn't match their imagination, but because I eventually realized somebody could shoot my investment....

I was sure if you read this that you would know who I meant--he was a great guy, reminded me of what I imagined P.O. Ackley would have been like.

Most of his cartridges were AI's.

I saw that you called, so will try to give you a ring later this afternoon...

John,

Yes, that was at Logan, back when all there was in the distance was a 100, and 300 yard berm--and two wood benches.

He was always there early in the morning--about the same time I would go in order to beat the wind, which often came up about 11:00 am.

I often wanted to visit with him, to see what new creation he had along. Really interesting guy, because he was different than all the other shooter's out there. I would estimate that he would have been about 75 years of age at that time. Fun times!!

If I could go back in time, there would be a BUNCH of questions I'd ask various people met along the way!

I should also mention, that there was another elderly guy there who also used a chronograph.

His name was Wiggle--he was a genius with several college degrees, and who sported some old black, thick lens glasses, and always wore J.C. Penney matching big Mack's shirt and pants.

One day, he was out there shooting, and followed a string of cussing, as he had just blasted his Chronograph!

He was truly eccentric. Pat went to see him one day, and the guy was watching an old black and white TV that had about a 10 inch screen, that was set in the far corner of the livingroom. He sat in the other far corner, watching the TV with a binocular...

That made me chuckle. Thanks.

Good article JB. I figured it was only a matter of time before you came around with a Labradar. 😀

I need to get me labradar..

A sensitive nose?

^ This.

I currently use a Labradar mainly for load development. Not interested in getting the fastest speed, just consistent speed. I've had several over the years, the first being a Chrony over 30 years ago.

ahumm - Oh yes, my friend. You'd 'think' that 'consistent' velocities INDICATE an accurate load . But NOT necessarily so.
There are other things that enter the equation. So far I haven't found THE thing most important to tell me what an accurate load is........

other than shooting groups.


Jerry

thanks again Mule Deer i would have P.M. you with these Questions ,but i think others may want to know these answers too. i would be interested in how well you like your new Labradar too in 5-6 months. Pete53

Pete,

I've used it at the range probably 8-10 times now, so can provide something of a review already. Here are the positives:

Unlike the other popular chronograph that doesn't have to be out in front of the bench, the Magnetospeed, I don't have to change the chronograph from rifle to rifle, and the Labradar also doesn't affect accuracy or point-of-impact, as the Magnetospeed usually does. (Or, if using the MS on a stand, as some people do, I don't have to align the Labradar perfectly and closely in front of the muzzle for every rifle.)

It sets up very easily.

The 100-yard range I usually shoot at has target stands not just at 100 yards but 25, 50 and 75,, lined up alternately alongside the lane to the 100-yard target. Unlike light-screen chronographs, I can shoot at any of them without have to move the chronograph. This saves a considerable amount of time, as I normally shoot several rifles (and sometimes handguns or slug guns) during each range session.

I have read reviews of the Labradar that said it went through batteries very quickly--and it uses 6 AA's, which can get expensive. I purchased a batch of 24 at a local store, rather than automatically buying the optional rechargeable battery pack, to see if this was true. So far have not had to change the first set of batteries, perhaps because I turn the unit off when needing to change rifles or targets.

Here are the negatives:

Unlike the Oehler 35P, it doesn't provide a double-check of each bullet's velocity.

It also doesn't work on bullets under .20 caliber or going over 4000 fps, and the Oehler does. I don't shoot many of those, but still do more than occasionally (probably more than most shooters) because of what I do.

According to the directions, it won't work down around zero Fahrenheit, and I usually do some 0 (or minus) testing every winter. In 2017-18, for example, I made four cold tests with various rifles and loads. I haven't had an opportunity to test this, because the coldest its been since purchasing the Labradar is around 35-40.

Unless those limitations change, the Oehler is still my go-to-chronograph for many purposes.

my reasons for changing to this type of chronograph " Labradar" is set-up would be easier,i am in a heated shooting house,but wonder if it still works if barrel is in shooting window ? but i can shoot inside window too if i had too ? my main reason is light problems with a Ohler in northern Minnesota we have very poor sunlight in winter . and again thank you for the info,Pete53

25 Creedmoor i am almost done with stock now to install the new barrel , i hope in the near future some rifle manufacture starts building this cartridge and sends one your way ! that would give me a big grin for better reloading data !

Pete, the Labradar used Doppler radar to sense the bullet's flight toward the target, recording it several times. It calculates the muzzle velocity from those several radar readings, so you can't use it inside a shooting house unless there's a hole in front of the chronograph.

My current chronograph is from Caldwell. I use it mainly for verification on the consistency of velocities. I picked this one as it syncs via Bluetooth to my smart phone. I can observe each shot on the phone. The phone app allows me to save groups of shots into a file. It allows for deleting of a problem round It gives me my spread and SD. I can also attach a photo of my group to the file. I can record as many rounds as I wish to a file

Here is a screen shot of one of the files from my phone



An ad for my chrono

https://shop.brownells.com/shooting...msclkid=6034954b47c11458e438c8683fe545bd

Technology marches on! I have the Pro Chrono Digital, which is the model just before the DLX. I purchased the bluetooth module in order to use my tablet or phone, but the DLX has built in Bluetooth.

Another option, if you are shopping around for a new Chronograph. The DLX lists for $135, but it might be a bit cheaper if you look around.



https://www.competitionelectronics.com/product/prochrono-dlx/

I think I'd gladly forego the printer on my 35P for the Bluetooth feature, but I'd never give up the 35P's technical superiority. Maybe a Labradar someday...

True, consistent velocity doesn't indicate an accurate load. However, once you've sorted the accuracy out, it's important for long range shooting if you're into that.

Mule Deer,
i do have 2 windows in front of my cement bench a left and a right both are 10 inch by 14 inches high 2 feet apart would that work ? i shoot out of the right hole . or do you have the phone number for Labradar. i hate to spend $600.00 if it won`t work in my warm dry shooting house .thank you,Pete53

Nice writeup, Sir. You "Get it" with respect to measuring velocity.

I must admit, however, that the first photo made me think "He's got M57 screens AND knows about using a blast shield!!"

The thing I miss about those screens (don't have them since I retired) was their large (and forgiving) window. Of course, they also need standard power (AC).

Thanks for sharing your insight.

Buford,

Very much appreciated!

The Oehler photo was taken at the Western Powders pressure lab.

I hear a lot of talk about the time & trouble of setting up certain chronos.



** Dr. Oehler & M D tell us that chronos give better accuracy with 'farther' screen spacing.
>>> I mounted my screens EXACTLY 5 ' C - C in a 2X4 first then a 2X6 with S S III. No muss, No fuss, Doesn't take long.
I'm going to mount the IIIs flush with the top of the board, just haven't gotten a roundtuit.

I set up with the first screen 10' from my muzzle.




PIX for demo only.






Jerry

Good info, I usually shoot through a chronograph but ocassionally at them. This is why I would not borrow this tool from others.
I do get annoyed with all the useless info they gather these days. Start / stop is good enough for me. I don't need the additional Brain clutter.
Perhaps it is just me but slowing things down a tad to make entries in my journal is fun.

I would say that most people don't need an expensive chronograph. An error of a few fps isn't going to make any difference to the majority of reloaders, but like a lot of hobby related things, people are willing to spend huge amounts to say that they own certain pieces of equipment.

living in Minnesota we have winter and the ground is white up to 6 months a year ,but i have plenty time to reload and shoot my rifles all winter long but getting enough light in the winter for my chronograph to work right can be a big problem with all the trees in my rifle range in the winter. but shooting in a warm dry shooting house is very nice and i am not giving that up. so if i can find a way to use a Labradar Chronograph inside this shooting house i will purchase one , besides setting up and taking down my Ohler is a pain in the rear end in the winter most of the time it involves shoveling snow too so the Ohler is level . if its cloudy the chronograph will not work otherwise i have to wait tell 10 or 11 am for the sun to be high enough for any chronograph to work in the winter and be done by 2 pm, so i have a very short window of opportunity to use a chronograph too. this is why i ask these questions about a Labradar Chronograph i need or want a different type way to measure FPS better and longer in the winter in my warm dry shooting house. believe me once you shoot in this type of shooting house you won`t ever again enjoy shooting in the winter outdoors on cold nasty bench again all dressed up trying to stay warm or even when its hot i am in the shade with a big over head fan keep`n me cooler too.

I use my Labradar at an indoor pistol range. As long as the front of the unit is unobstructed by a barrier, I don't see it being an issue unless there is a temperature issue as discussed by MD earlier.

I use my Magnetospeed anecdotally. "Hmmm, I wonder what speed these 190 grain cast bullets really are going out of this Savage M1899 .303?" Statistical averaging and digital/electronic storage and retrieval are totally of no consequence to me. I chose the Magnetospeed purely because of its not requiring the setup of devices out in front of the bench, and its compactness- it rides inside the same soft case that holds my spotting scope. That said, and God help me, I'm seriously considering a Labradar and will do so once I justify spending as much as what I can buy a decent used rifle for. Strange how a rifle loony's mind works...

Buy another 99 instead!

Well, ok then!!

OK, let me start off by stating I’m thought of by most as a down to earth, practical lad. I say that because what I’m about to post will cause many to see me as living life on the edge of sanity. So here we go! I have a custom 257 Roberts (not an AI) built on a pre-64 action. To it is screwed a 23” Krieger barrel. The stock an older Pacific Research fiberglass stock. Optic is a Leupold FX 11 6x36 scope in S&K mounts.
Now the interesting part. With a load of IMR4831 beneath a 115 grain Nosler Partition, in Remington and using Federal 210 primers I’m getting 3180 FPS as measured by an older chronograph AND by a new radar chronograph.
No sticky bolt, no pancake primers at all!
I’m not reporting the powder amount, but it’s north of the Nosler manual and a grain more than Finn Aagaard reported in his excellent book,”Hunting Rifles & Cartridges”.(See page 109)
Contrary to what the above may lead you to believe, my goal is never to wring out the last 10 feet of velocity of velocity in any load; but this time it appears I certainly have.

One thing for sure, getting a chronograph definitely pointed out to me the inaccuracies of judging velocity by the fired primer appearance....



Got an Oehler 35 in the late 90's after using a couple of less than reliable other ones. The plastic housing is getting kind of beat up and I keep thinking that after 20+ years it's time to upgrade, but it keeps on ticking and never lets me down. Plus I wouldn't know what to upgrade to. Nice to read MD is still using his and considers it to still be among the best for a hobbyist type handloader.

Like many here, I mostly use mine these days to keep out of trouble - and it has paid for itself several times over by pointing out potentially big trouble approaching more than once.

Thanks for an interesting and informative article. But my how times have changed. Really, a chronograph from LLBean? I've purchased a few clothing items from them in the past(but no more). Looking thru their catalogs there is nothing that appears even remotely useful for hunting/shooting.

now this brings up another question i need to ask if its cold outside let`s say 0 ,10 below or even 20 below and inside my shooting house its 45 - 60 degrees now i wonder how well a Labradar will work with a 10 inch x 14 inch open window ?

here`s another thought: while using this Labradar chronograph could it cause Cancer ?

Well, I was new enough at the game that I didn't know what to think actually, but I was full up with dogma and that's a fact. It was shortly after that that I read "Rifle Accuracy Facts" by Harold Vaughn and came to the conclusion it's a miracle that anyone can hit anything with a rifle or pistol. We are nothing more than conductors for the Chaos Opera.

As "perfectionists", we tend to expect paying more will obtain perfection. Two of the greatest benefits of the Oehler system, to me, are:

1 - The description of EXPECTED accuracy (they don't claim to be perfect). and
2 - the ability to control the accuracy of your system.

The system lets you set it up whatever way works best for you. Longer spacings are more accurate...and less convenient. I've played around with spacings as long as 18'. I have heard of one shooter that setup a 40' spacing. The 35P lets you go to 15'.

Most of my work is done with 9' or 8' spacings.

I would not put much faith in any chronograph that had a 1' or 2' spacing.

From the Oehler 35P manual:

ACCURACY:
The expected error on any one shot depends on both velocity and screen
spacing. Typical errors are shown in the table. The table assumes good light
conditions, dark bullets, exact screen spacing, and shooting through the
center of the Skyscreen III window. Actual errors under your shooting
conditions will be reliably indicated by the PROOF CHANNEL®.

1 FT 2 FT 4 FT 8 FT
1000 FPS 5 fps 3 fps 1 fps 1 fps
2000 FPS 10 fps 5 fps 3 fps 2 fps
3000 FPS 16 fps 8 fps 4 fps 2 fps
4000 FPS 21 fps 10 fps 5 fps 3 fps

You will typically see the above errors as differences between the primary
and proof channels of a Model 35P as you shoot under "normal" conditions.
PROOF CHANNEL®:


The system alerts you with a flashing display and printed asterisk if there is a
significant difference between the two velocity readings. Differences which
trigger the alert are shown for typical velocities and screen spacings.

1 FT 2 FT 4 FT 8 FT
1000 FPS 42 fps 21 fps 10 fps 5 fps
2000 FPS 83 fps 42 fps 21 fps 10 fps
3000 FPS 125 fps 63 fps 31 fps 16 fps
4000 FPS 166 fps 83 fps 42 fps 21 fps

I expect the above errors from THE BEST sensors. Assuming all other machines use the same quality sensors (probably being overly generous here), they should also have the same expected error.

For my situation, the "hassle" of an 8' spacing is well worth the increase in accuracy.

The Oehler 35P manual is available online. It is well worth the read even if you don't plan to purchase one. Additionally, you can find Bryan Litz's chapter on chronographs online. It is the best explanation I have seen of how chronographs work.

Mr. B Boone - an excellent post. Thank You.




An Update to my earlier post:



This is how I mounted the sky screen IIIs when I upgraded from the IIs.
I haven't had any problems but WANTED them mounted flush.


PIX for Demo only.



photoPUKEIT is NOT cooperating. I'm UNDER the limit of images for free hosting but THEY are being XXXXXXXXXXXX.
I'm contacting them and telling them what I think and the FREE press they are receiving.


Yesterday I decided it was time to fix them like I want.




They are FLUSH with the top of the board.
You'd HAVE to be an INEPT shooter among other things to hit one.

ATST it only takes a couple of minutes if I swapped them back in order to use the Diffusers.

With the screens permanently mounted on a board, set up and take down is quick and easy.



Jerry

ps: they are spaced 5' C - C

Steinert Sensing System AS Super Chrono,made in Norway > has anyone used or purchased one of these chronographs ? i have spent alot of time reviewing new type chronographs this one also works in low light and is much lower priced too it appears but nobody has any in stock right now, it only reads FPS which is all most of us need.

Buford ,

Good post .
How are things going ?

Soup

Soup,

I'm enjoying retirement from the best job in the world. I'm also having a great time consulting, teaching and researching...but on my own schedule.

Exciting things on the horizon for long and extremely long range shooters.

I hope you are doing well.

The first thing that I see is that the bullets need to be supersonic. This would eliminate its use on most handguns and some rim fire rounds. It would also be useless for bow.

Another great MD article.
Another Oehler 33 soldiering on.
10ft spacing 10ft from the muzzle. I have 3 pieces of conduit with screw type connectors. Still kind of a PITA to set up. My last place I had permanent brackets, just place the screens and start shooting.

>yes your right but for the lower price ,ease of setup ,works in low light, rain or snow ,would be perfect for many of us that get sick of setting up our normal chronographs and will work just fine for handloaded rifle ammo.

Great write-up!

I got my 35P about '92 when I was shooting about 6 days a week. I was curious mainly to determine effects of altitude and temperature on established loads. I developed and shot at sea level with range temperatures around 80 or higher, yet all my hunting was in Montana and Wyoming, mostly late season when the temperatures were at freezing and many times near zero. Learned a lot, but mainly that at most reasonable ranges, under 300 yards, 300fps through a 338 Win Mag, didn't make much difference for a clean kill. But that started my quest for temperature tolerant propellants, which led me away from my beloved RL22. I hauled my chronograph to my hunting areas and fired over it in those low temperatures several times to settle on other propellants. Never had a moments problem with my 35P.

I have the 35P and the LabRadar. While I’ve enjoyed my Oehler for years, the LabRadar’s ease of setup has sent my Oehler to the attic. Dealing with the Oehler at a crowded range (even a private one) is a huge buzzkill. If I had my own place to shoot, it might be different.

As for chronos in general, I find that being able to see velocity level off as I increase charge weight is invaluable.

Great article. John! Tahnk You!

I moved away from Chrony, first, and Prochrono, second, as soon as MagnetoSpeed became available. It worked quite well, though the weight at the tip of the barrel changed the harmonics and altered both the grouping and the point of impact of the gun.

Not a big deal, as it just meant shooting a bit more, checking speeds first and concentrating on accuracy thereafter.

Then, LabRadar appeared on the scene, I sold my MagnetoSpeed to a good friend and bought one for the sake of its easier set up and beacause I could check speeds while paying attention to groups and point of impact.

Regarding LabRadar... From one day to another I have recorded different speeds with what I believe to be exactly the same load and gun. It has happenede to me twice, with two different guns... It might be my error, due to some mistake in my writing down data into reloading notes but I do not think so. I need to recheck, of course but I am 99,9% percent that my notes are correct. So the question is, will de LabRadar produce different readings due to (slightly) different positions and/or angle relative to the muzzle and barrel axis? If I place it way off course I will not get a reading, but if I do get a reading will it be the same, alwasy, regardless a slight difference in the positioning of the LabRadar?

Thank You!

Alvaro

Alvaro,

I have seen different results from day to day when chronographing the same load with several different chronographs. This can be due to several factors, but usually not the chronograph as much as temperature. Many powders are affected to some degree by warmer or cooler conditions.

But variations can also be due to the usual practice of most handloaders, who chronograph 3 or (at most) 5 shots of a certain load. As I've mentioned in other places, the ammo factories I've visited usually chronograph several dozen rounds of the same load before coming to any conclusions about velocity and consistency--and they're working indoors, in far more controlled conditions than most handloaders.

What sort of variations are you seeing from day to day?

Mule Deer, have you heard or used this type of chronograph > Steinert Sensing System AS Super Chrono made in Norway ?

I've found the chronograph to be interesting, but not essential.



Like many others here, I came up with good, accurate handloads long before I had a chronograph. They worked fine at the range and in the field. Then I went chronograph crazy and used them on all of my different handloads, and to check some factory ammo as well.

Now, I use it when the whim strikes. Always interesting, but perhaps not as useful as I once thought it to be.

Regards, Guy

33 and 41 fps difference in the average of two five-shot strings... First one a .270WCF loaded with modern H4831SC, and second one a 6,5x57R loaded with Vihta's N160. All four strings recorded at similar temperatures.

I know it is not much, but was wondering if positioning of the LR would be the cause.

You think such a difference is within the load randomness?

Alvaro

It sounds like more variation that I'd expect. Are you using batteries or the rechargeable unit?

A rechargeable unit, a 20000Ah power bank with plenty of charge before and after those uses.

How many rounds in each string?

Five shots in each string, John.

Sounds a little out of the ordinary. Were the barrels cleaned for one session, and fouled for the other? Have seen that make a difference on occasion.

I am not sure... Maybe, but I clean every 40 or so, so they never get filthy. Both are Dyna Bore Coated, by the way. I

I am a bit puzzled, I admit.

WELL !! I guess giving photoPUKEIT a piece of my mind had some affect. The other day 'they' only said, "oops".
I notice today that they got their act together. The FIRST pic was posted AS I intended .
RETARDS !!



[quote=jwall >> On P 7


PIX for Demo only.



photoPUKEIT is NOT cooperating. I'm UNDER the limit of images for free hosting but THEY are being XXXXXXXXXXXX.
I'm contacting them and telling them what I think and the FREE press they are receiving.



*!*! it only takes a couple of minutes to swap between top mount for diffusers to FLUSH mount for protection.

Jerry

I'm hopelessly Neanderthal, practices which I learned from my dad on the ranch in the Oregon big empty.

Out on the rimrock table top early mornings when the air was cool and still with targets set out to 400 yards, 50 yards intervals after 200 yards.

Make the shot strings, then hike out to measure the load results and write 'em down for comparison later.

Both the second and now third generations shake their heads at 'ol uncle Puddle's routines now done in the foothills of where I now live.

But they readily admit that "he's darn deadly out to 400 yards or so...."

Puddle,

Good technique! Did the same basic thing for many years before computer ballistic programs and laser rangefinders.

I still confirm velocity/computer results at the local range early in the mornings when the air is still.

The range has a pile of gongs scattered across it out to 1000 yards, and sometimes I shoot that far, especially when testing a magic dialing scope. But for my own purposes usually quit somewhere from 300-600, depending on the rifle.

Bought my 33 from Ken when his daughter was a student at Rice. Picked it up personally from her at her place on campus.

Still use a 35 with the screens permanently mounted in a box that sets up on a single tripod quite quickly and easily. I've tried the MS and LR and can't get past their shortcomings. Have a spare 35 I may send down the road soon. Sooner or later
there will be new tech that works for me.

Great stuff MD.

I started off with a Shoot'n Chrony many years ago. It worked as advertised, and was much better than nothing. But, it was a PITA to set up, which discouraged its use at busy shooting ranges.

I switched to a Labradar last year. It is super easy to use! It is so easy, I now pretty much always collect velocity data whenever i shoot from a bench.

MD,

I too now use dial-a-distance knobs paired with a LRF, but still don't own chrony.

I tell the young 'uns there's only the 3 C's to knocking down dinner at distance:

1. Consistent rifle
2. Consistent ammo
3. Consistent practice

With the tools we have available today, guess which C they have the most difficulty with?

Yes it’s out of the ordinary, but have found Dyna Tek bore coat can do weird sh*t. Plus the fact that they have 0 customer service. Anyhow 30 shots on the same day in 10 shot strings, notice that the average only varies 3 fps on average over the 3 strings. Shot over a 35P but only put in the proof to avoid clutter.

Shinbone,

I avoided the LabRadar for quite a while, because of reading about its limitations, both in caliber and velocity. I test a wide variety of rifles (and handguns and shotguns), usually at least 5 at a time during any range session. It did not sound like the ideal chronograph for my purposes, but eventually (being a responsible journalist) had to try one to see if my assumptions were correct, so bought one.

Loved it for the first half-dozen sessions. As you note, it's very easy to set up and use, particularly if you shoot on a public range. (I usually don't, but sometimes do.) The velocity results were exactly the same as recorded on my Oehler 35P, given the difference between muzzle velocity (LR) and 15 feet in front of the muzzle (Oehler). I also really liked getting actual muzzle velocity, though correcting for it from light-screen velocities isn't difficult.

Eventually I did test it with sub .22 caliber bullets, and loads over 4000 fps, which LR's info mentions. And they did not record, as predicted. That was OK, since probably 98% of my chronographing is within those limits.

Eventually, however, I ran into some problems. First was the necessity for resetting the velocity parameters from most centerfire rifles to the lower velocity setting for handguns, shotguns, some muzzleloaders and some blackpowder cartridge loads. Resetting wasn't difficult, but required some time--and battery life.

Then one day I had several rifles at the range, and was shooting some loads for an article involving a high-BC 6mm bullet, with a small flat base at the rear due to the long, tapered boattail. The LR would not pick up that bullet, even though it did fine with others with the same set-up, including flat-base .224s. Luckily, I had brought along the Oehler as well, and was able to finish the session.

Found the LR great within its limitations, but I spend a lot of time at the range testing stuff, and eventually realized it was costing me too much time--which in any profession is money. If the LabRadar folks ever develop a model that overcomes the present model's limits, would definitely buy another. But after actually trying the present version, my pre-use assumptions were confirmed, plus a couple of others.

It's fine unit for those shooters with less variable needs.

John - while the Labradar is a good instrument for a regular hunter like myself, I can see how it is not the best choice for a professional who has to test a wide range of ammunition.

One thing I have noticed is that the instrument can be sensitive to aiming errors, but the notch-in-the-side-of-the-case is a crude aiming system, and that is being generous. With easy-to-track 6.5mm bullets, only a slight tweak can make the difference between tracking bullets 30 yards and tracking them 120 yards. I would imagine improved aiming could make the difference between measuring smaller bullets or not at all. Unfortunately, the notch is woefully inadequate for such precision aiming.

The current Labradar is a first generation product. Hopefully, there will soon be a second gen product with improvements.

That's what I'm hoping as well!

shinebone and Mule Deer, Thank You , i was going to order a Labradar on Monday you 2 saved me some money ,i guess i will wait tell the next generation comes out and just keep using my Oehler. i really hate setting up my Oehler but it never fails me once its set up, but its hard to use here in Minnesota with snow on the ground and half the time very cloudy in the winter. i have been now loading and shooting a 25 Creedmoor and now i wonder with these long 131 gr. bullets maybe these bullets won`t read on a Labradar either ? again thanks for the new details on a Labradar Chrono ,Pete53

pete53 - I can't say for sure, but I bet the Labradar will read a .25 cal bullet just fine. It is the small-boattail .22 bullets, and smaller, like John mentioned, that it may have problems with. My unit reads my .223Rem V-Max bullets perfectly well.

The length of the bullet doesn't matter. It is the size of the flat portion of the bullet's base that matters. If that flat portion is too small, there is not enough surface area to reflect sufficient radar signal for the machine to receive and read. That is why some boattail .22 bullets can be difficult, but most any flat base .22 bullet works just fine.

thanks but i might as well wait now for the Generation 2 ? Maybe Mule Deer has some influence or knowledge when the next Labradar comes out ? i would sure hate to spend $600.00 and the next week the new one comes out and the 1st generation sells for $200.00 just to get rid of them. thanks,Pete53

Obviously, buy what you want when you want. Just to be clear, though, I have no idea when, or if, there will ever be a Gen 2 Labradar. My earlier comments were just my personal thoughts desiring an improved model. I have no special knowledge or influence with the Labradar folks.

yes i understand but i own 3 Chronographs now so i have plenty already ,my other thought is maybe someone else in the world might make a new version that works as good or better too maybe even cheaper ?

pete53,

I still have four chronographs after selling the Labradar, but do you have a ProChrono? I have their cheapest version, the Pal, which I tend to use when snow makes setting up the Oehler a PITA. Have tested them together than the ProChrono gets just about exactly the same average result. The distance between the screens is much shorter, and it doesn't have the second "check" channel, so it's not much use for statistical analyses. But it still provides usable averages.

I’ve had a 35P for many years and have been extremely happy with it. Setting up is an effort but with practice I got pretty good at it. My club in Minnesota had a relatively small membership, and as a retiree I could go during the week so that I almost never had a problem waiting for a cold range. When I moved to Colorado, I was very lucky to join a club, but it has a large membership, is very organized, and is usually quite busy.

The upshot of this story is that I recently ordered a Labradar. I’ve unpacked it, but not taken it to the range yet. I read a lot of reviews before purchase. I am optimistic that it will work for me as I load cartridges from .257 Roberts up to .375 H&H. I’ve seen negative comments about aiming, but then others chime in that it is not awful. When the weather permits, I guess I’ll find out.

JMHO, a rechargeable external battery is very helpful with the Labradar.

I got a rechargeable external battery as well.

Al,

Should work great for your purposes.

I tried 2 of them. They were terrible.

yep i got a ProChrono too i thought about using it ,guess i will try ? ever hear if a Labradar 2 is being made ? thank you,Pete53

Great article Mule Deer. I still have my Oehler Model 12 I bought back in the late '70s. I need to set it up one day to see if it still works.

John,

I’ve had a Pro Chrono for years and have used it a bunch. Generally like it but have noticed it gives significantly differing readings depending on ambient lighting, even within the same day. Have you ever seen that with yours?

Lately, I haven’t even been using a chrono. Instead I put best guess velocity in Ballistic AE, shoot it at 800 yards and derive corrected velocity using the software function. It works extremely well.

John

I have a Pact chronograph and bought my first one in the 80"s and really don't know how accurate it is. Mainly I use it to try and verify velocity when working up a new load. I know I can get by with out a chronograph. Once I settle on a load I will shoot it from 25 to 500 yards to see where bullets land. That is what I go by, where the bullet lands.

For most all Alaskan hunting the shot will be under 200 yards. My wife bought me a nice Leica 900 range finder several years ago for Christmas. Every year I have it around my neck. I keep thinking eventually I will have a shot that requires ranging, but.....

Hondo,

My ProChrono is very consistent in varying light conditions--but it's a recent model.

It's certainly much easier to "back figure" muzzle velocities these days, using software! And it certainly provides as much information as any of us really need.

I use chronographs mostly because of my profession, which pretty much demands it. Plus, it's a lot easier for me to test 4-6 rifles (a typical afternoon at the range for me) over a chronograph, rather than shooting them at various distances to obtain muzzle velocity. Then I test the rifles I may use at longer distances at the local 1000-yard range.

i do have lights for my pro chrono and 120 volts plug in at my 100 yard range would that keep it more consistent ?

You mean in addition to natural sunlight?

Wow John
Missed this last summer. A great write up on the subject. Also enjoyed the posts of others with their experience.
I enjoy the bullet shooting, and shotgun sports and getting good numbers for those smoothbore shells is no easy task. Between shell to shell variability and the challenge of the muzzle blast and fast dispersing loads some "Adventures" have been Had....
Can confirm the use of known lot factory loads to "Proof" the work is indeed very helpful.
Thanks again for writing this one up.

yes with natural day light also.

Don't think it would make any difference.

Have tested both my ProChrono Pal and Oehler 35P in widely varying light conditions with the same loads, and they're both very consistent, even with 17-caliber bullets.

Never regretted buying my Oehler 35 over 20 years ago. Got the light kit to use indoors, works well. Was too poor at the time to get it with the printer, added it later as my financial situation improved. Added greatly to my and friend's shooting enjoyment.

I appreciate JB's "retro" articles, as would have been written in pre-1990's magazines of note by Bob Milek or Dean Grennell, for example.

Thanks, Gregor.