Things I (re)learned about chronographs

[rockquarry]

I don't intend to start an argument, but it appears the Garmin is more popular than the Athlon, even with the Athlon being a good bit cheaper. I can't say I know anything about either unit. A person who's had ample experience with both could provide some helpful comments for prospective buyers.

 

[Rick H.]

I think the Garmin is more popular because it was the first compact chrono to come out of the market that truly worked and was very easy to set up. I have used all the various chrono's on the market over time, but my Garmin is the only one I use now. It even works on a short 15 yard indoor range which surprised me.

Did I enjoy spending $600.00 on it? No, not after I spent the same amount earlier on an orange box chrono that never recorded .22 cal. ammunition speeds. I contacted the manufacturer of the orange box laser chrono numerous times and never managed to make it work properly using their suggestions. I finally asked them if I could send the orange box chrono to them just to test it for proper functioning and I never heard back from them.

I tried to sell the orange box for $100.00 and had no takers. I won't buy another product from them ever again. It now resides in a dusty corner of my basement never to see the light of day. Ironically the same company came out with their own version of a compact chrono similar to the Garmin for about the same price. They knew full well something was coming from Garmin and my feeling was they gave up on their first model customer support concentrating instead on the new model that was just on the horizon. My advise to myself is stay far away from anything with "LAB" on it. Your opinions may vary though.

Rick H.

 

[rockquarry]

I think the Garmin is more popular because it was the first compact chrono to come out of the market that truly worked and was very easy to set up. I have used all the various chrono's on the market over time, but my Garmin is the only one I use now. It even works on a short 15 yard indoor range which surprised me.

Did I enjoy spending $600.00 on it? No, not after I spent the same amount earlier on an orange box chrono that never recorded .22 cal. ammunition speeds. I contacted the manufacturer of the orange box laser chrono numerous times and never managed to make it work properly using their suggestions. I finally asked them if I could send the orange box chrono to them just to test it for proper functioning and I never heard back from them.

I tried to sell the orange box for $100.00 and had no takers. I won't buy another product from them ever again. It now resides in a dusty corner of my basement never to see the light of day. Ironically the same company came out with their own version of a compact chrono similar to the Garmin for about the same price. They knew full well something was coming from Garmin and my feeling was they gave up on their first model customer support concentrating instead on the new model that was just on the horizon. My advise to myself is stay far away from anything with "LAB" on it. Your opinions may vary though.

Rick H.

I've used a LabRadar for about ten years. It has quirks like all chronographs do, but it's generally worked well. However, I found the owner's manual poorly written and difficult to use with my lotech level of technology smartness, but I suppose that's my fault. I'm still considering a Garmin or Athlon. Either would easily fit into my ancient Kennedy tool box for guns and accessories that resides permanently in my car and always accompanies me to the range.

 

[WR Moore]

I'm gonna challenge the "every reloader/shooter needs one" school of thought. I reloaded for decades using just the data in load manuals. Brought home a lot of game and shot a lot, including matches. The Lyman data books included factory duplication loads and most accurate loads (in their test guns) as well as a list of real world velocities of factory ammo. Seeing the differences between factory claims and actual performance was really interesting.

Actual ammo performance only became a factor for a lot of folks when IPSC got started and we were using ballistic pendulums (power meters) at some matches to make sure everyone's ammo would actually match GI ball*. Then chronographs got relatively affordable. I think I actually broke down and bought a PACT when I got into long range matches where 100 f/s meant a 3 foot difference in bullet impact out yonder. (I might have picked it up a bit earlier when my employer quit buying custom loaded ammo and we no longer tested every shipment for contract compliance. I scrounged all the extra sky screens and other accessories. Someone else got the unit, and PACT was affordable.) I've still got the power meter, can't find the data card that let me translate to foot seconds with some math. It was surprisingly accurate when compared to the chrono.

*You had to watch the folks who'd chrono one ammo batch and shoot another for score. If we got suspicious in a big match, we'd grab their last loaded magazine after they finished and test that. There was at least one powder where the ammo needed to be kept cold to "make major" in hot weather. "His/her ammo's in a cooler? Let's test that again."

 

[The Norseman]

I bought the Athlon Rangecraft Chronograph
$400 at the great Scheels sports store.

It’s compact, easy to use, turn on, point
towards target, and get your velocities.
I like it.

A friend and I tried it out on Bow/Arrow
speeds. He said the Athlon Rangecraft
processed the velocities faster than the
competitions pocket chronograph.

To set up the App on your cell phone watch
the Athlon video.

I would say these new miniature chrono-
graphs annihilated old conventions.

Handier than a pocket on a T-shirt.

 

[fordson]

I have a Garmin; daughters got for me as a BD gift. I was thinking about it for a while but the prince point was just a little high. However, now that I’ve used it, I like it more. After using optical chronographs for years, their set up and consistent adjustments for line of fire and sun, became a chore. The Garmin, on the other hand, is just easy to use and set up. I’ll add that from my experience, that moving the chronograph out of the line of fire is also a good move.

 

[KWW]

Picked up a new Garmin Xero a while back while developing loads for a new, custom 7mm PRC. With custom cut chambers and actions, loading manuals aren’t even close to actual fps. Also discovered the Hornady ammo snafu that way. Won’t develop loads without it now!

 

[Rick H.]

I'm gonna challenge the "every reloader/shooter needs one" school of thought. I reloaded for decades using just the data in load manuals. Brought home a lot of game and shot a lot, including matches. The Lyman data books included factory duplication loads and most accurate loads (in their test guns) as well as a list of real world velocities of factory ammo. Seeing the differences between factory claims and actual performance was really interesting.

I'll take the challenge WR Moore, but only for reloaders. While the manuals, books and websites may be good for rough edge reloading data, I have found there are just too many variables when one is trying to develop a desired handload. The only way for most "normal" people to check their loads is with the use of a chronograph. I was pretty surprised after I bought my first Chrony, at the differences I was seeing between "book" loads and what I had worked up using information from a book.

Early on I was laughed at by several handloaders who claimed they never needed a chronograph, nor did they desire one. Then on a few occasions some of these individuals asked if they could pass a few of their loads thru my chronograph just to see what they had. The results were rather eye opening for them. Books and manuals are a "guide" not an absolute. Some of these loads made me step away from the immediate area and get behind an overhead support post when they were fired.

Am I a believer in chronographs? Yes. Does the average shooter need a chronograph? No, not really as long as they shoot store bought ammo. But a reloader should, by all means, have some sort of decent chronograph to keep himself in a safe zone. Life is short enough and chronographs are cheap enough that all reloaders should have one. I know that expenses are something we all like to avoid if possible, but this is one item that I think is absolutely necessary, not only for yourself, but for shooters next to you. However, I tend to be more safety conscious the older I get.

Rick H.

 

[fordson]

I'll take the challenge WR Moore, but only for reloaders. While the manuals, books and websites may be good for rough edge reloading data, I have found there are just too many variables when one is trying to develop a desired handload. The only way for most "normal" people to check their loads is with the use of a chronograph. I was pretty surprised after I bought my first Chrony, at the differences I was seeing between "book" loads and what I had worked up using information from a book.

Early on I was laughed at by several handloaders who claimed they never needed a chronograph, nor did they desire one. Then on a few occasions some of these individuals asked if they could pass a few of their loads thru my chronograph just to see what they had. The results were rather eye opening for them. Books and manuals are a "guide" not an absolute. Some of these loads made me step away from the immediate area and get behind an overhead support post when they were fired.

Am I a believer in chronographs? Yes. Does the average shooter need a chronograph? No, not really as long as they shoot store bought ammo. But a reloader should, by all means, have some sort of decent chronograph to keep himself in a safe zone. Life is short enough and chronographs are cheap enough that all reloaders should have one. I know that expenses are something we all like to avoid if possible, but this is one item that I think is absolutely necessary, not only for yourself, but for shooters next to you. However, I tend to be more safety conscious the older I get.

Rick H.

Agree with you - all reloaders should have and use a decent chronograph. For safety sake if nothing else. Besides, we reloaders tend to be on the nerdy side and analyzing data is all part of the enjoyment.

 

[Dan W. Cady]

I rediscovered a partial box of Speer LSWCHPs and decided to try a few. The first thing I relearned was just how much fun cleaning a gun when using soft lead bullets wasn't. But the thing that drove me bananas was my chrono readings. The first round clocked at 200 f/s and the second at 1300 f/s. A trial with a .45 load showed a reading of 1658 f/s. None were possible. Cutting a long story short, the issue turned out to be the bright sunlight on the chrono at an angle. When I put the chrono in the shade, but with a clear view at the sky, the readings returned to the real world. The only thing I can think of is that the shadow of the bullet produced by the angle of the sun was triggering the sky screens. Trials with 22lr from rifles had produced realistic readings, so muzzle velocity was a factor too.

That is called glint and that is why you need screen shades or an overcast day. the new Chronographs without screens are more trouble free.

 

[WR Moore]

Rick, you kinda made my point for me. That the data books are a recipe is very true as is that the velocity from the test barrel/gun isn't likely what you're gonna see. You'll also notice a sometime surprising difference between data sources on both velocities and maximum loads. That's the differences between the individual test pieces. But the question really is, does load suit your purpose? If so, does the velocity really matter? I got lured into reloading shotgun shells by the combination of a picky self loader and a virtual giveaway of 2 Mec loaders. I've never chrono'd my loads-which are exactly from the book- but the gun functions and the targets fall. Do I care what the velocity is? Nope. (The reliability issue turned out to be the burn rate of the powders used. )

So far as safety goes, unless you're trying to wring every last foot second out of the load, you're unlikely to run into trouble. And, there are signs-like flat primers and hard extraction-that you're in dangerous territory that might not be reflected in velocity. I had a friend who's 9mm load would produce noticeably flat primers and very shallow firing pin indents. When resized, the cases were tiny belted magnums. You didn't need a chrono to realize he was walking on the wild side.

If, for whatever reason, your velocity and/or standard deviation are important, then by all means a chronograph is needed. I've found I'm a much greater variable than my ammo so far as shot placement is concerned. The chronograph is just another tool.

 

[rockquarry]

After using many chronographs over forty-five years, I've learned a few things, some of which have already been mentioned but I'm not sure of the factuality of some of those comments. I used to chronograph much more than I do now because of my never-ending enjoyment of load development.

Overall, I've found reputable paper book figures have corresponded fairly closely with my own results. Yes, occasionally you'll get a "fast" barrel or a "slow" barrel which will skew the numbers, but this doesn't happen with great frequency. Powder lots vary, but seldom are velocity differences with different batches of powder more than 50 - 60 fps. Still, that may or may not require a slight charge adjustment if accuracy is not quite where it should be.

I've found some big discrepancies in powder capacities from one case brand to another, but again, this doesn't happen often. A batch of 7mm Rem. Magnum PPU brass was 14% heavier than Winchester brass. That's a significant amount. I don't use foreign brass if USA stuff is available. A powder adjustment had to be made to get the desired velocity (maybe accuracy, too, but I'd have to look at my notes).

A very general rule (for safety's sake if for no other reason) is that if your figures are noticeably higher than book figures, your load may be a little warm to potentially dangerous.

I used to work with many wildcat cartridges. While I learned a great deal, this remains a facet of handloading where it's best to tread lighter than you normally do, especially where load data is old, questionable, limited, or doesn't exist and you have to develop it yourself.

I can give many more examples that today's handloaders would find boring, but trust your chronograph and use it as needed. It will tell you far more than velocity. The crude pressure testing methods available to the handloader are seldom as reliable as chronograph figures.

 

[KWW]

I use a chronograph with my hand loads to help me find accuracy nodes with my loads. Far more accurate than just shooting a group and calling it good. For my rifle, I have loads that a ten shot group had an extreme spread of 8fps., and a standard deviation of 3.8. My handgun loads are proving to be a little tougher.

Additionally, for those of you relying on reloading manuals, compare Hodgdon and Hornady manuals and compare the difference. Then look at printed bullet speeds on your ammo box, all different, none matching. Which one is correct at any given time?

 

[rockquarry]

I use a chronograph with my hand loads to help me find accuracy nodes with my loads. Far more accurate than just shooting a group and calling it good. For my rifle, I have loads that a ten shot group had an extreme spread of 8fps., and a standard deviation of 3.8. My handgun loads are proving to be a little tougher.

Additionally, for those of you relying on reloading manuals, compare Hodgdon and Hornady manuals and compare the difference. Then look at printed bullet speeds on your ammo box, all different, none matching. Which one is correct at any given time?

Rely on groups size for accuracy; the ES and SD numbers fad of recent years might be helpful in some instances, like very long shooting. If all you want are low numbers, make up some compressed loads using slow powders. Your numbers will be low. Accuracy may be excellent or it may not be good at all.

 

[KWW]

Rely on groups size for accuracy; the ES and SD numbers fad of recent years might be helpful in some instances, like very long shooting. If all you want are low numbers, make up some compressed loads using slow powders. Your numbers will be low. Accuracy may be excellent or it may not be good at all.

I shoot 1,000 yard stuff, so yea, it matters.

 

[Rick H.]

Ahhh yes, compressed powder loads. Another "variable" that needs attention. I try to stay away from them if possible, but that's just me.

Rick H.

 

[glowe]

I recently bought a Garmin and this technology appears to be foolproof. Just compare it to my PACT Professional XP. Of course you have to add a tripod as an extra since it does not fit in the case I made to get all the other stuff in one box. The key is that I can throw the Garmin in the shooting bag every time I go shooting - and do! It fits in an old zip up electric shaver case.

 

[NW Montana]

I've had a Garmin XERO since they came out. It travels with me to the range everytime (why not? They are tiny.)

As far as a case, I had an old LowePro Newport 30 case sitting around for a digital camera I don't have anymore. It fits perfectly. Added bonus is that the case has one side that is stiffer internally and that is the side I place the LCD screen against for protection.
The Newport case is still available on-line.

View attachment 775979

 

[NW Montana]

Ooops!

The second image did not load correctly. Sorry 'bout that.