There are times I can hear the difference in rounds as they are fired. What you're pointing out is enough for me to not bother ever having a chrono. It would just be more to drag with me and more to cause me frustration. Less is more.

 

Yes, it does what you say. But when I miss a shot over velocity I know it's not me. Just makes it a bit easier to accept the score and not blame it on something I missed.

 

Oh I don’t need anything else to blame my misses on. I do enough on my own. I have no doubt the info is interesting.

 

I think some time ago, most likely here, someone posted that they asked at one of the testing centers, or the information was offered that even in top ammo, it's not uncommon for there to be 1-2 "bad" rounds in a box. Does seem like it's still valuable info though.

 

i use chrono to verify or validate ammo against price point. As people have pointed out regarding expectation with ammo production quality there should be consistancy for the price point but it does not always hold true if you use a chrono. So based on chrono data a person should be a more informed buyer when chrono results show higher priced ammo does not mean better accuracy.

 

Quantity not quality rules the day, hence why so few companies even produce good 22 LR anymore. Even paying for the high dollar stuff is hit and miss, not to mention the production of the gun itself...

 

I do not own an a chrono and never will but wanted to ask a question. Has anyone ever used multiple chrono's simultaneously on individual shots? Just wondering if the difference in speed reading is chrono variations and not ammo variations. If the readings are different it would really muddy the waters.

 

Not multiple simultaneously, but nine different models of various technologies compared to a reference unit: https://appliedballisticsllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Measuring-Muzzle-Velocity.pdf If you don't want to read the whole thing, at least look at the graphs of the results and read the summary on page 34. This testing was done before the Garmin unit was on the market.

 

10 chronograph at once, enough?

 

From what I've heard of a few recent side by side testing, the Garmin/Labradar/Magnetospeed typically are all within a few FPS, and very close within the same model. I would think that most of the same brand/unit typically would test very close, it's likely just a simple software calibration. I'd guess it's possible battery charge also could impact it a bit. It does seem like early tests of the new Athlon are reading a bit slower than the other big names, I think I read around 10fps, but over time they can also tweak that in software.

I do quite a bit of work in Radar.....granted not in chronographs, but it's also possible that using multiple units at once, could cause RFI based interference/confusion. I'm actually impressed that of 10 units running at once, of the same model, only one seemed to have issues. It would have been interesting to see if running a couple shots on that unit solo would have solved the problem.

The other factor is consistency. Really for most uses, it's more important that the chrono read shot to shot speed deltas consistency than that the actual reported speed is super accurate.

For example if you fired 10 "mythical" shots that were all exactly 2800fps, you'd much rather the chrono read them at 2790fps average with +/- 2fps difference between shots, than 2800 fps average but falsely giving much higher a standard deviation of +/- 10 fps difference between shots. I'll take a slow/fast average speed with accurate standard deviation for shot strings over an accurate average speed but poor standard deviation numbers. Most guys that are shooting long range now, are not trusting the chrono to get them to 1000+ yds anyway, they are almost all using chrono speeds to start, and then "truing" their specific setup in a ballistic calculator by shooting at say 800 yds to make small adjustments empirically to get to accurate numbers past 1000 yds.

 

It would have been interesting to see if running a couple shots on that unit solo would have solved the problem.

Yes. They really left that study of multiple radar units "wanting" for resolution. Maybe there was some sort of cross talk happening with the placement of that one in-between the others, but now we'll never know.

 

"I do quite a bit of work in Radar.....granted not in chronographs, but it's also possible that using multiple units at once, could cause RFI based interference/confusion. I'm actually impressed that of 10 units running at once, of the same model, only one seemed to have issues. It would have been interesting to see if running a couple shots on that unit solo would have solved the problem."

This test was a very interesting post. My take on that one unit that had issues, it would have been instructive if they had simply swapped positioning of that unit to see if possible RF interference was in play here. Otherwise, it was amazing how closely matched all units were in the velocity readouts. I just have a lowly $99 "ProChrono" bluetooth capable unit, but really have no idea how it compares (velocity wise) with other similar PC units.

 

There are times I can hear the difference in rounds as they are fired. What you're pointing out is enough for me to not bother ever having a chrono. It would just be more to drag with me and more to cause me frustration. Less is more.

My opinion is the Chrono is just another tool to gather data and can be useful.
Trying to evaluate what characteristics your rifle performs best shooting things like velocities may be a big factor as your barrel may perform better or more consistently within a certain speed range.
Testing ammo, factual velocity numbers and variance between individual shots to give you the overall variances between each individual shot fired is a lot more realistic over with that one sounded a little hotter or a little weaker when looking at the on target results.

Has anyone ever used multiple chrono's simultaneously on individual shots? Just wondering if the difference in speed reading is chrono variations and not ammo variations. If the readings are different it would really muddy the waters.

My opinion is the individual variances of a few FPS difference in individual units would be of little difference as compared to the accurate repeatability in the readings of the single unit that said shooter was using to set the comparison between the shots and ammo fired from his rifle.
What you are looking for is the variance in the different ammo for velocity and consistency so as long as you were using the same chrono to gather those numbers then your comparison data would be on a level playing field and very small difference between individual samples would not be enough or come into play to skewer the collected data..

So yes I think a chrono has a very strong use and place in the toolbox of a serious shooter but like anything else it has its times where it is more useful and times I would probably choose not to use it.
But as a non-competitive shooter my use may be entirely different than a very serious upper tier competitor that is much more apt to track every result for every trigger pull.

 

A friend of mine and I both own Garmin Zero 1 ‘s tried to see if thee was any difference in them accuracy wise. We ran them about 10” apart on opposite sides of the rifle and clocked 5 rounds from 22lr to 5.56 and 6mm Arc and found Both units were always under 5fps of each other in readings.
i tried the same thing but with another shooters 6.5 Creed and unit and found similar results although I don’t recall the exact numbers.

 

I don't use my Garmin every time I shoot but I use it enough to know that the various lots of Center-X I have on hand could certainly be better. It's discouraging for sure. It's frustrating to pay what we do for ammo and then not competitive with it.

The most recent batch I received was some 23 speed. I've had some great targets with it and some not so great. Last time I shot it at the tunnel I shot a 2400 14X with it. 6.1 SD & 25 FPS ES for the 33 rounds I used to shoot that card. The next outdoor match I set up the Garmin for the warm up practice. I shot 18 rounds and got a SD of 11.0 and 44.6 ES. It was all over the place. So I put it away and shot some Midas I was saving for TC. I turned to chrono off and it shot better but I still didn't do so well in the match. So in my experience, this stuff isn't as consistent from box-to-box as we'd hope. Makes me wonder, when people lot test ammo, how much of it is good for most of the case and how much some of it actually varies. Just 'cause what you shoot at lot testing does well doesn't mean that's what you're getting throughout the whole case

The whole variation thing also makes me wonder how much the conditions are effecting the consistency of the ammo. I've known for years that ammo can shoot great on one day and not so great on the next. That's why a lot of RFBR shooters bring several lots to a match. Is the ammo inconsistent from manufacturing or is it the conditions that particular day. If it's the latter what it is about the conditions that makes some ammo shoot worse and others shoot better? Is it the gun? Matbe a combo of both? I know another good ARA competitor who recently witnessed this at Chickenfoot. He wasn't doing so well. Tried everything he could. He finally tried a lot of ammo that's never shot good for him in any of their guns. That ammo shot fantastic and he finished high on the list. I know you've experienced the opposite.

I'm trying to not let all this drive me crazy

 

I'm trying to not let all this drive me crazy

Let me know when you have that figured out and I'll do the same.

Thanks for sharing observations like the one in your last paragraph. It is great stuff to ponder ... on days when I suck I ponder on my suckedness a lot. LOL

 

There is some variation in two identical chronos. A friend and I had two that were the same. They were slightly off in velocity. As I recall about 15 fps around 1050 fps. However they were quite consistent from shot to shot. If shot #1 was 24 fps higher than shot #2, both chronos showed that same difference in the two shots.

At one time we were trying to get some actually useful BC info on pellets from a PCP. It is speed dependent with those and useful info which at the time (and probably still) little airgun software handles correctly. So we setup up one chrono at the muzzle and one 50 yards away. Useless info because of the difference. However, in the case of this well tuned PCP the velocity was highly uniform for 44 shots. We could shoot one group of shots recording at the muzzle and another at 50 yards and get useful results. You could do it with either chrono just not across both chronos because there was a less than 1% difference in the speed readings.

 

I use a chrony any time I visit the range.
Average velocity is not my primary motive.
Velocity differences are what I'm focused on.
Why did that shot stray?
Was it me? Wind? Setup? Cartridge?
When the chrony reads 30 fps plus below/above average,
I have a good indication of the culprit.

Recent deliveries of 22 lr have not been stellar.
What should be sub 40 fps ES for 50 shots,
for 20 bucks a box, is sending hot/weak strays.
Yet we still buy it, as we're a bunch of optimists.
Starry eyed dreamers, that's us.

 

Alas, I have noticed disappointing results in my own reloads as well as "target grade" factory ammo with the same result...inconsistent grouping. We go to great lengths to "accurize" our rifles, only to realize it just might be the ammo.