Long Range Hunting Online Magazine


Go Back   Long Range Hunting Online Magazine > Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment > Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics


Reply

New Oehler 35P, New skyscreen rail, First Test Data

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #22  
Old 05-01-2011, 10:12 PM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Alaska
Posts: 3,437
Another Set of Chronograph Data - For Your Information & Knowledge

Hi guys,

I've been involved in a non-shooting project over the winter and haven't shot or chronographed since last fall. Today I went out and fired a few rounds from my .338 Edge over my triplicate chronograph setup in preparation for a bear hunt. I neglected to bring the skyscreen shades for the Oehler 35P, and when the full sun popped out from behind the clouds, the 35P burped on two shots. Under cloud cover, no problems. The other two chronographs, an Oehler 33 and a PACT PC2, did both have their skyscreen shades mounted overhead. I only chronographed five (5) shots from the 338 Edge. Three (3) under cloud cover that resulted in the collection of good velocity data. Two (2) under full sun that caused some bad data from the Oehler 35P - due to the clear blue sunny sky overhead (no shades over the 35P skyscreens).

I'll provide the 3 rounds that yielded credible data. The first round was a 200 grain Speer bullet that I was using to bore sight the rifle. The next two bullets fired were 265 gr Henson Aluminum Tipped - Rebated Base Boattails.

Oehler 35 Primary 3145 2900 2908 > 6 foot skyscreen spacing
Oehler 35 Proof. . 3152 2906 2918 > 3 foot skyscreen spacing
Oehler 33 . . . . . 3146 2852 2909 > 6 foot skyscreen spacing
PACT PC2 . . . . . 3148 2903 2908 > 56 inch (4' 8") skyscreen spacing

I bolded the 2852 fps from the 2nd shot recorded on my Oehler 33. Obviously the Oehler 33 burped on this 2nd shot and recorded a bogus velocity. But this 3-shot data set illustrates the value of having more than one chronograph recording each and every shot. If I'd only been using the Oehler 33, there would have been no way to know that it provided a value 51 fps slower than the PACT chronograph, 48 fps slower than the 35P primary channel, and 54 fps slower than the 35P proof channel. No way to figure out why the velocity was 48 to 54 feet slower than the velocity that should have been recorded.

After shooting these rounds from my .338 Edge, it was pretty clear that the Proof screens for the Oehler 35P were mounted too close together on my skyscreen rail, since the Proof velocities being recorded were 7, 6, and 10 fps faster than the velocities recorded on the Oehler 35P Primary skyscreen. The Proof skyscreens on the 35P are mounted 1/2 the separation distance of the primary skyscreens, or a 3' spacing. In addition, the 35P Primary channel velocities recorded were a dead match to the Oehler 33 and PACT chronograph data, so I knew the Proof skyscreens needed adjusted - not the Primary skyscreens.

So I came home and got the Ruger .22 semi-auto pistol out and shot in the back yard, in order to adjust the Oehler 35P proof skyscreen separation distance - to yield a Proof channel velocity which would better match the 35P Primary channel velocities. I increased the separation distance between the Proof skyscreens about 1/8". Here's the first 5 shots fired, using a variety of .22LR ammo that I found (pickups from the gun range).

Oehler 35 Primary 1017 1046 1055 939 1038
Oehler 35 Proof. . 1019 1048 1057 940 1040
Oehler 33 . . . . . .1017 1045 1054 938 1037 > My Oehler 33
PACT PC2 . . . . . .1015 1045 1054 938 1037

The 35P Proof channel was still about 2 fps faster than the 35P Primary channel. And the 35P Primary channel velocities were about 1 fps faster than the Oehler 33 and PACT velocities. So I separated the 35P Proof skyscreens about 1/16" farther apart before firing the next five rounds. Next, I conducted a very interesting experiment. I replaced my Oehler 33 chronograph with a different Oehler 33 that I'd purchased from LRH Forum Member 'Alan Griffith' this past December. I'd never used Alan's Oehler 33 before, and I wanted to see if and how it worked, and how the data from Alan's Oehler 33 would compare with the data from my 33 when plugged into the same exact skyscreens. So here's the data from the next five shots.

Oehler 35 Primary 1042 1050 1030 1037 1031
Oehler 35 Proof. . 1043 1052 1031 1037 1032
Oehler 33 . . . . . .1041 1050 1029 1036 1031 > Alan Griffith's Oehler 33
PACT PC2 . . . . . .1041 1050 1029 1036 1031

Dang! Alan's Oehler 33 continued to spit out data exactly matching the data from my PACT PC2. To be honest, I didn't expect to see exactly matching data from this second Oehler 33. After the 3rd of these 5 shots, I again slightly increased the spacing on the 35P Proof skyscreens, and on the 4th shot, you can see that the 35P Proof channel matched the 35P Primary channel velocity at 1037 fps.

Prior to firing the next three shots I increased the spacing of the Oehler 35P Primary skyscreens slightly. The Oehler 33s and the PACT PC2 had recorded the exact same velocities for the past 9 shots fired. I wanted to see if I could get the 35P Primary channel to read 1fps slower to bring it into agreement with the two Oehler 33s and the PACT chronographs. Next three shots:

Oehler 35 Primary 920 1055 1079
Oehler 35 Proof. . 919 1054 1079
Oehler 33 . . . . . .920 1054 1078 > Alan's Oehler 33
PACT PC2 . . . . . .920 1054 1078

At this point the Oehler 33 and the PACT PC2 chronographs had recorded the same exact velocity for the prior 12 shots. Pretty remarkable! I fired three more rounds just to see how long this string of matching velocities would last. Here's the data from the last three shots fired:

Oehler 35 Primary 1072 1031 969
Oehler 35 Proof. . 1073 1030 969
Oehler 33 . . . . . .1071 1030 968 > Alan's Oehler 33
PACT PC2 . . . . . 1072 1026 969

As you can seen, the string of duplicate data from the Oehler 33 and the PACT chronographs stopped at 12 consecutive shots. The PACT chronograph produced a slightly errant value (1026 fps) on the second of these last three shots. Not a gross error, but 4 fps slower than the Oehler 33 and 35P Proof channel. All three chronographs are yielding data that more or less match one another with my current skyscreen spacings.

Quite a few times over the years, I've read Posts that pooh poohed the value of chronograph data for purposes of determining muzzle velocity. Some even claim measuring bullet drops over extended ranges is a better method of determining muzzle velocity. I clearly disagree with that camp of shooters. After reviewing the quality and consistency of the above data, y'all can make up your own mind on that topic. I do believe a shooter needs to have at least a tandem chronograph setup - two recorded velocity data for each bullet fired - in order to place high confidence in the data. Either for purposes of identifying the ES and SD of one's loads. Or for purposes of entering valid muzzle velocities in a ballistics program, such as LoadBase 3 or Exbal.

Hope this presentation of data is clear enough that you're all able to understand/interpret the data. Feel free to ask questions, if necessary. It was fun to get out and shoot and do a little more chronographing.

Good shoot'in!

Last edited by phorwath; 05-02-2011 at 12:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-02-2011, 10:32 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: greenwood, IN
Posts: 3,596
Re: Another Set of Chronograph Data - For Your Information & Knowledge

Quote:
Originally Posted by phorwath View Post
Hi guys,

I've been involved in a non-shooting project over the winter and haven't shot or chronographed since last fall. Today I went out and fired a few rounds from my .338 Edge over my triplicate chronograph setup in preparation for a bear hunt. I neglected to bring the skyscreen shades for the Oehler 35P, and when the full sun popped out from behind the clouds, the 35P burped on two shots. Under cloud cover, no problems. The other two chronographs, an Oehler 33 and a PACT PC2, did both have their skyscreen shades mounted overhead. I only chronographed five (5) shots from the 338 Edge. Three (3) under cloud cover that resulted in the collection of good velocity data. Two (2) under full sun that caused some bad data from the Oehler 35P - due to the clear blue sunny sky overhead (no shades over the 35P skyscreens).

I'll provide the 3 rounds that yielded credible data. The first round was a 200 grain Speer bullet that I was using to bore sight the rifle. The next two bullets fired were 265 gr Henson Aluminum Tipped - Rebated Base Boattails.

Oehler 35 Primary 3145 2900 2908 > 6 foot skyscreen spacing
Oehler 35 Proof. . 3152 2906 2918 > 3 foot skyscreen spacing
Oehler 33 . . . . . 3146 2852 2909 > 6 foot skyscreen spacing
PACT PC2 . . . . . 3148 2903 2908 > 56 inch (4' 8") skyscreen spacing

I bolded the 2852 fps from the 2nd shot recorded on my Oehler 33. Obviously the Oehler 33 burped on this 2nd shot and recorded a bogus velocity. But this 3-shot data set illustrates the value of having more than one chronograph recording each and every shot. If I'd only been using the Oehler 33, there would have been no way to know that it provided a value 51 fps slower than the PACT chronograph, 48 fps slower than the 35P primary channel, and 54 fps slower than the 35P proof channel. No way to figure out why the velocity was 48 to 54 feet slower than the velocity that should have been recorded.

After shooting these rounds from my .338 Edge, it was pretty clear that the Proof screens for the Oehler 35P were mounted too close together on my skyscreen rail, since the Proof velocities being recorded were 7, 6, and 10 fps faster than the velocities recorded on the Oehler 35P Primary skyscreen. The Proof skyscreens on the 35P are mounted 1/2 the separation distance of the primary skyscreens, or a 3' spacing. In addition, the 35P Primary channel velocities recorded were a dead match to the Oehler 33 and PACT chronograph data, so I knew the Proof skyscreens needed adjusted - not the Primary skyscreens.

So I came home and got the Ruger .22 semi-auto pistol out and shot in the back yard, in order to adjust the Oehler 35P proof skyscreen separation distance - to yield a Proof channel velocity which would better match the 35P Primary channel velocities. I increased the separation distance between the Proof skyscreens about 1/8". Here's the first 5 shots fired, using a variety of .22LR ammo that I found (pickups from the gun range).

Oehler 35 Primary 1017 1046 1055 939 1038
Oehler 35 Proof. . 1019 1048 1057 940 1040
Oehler 33 . . . . . .1017 1045 1054 938 1037 > My Oehler 33
PACT PC2 . . . . . .1015 1045 1054 938 1037

The 35P Proof channel was still about 2 fps faster than the 35P Primary channel. And the 35P Primary channel velocities were about 1 fps faster than the Oehler 33 and PACT velocities. So I separated the 35P Proof skyscreens about 1/16" farther apart before firing the next five rounds. Next, I conducted a very interesting experiment. I replaced my Oehler 33 chronograph with a different Oehler 33 that I'd purchased from LRH Forum Member 'Alan Griffith' this past December. I'd never used Alan's Oehler 33 before, and I wanted to see if and how it worked, and how the data from Alan's Oehler 33 would compare with the data from my 33 when plugged into the same exact skyscreens. So here's the data from the next five shots.

Oehler 35 Primary 1042 1050 1030 1037 1031
Oehler 35 Proof. . 1043 1052 1031 1037 1032
Oehler 33 . . . . . .1041 1050 1029 1036 1031 > Alan Griffith's Oehler 33
PACT PC2 . . . . . .1041 1050 1029 1036 1031

Dang! Alan's Oehler 33 continued to spit out data exactly matching the data from my PACT PC2. To be honest, I didn't expect to see exactly matching data from this second Oehler 33. After the 3rd of these 5 shots, I again slightly increased the spacing on the 35P Proof skyscreens, and on the 4th shot, you can see that the 35P Proof channel matched the 35P Primary channel velocity at 1037 fps.

Prior to firing the next three shots I increased the spacing of the Oehler 35P Primary skyscreens slightly. The Oehler 33s and the PACT PC2 had recorded the exact same velocities for the past 9 shots fired. I wanted to see if I could get the 35P Primary channel to read 1fps slower to bring it into agreement with the two Oehler 33s and the PACT chronographs. Next three shots:

Oehler 35 Primary 920 1055 1079
Oehler 35 Proof. . 919 1054 1079
Oehler 33 . . . . . .920 1054 1078 > Alan's Oehler 33
PACT PC2 . . . . . .920 1054 1078

At this point the Oehler 33 and the PACT PC2 chronographs had recorded the same exact velocity for the prior 12 shots. Pretty remarkable! I fired three more rounds just to see how long this string of matching velocities would last. Here's the data from the last three shots fired:

Oehler 35 Primary 1072 1031 969
Oehler 35 Proof. . 1073 1030 969
Oehler 33 . . . . . .1071 1030 968 > Alan's Oehler 33
PACT PC2 . . . . . 1072 1026 969

As you can seen, the string of duplicate data from the Oehler 33 and the PACT chronographs stopped at 12 consecutive shots. The PACT chronograph produced a slightly errant value (1026 fps) on the second of these last three shots. Not a gross error, but 4 fps slower than the Oehler 33 and 35P Proof channel. All three chronographs are yielding data that more or less match with my current skyscreen spacings.

Quite a few times over the years, I've read Posts that pooh poohed the value of chronograph data for purposes of determining muzzle velocity. Some even claim measuring bullet drops over extended ranges is a better method of determining muzzle velocity. I clearly disagree with that camp of shooters. After reviewing the quality and consistency of the above data, y'all can make up your own mind on that topic. I do believe a shooter needs to have at least a tandem chronograph setup - two recorded velocity data for each bullet fired - in order to place high confidence in the data. Either for purposes of identifying the ES and SD of one's loads. Or for purposes of entering valid muzzle velocities in a ballistics program, such as LoadBase 3 or Exbal.

Hope this presentation of data is clear enough that you're all able to understand/interpret the data. Feel free to ask questions, if necessary. It was fun to get out and shoot and do a little more chronographing.

Good shoot'in!
you did well! The one thing I picked up right away was the consistencey from chronograph to chronograph per shot. The error with the first shot string is extremely small between all of the chronographs, and in the top of my head it looks to be in the .00023% area (maybe all wrong so don't shoot me yet). I get this from the 7fps variation; which is about seven tenths of a percent at 1000fps. Divid that by three for 3150fps (average)

excellent work son!
gary
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-17-2011, 01:48 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Alaska
Posts: 3,437
Re: Are Chronographs Accurate and Reliable?

I finally fired a few higher velocity rounds over these chronographs. The setup provides four velocities for each bullet fired. I was testing some 190 gr VLD-style bullets manufactured by Rich (user name 'elkaholic' on this Forum). Firing these bullets from a 25.5" long Lilja 10.5 twist barrel. The first skyscreen was located 34 feet from the muzzle. I run an Oehler 33, an Oehler 35P, and a PACT PC2 in triplicate. The Oehler 35P provides two velocity recordings. One from the Primary Channel and one from the Proof Channel. The Primary Channel is the more accurate of the two because the skyscreens are spaced precisely twice as far apart as the Proof Channel skyscreens.

For those of you that are into chronographs and chronographing, or anyone else that has always wondered if chronographs can produce reliable velocity data, here's how my three units performed for six consecutive rounds fired. The first two shots were loaded with 80gr H1000. The next two shots were 81gr H1000. The last two shots were loaded with 82gr H1000.

. . . . . . .33 . . . . 35Primary . . . PACT . . 35Proof
80gr. . . 2977fps . . . 2981fps. . . . 2981fps . 2976fps . . Maximum difference = 5fps
80gr. . . 3033 . . . . . 3034 . . . . . .3031 . . . 3032 . . . . Maximum difference = 3fps

81gr. . . 3048 . . . . . 3051 . . . . . .3048 . . . 3048 . . . . Maximum difference = 3fps
81gr. . . 3054 . . . . . 3057 . . . . . .3055 . . . 3054 . . . . Maximum difference = 3fps

82gr. . . 3061 . . . . . 3064 . . . . . .3062 . . . 3062 . . . . Maximum difference = 3fps
82gr. . . 3064 . . . . . 3066 . . . . . .3064 . . . 3066 . . . . Maximum difference = 2fps

In each of these six shots, it can be seen that the Oehler 35P Primary Channel provided the highest velocity. If I increase the Primary skyscreen spacing on the Oehler 35P ever so slightly, then the 35P Primary velocities could be tweaked down into more or less perfect agreement with the other three velocities for an even closer match. Neglecting the 35P Primary Channel velocities in this string of six shots would reduce the Maximum velocity difference between the remaining three recorded velocities to 5 fps, 1 fps, 1 fps, 1 fps, 1 fps, and 2 fps.

If the environmental conditions, or any other factors were 'fooling' these three chronographs, or the 7 associated skyscreens, then it was 'fooling' them all equally. I see no evidence to support the common expressed opinion that a fella can't trust his chronograph velocity data, with this type of chronograph setup. If I had only been running one chronograph, then I couldn't have known whether or not the difference in velocity between the first two rounds fired with 80gr H1000 was good data or bad data. The ES on the first two shots was 50-56fps, depending on which chronograph data is used. The ES on the following two sets of shots was much less; 6 fps and 3 fps, respectively. With all four chronographs providing very similar data, I know with virtual certainty that velocity data recorded for all six shots is valid, and that the 80 grain charge isn't a keeper for long range application. 80 grains must not produce high enough pressure for efficient/consistent combustion of the gunpowder.

By the way, these three 2-shot groups were fired onto a target at 308 yards, and the equivalent group sizes in "inches per 100 yards" were 0.43", 0.38", and 0.28". The first two shots with the largest velocity spread produced the largest group. The last two shots with the smallest extreme spread produced the smallest group. I'm not saying that happens all the time, let alone most of the time. Just making the observation that it did with these three 2-shot groups.

Another observation: These are the first three loads I've tested with these Sherman SXR 190gr Aluminum-Tipped bullets, and these are about the best three groups my fairly lightweight custom rifle has ever fired. My rifle has a #4 contour Lilja barrel, which typically requires more load development to find a sweet load combination compared to a rifle with a #7 or #8 contour barrel. And I've spent a lot of time testing any number of different bullets with a variety of different powders, powder charges, and seating depths. elkaholic has definitely figured out how to manufacture very accurate bullets!

Last edited by phorwath; 06-17-2011 at 07:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-17-2011, 08:42 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Blackfoot, Idaho
Posts: 8,112
Re: New Oehler 35P, New skyscreen rail, First Test Data

Well done!!!
__________________
I may be the slowest guy on the mountain . . . . but . . . . I'm on the mountain!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-17-2011, 10:00 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NC, oceanfront
Posts: 3,291
Re: New Oehler 35P, New skyscreen rail, First Test Data

Awesome information
THANK YOU
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-17-2011, 10:18 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: greenwood, IN
Posts: 3,596
Re: New Oehler 35P, New skyscreen rail, First Test Data

the differences between all the units is nil at best. But I gotta ask you one question; I see that you have the screens setup at 34 feet from the muzzel. Any particular reason why?
gary
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-17-2011, 11:01 AM
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SW Montana
Posts: 4,494
Re: New Oehler 35P, New skyscreen rail, First Test Data

Good stuff man!! Could I send a couple cronies to ya for independent testing
__________________
High Fence, Low Fence, Stuck in the Fence, if I can Tag it and Eat it, it's Hunting!

"Pain is weakness leaving your body"
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads for: New Oehler 35P, New skyscreen rail, First Test Data
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oehler 35 $$$$$ SHRTSHTR Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 15 07-01-2011 10:29 AM
Oehler 35 Mounting rail New design johndoe Other Stuff For Sale 18 06-24-2009 12:42 PM
Test results from 338 ST *pics and chronograph data* Black Diamond 408 Rifles, Bullets, Barrels and Ballistics 16 04-24-2006 10:08 AM
Oehler 35 P Jimm Equipment Discussions 10 01-10-2006 08:29 PM
WTB: Used Oehler 35P PrimeTime Guns For Sale 1 02-11-2002 11:10 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Management Powered by vBadvanced CMPS
All content ©2010-2014 Long Range Hunting, LLC