Millennium Chronograph Versus Pact MK IV Timer & Chronograph

Eaglet · #1 02-27-2006, 03:05 AM

Gentlemen:
I own a (Pact "chronograph and timer") and a CED Millennium chronograph. Informally I placed one next to the other and shot 8 rounds through both from a .22 caliber hand gun and 4 rounds from my 300 RUM. After averaging and converting to muzzle velocities taking in consideration the weather conditions and different chronographs distances, I got the following results:

Are the differences between broth chronographs acceptable?
How would I know which one is measuring more accurately?

Both chronographs have sensors 2' apart, 24"

Eaglet--------

ErikD · #2 02-27-2006, 04:45 AM

In my humble opinion, the differance is so slight that it doesn't matter much in real life.

I have a CED Millenium, and have done the same thing you did against an Ohler 35P I borrowed, and they showed virtually no differance either. Which leads me to conclude that the CED is good enough for most people most of the time IMO.

Ps. I do wish in retrospect that the CED could make printouts...

LB · #3 02-27-2006, 10:46 AM

No offense, but I can't believe you are asking the question? What possible difference would twelve feet per second make? You get a real life number that is better than an estimate published in a reloading manual, so either would be acceptable, in my opinion. Very acceptable.

Good hunting. LB

Eaglet · #4 02-27-2006, 04:03 PM

LB,
It isn't all that bad, [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] atleast I'm making a believer out of you! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Thanks for your reply, I agree with you. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

ErikD,
Thanks. I agree, I just wanted to see if it'd be an issue with the extreme long range shooters.