Best Cheap Chrono??

The pro chrony is the one I got because it had good reviews at midway and cabelas. As far as I know it has worked well so far. One morning it would not read but I think it was too cold because I left it in the truck overnight. My speeds seem to be consistent with what they should be according to load data. After I shoot it (which I will eventually) I will probably get another one assuming it stays accurate.

gary
 
Got a Shooting Chrony, Master Alpha a few years back for about $110. What I wanted was a consistent measurement device. Did not care if it was over or under the real accurate speed as long as I could get same speed under same conditions each time.
To get a feel for the real speed I shoot KNOWN factory speeds at temp about 70 F and not at high altitude. All you need is a bench mark.
Then I knew mine was over or under by 5FPS or 40FPS from the true speed under those exact conditions. Just remember that every element in the environment that changes can change the speed one or more FPS.
Even these simple things can add up when you get several at the same time.
-not same distance to chrony each time.
-sun is not out.
-sun is on gun now.
-sun is on chrony now.
-left the sun block strips home for chrony.
-ammo was in hot car last time.
-wind change direction.
-temp cooler by 25F.
There are at least 25 things that can make FPS vary and they can add up real fast.
Good luck and be sure to place it at least 60 inches out from MUZ.
 
emn83,

was looking at either the F-1Master of the Alpha Master, got any more input? Not really sure I need the alpha, since I write everything down anyhow

I am on my second F-1 master I am set up 11 feet away and can read the screen OK even with my not so perfect eyes....Like you I write down and evaluate all info after the fact, so a printer and remote screen are not a necessity for me......I use mine mostly for comparing SDs during load development...

I too am an iron ranger and I use mine every month of the year....Like T3-Oleman says what you are looking for is benchmark velocities to compare others to...Actual velocity (within reason) can be determined and verified with field testing and a good ballistic program....You will probably find that an F-1 is amazingly accurate for the price....

It is true that an Oehler is a nice machine and definitely will help in recognizing errant results....But if you must control ambient light conditions with most chronos...An F-1 shooting buddy is real consistent if you watch and control light conditions and keep consistent bore/chrono/target alignment....

Good luck in your choice gentlemen,
Randy
 
Ive owned two pacts. Both never worked. Don' t waist you money on pact. Thats the only advice i can give you.

kinda funny as I must know a half dozen guys that use nothing but Pacts, or use them in tandum with others. None have ever failed. I've got one of the very first PC2's ever built, and with the exception of me pulling the cable out of the photocell, it's never missed a beat. Accuracey? As far as I'm concerned it's just as accurate as that over priced Ohler (and I've shot with them as well). Untill somebody can come up with a perfect proof load that will repeat exactly the same everytime; don't tell yours is more accurate as I won't ever tell you likewise.
gary
 
I don't think a 'decent' chronograph can be purchased for $100-$120. Unless 'decent' means nothing more than confirmation that a bullet passed over the unit.

If you intend to use the recorded velocities for any serious purpose, you'll have to pay more.

you can but the base line Pact for $130, and for what 90% use it for, it's plenty good enough. You don't get a printer, and the software package is not as extensive, plus I prefer the red light bar for the way it mounts.
gary
 
actually I tend to agree with you 95% of the time
gary

Yeah, I understand, and that's really all I was shooting for. It's difficult to know what everyones' intended use of a chronograph entails. Which means it's also difficult to provide meaningful feedback to questions unless the specifics of the intended use are defined.

If a person isn't too concerned about the legitimacy (accuracy) of the recorded velocities, and the shot to shot dependability of those recorded velocities (precision), then a chronograph that provides a number most of the time may be acceptable.

Any chronograph user should understand that all chronographs will ocassionally produce bad data. Sometimes the bad data is plainfully obvious. For the times when the error is not plainfully obvious, the only way to determine whether or not the data is valid, or if the chronograph burped in the heat of the action, is to have a second confirmatory recorded velocity. As I've posted in the past, this can be accomplished by setting up two chronographs in tandem such that both units record each and every shot fired, or by purchasing an Oehler 35P with the proof channel, which provides the second confirmatory recorded velocity with each and every shot.

Anybody posting comments in response to the original poster's question that hasn't used their chronograph in tandem with a proof chronograph for an extended period of time, is basing their opinion on a gut-feeling guess - and nothing more.

Based on my fairly extensive experience shooting over triplicate chronographs, I can assure every reader that bad chronograph data is produced on a reasonably frequent basis. And I mean data that's plausible, within the realm of possibility, yet clearly in error. Without a second recording of the velocity, there is no reliable method to even begin to determine if the recorded velocity is correct or not. The operator is left to their conclusion which is based on nothing more than their best guess...
 
Yeah, I understand, and that's really all I was shooting for. It's difficult to know what everyones' intended use of a chronograph entails. Which means it's also difficult to provide meaningful feedback to questions unless the specifics of the intended use are defined.

If a person isn't too concerned about the legitimacy (accuracy) of the recorded velocities, and the shot to shot dependability of those recorded velocities (precision), then a chronograph that provides a number most of the time may be acceptable.

Any chronograph user should understand that all chronographs will ocassionally produce bad data. Sometimes the bad data is plainfully obvious. For the times when the error is not plainfully obvious, the only way to determine whether or not the data is valid, or if the chronograph burped in the heat of the action, is to have a second confirmatory recorded velocity. As I've posted in the past, this can be accomplished by setting up two chronographs in tandem such that both units record each and every shot fired, or by purchasing an Oehler 35P with the proof channel, which provides the second confirmatory recorded velocity with each and every shot.

Anybody posting comments in response to the original poster's question that hasn't used their chronograph in tandem with a proof chronograph for an extended period of time, is basing their opinion on a gut-feeling guess - and nothing more.

Based on my fairly extensive experience shooting over triplicate chronographs, I can assure every reader that bad chronograph data is produced on a reasonably frequent basis. And I mean data that's plausible, within the realm of possibility, yet clearly in error. Without a second recording of the velocity, there is no reliable method to even begin to determine if the recorded velocity is correct or not. The operator is left to their conclusion which is based on nothing more than their best guess...

So if I understand you correctly, one must have more than one chrony (in your case triplicate .... yikeslightbulb) to eliminate the guess work. Then the same is true for scales when we weigh powders in reloading, otherwise it's nothing more than than gut-feeling guess- and nothing more. Furthermore, back up for rangefinders, gizmos to measure the environmental information (wind, temp, altitude, baro, etc), etc ... that could get very expensive if we do not trust the single unit we have. Every unit has a tolerance (+ or - of acceptable error), my chrony claims 99.5% accuracy ... and that's good enough for me ... and yes, it's meaningful enough for me. :cool:gun)
 
So if I understand you correctly, one must have more than one chrony (in your case triplicate .... yikeslightbulb) to eliminate the guess work. Then the same is true for scales when we weigh powders in reloading, otherwise it's nothing more than than gut-feeling guess- and nothing more. Furthermore, back up for rangefinders, gizmos to measure the environmental information (wind, temp, altitude, baro, etc), etc ... that could get very expensive if we do not trust the single unit we have. Every unit has a tolerance (+ or - of acceptable error), my chrony claims 99.5% accuracy ... and that's good enough for me ... and yes, it's meaningful enough for me. :cool:gun)

You misunderstood if you presume anything I posted is a 'must have' for either you or any other reader. If your chronograph is good enough and meaningful enough for you, then you should be happy as a plum, whether your unit meets its claimed standard of performance or not, or whether or not you have any idea if it meets its claimed standard of performance or not. I'm happy for ya, that you've found and own everything you care to have in the way of a chronograph.

For nothing other than the sake of discussion, does your chrony claim 99.5% accuracy when it malfunctions? Or do you presume it's without error. If you accept that your chrony is not infallible, do you have any idea how often you're receiving data substantially failing to meet the 99.5% accuracy claim? Have you recorded any significant number of bullet velocities fired over it while employing it in tandem with another chronograph?

The examples of the other data recording equipment you referenced in the effort to justify a chrony is 'good enough' share little in common with an instrument intended to record the velocity of a bullet.

Your comparative example #1) The weight of a powder charge (or anything else) placed on a balance or digital scale can be re-weighed over and over again in order to establish reproducibility of the weight and establish the likelihood of good weight data. Furthermore, scales often come with a calibrated weight of absolutely known mass, to verify the calibration and accuracy of the scale. If your's doesn't, or if you've never checked the calibration of your scales, then good enough for you and meaningful enough for you doesn't equate to good enough and meaningful enough for everyone else.

Your comparative example #2) Rangefinders can (and commonly are, by the cautious user) be employed repetitively on any target of value in order to obtain multiple and repetitive readings. Obtaining multiple and repetitive distances to the target helps ensure the instrument is functioning properly and that the recorded distance is valid/accurate. Steps that can be taken to increase the odds that the distance recorded to the target is indeed a correct distance and that the rangefinder instrument is behaving in accordance with the level of advertised accuracy.

Your comparative example #3) A weather meter to establish wind, temperature, and pressure/altitude. Wind and temperature are data that the human senses have some ability to recognize. The range of station pressures and elevations can be reasonably pre-established for any hunting location with nothing more than a USGS topographical map. If one's level if interest in attaining accuracy and reliability is keen, these type of data can be reinforced and tested through additional means and methods.

Can you describe how you verify that your chrony has functioned properly? What human senses are capable of estimating/evaluating the speed of the bullet? How does one capture multiple and repetitive data for any single bullet fired over their chronograph? Good enough and meaningful enough? For what purpose? For who's uses?
 
Last edited:
phorwath,

I've always enjoyed and valued your contribution but to say it's meaningless unless we do how you do it is pushing it.

More power to what you do and how you do things ... share your experience and knowledge but let the end-user define what's meaningful to them ... that is all I am saying.

For what purpose? For who's uses?

My purpose, my use!!!

OP asked a simple/basic question, let's help him and not further complicate it. I know somebody can right a dissertation or thesis on this but that's not what he needs at the moment.
 
FEENIX,

I've not stated, nor intended to state, others' needs, uses, and/or equipment are meaningless if they don't do something the same way I do or own the same equipment I own. I can't imagine how you drew any conclusion along that line. I've never believed I have an ability to read the minds of others, let alone any basis to speak on behalf of another.

I didn't get into the detail until you posted what I interpret to be the equivalent of my means and methods are without merit (aka meaningless) from your perspective.

You're responding as if I've insulted your chronograph. Or insulted you. If you allow me to insult your chronograph or you personally through a post on this Forum, you're giving me too much significance. I've provided information that the typical chronograph user, or any prospective purchaser, couldn't know about chronographs unless they've fired many bullets over duplicate and triplicate chronographs, and under different lighting and environmental conditions. Too much information needn't be a handicap. And information overload is easily controlled by any reader with the click of a mouse button.

I hope the original poster found what he's looking for, and ends up as happy with his chronograph as you are with yours.
 
Perhaps this was my offending statement:

"Anybody posting comments in response to the original poster's question that hasn't used their chronograph in tandem with a proof chronograph for an extended period of time, is basing their opinion on a gut-feeling guess - and nothing more."

Worded another way, it's not possible to evaluate the performance of any individual chronograph operated by its lonesome. The faults and flaws will only become apparent when operated in tandem with another bullet speed determining device.

Given that truth, and I accept those two sentences as truths, then my opinion remains this: anybody posting comments on what constitutes a 'decent' chronograph without running theirs with another proof chronograph for an extended period of time, is unable to provide any reliable comment on the relative dependability and accuracy of their chronograph.
 
Last edited:
FEENIX,

I've not stated, nor intended to state, others' needs, uses, and/or equipment are meaningless if they don't do something the same way I do or own the same equipment I own. I can't imagine how you drew any conclusion along that line. I've never believed I have an ability to read the minds of others, let alone any basis to speak on behalf of another.

I didn't get into the detail until you posted what I interpret to be the equivalent of my means and methods are without merit (aka meaningless) from your perspective.

You're responding as if I've insulted your chronograph. Or insulted you. If you allow me to insult your chronograph or you personally through a post on this Forum, you're giving me too much significance. I've provided information that the typical chronograph user, or any prospective purchaser, couldn't know about chronographs unless they've fired many bullets over duplicate and triplicate chronographs, and under different lighting and environmental conditions. Too much information needn't be a handicap. And information overload is easily controlled by any reader with the click of a mouse button.

I hope the original poster found what he's looking for, and ends up as happy with his chronograph as you are with yours.

I never insulted no one or took offense intended or otherwise. However, below is what you stated ...

Anybody posting comments in response to the original poster's question that hasn't used their chronograph in tandem with a proof chronograph for an extended period of time, is basing their opinion on a gut-feeling guess - and nothing more.

If it's nothing more ... then what is it?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top