Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
New Oehler 35P, New skyscreen rail, First Test Data
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pdvdh" data-source="post: 516850" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>I've thought about that Mike, and without having a certified, calibrated unit of some sort that's already been proven to read the exactly correct velocities, I was left with the next best option I could think of. Carefully establish the spacing of all seven skyscreens on my skyscreen rail to the separation distances programmed in each chronograph, and then shoot some bullets over them. </p><p></p><p>If I received some vastly differing velocities, I'd have the conundrum that you speak of. Which is how do I know which chronograph is recording the most correct - the most true - velocity? </p><p></p><p>On the other hand, if all three chronographs are in very close agreement, then I could reasonably conclude, based on the weight of the evidence, that my velocity data is very close to the true bullet velocities. Fortunately, this was the case. The Oehler 33 and the PACT were basically providing the same exact velocities. And the Oehler 35P was providing velocities very close to the 33 and the PACT. The only real adjustments I've made to the skyscreen spacings were with the Oehler 35P, and that was primarily to get the Proof Channel reading the same as the Primary Channel. </p><p></p><p>Don't get me wrong. I would love to be able to set these up alongside a Doppler Radar unit that's been Certified by NASA or Oehler to be dead nutz on the money. Then I could, and would, calibrate my skyscreen spacings to produce velocities that exactly match those known, true, bullet velocities. But without access to any calibrated and certified instrument, I did the best I could with the equipment I have available. </p><p></p><p>I'm unaware of any better options for the typical LRH. No one will ever convince me that their careful measurement of down range bullet drops will provide them more accurate muzzle velocities than I obtain with this multiple chronograph setup. </p><p></p><p>Corroborating evidence that my MV data is close to the true bullet MV is that when I shoot at 1000 yard ranges using my MVs, Bryan Litz's Berger VLD G7 BCs, and LoadBase 3.0 Ballistic Software, that my bullet drops are right on the money. The difference with my bullet drop measurement process is that I'm not using bullet drops to establish muzzle velocity for use in the ballistic software. I'm only using bullet drops to corroborate what I believe are accurate MV data obtained from the triplicate chronographs. </p><p></p><p>But I'm all ears, receptive - even eager - to receive any advice that could improve my calibration process.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 516850, member: 4191"] I've thought about that Mike, and without having a certified, calibrated unit of some sort that's already been proven to read the exactly correct velocities, I was left with the next best option I could think of. Carefully establish the spacing of all seven skyscreens on my skyscreen rail to the separation distances programmed in each chronograph, and then shoot some bullets over them. If I received some vastly differing velocities, I'd have the conundrum that you speak of. Which is how do I know which chronograph is recording the most correct - the most true - velocity? On the other hand, if all three chronographs are in very close agreement, then I could reasonably conclude, based on the weight of the evidence, that my velocity data is very close to the true bullet velocities. Fortunately, this was the case. The Oehler 33 and the PACT were basically providing the same exact velocities. And the Oehler 35P was providing velocities very close to the 33 and the PACT. The only real adjustments I've made to the skyscreen spacings were with the Oehler 35P, and that was primarily to get the Proof Channel reading the same as the Primary Channel. Don't get me wrong. I would love to be able to set these up alongside a Doppler Radar unit that's been Certified by NASA or Oehler to be dead nutz on the money. Then I could, and would, calibrate my skyscreen spacings to produce velocities that exactly match those known, true, bullet velocities. But without access to any calibrated and certified instrument, I did the best I could with the equipment I have available. I'm unaware of any better options for the typical LRH. No one will ever convince me that their careful measurement of down range bullet drops will provide them more accurate muzzle velocities than I obtain with this multiple chronograph setup. Corroborating evidence that my MV data is close to the true bullet MV is that when I shoot at 1000 yard ranges using my MVs, Bryan Litz's Berger VLD G7 BCs, and LoadBase 3.0 Ballistic Software, that my bullet drops are right on the money. The difference with my bullet drop measurement process is that I'm not using bullet drops to establish muzzle velocity for use in the ballistic software. I'm only using bullet drops to corroborate what I believe are accurate MV data obtained from the triplicate chronographs. But I'm all ears, receptive - even eager - to receive any advice that could improve my calibration process. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
New Oehler 35P, New skyscreen rail, First Test Data
Top