My order is in. If I decide to sell it, it'll probably still be worth more than what I paid for it at that time of sale.
Oehler is back!!
- Thread starter alf
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
My order is in. If I decide to sell it, it'll probably still be worth more than what I paid for it at that time of sale.
dirtball
Well-Known Member
This should drive the price of the used ones down considerably. Have seen used ones sell for more that the price they are asking for the new ones.
Dave
Dave
That in itself could be considered an explanation as to why one might considering purchasing one of these Oehlers.
royinidaho
Well-Known Member
I don't understand it not being digital.
My original #10 I believe it was named, never error-ed unless you missed a 'paper'.
I really didn't need convincing. However, I did want to see who was willing to stand behind what and how firm.
I'm a bit away from feeling I need the quality of a 35 but I seem to be headed that way.
When data is gathered and posted one would expect it to be of the best quality.
My original #10 I believe it was named, never error-ed unless you missed a 'paper'.
I really didn't need convincing. However, I did want to see who was willing to stand behind what and how firm.
I'm a bit away from feeling I need the quality of a 35 but I seem to be headed that way.
When data is gathered and posted one would expect it to be of the best quality.
bigngreen
Well-Known Member
I have been scouring the internet for info and comparing and the only thing that I can find that would give the Oehler 35P any edge is the third screen. Which I could accomplish by buying two CED's and still have $200 in my pocket and be able two use the two for BC info.
I don't mind manually inputting the data into Loadbase as I can sync up the info from my PPC to the desktop and I would have to do that with any unit, so computer compatibility may not really sway me to much.
I was kinda hoping some of you guys could give a little more info than "just buy it" I'm not trying to turn this into a comparison but until today the CED was the best option for me. The last Oehler I shot over was a turd and the printer was a nuisance also and the current Chrony isn't any better for different reasons but it is better than nothing till I get a better one.
Again, not trying to start a fight!
for info and comparing and the only thing that I can find that would give the Oehler 35P any edge is the third screen. Which I could accomplish by buying two CED's and still have $200 in my pocket and be able two use the two for BC info. I don't mind manually inputting the data into Loadbase as I can sync up the info from my PPC to the desktop and I would have to do that with any unit, so computer compatibility may not really sway me to much.
I was kinda hoping some of you guys could give a little more info than "just buy it" I'm not trying to turn this into a comparison but until today the CED was the best option for me. The last Oehler I shot over was a turd and the printer was a nuisance also and the current Chrony isn't any better for different reasons but it is better than nothing till I get a better one.
Again, not trying to start a fight!
I'm reasonably happy with my current Oehler 33 and PACT Pro. I run them in tandem, creating the proof channel with the 2nd chronograph. If I thought the investment in the Oehler 35P would be a lot of money lost at the time I might decide to sell, I probably wouldn't buy one now, because I already have the ability to confirm that I'm getting good data with my current dual chronograph set up.
If you want to read about the value of having the second chronograph, or an Oehler with the 2nd proof channel capability, then read this Thread:
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f28/oehler-35p-questions-55491/
I was headed towards a CED II. But I'm seeing owner's reporting too much trouble shooting over snow or ice covered ground, and other hit & miss operations. However if you've already got on CED II and really like it, you could run another one in tandem and if it operates reliably also, you'd be in good shape.
It's possible to run two separate chronographs in tandem. The don't both need to be Oehlers either. But some chronographs are definitely more reliable than others. I run the 33 and the PACT in tandem and I can tell you that the 33 is the keeper of the two. The PACT functions well in good lighting conditions, but as soon as the light is less than optimal, the Oehler shows its stuff.
Here's a photo of the effort involved in running two separate chronographs together on one skyscreen rail. The greater the skyscreen spacing, the less significant a minor error in skyscreen spacing affects the accuracy of the recorded velocity. So my skyscreen rail allows for a 5' spacing with the Oehler 33 skyscreens and a 4'6" spacing with the PACT skyscreens. The more the better as far as improving the accuracy of the reading from the chronographs. But, the longer the spacing the less convenient the transportation and setup of the equipment. So I compromised with a 6' long skyscreen rail for purposes of tranportability. And then selected the spacing of the mounting of the skyscreens so the ends of the rail would extend out past the outside skyscreens to help protect them from damage during transportation.
Here's the photo of my setup. A piece of aluminum angle stock, tapped and threaded for mounting to a tripod, with some round stock 1/2" OD round aluminum stock welded on to accept the latest version Oehler III skyscreens. By the way, the Oehler III skyscreens did improve the reliability and funtionality of my Oehler 33, compared to the stock Oehler II skyscreens that came with the original 33. I'm sharing information. Not twisting arms. The choice is entirely an individual one. A lot of it comes down to how certain would you like to be that you're getting good data. Until I started running my two chronographs in tandem, I didn't realize the affect that bad recorded data was having on my interpretation of ES and SD. I will never return to a single chrony. The data can be as misleading as it can be useful, without any means of confirming the data is valid.
Opinions on the Oehler chronographs, both historically and today, is they're top notch for reliability and functionality. I can't speak to digital versus analog. If mine are analog, I can tell you that analog does as good a job as I need for my purposes. Review the information in the above link and I think my opinion will become more self explanatory.
If you want to read about the value of having the second chronograph, or an Oehler with the 2nd proof channel capability, then read this Thread:
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f28/oehler-35p-questions-55491/
I was headed towards a CED II. But I'm seeing owner's reporting too much trouble shooting over snow or ice covered ground, and other hit & miss operations. However if you've already got on CED II and really like it, you could run another one in tandem and if it operates reliably also, you'd be in good shape.
It's possible to run two separate chronographs in tandem. The don't both need to be Oehlers either. But some chronographs are definitely more reliable than others. I run the 33 and the PACT in tandem and I can tell you that the 33 is the keeper of the two. The PACT functions well in good lighting conditions, but as soon as the light is less than optimal, the Oehler shows its stuff.
Here's a photo of the effort involved in running two separate chronographs together on one skyscreen rail. The greater the skyscreen spacing, the less significant a minor error in skyscreen spacing affects the accuracy of the recorded velocity. So my skyscreen rail allows for a 5' spacing with the Oehler 33 skyscreens and a 4'6" spacing with the PACT skyscreens. The more the better as far as improving the accuracy of the reading from the chronographs. But, the longer the spacing the less convenient the transportation and setup of the equipment. So I compromised with a 6' long skyscreen rail for purposes of tranportability. And then selected the spacing of the mounting of the skyscreens so the ends of the rail would extend out past the outside skyscreens to help protect them from damage during transportation.
Here's the photo of my setup. A piece of aluminum angle stock, tapped and threaded for mounting to a tripod, with some round stock 1/2" OD round aluminum stock welded on to accept the latest version Oehler III skyscreens. By the way, the Oehler III skyscreens did improve the reliability and funtionality of my Oehler 33, compared to the stock Oehler II skyscreens that came with the original 33. I'm sharing information. Not twisting arms. The choice is entirely an individual one. A lot of it comes down to how certain would you like to be that you're getting good data. Until I started running my two chronographs in tandem, I didn't realize the affect that bad recorded data was having on my interpretation of ES and SD. I will never return to a single chrony. The data can be as misleading as it can be useful, without any means of confirming the data is valid.
Opinions on the Oehler chronographs, both historically and today, is they're top notch for reliability and functionality. I can't speak to digital versus analog. If mine are analog, I can tell you that analog does as good a job as I need for my purposes. Review the information in the above link and I think my opinion will become more self explanatory.
Fitch
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2001
- Messages
- 7,485
ditto
bigngreen
Well-Known Member
Thanks phorwath, that was a little more like what I was looking for, I also read the threads you provided. There's a fair bit out there but you have to dig, I found several other threads also.
It seems that having a proof channel or a second chronograph as a proof would be the only trust worthy way to look at the numbers.
It seems that having a proof channel or a second chronograph as a proof would be the only trust worthy way to look at the numbers.
Popapi
Well-Known Member
One of the problems with Oehlers 35P was the analog printer head parts(rubber rollers and plastic gears), it seems that this problem has been rectified to produce the 35P in limited quantities, which is great for those of you who love the 35P. Things of this nature does not happen on the digital CED, both units have pro's and con's. I chose the CED for numerous reasons ie: stored shot string, quicker shot output, and downloadable information to a computer etc.I have been scouring the internet
I don't mind manually inputting the data into Loadbase as I can sync up the info from my PPC to the desktop and I would have to do that with any unit, so computer compatibility may not really sway me to much.
I was kinda hoping some of you guys could give a little more info than "just buy it" I'm not trying to turn this into a comparison but until today the CED was the best option for me. The last Oehler I shot over was a turd and the printer was a nuisance also and the current Chrony isn't any better for different reasons but it is better than nothing till I get a better one.
Again, not trying to start a fight!
To say the least do your reseach on both units listed by calling each company and make your decision as to what you find out via the companies, that way you will have the MOST accurate information on both units. Charles Hardy at CED, and Gary Stafford at Oehler are great contacts for each respected company!
Well I'm taking the jump. I have 2 chronos a CED M2 and a shooting chrony. There are days they both give me fits. I hope the oehler helps stabilize the situation. Now I'll have 3. Phorwath, what kind of set up can we maake with 3 chronographs?
