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
Reloading
Oehler is back!!
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: 389303" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f28/oehler-35p-questions-55491/" target="_blank">http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f28/oehler-35p-questions-55491/</a></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p><img src="http://i712.photobucket.com/albums/ww125/pdhorwath/ChronoSetupwithSoapyWater_4-24-10.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 389303, member: 4191"] 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: [url]http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f28/oehler-35p-questions-55491/[/url] 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. [IMG]http://i712.photobucket.com/albums/ww125/pdhorwath/ChronoSetupwithSoapyWater_4-24-10.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
Oehler is back!!
Top