what is the most accurate and durable trouble free chronograph?

[MrMajestic]

I have a Competition Electronics Pro-Tach downrange box type that was purchased 24 years ago! Never hit it and it still works great. About a year ago I thought I needed infrared screens to chrono handguns at my 23 yard basement range. I made a set of lights for my Pro-Tach but always questioned it so I got a Pact. The figures obtained are very close so all I managed to do is prove each out. I have not used the Pact outdoors yet because the Pro-Tach is so easy to transport and setup. Some downrange box manufacturers had warrantied against stray shots but I don't know if they do that anymore. A little caution and I would hope nobody would hit it!

 

[J E Custom]

I run an old Oehler 33, an older PACT, and a brand new Oehler 35P concurrently. All sky screens are mounted to a single skyscreen rail. This way they all set up at the range equally quickly - or tediously - whichever way you prefer to consider it.

They all seem to work well in sufficient lighting conditions. The PACT is the first of the three to fail to give readings in fading light conditions. So I give the Oehler's the edge in reliability in poorer lighting conditions.

Having used chronographs extensively for several years now, it's clear that Oehler knows the business of chronographs inside and out. That becomes evident while reading their owner's manual, and should one ever need customer assistance to sort out any issues in the proper operation of their units. Their 35P provides the proof channel, which is invaluable IMO, if you really want to have some confidence that your chronograph data is accurate. Without two different chronographs run concurrently, or one Oehler 35P, I contend there is no way to know if your chrono data is valid.

Here's a link to a photo of my skyscreen setup: http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/new-oehler-35p-new-skyscreen-rail-first-test-data-60778/

My skyscreen rail does require transport of a 6' 8" long skyscreen rail within a vehicle from the house to the shooting location.

I wouldn't give up on your CED until you talk with their Tech staff and see if you can't sort out the issue. From what I've read in other owner's Posts on this Forum, they seem to be a decent unit - once the owner's get the operational quirks worked out.

+1

I saw a picture of your rig and was impressed and it is very interesting that the Oehler came
out on top with all of them under the same conditions.

I have not tested it against other chronographs but I have been at the range and let other
people shoot through mine because theirs was giving them trouble and they were surprised
that the Oehler worked every time and the fact that It has a proof screen it checks itself
and if there is to much variation it warns of an error.

Most of the time the other good chronographs gave good/true velocities but they would not
work every time depending on conditions.

The only thing that I have ever heard that will confuse a chronograph is a cell phone that is
placed to close to the electronic unit/instrument .

If a member has had good luck with another brand of chronograph then by all means they
should stay with it . this is why I use the Oehler it just works and I rely on it so I am convinced
that it is the best buy for the money.

J E CUSTOM

 

[Trickymissfit]

I run an old Oehler 33, an older PACT, and a brand new Oehler 35P concurrently. All sky screens are mounted to a single skyscreen rail. This way they all set up at the range equally quickly - or tediously - whichever way you prefer to consider it.

They all seem to work well in sufficient lighting conditions. The PACT is the first of the three to fail to give readings in fading light conditions. So I give the Oehler's the edge in reliability in poorer lighting conditions.

Having used chronographs extensively for several years now, it's clear that Oehler knows the business of chronographs inside and out. That becomes evident while reading their owner's manual, and should one ever need customer assistance to sort out any issues in the proper operation of their units. Their 35P provides the proof channel, which is invaluable IMO, if you really want to have some confidence that your chronograph data is accurate. Without two different chronographs run concurrently, or one Oehler 35P, I contend there is no way to know if your chrono data is valid.

Here's a link to a photo of my skyscreen setup: http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f19/new-oehler-35p-new-skyscreen-rail-first-test-data-60778/

My skyscreen rail does require transport of a 6' 8" long skyscreen rail within a vehicle from the house to the shooting location.

I wouldn't give up on your CED until you talk with their Tech staff and see if you can't sort out the issue. From what I've read in other owner's Posts on this Forum, they seem to be a decent unit - once the owner's get the operational quirks worked out.

all chrongraphs with the exception of one, work the same exact way. I don't care what brand how many dollars invested. They work off of photo cells. The hardest thing for a photo cell to read is extreme bright light and very dim light. I shoot a lot in very bright noon time sunlight, but also shoot in the late afternoon time frame. I do not shoot after dark thru a chronograph. I can count the tossed out shots on two hands, and when shooting with my buddy that uses a #35 his did exactly the same thing. I fixed mine after the fourth or fifth call out with a couple pieces of tin foil tape. Can't do that as easilly with the 35, but you can. But I've also been at the range with a half dozen chronographs setup in one brand or another, and when one seems to fail; they all do. Now I like the 35, but no more than the PACT, and as I said before I can be shooting while the guy using an Ohler is still putting his together. The new PACT is a light year better in the software package, and over a hundred bucks cheaper. The 35 is early 1980's technology at it's best. Photocells are even more sensitive nowadays than they were in those days, and the new stuff should work at midnight if they are using the best cells. The # 35 has always had alignment issues, and when you add the third cell you compound the issues dramaticly. I did fix Doug's for him at an expensive price tag. I built him an all new mount out of extruded metal that is strait and solid enough not to vibrate (3" square stuff at $3.50 an inch). If the sky screens vibrate you are not accurate (there is a shock wave of the bullet proceeds the actual flight of the bullet). But this required a better tripod due to the increased weight, so that was another $75. When it all was said and done, Doug added another $250 to the already $340, but the system worked very well. The one thing I liked about the 35 was the spacing of the photocells, but hated the stupid third cell. The PACT setup on a very solid bridge affair that was 24". Extremely solid, but would be better if it were 36" apart. Doug's new rail has a level mounted on it that reads in two directions. I sat this level up in an epoxy putty base that was leveled on a surface plate. Then drill and taped three screes to hold it in place. The screens are setup at the exact points speced by Ohler. Much better than the junk they specd. I've been asked over a dozen times by other Ohler users to built them a rail like that, and told them where to buy the extruded metal in Northern Indiana (the only supplier I readilly know of). I think the sticker shock scared them off, as only one other guy made further inquireys with me (I did all of Doug's work for free). Still looking back I could have done a bridge like PACT uses for about $75 and a case of beer (I don't have a welder).
One thing I completely dislike about the PACT and the Ohler both is the way the cables are mounted, and a needed line or two added to their software. I've long felt that they both need to add a couple lines of data in their software to allow the user to program the actual cell spread rather than be stuck with whatever the factory specs. This way you could put the screens closer together or further apart and just change out the distances needed. I know how to do this already with the PACT, but also don't want to have to use a calculator after every shot string.
In ending this, I still will say that I've yet to see any real difference between the two in performance over 17 years of shooting. I was not at all impressed with the Ohler when we first took it the range. But as I said we ironed it out over a few weeks (Doug has deep pockets). Doug went thru a couple printers, and last time I heard he was looking for another one again (we're estranged these days). Myself I like the idea of uploading the data directly to my notebook, and with that I don't see the need for a printer.
good shooting
gary

 

[Pdvdh]

One thing I completely dislike about the PACT and the Oehler both is the way the cables are mounted, and a needed line or two added to their software. I've long felt that they both need to add a couple lines of data in their software to allow the user to program the actual cell spread rather than be stuck with whatever the factory specs. This way you could put the screens closer together or further apart and just change out the distances needed. I know how to do this already with the PACT, but also don't want to have to use a calculator after every shot string.

good shooting
gary

My PACT PC2 allows for the entry of the skyscreen spacing distance in inches. I don't know if it allows me to enter tenths of inches or not. Haven't tried that. But I've run both 54" and 56" spacing. Programming for skyscreen spacing in inches is built in - and I do like that feature. The Oehlers I have allow skyscreen spacing programming in distances of feet. They can't be programmed to inches of separation distance like my PACT PC2. The PACT I have is handy that way. I'd like to see the spacing be programmed to tenths of an inch - which would be even handier. That way if my permanent mounting spacing is off slightly, I could simply enter the correct separation distance, rather than having to re-mount the skyscreens.

Oehler has improved their skyscreens, and the improvement was evident in my use of them. Their current skyscreens are Oehler IIIs. The technology could be the same. But the quality of that technology has been improved. Less susceptible to static electricity or other electrical noise. They operate with fewer hiccups than their prior version skyscreens. I own 4 of their older generation skyscreens, and 5 of their current model Skyscreen IIIs.

I don't know how old my PACT PC2 is. I purchased it 'used'. PACT skyscreens and equipment could be improved on their current models, compared to the one I'm using.

One reason I didn't purchase a CED M2 is that their skyscreen spacing is not programmable. I believe the factory skyscreen spacing on the CED M2 is 2 feet. I prefer to run at least a 4-foot skyscreen spacing in order to reduce the affect that skyscreen spacing error has on the recorded velocity. I suspect one could set the CED skyscreens at a 4-foot spacing. But then you'd have to double the recorded velocities in order to correct them for the 4-foot spacing.

 

[Pdvdh]

In ending this, I still will say that I've yet to see any real difference between the two in performance over 17 years of shooting. I was not at all impressed with the Ohler when we first took it the range. But as I said we ironed it out over a few weeks (Doug has deep pockets). Doug went thru a couple printers, and last time I heard he was looking for another one again (we're estranged these days). Myself I like the idea of uploading the data directly to my notebook, and with that I don't see the need for a printer.
good shooting
gary

The best way to compare performance is to run different units in tandem - concurrently. There is no way to validate chronograph data quality without either having a 'proof' channel, or running two in tandem. Running a single chronograph provides one velocity per shot. You either believe it at face value - or you don't. Running two chronographs in tandem allows the hiccups to be identified on a shot by shot basis. It also allows for some precision comparison of any two separate units. My Oehlers fairly consistently provide a lower ES over my shot strings. The same bullets are traveling over both units, but the ES over the Oehler units are typically 2-3 fps less than the ES results from the PACT.

The inclusion of the 'proof' channel on the Oehler 35P is the equivalent of purchasing two chronographs in one unit - a huge advantage, IMO.