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
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
what is the most accurate and durable trouble free chronograph?
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="Trickymissfit" data-source="post: 430091" data-attributes="member: 25383"><p>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).</p><p> 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.</p><p> 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. </p><p>good shooting</p><p>gary</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Trickymissfit, post: 430091, member: 25383"] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
what is the most accurate and durable trouble free chronograph?
Top