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
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
Chronographs
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: 573044" data-attributes="member: 25383"><p>I have to give you credit when credit is due! You at least took the time to prove out your ideas, and also find errors that few would have ever known about. But alas I have learned (and in some cases finally remembered) about testing that would make a difference. Well maybe.</p><p> </p><p>It takes a minimum of three identical items to conduct a test, and set a standard. Of course you only had one of each (not your fault of course). Then you can compair them one to one and develope a standard point. But of course you'd have had to taken out a second mortgage to get this done<g>. And I think you did the best you could do with what you had to work with, so my hats off to you.</p><p> </p><p>I said Pact because of the cost of the investment alone. I found the difference in accuracey was nill, and in the end one still never knew which one was correct, or if either one was correct. (once again not anybody's fault). I have yet to see any chronograph that I thought was perfect. The mounts and stuff on the Ohler leave a lot to be desired. The distance between the screens on the Pact ae too close in my book. Then the others are a distant third place. If you want an Ohler, then buy one! What I'd rather do would be to try a bunch of them on the sameday at about the sametime. Anyway a quarter of one percent at 3500 fps means very little to me as long as things are constent.</p><p>gary</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Trickymissfit, post: 573044, member: 25383"] I have to give you credit when credit is due! You at least took the time to prove out your ideas, and also find errors that few would have ever known about. But alas I have learned (and in some cases finally remembered) about testing that would make a difference. Well maybe. It takes a minimum of three identical items to conduct a test, and set a standard. Of course you only had one of each (not your fault of course). Then you can compair them one to one and develope a standard point. But of course you'd have had to taken out a second mortgage to get this done<g>. And I think you did the best you could do with what you had to work with, so my hats off to you. I said Pact because of the cost of the investment alone. I found the difference in accuracey was nill, and in the end one still never knew which one was correct, or if either one was correct. (once again not anybody's fault). I have yet to see any chronograph that I thought was perfect. The mounts and stuff on the Ohler leave a lot to be desired. The distance between the screens on the Pact ae too close in my book. Then the others are a distant third place. If you want an Ohler, then buy one! What I'd rather do would be to try a bunch of them on the sameday at about the sametime. Anyway a quarter of one percent at 3500 fps means very little to me as long as things are constent. gary [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Chatting and General Stuff
General Discussion
Chronographs
Top