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
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Cronograph's ??
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: 780734" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>Where and when you took offense to my statement from a prior Thread, I conclude that you didn't care about the value of the proof channel providing the 2nd recorded velocity, and that you didn't see the value in running two chronographs in tandem in order to obtain the equivalent of a proof channel - which is built into the Oehler 35P.</p><p></p><p>Here's my statement which sent you into a tissy fit in the original Thred, and currently leads you to proclaim I'm an elitist: </p><p>"<strong>Anybody posting comments in response to the original poster's question that hasn't used their chronograph in tandem with a proof chronograph for an extended period of time, is basing their opinion on a gut-feeling guess - and nothing more.</strong>" </p><p></p><p>And here's how I stated the same thing in this Thread:</p><p><strong>?This is the primary reason I say anyone that makes claims about the quality, accuracy, and precision of their chronograph based solely on the singular velocity data their chronograph records, is operating semi-blind, and possibly, without knowing it. </strong>And FEENIX, if you don't accept this premise, or care about it, good for you. It is important to me, the way I use my chronographs. You dismissing the significance doesn't negate the facts. Just means it's not important to you, or for whatever other reason, you could care less."</p><p></p><p>A chronograph owner can't validate the proper operation of a chronograph that provides a single recorded velocity. Which means the owner isn't in an informed position to recommend their chronograph (be it a cheapo or an expensive one) as a winner or a loser. The opinion is a gut-feeling guess - and nothing more. The person is recording and receiving velocity data that could be valid, or invalid. The owner/operator has no way to know. Operating semi-blind.</p><p></p><p>Since you've taken strong offense at my first <strong>bolded</strong> statement (above) from a separate Thread, you either don't understand the concept or what's being communicated, you do understand the concept and think it's not important or relevant. You don't care. Or worse...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 780734, member: 4191"] Where and when you took offense to my statement from a prior Thread, I conclude that you didn't care about the value of the proof channel providing the 2nd recorded velocity, and that you didn't see the value in running two chronographs in tandem in order to obtain the equivalent of a proof channel - which is built into the Oehler 35P. Here's my statement which sent you into a tissy fit in the original Thred, and currently leads you to proclaim I'm an elitist: "[B]Anybody posting comments in response to the original poster's question that hasn't used their chronograph in tandem with a proof chronograph for an extended period of time, is basing their opinion on a gut-feeling guess - and nothing more.[/B]" And here's how I stated the same thing in this Thread: [B]?This is the primary reason I say anyone that makes claims about the quality, accuracy, and precision of their chronograph based solely on the singular velocity data their chronograph records, is operating semi-blind, and possibly, without knowing it. [/B]And FEENIX, if you don't accept this premise, or care about it, good for you. It is important to me, the way I use my chronographs. You dismissing the significance doesn't negate the facts. Just means it's not important to you, or for whatever other reason, you could care less." A chronograph owner can't validate the proper operation of a chronograph that provides a single recorded velocity. Which means the owner isn't in an informed position to recommend their chronograph (be it a cheapo or an expensive one) as a winner or a loser. The opinion is a gut-feeling guess - and nothing more. The person is recording and receiving velocity data that could be valid, or invalid. The owner/operator has no way to know. Operating semi-blind. Since you've taken strong offense at my first [B]bolded[/B] statement (above) from a separate Thread, you either don't understand the concept or what's being communicated, you do understand the concept and think it's not important or relevant. You don't care. Or worse... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Cronograph's ??
Top