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.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Looking to replace my old chronograph
- Thread starter totaldla
- Start date
Along the path to today there have been hardware and software revisions and today they seem to be a good reliable product.
and it only took them 7 years to get the bluetooth working somewhat reliably. Still using a mini USB to connect a external rechargeable battery which should have been implemented into the unit at release. You still need to buy a aftermarket external trigger for reliable pickup of .22 rimfire, arrows, and air rifles. You still charge extra for a plate for bench use, they still charge extra for a carry bag. You still need to buy a aftermarket aiming device for semi reliable pickup if you don't have a external trigger. Yep they fixed it lol
and it only took them 7 years to get the bluetooth working somewhat reliably. Still using a mini USB to connect a external rechargeable battery which should have been implemented into the unit at release. You still need to buy a aftermarket external trigger for reliable pickup of .22 rimfire, arrows, and air rifles. You still charge extra for a plate for bench use, they still charge extra for a carry bag. You still need to buy a aftermarket aiming device for semi reliable pickup if you don't have a external trigger. Yep they fixed it lol
I pointed that out. The lead was just never delivered and the early ones were problem plagued. Today people who have them seem to swear by them and I guess if I dropped that much money I would never want to admit I bought junk. Would I consider one? Yes but not to say I would buy one. I would be doing a hell of a lot of homework before I bought one. Hell, I agree with everything you mentioned.
Ron
well regardless of whether it works right now or not you cannot find one for sale anywhere at any price. Caldwell is supposed to introduce their version some time this year and if nothing else the will be competition and with competition prices will drop and innovations occur.
Maybe in two or three years I will be tempted to get a LR II or a Caldwell or maybe some other brand but until then I will stick with my optical and the arduous burden of having to place the tripod in front of the bench when I set my target up
Maybe in two or three years I will be tempted to get a LR II or a Caldwell or maybe some other brand but until then I will stick with my optical and the arduous burden of having to place the tripod in front of the bench when I set my target up
Carriertxv
New member
Labradar as you can use it indoor if needed, will work with any firearm and sets up in minutes. Would never be without it.
However for me their new app sucks compared to the old one.
However for me their new app sucks compared to the old one.
Schlitz 45
New member
I learned a valuable lesson at the range yesterday regarding chronographs: Do not rapid fire a DAO 357 Magnum revolver when testing loads-stick to slow fire only.
After killing mine yesterday I ordered a new one I found on sale at Midway. I don’t need anything fancy.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1022289790?pid=919444
After killing mine yesterday I ordered a new one I found on sale at Midway. I don’t need anything fancy.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1022289790?pid=919444
hounddawg said:LR was first marketed in 2015 which means it was being developed a decade ago. In computer years that is at least a century. But then caldwell is having supply chain issues getting their Velociradar to market, maybe this year?
Car designs can be in the works a long time, too, but with Caldwell having the problem, it suggests something specific to radar is involved. Automobile AEB systems use radar, so that may be the connection.
with Caldwell having the problem, it suggests something specific to radar is involved. Automobile AEB systems use radar, so that may be the connection.
Thats a good theory. I read a report from someone where Caldwell said at Shotshow that it will be out by end of year.
TBH I could really give a darn, I am happy with my optical and see zero reason to change. I don't live by my chrono and use it only on initial powder load development. It will be interesting to see if LR steps it's game up when it has competition however. That can only benefit the consumer
Last edited:
I would personally love to see a LRII with a internal rechargeable battery, lower profile for the transmitter/receiver. Make it controlled by a wired detachable remote. Throw in a built in stable bench mount that would be vibration resistant and a aiming device and I might even pony up some change for one
Aiming device: Five bucks -- aligns in top slot to sight down/fits in case pocket
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Johnson-Combination-Square-415/100353822
Dead nuts exact.
(We already talked about plate bench mount)
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Johnson-Combination-Square-415/100353822
Dead nuts exact.
(We already talked about plate bench mount)
Ok I will playAiming device: Five bucks -- aligns in top slot to sight down/fits in case pocket
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Johnson-...-415/100353822
Dead nuts exact.
why haven't the LR people included one? haven't they noticed that people have been having to cobble their own up since 2015 ?
What about including a vibration trigger. A bench mounting plate, a carry bag, putting in some LiPo batteries with a durable charging port. Getting a decent Bluetooth ap that works reliably
All of that should be included with the 600 dollar purchase price. The kicker is that the LR gives no more accurate data than a $100 dollar optical chrono does. This thing has been out for seven years now and not a single one of the problems it released with has been addressed by the company
If Caldwell puts LR out of business they have only themselves to blame with their greed and disregard of the people that bought from them
Ok... pays your money, adds & customizes to get what works best for you.
As mentioned before, there was a learning & complementation curve to make mine completely
dependable/predictable some years ago.
Extra external battery- $12
3 small clamps - $12
Combo square - $5
Swivel Mount - $25
Briefcase-sized case carries everything, rain, shine, night, day, align everything right on bench,
nothing disturbing barrel harmonics, multiple-range readings for BC, triggers/tracks (for me)
down to 22LR and up to BeoWoof w/ tank brake . . .
Oehler-35 now in the garage to come out once in a (very) blue moon for shotgun loads.
(I admit I don't do SmartPhones/Apps. I'm in the business where I know exactly how vulnerable
SP users are . . .)
But you are correct.
LR's not for everyone.
As mentioned before, there was a learning & complementation curve to make mine completely
dependable/predictable some years ago.
Extra external battery- $12
3 small clamps - $12
Combo square - $5
Swivel Mount - $25
Briefcase-sized case carries everything, rain, shine, night, day, align everything right on bench,
nothing disturbing barrel harmonics, multiple-range readings for BC, triggers/tracks (for me)
down to 22LR and up to BeoWoof w/ tank brake . . .
Oehler-35 now in the garage to come out once in a (very) blue moon for shotgun loads.
(I admit I don't do SmartPhones/Apps. I'm in the business where I know exactly how vulnerable
SP users are . . .)
But you are correct.
LR's not for everyone.
Despite having two very reliable opticals (Oehler 35P and CED Millenium) to get two-range velocities, I actually pulled the trigger on my LR because the raw data allowed fewer shots to arrive at BCs. The current RSI Shooting Lab software makes extracting that information easier. You put in your test conditions and the raw data, and it gives you the standard atmosphere referenced BCs as they should appear on the box. It's pretty much the way Sierra started doing it in the '60s when, according to Sierra, most others still relied on the Coxe-Beugless shape charts from the 1930s (an easy place for personal bias to get into the process by favoring a pointier shape on the chart). The other method used then was a variation of the two-Chrono method (Chrono for muzzle and TOF screen about 50 yards downrange).
That's nice Nick however as you know the BC will change with velocity of the bullet and unless you are measuring the velocity at long range you will only have the BC at muzzle velocity. Most bullets BC will go down as the velocity lowers. At LR's max range of 100 yards I doubt you will get any useful data
If you have a accurate rifle it is simply easier to measure the drop at 100, 300, and 600 then work into it backwards using a ballistic calculator.
Personally I could care less about what the BC is, I just want to know what come ups to use the manufactures BC shoot at what efver range I need look at the target and measure the POI vs POA and write down the correct comeups for that particular rifle and scope.
Creedmoor sports had a good article on truing up the BC of a bit back.
https://milled.com/creedmoorsports/...-rimfire-at-300-yards-part-1-Kg08iCjwzvE9auY_
If you have a accurate rifle it is simply easier to measure the drop at 100, 300, and 600 then work into it backwards using a ballistic calculator.
Personally I could care less about what the BC is, I just want to know what come ups to use the manufactures BC shoot at what efver range I need look at the target and measure the POI vs POA and write down the correct comeups for that particular rifle and scope.
Creedmoor sports had a good article on truing up the BC of a bit back.
https://milled.com/creedmoorsports/...-rimfire-at-300-yards-part-1-Kg08iCjwzvE9auY_
Last edited:
The copyright policy makes exemptions for Fair Use, which is an ill-defined doctrine, but, generally, it amounts to a sentence here and there up to maybe a couple of paragraphs. There are some exceptions for larger passages, but quoting a whole article will generally go past that limit. This link works fine, anyway.
Two points:
First, the advantage of the Doppler radar is you can assess not only BCs but work out a drag function for the individual bullet, which the RSI software also helps you to do. While it would, indeed, be much better to have the use of a high-power Doppler radar set that can track a bullet over hundreds of yards, you can still fire multiple samples at different muzzle velocities. This is how the 18th Century firings by Bashforth, the Gâvre Commission, Krupps, and so on were done, as the big projectiles couldn't accurately hit a stop screen miles away. There will be some underestimation due to initial yaw and some overestimation due to the yaw of repose being off from spinning more slowly than would be the case at the same velocity in actual flight due to the relatively low rate of rotational velocity loss. Initial yaw can be partially mitigated by using a barrel with muzzle brake holes to drop gas pressure just before the bullet clears the muzzle, keeping ammo concentric, and not firing in wind.
Second, My 1978 Sierra databook (second edition) points out that as of that point in time, the Coxe-Beugless bullet shape charts from 1936 were the principal method used to estimate a BC to publish on a box of small arms bullets. These have you compare the nose shape of your pullet to a series of profiles on a chart to locate a match, then estimates the BC from that. They do not include boattails, though, so it's pretty basic and limited. You can find an example of the chart in Hatcher's Notebook on Page 572 of the 1961 edition if you are curious.
The other method Sierra says was in use in 1978 was to record muzzle velocity and time of flight to a point about 50 yards away. The TOF was adjusted for the standard atmosphere (standard practice for velocity loss and TOF tables since the 1880s) and the common single near-muzzle velocity BC value was derived from that information. Sierra was pioneering the reporting of multiple standard atmosphere BCs with velocity breakpoints at that time. A look through that edition shows they had them for a few of their hunting bullets, but, interestingly, not yet for their match bullets at the time of publication.
Sierra still has fairly detailed information about determination methods and the history on their website. Most of what they were saying in 1978 is there, except for what is current practice has changed.
hounddawg said:That's nice Nick however as you know the BC will change with velocity of the bullet and unless you are measuring the velocity at long range you will only have the BC at muzzle velocity.
Two points:
First, the advantage of the Doppler radar is you can assess not only BCs but work out a drag function for the individual bullet, which the RSI software also helps you to do. While it would, indeed, be much better to have the use of a high-power Doppler radar set that can track a bullet over hundreds of yards, you can still fire multiple samples at different muzzle velocities. This is how the 18th Century firings by Bashforth, the Gâvre Commission, Krupps, and so on were done, as the big projectiles couldn't accurately hit a stop screen miles away. There will be some underestimation due to initial yaw and some overestimation due to the yaw of repose being off from spinning more slowly than would be the case at the same velocity in actual flight due to the relatively low rate of rotational velocity loss. Initial yaw can be partially mitigated by using a barrel with muzzle brake holes to drop gas pressure just before the bullet clears the muzzle, keeping ammo concentric, and not firing in wind.
Second, My 1978 Sierra databook (second edition) points out that as of that point in time, the Coxe-Beugless bullet shape charts from 1936 were the principal method used to estimate a BC to publish on a box of small arms bullets. These have you compare the nose shape of your pullet to a series of profiles on a chart to locate a match, then estimates the BC from that. They do not include boattails, though, so it's pretty basic and limited. You can find an example of the chart in Hatcher's Notebook on Page 572 of the 1961 edition if you are curious.
The other method Sierra says was in use in 1978 was to record muzzle velocity and time of flight to a point about 50 yards away. The TOF was adjusted for the standard atmosphere (standard practice for velocity loss and TOF tables since the 1880s) and the common single near-muzzle velocity BC value was derived from that information. Sierra was pioneering the reporting of multiple standard atmosphere BCs with velocity breakpoints at that time. A look through that edition shows they had them for a few of their hunting bullets, but, interestingly, not yet for their match bullets at the time of publication.
Sierra still has fairly detailed information about determination methods and the history on their website. Most of what they were saying in 1978 is there, except for what is current practice has changed.
Sierra .243 107 grain
https://www.sierrabullets.com/resources/ballistic-coefficients/
BC's for the .243 107 Hollow Point is .547 @ 2500 fps and above .542 between 1800 and 2500 fps .529 between 1600 and 1800 fps and .519 @ 1600 fps and below
WIth 30.0 gns of Varget I get a muzzle velocity of 2833 FPS at the muzzle. That gives me 4 different BC's when shooting at a 1000 yard target
The Labrador's limit is 100 yards. Now for rimfire measurement to 100 might be useful or do as the link I provided says and 20 rounds later and you can have a true BC to put into your rifle. You can spend 600 plus dollars or shoot half a box of .22 ammo, it's your choice.
In F class at my home range I shoot 300, 600 and 800 yards, all I need to do is have a muzzle velocity and shoot three rounds at each distance using data from any ballistic calculator with the manufacture's published BC then write down the POI vs the POA and I have all the data I will ever need for that rifle and load.
Honestly, how many times has anyone here ever used the LR to get a correct BC of a bullet from 0 to 100 yards? These Doppler radar chronos are nice tech toys but their practicality vs price is pretty much nil.
I may or may not purchase either the Caldwell or Andiscan A2 eventually but not because I need it for more accurate data or that setting up my optical when I am setting up the target is all that burdensome but simply because I want a new fancy toy to play with at the range. Or I might just spend that money on a new rifle or reloading components
https://www.sierrabullets.com/resources/ballistic-coefficients/
BC's for the .243 107 Hollow Point is .547 @ 2500 fps and above .542 between 1800 and 2500 fps .529 between 1600 and 1800 fps and .519 @ 1600 fps and below
WIth 30.0 gns of Varget I get a muzzle velocity of 2833 FPS at the muzzle. That gives me 4 different BC's when shooting at a 1000 yard target
The Labrador's limit is 100 yards. Now for rimfire measurement to 100 might be useful or do as the link I provided says and 20 rounds later and you can have a true BC to put into your rifle. You can spend 600 plus dollars or shoot half a box of .22 ammo, it's your choice.
In F class at my home range I shoot 300, 600 and 800 yards, all I need to do is have a muzzle velocity and shoot three rounds at each distance using data from any ballistic calculator with the manufacture's published BC then write down the POI vs the POA and I have all the data I will ever need for that rifle and load.
Honestly, how many times has anyone here ever used the LR to get a correct BC of a bullet from 0 to 100 yards? These Doppler radar chronos are nice tech toys but their practicality vs price is pretty much nil.
I may or may not purchase either the Caldwell or Andiscan A2 eventually but not because I need it for more accurate data or that setting up my optical when I am setting up the target is all that burdensome but simply because I want a new fancy toy to play with at the range. Or I might just spend that money on a new rifle or reloading components
Last edited: