Some guys just like to have cool toys.
I bought the Labradar on sale for $350. I don't NEED it, but I sure do like it.
Upvote 0
Let's talk radar chronographs
- Thread starter bchannell
- Start date
I bought the Labradar on sale for $350. I don't NEED it, but I sure do like it.
Because the Garmin is much faster and easier to set up, and in my experience (echoed by many others) it never misses a shot (LR does, and optical chronys certainly do, particularly if lighting is poor). The Garmin (and new LR) are also small enough to just keep in your range bag, so you always have it with you and don't have to "plan" to have a chrono session. It's just there in your bag if you suddenly start questioning your velocity, or want to help out a friend.
I've owned a lot of chronos, including the original Labradar and now the Garmin. The Garmin (and presumably the new LR) isn't just the newest toy - it's a markedly superior device in pretty much every way.
GsT
Upvote 0
Sorry, but again much of this is just wrong . . . your description of the distance as being a "best guess" oversimplifies the fact that it is a mathematically calculated property using known physics and an accurately measured distance to the projectile via Doppler radar (speed is calculated off the rate of change of this data). Furthermore, it does not give just a "second reading" at a "best guess distance", but the speed and distance of the projectile every 0.002 seconds (once detected) for potentially well over a hundred data points (depending on the range to target) all with an known signal to noise ratio - data that can be easily fit and analyzed with a polynomial regression (if desired) for an even more robust pair of values to use for BC calculation via distance between readings.
By the same logic, one could call the distance used in your calculation with multiple conventional chronographs as just a "best guess" value as well - especially if measured with a laser range finder (same tech, different wavelength) . . . which is nuts because if we are measuring something out to fifty yards or so we would most likely use that as the "better" data given the difficulty and time involved in doing it with a tape.
I'm not saying that radar units are superior to conventional units in every case - they are not. Probably the best example being where one wants to know muzzle speed in a very confined indoor space, like maybe in a few feet while testing in a room like a work shop on a bench - the radar is not going to be able to do that. But I do feel that people should be told the correct facts without bias so that they can make their own determination what to buy. For data geeks like me they are a very useful tool. I lived with one conventional chrony for many years, but I find this new option to be very useful, if admittedly more expensive. I'm not saying anybody needs to choose one, but at least understand what the choice actually is . . .
Last edited:
Upvote 0
First I have been in the radar business for better than 60 years. I do understand the technology and because I do, I made those statements. The return signal amplitude of a pellet at any distance beyond 50 meters with the very weak transmit power used would be almost undetectable. It is the physics that I'm going by. I suspect that the return echo from a pellet much beyond 20 meters would be lost in the background receiver noise. That's why any BC calculation would be a WAG at best. On the other hand, A conventional sun screen crono at the muzzle and another one at the target at say 100 meters would be more than accurate enough to do the BC arithmetic and get a repeatable result, but again, it's your dime.
On edit, I should also add that the Chinese also include a spare LED light source at no extra cost, just in case you shoot one up at distance. On second edit: Not only is the transmitter very weak, the transmitter pulse width needs to be extremely short not to block out the receiver at short distances. (Consider a radar mile (two way) is 6.36 micro seconds). This fact greatly exasperates the ability to perform a BC calculation.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Ok - that makes a lot more sense . . . thanks for clarifying it. I appreciate knowing it comes form direct experience in the field.
I'll admit have not used mine out past about 50 yards yet, but the data I have from it with .22 pellets seems very robust, with good usable S/N values (it's even better with .25 pellets). I do have some .22 data out to 100 yards that someone sent me, and it looks good out to about 75 yards but gets sketchy after that. I don't know how the radar companies did it, but the data does seem to be meaningful a good ways beyond 20 meters - to at least a bit over double that (although that is with a .22 - I did a bit of a trial with a .177 and it was no where near as good; that might be about 20-25 meters or so). I'm happy with working with data under 50 yards for the BC work I want to do with it as I mostly shoot .22 caliber. More distance would be better, but this is a great start. I do have the higher power USA model - I doubt the lower power versions would do anywhere near as well.
I went down this path because I had done some testing with my Chrony at a distance to gather data to analyze, but since I only have the one I had to work on string averages at both the muzzle and down range, at least as a starting point. What I observed kind of blew me away - I was finding a significantly higher ES down range vs. at the muzzle. Logic would say that if BC was anything close to constant, it should be less down range because of the amount of total speed scrubbed off - proportionally, the % ES would result in a lower number at slower speeds after having flown down range. But since it was the opposite, I thought through it long and hard and the only thing I could come up with as a cause would be variation in BC from shot to shot.
Since I did want to investigate this phenomena, and to do it properly I had to be able to work on individual shots, not averages of shot strings. I was left having to decide whether to get multiple conventional chronies or try the radar approach. I sat on the decision for a few years as the original Lab Radar was very interesting but was quite a bit of money at the time - but with the price drops from the next generation launching I was willing to give it a try. I'm glad I did, and am happy with it for my uses. I'll probably upgrade when the third or fourth generation comes out.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Trying to put this all together, The radar crono is certainly more convenient and therefore easier to use. I cannot deny that, but they will not be as accurate or consistent as the sun screen variety. However, an argument can be made for the need for accuracy. I don't think it is important for an air gun. Yes, I hear folks using them at extraordinary distances, but that is not the role they are best in even though I play with distance from time to time for fun.
Pellets are still the ammunition of choice for the short intended distances of the typical air gun role and there lies the issue you were dealing with. Diabolo pellets are drag stabilized not spin stabilized. In fact that is a point of contention, but that is for another discussion. A pellet being drag stabilized is much more susceptible to atmospheric conditions like wind humidity and air density, but a pellet's best attribute is its energy loss over distance. In the typical air gun role, you want the pellet's energy to dissipate quickly for safety reasons. That's a good thing. If you want to shoot at MOA accuracy at 100 meters, you had better have perfect atmospheric conditions. When you don't have that, you have deviation
Upvote 0
full disclosure - I make chronographs specifically for air rifles.
I LOVE when people who clearly know what they're talking about pop up & give insights into a common device - i.e. radar.
I see figures of 0.002sec - a millionth of a second is pretty garbage when you're talking chronograph accuracy.
What is "accurate"? what the heck does that even mean?
Always interesting to see people talk about the FX - i've done a bit of searching & its the ONLY chronograph I can find that does NOT state any accuracy figures.
This guy has a lot of chronys & compares them: At 3:17 shot #15 the radar has a wobbly...
How can you trust ANY result that thing has given you?
It gives what is clearly a dud result as a valid result - the device (well the programming) cannot tell the difference between a good read & a dud.
How can you trust anything it says?
Have a look at the spec sheets & do the maths, a lot specify in '%' which looks awesome when its 99.1%... but @1,000fps... hmmm
Garmin C1 = ~8fps @1,000fps (the pro is better, but i cant find specs)
Lab Radar = ~10fps @ 1,000fps
How do I approach accuracy?
Firstly I run a set of electronic tests to check the clock is running well & the unit is "performing as it should" (a bit proprietary)
I then have a set of master chrony's that were independently certified/tested by the national measurements institute. Every Chrony I make is then LIVE SHOT tested against these masters & calibrated to within 1fps @ 1,000fps.
This takes a solid amount time & effort - they're not just punched out of a factory.
I LOVE when people who clearly know what they're talking about pop up & give insights into a common device - i.e. radar.
I see figures of 0.002sec - a millionth of a second is pretty garbage when you're talking chronograph accuracy.
What is "accurate"? what the heck does that even mean?
Always interesting to see people talk about the FX - i've done a bit of searching & its the ONLY chronograph I can find that does NOT state any accuracy figures.
This guy has a lot of chronys & compares them:
How can you trust ANY result that thing has given you?
It gives what is clearly a dud result as a valid result - the device (well the programming) cannot tell the difference between a good read & a dud.
How can you trust anything it says?
Have a look at the spec sheets & do the maths, a lot specify in '%' which looks awesome when its 99.1%... but @1,000fps... hmmm
Garmin C1 = ~8fps @1,000fps (the pro is better, but i cant find specs)
Lab Radar = ~10fps @ 1,000fps
How do I approach accuracy?
Firstly I run a set of electronic tests to check the clock is running well & the unit is "performing as it should" (a bit proprietary)
I then have a set of master chrony's that were independently certified/tested by the national measurements institute. Every Chrony I make is then LIVE SHOT tested against these masters & calibrated to within 1fps @ 1,000fps.
This takes a solid amount time & effort - they're not just punched out of a factory.
Upvote 0
Going to disgree with you a little - but its more about me being pedantic.
There's a few other things in the system - sensors, how they detect & very specific techniques for detection. Also there's a lot in the underlying software/code - its very, very challenging to be very accurate & consistent when you're talking about the timing required for chronys.
You could probably get to within 10fps @ 1,000fps relatively easily, but getting well below that becomes the ol law of diminishing returns.
Upvote 0
Just the fact I can set up the Garmin in 2 mins and be shooting is worth the price for me. My old shooting crony had to be set up out in front of the gun on a camera tripod, then aligned multiple time until it was good enough. Then depending on the sun, angle, shade, with the sky screens, determined what readings I would or wouldn't get. Then there was lost shots with the errors, and it had to be restarted. I mean it worked fairly well inside with the lights on the light screens, compared to outside. But overall a time consuming hassle. And if I go to the gun range to test PB rifles, then you're out past the firing line trying to set up while other people want to shoot.
Naw, I'll take the Garmin all day every day for a easy fast set up, and never missed a shot. Literally 2 mins and done.
Upvote 0
Its always a trade off with the design...Just the fact I can set up the Garmin in 2 mins and be shooting is worth the price for me. My old shooting crony had to be set up out in front of the gun on a camera tripod, then aligned multiple time until it was good enough. Then depending on the sun, angle, shade, with the sky screens, determined what readings I would or wouldn't get. Then there was lost shots with the errors, and it had to be restarted. I mean it worked fairly well inside with the lights on the light screens, compared to outside. But overall a time consuming hassle. And if I go to the gun range to test PB rifles, then you're out past the firing line trying to set up while other people want to shoot.
Naw, I'll take the Garmin all day every day for a easy fast set up, and never missed a shot. Literally 2 mins and done.
Muzzle mounted - gives you all the benefits above, has the highest accuracy & immunity from environment. Possible downside is it cant be used for powder & potentially subject to dirt & may need a clean. (some of mine have lasted 4000+, some 500 shots before a clean)
Sun shades - higest accuracy, interference from environment, but no cleaning & can be used on powder
Radar - accuracy & detection issues (whats a chronograph for?), immune to light & dirt
Pick the best one for your situation
Upvote 0
I'm no expert on radar, but I've read a bunch on them and there seems to be a consensus that radar is more accurate than lights. Most all of the reviews and information I've found on the internet say that radar is considered the most accurate.
Even if it isn't, the idea of knowing EXACTLY the TRUE fps of your pellet is not that critical. CONSISTENCY is far more important. I'd much rather have a consistent chrono than one that can do true accuracy. Honetly, if it's even 5 or so fps off from the true value, it's no big deal. As long as the same settings on my gun, gives the same fps on my chrono, then I can tune. I've had several chronos, an Oehler 35P, ProChrono, Caldwell V1 and V2, Chinese, Chrony, ... I dunno, some others. I've even used them one stacked on top of the other to see how they compare. I've never had two that returned exactly the same speeds, but they've ALL been pretty darn close. I'm talking 2-5 fps normally. Once in a blue mood, I've seen a 10 fps difference and I would guess, I did something wrong, as it's only happened a time or two, with many thousands of rounds.
I've concluded that downrange velocity is not something I need. I see some value, but not enough for me. The original LabRadar seems quite cranky with airguns, from the fiddling that reviewers have had to do to get it working. Convenience is of great value to me. So the Garmin wins for me. You set it up, point it in the general direction and it works, period.
Also, if you've used all the apps, the Garmin wins again. Easy transfer to computer, with all the info intact, even the notes you've added to the string. Yes, I wish it recorded to the app as you shoot, but truthfully, it's not the issue that I expected at all. In fact it's just fine. The info layout on the app is better than any other chrono. Heck you don't even get the Hi and Lo with the ProChrono, what a blunder. In fact you only get the current velocity, so you have to keep numbers in your head. Sometimes, if I see huge spreads, I stop right there and investigate. With the PC, I have to keep calculatiing in my head, crazy. With the Garmin, I always know at a glance where I'm at.
I admit $600 is a lot for a chrony, and everyone has to judge that for themselves. I've spent thousands on guns, scopes, ammo, etc. so, the convenience and easy setup is well worth it to me.
Even if it isn't, the idea of knowing EXACTLY the TRUE fps of your pellet is not that critical. CONSISTENCY is far more important. I'd much rather have a consistent chrono than one that can do true accuracy. Honetly, if it's even 5 or so fps off from the true value, it's no big deal. As long as the same settings on my gun, gives the same fps on my chrono, then I can tune. I've had several chronos, an Oehler 35P, ProChrono, Caldwell V1 and V2, Chinese, Chrony, ... I dunno, some others. I've even used them one stacked on top of the other to see how they compare. I've never had two that returned exactly the same speeds, but they've ALL been pretty darn close. I'm talking 2-5 fps normally. Once in a blue mood, I've seen a 10 fps difference and I would guess, I did something wrong, as it's only happened a time or two, with many thousands of rounds.
I've concluded that downrange velocity is not something I need. I see some value, but not enough for me. The original LabRadar seems quite cranky with airguns, from the fiddling that reviewers have had to do to get it working. Convenience is of great value to me. So the Garmin wins for me. You set it up, point it in the general direction and it works, period.
Also, if you've used all the apps, the Garmin wins again. Easy transfer to computer, with all the info intact, even the notes you've added to the string. Yes, I wish it recorded to the app as you shoot, but truthfully, it's not the issue that I expected at all. In fact it's just fine. The info layout on the app is better than any other chrono. Heck you don't even get the Hi and Lo with the ProChrono, what a blunder. In fact you only get the current velocity, so you have to keep numbers in your head. Sometimes, if I see huge spreads, I stop right there and investigate. With the PC, I have to keep calculatiing in my head, crazy. With the Garmin, I always know at a glance where I'm at.
I admit $600 is a lot for a chrony, and everyone has to judge that for themselves. I've spent thousands on guns, scopes, ammo, etc. so, the convenience and easy setup is well worth it to me.
Upvote 0
Garmin never misses a shot, set up in 2 mins, can use it for pretty much anything up to 4K fps. and within 5 or 10 fps compared to the shooting crony which is plenty enough accurate for me.
Upvote 0
You are correct about consistency, but i have a real problem to pay $500 more for ease of use over a sky screen for a crono I use once a year.
Upvote 0
Having designed automotive radars for a living, I don't know, some of this discussion is amusing. Radars can be made for chronometers and can be quite accurate. Radars that give both simultaneous range and velocity are relatively easy to design. We used FMCW radars for both range and velocity detection. You can buy integrated chip sets that do most of the hard front end work these days - just have to add antennas and properly do your link budget. The quality of your output is proportional to how hard the system designer worked at it, and your detected signal to noise ratio. (SNR) Quite frankly, how hard the system designer worked at it controlled how good the SNR would be. Basic math shows us that the quality of parameter estimation increases with SNR.
I made my own Doppler only chronograph out of a microwave door opener, some copper PCB board, an Arduino, a touch display a custom analog front end and a bunch of custom written software. It does not need an acoustic trigger. It detects 0.177 and up pellets. It cost me $3 for the door opener module, and maybe $20 for the Arduino. All together maybe $50 or so for parts. But yes, it took me nearly 6 months for it to work properly. Since I used a 2ms dwell time, and processed every dwell time for detection, while the next dwell was occurring, I never missed a shot. So what I am saying is decent systems can be designed with a little bit of fore thought. In my case, only detections are posted, with the velocity, along with the waveform to screen out bogus shots. I display the waveforms because a weird event is easy to detect by eye, but tough via software. FYI the steep roll off in the noise floor at 1300 fps is intentional. This is a chronometer for air guns. Kind of dumb to be shooting supersonic, so the custom analog filter rolls off steeply (7 pole Chebychev, 'twas hard to get that to work right).
I think the new crop of radar chronies are quite promising. They certainly aren't perfect, but they offer a rather great value. The designers are no doubt making tradeoffs into what is the best thing to do for the application. Depending on their background or experience, they may not pick what is best for some of us, or they may make tradeoffs for cost. In the real world that's what happens.
Tuning fork, because that's the simplest and easiest way to check how accurate it is. FYI, cheap tuning forks are rarely on frequency. Use your phone app to measure it. I bought a 2048 Hz tuning fork and it was nowhere near the right frequency! Had to machine my own. Shown is a "standard" 440 Hz.
Now I doubt one could make a ranging and doppler chrony for this money. Maybe I will look into it, first by evaluating what the waveform characteristics needs to be. Could be that you can't quite get what one really needs. Of course, that would be the challenge.
I made my own Doppler only chronograph out of a microwave door opener, some copper PCB board, an Arduino, a touch display a custom analog front end and a bunch of custom written software. It does not need an acoustic trigger. It detects 0.177 and up pellets. It cost me $3 for the door opener module, and maybe $20 for the Arduino. All together maybe $50 or so for parts. But yes, it took me nearly 6 months for it to work properly. Since I used a 2ms dwell time, and processed every dwell time for detection, while the next dwell was occurring, I never missed a shot. So what I am saying is decent systems can be designed with a little bit of fore thought. In my case, only detections are posted, with the velocity, along with the waveform to screen out bogus shots. I display the waveforms because a weird event is easy to detect by eye, but tough via software. FYI the steep roll off in the noise floor at 1300 fps is intentional. This is a chronometer for air guns. Kind of dumb to be shooting supersonic, so the custom analog filter rolls off steeply (7 pole Chebychev, 'twas hard to get that to work right).
I think the new crop of radar chronies are quite promising. They certainly aren't perfect, but they offer a rather great value. The designers are no doubt making tradeoffs into what is the best thing to do for the application. Depending on their background or experience, they may not pick what is best for some of us, or they may make tradeoffs for cost. In the real world that's what happens.
Tuning fork, because that's the simplest and easiest way to check how accurate it is. FYI, cheap tuning forks are rarely on frequency. Use your phone app to measure it. I bought a 2048 Hz tuning fork and it was nowhere near the right frequency! Had to machine my own. Shown is a "standard" 440 Hz.
Now I doubt one could make a ranging and doppler chrony for this money. Maybe I will look into it, first by evaluating what the waveform characteristics needs to be. Could be that you can't quite get what one really needs. Of course, that would be the challenge.
Last edited:
Upvote 0