The important thing is that he showed both data screens for the entire string of shots, so anyone watching could do the stats for themselves & draw their own conclusions. That's the definition of scientific integrity: it's not about how right or wrong you are in your conclusions as much as being open about your data gathering, showing how you did it and what results you got & responding appropriately to constructive criticism or alternative viewpoints afterwards. Thumbs up, guys, big time. :)
Great video comparison, but you transposed the ES number between the Chrony and Oehler. When you do the math, the Oehler comes out at ES of 79 and the Chrony at 138. I'm surprised no one else picked that out.
Apparently everyone missed it. The ES was not 138 for the Oehler, it was 78 and the spread was 138 for the Chrony. They mixed their numbers up. The Oehler was within the normal variation of the bullets shot to shot. The Chrony was way out of bounds.... Second, Just because the average was approx the same, the data collected by the Chrony was poor. What happened is as the Sun moves it affects the Chrony. Pacts do this too. Notice how the shade of the trees is not under either at the start. But as the shade proceeds under the two chronographs, the reading change on the Chrony. The Oehler is not affected. See, the Chronographs work off the reflection of the ground, not the sky. This is why they work better on a dark cloudy day where the ground reflection remains constant. Chrony went from 30 to 69 ft too slow and 30 to 69 ft too fast. In the first 10 rounds it was running slow, in the 2nd group it was closer, in the 3rd group it was consistently too fast. So if you ran out and made a check of your load, you have no idea if your low, high or close. And you are at the mercy of the Sun and Clouds. Sadly, Pact had this all worked out back in 1991-95. But they changed to cheaper different components today and they are affected by shaded ground as well. Found this out after one of my electric eyes failed... and had to go with the new eyes and they suck... even came with a note, it works best on a dark cloudy day... and hardly works on a bright day... Oehler is worth the money period... Especially if you are hand loading... Bottom line, the Chrony was all over the place.... Think about it like this, say the Oehler read 2530 and 2510, averaging 2520 and it did this over 2 shots... Then the Chrony averaged 2520 on 2 shots... but the Chrony was 2210 and 2830... that equals a 2520 average.. Looking at averages you think they are equal, they are not. This Chrony data in this case would be worthless. This exposes the failure of the comparing Averages.
Thank you for a halfway intelligent analysis! But now you're talking about accuracy and not precision. Most of these dumbasses are criticizing the F1 for such high SD. If you look at the SD of each string in isolation, they're almost identical in the first two (19.84 v 20.45 and 16.27 v 16.65). So the precision of the units is pretty close (not worth 5x as much!). In the last string, the SD opens up a little. So, in your last paragraph about it being all over the place, it really wasn't. I noticed right away about the odd fact the one string was faster than the Oehler while the other two were slower. How do you calibrate the units? Also, the range (or ES) on each string was reasonably close (63/68, 54/49, 48/66), but it opens up a lot when you consider all 30 shots. Other tests I've seen show match grade 168gr rounds with ES from as low as 27fps to 94fps. So even 66 as a worst run isn't outside of reasonably accurate. You apparently identified this issue was due to lighting. So, within a given testing situation, the unit is precise...it just might not be accurate, meaning it's subject to errors due to testing conditions, but the errors are consistent. So your last paragraph is really a flawed analysis. The really enlightening thing is that the range of the averages of the three strings for the 35P was only 19fps while for the F1 is was 97fps possibly indicating that the F1 is considerably more sensitive to the testing environment...as you suggested. And THAT is the quality analysis that isn't be demonstrated in this video or by any comments. The unit IS adequately precise, it's just more sensitive to the environment...nothing to do with SD or ES at all, actually. I really do appreciate your knowledge of what causes this, though. Haven't seen these other professional critics offer that, or even understand the results.
Id be curious to see if the F1 would be more accurate if it was set up like the instruction say. The instructions say only the 9.25" rods are used with rifle and the extention rods are used with pistol,archery, and shotgun. Plus after the first string the front sensor is in the shade and the rear is in the sun. Instruction say if in the sun, use the diffusers. In the shade, leave the diffusers off. Idk, it might make some difference
Thanks for your video !! It caused me to make a "paper gate" with a cutout of 1,5 inch high, located a the "brass pieces" . So now i know that as long as there are no hole's in the paper, the reading is correct.....simpel huh.....
My Chrony Gamma and my Oehler 35P are consistently within 4 fps of each other! The Oehler's confirmed for me that I didn't need to buy the Oehler in the first place (NZD $1,500.00) never mind, I enjoy using them both.
Please revisit this comparison by centering the Chrony between the first two windows of the Oehler, and at such heights so both sweet spots match best. Also conduct the investigation with the caveat that the Chrony may need about 20 shots to warm up / settle in --as which seemed to have been the case... Here are the results for each 10 shot strings (Oehler first) First String: Means: 2635.9, 2626.2 (+9.7); SD 20.91, 21.57 (+1.16). Second String: Means: 2617.8, 2585.5 (-32.3); SD 17.16, 17.56 (+0.4),Third String: Means: 2636.9, 2682.5 (+45.6), SD: 14.96, 20.73 (+5.77).... Note, in the results just presented, the standard deviations were calculated as samples, that is, with (n-1) in denominator.... Initially, I thought the Chrony may have been improving. This was based on it's giving a faster velocity for each shot. Which is what you would expect, since it is closer to the muzzle.... However, the differences in the means in each string did not decrease, and neither did the standard deviation differences. So I was wrong to think that the Chrony may have been improving as it warmed up.... What else can we say from looking at each string separately?... Not much that I can see... In terms of redoing the test with the Chrony centered, it may be achieved by placing the Chrony below the middle Oehler sensor... Anyhow, thanks for a much sought after comparison.
Explaining the gap between the lines where the bullet has to pass on the chrony was a great help. Thanks. Very well produced video. Can I just point out that you said the words "you know" 95 times through out the vid. That's 7.3 "you knows" every minute. That's a "you know" every 8 seconds, Wow. That has to be a record.
Thanks for taking the time to set up and perform the test!! I found the results helpful but it did raise a couple of questions. I watched the first two strings and I noticed what seemed like a noticeable amount of deviation on most of the shots. One would think that unit to unit the consistency would match but I've never seen this test performed. That said I would be interested to see two F-1s in one test and two 35Ps in another test to first determine consistency from unit to unit. I would think same models would be consistent but it is a test regarding precision so this needs to be proven first. Once consistency is established, I would like to see the test repeated, as another person recommended, swapping front to back the 35P and the F-1. Availability makes the test very difficult, I mean who has two 35Ps sitting around. LOL Again, thanks for the test!
I doubt it makes a difference, I've had an F-1 for years, but there's a little shade from the leaves of the trees blowing across the light diffusers. Since these things work on the shadow of the bullet, that MIGHT skew the measurements. I think the movement is too slow for the computer in the chrony to register though. Might wanna try to position them outside the shadows when doing anything critical though.
heck, i just need an extremely accurate chrony thats very durable and absolutely will not be affected by extreme sunlight, dust, cold weather- I dont need or want to put money on unneeded features like the printer, lights, hook ups to I-phones, spread, average velocities-id rather have that money put into accuracy and durability and resistance to weather conditions- just a no nonsense chrony any suggestions as to a good chrony for me?
You guys do the BEST reviews. Practical and well thought out. Thanks! Wish I had this review before buying mine. If I could give you 2 thumbs up I would.
Great video. Test and camerawork were outstanding. I have the cheapee and I've always wondered about the variation in speeds. Now I know it's not my loads.
That F-1 is allover the place. Most folks may not have ideal lighting conditions like you do. Glad I returned mine yesterday. LabRadar is coming out with their radar soon. Should be a good video to compare the Oehler to it.
Thank you for this.. I am budget minded and only doing personal hand loads.. I know this is back in 2012, do you think there is anything better since?? I seen one on a budget magnetospeed and they guy was sending it back so I am going to shy away from that style of chronograph..
I am noticing a quite a few shots are 50fps different and if the Oehler is dead on then the chrony is a bit off. Maybe that's why I'm seeing 100fps ES and it's really 50. I'm actually picking up Oehler for $125 used so I'll take it to the range tomorrow and see.
I would like to know what you used to mount the Oehler to a single tripod. I've been suffering with the two tripod setup since 96. I also have a Labradar but it is useless for recording velocities for 220 Swift for rounds above 3920 fps.
So, I think this test would be better done with a bolt action using match ammo. That way the actual velocity would be more consistent, and the measured velocities would be easier to compare.
Chad killed LOTS of puppies there! Some guys use an led light attached to the diffuser to increase the performance of their Crony. I have not had a chance to try it out yet, but it's an interesting idea.
Going over posts and it's funny how some people think a short distance single measurement of the budget F-1 should match the three sensor, longer measurement with divide by two averaging pro model. All really depends on what accuracy is needed of the data.
Great review thank you for taking the time to do this. I think the oehler is the way to go. If you spend a thus and or more on reloading equipment to make the best rounds possible then you need the best chronograph to check your loads.
It appeared that the first 10 were much closer than the 2nd and 3rd string ??? Is my observation correct and do you think this at all significant ? Great test though....Thank you for making and posting.
Hello. I noticet that from one moment it seem like there were shadows from the tree on diffuzer of F-1 Master... Couldn´t be the reason of bigger difference of metering between F1-Master and Oehler?
Awesome video! Not that I'd want to make more work for ya, but....... it would be interesting to see the same 30 round comparison on various other guns/calibers. Would be neat to see if the results were similar across a few other variants and if 30 rounds is the "sweet spot". GREAT WORK GUYS!! Keep 'em coming.
Thanks Chad. I found this very useful. While I do see the value in the Oehler, for my purposes, it seems the Chrony will be more then adequate. I'm not a bench rest shooter.
LOL... Great video guys and I know this was an earlier video. I'm just busting your balls on this but damn Chad... I counted 88 times that you said "Ya know" through out this video. I may be off by few though. I'm guessing this wasn't planned but if it was... Pretty cool on keeping with the whole 88 theme. Great stuff!
I know this is a ten year old video but interesting none the less. I have a chrony f1. Bought it decades ago. For my purposes it has always worked consistently and seemingly accurate to my expectations of measured velocities compared against velocities printed in loading manuals and other publications. Of course your variations in guns and components and conditions will create individual results unique to itself.
Interesting how the first two strings showed 20-50+ faster fps on the Oehler but the third string showed 20-50+ fps faster on the f1. The placement of cronies was the same. At first I thought you had moved the f1 behind the Oehler but after watching again I see they are in the same positions throughout the video. Lighting changed? Or is one of the devices that far off?
Thanks Brother for putting this video together I needed to get a cost effective accurate chronograph to use for archery. Which will accurately work with my software.. Thanks I just ordered a Chrony
Even if both chronographs gave the same average over 30 rounds, it's still hard to tell which one is more accurate on any individual shot. I'm not taking for granted that the Oehler is measuring the "true" velocity of each round, are you? If the Oehler is giving the "true" velocity, how many rounds do you have to fire through the Chrony to be 95% sure that the average you're getting is correct? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that more information could be obtained from this test.
I think the lesson here, added to my comments below to Singularity Hunter, is that you really can't draw any firm conclusions from this test, because you have two independent variables - the measurement error of the chronographs, and the variability of the actual ,muzzle velocity. When you record a number - regardless of which chronograph it comes from - you don't know if you are measuring the variation of the muzzle velocity or the ability of the chronograph to accurately record it. Most chronographs have a repeatability spread somewhere in the 20 f/s range. That means that you cannot tell, a priori, the source of the variability observed. That's why we have statistics - we can measure the exact same item repeatedly, and depending on the measuring instrument, can come up with a range of measurement values - for an actual value that does not change. So we have error bands around our measurements and have to accept that as a reality of measurement. I think the conclusions, however, are not unreasonable - the F-1 is very inexpensive, and not so different in its measurement that it stands out as an unusable measurement tool. If you question this conclusion, do the math, introducing a measurement error of 1% in the distance between the first and second and the second and third screens on the Oehler. Then ask yourself what the Oehler does with the discrepancy it observes as a result.
+George Steele The variables were not controlled in the video, that is why 9 months ago I wrote: From 9 months ago: What we need here is to see the same, (Shots) bullets shot over both Chronographs at the same time. That is how real experiment would be done. Fire say 10 over the Oehler with the F1 behind it. Then reverse the order. This way any shots that are out of the Norm are known to be "Out of the Norm" and recorded by both. Those "Out of the Norm", but only recorded "Out" by one, would show which is has more errors. That would show a direct comparison and real world difference, if any. But all this is just an exercise. The real telling thing is when you take 5 rounds from each powder(s) loads and different bullets and shoot for groups. Here, velocity means little, grouping is what counts.. and surprises...
+Singularity Hunter What is often done in metrology is - just as is often done in high-reliability computing - to implement a voting scheme, where three different measurement devices are used, and when there is a discord, the two that match most closely are the ones used as the majority vote. While not perfect, it often accounts well in situations where a unit can fail or drift. In this case, if a third unit agreed with one or the other of the first two but not both, "majority vote" would establish the "most likely" correct measurement. It's not perfect, but it saves tearing hair out and can be done in real time. It's also important to note that the differences between devices could be sporadic - related to outside influence, battery charge, passing clouds, etc. so that a vote that 1 and 2 agree on does not rule out concordance between 1 and 3 or 2 and 3 at a later time. It's not absolute. Again, the reason for agonizing over this stuff is the pursuit of the x ring, not pedantry; it's practical science.
The first full run of 30 rounds with this same 308 loading produced and average velocity of 1625fps from the Chrony when I first was developing my load. I do think the Oehler is giving the true velocity, if not very, very close. I've seen review before where the author lines up two of them and every shot matched in velocity readings. The Chrony may not provide as accurate of statical results, however it kept up really well until the third string, I think some shadows were skewing the readings.
Thanks for this excellent comparison. Eric, Chad & Barry - the "Mythbusters" of the gun world! Maybe we should call this channel "GunBusters"? Keep up the good work, it is very much appreciated!
Average of 30 shots seems to not really tell the picture. The error difference per shot was as much as 50 FPS high and low. That is pretty significant.
Bob Snyder: Yeah Bob, that's exactly what I was thinking, especially if you're contemplating shooting any form of distance. It started off that the Oehler was reading faster than the Chrony by around about 10fps, and then it turned the other way around by about 50 fps, as you say. And as for the extreme spread of the Oehler... I was wanting to get shy of my Chrony because it gave me ES readings of as high as 70fps per string, and being as 'anal' as I am about meticulous, contistent reloading, I knew my Chrony readings were wrong! Is there any chronograph out there that is accurate? This video's only served more to confuse me than to iron things out!
I know what kind of mishaps that have happened with these types of equipment. I need to make sure it can hold up to some abuse, so will it still work if I accidently shoot it?
SD of 19 vs 45 is a pretty huge difference, not that this test proves which is correct but I’d trust the oehler. I tested my RCBS unit vs a LabRadar and they were closer to each other than this
The Chrony factory is not far from my range. 10 years ago Mr. Chrony would come over to test his machines. He did this when he made a significant change in one of the components. The test involved a plank that held 7 Chronys in a row. In the middle was an Ohler. The Ohler had the screens set farther apart than usual (double the distance) to increase accuracy. He would shoot then with a 243, a 22, a 12 ga slug, a 308 and a compound bow. He did this a number of occasions. What I noticed was that each Chrony would be X fps faster or slower than the Ohler. And this number was always the same, indicating a high clock speed on a Chrony and absolute accuracy. The error was in the order of 20 fps, one way or the other. He posted a target down range to aim at. He said the Chrony was so accurate that small difference in the path the bullet took to cross the screens would add a variable to the range of velocities.
In your test I see a similar result. The Chrony runs about 3 fps slower than the Ohler. In my experience, I get better results with the Chrony by setting it up at least 15 feet from the muzzle, and some rifles are better at 20 feet.
What more do you want? Lol, a SD of 3fps? I mean, comparing velocities is comparing velocities whether they are 5fps or 50fps apart. I can't see any difference really in the results. I didn't weight sort this lot of brass, may have helped a bit but I'm still using LC brass....not the greatest by any means. Chad
I could pruchase and ship a 440 round can of 7.62x54r Soviet Surplus if I had a dollar for every time Chad says "ya' know". Great video guys, very proffesional, keep up the good work.
I agree with Singularity Hunter, the Chrony is Crap! Its all over the place. Heres the deal now, this video was huge if you think about it. ALL the people on youtube that have been doing their review on ammo and stuff like that have been using these Chronys are inaccurate.
I did notice the Chrony results started to slide up up an away in the last string, so it may have been the case. Those sensors on the Chrony are too close to the top IMO. Chad
You're paying $350 more for better build quality, ease of set up and that huge available shooting window. If you need those things and can afford it... it's definitely worth it. Theres a reason it is used widely throughout the industry. The chrony has its place in the market as well but you are definitely not paying for more feet per second.
Anchor Bait: Gee, there's always someone that misses nothing. You're so right on that, the ES's are indefinitely in the wrong columns, and the 80's wrong, the 80 fps should be 74... Can anyone believe this data at all?
mike bandor is spot on. How on earth anybody could conclude that the F1 was "pretty close" to the Oehler, I cannot comprehend. For nearly the entire second string & most of the 1st, the F1 was reading significantly lower vels ????? How? anyhow, I'm glad I stumbled across this cause I'm in the market for my 1st chronograph, which won't be a F1.
Create bullet drop tables of various ranges for the tested load based on the average muzzle velocity the chronograph gave then see if the drop is consent to the charts... Or if you know one chronograph is correct you could set it up to measure muzzle velocity and set up the one in question at a set distance from the muzzle... And determine what the velocity should be at the chronograph in question based on the ballistic coefficient of the bullet and muzzle velocity. Another way would be to load many rounds the same and fire half through a known to be correct chronograph then fire the other half though a chronograph in question and you should get a speed with a very close average for the two sets of bullets. There are probably many other ways as well to check accuracy...
It's not really apples to apples. The Oehler has 3 screens to average across & between, and 2 of them are much further apart. That alone is going to increase your accuracy. Still, the F-1 seems good as a ballpark thing for knowing where I am to within 25-50fps. Seems to me it's more suited to the individual user curious to see what their handloads are doing, while the Oehler might be better as a club, shop or group investment.
The important thing is that he showed both data screens for the entire string of shots, so anyone watching could do the stats for themselves & draw their own conclusions. That's the definition of scientific integrity: it's not about how right or wrong you are in your conclusions as much as being open about your data gathering, showing how you did it and what results you got & responding appropriately to constructive criticism or alternative viewpoints afterwards. Thumbs up, guys, big time. :)
Great video comparison, but you transposed the ES number between the Chrony and Oehler. When you do the math, the Oehler comes out at ES of 79 and the Chrony at 138. I'm surprised no one else picked that out.
Apparently everyone missed it. The ES was not 138 for the Oehler, it was 78 and the spread was 138 for the Chrony. They mixed their numbers up. The Oehler was within the normal variation of the bullets shot to shot. The Chrony was way out of bounds....
Second, Just because the average was approx the same, the data collected by the Chrony was poor. What happened is as the Sun moves it affects the Chrony. Pacts do this too. Notice how the shade of the trees is not under either at the start. But as the shade proceeds under the two chronographs, the reading change on the Chrony. The Oehler is not affected.
See, the Chronographs work off the reflection of the ground, not the sky. This is why they work better on a dark cloudy day where the ground reflection remains constant. Chrony went from 30 to 69 ft too slow and 30 to 69 ft too fast. In the first 10 rounds it was running slow, in the 2nd group it was closer, in the 3rd group it was consistently too fast. So if you ran out and made a check of your load, you have no idea if your low, high or close. And you are at the mercy of the Sun and Clouds. Sadly, Pact had this all worked out back in 1991-95. But they changed to cheaper different components today and they are affected by shaded ground as well. Found this out after one of my electric eyes failed... and had to go with the new eyes and they suck... even came with a note, it works best on a dark cloudy day... and hardly works on a bright day...
Oehler is worth the money period... Especially if you are hand loading...
Bottom line, the Chrony was all over the place.... Think about it like this, say the Oehler read 2530 and 2510, averaging 2520 and it did this over 2 shots... Then the Chrony averaged 2520 on 2 shots... but the Chrony was 2210 and 2830... that equals a 2520 average.. Looking at averages you think they are equal, they are not. This Chrony data in this case would be worthless. This exposes the failure of the comparing Averages.
Thank you for a halfway intelligent analysis! But now you're talking about accuracy and not precision. Most of these dumbasses are criticizing the F1 for such high SD. If you look at the SD of each string in isolation, they're almost identical in the first two (19.84 v 20.45 and 16.27 v 16.65). So the precision of the units is pretty close (not worth 5x as much!). In the last string, the SD opens up a little. So, in your last paragraph about it being all over the place, it really wasn't. I noticed right away about the odd fact the one string was faster than the Oehler while the other two were slower. How do you calibrate the units? Also, the range (or ES) on each string was reasonably close (63/68, 54/49, 48/66), but it opens up a lot when you consider all 30 shots. Other tests I've seen show match grade 168gr rounds with ES from as low as 27fps to 94fps. So even 66 as a worst run isn't outside of reasonably accurate. You apparently identified this issue was due to lighting. So, within a given testing situation, the unit is precise...it just might not be accurate, meaning it's subject to errors due to testing conditions, but the errors are consistent. So your last paragraph is really a flawed analysis. The really enlightening thing is that the range of the averages of the three strings for the 35P was only 19fps while for the F1 is was 97fps possibly indicating that the F1 is considerably more sensitive to the testing environment...as you suggested. And THAT is the quality analysis that isn't be demonstrated in this video or by any comments. The unit IS adequately precise, it's just more sensitive to the environment...nothing to do with SD or ES at all, actually.
I really do appreciate your knowledge of what causes this, though. Haven't seen these other professional critics offer that, or even understand the results.
Just a thought, what if I used the IR light kit with the F1. Would that make its' performance more consistent?
If you out of doors and it's not cloudy, no.
If I put my ezup and my crony is in the shade will this help?
Id be curious to see if the F1 would be more accurate if it was set up like the instruction say. The instructions say only the 9.25" rods are used with rifle and the extention rods are used with pistol,archery, and shotgun. Plus after the first string the front sensor is in the shade and the rear is in the sun. Instruction say if in the sun, use the diffusers. In the shade, leave the diffusers off. Idk, it might make some difference
I was able to get the Chrony Gamma Master for 130$ today brand new so I'm happy. I wish I could afford an industry standard, but hey I cant.
Thanks for your video !!
It caused me to make a "paper gate" with a cutout of 1,5 inch high, located a the
"brass pieces" . So now i know that as long as there are no hole's in the paper, the
reading is correct.....simpel huh.....
I love these types of videos from you guys, keep up the great work!
My Chrony Gamma and my Oehler 35P are consistently within 4 fps of each other! The Oehler's confirmed for me that I didn't need to buy the Oehler in the first place (NZD $1,500.00) never mind, I enjoy using them both.
@SeriousSchitt cool screen name and thanks for your input. l'll be grabbin a Chrony and another case of beer on the cheap!!!
Please revisit this comparison by centering the Chrony between the first two windows of the Oehler, and at such heights so both sweet spots match best. Also conduct the investigation with the caveat that the Chrony may need about 20 shots to warm up / settle in --as which seemed to have been the case... Here are the results for each 10 shot strings (Oehler first) First String: Means: 2635.9, 2626.2 (+9.7); SD 20.91, 21.57 (+1.16). Second String: Means: 2617.8, 2585.5 (-32.3); SD 17.16, 17.56 (+0.4),Third String: Means: 2636.9, 2682.5 (+45.6), SD: 14.96, 20.73 (+5.77).... Note, in the results just presented, the standard deviations were calculated as samples, that is, with (n-1) in denominator.... Initially, I thought the Chrony may have been improving. This was based on it's giving a faster velocity for each shot. Which is what you would expect, since it is closer to the muzzle.... However, the differences in the means in each string did not decrease, and neither did the standard deviation differences. So I was wrong to think that the Chrony may have been improving as it warmed up.... What else can we say from looking at each string separately?... Not much that I can see... In terms of redoing the test with the Chrony centered, it may be achieved by placing the Chrony below the middle Oehler sensor... Anyhow, thanks for a much sought after comparison.
Explaining the gap between the lines where the bullet has to pass on the chrony was a great help.
Thanks.
Very well produced video.
Can I just point out that you said the words "you know" 95 times through out the vid.
That's 7.3 "you knows" every minute.
That's a "you know" every 8 seconds,
Wow.
That has to be a record.
Thanks for taking the time to set up and perform the test!! I found the results helpful but it did raise a couple of questions. I watched the first two strings and I noticed what seemed like a noticeable amount of deviation on most of the shots. One would think that unit to unit the consistency would match but I've never seen this test performed. That said I would be interested to see two F-1s in one test and two 35Ps in another test to first determine consistency from unit to unit. I would think same models would be consistent but it is a test regarding precision so this needs to be proven first. Once consistency is established, I would like to see the test repeated, as another person recommended, swapping front to back the 35P and the F-1. Availability makes the test very difficult, I mean who has two 35Ps sitting around. LOL Again, thanks for the test!
I didn't realize the small area of coverage with the Chrony. Thanks for pointing that out.
I doubt it makes a difference, I've had an F-1 for years, but there's a little shade from the leaves of the trees blowing across the light diffusers. Since these things work on the shadow of the bullet, that MIGHT skew the measurements. I think the movement is too slow for the computer in the chrony to register though. Might wanna try to position them outside the shadows when doing anything critical though.
heck, i just need an extremely accurate chrony thats very durable and absolutely will not be affected by extreme sunlight, dust, cold weather-
I dont need or want to put money on unneeded features like the printer, lights, hook ups to I-phones, spread, average velocities-id rather have that money put into accuracy and durability and resistance to weather conditions-
just a no nonsense chrony
any suggestions as to a good chrony for me?
Great job on the production/direction/editing of the video.
For the Chrony line I read that using a piece of cello(sello)tape over the sensors will help with the lighting variances
You guys do the BEST reviews. Practical and well thought out. Thanks! Wish I had this review before buying mine. If I could give you 2 thumbs up I would.
Now that you said something, I can't stop noticing it every time he says 'you know'.
(Chad, we love you....ya know)
The production quality of your videos has been getting pretty good.
Great video. Test and camerawork were outstanding. I have the cheapee and I've always wondered about the variation in speeds. Now I know it's not my loads.
That F-1 is allover the place. Most folks may not have ideal lighting conditions like you do. Glad I returned mine yesterday. LabRadar is coming out with their radar soon. Should be a good video to compare the Oehler to it.
Thank you for this.. I am budget minded and only doing personal hand loads.. I know this is back in 2012, do you think there is anything better since?? I seen one on a budget magnetospeed and they guy was sending it back so I am going to shy away from that style of chronograph..
I am noticing a quite a few shots are 50fps different and if the Oehler is dead on then the chrony is a bit off. Maybe that's why I'm seeing 100fps ES and it's really 50. I'm actually picking up Oehler for $125 used so I'll take it to the range tomorrow and see.
really well thought out, thorough, informational and professional video.
I would like to know what you used to mount the Oehler to a single tripod. I've been suffering with the two tripod setup since 96. I also have a Labradar but it is useless for recording velocities for 220 Swift for rounds above 3920 fps.
So, I think this test would be better done with a bolt action using match ammo. That way the actual velocity would be more consistent, and the measured velocities would be easier to compare.
Chad killed LOTS of puppies there!
Some guys use an led light attached to the diffuser to increase the performance of their Crony. I have not had a chance to try it out yet, but it's an interesting idea.
Wow! I didn't realize they resumed the manufacture of the 35P. I got one of the last ones from MidwayUSA when they discontinued them a few years back.
Going over posts and it's funny how some people think a short distance single measurement of the budget F-1 should match the three sensor, longer measurement with divide by two averaging pro model. All really depends on what accuracy is needed of the data.
You always have cool videos.
Great review thank you for taking the time to do this. I think the oehler is the way to go. If you spend a thus and or more on reloading equipment to make the best rounds possible then you need the best chronograph to check your loads.
It appeared that the first 10 were much closer than the 2nd and 3rd string ??? Is my observation correct and do you think this at all significant ? Great test though....Thank you for making and posting.
Hello.
I noticet that from one moment it seem like there were shadows from the tree on diffuzer of F-1 Master... Couldn´t be the reason of bigger difference of metering between F1-Master and Oehler?
Awesome video! Not that I'd want to make more work for ya, but....... it would be interesting to see the same 30 round comparison on various other guns/calibers. Would be neat to see if the results were similar across a few other variants and if 30 rounds is the "sweet spot". GREAT WORK GUYS!! Keep 'em coming.
Thanks Chad. I found this very useful. While I do see the value in the Oehler, for my purposes, it seems the Chrony will be more then adequate. I'm not a bench rest shooter.
LOL... Great video guys and I know this was an earlier video. I'm just busting your balls on this but damn Chad... I counted 88 times that you said "Ya know" through out this video. I may be off by few though. I'm guessing this wasn't planned but if it was... Pretty cool on keeping with the whole 88 theme. Great stuff!
I know this is a ten year old video but interesting none the less. I have a chrony f1. Bought it decades ago. For my purposes it has always worked consistently and seemingly accurate to my expectations of measured velocities compared against velocities printed in loading manuals and other publications. Of course your variations in guns and components and conditions will create individual results unique to itself.
Interesting how the first two strings showed 20-50+ faster fps on the Oehler but the third string showed 20-50+ fps faster on the f1. The placement of cronies was the same. At first I thought you had moved the f1 behind the Oehler but after watching again I see they are in the same positions throughout the video. Lighting changed? Or is one of the devices that far off?
Thanks Brother for putting this video together I needed to get a cost effective accurate chronograph to use for archery. Which will accurately work with my software..
Thanks I just ordered a Chrony
Thanks a Lot for the Great Work that you guys are doing blessings
well put together and informative. I like this review. good job.
Wow! Great video! Thanks
Gary Strobel
1 second ago
Just a thought, what if I used the IR light kit with the F1. Would that make its' performance more consistent?
Even if both chronographs gave the same average over 30 rounds, it's still hard to tell which one is more accurate on any individual shot. I'm not taking for granted that the Oehler is measuring the "true" velocity of each round, are you? If the Oehler is giving the "true" velocity, how many rounds do you have to fire through the Chrony to be 95% sure that the average you're getting is correct? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that more information could be obtained from this test.
I think the lesson here, added to my comments below to Singularity Hunter, is that you really can't draw any firm conclusions from this test, because you have two independent variables - the measurement error of the chronographs, and the variability of the actual ,muzzle velocity. When you record a number - regardless of which chronograph it comes from - you don't know if you are measuring the variation of the muzzle velocity or the ability of the chronograph to accurately record it. Most chronographs have a repeatability spread somewhere in the 20 f/s range. That means that you cannot tell, a priori, the source of the variability observed.
That's why we have statistics - we can measure the exact same item repeatedly, and depending on the measuring instrument, can come up with a range of measurement values - for an actual value that does not change. So we have error bands around our measurements and have to accept that as a reality of measurement. I think the conclusions, however, are not unreasonable - the F-1 is very inexpensive, and not so different in its measurement that it stands out as an unusable measurement tool.
If you question this conclusion, do the math, introducing a measurement error of 1% in the distance between the first and second and the second and third screens on the Oehler. Then ask yourself what the Oehler does with the discrepancy it observes as a result.
+George Steele
The variables were not controlled in the video, that is why 9 months ago I wrote:
From 9 months ago:
What we need here is to see the same, (Shots) bullets shot over both Chronographs
at the same time. That is how real experiment would be done.
Fire say 10 over the Oehler with the F1 behind it. Then reverse the
order.
This way any shots that are out of the Norm are known to be "Out of the
Norm" and recorded by both. Those "Out of the Norm", but only recorded "Out" by one, would show which is has more errors.
That would show a direct comparison and real world difference, if any.
But all this is just an exercise. The real telling thing is when you take 5 rounds from each powder(s) loads and different bullets and shoot for groups.
Here, velocity means little, grouping is what counts.. and surprises...
+Singularity Hunter What is often done in metrology is - just as is often done in high-reliability computing - to implement a voting scheme, where three different measurement devices are used, and when there is a discord, the two that match most closely are the ones used as the majority vote. While not perfect, it often accounts well in situations where a unit can fail or drift. In this case, if a third unit agreed with one or the other of the first two but not both, "majority vote" would establish the "most likely" correct measurement. It's not perfect, but it saves tearing hair out and can be done in real time. It's also important to note that the differences between devices could be sporadic - related to outside influence, battery charge, passing clouds, etc. so that a vote that 1 and 2 agree on does not rule out concordance between 1 and 3 or 2 and 3 at a later time. It's not absolute. Again, the reason for agonizing over this stuff is the pursuit of the x ring, not pedantry; it's practical science.
Good, informative video. Thanks for posting. I think for my purposes, the Chrony will work just fine.
Best channel on TH-cam. period.
Can we win a prize if we provide you with the number of times Chad says "You Know"?
That's cool, I usually "sign" my posts in here :) VP took some getting used to, but it has been working well once I got it setup right. Chad
Whats the clicking about three seconds after you shoot, Is that the M1A?
great and vary informative video. i always wondered how these things work.
I would love to see how they do against the new Magneto Speed that mounts to the muzzle.
The first full run of 30 rounds with this same 308 loading produced and average velocity of 1625fps from the Chrony when I first was developing my load. I do think the Oehler is giving the true velocity, if not very, very close. I've seen review before where the author lines up two of them and every shot matched in velocity readings. The Chrony may not provide as accurate of statical results, however it kept up really well until the third string, I think some shadows were skewing the readings.
Lots of great info! Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for this excellent comparison. Eric, Chad & Barry - the "Mythbusters" of the gun world! Maybe we should call this channel "GunBusters"? Keep up the good work, it is very much appreciated!
hay if you hit one of the wire thing can you get a new part our do you have to get a hole new chronograph?
Average of 30 shots seems to not really tell the picture. The error difference per shot was as much as 50 FPS high and low. That is pretty significant.
Bob Snyder: Yeah Bob, that's exactly what I was thinking, especially if you're contemplating shooting any form of distance. It started off that the Oehler was reading faster than the Chrony by around about 10fps, and then it turned the other way around by about 50 fps, as you say. And as for the extreme spread of the Oehler... I was wanting to get shy of my Chrony because it gave me ES readings of as high as 70fps per string, and being as 'anal' as I am about meticulous, contistent reloading, I knew my Chrony readings were wrong! Is there any chronograph out there that is accurate? This video's only served more to confuse me than to iron things out!
I know what kind of mishaps that have happened with these types of equipment. I need to make sure it can hold up to some abuse, so will it still work if I accidently shoot it?
what program do you use to edit your video with?
Great job all around! Thank you!
SD of 19 vs 45 is a pretty huge difference, not that this test proves which is correct but I’d trust the oehler. I tested my RCBS unit vs a LabRadar and they were closer to each other than this
you guys rock. great review!
What make and model and caliber was that rifle ? please
I think this is chads 2nd "independent" review, i love what hes done so far!
The Chrony factory is not far from my range. 10 years ago Mr. Chrony would come over to test his machines. He did this when he made a significant change in one of the components.
The test involved a plank that held 7 Chronys in a row. In the middle was an Ohler. The Ohler had the screens set farther apart than usual (double the distance) to increase accuracy.
He would shoot then with a 243, a 22, a 12 ga slug, a 308 and a compound bow.
He did this a number of occasions. What I noticed was that each Chrony would be X fps faster or slower than the Ohler. And this number was always the same, indicating a high clock speed on a Chrony and absolute accuracy. The error was in the order of 20 fps, one way or the other.
He posted a target down range to aim at. He said the Chrony was so accurate that small difference in the path the bullet took to cross the screens would add a variable to the range of velocities.
In your test I see a similar result. The Chrony runs about 3 fps slower than the Ohler.
In my experience, I get better results with the Chrony by setting it up at least 15 feet from the muzzle, and some rifles are better at 20 feet.
Due to muzzle sonic energy projecting to the measuring devise?
Just wondering.
Is there a make n' model in between these two?
Oh God. What do you do with the puppies afterwards?
What more do you want? Lol, a SD of 3fps? I mean, comparing velocities is comparing velocities whether they are 5fps or 50fps apart. I can't see any difference really in the results. I didn't weight sort this lot of brass, may have helped a bit but I'm still using LC brass....not the greatest by any means. Chad
actually only interested in the F1 but good to compare to top of the line model. great video...
Good comparison for a curious newbie to chrono's like me. Thanks for the info. I miss Barry.
I could pruchase and ship a 440 round can of 7.62x54r Soviet Surplus if I had a dollar for every time Chad says "ya' know".
Great video guys, very proffesional, keep up the good work.
Oops... I didn't realize that was Chad... I've just had way too many problems with Vegas Pro 11... I've given up on it.
What are the specs on the ammo you used?
I agree with Singularity Hunter, the Chrony is Crap! Its all over the place. Heres the deal now, this video was huge if you think about it. ALL the people on youtube that have been doing their review on ammo and stuff like that have been using these Chronys are inaccurate.
I did notice the Chrony results started to slide up up an away in the last string, so it may have been the case. Those sensors on the Chrony are too close to the top IMO. Chad
Thats quite an elaborate setup at 3:10
Thank you, Sir. I appreciate your video.
must say ive been enjoying the chad videos here lately.
You're paying $350 more for better build quality, ease of set up and that huge available shooting window. If you need those things and can afford it... it's definitely worth it. Theres a reason it is used widely throughout the industry. The chrony has its place in the market as well but you are definitely not paying for more feet per second.
5:19 The extreme spread on the results are backwards. Someone totally got them switched up. Did anyone else catch that??
Anchor Bait: Gee, there's always someone that misses nothing. You're so right on that, the ES's are indefinitely in the wrong columns, and the 80's wrong, the 80 fps should be 74... Can anyone believe this data at all?
yet another good video, thankyou!!
You know I really like your new video intros, you know?
Chad says "you know" a lot when he's explaining things lol. Interesting video, thanks for making it!
Very helpful video, thanks for the help!
mike bandor is spot on. How on earth anybody could conclude that the F1 was "pretty close" to the Oehler, I cannot comprehend. For nearly the entire second string & most of the 1st, the F1 was reading significantly lower vels ????? How?
anyhow, I'm glad I stumbled across this cause I'm in the market for my 1st chronograph, which won't be a F1.
In my opinion the Chrony appears to be better Value per dollar, for 98% of shooters. Great video, very thorough.
Thanks for the handy review !
i think that's the trigger resetting. i'm not 100% sure, however.
It's the sound of proper "follow through" with a semi-auto.
no, Eric is. He is seen in a lot of videos with the veteran hat or shirt.
Nice comparison... very thorough. Thanks....
The F1 seems to be fine for me, too.
Thank you for the great review. Please curtail "you know".
I got drunk after 5 min, had to call the ambulance after 10 min and didn´t finish watching this video while drinking shots.
After a couple "you know" it seems to me he plays the Meow game from the Film Super Troopers ^^
In case someone didn't know, now they should. The phrase "you know" was used at least 79 times in the recording of this video. LOL
Shout out to the big Mercury in the back. I love big body American cars.
How can you figure which chronograph is giving the correct output
Create bullet drop tables of various ranges for the tested load based on the average muzzle velocity the chronograph gave then see if the drop is consent to the charts... Or if you know one chronograph is correct you could set it up to measure muzzle velocity and set up the one in question at a set distance from the muzzle... And determine what the velocity should be at the chronograph in question based on the ballistic coefficient of the bullet and muzzle velocity. Another way would be to load many rounds the same and fire half through a known to be correct chronograph then fire the other half though a chronograph in question and you should get a speed with a very close average for the two sets of bullets. There are probably many other ways as well to check accuracy...
It's not really apples to apples. The Oehler has 3 screens to average across & between, and 2 of them are much further apart. That alone is going to increase your accuracy. Still, the F-1 seems good as a ballpark thing for knowing where I am to within 25-50fps. Seems to me it's more suited to the individual user curious to see what their handloads are doing, while the Oehler might be better as a club, shop or group investment.
nice review. thanks.