Long distance range and chronograph

[spoonman]

Looking for a range to shoot at that has distances farther than 200 yards. I also need to chonograph some of my rounds so I'm looking also for a range that might have one. I live in the Olympia area and drive to Seattle for work every day so something in that area. Thanks guys

[Stein]

Plantation near Bellingham goes to 300 and has a chrono, it was $0.25 a shot last time I used it.

If I were you, I would forget about the chrono as they are very, inaccurate.  Shoot at different known distances and then plug it to free online software and it will calculate your exact velocity.

[hyde35]

Magneto speed is extremely accurate. If you don't know your speed you'll never be accurate at longer ranges.

[rbros]

+1 on the magneto speed. They are very accurate.

[Yondering]

If I were you, I would forget about the chrono as they are very, inaccurate. 

Some are certainly less accurate than others, but there are some pretty good options out there now that are very affordable. The ProChrono Digital, for example, is head and shoulders above the Shooting Chrony products, and run about $100 new on Midway.

Personally, instead of driving a long ways to a range that has a chrono, I recommend just buying one yourself. Compared to the cost of gas, ammo, or that new scope, a decent chrono is pretty cheap.

Also, Plantation does have a 300 yard range, but I won't shoot there, personally.

[washingtonhunter121]

Pe ell sportsmans club has out to 500 meters so roughly 545 yards. No chrony but it's worth it to just spend the money and buy a Magnetospeed to take care of that for you for long term use it will pay for itself and is a big help with load development and long range shooting with some sort of ballistic software. A big thing is also to have the ability to chrony a load at various temps to get your temp stability rating so having one you can use yourself at will is very useful.

[lokidog]

Magneto speed is extremely accurate. If you don't know your speed you'll never be accurate at longer ranges.

Doesn't look like it would work for a bow or crossbow though.        I've been looking at buying the Caldwell Ballistic Precision Chronograph Kit.

[Blacklab]

Magneto speed is extremely accurate. If you don't know your speed you'll never be accurate at longer ranges.

  

[yorketransport]

Magneto speed is extremely accurate. If you don't know your speed you'll never be accurate at longer ranges.

Doesn't look like it would work for a bow or crossbow though.        I've been looking at buying the Caldwell Ballistic Precision Chronograph Kit.

I love my Magneto Speed but it does have it's limitations. If all you need is muzzle velocity on a rifle it's great, if you want to chronograph most handguns or bows it won't work. You also can't use it to get down range velocities at 2-300 yards. I still use a Shooting Chorony (which is consistently within 2% of the magneto) to get velocities down range. Mostly because I'm not that worried about shooting it!

If you hit a public range you may be able to find a guy who will let you shoot over his chrony.

[WoodlandShooter]

I just use my cheapo chrono...then I just true at 714 and 943 yards.

[Yondering]

Magneto speed is extremely accurate. If you don't know your speed you'll never be accurate at longer ranges.

Doesn't look like it would work for a bow or crossbow though.        I've been looking at buying the Caldwell Ballistic Precision Chronograph Kit.

My ProChrono works with bows, and shotguns too.

[Stein]

2% isn't accurate enough for long distance shooting.  An accurate chrono will cost over $1k and isn't really necessary for most people.  Shoot known distances and calculate the exact velocity.

You need both accuracy and consistency for a chrono to really be of help.

[bobcat]

What if you're "known" distances are off by 2%? Seems to me that it might be difficult to accurately measure 500 yards.

[Yondering]

What if you're "known" distances are off by 2%? Seems to me that it might be difficult to accurately measure 500 yards.

That, or a bunch of other factors like height over bore, zero, actual b.c., etc.

If you're using advertised ballistic coefficient to calculate your velocity, your numbers are probably off a lot more than any chrono.

[Stein]

What if you're "known" distances are off by 2%? Seems to me that it might be difficult to accurately measure 500 yards.

That, or a bunch of other factors like height over bore, zero, actual b.c., etc.

If you're using advertised ballistic coefficient to calculate your velocity, your numbers are probably off a lot more than any chrono.

So, if all of those factors are off, the best solution is to add more error by using a chrono?  The goal is to limit or reduce error, not add more.

Seriously, don't take my word for it, attend a real long range shooting class, watch a dvd or read a book by someone who is a well respected expert.  You won't find them using a $100 chrono.

In my opinion, the best solution for an average hunter is to use Litz' G7 values, a laser rangefinder, reliable weather and altitude data and any of the free programs.

[jay.sharkbait]

What if you're "known" distances are off by 2%? Seems to me that it might be difficult to accurately measure 500 yards.

That, or a bunch of other factors like height over bore, zero, actual b.c., etc.

If you're using advertised ballistic coefficient to calculate your velocity, your numbers are probably off a lot more than any chrono.

So, if all of those factors are off, the best solution is to add more error by using a chrono?  The goal is to limit or reduce error, not add more.

Seriously, don't take my word for it, attend a real long range shooting class, watch a dvd or read a book by someone who is a well respected expert.  You won't find them using a $100 chrono.

In my opinion, the best solution for an average hunter is to use Litz' G7 values, a laser rangefinder, reliable weather and altitude data and any of the free programs.

With as much deductive reasoning that goes on around here, you would think some people would understand a deductive algorithm.

[bobcat]

One thing to keep in mind, in this thread we're only talking about a distance "further than 200 yards." That's the question that was asked originally, so I'm not sure he needs to be concerned with G7 values, weather, altitude, chronograph inaccuracies, and deductive algorithms. It didn't sound to me like he's wanting to shoot a half mile, so I think some of you are making this a whole lot more complicated than it needs to be.

[jay.sharkbait]

One thing to keep in mind, in this thread we're only talking about a distance "further than 200 yards." That's the question that was asked originally, so I'm not sure he needs to be concerned with G7 values, weather, altitude, chronograph inaccuracies, and deductive algorithms. It didn't sound to me like he's wanting to shoot a half mile, so I think some of you are making this a whole lot more complicated than it needs to be.

I rest my case

[jasnt]

What if you're "known" distances are off by 2%? Seems to me that it might be difficult to accurately measure 500 yards.

That, or a bunch of other factors like height over bore, zero, actual b.c., etc.

If you're using advertised ballistic coefficient to calculate your velocity, your numbers are probably off a lot more than any chrono.

   Advertised bc is almost always grossly over estimated(especially nosler) another mistake made in that senecio is using g1 for boat tailed bullets. G1 is for flat based bullets and using it for g7 bullets will alter your drop charts. Not much for 500 yards or less but as you get out farther the deviation is more apparent  jme

I too use litz's bc's

Course if bobcats correct this is all just jibberish anyway.

[Biggerhammer]

 

[b23]

Course if bobcats correct this is all just jibberish anyway.

Maybe so but at least my misses will be a lot closer and don't you get something like half a point for a close mis or am I thinking of a different game...

[kentrek]

+1 on the magneto speed. They are very accurate.

 

[JDHasty]

I have a couple of Oehlers that I have had for decades.  One is a 33 and the other is a 35P and they are laboratory grade accurate.  Others...  not so much.  Tacoma Rifle & Revolver has ranges out to 600, but they are only open a few days per year past 200. 

With a couple good chronos you can capture data at the muzzle and at range from the same shot and then calculate the actual BC.  You need someone in the pit or a chrono with a printer to do this. 

[spoonman]

So I made it out to the range and shot at 100 and sighted in for 200yards. I'm shooting a model 10 Savage in 243, the round I'm shooting is a 75g horady superformance with a advertised mv of 3580. I have to say this one of the most accurate rifles I've ever shot, at 100 yds I shot 3 groups and not one of the groups was bigger than 1/2" so I'm very happy. So since I really couldn't find a range for long distance I went to the hills to a spot I remembered and ranged spots all the way out to 500 and set targets. Started at 200 and shot a beautiful group so I moved to 300 and put 3 shots in a 2.5" group, moved to 400 and once I got on target I made another pretty nice group and the Sam exact thing at 500. I got lucky with the weather and spent 2.5-3 hours getting dialed in and now have all the info I need for my rifle. So thank you guys for all your input!

[yorketransport]

Now that's right way to get data!

 I've shot with a lot of guys how've never shot over a chronograph but were leathal out to 5-600 yards just because they actually went out and shot.

[JDHasty]

Now that's right way to get data!

 I've shot with a lot of guys how've never shot over a chronograph but were leathal out to 5-600 yards just because they actually went out and shot.

They are not necessary, but we were wanting to validate the published BC and also the velocities published in reloading manuals back in the1980s and also just to entertain ourselves.  To calculate BC you do need a couple laboratory grade chronographs and also survey accurate distance between the chronograph screens.  You also needed walkie talkies or cellular phones and someone to hang out in the pit, but today a data connection is probable an affordable alternative. 

We would lace the screens on the Oehlers and shoot through to proof them and adjust screen spacing to zero them one against the other.  A magneto speed and an Oehler sounds accurate enough and far cheaper today. 

[yorketransport]

Now that's right way to get data!

 I've shot with a lot of guys how've never shot over a chronograph but were leathal out to 5-600 yards just because they actually went out and shot.

They are not necessary, but we were wanting to validate the published BC and also the velocities published in reloading manuals back in the1980s and also just to entertain ourselves.  To calculate BC you do need a couple laboratory grade chronographs and also survey accurate distance between the chronograph screens.  You also needed walkie talkies or cellular phones and someone to hang out in the pit, but today a data connection is probable an affordable alternative. 

We would lace the screens on the Oehlers and shoot through to proof them and adjust screen spacing to zero them one against the other.  A magneto speed and an Oehler sounds accurate enough and far cheaper today.

Calculating BCs isn't really that complicated. I calculated the BC of the 160gr Matrix VLD using a $100 shooting chrony set up at 10' from the muzzle and then at 100 yards. My results were within .002 of the Litz BC. Shooting just doesn't need to be that much work

[JDHasty]

Now that's right way to get data!

 I've shot with a lot of guys how've never shot over a chronograph but were leathal out to 5-600 yards just because they actually went out and shot.

They are not necessary, but we were wanting to validate the published BC and also the velocities published in reloading manuals back in the1980s and also just to entertain ourselves.  To calculate BC you do need a couple laboratory grade chronographs and also survey accurate distance between the chronograph screens.  You also needed walkie talkies or cellular phones and someone to hang out in the pit, but today a data connection is probable an affordable alternative. 

We would lace the screens on the Oehlers and shoot through to proof them and adjust screen spacing to zero them one against the other.  A magneto speed and an Oehler sounds accurate enough and far cheaper today.

Calculating BCs isn't really that complicated. I calculated the BC of the 160gr Matrix VLD using a $100 shooting chrony set up at 10' from the muzzle and then at 100 yards. My results were within .002 of the Litz BC. Shooting just doesn't need to be that much work

Of course they were, you are one of those special people who can load a batch of ammo that has velocity with standard deviation of < .002 //s//

That aside:
From Shooting Chrony's own web site:
Every SHOOTING CHRONYŽ measures the speed of bullets, arrows, shotgun & airgun pellets, paintballs, et cetera, from 30/fps. to 7000/fps. and with better than 99.5% accuracy.

So you are using an instrument with an error of < .005 and you need to take readings at two distances.

The precision of your results cannot, by definition, be any more precise than the least error of any of your measurements. 

[yorketransport]

Now that's right way to get data!

 I've shot with a lot of guys how've never shot over a chronograph but were leathal out to 5-600 yards just because they actually went out and shot.

They are not necessary, but we were wanting to validate the published BC and also the velocities published in reloading manuals back in the1980s and also just to entertain ourselves.  To calculate BC you do need a couple laboratory grade chronographs and also survey accurate distance between the chronograph screens.  You also needed walkie talkies or cellular phones and someone to hang out in the pit, but today a data connection is probable an affordable alternative. 

We would lace the screens on the Oehlers and shoot through to proof them and adjust screen spacing to zero them one against the other.  A magneto speed and an Oehler sounds accurate enough and far cheaper today.

Calculating BCs isn't really that complicated. I calculated the BC of the 160gr Matrix VLD using a $100 shooting chrony set up at 10' from the muzzle and then at 100 yards. My results were within .002 of the Litz BC. Shooting just doesn't need to be that much work

Of course they were, you are one of those special people who can load a batch of ammo that has velocity with standard deviation of < .002 //s//

That aside:
From Shooting Chrony's own web site:
Every SHOOTING CHRONYŽ measures the speed of bullets, arrows, shotgun & airgun pellets, paintballs, et cetera, from 30/fps. to 7000/fps. and with better than 99.5% accuracy.

So you are using an instrument with an error of < .005 and you need to take readings at two distances.

The precision of your results cannot, by definition, be any more precise than the least error of any of your measurements.

FWIW, the 99.5% accuracy is the average tolerance of their equipment. That doesn't mean every machine that comes off of the line is 99.5% accurate 100% of the time. My $100 chrony was just as consistent and as accurate as the Oehler 35P that I had before it. I sold the Oehler after buying the Shooting chrony because my results were so close between the 2 and the Oehler was such a pain to set up. I paid $250 for the 35P and sold it for $550 to some sucker just after they stopped producing them. I've never missed it. Even now I have a Magneto Speed and still use the beat up Shooting Chrony as well.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, shooting at any distance just isn't that tough. Handloading and getting accurate loads just isn't that tough. Getting single digit ES and SD velocities just isn't that tough. Shooting .25 MOA 3 shot groups at 100 yards isn't that tough. It doesn't require any technical back ground, special equipment, or shooter's voodoo. It just takes time, patience, and practice. Look how often people post on here showing sub .5 MOA groups with inexpensive guns shooting factory ammo. Equipment is getting so good these days that even affordable guns, ammo, optics and chronys will get you consistent and reliable results just as good as high dollar items.

[spoonman]

Once again thank you guys for the advice! I am a bow hunter at heart but have found a new love of picking off yotes at a longer distance. I was shooting my 338 before I got this rifle and needless to say the coyotes didn't do too well against a 210 grain round! I don't load my own rounds so I have settle on the 75 grain horndy superformance witch has a listed mv of 3580 but out of my rifle (24" barrel) its at the 3550-3560 mark, not a huge difference but it's enough.

[JDHasty]

Now that's right way to get data!

 I've shot with a lot of guys how've never shot over a chronograph but were leathal out to 5-600 yards just because they actually went out and shot.

They are not necessary, but we were wanting to validate the published BC and also the velocities published in reloading manuals back in the1980s and also just to entertain ourselves.  To calculate BC you do need a couple laboratory grade chronographs and also survey accurate distance between the chronograph screens.  You also needed walkie talkies or cellular phones and someone to hang out in the pit, but today a data connection is probable an affordable alternative. 

We would lace the screens on the Oehlers and shoot through to proof them and adjust screen spacing to zero them one against the other.  A magneto speed and an Oehler sounds accurate enough and far cheaper today.

Calculating BCs isn't really that complicated. I calculated the BC of the 160gr Matrix VLD using a $100 shooting chrony set up at 10' from the muzzle and then at 100 yards. My results were within .002 of the Litz BC. Shooting just doesn't need to be that much work

Of course they were, you are one of those special people who can load a batch of ammo that has velocity with standard deviation of < .002 //s//

That aside:
From Shooting Chrony's own web site:
Every SHOOTING CHRONYŽ measures the speed of bullets, arrows, shotgun & airgun pellets, paintballs, et cetera, from 30/fps. to 7000/fps. and with better than 99.5% accuracy.

So you are using an instrument with an error of < .005 and you need to take readings at two distances.

The precision of your results cannot, by definition, be any more precise than the least error of any of your measurements.

FWIW, the 99.5% accuracy is the average tolerance of their equipment. That doesn't mean every machine that comes off of the line is 99.5% accurate 100% of the time. My $100 chrony was just as consistent and as accurate as the Oehler 35P that I had before it. I sold the Oehler after buying the Shooting chrony because my results were so close between the 2 and the Oehler was such a pain to set up. I paid $250 for the 35P and sold it for $550 to some sucker just after they stopped producing them. I've never missed it. Even now I have a Magneto Speed and still use the beat up Shooting Chrony as well.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, shooting at any distance just isn't that tough. Handloading and getting accurate loads just isn't that tough. Getting single digit ES and SD velocities just isn't that tough. Shooting .25 MOA 3 shot groups at 100 yards isn't that tough. It doesn't require any technical back ground, special equipment, or shooter's voodoo. It just takes time, patience, and practice. Look how often people post on here showing sub .5 MOA groups with inexpensive guns shooting factory ammo. Equipment is getting so good these days that even affordable guns, ammo, optics and chronys will get you consistent and reliable results just as good as high dollar items.

Accuracy is a function that is a function of screen spacing.   Try again. 

The expected error on any one shot depends on both velocity and screen spacing. Typical errors are shown in the table.
1 FT, 2 FT, 4 FT, 8 FT


1000 FPS
5 fps 3 fps 1 fps 1 fps

2000 FPS
10 fps 5 fps 3 fps 2 fps

3000 FPS
16 fps 8 fps 4 fps 2 fps

4000 FPS
21 fps 10 fps 5 fps 3 fps

Furthermore to measure ballistic coefficient with ANY meaningful degree of precision the technique is to measure both initial velocity and final velocity of each fired round (using chronographs) over a measured range distance between the chronographs. Then today a software analysis program would be used to compute the ballistic coefficient value which would cause the standard bullet starting at the initial velocity to have a computed final velocity equal to the measured final velocity. The ballistic coefficient of a real bullet always is measured with respect to a specific standard drag function (G1, G7, etc.).

[jay.sharkbait]

Now that's right way to get data!

 I've shot with a lot of guys how've never shot over a chronograph but were leathal out to 5-600 yards just because they actually went out and shot.

They are not necessary, but we were wanting to validate the published BC and also the velocities published in reloading manuals back in the1980s and also just to entertain ourselves.  To calculate BC you do need a couple laboratory grade chronographs and also survey accurate distance between the chronograph screens.  You also needed walkie talkies or cellular phones and someone to hang out in the pit, but today a data connection is probable an affordable alternative. 

We would lace the screens on the Oehlers and shoot through to proof them and adjust screen spacing to zero them one against the other.  A magneto speed and an Oehler sounds accurate enough and far cheaper today.

Calculating BCs isn't really that complicated. I calculated the BC of the 160gr Matrix VLD using a $100 shooting chrony set up at 10' from the muzzle and then at 100 yards. My results were within .002 of the Litz BC. Shooting just doesn't need to be that much work

Of course they were, you are one of those special people who can load a batch of ammo that has velocity with standard deviation of < .002 //s//

That aside:
From Shooting Chrony's own web site:
Every SHOOTING CHRONYŽ measures the speed of bullets, arrows, shotgun & airgun pellets, paintballs, et cetera, from 30/fps. to 7000/fps. and with better than 99.5% accuracy.

So you are using an instrument with an error of < .005 and you need to take readings at two distances.

The precision of your results cannot, by definition, be any more precise than the least error of any of your measurements.

FWIW, the 99.5% accuracy is the average tolerance of their equipment. That doesn't mean every machine that comes off of the line is 99.5% accurate 100% of the time. My $100 chrony was just as consistent and as accurate as the Oehler 35P that I had before it. I sold the Oehler after buying the Shooting chrony because my results were so close between the 2 and the Oehler was such a pain to set up. I paid $250 for the 35P and sold it for $550 to some sucker just after they stopped producing them. I've never missed it. Even now I have a Magneto Speed and still use the beat up Shooting Chrony as well.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, shooting at any distance just isn't that tough. Handloading and getting accurate loads just isn't that tough. Getting single digit ES and SD velocities just isn't that tough. Shooting .25 MOA 3 shot groups at 100 yards isn't that tough. It doesn't require any technical back ground, special equipment, or shooter's voodoo. It just takes time, patience, and practice. Look how often people post on here showing sub .5 MOA groups with inexpensive guns shooting factory ammo. Equipment is getting so good these days that even affordable guns, ammo, optics and chronys will get you consistent and reliable results just as good as high dollar items.

Accuracy is a function that is a function of screen spacing.   Try again. 

The expected error on any one shot depends on both velocity and screen spacing. Typical errors are shown in the table.
1 FT, 2 FT, 4 FT, 8 FT


1000 FPS
5 fps 3 fps 1 fps 1 fps

2000 FPS
10 fps 5 fps 3 fps 2 fps

3000 FPS
16 fps 8 fps 4 fps 2 fps

4000 FPS
21 fps 10 fps 5 fps 3 fps

Furthermore to measure ballistic coefficient with ANY meaningful degree of precision the technique is to measure both initial velocity and final velocity of each fired round (using chronographs) over a measured range distance between the chronographs. Then today a software analysis program would be used to compute the ballistic coefficient value which would cause the standard bullet starting at the initial velocity to have a computed final velocity equal to the measured final velocity. The ballistic coefficient of a real bullet always is measured with respect to a specific standard drag function (G1, G7, etc.).

You going to give credit to the guys who wrote this?

Google can be your friend and enemy.

http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/articles/the_ballistic_coefficient.pdf

http://www.oehler-research.com/custom/specs.html

[JDHasty]

Now that's right way to get data!

 I've shot with a lot of guys how've never shot over a chronograph but were leathal out to 5-600 yards just because they actually went out and shot.

They are not necessary, but we were wanting to validate the published BC and also the velocities published in reloading manuals back in the1980s and also just to entertain ourselves.  To calculate BC you do need a couple laboratory grade chronographs and also survey accurate distance between the chronograph screens.  You also needed walkie talkies or cellular phones and someone to hang out in the pit, but today a data connection is probable an affordable alternative. 

We would lace the screens on the Oehlers and shoot through to proof them and adjust screen spacing to zero them one against the other.  A magneto speed and an Oehler sounds accurate enough and far cheaper today.

Calculating BCs isn't really that complicated. I calculated the BC of the 160gr Matrix VLD using a $100 shooting chrony set up at 10' from the muzzle and then at 100 yards. My results were within .002 of the Litz BC. Shooting just doesn't need to be that much work

Of course they were, you are one of those special people who can load a batch of ammo that has velocity with standard deviation of < .002 //s//

That aside:
From Shooting Chrony's own web site:
Every SHOOTING CHRONYŽ measures the speed of bullets, arrows, shotgun & airgun pellets, paintballs, et cetera, from 30/fps. to 7000/fps. and with better than 99.5% accuracy.

So you are using an instrument with an error of < .005 and you need to take readings at two distances.

The precision of your results cannot, by definition, be any more precise than the least error of any of your measurements.

FWIW, the 99.5% accuracy is the average tolerance of their equipment. That doesn't mean every machine that comes off of the line is 99.5% accurate 100% of the time. My $100 chrony was just as consistent and as accurate as the Oehler 35P that I had before it. I sold the Oehler after buying the Shooting chrony because my results were so close between the 2 and the Oehler was such a pain to set up. I paid $250 for the 35P and sold it for $550 to some sucker just after they stopped producing them. I've never missed it. Even now I have a Magneto Speed and still use the beat up Shooting Chrony as well.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, shooting at any distance just isn't that tough. Handloading and getting accurate loads just isn't that tough. Getting single digit ES and SD velocities just isn't that tough. Shooting .25 MOA 3 shot groups at 100 yards isn't that tough. It doesn't require any technical back ground, special equipment, or shooter's voodoo. It just takes time, patience, and practice. Look how often people post on here showing sub .5 MOA groups with inexpensive guns shooting factory ammo. Equipment is getting so good these days that even affordable guns, ammo, optics and chronys will get you consistent and reliable results just as good as high dollar items.

Accuracy is a function that is a function of screen spacing.   Try again. 

The expected error on any one shot depends on both velocity and screen spacing. Typical errors are shown in the table.
1 FT, 2 FT, 4 FT, 8 FT


1000 FPS
5 fps 3 fps 1 fps 1 fps

2000 FPS
10 fps 5 fps 3 fps 2 fps

3000 FPS
16 fps 8 fps 4 fps 2 fps

4000 FPS
21 fps 10 fps 5 fps 3 fps

Furthermore to measure ballistic coefficient with ANY meaningful degree of precision the technique is to measure both initial velocity and final velocity of each fired round (using chronographs) over a measured range distance between the chronographs. Then today a software analysis program would be used to compute the ballistic coefficient value which would cause the standard bullet starting at the initial velocity to have a computed final velocity equal to the measured final velocity. The ballistic coefficient of a real bullet always is measured with respect to a specific standard drag function (G1, G7, etc.).

You going to give credit to the guys who wrote this?

Google can be your friend and enemy.

http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/articles/the_ballistic_coefficient.pdf

http://www.oehler-research.com/custom/specs.html

Gee, I guess I better come clean.  I did not derive this information first hand I relied on the manufacturer, much like I would do if I were interested in the tow rating on my pickup and looked it up in the user's manual and I relied on the writings of an expert in exterior ballistics for the info on Drag Coefficient.  GTHOH. 

Where else would you go for the specifications on an Oehler chronograph?  FWIW, the specifications they have on their website are the same as what is in the printed user manual we have had since ~ 1987.  The info on Drag Coefficients was information I downloaded off a CD newsletter email I got from Sierra. 

[yorketransport]

Once again thank you guys for the advice! I am a bow hunter at heart but have found a new love of picking off yotes at a longer distance. I was shooting my 338 before I got this rifle and needless to say the coyotes didn't do too well against a 210 grain round! I don't load my own rounds so I have settle on the 75 grain horndy superformance witch has a listed mv of 3580 but out of my rifle (24" barrel) its at the 3550-3560 mark, not a huge difference but it's enough.

3550 fps with a 75gr bullet should do a real number on any coyote you see! And it should be significantly more pleasant to shoot than a 338.

Gee, I guess I better come clean.  I did not derive this information first hand I relied on the manufacturer, much like I would do if I were interested in the tow rating on my pickup and looked it up in the user's manual and I relied on the writings of an expert in exterior ballistics for the info on Drag Coefficient.  GTHOH. 

I guess that's where we differ. Instead of relying on the work of others I personally prefer to go out and get real world, hands on data like the OP did. All the ballistics research, software programs, theoretical models and internet searches in world can't hold up against practical, real world raw data.

When I was in college I worked as a tutor to help pay for school. More specifically I would work with high school students in math, physics, and chemistry classes. There were always those individuals who had all the book knowledge they could get but never applied it to the real world. Because of this they did great on tests but struggled when it came to lab work. Conversely, there were always a few students who initially showed little understanding of the text but did beautiful labs. The hands on students were without question better prepared and had much deeper knowledge of the subject matter than anyone who focused primarily book studies and parroting back the experience of others. While it's always important to read and understand the work of experts it's much more important to go out and gather raw data then sit back with an open mind and asses it without any preconceived view what the data should say. Relying on info from sources which are trying to take your money (Oehler, Brian Litz, or anyone else who provided info in exchange for compensation) is always risky behavior. They cannot be viewed as impartial observers. But if I go out and gather my own data using my own time and money I can compare it to the data derived from others and then make my own assessment.

The OP has learned more about his gun, load, shooting and ballistics with his hands on exercise than he ever will by listening to a bunch of internet experts (myself included). I should point out that I'm not really a reliable source for any information though, especially ballistics. My focus was more in kinematics and chemistry than ballistics in college.

[JDHasty]

Gee, I guess I better come clean.  I did not derive this information first hand I relied on the manufacturer, much like I would do if I were interested in the tow rating on my pickup and looked it up in the user's manual and I relied on the writings of an expert in exterior ballistics for the info on Drag Coefficient.  GTHOH. 

I guess that's where we differ. Instead of relying on the work of others I personally prefer to go out and get real world, hands on data like the OP did. All the ballistics research, software programs, theoretical models and internet searches in world can't hold up against practical, real world raw data.

[/quote]

What a clown.

I was discussing the ability to calculate the ballistic coefficients and the precision required to gather meaningful data for this purpose as well as the fact that in order to get meaningful data you must measure the same shot at two separated points downrange of the firing point. 

You are claiming that a shooting chrony is just as capable as a laboratory grade chronograph and when I show you that it is not you have a conniption because I provide the manufacturer's specifications and quote a ballistics engineer on the importance of the part drag coefficient plays.

In other words you are setting up a scenario in which the only way a person can comment on the accuracy of an instrument is to actually measure it and the only way a person can comment on exterior ballistics is to become a ballistician. 

You know I have had a belly full of you and your cohorts bullying and abuse and I am not alone in that regard.

Go jump in a lake. 

 

[JDHasty]

Furthermore, what I have witnessed from you and your merry band of cohorts is that anyone who has an opinion that disagrees with yours is met with ridicule, belittlement, piling on and other bully tactics. 

This is uncalled for and it is obvious that your designs are to shut down anyone who does not agree with you.

I could just not participate and/or keep my opinion to myself and I am fairly certain that that is what your designs are.  God only knows how many others you knotheads have driven off, but I am certain that there are more than a few people who no longer participate on this forum because of you and like minded individuals who are so disrespectful of others.     

[b23]

I think ya'll need to just hug it out.

[jay.sharkbait]

Furthermore, what I have witnessed from you and your merry band of cohorts is that anyone who has an opinion that disagrees with yours is met with ridicule, belittlement, piling on and other bully tactics. 

This is uncalled for and it is obvious that your designs are to shut down anyone who does not agree with you.

I could just not participate and/or keep my opinion to myself and I am fairly certain that that is what your designs are.  God only knows how many others you knotheads have driven off, but I am certain that there are more than a few people who no longer participate on this forum because of you and like minded individuals who are so disrespectful of others.   

Uhh, aren't you the guy who started the AR hunting thread? You know, the one that was a direct attack on Biggerhammer?

[Biggerhammer]

Ah hahahaha!

Yorke is far from a "Clown". I love the terms clown , idiot & monkey but none would apply to Yorke, unfortunately . If one was to read through Yorke's posts, one would come to the conclusion very quickly that he is in the "Know" a hands on "Been there done that" type. His posts are "Neutral and informative, derived from real world personal expirience. I've never had to read through the cut and paste murk when it comes to Yorke's straight up approach.

[JDHasty]

A third individual opened this discussion when he posted that published BCs are not always reliable especially with Nosler's published info.  I responded that we used our Oehler chronographs, back in the 1980s to verify the BC of some bullets and had fun doing so.  That is kind like "real world" experience, is it not?   

Accuracy of chronographs used for this sort of exercise came up in this thread and this: "I calculated the BC of the 160gr Matrix VLD using a $100 shooting chrony set up at 10' from the muzzle and then at 100 yards." was offered as a evidence that a pair of laboratory grade chronographs and survey quality distance measurement is not essential to calculating the BC of a bullet to .002  precision.

I am not saying that he did not get the result claimed, what I am pointing out is that a single event is not a verifiable and repeatable test and being able to get such results with a Shooting Chrony is not something anyone should have any confidence in simply because the measuring instrument does not allow that degree of precision.

What I state regarding the accuracy requirement of the instruments and screen spacing and distance between measurements is easily validated just by the fact that without this degree of accuracy a person cannot collect precise enough data to make these calculations.  That is a simple fact and it is intuitive.  Your results, by definition, cannot be any more precise that your least precise measured data. 

 

[jackelope]

Gee, I guess I better come clean.  I did not derive this information first hand I relied on the manufacturer, much like I would do if I were interested in the tow rating on my pickup and looked it up in the user's manual and I relied on the writings of an expert in exterior ballistics for the info on Drag Coefficient.  GTHOH. 

I guess that's where we differ. Instead of relying on the work of others I personally prefer to go out and get real world, hands on data like the OP did. All the ballistics research, software programs, theoretical models and internet searches in world can't hold up against practical, real world raw data.

What a clown.

I was discussing the ability to calculate the ballistic coefficients and the precision required to gather meaningful data for this purpose as well as the fact that in order to get meaningful data you must measure the same shot at two separated points downrange of the firing point. 

You are claiming that a shooting chrony is just as capable as a laboratory grade chronograph and when I show you that it is not you have a conniption because I provide the manufacturer's specifications and quote a ballistics engineer on the importance of the part drag coefficient plays.

In other words you are setting up a scenario in which the only way a person can comment on the accuracy of an instrument is to actually measure it and the only way a person can comment on exterior ballistics is to become a ballistician. 

You know I have had a belly full of you and your cohorts bullying and abuse and I am not alone in that regard.

Go jump in a lake.
[/quote]

These comments are completely uncalled for. This thread is locked.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2