How close to the chronograph were you?

 

about 15 feet.

 

That's should be ok, never used it, wondering if your chronograph is working right, simple way to test it is to shoot some good quality 22 ammunition of known velocity over it. I use CCI standard velocity to check mine. Also 800x is a pretty consistent powder for 45acp, 6-7 grains depending on bullet.

 

I suppose it could be the chronograph, it's an older Master Beta or something like that I've had for years. I just happen to have some CCI 22 rounds I could shoot over it to check. Hope it is the chrono, I've been looking for a reason to buy a new one.....

I've been reloading for about 40 years and have never seen 800X in a store, heard of it, just never seen it.

 

Not familiar with Silhouette powder. I would try 231 or Unique and see where you fall. I've also heard Titegroup is excellent.

 

Good idea there. I just happen to have a couple hundred 200gr. plated RN loaded over 5gr of W231. I've never chronied them as I really didn't care really where they were for speed, they are accurate and fun to shoot. I'll have to drop the Sprinco and re-install the 16lb RS. Wish I had a 14.

 

Shot eight rounds of 200gr plated loaded with 6.2gr 231 standard LPP primers oal 1.230 got readings from 803 to 900fps. Overcast day, no direct sunlight. ES seems excessive to me. Will try a new battery before shooting the chrony, will try to save the tripod.

 

I love my Lab Radar. It even works in the dark.

 

FWIW; Ambient light, amount, clarity, and direction can effect the consistency of my chrony's readings. One way I got consistent reading, less SD from the unit, was to use it indoors with all lights off except a 100 watt lamp directly over the Pro Chrono I have. I tested my chrony using some "target grade" match 22 lr ammo in a bolt gun. Very little shot to shot variation. If I could afford one and used one enough I think I'd go with a Lab Radar which doesn't rely on ambient lighting...

 

I had a Pact optical for years and hated the setup process. Since I got my Lab Radar I use it a lot more. I just have to set it on the bench next to the muzzle and point it at the target. It is actually fun to use. I did have to save money for a year to buy it but I got the chrono, the memory chip and the 10000mA battery pack at the same time. I bought the swivel mount and made a plate to sit on the bench so I didn't have to set a tripod up when shooting from the bench. I can let other folks use it without worrying that they will put a hole in it.
You can fire a string of one load and then start a new file with a second load and keep doing that all day long. When I get it home each string is saved into its own spreadsheet and listed with the load. It is a fantastic tool.
Did I tell you that I love my Lab Radar?

 

I agree about the LabRadar and like mine, too. I was an early adopter based on wanting to make it easier to do BC determinations than my old two-chronograph setup made doing them. It provides all the multiple-distance velocity information you need for that. They frequently have $50-off sales, so keep an eye out for one of those if you intend to buy one.

That said, there are better optical units out there. The Oehler 35P is still great after decades of use, but it costs more than the LabRadar does currently. The CED Millenium II is a less expensive good choice that Bryan Litz has confirmed tracks quite closely with the Oehler product at a much lower price. I have an Oehler and the earlier version CED Millenium that track withing a couple feet per second or so most of the time, and that I used to use to get two-distance readings at the range. The LabRadar just makes it too much easier, so those two optical units sit largely unused now.

Oheler is now taking order information for their new 89 BC system. This consists of a 35P plus a long range time-of flight determination system that uses microphones near the target to tell when the bullets have arrived. This will be even more accurate for BC determinations than the LabRadar because it will let you measure an actual long range flight time, where the LabRadar can only do 100 yards at most.

 

I was thinking about getting the Oehler unit until I found out that they use the same slow clock speed that they had back in the beginning and at the cost that just isn't acceptable. It should be easy to update to a faster speed clock to get more accurate readings but they stick with what they have been using.
The CED was used for a while in pistol comps to check for power factor and gained a good name for accuracy and insensitivity to minor fluctuations due to environmental changes. The problem of set up and risk of shooting it persisted in my mind. Those organizations have since changed to Lab Radar.
I guess they all have limitations at some point. You just have to pick the one that will work best for you.

 

I’ve had good luck and in higher velocity loads in 45acp using WW231, both 200 gr plated and 230gr plastic coated bullets. No chrono data on them.

 

are there any range rules as to the use of these devices...seems easy to set up and should not distract the adjacent shooters....

 

tomaustin,
Some ranges have rules regarding chronographs but some don't. With the average chronograph you have to close the range while you set it up or take it down. People want to shoot so they sometimes get pissy. With the Lab Radar unit it all gets set up on the bench next to your gun and that doesn't interfere with anyone else shooting. You have a support plate and the radar and a battery pack. Just point it at the target and about 6 inches to the right or left of your muzzle and you are set up. There is no sighting down the barrel and then moving the chronograph to get it lined up, no adjusting the height and no bullets pointed at it.
You should always ask if the range allows chronographs and what the rules are and then be sure to get the go-ahead from your fellow shooters before setting it up.

 

do you remember the scene in caddyshack when the rangefinder went off, the man on the next green fell over with his pacemaker.....does the radar element emit any signals or is this a passive type of unit...?

 

The Lab Radar uses an active Doppler radar with extremely limited power as required by the FCC. It won't fry your pacemaker, as shown by two friends who have walked down range with it on. It emits less radiated power than your two way hand held radio or your cell phone.

 

The Lab Radar uses an active Doppler radar with extremely limited power as required by the FCC. It emits less radiated power than your two way hand held radio or your cell phone.

The LabRadar unit is a Class C intentional radiator. A cell phone falls into the Class B unintentional radiator; per the FCC.
Which for brevity, means the LabRadar outputs more power than a cell phone.

do you remember the scene in caddyshack when the rangefinder went off, the man on the next green fell over with his pacemaker.....does the radar element emit any signals or is this a passive type of unit...?

People should watch comedies for a cheap laugh, not for legitimate medical advice.
The LabRadar as the name implies, emits radar.
If the K-Band emitters above the auto doors at the grocery store, or your microwave haven't caused you any conniptions; follow the safety guidelines in the LaRadar manual, and you'll be at no greater risk.

Cheers

 

We are getting a little into the weeds with this, but as it relates to the gentleman concerned with his pacemaker. Naturally the appropriate answer is discuss this with a doctor, specifically discuss frequencies; and here's why.

The FCC guidlines speak to where the device will be used, how much power, and testing distances along certain frequencies. Cell phones essentially operate at two different power levels depending upon what they are doing. 0.6 watts, up to(phone dependent and the test results aren't hard to find) 3-ish watts.

So what is really the difference?
The energy level of the frequencies being used, more so than the total broadcast power.

A cell phone uses much lower frequencies than the microwave spectrum that continuous wave Doppler radar runs. The bit of the FCC test results I saw in the LabRadar testing, showed that in it's broadcast path it was more like 2+ watts of power. A cell phone uses omni directional antennas, and the LadRadar uses very focused antennas.

A cell phone sitting in your pocket with the screen locked may well be emitting 0.6 Watts of 1900Mhz power out in all directions; whereas sitting behind the LabRadar may not be ambiently emitting that much. However, walking down range with a LabRadar on, you are getting a full 2 watts of focused microwave radiation. This is not to say that doing it once will cause you to burst into flames or grow a third eye. But it is an entirely different thing someone shoving an Iphone in their skinny jeans


My 25 watt 800Mhz portable Fire radio in my chest harness isn't very concerning in terms of health issues. But it would be very troublinlg to place a focued 5 watt X-Ray emitter in that harness.

Cheers

 

Well I learned quite a bit about chronographs and the type of "waves" they use along with some cell phone data I did not know. A suggestion to use w231 for high velocity loads, might get 900 or a bit more with that, the loads I use with w231 and 200gr plated run in the mid to high 800's for target plinking, and I like it for that o.k. but I don't believe I'll get 1150 with 185 XTP's like Silhouette will do. I do think I've kinda solved the ES issue though. At least at first blush it seems I MAY have. Number one, new battery in the chrono, but I don't think that was the problem. Improper crimp on my reloads I "think" was the issue. I'm new to reloading cases that headspace on the case mouth, only been loading for the 45 auto for a few months now, and through my reading of loading for the 45 auto I read many, many, posts on crimp being "oh just iron out the case flare" "no crimp needed, I've been loading the 45 auto for 50 years and bazillions of rounds and never crimped", "it's not a crimp die it's a flare removal die", I guess that's why it's called a "taper crimp die" and so that's pretty much what I was doing. Figured I was doing it right. BUT then I found a couple pretty good articles, and a couple posts from Uncle Nick (at a different place) about what a "proper" crimp on the ACP should be and found that most really do "crimp" the round. Perhaps they just don't know it by not measuring. I know the math, two times the case wall thickness + bullet diameter is loaded round (I have checked that measurement shooting cast in revolvers for years) and mine run right at .475 and I was "crimping" to .473(ish). I also measured some Winchester 230 grain ball that was .469 at the crimp. So I reset my crimp die (second bullet seating die) to crimp to .470/471 ( I can't get it any smaller without screwing up the case mouth, tried it, threw the case in the trash) so .470 it is. Fired 16 rounds over the chrono and only had one round over 50fps slower. All ran between 1140's and 1170's with one at 1090 something. This was at 9.8 grains, a tenth under max using mixed brass (mostly all Winchester). Hopefully that is the norm not the exception from now forward. Thanks for the help.

 

Different brass, due to differences in wall thickness which changes the case volume, can make a difference. I primarily load bottle-necked rifle cartridges and know this factor can be significant. One way to verify this is to weigh all your cases then sort by weight. I suspect you'll find that the cases that weigh the same are all the same manufacture. Then load up some ammo and shoot some rounds over your chrony that use the same brand of brass, preferably from the same lot. I'd do this before thinking the chrony has gone south.

 

Speaking as an FCC-licensed radio engineer, I can confirm Darkker's point about the directionality of the antenna. At the extremes, an isotropic radiation source (effectively a point source radiating equally in a sphere around the point) sees its signal strength in volts per meter drop off as the inverse of the square of any change in distances from the source, while a MASER (microwave version of a laser) will theoretically keep the same energy level through space indefinitely (though, in practicality, there is a limit, as with LASER light, to how perfectly the beam can be columnated). Every other kind of antenna system falls somewhere between those extremes, with the cell phone being closer to the isotropic source in nature and the radar beam being closer to the MASER.


Back to the original question:

First, to check your chronograph, Dr. Ken Oehler has pointed out the base qualifying test for his 35P chronograph is to successfully read the velocity of a BB or an airgun pellet fired over it. The size of the shadow is small and the speed is slow, allowing maximum opportunity for noise-related errors to appear. If you can't read a BB you can't be sure how a .22 will go, for example.

Dr. Oehler has also mentioned in the past that if you fire RIFLE MATCH .22 LR rimfire ammunition through a RIFLE barrel, then you can expect the average velocity at 15 feet to be within 50 fps of the velocity number printed on the ammunition box or otherwise published by the manufacturer. The reason this works is .22 LR rifle ammunition uses powders that ignite easily and burn out completely somewhere between about 16 and 19 inches of bullet travel down the barrel (see Geoffrey Kolbe on this) and aftward is not making any more gas. As long as the barrel exceeds the powder burn length, you don't have the variable in exact percent of powder burned by the time the bullet exits that you do in most centerfire loads. Additionally, the expansion ratio of a .22 LR in a rifle is huge and that tends to neutralize the effect on bullet velocity that variations in throat condition and exact chamber dimensions have on final velocity. As a result, unlike centerfire guns, you tend to get about the same velocity in your rifle that a tight specification SAAMI P&V barrel (24" long) gets from the same ammunition. The bore friction is low enough that you don't see a lot of velocity loss from the bullet coasting down the rest of the tube past the burnout point.

Incidentally, chronograph clock speed, by itself, is not what determines the instrument's measuring resolution. One of my pet peeves about the Chrony has been their accuracy claim just considers their clock period. In fact, clock speed times the distance between the start and the stop screens is what determines the resolution limit, and then it will be accurate only if the combination of the detection window of the sky screens and the precision of the spacing between those screens is as narrow or narrower than the distance the bullet travels in one clock cycle. The Oehler, at 4 MHz and using four-foot spacing will have the same intrinsic resolution as a 16 MHz clock with one-foot spacing, assuming the light sensor window and spacing precision requirements are met. One of the features of the Oehler is the cylindrical lens system over its detectors keeps the detection window narrow. The precision of the screen spacing determined by indentations in EMT pipe is a limiting factor, but it is at least as good or better than integral photo transistors stood off by their leads on a circuit board are.

If it turns out the chronograph is OK, other possible culprits are:

Bullet unseating by the primer. 45 Auto not infrequently sees bullets unseated by primers before the powder burn gets well underway, and this leads to variation in barrel time and final velocity. It gets worse as the powder gets slower. Try working the load back up with a magnum primer.

Inconsistent slow powder ignition. Again, try using a magnum primer.

Inconsistent bullet pull. Brass mixed either as to headstamp or load history can vary in how hard it holds onto the bullet and thus causes start pressure variation. Try buying a sample of new bulk brass so it all comes from the same lot and has the same number of reloadings (none). I find Starline as consistent as it gets in .45 Auto. Also, they make a special extra thick wall version for +P loads. You can buy direct from the factory for 500 pieces or more, but can get just 100 at a time from Midway (for a higher price, but worth it if you just want to try it) when they have it in stock, which they do at the moment. That's plenty for a test to see if your brass is part of the problem.

 

In reloading, consistency begins with consistent brass. Close tolerance of internal volume is a must. Accurate powder charges is extremely important. Neck tension should be as consistent as possible and the crimp must be the same on each cartridge. Consistent ignition of the powder is just as important as equal charges. That means the flash hole should be the same size and free of any burrs that can deflect or retard ignition.
With careful attention to these details you should be able to get extreme spread into the single digits with appropriate powders and primers. The use of magnum primers with fast to moderate speed powders is not necessary and rarely a good idea. The force of a magnum primer can push a bullet out of the case and cause hang fires. Typically a heavy crimp is recommended with the use of slow powders and magnum primers to keep the bullet and case together long enough to get the powder burning at the appropriate pressure to keep the burn rate where it needs to be.
In a 45 ACP case it is normal to use fast powders, standard primers and a light to moderate crimp. In order to get consistent velocities you need cases that have equal volume, no burrs in the flash hole stream, and cases with equal lengths for consistent crimps. Getting equal charges with small amounts of fast burning powders is problematic because your scale is only accurate to 0.1 grain and with a 5 grain load that can mean a variation of 4% in powder charges. That is a lot! You can get more accurate scales for the cost of a new gun but there are other ways to get more accurate charges. The RCBS Little Dandy powder measure is made to throw small charges accurately. It is not adjustable and you have to buy separate rotors to fit your desired load but it will consistently throw ball powder with better accuracy than your scale. You can check with your scale by throwing ten charges and weighing that at ten times the weight of a single charge. You are then weighing your single charge to the nearest 0.01 grain.
The secret is the smaller diameter bore that yields more accurate powder volumes. It can't be used with cylindrical and some flake charges as the volume of those powders relies on the position of the sticks or flakes. Ball powders simply have more uniform volumes with a given charge weight.

I hope my ramblings help in some small way and I am confident that any errors will be picked up by the experts on the forums and corrected.