Pro Crono Digital Chronograph

O

OverPressure

New member
I have been testing a new powder , Clean Shot D32. I finally got the
spreads to 14 fps. The load is 200 gr. Lead SWC with 4.9 gr of Clean Shot
D32. Nine of the 11 rounds i tested in the load above came in between
847 fps and 861 fps. The other 2 came in at 889. The 889's were not
in sequence. I tested this with both CCI 300 LPP and CCI 350 Magnum
LPP primers. The Magnum primers gave the results above. The 300
primers the spreads were poor from 4.1 gr 4.5 gr and 4.9 gr.
My 1911 with 18 lb recoil spring wouldn't cycle the 4.1 gr loads in the
670 fps range. The spreads were horrible.

Clean Shot D32 is a fine ball powder. I test weighed it using the .46 port
on my Lees Classic Auto Disk Loader. I weighed a dozen charges or so
and every charge came in at 4.9 gr.

My question to you folks using the Pro Crono Digital Chronograph is,
do you ever scratch your head over some of your results.

I shoot clays standard when i have it, and when i chronograph it , it always
seems to give me a 15 ft per second or so spread without the occasional
wild hot round or slow round. 4.2 gr 200 gr Lead SWC.
 
I do, yes.

I get some wildly different readings, even when I weigh charges. Haven't tried a different chrono so I can't verify what is going on.
 
If you have a .22 rifle, get some good MATCH ammo and run that over the chrono. That should tell you if your chrono is confused.

I have the same chronograph and mine runs consistent, occasional aberrations, but no more than my old '33.
 
I had to fix my old one, a 20 year old called "Jr". The PCB uses little tiny dots of solder, and for other reasons as well I decided to order a new one right away, this time a "Pal", also the basic model. Jr worked OK after my repairs, so I rigged them both up to measure the same bullet, and yes, there is a lack of precision, probably about half of one percent. It was not a question of which one was tripped first or which unit it was. I feel this is acceptable and reasonable given the price I paid.
There were a few wildly wrong readings, and I think that was because I don't use the screens. Usually I shoot in a bright but shady area, but this test was in early April and it was still blue sky overhead, with direst sunlight entering the sensor slots. It wasn't on the sensors but it still must have really lit up the insides of the slots. If the ground ever dries out I will go again and use the screens. I don't plan on testing both units - I discarded my Jr screens long ago and getting everything lined up was very time consuming - but I should be able to tell if my readings tighten up.
 
I know they can be better because my first chrono back in the 1980s was an Ohler, and sometimes I got just a few fps variation and many duplicates over a long string. That thing, you had to position the screens yourself, 5 or 10 feet - I tapped a pipe and left it in the woods - and it only gave you a raw number, you had to look it up in a book. I think I also gave about a week's pay for it.
 
For some reason I thought it was, my apologies. I would put most 100$ chronographs under the same performance, at least expectation wise. I would compare it vs a Lab Radar or MagnetoSpeed and see how it does.
 
I've had the pact, the chrony and now the pro chrono. They all had pros and cons. The pact was by far the most frustrating. The chrony and the pro chrono (so far) always seem to work. Can't speak to how accurate they are but I don't have any issues getting results. If I had them all at the same time I would have repeated your test (abridged).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top