Chrono accuracy vs consistency

[bnewt3]

How does one determine the absolute accuracy of a chronograph?

I understand that consistency is equally if not more important. But if you shoot 20 identical(as identical as is reasonably possible) rounds past 4 different chronos and they all return different readings, how do you determine which is right or closest?

 

[wind gypsy]

How different are the readings and are they being taken at the same time?

When Labradar first came out i bought one and shot with a magnetospeed on the barrel, labradar, and through a pro-chrono optical unit. The three were always within single digits of each other.

Athlon has tracked pretty close with my labradar in the limited comparisons although not as close as those three did in that prior experiment. Close enough to base a ballistic solution off of.

 

[gman82001]

I always figured it was about consistency figuring most Chronos are going to be close overall. As long as I knew mine was consistent and close I’ll be adjusting my dope to match real world eventuality.

 

[bnewt3]

Ive watched multiple video reviews comparing multiple units at once. Sometimes they return readings very close to each other, sometimes they dont. It seems when comparing simultaneously, interference between them can be an issue, especially if you are comparing multiple of the same radar unit(IE multiple Garmins, multiple Athlons, etc, or same type like Athlon, a Garmin, and a LabRadar).

Is there a benchmark device that is THE MOST accurate?

I guess what im looking for is how much weight is put into absolute accuracy of a device vs the consistency because like with many things I assume the more accurate a chrono is, the more sensitive it is to all of the other variables such as setup, method, environment, etc. Or maybe those variables effect consistency more than accuracy.

An example is that I would guess that match, honed dies are more sensitive to the amount and proper distribution of case lube than entry-level dies. Maybe im wrong about that too.

IDK, maybe im overthinking all of this.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

Just get a Garmin Xero and don’t overthink it.

 

[PDM]

I tested three Athlons at the same time on the same bench and had almost identical readings on all of them. Then tested two Garmin units that returned very close to the same numbers. For what it's worth the Athlon units returned readings faster.

 

[wind gypsy]

Unless you're at the pinnacle of precision rifle shooting you're overthinking it. Get a garmin, athlon, labradar, magnetospeed, etc and trust the numbers until you have reason not to.

 

[wind gypsy]

An example is that I would guess that match, honed dies are more sensitive to the amount and proper distribution of case lube than entry-level dies. Maybe im wrong about that too.

My honed dies work the brass less so in theory they should require less lubrication or be less sensitive to it if anything.

 

[Bluefish]

I tested three Athlons at the same time on the same bench and had almost identical readings on all of them. Then tested two Garmin units that returned very close to the same numbers. For what it's worth the Athlon units returned readings faster.

Supposedly the Garmin has a built in delay. It can go faster but they added a delay so it looks like it’s working.

 

[bnewt3]

Fine, ill quit picking nits

 

[Chris in TN]

Unless you're at the pinnacle of precision rifle shooting you're overthinking it. Get a garmin, athlon, labradar, magnetospeed, etc and trust the numbers until you have reason not to.

Yes. This.

I went from trusting reloading manuals to owning a Shooting Chrony thirty years ago and it was as if a whole new world opened up and it was years - decades - before I found a reason not to trust those readings that, in hindsight, were likely off a bit.

With a Labradar (or the even better units made available since then?) Exactly as said above, trust it until you have reason not to.