Velociradar vs. Labradar LX vs. Garmin Xero

[Bluefish]

Spoke with Caldwell.

Apparently it will not display down range speeds.

Looks like Lab radar for me :/

If the Caldwell gives bc, just take the mv and bc, then plug into a ballistic calculator. Really no difference from a lab radar where you know velocity and distance, but not BC.

 

[Mike D Texas]

Spoke with Caldwell.

Apparently it will not display down range speeds.

Looks like Lab radar for me :/

Don’t get hung up on the downrange velocity. It really isn’t very useful data other than maybe on a rimfire cartridge. I used to be convinced of the same. After shooting at distance the velocity values out to 100 yards (on a very good day) didn’t net me any useful data.

After reluctantly buying a Garmin, I’m hooked on it. It really is K.I.S.S. and it works

Every
Single
Time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Molon Labe]

I disagree. BC matters all the time. Maybe for guys using well known BC‘s on know bullets, you can use the mfg data. I have had a different experience. Hammer for one had BC’s way off. As much as .1 too high. I have also had several bullets that were an unknown BC, so being able to calculate it is quite useful.
where I use BC for short range is figuring out where the limit is for velocity on bullet performance. Not a big deal for long range bullets, but for medium to large caliber hunting bullets, it’s a bigger deal. If I am starting at 2300-2400 fps with a bullet that needs 2000 fps to work, a low bc might mean that I am below that in under 200 yards. I never gave it much thought until I used a LabRadar and noticed that I was losing 300+ fps in less than 100 yards. Had one bullet that was a .15 g1. It’s probably ok under 100 yards, but even with a 1400fps minimum velocity it’s hard to keep it above that past 150-200 yards.

No worries we are talking about two completely different worlds of shooting. I was correcting him on how much competitive shooters value BC and velocity for accuracy. I was mostly talking about bullets that have normal BCs. You can calculate a BC very easy with a good zero and velocity…by backing into it. Or just buy CDMs from AB and be good to go with hundreds of common bullets. You don’t need a device to calculate BC for you to be extremely accurate at very long ranges.

Since you are shooting pistol bullets (just a guess…not many rifle bullets have g1s at .150) you might want to use variable BCs to give you an accurate number. Using a static BC that you get from a device will give you inaccurate results. BC will change through the velocity bands.

But most importantly…
I for one wouldn’t be taking the manufacturer information on what velocity “works” for their bullets if they can’t put out a reasonable guess to their BC. Hahaha. That’s crazy. It’s like they are guessing…an unknown BC but they give you a velocity that “works”? No thank you! I can’t believe Hammer was off by .1 on a BC…I could probably look at the bullet and guess better than that. Yikes.

“Sorry we can’t calculate the BC of our bullets within a decent margin of error but we somehow know our bullets will open up at 1700FPS” hahaha!

I wouldn’t want to be pushing the limits on distance/velocity/ftlbs on the bullets you are using anyway. If you are concerned with terminal velocity being off by 100-200FPS at 200yds that’s an error in BC of roughly 30%. Which is insanely bad data. *If you are running .15 BC at 2400fps.

Just get closer to the animal…much more ethical than stretching limits on terrible BC bullets and way too many variables.

 

[Sarcazmo]

Don’t get hung up on the downrange velocity. It really isn’t very useful data other than maybe on a rimfire cartridge. I used to be convinced of the same. After shooting at distance the velocity values out to 100 yards (on a very good day) didn’t net me any useful data.

After reluctantly buying a Garmin, I’m hooked on it. It really is K.I.S.S. and it works

Every
Single
Time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I’d be using it strictly for archery.

I’m a nerd so I would love to see how different vanes and broadheads affect speeds if at all.

It’s also much easier to make sight tapes with different velocities.

 

[Bluefish]

No worries we are talking about two completely different worlds of shooting. I was correcting him on how much competitive shooters value BC and velocity for accuracy. I was mostly talking about bullets that have normal BCs. You can calculate a BC very easy with a good zero and velocity…by backing into it. Or just buy CDMs from AB and be good to go with hundreds of common bullets. You don’t need a device to calculate BC for you to be extremely accurate at very long ranges.

Since you are shooting pistol bullets (just a guess…not many rifle bullets have g1s at .150) you might want to use variable BCs to give you an accurate number. Using a static BC that you get from a device will give you inaccurate results. BC will change through the velocity bands.

But most importantly…
I for one wouldn’t be taking the manufacturer information on what velocity “works” for their bullets if they can’t put out a reasonable guess to their BC. Hahaha. That’s crazy. It’s like they are guessing…an unknown BC but they give you a velocity that “works”? No thank you! I can’t believe Hammer was off by .1 on a BC…I could probably look at the bullet and guess better than that. Yikes.

I wouldn’t want to be pushing the limits on distance/velocity/ftlbs on the bullets you are using anyway. If you are concerned with terminal velocity being off by 100-200FPS at 200yds that’s an error in BC of roughly 30%. Which is insanely bad data. *If you are running .15 BC at 2400fps.

Just get closer to the animal…much more ethical than stretching limits on terrible BC bullets and way too many variables.

my point was it can be useful to know down range performance. Would I use it for tweaking a BC for long range shooting, no, not accurate enough. That doesn’t mean it’s not a useful tool. I have both a garmin and LR. Garmin is the go to unless I need to do development work. Just easier to use and once you know the BC, it doesn’t change.
Btw running rifle bullets, although they are close to pistol bullets as they are 35 cal or larger. BC sucks compared to long skinny 6-7mm stuff. Also no 4dof files or anything like that as they typically are not used past 400 yards. Mostly due to low BC And heavy bullets. no one makes long heavy for cal bullets as recoil would probably be intolerable and chambers won’t handle the length.

The hammers were indeed .1 lower than published. That was the bullet that started the rabbit hole dive. It’s around .24 g1. It appears that Hammer did not take into account the hollow point and just looked at the shape when calculating BC. Almost the same bullet with a smaller hole, is only .02 off. Much closer and a full .1 better. I just happened to look at the down range velocity while working up a load and realize it was dropping fast. Faster than expected. i started to check all the bullets I had on hand, big difference between best and worst. .369 to .15 from best to worst, all 35 cal.

The .15 bullet didn’t have a published BC, just a minimum velocity (1400). I was really surprised it was so low. If I ever use them it will be in a pistol due to rapid velocity loss.
I also ran several bullets from Barnes and Hornady, those were right on published BC. It was the smaller mfg who either had wrong or missing information.

 

[Molon Labe]

my point was it can be useful to know down range performance. Would I use it for tweaking a BC for long range shooting, no, not accurate enough. That doesn’t mean it’s not a useful tool. I have both a garmin and LR. Garmin is the go to unless I need to do development work. Just easier to use and once you know the BC, it doesn’t change.
Btw running rifle bullets, although they are close to pistol bullets as they are 35 cal or larger. BC sucks compared to long skinny 6-7mm stuff. Also no 4dof files or anything like that as they typically are not used past 400 yards. Mostly due to low BC And heavy bullets. no one makes long heavy for cal bullets as recoil would probably be intolerable and chambers won’t handle the length.

The hammers were indeed .1 lower than published. That was the bullet that started the rabbit hole dive. It’s around .24 g1. It appears that Hammer did not take into account the hollow point and just looked at the shape when calculating BC. Almost the same bullet with a smaller hole, is only .02 off. Much closer and a full .1 better. I just happened to look at the down range velocity while working up a load and realize it was dropping fast. Faster than expected. i started to check all the bullets I had on hand, big difference between best and worst. .369 to .15 from best to worst, all 35 cal.

The .15 bullet didn’t have a published BC, just a minimum velocity (1400). I was really surprised it was so low. If I ever use them it will be in a pistol due to rapid velocity loss.
I also ran several bullets from Barnes and Hornady, those were right on published BC. It was the smaller mfg who either had wrong or missing information.

Haha nice. I have zero experience on those types of bullets. Even playing with my long range 22 stuff I get BCs in that .185-.197 range! Haha

You should just get personal drag models from the applied ballistics crew. They travel all over the place going to matches and setting up their trailer with the Doppler radar. Shoot ten rounds and you can then download your personal curve into your AB. Might be super beneficial for the bullets/loads you are working.

Might be worth giving them a ring.

 

[BossGobbler2024]

I was hesitant to jump on the Garmin Xero bandwagon before the Shot Show. Now I see that there are three new radar chronographs: 1) Garmin Xero — 2) Labradar LX — 3) Caldwell Velociradar. From what I understand, the Garmin Xero is the only one that doesn’t have any down range capability. The Velociradar has downrange velocity and actually calculates, displays BC. The Labradar LX down range velocity only goes far enough to calculate the Power Factor.

I am leaning toward the Labradar LX because it comes with everything and I can toss it in the range bag and go. It appears that Labradar is “the gold standard” for radar chronographs. However I have not owned one. Garmin is the “new kid on the block” cutting their teeth on this new radar chronograph technology. The Velociradar sounds impressive, but not made on this continent from what I understand.

I have a magneto speed which hasn't seen the light of day since I got the Garmin Xero. It simply works. Small, ready to go immediately, and never missed a shot, If I remember to turn it on.

 

[tdhanses]

Garmin hasn’t beaten anyone. Some people waited to see what the shot show would bring…..some jumped on the Garmin as soon as it came out. You like the unit great…i am willing to wait and see what Labradar and Caldwell have to offer.

Pretty sure Garmin has long been in the marine and air space with radar tech for decades.

 

[tdhanses]

Spoke with Caldwell.

Apparently it will not display down range speeds.

Looks like Lab radar for me :/

Garmin works with arrows.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Labradar left a bad taste in my mouth with its 1st gen LR. They did zero improvements for years, requiring multiple attachments to get them to be more consistent and accurate. The down range velocity, while seemingly “cool”, had no real value to me. I’ll stick with the garmin.

How hard would it have been to put a plastic sight on the Labradar, simple enough that the new one has it.

 

[atmat]

Labradar left a bad taste in my mouth with its 1st gen LR. They did zero improvements for years, requiring multiple attachments to get them to be more consistent and accurate. The down range velocity, while seemingly “cool”, had no real value to me. I’ll stick with the garmin.

How hard would it have been to put a plastic sight on the Labradar, simple enough that the new one has it.

Yep. That’s called “resting on your laurels,” and it’s how you get killed in capitalism.

 

[TBass]

Started with the Magneto Speed… and then received as a gift the Labradar right before the Garmin was released. I purchased the Garmin & the Labradar has never even registered a single velocity. The Garmin is so simple, so small & user friendly!

 

[Wrench]

Garmin outsources everything around the World. Labradar does everything in house in Canada.

Labradar was as fragile as an egg. The garmin begs for more.

 

[TheWhitetailNut]

I was hesitant to jump on the Garmin Xero bandwagon before the Shot Show. Now I see that there are three new radar chronographs: 1) Garmin Xero — 2) Labradar LX — 3) Caldwell Velociradar. From what I understand, the Garmin Xero is the only one that doesn’t have any down range capability. The Velociradar has downrange velocity and actually calculates, displays BC. The Labradar LX down range velocity only goes far enough to calculate the Power Factor.

I am leaning toward the Labradar LX because it comes with everything and I can toss it in the range bag and go. It appears that Labradar is “the gold standard” for radar chronographs. However I have not owned one. Garmin is the “new kid on the block” cutting their teeth on this new radar chronograph technology. The Velociradar sounds impressive, but not made on this continent from what I understand.

As a massive aerospace and defense company, Garmin is not "cutting its teeth" on this "new" radar chronograph technology. They just saw a market get large enough to produce one, That said, I'm as interested as anyone as to which could be best for me.

 

[Fujicon]

As a massive aerospace and defense company, Garmin is not "cutting its teeth" on this "new" radar chronograph technology. They just saw a market get large enough to produce one, That said, I'm as interested as anyone as to which could be best for me.

Exactly. Maintaining an open mind certainly is better than wearing blinders as a fanboy.

 

[Gila]

Exactly. Maintaining an open mind certainly is better than wearing blinders as a fanboy.

So what are the shooting chronographs that Garmin has previously come out with?

 

[wyosam]

So what are the shooting chronographs that Garmin has previously come out with?

Kind of a silly question. Garmin is well experienced in a broad range of small electronics using a wide variety of sensing tech. The engineering and R&D talent they have at their disposal dwarfs that of everyone else who’s made chronographs for shooting sports, probably combined. I have no doubt it’s a great product. I have no reason to replace my LR, so won’t buy one any time soon.

In the big scheme of things, it’s a tiny market. Surprising to have multiple options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gila]

Kind of a silly question. Garmin is well experienced in a broad range of small electronics using a wide variety of sensing tech. The engineering and R&D talent they have at their disposal dwarfs that of everyone else who’s made chronographs for shooting sports, probably combined. I have no doubt it’s a great product. I have no reason to replace my LR, so won’t buy one any time soon.

In the big scheme of things, it’s a tiny market. Surprising to have multiple options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you really think that Garmin is going to R&D a shooting chronograph that has a very small market footprint, then you obviously don’t understand how “big” consumer electronics companies work. They will contract out to different companies who have already developed and specialize in the technology. Granted, Garmin does have a weather doppler radar for aviation but that isn’t the same. Garmin most likely contracted out for their weather radar anyway. Labradar contracted out to get the Doppler radar technology for their radar chrono from another Canadian company. Nothing is done for Labradar over seas that I am aware of. Shooting chronographs is all that Labradar does.

If Garmin’s sales forecasts start to dampen out and they think their profit margin has flatlined, they could very well kill a product line. It would be like a spec on a fly’s butt for Garmin. As you have stated it is a tiny market. Caldwell, although their products are made overseas, exists because they are a shooting products company. Personally, I would rather buy from a company that supports the shooting sports and has products designed for shooters and hunters. If you like the Garmin and it works for you that is great. However, very soon there are other radar chrono models coming that some shooters may want to have.

 

[wyosam]

If you really think that Garmin is going to R&D a shooting chronograph that has a very small market footprint, then you obviously don’t understand how “big” consumer electronics companies work. They will contract out to different companies who have already developed and specialize in the technology. Granted, Garmin does have a weather doppler radar for aviation but that isn’t the same. Garmin most likely contracted out for their weather radar anyway. Labradar contracted out to get the Doppler radar technology for their radar chrono from another Canadian company. Nothing is done for Labradar over seas that I am aware of. Shooting chronographs is all that Labradar does.

If Garmin’s sales forecasts start to dampen out and they think their profit margin has flatlined, they could very well kill a product line. It would be like a spec on a fly’s butt for Garmin. As you have stated it is a tiny market. Caldwell, although their products are made overseas, exists because they are a shooting products company. Personally, I would rather buy from a company that supports the shooting sports and has products designed for shooters and hunters. If you like the Garmin and it works for you that is great. However, very soon there are other radar chrono models coming that some shooters may want to have.

As I said, I don’t have the garmin, and likely won’t. I have no issue with my LR. I’ve never seen the garmin in person. I was just pointing out that just because it’s Garmin’s first chronograph it’s somehow not worthy is odd. They have plenty behind them to not put out a “rough draft”. I’d be shocked if all of the LR is sourced in North America. Chips are almost certainly coming from overseas. I support smaller companies (like LR) whenever I can, because it’s the only way for those companies to exist. It’s honestly surprising to see Garmin in such a tiny market. Even if they end up with the majority of the market, then what? How often does someone replace a chrono? Especially now- going from old school screens to the magneto speed to LR was a reasonable progression because the tech changed significantly. Now, other than those moving up for the “latest and greatest”, there isn’t a real reason to change.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JGRaider]

If you really think that Garmin is going to R&D a shooting chronograph that has a very small market footprint, then you obviously don’t understand how “big” consumer electronics companies work. They will contract out to different companies who have already developed and specialize in the technology. Granted, Garmin does have a weather doppler radar for aviation but that isn’t the same. Garmin most likely contracted out for their weather radar anyway. Labradar contracted out to get the Doppler radar technology for their radar chrono from another Canadian company. Nothing is done for Labradar over seas that I am aware of. Shooting chronographs is all that Labradar does.

If Garmin’s sales forecasts start to dampen out and they think their profit margin has flatlined, they could very well kill a product line. It would be like a spec on a fly’s butt for Garmin. As you have stated it is a tiny market. Caldwell, although their products are made overseas, exists because they are a shooting products company. Personally, I would rather buy from a company that supports the shooting sports and has products designed for shooters and hunters. If you like the Garmin and it works for you that is great. However, very soon there are other radar chrono models coming that some shooters may want to have.

Who gives a ratasazzzz? Their chrono kicks asss!