Chrongraph's
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Joined
·
823 Posts
I have the Pact also with timer/chrono. Mine missed some shots untill I moved the screens a little further out. The blast was shaking the screens and not giving a reading. I like it because I can upload to computer. I would rather have a smaller timer but couldn't afford both units.
Joined
·
21,635 Posts
Also have the chrony and it serves my purpose well ... I use it to verify my loading data .... Had it for about 4 years and probably use it 15-20 times a year.... have not yet had a problem and rarely does it miss a shot.
I've had a PACT Mk IV for around 10 years and it has been pretty good. Some folks don't like PACT, but I haven't had any problems with them. When I creased the screen due to my own carelessness, they sold me a screen for less than $10 and I installed it myself. It will miss a shot every now and then, but I have had a much better experience than subgunfan mentioned about his. I like that it gives an audible beep when it records a shot, so you instantly know that you have the shot recorded. Some other brands don't do this, so you would only find out when you go to look at the results whether or not you got all of the shots. I've chronoed everything from bb guns, pellet rifles, and a staple gun (what can I say, we were bored...) to .223. It's gotten the most use chronoing .40's over the years. I'd guess I have used it on average 5-7 times a year or more as a chrono and much more as a timer, and it has ridden around in the trunk of my car for months at a time. The only thing it has had trouble reading was .45-70 bullets out of my brother's black powder cartridge rifle. We had to move it WAY down range because the smoke and muzzle ejecta were causing issues. It is a very full featured shot time as well. Not the simplest or easiest to use, but it has done what I have needed. I also picked up one of the discontinued HP infrared printers and that has been nice for printing out shot strings and velocities. It does have errors in printing pretty often necessitating printing most things twice to get a good copy. Not a big deal but a bit of a hassle. It may be difficult if not impossible to find one of the printers these days.
The most popular chronograph in IPSC/USPSA competition these days is the CED Millennium. Optional infrared sky screens can be purchased and, when used with an appropriate box, can provide the most consistent lighting and results over a multiday match when competitors are being chronographed. Even without them, it is a nice chronograph but not the cheapest option out there. Instead of the audible beep mentioned above, the CED can be set to read out the velocity of each shot as it is recorded.
The most popular chronograph in IPSC/USPSA competition these days is the CED Millennium. Optional infrared sky screens can be purchased and, when used with an appropriate box, can provide the most consistent lighting and results over a multiday match when competitors are being chronographed. Even without them, it is a nice chronograph but not the cheapest option out there. Instead of the audible beep mentioned above, the CED can be set to read out the velocity of each shot as it is recorded.
Joined
·
15,551 Posts
Get a Chrony....my Pact is a POS... I don't trust it
I think this is one of those times you get what you pay for..I went cheap and regret it
BTW, How would you know if one ever got out of calibration? About the only thing you can do is shoot through several side by side and take an average
I think this is one of those times you get what you pay for..I went cheap and regret it
BTW, How would you know if one ever got out of calibration? About the only thing you can do is shoot through several side by side and take an average
See, I told you some folks don't like PACT! I do trust mine though, but I may have just gotten a rare good one.
When I first got it, I put it back to back with an expensive Oehler 35P (really great chronograph but expensive and was discontinued for a while during which Oehler focused on other products. Looks like they may be available again now but for even more $$ than before). The 35P actually has 3 sky screens, they call it a "proof channel", so it takes two readings itself - one from sky screen 1 - 2, and one from 2 - 3. These two readings seldom agree exactly, but are generally within a few fps of each other. When the same bullet passed over the Oehler and the PACT, my PACT was consistently within 5 -10 fps, usually slower, when in front of the Oehler, and within 10 - 15 fps, again slower, when behind the Oehler shooting my USPSA .40 load. With my PACT, I could actually "compensate" for this difference by doing some calculations and setting the sky screen distance to some fractional number over the factory set 24" (Since mine is a hair slow, I would need to tell it that the distance is a hair over 24". If the bullet is covering a longer distance in the same time, it would read faster). I haven't bothered though since the difference is so slight and I know where it is, speed wise.
Since that time, I have shot essentially the same USPSA load and been chronographed in major matches in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, and Nevada, largely on CED chronographs but not always, and in weather ranging from summer in the desert to just above freezing. I haven't had any surprises. My standard procedure is to load my match ammo and go test them on my PACT here in Mississippi. At the matches I have always been within a reasonable variance of my results here. Generally the match chronos show a bit more velocity.
'Neck, I have one question. I guess I don't understand the recommendation to "get a Chrony" followed by "you get what you pay for" and going cheap and regretting it. The cheapest PACT is about the same prices as the most expensive Chrony, isn't it? And the top of the line PACT is about twice as much as the most expensive Chrony. I generally tend to believe that you get what you pay for in many, if not most, instances. So I guess my advice is to get the Oehler I mentioned above! Ha. Seriously, sounds like lots of folks are happy with the Shooting Chrony's.
When I first got it, I put it back to back with an expensive Oehler 35P (really great chronograph but expensive and was discontinued for a while during which Oehler focused on other products. Looks like they may be available again now but for even more $$ than before). The 35P actually has 3 sky screens, they call it a "proof channel", so it takes two readings itself - one from sky screen 1 - 2, and one from 2 - 3. These two readings seldom agree exactly, but are generally within a few fps of each other. When the same bullet passed over the Oehler and the PACT, my PACT was consistently within 5 -10 fps, usually slower, when in front of the Oehler, and within 10 - 15 fps, again slower, when behind the Oehler shooting my USPSA .40 load. With my PACT, I could actually "compensate" for this difference by doing some calculations and setting the sky screen distance to some fractional number over the factory set 24" (Since mine is a hair slow, I would need to tell it that the distance is a hair over 24". If the bullet is covering a longer distance in the same time, it would read faster). I haven't bothered though since the difference is so slight and I know where it is, speed wise.
Since that time, I have shot essentially the same USPSA load and been chronographed in major matches in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, and Nevada, largely on CED chronographs but not always, and in weather ranging from summer in the desert to just above freezing. I haven't had any surprises. My standard procedure is to load my match ammo and go test them on my PACT here in Mississippi. At the matches I have always been within a reasonable variance of my results here. Generally the match chronos show a bit more velocity.
'Neck, I have one question. I guess I don't understand the recommendation to "get a Chrony" followed by "you get what you pay for" and going cheap and regretting it. The cheapest PACT is about the same prices as the most expensive Chrony, isn't it? And the top of the line PACT is about twice as much as the most expensive Chrony. I generally tend to believe that you get what you pay for in many, if not most, instances. So I guess my advice is to get the Oehler I mentioned above! Ha. Seriously, sounds like lots of folks are happy with the Shooting Chrony's.
Maybe so. The only time I have ever had trouble is if the sun is overhead or at such an angle that it can get directly on the sensor (as in down in on the actual recessed "lens"). In such a case, I will tilt the chronograph, even up to 30 or 40 degrees left or right or angling it a different position of bullet impact on the berm and remove the problem. I try to give mine a consistent background for the sensor to "see" the shadow. If the sky is overcast directly above the chronograph, I will just run a couple of the diffuser uprights as a guide for aiming and will not run the diffuser top pieces at all. If it is blue sky above the chrono, I will run the diffuser tops to give it the white background behind the bullet.SubGunFan said:
PACT now sells a newer sensor than the ones I have, but I have no idea if they are actually an improvement or not. They also have infrared sensors similar to what CED offers now which should provide the most consistent lighting, assuming they work well.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
