View Single Post
Old January 31, 2012, 12:25 PM   #7
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,327
Agree with Peetzakilla. I think most chronographs will work under the right conditions, but it is difficult to impossible for the average shooter to check their calibration to any better than about 50 fps (which you can do with a .22 rifle and .22 match ammo). That's probably good enough for most work as long as it's consistent as the light changes. That would require periodic re-firing of .22's during testing until you were confident the unit wasn't shifting readings.

I have both the Oehler 35P and the CED and find they agree with each other very closely under all conditions. Bryan Litz found the same thing during testing for his book, Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting. RSI's web site says a test (no reference) by the German military using Doppler radar (fraction of an fps accuracy) to evaluate chronographs for its armorers also found the Oehler and CED the most accurate about a decade ago. This would have been the original CED Millennium, like I have. The current one, the CED M2, has a four times faster 16 MHz clock and self-adjusts its sensitivity to lighting conditions and has a bigger memory than the old one. I've not used and M2, but I think Litz's is an M2, and it seems like they've tried to improve accuracy further.

Only problem for the OP is the CED is about twice his price limit. Of course the Oehler is six times more.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by Unclenick; January 31, 2012 at 12:36 PM.
Unclenick is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04139 seconds with 7 queries