A customer asked me to mount and zero a scope. Then shoot both kinds of ammo, to see which one the rifle liked the best. And asked that I chronograph the ammo. Test barrels are 24". This rifle has a 22" barrel. 2" of shorter barrel would reduce the MV by 50 fps at most.

I don't doubt it at all. Everything in marketing is optimistic.

Yep, not surprised.

Would be interesting to check again on a hot afternoon in August to see how temperature sensitive the ammo is.

The response I received from Hornady Support when asking about the load and my intention to use it in my Winchester Model 70 with a Leupold CDS scope...

Thank you for reaching out. The velocity on the box is from a 24" SAAMI spec barrel which is an industry standard. My recommendation would be to shoot your rifle on a chronograph to get the most accurate velocity data. Traditionally you will see about 25-50 FPS of velocity loss per 1" of barrel loss.

From MGM going from 27" down to 13" in 1" increments. There is an actual mv increase on some shorter lengths.
https://matchgrademachine.com/velocity-testing-thompson-center-barrels/

Hornady lied.

20 to 25 fps per inch is the real numbers.

I chopped my 7-08 McWhorter/hart barrel from 24 to 18" and added a suppressor. JG's numbers are very close to what I chrono'ed post chop.

Hornady.....the same company that brought us the melting tip farce, and an owner who demanded his employees get the unproven and deadly jab to keep their jobs. Screw them.

I can’t say this shocks me. Factory ammo is almost always materially lower than advertised.

I have found this to be the case as well. My last box of Hornady 300 PRC 225 eldm averaged 70 fps slower than the box velocity of a weak 2810 FPS. It had an ES of 42 fps.

I would be willing to bet that all their test chambers are SAAMI minimum speck to ensure safe ammo in all production guns (except Christensen of course) which is also netting them their velocity gains. They’re stated velocity is probably what they are getting.

I am not surprised. Anyone that has a chronograph and reloads knows velocity claims on factory ammunition is oftentimes ambitious. Published reloading data from most bullet manufacturers are very often quite ambitious as well though. High quality tight test barrels are usually the culprit. I have seen many bolt actions where the chamber was flexed enough during firing to cause a sticky blot lift by an overly optimistic reloader trying to match the advertised data published by a bullet manufacturer. Some to the extent of needing to step down on the bolt with a foot to extract the case and still not achieve the bullet manufacturers advertised velocity. Bullet manufacturers seem to play free and lose when it comes to velocity claims with their products.

Years ago I loaded for 2 identical Remington 700 in 7mmSTW with 26 inch barrels one had a very tight chamber, the other one had a very generously chamber. the tighter chamber was consistently 200fps faster with the same loads. Got them to the same velocity but accuracy was below that in that rifle/powder combination. The fast barrel beat the factory load box listed velocity by I think it was about 50fps. It has been close to 20 years.

I have a 17 Remington that is 200fps faster than what is one the box consistently.

Both rifles that are much 150 to 200fps faster than listed for loads and yes faster than factory loads list have very tight chambers. basically with them full length size the case on an RCBS FL die or the Redding die for the 17 and all you size is the neck a few thousandths.

Chamber/barrel internal dimensions can make a big difference.

The last box of Winchester ammo that I checked produced an average velocity of 2756 fps, which is 96 fps below the 2850 fps value given on the box. The Standard Deviation for a three shot group came out to be just under 15 fps, which I consider quite good for factory ammo. In any case, the velocity falls within the guidelines given earlier by Hornady for a 22-inch barrel.

When you think about it, the velocities given by ammo manufacturers are likely meant to offer consumers a relative number for purposes of comparison, somewhat like treadwear ratings on tires. However, much like tire ratings where testing criteria often varies, based on what I've read in some of the blogs, manufacturers don't always use the same test setup or barrel lengths when testing their ammo, nor do they include this number on their boxes. Not sure what guidelines SAAMI places on manufacturers to list for their ammo, or even if the organization is any position to do so.

Every rifle is a rule unto itself. Something I’ve seen first hand: Two identical rifles may shoot the same lot of ammunition, reloads or factory, an average velocity that differs over 100 fps between the two. Same make. Same caliber. Same specs. When somebody boasts about factory ammunition shooting right at the velocity printed on the box, it is out house luck.

This is true. Still, just like treadwear values, the velocity values given by manufacturers offer the consumer something they can use to make better purchase decisions.

just shoot through a damm chrono

Perhaps we should shift the discussion to who makes the most accurate chronograph and why. Personally, I'm not convinced spending a lot more gets you a much greater level of accuracy.

Not even 1 in 100 riflemen that only shoot factory ammunition own a chronograph.

Ive said many times how little I know about this stuff but I find this amazing. I do not doubt Smokey one little bit but the 100 fps swing is interesting.

No chronograph, no problem. Zero at 100. Then zero at 500 (or 400 or 600). Note the elevation used to get you there. Use a ballistic calculator to work backwards and determine your velocity.

Much like the cost of borescopes, the price of chronographs has dropped to the point where hunters might add one to their tool bag as easily as they might a set of torque screwdrivers. I mean, how often does a hunter need these? I purchased a chronograph simply to send Leupold a more realistic velocity value to use when creating my free, customized elevation turret (which I'll likely never use). Now that I own one, I can see it coming in handy to compare the Standard Deviation of different brands of factory ammo to see which ones perform best.

I have to believe relatively inexpensive chronographs are also becoming increasingly common with bow hunters looking for greater accuracy and performance from their equipment. Simply put, they take at least some of the guess work and trial and error out of the equation for both those who shoot a rifle and/or a bow.

Serious question for you guys that are dogging the manufacturer. What MV should they print on the box? They obviously cannot test every chamber/barrel combo on the planet.

They should print the truth.

I've spotted thousands of shots of factory ammo. 95% of the time, what is on the box is no where near what is the truth. 100 fps or greater, as a lie, should be criminal! There are three metroplex SWAT Sniper teams that use my range. They have to use factory ammo. They go through this same trouble every time they switch lot numbers. Re-zero, get all new DOPE. Even though the box was always labeled the same. One team saw over 200 fps less than what was printed on the box.

I've measured some of the fired brass. They are not running sloppy chambers. Rifles made by GA Precision as an example.

But, manufacturers trump up their velocities, almost always. And some bullet manufacturers trump up their Ballistic Coefficient.

I didn't have the chance to warn you. There are people who take someone else's brass, powder, primers, and bullets and make hundreds of rounds (at best) in a month or two, and yet somehow believe they know more than those who produce thousands of rounds in a single day.

Dan I’m not sure why I bother anymore, but manufacturers have excellent knowledge compared to most of us. Their knowledge has nothing to do with advertising. They will lie, or at the very least mislead. It’s business.

If you're directing that at me, it isn't hundreds of rounds a month.

This was a matter of days ago. And there have been many other projects since then. Same as the weeks before, same as the weeks to come.



And the data on these boxes, you can take to the bank of being the truth. All this data was collected with the man's rifle, base, rings, and his scope. You can believe every parameter on there, with 100% certainty.




There is a label inside the box, of the complete recipe where he can reproduce said ammo, himself. He brought me all the components, including powder. I loaded from his keg of powder, and returned the reminder of his powder back to him.

And just to let you know, one more time, mass production anything is not always better than the hand made thing. Knives, rifles, saddles, ammo, boots are a few examples.

I have disassembled Nosler .300 WSM, dumped powder, and weighed it for ten pieces of ammo. Their powder charges had a 3.0 gr spread. Ten years ago, that was $75 a box for 20 rounds.

Most hand loaders can maintain .1 gr powder charge consistency.

Some of us can maintain .02gr consistency.

So how good does the company that makes thousands of rounds per day look? Why in the world do some of us hand load at all? Why have hand loaders wildcatted cartridges, to later have them become a SAAMI spec cartridge? Of late, the greatest example is the 6.5 Creedmoor being wildcatted into 6mm Creedmoor. Hand loaders did that. Then 6mm Creedmoor became SAAMI spec. Then 6mm Creedmoor was wildcatted into 22 Creedmoor, and 25 Creedmoor. Hand loaders did that.

I saw this a few days ago, and instantly thought of you.

You will never get it. SMDH.

Dan, you are failing to see the economic impact with factory loads. Yes, the major manufacturers might actually have more loading and ballistic knowledge than someone like JG. But they also must make a profit. The machines necessary to measure powder to .1 grains, much less .02 grains, at the volume that they produce would price them out of the market. Also, each gun is different. There's no way possible for major manufacturers to tailor a load to any specific rifle. That is why, even with my pedestrian knowledge of reloading, I can beat just about any factory load in any of my guns... and my knowledge is nowhere near JG's or Chad's. Not because I'm more knowledgeable than hornady or nosler...but because I can take the time to tailor a load to MY rifle, and I can take the time to weigh each and every load.

The issue here is not that reloads can outperform factory loads as that is a point where myself and manufacturers would quickly agree. While velocities will differ in each rifle based on its barrel length and other factors, I choose not to throw stones at their data just because some online forum legend takes issue with it.

Best thing you can do is set there in the peanut section but stop throwing your poop, because you don't understand the words the humans are using.

You're too dumb to even own a firearm, much less comment on the workings of them and their ammunition.

The same guy that thought a certain .22 lr bullet could skip down a barrel, not engaging rifling. That was a legendary poop throwing incident.

There is a disconnect somewhere Dan. Men discussing the measured and recorded results of what they did is not throwing stones. It is telling what happened and discussing the common trend the measured results point to.

No disconnect. My comment was directed at these comments made earlier.

"Hornady lied. 20 to 25 fps per inch is the real numbers."

JG…I must admit, I didn’t think we’d find a bigger Hornady homer than you, clearly I was wrong. Appears you Hornady boot lickers need to go have a beer and work this out

Hornady lied, 20-25 fps/in is the real numbers. Now, although I don’t always agree with Garvey he is usually right, as he is in this case.

You want to know how I know? Shooting the same load at 24-22-21 and 20”. Facts are fact.

By all means, grab your chronograph and your longest barrel rifle, test for speed, cut the barrel off an inch or two at a time, then report back with your results. Then you can join the conversation. I’ll wait. Otherwise we can all read the propaganda put out by all the manufacturers, we don’t need you propagating [censored].

It's the off season. We don't have anything better to do than to beat dead horses.

Chop a 17 Remington from 24 to 16 inches or maybe a 223 WSSM and I bet you loss per inch is closer to 40-50fps. That information is in the Berger reloading manual if you’re interested enough to look it up. It also says it’s approximate as there are so many variables involved.
There are a lot of “it depends” in most all these subjects.
My 22 Creedmoor with the new 62 VT bullets is 43 fps per inch loss from 26 to 20 inches as an example.

There are a lot of factors at play here and most aren’t seeing the big picture. When ammo manufactures publish their velocities, they are correct for the test barrel they used. They are not lying. They may publish the barrel length but that’s about it. What they don’t tell you is the twist rate, type of rifling, and inside bore diameter. The tighter the inside bore diameter, the more pressure and greater velocities. All of those factors go into the velocities they publish. These barrels may be set up to optimize velocities, but the velocities are correct. Chances of your barrel matching their test barrels is slim. Hence the reason to test your bullet velocities with a chronograph.

Here in lies the next issue. How accurate is your chronograph. We’ve stacked three different chronographs back-to-back and tested loads. Guess what, the velocities were all different. Yes, all the chronographs were stacked back-to-back at 18" or so, but the spreads were much greater to say it was 18". We had spreads greater than 50 fps. My buddy and I just purchased a Garmin Xero C1 Pro. We haven’t gotten a chance to test it our yet, but look forward to trying it out.

Now you want to use a ballistic program to get your intermediate and max distance baselines. That’s a great way to start. However, most ammo manufactures publish the G1 drag model and ballistic coefficient for their bullets. This will be good for four or five hundred yards, after that, best of luck. Tons of issues with the G1 drag model and ballistic coefficients. The G1 drag model uses multiple BC’s as the bullet velocity decreases. It’s not very accurate. The trick is to use Bryan Litz published drag model and BC’s for the bullet you’re shooting. Bryan is a small arms ballistic genius! His ballistic program Applied Ballistics and many others have his bullet library in it. It will tell you the correct drag model to use such as G5, G6 or G7 and what the correct bullet BC. This is a much more accurate approach. One push back I've heard, the G1 has higher BC's than the G5,6 or 7. That's very true. However, the mathematical calculations and ballistic modeling are so very different and so much more accurate. Also, scope height is vitally important to make sure your intermediate ranges are correct. Don’t just go with the ballistic programs 1.5” default. You need to accurately measure it.

I can’t state this enough, nothing beats actual test data at your intermediate and max yardages. However, accurate muzzle velocities, scope heights and the correct bullet BC’s and drag models can get you really close. I've taken my actual test data and massaged my ballistic program by making small teaks to velocities and BC's to dial it in so my ballistic program matches my actual shooting data.

Hope it helps. Happy Shooting!

chronographs are cheap, there is no reason ANYONE who is prepared to shoot game at longer ranges should not find the exact velocity of his hunting rounds. We owe it to the animals we hunt.

Most people who hunt dont even need to worry about this. 2.5" high at 100 and go hunting.

stretching it out on small steel plates? Chrono that beech or be prepaid to have a long, frustrating day at the range.

How did you write that with Vortex (POS) Optics balls in your mouth, choking you out?

It had to be heard to breathe and type at the same time.

I do not disagree.

However, go look at the very first post. It is about 6.5 Creedmoor. And in 6.5 Creedmoor, 7mm-08, 7mm-08 A.I. and .308 Win, the loss per inch is 20-25 fps per inch of barrel.

A sneaky trick is to go to a faster burn rate powder, once you get below a certain barrel length. And you'll pick up a great deal of muzzle velocity. Yall can ask the idiot Dan what powder and what to do it with, since he knows so much.

In a 6.5 Creedmoor it won't be 20 to 25 across the board per inch of barrel. It may start out around 20fps per inch but will steadily increase. In the shorter lengths it will be closer to 50 per inch.
I've done this on 30-06, 270, and 243 barrels.

I was biting my tongue till Alpine Hunter spoke up. He is spot on. The ambitious velocities have been a thing long before modern scopes with exposed turrets. Speed was king when sighting in for maximum point blank range was SOP. Slower velocities are simpler to overcome when you can readily dial or hold elevation and windage with exposed turrets or a fancy Christmas tree reticle. Modern exposed turret scopes and more useful reticles were game changers, Yet still the tight dimensioned, high quality, barreled pressure actions that make more with less are used to generate published data that we shooters very seldom realize. I think factory ammunition is manufactured using data generated in this manor to all but eliminate high pressure occurrences in a SAAMI spec firearm in good working order with ammunition manufacturerd along those guidelines. That and speed still sells.

Please tell me where to buy a barrel with a tighter inside bore diameter. I've bought a whole lot of barrel blanks, and have yet to see an extremely tighter barrel at the grooves or the lands.

Please tell me what type of rifling is going to make their ammo generate more velocity. Button, and cut rifling, I've never seen the ammo velocity claims suddenly become true.

Please tell me how much more velocity would a twist rate change generate. I've shot 6.5 Creedmoor through 1:9.5, 1:9, 1:8.5, 1:8. Which one is the magic one?

Test barrels are 24". The barrel used here was 22". What in the world caused two different manufacturers to pump up their numbers by a 120 fps average? Their barrels must have pixie dust sprinkled on them.

I've chambered some barrels. I bought reamers and Go-gauges from Manson. When I'm chambering, I get the Go-gauge (which is SAAMI spec to chamber. Then add .002" to its length, and get that to chamber by making .0005" depth of cuts until I do. That will crush back out upon barrel torque. That is a very perfect chamber. When the barrel is torqued down. The Go-gauge will chamber, and then the Go-gauge +.002" will allow the bolt handle to fall part way. If I bought a No-go gauge do you know how much too long it is? It's .004" too long. So does some kind of magic exist in the .002" of head spacing?

My chronograph is pretty accurate. You know what's more accurate than that? A nearly half mile long rifle range in my front yard. 500 to 800 yards will expose any MV claims.

Thinking the G-1 is a major handicap is false. It has worked well, beyond a thousand yards for many years. G-1 and G-7 is often printed on the boxes of bullets. Not usually printed on the boxes of ammo. And they've got nothing to do with MV claims. Try again.

Scope height is vitally important for shots less than 100 yards. It's not that important 100 yards and beyond.
Try again.

Yeah, I just tested. I chronographed two kinds of ammo. Then I got DOPE on that ammo to 400 yards. It was going as slow or slower than my chronograph said it was. Same chit, different day. Seen it for thousands of rounds of ammo. But let's argue about it.

I do not have enough rifle range to test BC. You need more than 1000 yards to test BC. Your "masaging" ballistics was more likely poor scope tracking you were trying to overcome and not a BC problem.


I will say it again. The published velocities on the boxes are flat out lies. It really is that simple.

Wiseman pressure test barrels from Bill Wiseman and Co. in College Station are the ones I can never match.

JG your focus is narrowly focused on the 6.5 CM. I get it you like the caliber. Your claim that the published velocities is are a flat out lie is way incorrect. Manufactures are all held to some type of ISO standards. Manufactures aren't given leeway to lie and make up stuff. If they are caught in an ISO audit not following their ISO standards or lying about results, this leads to major fines and legal issues. These velocities are totally correct when it comes to their test barrels.

There are a lot of physics in play here, small changes cause different muzzle velocities. It's not black and white. Most of the state of the art barrel makers will build barrels to a given inside bore diameter per the customers request. They will cut your rifling in different configurations as well as the number of lands and grooves. Heck they can take your specified twist rate out to the 10 thousands of on inch if that's what the customer requests. Competitive bench rest shooters have been playing the inside bore diameter, rifling type and and twist rates for decades, looking for that small edge to tighten there groups.

When it comes to ballistics parts of your answer, well some just aren't accurate. I get it you have a nice long range to play with and test at. The G1 drag model was originally developed for a one inch round nose projectile. Modern bullets don't resemble a one inch round nose projectile. The G1 was adapted for modern rifles bullets many decades ago. In order for it to work the ballistic modeling and calculations have to be changed as the bullets velocity decreases over distance. This is done by changing the G1 BC as the velocity decreases. These decreases in velocity were often assumed based on the muzzle velocity. I don't reload, so I don't look on bullet boxes, but it makes sense to publish which ever drag model and BC that matches the given bullets. Most ammo manufactures still publish the G1 drag model BC. They should really publish the correct drag model and BC.

Like most things these days, computers and really smart engineers develop better ways of calculating things. The G5/6 & 7 drag models were developed for modern bullets. The bullet BC and ballistic modeling for these drag models remain the constant throughout the decreases in muzzle velocities over distance. The calculations and ballistic modeling are pretty rock solid. Bryan Litz is a flat out ballistics genius as is Brad Mallard who created the JBM ballistic program. These guys have done a ton of R&D and have two of the best ballistic programs available.

As for scope height you are incorrect. Take any ballistic program change the scope height and track your intermediate and max ranges. They will change, especially if a shooter is shooting an AR type platform with two plus inches of scope heights. The further out you go, the more your intermediate and max distance will change.

As for scope tracking and massaging my ballistic program. My Leupold VX5 tracks fairly well. I'm an engineer in real life, I like to play with numbers and calculations. If I can take data and massage it to fit my shooting, nothing wrong with that. I left tracking out of my original post, but that really plays into the equation as well. We used to have a cinder block on top of concrete shooting bench to test a scopes ability to track properly. We had two sets of epoxied dual V-Mount blocks on it. One for 1" scopes and one for 30mm. Sorry this was before the 34mm and greater scope tube sizes. We'd place a scope in the V blocks, take two .5" wide elastic band and tighten it over the scope locking it in place. The setup was rock solid. The height of the cinderblock and V blocks we're designed so they would center the scope reticle on our 100 yard target or be close enough to center of target. We'd note where the reticle center was located on the target and do three box tests. We tested 10, 15 & 20 moa box test tracking. Much more accurate than shooting a box test. You would be surprised at the tracking of some scopes. Some aren't as precise as one would think and can very slightly from one scope to another of the same make and model. Though close enough for 98% of shooters. We were also able to track reticle cant as we moved up/down right left. Cant is a huge issue for shooting long ranges. Leupold pissed off the long range and tactical community when shooters found out there scope cant could be up to three degrees and stay within warranty. That was totally unacceptable for long range and tactical shooting. Each degree of cant at 1000 yards is approximately six inches. So three degrees could be 18". Not good. Think of it this way, you're dead on at 100 yards, as you dial up the cross hairs begin to cant right or left, usually right from what we tested. At a thousand yards your reticle has canted three degree and your POI is 18" right or left. You can say that's lost in the wind or spin drift, but it's a real! Oh yeah, spin drift can be up to 6" or more at a 1000 yards depending what you're shooting. Tactical and long range shooters started leaving Leupold in droves. This opened the door in the early 2000's for other scope manufactures to take that market share and boy did they. Lots of great scopes out there for long range shooting, Now some cant is shooter error on how level there reticle is when shooting. Hence the need for scope levels when shooting really long ranges.

When you say your chronograph is very accurate, I won't disagree or argue. Most are a lot better than they used to be. However, how do you know how accurate it really is? What is the is the internal clock/synchronization sampling rate between screens? My bet if you put two back to back, you would see small differences. We have two CED M2 Millennium Chronographs and we see small differences between the two of them when set back to back. Infrared screens help a lot to decrease those small difference. This is why I'm really looking forward to trying out our new Gamin Xero doppler radar chronograph in the next couple of weeks.

I'm not hear to argue with anyone, just add my thoughts to the shooting community. I don't have all the answers, however I understand ballistics very well. It's a passion of mine as I love to reverse engineer new ballistic programs to see what ballistic modeling and calculations the creator used.

Hope it helps!

I would like you to test this one!!! Fastest 45acp ever!

I enjoy lurking in the sections about firearms, ammo and optics but most always the details are way over my head and its not needed info for the way I "hunt"(no target guy.) I still like to learn and try to slowly pick up things that may help me. This type of thread does that for me. It will slide off topic enough that I can gleam something out of it.
Anyway, my point is there are ALWAYS differences of opinion even among guys that I know are "experts" in their own right. I just have to hold my breath and hope the discussions stay civil, since they often dont. There are too many knowledgeable guys on this thread to single them out but I just picked up on Alpine Hunter being new on here and Im very impressed by what appears to be some good experience and knowledge. Like others, he may not always be right but he can bring a lot to the table. Hopefully civil discussions will keep him interested and taking time to post. I just watched Oppenheimer and there were lots of smart guys on that project and they didnt always agree but their collective efforts got it done. Looking forward to ongoing insights from all our regular tried and tested posters as well as the new guy.

^^^
+1

You bring up great points about keep this civil and helping expand the knowledge pool. I'll be the first to eat crow if I'm wrong, just ask my wife. She wears the pants and I've never tried to take them away from her. I'm been working with ballistics and long range shooting for over twenty five years. I know a lot, but I don't know everything. I've had great conversations with Brad and Bryan over the years when I got stuck on something or didn't grasp what they were telling me. I've got thick skin and never take this stuff personally. What I ask, if you say I'm wrong, which I could be. Just don't tell me I'm wrong, explain your point and use facts. That's all I've tried to do.

My buddy and I purchased a Garmin Xero doppler radar chronograph. I have a new Leupold VX5 3-18 X 44mm HD scope that sits on top of my custom 6.5 CM. fter a south Texas hunt in the canyons of the hill country, my aging eyes need more than 10X. 10X is the max I've ever shot until now. In May were headed to the Joshua ranch as we've secured the 1000 yard range for half a day. We want to see what are actual shooting dope is out to a grand. Once I have it I'll have a custom CDS turret made from Leupold to match. I'll also tweak my ballistic program to match. Always better being thorough I say.

Yep keep it professional and as factual as you can. Goes a long way!

After you're finished, I would be very interested to hear your comments on which chronographs do the best job of capturing the true velocity of a bullet and why. It's the differences in the technology that interests me most, from measuring the length of time that it takes a bullet to pass by two light sensors, to those that supposedly use the Doppler effect.

I use a magnetospeed. I figure 2 magnets has to be fairly reliable. It’s also easier t set up at the range.

I have on several occasions compared Magnetospeed’s against Lab Radar and Lab Radar against the new Garmin as well and they were very close…less than 5fps difference.
All 3 are way better than the older shoot thru screen machines that depended on light & shadows.
Even a tech from a major ammo manufacturer said the new Garmin was just as accurate as their multi thousand dollar machine.

I have one of the first generation Magneto speed. It's work well and I liked it. Simple to setup compared to traditional chronographs. The best chronographs are the ones with highest clock speeds. This enables it to clock between the two sky screens more accurately. It's been a while, our CED's are nearly ten years old. At the time they had the highest clock speeds of 27 MHz as I recall and some of the best reviews at the time. The best chronograph money can buy is the Oehler chronograph. This is the Chrono all others are compared to. It's a lab grade chrono used by most bullet manufactures and test facilities. I have a feeling, though I don't know for sure. L
Like many other things they're probably switching to doppler radar systems now.

We've tested our CED's against Competition Electronics chrono and the magneto. They were close to our CED's. Even my two CED's give slightly different readings back to back. We changed to the infrared sky screens and they tightened up a bit. We bit the bullet and bought the Garmin Xero doppler radar chrono. The reviews have been outstanding. I'll post my range results once we get out to the range.

Hope that helps.

You're wrong about a narrow focus. I see this velocity lie on every cartridge I've spotted for and/or chronographed. It is actually extremely surprising when the velocity of the ammo is actually very close to the label on the box. This is not new information. This has been happening for many many years.

There is no way these velocities can be totally correct for their test barrels. I've already explained how to chamber a barrel as tight as possible, and it still is not going to magically yield 150 fps.

Berger and Hornady put the G-1 and the G-7 on their bullet boxes. When the G-7 is available, that is the one I use. Sierra still uses the G-1 at velocity ranges.

I'm well aware of the ballistic calculators. I've used them for over 100,000 rounds fired.

I'm not wrong about scope height. It has been tested many times over, by myself and others. I plug in correct height, but if you're .00 to .5 of an inch wrong on what you plug in, it is not going to make hug changes beyond 100 yards. It will cause you all kinds of grief inside 100 yards. Have you ever shot the "MOA Walk Back"? Start with your scoped rifle at 7 yards, and hit a 1 MOA dot. Then back up to 17 yards and do it again. Work that all the way back to 77 yards. I am well aware of how scope height can change things.

I would not be surprised of bad tracking. I see it on a weekly basis. A bad tracking scope has no place in my herd. But, I'm shooting other people's rifles all the time. What they have to use is what I use. Two brands are top of my list of me expecting bad tracking. I expect it, because I've seen it repeat itself over and over again.

I know my chronographs are fairly accurate by truing velocity 500 to 800 yards. Good data in begets good data out. You can put in a very wrong muzzle velocity and still be hitting steel out to 400 yards. 500 yards you'll need to make a tweak to your MV. 600 yards, and beyond is where you can really dial in your MV. So when the chronographs give me velocity, and that velocity works well 500 to 800 yards, that's how I know they are telling me the truth. And for many years, I've trued velocity in different ballistic calculators and taken that information to other rifle ranges. Shooting short action cartridges to 1400 yards, and I've got ranges available on friend's ranches that can afford me more than one mile shooting. When 1000 yards gets easy, I decided to go 2000 yards. 1.25 Mile is my current farthest hits. 2180 yards.

I noticed Oehler's newest System 89 includes both hardware and software for calculating a BC value in addition to measuring velocity. That brings into question again the hunter wanting to provide data to Leupold for a CDS turret, needing to rely on a BC value provided by the manufacturer of the load they intend to use. As the case with MV, I take it providing Leupold with a more accurate BC value would allow them to calculate a more accurate bullet trajectory and turret markings.

Not being someone who reloads or wanting to invest $3k in a Oehler System 89, I'll remain content with providing Leupold with the BC value shown on the ammo box. Besides, even with my new CDS turret combined with my limited shooting capabilities, I'm not expecting to take shots at a target 600 yards away. But it does make for good discussion both here and elsewhere.

As I said, Oehler makes lab grade Chrono's. For your CDS turret, if you can get access/rent an chrono you could get much more accurate data for your Leupold to work with. Can you send me a private message please, I'd like to help you out.

PM sent

I had the 3 screen Oheler when they were the thing to have...Labradar is light years ahead of that thing and seemed to always be within what I thought it should be sitting out 3 foot versus being 5-6" behind or next to the muzzle readings.

If there was something better than Doppler available to us (or even if it wasn't available to us), rest assured Litz and crew would be using it and they talk an awful lot about Doppler. Is he using something else now that I've not heard of?

For those who might be interested in paying them a visit to see their wares and learn more, I noticed Oehler Research is based in Austin.

I’m thinking few people buying an Oheler 89 are shooting factory ammo.

It can be done a folks do it all the time. Really fun to try shooting those extreme distances if you have the range to work with. Repeatability is something you can't control. Lets take a .308 shooting Fed 175 gr match ammo. 900 meters or 1000 yards is getting to the effective range of that round ballistic speaking. Yes, it can be shot further and folks do it. However, once the bullets velocity goes transonic it becomes very unstable. The yaw (yaw refers to the rotation of the nose of the bullet away from the line of flight. note I copied the explanation off the internet as my explanation was too detailed) the bullet experiences is very unstable transition as the shock wave around the bullet dissipates. The bullet actually begins to wobbles up/down/right/left. The further it travels the more wobble. At extreme distance like shooting the round at a 45 degree angle up in the air, the bullet will start to tumble on the way down. The bullet is now on an uncontrollable path. It's impossible to reliably create it shot after shot. Some shots may hit closer to other rounds, some are like where did it go.

We used do watermelon shoots at the ranch with .22lr at around 600 yards. The rules were open sights only, though the kids would always bring their 10/22's with scopes. You could never see the rounds hit the watermelon, though you could see the dust kick up around them when you missed.. There was no consistency to where the rounds hit, but it was a lot of fun!

when chopping a 6.5cm barrel from 24, 20, 18 and 16. only time i got more the 20 an inch was going from 18 to 16 and it was 51 so 25.5 an inch. With that barrel also had less than 300 rds. shooting 130gr vld. I think your formula is more based on Overbores. 25-06 makes big drops after 24.

yelp they will absolutely spend $3k on a chrono to build a pre set-CDS turret on a budget luppy, with a budget gun price point, with cheap budget adjustable rings with OTC ammo. Only the best will do.

I would have actually thought they would purchase the Lab Corp or Garmin doppler radar systems at a fraction of the price of the Oheler, but you could be right. I have a custom 6.5 Creedmoor built by Chad Dixon at Long Rifles Inc. I shoot Hornaday 143 gr ELD-X factory ammo. I can usually shoot in the .4's, with great conditions I've been in the mid .3's. If flat out shoots! I just added the Leupold HD VX-6 3-18X44mm with Area 419 scope mounts. My aging eyes just weren't digging the 2-10 I had on it last fall hunting in the canyons of the hill country. I'll be adding a custom CDS turrets after we do some testing in early May at a 1000 yard range with our new Garmin Xero C1 Pro.

Tikka 6.5CM's, Lapua Scenar 139gr, and RL26 is the easy, easy, easy button combo.

The only thing not easy about that is finding RL26

Alpine its hard to punctuate sarcasm in written word, but any one verifying their loads would use the Lab Radar or Garmin for a fraction of the price.

This is true!

Agree 100% with Bobo.....The Garmin flat out kicksazzzz, whether it be a .177 pellet, an arrow, or any cartridge projectile you run past it.

With a name like "Clown", that punctuates a lot....

WP sense of humor Tee’d it up. I thought his was one of the better posts Ive read. Lets cheap out on every thing but the most outrageously expensive chrono.

I think, Dstroud, pretty much closed down any arguments on the accuracy of any of the units. probably the most in-partial and level headed guy on THF,

The classified has been littered with LabRadars for $+-300, as people traded in Credit card points and gift cards for the latest and greatest Garmin. Few people on this thread that might actually have some kind of valid thought every once in a while if they owned one.

I have one! That I have never used. LOL. Been in the closet for several years. Decided on a recent range trip I was going to take it. It uses a mini headphone plug to the phone... phone doesn't have the hole to plug in to. facepalm.jpg

My uneducated guess would not even be in 1 in 10,000 don't shoot over a chronograph. Kinda like a discussion on one of the shooting forums many years ago about using a bore scope to check your bore. Hawkeye was about the only one out there at the time and for a hefty price. Now there's all sorts of them that will connect to a smart phone or computer at a fraction of the price of a Hawkeye. Still most shooters that isn't a blip on their radar to inspect there bore..

Most folks just like to hunt and shoot. There's a small percentage of us who are super serious about shooting and we use those tools. Just MHO!

IMHO, bore scopes and chronographs are much like other specialty tools that you may use only rarely. I own many such tools, which is probably why I own both a bore scope and a chronograph. But just like other specialty tools, there is no substitute when you need them.

I suspect the specialty tool I use the least often is one that pulls the cartridge out of Moen shower valves. I bet I use it no more than once every ten years.

I have never used my chronograph either but I have one. Bought one, set it up indoors to test on NERF guns, took it out once, it failed to work. Sent it back for a free replacement. Received it and put in in the closet. I don't reload for competition or even hunting much. I reload so I can make my own ammo if one day I can no longer buy it. So the chronograph hasn't been a need for me.

I haven't worked up loads without a chrono in many years. Anything can happen, and I don't take the chance excess pressure showing up when it shouldn't.

I think, Dstroud, pretty much closed down any arguments on the accuracy of any of the units. probably the most in-partial and level headed guy on THF,

BoBo got this right !!!


RL-26?

I have seen factory premium ammo from both Winchester and Federal match or exced published velocities in overbored or otherwise hotrod cartridges. 270win, 7mag, 30-06 are the ones that come to mind. 270 very often was faster by a little bit more than what was on the box. Weatherby always matches factory specs assuming the same barrel length. My info dates to the early 2000s and may not fit today.

Riiiiiight........come to think of it, what ammo manufacturer wouldn't want their ammo to exceed their stated velocities? What could possibly go wrong?

Well not everyone is into the last fps.

It wasn't a huge difference; 60fps was the most I ever saw if memory serves me correctly. Could have been caused by my habit at the time of building rifles with 26" barrels. Did a 7mmSTW once with a 30" or 32" barrel and picked up 250fps with slow powder. It was insane but really finicky with loads I think because it wasn't a very heavy profile barrel.

The only “fast” factory ammo I’ve seem was shockingly Sellier & Bellot 110 PTS 6.8 SPC ammo. Box said 2550 and the magnetospeed said 2625 from a 16.5” bolt gun.