Lab Radar

Simple set up

Gives you velocity readings at various distances. This can help calculating the BC.

To help cover the cost, I sold off my optical chronographs to get the LabRadar. However, since I moved from powder burners to airguns, I find myself with the ability to test fire indoors at my home into a trap, and now wish I had an optical to shoot over. I just don't feel the LabRadar is as convenient or accurate to measure just muzzle velocity between the end of the barrel and a trap just a few feet away. However, it can't be beat for measuring multiple velocities downrange.

ok what about f people shoot near u does microphone mess up

Click to expand...

Never been in that situation, so I can't say. I know if you get too far from the mike, it won't even pick up my gun, but the report, of course, is quite different than that of a firearm, even a bay or two away.

I've ordered one and the only real concern is using it at my gun club that has baffles on the ranges.

Has anyone used the Labradar at a similar range?

I've ordered one and the only real concern is using it at my gun club that has baffles on the ranges.

Has anyone used the Labradar at a similar range?

Click to expand...

I believe LabRadar (LR) has posted at least one instructional video indicating corridor like indoor ranges could be a problem. Don’t know how similar baffles would be, but I would expect they might cause issues. I believe this is related to reflecting signals from local surfaces providing confusing returns to the LR, making the projectile more difficult to accurately isolate and track.

I am working thorough some testing with my LR right now. As I posted in an earlier reply, I am having difficulties using the LR to provide just simple muzzle velocities while trying to tune an airgun indoors with a trap. This initially appears to be along the same lines as explained above. I think local reflective “clutter”, as is typical in a given indoor room, causes difficulties for the LR, even when not trying to capture downrange data.

In an effort to get simple muzzle velocities for initial tuning, I got a Caldwell Premium Chrono package (optical unit, with LED lighted diffusers). It provided reliable captures, but according to where my pressures were set and LR data I had acquired outside, I was pretty sure it was reading at least about 25 fps too high. It also had to be in the echo-area of the LR (more clutter) if I tried to set them both up to do a simultaneous capture for comparison testing. I returned the Caldwell unit to Cabela’s and exchanged it for the MagnetoSpeed V3 (MSV3) muzzle mounted chronograph. So far, I am extremely impressed with the MSV3, and feel it is by far the best solution for getting muzzle velocities in an indoor trap environment. I cannot attest yet to its absolute accuracy, but I can say it did show velocities about 25 fps lower than the Caldwell, at least appearing to support my suspicions, and that would make me believe it’s reasonably accurate. Aside from the very first shot, where sensitivity was still at the default, it has not missed a shot. The manual recommends a sensitivity setting of 7-9 for airguns, and the lower setting of 7 has worked 100% so far. FYI… I’m chronoing .30 cal pellets, so smaller pellets may need more sensitivity.

I will ultimately be doing a side-by-side comparison of the LR and MSV3. This should be doable, as the MSV3 will only appear to the LR as a slightly extended barrel, and hopefully won’t be seen as too much more clutter. I am not a physicist, and do not know if the doppler emissions or trackable reflections from the LR would be affected by the fact that the MSV3 will obviously have some sort of radio frequency signature when powered on and in use. I’ll just have to see, once I can get to an open outdoor environment where I can do simultaneous testing with both units on the same shot, and see how their results compare. I’ve seen one video online where this comparison was done, but it was for a firearm rifle cartridge, and it didn’t appear the chronograph readings were taken on the same SHOTS for comparison, just on the same LOAD (5 shots with the MSV3, then 5 shots with the LR, same load for both, but 10 shots chronographed).

I realize this thread is about the LR, but I believe the optical and MSV3 data supports the opinions I’ll give.

I think we need to realize a couple things…

1. You typically get what you pay for. A sub-$100 chronograph is usually not going to perform at the level of one costing 4 to 6 times that. This does NOT mean a very inexpensive and more affordable chronograph is not useful, as by all means, a cheap chronograph is by far better than no chronograph, when you need a chronograph. It just depends on your intended use, environment, and of course, your budget. I believe there are times and places where a much cheaper optical chronograph is a better choice than a LR doppler unit. Also, sometimes relative data is just as useful as absolute data.
2. Specialized tools are usually very good at specific aspects of a task, and often times only marginally (if at all) acceptable at all aspects of that task.
   [/LIST=1]
   
   I think the LR is a quantum leap forward for the consumer when it comes to velocity measurements from the muzzle to 100 yards downrange, in the right environment. I think it is hands-down the best and most accurate means to collect data to determine the true ballistic coefficient of your projectile fired from your gun.
   
   On the other hand, for indoor muzzle velocity measurement, particularly for airguns, I think the MSV3 reigns. It has a few huge advantages… no light problems (VERY big for capture reliability over optical units), very short distance to trap required, and nothing setup downrange of the firing line (LR has this as well).
   
   It goes without saying that the biggest drawback of both the LR and MSV3 is cost. The only comment on that I have is once again, you get what you pay for. Okay, a second comment… buy once, cry once. Aside from that, it is what it is… more expensive, higher-end specialized equipment.