I went back a looked, you're reading a lot into that first post. I certainly didn't see anyone insulting your intelligence for expressing an opinion.


You're doing a great job of making yourself look like an ass in this thread. By all means, continue, as I am finding humor in that.

Complete stranger who's responding to his own thread, and ends up pushed into defending the thing because so many of the attacks are so over the top. I own one product of theirs. One. If some other poster had saw the new product release and posted a thread here, I would have dropped a single reply in the thread and went on with life - unless someone had responded to me.

Go look at the first handful of replies. The purse-swinging started quickly. And loudly.

I agree, though, that *SOME* of the complaints are legitimate. And I hope LR hears them. But I won't apologize for finding value in the downrange readings that I've been able to get useful information from. There are people where who genuinely seem angry that I've found value in the downrange readings. Once I see that, yup, I'm going to give them a hard time, without apology. Because I find it to be frankly stupid.

Then we're both enjoying it. That's a win-win.



ETA: It's not just the first post. It started there, but elevated way beyond that on page one. If you follow that progression, my view of this makes sense. I could name names here but that would probably violate the CoC, calling out specific posters for saying stupid stuff, but it's easy enough to find if you look.

That's fair, LOL.

Except your adamant dismissal of LRs shitty product is as over the top and stupid as some posters attacks against LR.

So I'll leave you to shill a shit product.

But it's not a bad product. It's an awesome product that puts information within reach of the average shooter that wasn't even dreamed of 20 years ago.

The app may be terrible. The product isn't refined as it should have been, but the raw concept, which mine still does very well, is absolutely mind-boggling.

I grew up without a chronograph. I shot buckets of ammo as a kid without a clue as to how fast the bullets were going. Buying a Shooting Chrony in 1996 was a world-changer for me. The Labradar was the same.

What I'm poking fun at here is the inability to separate the awesomeness of the underlying technology from the poor customer interface. And specifically, the idiocy displayed when people tried to downplay the one major feature (downrange velocity) that still separates the Labradar from the Garmin. Go back and read the absolute idiocy posted by various posters in an effort to downplay the value of that. The rest of you have some legit complaints.

Maybe I was doing it wrong.  It doesn't matter now because my LR is GONE.  But I would have loved to have seen a thread from you in the Reloading Section on how to reliably get G7 BC's from LR.  I never could.  I could get G1 BC numbers, but the only math I could find was getting G1 BC's - I never could find G7 math, and asked for such in multiple threads and Google Searches, and even trying to research Litz book on it - he never gives a formulae or ready math that I could find, on taking a data set and backing out a G7 BC.   S&B's website does give the math for G1 BC's, which I used.  and the G1's I got were wildly variable.  Five shots in a string, would have G1 BC estimates vary by as much as 50% difference.    It took me a few years to finally realize relying on a LR BC is much more dangerous than just lookup up a similar bullet BC, and just run that.  I'd love to know how you were getting G7's and am in shock that the G7's you were getting are claimed to be so close to the manufacture's claim.  @BuckeyeRifleman Perhaps start a new thread in the reloading section on that for us?   There's no reason Garmin can't be upgraded or hacked with time, to get the trace data - it has to collect the full trace to get the MV, so it's in there somewhere.  If you've come up with the math and a methodology to get G7's - I've been looking to talk to you for about 5 years now!

You're trying to convince people that have been wronged that they haven’t. That never goes over well. The direction of this thread is proof.

“Jeffery Epstein made me a ton of money.”

“Yeah, but he fucked my underage daughter.”

“I understand that, BUT WHY CANT YOU SEE he made me a ton of money, YOU IDOT!!”

It's a major feature to you. I've owned a LR for 8 years or so and never used it, and I shoot out to 1000 yards. If I want BC corrections just about any ballistic app with give them to me.

One of the major gripes with the LR seems to be aiming it. I've never had an issue, but many apparently do. Garmin apparently solved that by making the cone wider and subsequently giving up longer range. Judging by how many bitch about aiming the thing and how many consider the downrange reading important, this was a smart move.

Yeah, if all it has over the competition is the ability to record downrange velocity, and that is very limited on the new version, this was an obsolete unit before it launched.

The fact that only a few ppl across multiple sites have expressed any interest in this unit is a big *hint*. I guess the vast majority fail to see how awesome this unit truly will be.

If you really want to do it right - Shotmarker.  That gives you velocity at target.  Shoot at targets at 500 yards, and that data is going to be far more meaningful than chrono-radar data at 50 yards, where the bullet is still stabilizing in some ways.  There's a lot of noise in the sub 100 yard trace data.  And LR rarely makes it past 75 yards; and the signal noise quality itself starts degrading pretty bad.  You basically get a lot of ballistic noise in the first few yards, and then signal quality noise once getting any distance, with LR - which is why it's generally so terrible at the OP's promoted purpose and benefit of the LR over others.  That would be why the professional companies use much more sophisticated rigs that will read out to much farther distance than 50 yards.  If they could get meaningful data at just 50 yards, they would.  

With LR, if you're shooting a bullet with a small ass (.223), the trace range is quite short.  Bigger diameter bullets it can read farther.   In fact, on a 15 yard range (with berm) my LabRadar was so good it would give me 25 yard trace data, going past the target backing and dirt even.  Who knew I could still still be going 1000 fps 10' deep into dirt!

All of us should be aware that there are other people who might own/use various products, that we use, but in different ways. It's one thing to say 'meh, I don't use that'. That's fine.

But I'd call you a retard if you set about to tear down the notion that I actually had a valid use for the thing, simply because you didn't. So go chew those guys out. They acted like idiots and y'all didn't exactly distance yourself from them. There's a whole world of guys that shoot cast bullets and muzzleloaders and things that don't have the product support you have if you shoot the most common caliber available, with the most common bullets, using universally accepted load data, in a standardized twist barrel. You shouldn't get angry at us simply for existing.





Agreed, but let's think through this. The proper solution - I'll freely admit this - would have been for LR to make an integral sight. The various attempts people have made to add external sights are all sort of self-defeating in the same way that putting a fancy optic on a rifle, with no way to zero it, wouldn't make it any easier to shoot. I believe the factory v-notch is perfectly sufficient if you learn how to look through it, accounting for the fact that the plastic flat surfaces on either side of it aren't actually perfectly flat. Or at least that solves the problem for me. But it's a mass-produced device and I can easily see how some units might be harder to aim than others due to minor differences in the various surfaces one might look across while trying to line up the v-notch.

In terms of making it easy to use for the masses, yes, widening the cone solves the problem. But for those of us that want the narrow cone that extends further downrange....dumbing the unit down doesn't solve a problem, it creates one. In short, some of us want the narrow cone that's hard to use; others want convenience above all else. The latter will usually win under market forces, but that doesn't invalidate the wants/needs of the former. And I insist here on defending Labradar for making the hard-to-use (or so it's alleged) narrow cone. That's exactly what I'd expect from the sort of people who could build a home-use doppler radar gun. It's also why big companies don't let engineers make products without input from the marketing department.

I actually agree with you - if all they'll do it 10-15 yards downrange, meh, I'll pass.

Your continued characterization of those who might prefer a wider, easier to use cone as somehow stupider and less capable than you is part what's earning you the vitriol you keep complaining about.

It is in fact a bad product. If if wasnt a bad product you wouldnt see so much hate across numerous forums. What you mean is it is a fantastic idea that failed in implementation.

Except it really does nothing that an old Caldwell doesnt do. It gives you a muzzle velocity. Thats all 99% of shooters need. By your own logic we should all happily be walking downrange to set up the Caldwell and clip on the sunshades.

Just as nearly all shooters have moved on from that tech, so have most shooters moved on from LR. Of course, you always have those old fudds who cling to their outdated, antiquated gear like its some saving grace to the shooting sports. Not that I'm pointing fingers mind you....But if the shoe fits......

You would think, but sometimes people are too ignorant to actually see a problem exists due to their statistical sample size of 1 telling them there isnt a problem.

There are a lot of half-truths in what you say here. I'm not claiming 50-yard data is meaningful. That's you, not me. And I certainly don't think the 10-15 yard range of the new offering will be of much use.

If I set out to get good data at 100-175 yards with many calibers, I can easily do so. Yes, it's easier with larger projectiles than smaller ones, but I'm not striking out on my own to get a workable BC for most .22 projectiles. Yes, 500 yard data would be better than 50 yard data, but I simply can't afford the 500 yard data, and I generally (almost always, really) get more than 50 yards, when I want it, with what I have. Also, it's not really accurate to say LR rarely makes it past 75 yards. It really depends on what you're shooting and how clean the range path is. As you've noted, a berm downrange causes a problem. I've also got a big wooden fencepost about ~70 yards downrange that (sometimes) causes problems - if I let it.

100 to 150 yard data is entirely possible, even regular with most stuff that I shoot (through I'll freely admit that a fast .22 shooting VLDs is difficult!). This data has been more than sufficient to give me workable (but not perfect) G1 figures, which can easily be converted to G7 figures. Are those going to be perfect? Well, other people in this thread have found them to be spot on to 1000 yards. I generally am not shooting 1000 yards with the projectiles I'm trying to get data from. The furthest I regularly shoot my muzzleloaders or my .22lrs is 330 yards. But yes, I've been able to do very well using 100-150 yard G1 estimates to predict trajectory at 300-330 yards. That may seem like nothing to you, but when you have literally nothing to start with, it's valuable.  And I've used various big-game bullets that do better or worse in my rifles than published data would indicate. For example, last year I shot a number of Hornady .284/154 Interbonds from one rifle. Guess what? The numbers I calculated from LR data work out 5-10% higher (consistently) than published figures.

(As a side note about consistency - you make the claim that the data I'm collecting is just noise. In reality, my calculations usually stay within about 2% from shot to shot, maybe 3-5% with cheaper bullets, maybe more than 5% with some of my very low-BC cast bullets, when I recheck my numbers across multiple shots, usually 3 to 5, sometimes as many as 10).

I suspect - but cannot prove - that Hornady knows these bullets will melt their tips in flight, and they publish a BC that takes this into account across maybe 800 yards. But I shoot them almost entirely within 500 yards. So *for my use* it at least appears, to me, based on both calculations and observations from actual shooting, that my back-calculated numbers work better than the factory published number.

Similarly, I bought some high-priced all-copper projectiles (A different brand than what BuckeyeRifleman uses) and toyed with using them for hunting last year. Guess what? Litz doesn't publish a BC for these. The manufacturer's stated BC was attractively high. Guess what? Shooting them across the LR gave me a result that was maybe 10% lower than what the maker said.

That was maybe August of last year. Seeing those lower numbers was the info I needed to decide not to pursue load development with them until wintertime, *AFTER* hunting season. I switched back to a bullet of known quality, focused on practice instead of load development, and pinwheeled a 450-yard shot on an elk with it.

I like being able to make such decisions. If you do not, that's fine, but I ask that you simply recognize that what doesn't work for you, does work for others. I'm not one of the professional companies you refer to. I can't afford to buy the equipment that would allow me to collect 500-yard data, and I make no claim that what the LR does is 'just as good'. It's good enough for what I do with it, and I'm content with that.

I won't say it applies to everyone - not at all - but I won't pretend it's not a factor. And when people actually do things in this thread to demonstrate that they're idiots...well, I'll call it like I see it. If that 'earns me vitriol' so be it.

@lazyengineer you have to upload your zip’ed labradar tracks from your card via your computer to this website.

https://bc.geladen.ch/labrabaco/labrabaco.html

Not sure what formula they use but it has proven accurate for me, across multiple bullets and rifles.

It’s obviously very important that the environmental data present when gathering your data is accurately inputted into the above website.

Big thread on snipers hide about it.

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/labrabaco-a-g7-bc-calculator-from-labradar-tracks.7074446/

ETA Without using that website I linked, I don’t know any way to get anything other than a very rudimentary G1 from the “stock” labradar tracks, which is I think why a lot of folks are confused as to why myself and the OP are defending the LR unit.

I got no beef with that.  Other than to note your experience getting trace data and BC's is way better than my own.  That's not impossible, but as you can imagine, I'm not sold on it, as it didn't work for me.  I don't tend to shoot half-inch muzzle loader projectiles; which I do agree likely will be a better experience.   That's a fairly niche' usage, but sure - that sounds useful to you.  

On a technical note, is there a guide on how to easily convert G1 data to G7 data?  I've looked for methodology to use the data to calculate G7 BC's, and never could find anything.

Thanks.  Man I wish they'd publish the algorithm behind that.

Yeah, that would be nice.

What would be even nicer is if we had a Doppler unit that would spit out the G7 BC for the track and series after you inputted environmental data.

But until then, doing it via that website and the LR is the only way to do it.

That or spending a bunch of time and components at distance to true. I really wish every bullet out there had a G7 from Litz I could trust, but until then the LR is a good tool to have in the toolbox.

Here's where I have to join the criticisms and say this:

It would take almost nothing to be able to have a phone app that would either pick up local weather data from a Kestrel or a local weather station (you can get functional ones on Amazon) or allow you to input an elevation, firing angle, humidity, temperature, barometer, then bluetooth that info to the LR, and turn it into a G7 figure almost instantly upon firing the next round.

I mean, all the pieces of information exist. If LR wanted to put together such a gadget, they could have.

At the end of the day, I think LR is owned by a parent company that sees their LR as a neat gadget that brings in some extra cash, but they don't much care about the product itself. It's a revenue stream for them -or was.

Yup.

Like you said, the issues people have with the LR are very real and I don’t discount them.

But there is a distinct difference between usability issues and product capabilities. For now at least, the LR has product capabilities the Garmin unit just doesn’t have. So for the small percentage of users like myself that like and use that capability, it limits us the the LR.

Not sure why that makes people upset.

It doesn’t, but for most, it’s not a needed feature. As a result, the additional downrange readings are a feature most would never use; myself included. I can have my chronograph setup and 10rds downrange in under 3-5 minutes. Testing my DOPE at various distances. Note my deviation from expected vs actual and can true up my BC. Very fast, not a lot of rounds fired.

Just to keep this dumpster fire of a thread going.  Looks like we all bought the wrong chronograph according to the OP since it’s only $499 and has all the same “specs”
Attached File

But I’ll stick with the garmin.

Market competition is always good.

If it’s more user friendly than the labradar, it might be worth buying.

Glad the Caldwell comes with a BC calculation function. I’m curious where this technology takes us in a few years!

Everything is going to be more usable than the LabRadar.  I hope this knocks it out of the park.  And I’ll buy whatever comes next at hopefully $300ish.  But the garmin is the market champ at the moment.

I like the functionality of being able to calculate BC’s, therefore I’m not in the market for the Garmin.

The Caldwell might replace my labradar if it works well.

Or maybe labradar finally fixes their app. Who knows, just glad to see another unit that has the capabilities I want.

If you really fell like the BC function is that accurate then be my guest.  I have gotten crazy different readings based on the angle or distance from the muzzle.  But the kestrel seems to be a much better solution.

I have a kestrel. I use it in conjunction with the LR to calculate the G7 BC. Check out my thread in the reloading forum.

I can get a pretty damn accurate G7 shooting out my back porch rather than having to drive 3 hrs round trip to someplace where I can shoot long range and get a BC via trueing.

Bottom like I’m not a Labradar loyalist. I don’t care what company makes the unit. I just like the down range capabilities it has, and I’m glad Caldwell has them too.

I don’t understand why people think because they don’t use a feature that it somehow makes it not cool or useful to other people.

I want it to be easier for shooters to get good Doppler BC data. I’m tired of bullet manufacturers (looking at you hammer) putting out bunk BC data to sell bullets. Litz puts out great info, but he doesn’t have info on every bullet out there unfortunately.

Having down range doppler capability in an end user device is amazing. Hopefully we get better devices that get longer tracks and put out even better data in the future.

Well I definitely can’t on my cast bullets or manufactured bullets, at least not accurate enough to bit trust the kestrel.  Hopefully the Caldwell is better than both.

What is going on with that device (or maybe it is just how the picture was taken?) - the buttons are nearly larger than the screen.

I don't know the context; but that looks like a SHOT show floor photo.   And considering SHOT Show is pretty much a house of lies, that's probably a mock-up; is my own assumption until I see a link to actually buy one.

Personally, I just received my Garmin chrono. yesterday.

I don’t hate them. Glad to see the competition and response to Garmin.

I can't find any specs online and don't watch youtube videos if I can help it. What are the specs on that one?

Ha!

I just clicked on the link and bitched to my wife I don’t have time for a 20 minute video. Just give the the specs dammit.

The spec or capability you’d be most interested in, perhaps, is that it generates trace data and provides real time on screen BC calculations.

Nice. Hopefully the user interface is better than labradar and it automatically averages BC per string and rejects poor traces.

If it does that, it will be worth the cost to sell the labradar at a loss and get this.

Got my Garmin Tuesday and spent a few hours with it yesterday at the range.  

Hard to imagine it being any better. Everything worked. First time, every time. Very rare for almost any product in any category these days.

From suppressed .22 subs to 300PRC.  It didn't miss a shot.

App is great, worked flawlessly. If I tried my hardest to gripe... I'd say the button for drop down menu on my phone to rename sessions is too small, or my fingers are too big.

Will be selling all my other chronos. I don't care what I get for them. They will just be taking up space now... I'll never use them again.

Was texting with my engineer buddy who works for a firearms manufacturer here in Wyoming. He took it took his down to their indoor range, said it was within 4-9 FPS off their Oehler system.

That's interesting.

I wonder what it's basing that on - I would assume it's doing what we discussed in your other thread - but at what ranges? Is it getting 1-2 downrange readings or collecting a series of them like the original LR does?

Either way it's very interesting and I want to know more.

This seems to be everyone’s experience, LR is done for.

If the down range velocity was such a useful feature and the only real competitive advantage the LR has over the Garmin I don’t think they would have gotten rid of it on the LX. Or at a minimum the number of people willing to give up that feature in favor of a device that’s easier to aim and doesn’t drop as many shots far outweighed the people who find it useful.

I think that's more likely.

For the Nth time now, I still maintain that the downrange stuff has value, for me, for the way I use the thing.

If the Caldwell maintains that and is easier to use, etc, they'll do well. As it is, though, I'm not likely to rush out and buy *any* new unit from any company.

As a suggestion, you might want to look around your area for High Power matches.  Many of those ranges now run digital shot marker targets.  Check.  Because if they do, go to a Mi-Range match, which is prone slow fire, and shoot your stuff.  Those targets will give you your 600 yard impact velocity, and that will be far more meaningful than any 75 yard trace.  Not being a smart ass, actually trying to be helpful on that one.  (I'll resume smatassedlt shortly!  )

Most of them are cool and will let you shoot whatever, off to the side, if you call first and communicate. Be sure to do that.

I shoot on a Shot Marker gives me pretty close velocity at target not that I really use it for anything MV ES and SD during load workup and practice is all you need. Oh I've had 6 range trips with 30 shots each with the Garmin and still have plenty of battery left my LR barely made it through a session.

I appreciate the suggestion but it's a far more complex solution than the very workable solution I already have. The Labradar I have sits in my barn. I have to open a window and move the thing maybe 2' in order to collect data that works much, much better than you seem to want to give it credit for. And this doesn't require leave the house, searching for shooting matches, attending them, begging favors of the organizers, or anything of the sort. It allows me to get useable data virtually on demand without relying on such incredibly sketchy logistics.

If you dispute my claim of useable data, I'd invite you to view the thread @BuckeyeRifleman started in the reloading forum yesterday.