New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Lab Radar
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Lab Radar

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2 3>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/22/2016 at 07:12
nralifer View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/26/2016
Status: Online
Points: 59
Anyone out there have experience with the Lab Radar?  Trigger 29 and I had a chance to use one this last weekend. We could track a 30 cal bullet as far as 110 yds. I was a real quick way to measure bullet BCs as well.  
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/22/2016 at 10:00
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313
No experience with it, but I'm intrigued by the topic and interested in hearing your findings.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/22/2016 at 17:21
Peddler View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: July/04/2012
Location: Oswego,NY
Status: Offline
Points: 9051
Is Hornady's claim of Doppler radar for their new bullets similar to that?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/22/2016 at 20:17
nralifer View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/26/2016
Status: Online
Points: 59
We are going to play with it again this weekend. I can tell you that it is an intriguing instrument. We did have some trouble tracking each shot the same distance. I think this has due to with the bullet trajectory.  We were shooting at a gong 500 yds away and were able to track 2-3 shots out of 5.  When the target was at 100 yds 90+% of the shots tracked. So if the bullet stays in the beam it tracks.  There are also a couple of ways to trigger it. We used the microphone. Using that mode we could trigger it with, not only the muzzle blast, but also with the crack of the bullet as it passed the radar. For that experiment we placed the radar behind the gong to protect it and shot from 150 yds such that the bullet passed within 4-5 inches from the gong edge. It tracked 2 out of three shots to 100 yds. One can calculate BCs on any bullet with the data since it will measure 5 velocities as it tracks the bullet.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/22/2016 at 20:24
nralifer View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/26/2016
Status: Online
Points: 59
The Hornady Doppler is much more powerful and sophisticated but both radars work on the same principle. Hornady's radar can track bullets to hundreds of yards and generate a velocity decay curve since it can measure velocities at much smaller intervals.  It was through the analysis of these decay curves that they were able to surmise that their tips were melting presumably
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/23/2016 at 04:11
Peddler View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Master
Optics Jedi Master
Avatar

Joined: July/04/2012
Location: Oswego,NY
Status: Offline
Points: 9051
Presumably being the key word i suppose.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/23/2016 at 04:42
trigger29 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ?

Joined: September/29/2007
Location: South Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 4294
Originally posted by nralifer nralifer wrote:

The Hornady Doppler is much more powerful and sophisticated but both radars work on the same principle. Hornady's radar can track bullets to hundreds of yards and generate a velocity decay curve since it can measure velocities at much smaller intervals.  It was through the analysis of these decay curves that they were able to surmise that their marketing gimmick was going to sell a boat load of bullets.
   Well, I'm glad we're in agreement on that one. ;)
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/23/2016 at 05:17
nralifer View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/26/2016
Status: Online
Points: 59
Excellent
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/23/2016 at 06:02
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18344

Bryan Litz is "the man" in ballistics...


http://appliedballisticsllc.com/Truth%20In%20Performance/Hornady4DOF.pdf


I pay close attention to his cautions.


http://www.scout.com/military/snipers-hide/forums/5542-ballistics/13788862-labradar-testing



Edited by Kickboxer - September/23/2016 at 06:12
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/23/2016 at 15:39
trigger29 View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
X = 180 Y = 90 (X+Pyro)+(Y-Pyro) = ?

Joined: September/29/2007
Location: South Dakota
Status: Offline
Points: 4294

I will agree that Bryan Litz is "the man" when it comes to ballistics, so long as Berger bullets aren't involved. He knows who signs his pay check. We've found some discrepancies in our testing with several bullet's BCs, from several different manufacturers. These discrepancies seem to correlate with the data listed in Litz's book "Ballistic Performance of Rifle Bullets".  Unless a Berger bullet happens to be involved. Seems their bullets always have the highest listed BC.  And it also seems we can't achieve the numbers he lists. It seems we're not the only ones who have discovered this in actual instrumented tests.  This test done by KNS ballistic services found the .338 Hybrid to have  a BC of .766 vs. the .816 they claim. all the other data they got on other bullets correlates with Litz's data except the Berger bullet.


http://www.scout.com/military/snipers-hide/story/1454719-gunsite-xlr-338-bullet-test


As far as his testing of the Labradar, after his last update, it seems he's very happy with the results he's gotten from it, and it's showing itself to be very accurate.   In our limited testing of it so far, we've found the same, and actually used it to do some limited BC calculations on bullets that we know the BC on, and found it to accurately calculate BC within reasonable accuracy levels. We're going to do more testing with 2 radar units to try to verify BCs over a longer range. Will update when we have more results.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/23/2016 at 22:08
Steelbenz View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
ROLL TIDE ROLL

Joined: January/03/2006
Location: Heart of Dixie
Status: Offline
Points: 4912
As an old FireControlman, I'll give you the standard tracker alley saying! "In God we trust, ALL others we track!" My father's favorite saying was "Liars know numbers son, but numbers don't lie! Do the math!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/24/2016 at 06:29
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18344

You know, I have no hero worship of Bryan Litz, neither do I have a problem with KNS.  Any competitor in business has to try to find a way to make his product stand out.

Bryan Litz does demonstrate very high numbers for Berger products... but, could be his test articles are produced with more care than what can be obtained via normal channels.  There are a number of possible explanations for Litz's numbers vs KNS.  One is that he has access to the very best product Berger produces... may not be exactly representative of "off the assembly line".  Differing conditions, controls, test articles, test personnel,etc.  He also has had access to some of the very finest radars used for ballistic calculations.  I don't know whether his results come from the fact that "he knows where his paycheck comes from" or not.  But I know that his methods, as described, are sound and his "math" is true.  I won't be the one to accuse him of fudging the data...

I started thinking of getting the Lab Radar as soon as it came out... fulfills a number of requirements for me even in its current state.  But I've been waiting until the product matched the available technology.  Oftentimes, what is available to the public is several generations behind what is available technologically.  I believe they are on Gen III now.  More to come.

Certainly Mr Litz wants to sell his products, personal and Berger, so do other companies...

There was never an intention to say the stuff was not good, just some caution in observation should be exercised.  Perhaps the concept was too lofty...

As for the Lab Radar, certainly a device that provides an accuracy and simplicity that has been long needed and unattained... my point in the articles was:

"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than the things that are." Machiavelli

Caveat emptor.


Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/24/2016 at 06:29
nralifer View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/26/2016
Status: Online
Points: 59
Two very good links by Kickboxer.Excellent  Our initial test did not involve a direct comparison to the Oehler 35, although in all our other BC testing the Oehler was used to measure the muzzle velocity.  We used the radar to determine the muzzle velocity and used our usual 2 radio set up and Audacity waveform software to measure time of flight.  Doing this we were able to calculate 2 BCs for each shot, one from the radar data alone and the other from the time of flight data to a gong target 500 yds away.  The average BC calculated for each shot that we had a full set of data correlated with each other to less than 2%.  The tracking with the radar was a bit problematic when shooting at a 500 yd target, but when shooting at a 100 yd target it tracked much more reliably suggesting that the bullet trajectory seen in the long target shots probably caused the bullet to be at the very edge of the radar beam and not track as well.  We were testing 308 and 338 caliber bullets with boat tails whose bases were flat, so did not have the problem Litz saw with the concave based FMJ .224 cal bullets.  Of note is that the microphone in the radar was used as the trigger for the radar.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/24/2016 at 06:46
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18344

Originally posted by nralifer nralifer wrote:

Two very good links by Kickboxer.Excellent  Our initial test did not involve a direct comparison to the Oehler 35, although in all our other BC testing the Oehler was used to measure the muzzle velocity.  We used the radar to determine the muzzle velocity and used our usual 2 radio set up and Audacity waveform software to measure time of flight.  Doing this we were able to calculate 2 BCs for each shot, one from the radar data alone and the other from the time of flight data to a gong target 500 yds away.  The average BC calculated for each shot that we had a full set of data correlated with each other to less than 2%.  The tracking with the radar was a bit problematic when shooting at a 500 yd target, but when shooting at a 100 yd target it tracked much more reliably suggesting that the bullet trajectory seen in the long target shots probably caused the bullet to be at the very edge of the radar beam and not track as well.  We were testing 308 and 338 caliber bullets with boat tails whose bases were flat, so did not have the problem Litz saw with the concave based FMJ .224 cal bullets.  Of note is that the microphone in the radar was used as the trigger for the radar.

That is pretty impressive. 

We use microphones as triggers as well.  Funny, we found that "better" is not always "best".  We had to actually decrease the quality of microphone in order to get the most accurate triggers.  Best results have come from a $2.00 Walmart microphone. 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/25/2016 at 08:24
nralifer View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/26/2016
Status: Online
Points: 59
We did more testing with the radar yesterday This time under different conditions and using an SD card. I think an SD card will become a regular part of our testing. We used the radar at the gun club instead of an open field.  There was more "clutter" down range at the club because of wind flags and berms at 100 yds. The 100 yd range is next to a 200 yd rage that has a double berm, the lower one with a target backboard at 185 yds which is where we mounted targets.  The BC results we were getting were all over the place, and when we looked at the data on the SD card we could see why. The radar is capable, with the SD card, to give a velocity at almost every yard of bullet travel, and display the data on an Exel spread sheet.  So if you see your bullet actually at some point accelerating you know the data is funky.  We think the problem was all the clutter down range. Hopefully next week we will be able to get back to more open country with no clutter.  On shots where the tracking data looked clean (consistently lower velocity with each yard of bullet travel) the BC calculated seemed plausible both for sour bullets and factory.

Another observation is that the radar will not trigger using the internal microphone if you shoot with a suppressor. Have to trigger it using the Doppler signal itself. Wonder if Kickboxer might have some thoughts on using an external microphone as a trigger for suppressed rifles. A microphone triggering mechanism may be more accurate than the Doppler as one does not always know at what distance down range the signal from the bullet triggers the radar.  One good thing though the radar was not triggered by other people shooting. Oner people were either shooting pistols or 223 ARs.

So there is a bit of a learning curve, but once one learns how to use it properly the radar should be very handy.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/25/2016 at 10:20
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18344
Originally posted by nralifer nralifer wrote:

We did more testing with the radar yesterday This time under different conditions and using an SD card. I think an SD card will become a regular part of our testing. We used the radar at the gun club instead of an open field.  There was more "clutter" down range at the club because of wind flags and berms at 100 yds. The 100 yd range is next to a 200 yd rage that has a double berm, the lower one with a target backboard at 185 yds which is where we mounted targets.  The BC results we were getting were all over the place, and when we looked at the data on the SD card we could see why. The radar is capable, with the SD card, to give a velocity at almost every yard of bullet travel, and display the data on an Exel spread sheet.  So if you see your bullet actually at some point accelerating you know the data is funky.  We think the problem was all the clutter down range. Hopefully next week we will be able to get back to more open country with no clutter.  On shots where the tracking data looked clean (consistently lower velocity with each yard of bullet travel) the BC calculated seemed plausible both for sour bullets and factory.

Another observation is that the radar will not trigger using the internal microphone if you shoot with a suppressor. Have to trigger it using the Doppler signal itself. Wonder if Kickboxer might have some thoughts on using an external microphone as a trigger for suppressed rifles. A microphone triggering mechanism may be more accurate than the Doppler as one does not always know at what distance down range the signal from the bullet triggers the radar.  One good thing though the radar was not triggered by other people shooting. Oner people were either shooting pistols or 223 ARs.

So there is a bit of a learning curve, but once one learns how to use it properly the radar should be very handy.

We use the external microphone for all our triggers... found it to be much more accurate and repeatable.  You will have to do some experimentation to find the proper angle for maximum trigger effects for you in your environment.  It is easier for us, now, since we mostly use same place/configuration, but still have to perform a calibration every time.

You are experiencing both clutter and multipath to introduce the effects you describe. It never goes completely away... maybe at high altitudes or in space.  Multipath can create some very odd effects.  What you are most likely seeing that appears to be an acceleration at the wrong place in time is a signal late arrival due to multipath.  It can be very frustrating.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/25/2016 at 15:00
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18344

I read through the manual.  Setup of a radar device can be critical.  I would have to do some experimentation with the system to determine root cause of your "issue", but the below information indicates you could certainly be getting some "stray" signals injected into your data stream:

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/27/2016 at 20:50
nralifer View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: July/26/2016
Status: Online
Points: 59
Thanks Kickboxer for such a thoughtful response. Really is helpful.  I think the problem was a flag close to the bullet trajectory. The multipath phenomenon is an interesting. Does a metal gong placed beyond 100 yd potentially interfere with the signal quality?
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/28/2016 at 06:19
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18344
Anything in the field of view of the radar could create a false reading.  I don't know anything about rejection algorithms of the Lab Radar, but suspect, if they exist, they are not highly complex... cost would be prohibitive. 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/28/2016 at 06:31
Bigdaddy0381 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
Georgia peach

Joined: February/27/2007
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12822
I used a lab radar at one of my matches. It was spot on with what my other velocity meters have told me. I kinda liked it, and thought about getting one.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/28/2016 at 07:34
Steelbenz View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
ROLL TIDE ROLL

Joined: January/03/2006
Location: Heart of Dixie
Status: Offline
Points: 4912
Something else to think about is side lobes, probably not a big deal but things close to the unit head may also cause issues. Just a thought!
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/28/2016 at 07:38
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18344

Clutter/multipath can be managed... much easier than other impediments to "standard" chronographs.  Based upon what I have seen and heard of the Lab Radar, it is the hottest thing around for load development.  Upgrades should mostly be software driven, the hardware technology is well understood, so risk is low.  Its limitations, for the intended use, are all relatively easily managed. 

I intend to get one when I am finally FORCED to start loading again. 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/28/2016 at 08:54
Steelbenz View Drop Down
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Optics Master Extraordinaire
Avatar
ROLL TIDE ROLL

Joined: January/03/2006
Location: Heart of Dixie
Status: Offline
Points: 4912
I have looked at the system, but I just couldn't justify the cost. I went with the Magnetospeed sporter and for my purposes it works well.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/28/2016 at 09:38
Bigdaddy0381 View Drop Down
Optics God
Optics God
Avatar
Georgia peach

Joined: February/27/2007
Location: Georgia
Status: Offline
Points: 12822
ewwww, You know you have to redo your loads when you start shooting the cans ( well your suppose too).... guess what, the Magnetospeed wont work with cans...
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: September/28/2016 at 10:13
Kickboxer View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Moderator

Joined: February/13/2008
Status: Offline
Points: 18344

Originally posted by Bigdaddy0381 Bigdaddy0381 wrote:

ewwww, You know you have to redo your loads when you start shooting the cans ( well your suppose too).... guess what, the Magnetospeed wont work with cans...





 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2 3>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Lab Radar"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
There are no similar posts.


This page was generated in 0.500 seconds.