Excellent info Keith, especially the part about the barrel heating up. There has been many times that I have seen this happen but never known why a shot would go high after just waiting out a condition, unless you left the round in the chamber during this time. If you did not, can you expand on why that happens?
Glad u xplained ? Learned somthing. Soon il be a rocket scientist shooting the moon. Thats a tough shot. From 1770ish shooting harvest moon with flintlock muskets att a barbie / to actually hitting it in less than a hundred years. Space alliens? Devine intervention? Perhaps a pre- adaptive mutation? Anyway im still not a really good shot > not consistently 😢
Data scientist here... is there a place to get this data if you don't shoot matches? I'm not an F-Class kind of guy, but I'm really interested in crunching (nay, crushing) the numbers. Is that data that you showed for all shooters on that target, or the whole range? Thanks!
I just got my shotmarker a few weeks ago, I've shot with it twice and made a 1000 yard frame/target for it. It was pretty simple to set up with a few set backs. I saved the shot sequences, how do I pull those up later to look at?
never mind, I figured it out. They are stored on the access point, so you have to export them to a different device to look at them later, without turning on and connecting to the access point.
Experience. During matches, we regularly see shots hit in the group with velocity deviations exceeding 200 fps. Looking closely at the microphone spacing and the physics involved, it is unlikely that the system could generate any readings of the precision we desire to understand the velocity profiles of our rifles.
@@winninginthewind Wow. That is indeed some crazy spread. Aren’t the mics at the top and bottom of the towers, if stood up straight? I don’t see why that would be any less accurate than an old Chrony. Especially with four readings per shot. It is a pretty large amount of time to measure with today’s electronics. Weird. Thanks.
@@ClaytonMacleoda) Shooting Chrony's were never known for being particularly accurate or consistent, and b) if you look up Litz's chapter comparing various chronos, you'll see that the acoustic models were typically the poorest performers. Additionally, the microphone spacing on those towers is *maybe* 150mm front to back... they just don't have a lot going in their favor.
@@memilanuk It isn’t like timing the travel from A to B is a difficult prospect. Probably don’t need much more than 1/100,000ths of a second accuracy. Timing things to millionths of a second isn’t a big chore for a processor running in the hundreds of MHz range, let alone GHz. Even the modest processor that’s in that thing should be sufficient.
@@ClaytonMacleod be that as it may, acoustic chronographs are the bottom of the pack when it comes to accuracy in today's world, and the system was never intended as a chrono in the first place. More of a "close enough, so let's put it on the screen" thing. Don't like it? Build a competing product. Lots of people would probably jump on it.
