New Generation of Ballistic Velocity Radar

[Phil G]

Anyone used or have one of these?

http://www.mylabradar.com/


LabRadar is the world’s newest technology in obtaining projectile velocities of Rifles, Shotguns (slugs only), Handguns, Pellet Guns, BB Guns, Bow & Arrows, Crossbows, Paintball.
Doppler Radar is the most precise method of measuring velocities available. Its accuracy is not dependant on light conditions or being exactly parallel to photo electric sensors resulting in false readings.

[bullbarrel]

Has been mentioned a few times on here, going back to 2015.

This is the latest one.

If I had the money I'd get one. And one of those remote camera jobbies.

[NeilMac]

Some of the guys at ETL were trying one of these out recently and comparing the results to a couple of other chrono's. The reports back were excellent, but then for £600 they should be.

I can see this as the perfect chrono for clubs or organisations like the BFTA who test all rifles at every competition.

[ballisticboy]

I have not used one of these but I do have to regularly use much more powerful radars working on the same principles. One thing which has come out of the work is that the radar has to be set up exactly right if errors are to be avoided. Most people will not realise this as the only reason we know is through using multiple radars at the same time. I have not used the LabRadar but I see no reason why it should not be as sensitive to set up as the larger more expensive (thousands of pounds) sets we use.
I have also seen some of the trajectory data produced by the LabRadar and I am not entirely convinced of its validity down range though close to the gun it should be better. To know better I would need to see absolute raw data as most of what you see has had some degree of processing carried out on it.

[Solvo]

My club have a couple of these which are used to check home loads on powder burners. Not tried at Airgun velocities but they seem reliable when set up properly. They're very picky about power supply and require a good high amp supply over a heavy duty "power" USB lead. Thin phone leads will not work for it. It does have an on board battery but this drains very very quickly and is rather pointless.
Outside of that it's fast to set up, easily portable though when you add in the extras you need (bench mount or very sturdy tripod, carry case, etc) it works out at nearer £800 or more if you use a tripod. It does seem to be annoying to set up, there are frequently issues getting the settings right to make it work, but once it's operational there do not seem to be any issues.

I think for Airguns id sooner stick to an Alpha or Skan as this thing is pretty much overkill.

[Vic Thompson]

From what I can see it's an order of magnitude (or better) more accurate than an optical Chronograph and possibly has self calibration facilities to traceable standards that make it acceptable as a Master chronograph when comparing others to it.

However, I suspect that it won't work properly using a Bullet Catcher at short distance from Muzzle and that it needs a certain distance of projectile travel before giving solid readings.

I'd be tempted to buy one, but would like a bit more info first before doing so.

Vic Thompson.

[ballisticboy]

My club have a couple of these which are used to check home loads on powder burners. Not tried at Airgun velocities but they seem reliable when set up properly. They're very picky about power supply and require a good high amp supply over a heavy duty "power" USB lead. Thin phone leads will not work for it. It does have an on board battery but this drains very very quickly and is rather pointless.
Outside of that it's fast to set up, easily portable though when you add in the extras you need (bench mount or very sturdy tripod, carry case, etc) it works out at nearer £800 or more if you use a tripod. It does seem to be annoying to set up, there are frequently issues getting the settings right to make it work, but once it's operational there do not seem to be any issues.

I think for Airguns id sooner stick to an Alpha or Skan as this thing is pretty much overkill.

Have you tried using both at the same time with one gun between them? This is when we can see the differences between the different radar sets. However, you may get problems with two sets side by side from cross interference of the signals when trying to compare. The radars we have use different frequencies to avoid interference.

The accuracy of the answers appears very dependent on the match between the direction the radar is pointing and the line of fire of the gun.

[Solvo]

Have you tried using both at the same time with one gun between them? This is when we can see the differences between the different radar sets. However, you may get problems with two sets side by side from cross interference of the signals when trying to compare. The radars we have use different frequencies to avoid interference.

The accuracy of the answers appears very dependent on the match between the direction the radar is pointing and the line of fire of the gun.

We don't use both together, Mainly because they're used be different divisions.
I would expect the results of deploying two would be very erratic due to the interference.

For the setup we use it's placed on the central lane and aimed directly at the target, the rifle/pistol to test is fired from about 10 inches to the left side of the radar.
given the level of accuracy required this does produce acceptable results. I'm not sure id care to mix data sets from deploying it in various locations or shooting angles though. I'm no expert in the physics of Radar but i would have to guess basic trigonometry comes into play if you start messing with the angles and distance from the shooter etc.

We're not publishing charts for load data, we're quite simply making sure home loads fall within a safe margin of the clubs operating limits (with a generous margin for error). For us it's all about staying safe and staying legal.

[Turnup]

From what I can see it's an order of magnitude (or better) more accurate than an optical Chronograph and possibly has self calibration facilities to traceable standards that make it acceptable as a Master chronograph when comparing others to it.

However, I suspect that it won't work properly using a Bullet Catcher at short distance from Muzzle and that it needs a certain distance of projectile travel before giving solid readings.

I'd be tempted to buy one, but would like a bit more info first before doing so.

Vic Thompson.

Infinition claim accuracy of 0.1% which is plenty good enough for recreational use but questionable for forensics. It is probably better than most hobby use chromos and could certainly be used to check other chronos, but they will probably drift so not exactly a calibration.

A traceable frequency standard would cost serious money, require a temperature controlled environment, and be about the size of a large PC.

[ballisticboy]

I'm no expert in the physics of Radar but i would have to guess basic trigonometry comes into play if you start messing with the angles and distance from the shooter etc.

It's just that we have found that minute fractional changes, in angle in particular, can make large differences to the data from the test grade equipment in terms of the agreement between the two radars. To be fair though we are probably aiming for greater accuracy than most will require.
The other source of problems with this type of radar is the curve fit algorithm used to take the measured data back to zero range. The answer given can change quite markedly depending on the algorithm chosen. I do not know what algorithm LabRadar use in their sets.

[Turnup]

It's just that we have found that minute fractional changes, in angle in particular, can make large differences to the data from the test grade equipment in terms of the agreement between the two radars. To be fair though we are probably aiming for greater accuracy than most will require.
The other source of problems with this type of radar is the curve fit algorithm used to take the measured data back to zero range. The answer given can change quite markedly depending on the algorithm chosen. I do not know what algorithm LabRadar use in their sets.

Out of interest, what accuracy do you expect to achieve?

[ballisticboy]

Out of interest, what accuracy do you expect to achieve?

When using two of the radars we insist on them being within less than half a metre per second of each other at speeds between 800-900 metres per second. Of course the question then is are they both accurate or both wrong?

[Turnup]

When using two of the radars we insist on them being within less than half a metre per second of each other at speeds between 800-900 metres per second. Of course the question then is are they both accurate or both wrong?

So better than 0.1 % at those vels - but not quite twice as good. Is this for two of the same model or comparing different models?

[Airsporter1st]

Once again its the good old law of diminishing returns. Does the average sub 12 ft/lb airgunner need that degree of accuracy at a cost of 3 to 15 times that of the hobbyist chronos most of us currently use?

[Turnup]

Once again its the good old law of diminishing returns. Does the average sub 12 ft/lb airgunner need that degree of accuracy at a cost of 3 to 15 times that of the hobbyist chronos most of us currently use?

Agree. Metrics can be informative but are not everything. Consistency is more important than absolute velocity/energy measurement, and I would expect even a cheap chrono to be reasonably consistent (if used carefully) - certainly consistent enough to give guidance when tuning or ascertaining legality or just confirming that the gun is still performing as expected. Don't get hung up on accuracy.