I'm thinking hard about upgrading my cheap chronograph. I would really like the Two Box Chronograph because of the long (15') base; however, because it uses acoustical sensors I doubt if I'll be happy with it since the only place I can do load testing is at a busy public range. It is said that by carefully rejecting spurious data you can reject the other guy's shots, but I'm sure I will be frustrated with a unit which records ten or twenty unrelated shots for every one of mine. The Labradar has caught my eye and I suppose I'll get over the choking sensation associated with the rather high price. My questions are for those who use the Labradar on a regular basis. I can fine quite a few articles and reviews from several years ago, but not much current (2017) data. Are people pretty quiet about Labrader these days simply because it works without any fuss? Or is Labradar a passing fad which is going out of favor? Is it true that firmware upgrades and proper user procedures have eliminated the early problems associated with recording small caliber bullets, such as low drag .223 bullets? After some settling in time, do Labradar users believe the precision is at least as good as claimed; i.e. 0.1%? That's roughly a three feet per second variation which is a significant part of the small ES precision shooters like to think they can obtain using the best reloading procedures. The Two Box Chrono claims a repeatability error of only 1/5 as much, .02%. I hate the idea of spending six hundred bucks for a device which won't really produce accurate results. Likewise, I will not be happy spending this kind of money if it can't read my .223 VLD rounds. I'd like to get comments, pro and con, from those who have used Labradar recently and/or for a long time, especially from those who shoot .223.