dmoran said:
http://www.steinertsensingsystems.com/data-driven-analysis-of-chronograph-test-conducted-by-bryan-litz/
See above link to Steinert's updated data to the SuperChrono data from the Review
So there's no confusion, the above linked article from Steinert is a falsification of the facts.
Basically, the Steinert SuperChrono tested among the worse units for both accuracy and precision. This is to be expected based on the short acoustic sensor separation.
The blog article linked above theorizes that the reported error in the SuperChrono was due to a misalignment, which the author theoretically calculates, having not been present for the test. In other words, how much misalignment
would it take to cause the observed error in readings. The author assumes that this amount of misalignment must have been present, and concludes that the SuperChrono is actually perfectly accurate, and was just misaligned in my tests.
Not to be immodest, but I've won numerous 1000 yard matches using iron sights. If I'm not capable of aligning the sights on the SuperChrono well enough for it to work accurately, there's a problem.
Misalignment would result in an accuracy problem, but not a precision problem. The SuperChrono had both poor accuracy and precision. The author of the Steinert article addressed the poor precision by substituting their own calculation in place of the actual calculation based on the raw data collected in the test, and concluding that the SuperChrono was the third most precise chrono tested. :
The SuperChrono, like every other chrono that was evaluated in my test, was set up, aligned, and operated per manufacturers instructions. The test was conducted and results reported in an unbiased fashion for all chronographs. The poor accuracy and precision performance of the SuperChrono is real, and is consistent with it's use of acoustic sensors over a short (8") distance. The blog article from Steinert linked above is a twisting of the basic facts to make the SuperChrono look better than it is.
-Bryan
