• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Preliminary LabRadar Testing

jlow said:
I don’t think that is a reasonable perspective.




Most of us will be perfectly happy if it does what it claims for the major calibers.

That's an unfair quote. There are probably more 22 cal users than there are 6 mm or 30 cal and the growing number of 17 and 20 cal shooters are just left out of this?
There will be no perfect solution for any of the companies out there regardless. But if the lab radar can't read anything under a light 22 caliber bullet it's not a well thought out unit.
 
There is nothing fair or unfair about it. It’s not any bias against the 22 cal users, just saying in the present guise and perhaps as it relates specifically to the frequency of the unit; it might not be able to pick up the smaller calibers in certain configurations.

Everything we use has a limit; nothing can read the full spectrum. What it looks to me is the unit is not necessarily not sensitive enough to pick up the 22 caliber bullets but it is the design of the bullet which reduces the radar cross-sectional signature which is the problem. This relates directly back to what I said earlier, which is by using a different method to detect the bullet, it will run into different challenges. I think it would be ideal if the unit could read every single caliber know to man and in any possible bullet configuration, but the reality is it may not. What I am simply saying is a lot of us would not discard it as a bad design if in the present guise, it cannot do everything. It would still be a fantastic tool.

It’s a bit like how I felt in the early 70s when I got hold of the first electronic calculator. Was I disappointed that it was not running at 3.4 Ghz? Not really… Only the guys behind me using the slide rules were pissed… ;D
 
The real test is how it reacts to different rifles on the firing line shooting at nearby targets at the same time. That's a test I'd love me to see happen and not with a few 223 but a mix of maybe 260 308 300 am and maybe throw in a 50 BMG and see how it reacts to various calibers interfering with the shooters setup.
 
Agreed! My guess is this is yet another potential weakness by virtue of how it is triggered. With the Ohler, you have to shoot through it to get a trigger but by using sound or pressure trigger can potentially cause the unit to pick up strays. Hopefully it will still pick up your shots and then it is just a matter of deleting the other stuff. Will have to see...
 
It would be nice if Labradar would be more forthcoming with the limitations of its product, no matter what the reason. If Bryan can identify a problem with 22 cal. FMJ bullets in one afternoon of testing, then surely the factory testing program would have discovered the issue during the past several years.

I was interested in the Labradar due to its apparent ease of use. If it is not suitable for the calibers I shoot, then it is useless to me and I will stick with my Oehler. Although it is tedious to setup, I know I will obtain useful data.

Perhaps Labradar will produce another unit for those of us who don't shoot the "major" calibers. I wonder how many years we will have to wait.
 
Bob L. said:
It would be nice if Labradar would be more forthcoming with the limitations of its product, no matter what the reason. If Bryan can identify a problem with 22 cal. FMJ bullets in one afternoon of testing, then surely the factory testing program would have discovered the issue during the past several years.

I'm not sure not working with FMJ bullets is a big limitation or that I'd be overly confident that LabRadar tested with FMJ bullets and witheld the limitation from the public. They have been clear that the unit can track larger caliber bullets farther than smaller calibers.

No company can test a product for compatibility with every other product on the market, and incompatibilities are sure to become apparent shortly after products are released to the public. RADAR works great when reflecting from a right angle off of flat surfaces. RADAR does not work nearly as well reflecting from curved surfaces, especially when operated at low enough power not to require each operator to obtain an FCC license. I don't think that 22 cal FMJs and other bullets without flat rear profiles are a big market share.

As long as the unit works well with most 22 cal bullets that are used in hunting and long range precision work, I'm not bent out of shape with FMJ incompatibilities. On the rare occasion where I may need to measure velocities of FMJ bullets, I can break out an old, less accurate optical chronograph that needs to be set up in front of the firing line. But I am looking forward to a more accurate LabRadar that can do its thing from behind the firing line and can be set up without disturbing other shooters or requiring more alignment effort.

The enhanced convenience may well lead to measuring every shot taken in practice and perhaps competition also. The ability to measure both near and downrange velocity for every shot should make diagnosing dropped points much easier. We tend to assume that mean and ES velocities are very close to what we've measured, even when we're not measuring them, but then we wonder if there is a problem when a point is dropped. Now we can know.
 
Power may be the issue. Doppler RADAR is capable of detecting and tracking water droplets, not particularly known for flat surfaces. However, these applications do require significant power.

I'll wait on the next iteration of the product. There are too many questions in my mind to warrant the risk of purchasing one now. Although, to a certain extent, I can understand the lack of testing with FMJ bullets, I am concerned with the utility of the unit with smaller calibers.

Perhaps, I am too picky, but I guess I would rather stick with the optical units for which I know the limitations until I know more about the Labradar. I think I bought into the hype a little too soon.
 
Bob L. said:
Perhaps, I am too picky, but I guess I would rather stick with the optical units for which I know the limitations until I know more about the Labradar. I think I bought into the hype a little too soon.

To me the most interesting features (which have been verified) are the 0.1% accuracy, the ability to measure velocities downrange, and not having to fiddle around in front of the firing line. The inability to measure bullets with curved bases is not a big detraction. I guess this means it won't work with round balls, bbs, or skirted air rifle pellets either.

These limitations are meaningless compared with the fulfilled promise of 0.1% accuracy in velocity which will help tremendously diagnosing contributions to vertical spread at long range. Does anyone actually use bullets with curved bases in competition or hunting with a centerfire rifle? I know that those flintlock guys hunt with round balls, but is this limitation really a concern for shooters at "accurateshooter.com" rather than "ancientshooter.com"?
 
I agree with the strong points of the Labradar. Those are the reasons I am interested it. I do want to be able to use it for 20 cal., however, The utility of it with curve based bullets is not really an issue, just a little surprising.

I remain hopeful, but skeptical. I was going to cancel my preorder, but will probably just take my chances on it performing, if not as advertised, at least acceptably.
 
Bob L.
I was thinking that you were being a little picky on the remarks about the FMJBT's..
I for one do use FMJBT in compation..
I fact. The round that I use is a "Berger, 190 Gr. in both the Hunter and target. Shooting a 300 Win Mag out of a Remington 700..

I will be interested in what happens in the future with the new releases to the public... I would buy one at the drop of a hat as soon as the kinks are worked out.
 
I understand that Bryan Litz and Applied Ballistics is not primarily interested in Bench rest or 6mm bullets nor do they have any obligation to due any testing for those of us that are. However, this site started out as 6mmbr.com and has a large and loyal following of the 6br and variants plus many 6ppc shooters. Therefore since Bryan Litz and Applied Ballistics gets their own main forum topic listing I would respectfully suggest that they should include all the most popular calibers with forum members in their testing.

From the Lab Radar FAQ page:
"What range performance can one expect with LabRadar?
In general LabRadar will typically measure the velocity of a 7.62 mm projectile from muzzle up to 100 yards. After extensive testing of a variety of calibers you can expect to obtain velocities at these distances when in the Standard Power Mode. Low Power setting will have about 30% less tracking*. .177 Pellet - 30 yards; .177 BB - 30 yards; 22 LR - 60 yards; 223 - 60 yards; 270 - 70 yards; 308 - 80 to 100 yards; 9mm - 130 yards; 40 S&W - 130 yards; 45 ACP - 130 yards; 500 S&W - 130 yards; 12 gauge Slug - 90 yards; Paint Ball - 50 yards; Arrows - 50 yards; * Since every bullet has a different profile your results may vary. In general, the larger the base (excluding the boat tail) the great the distance the projectile can be acquired."

From the above quote and the test results to date in this thread, I'm sorry to say that I have lost all interest in this product for the 22 variants and 6brs that I shoot. Also, from my years as a radar engineer and LabRadar's long and problematic product roll out, I doubt very seriously that a truly useful version will be available while this 70 yearold is still shooting.
 
The title of this thread begins with the word 'preliminary'.

pre·lim·i·nar·y

prəˈliməˌnerē/
adjective
1.denoting an action or event preceding or done in preparation for something fuller or more important.

There will be a full analysis and shake down on this unit by myself and others in time. You're literally getting information from the very first days of testing done outside of the labradar company. So far this testing has not included 6mm. Nor has it included .50 cal, .408, .375, .338, 8mm, 7mm, 270, 20, 17, pellets, BB's, arrows, geese or chickens. What it has included is .30 cal, .260, and .224 caliber, all of which the LabRadar works well for. The one exception so far is the cupped base, 3500+ fps .224 cal FMJ bullet, but that observation is 'preliminary'.

Preliminary results are not intended to be decisive, only suggestive.

Not only are the results preliminary, but it's very likely that the manufacturer can fix any issues prior to mass production.

Please try not to over-react and spread negative comments about a device for which there is only preliminary information available.

Thank you,
-Bryan
 
Well, I'll keep an open mind and wait to see further testing results. I just dont want to go up to my range with this cool looking expensive toy, have a crowd gather around, which they will do, and not have the thing work and look like a tool who spent alot of money on a cool looking useless toy. Nothing would be nicer than to just park the thing on the end of the bench, aim down range, fire , and voila, get an accurate read out. Believe it or not, my red chrony is very reliable. Just takes a little time to set up. Guess I'll stay tuned.....

Many thanks to the OP for taking the time to test and post this info.
 
Bryan Litz said:
The title of this thread begins with the word 'preliminary'.

pre·lim·i·nar·y

prəˈliməˌnerē/
adjective
1.denoting an action or event preceding or done in preparation for something fuller or more important.

There will be a full analysis and shake down on this unit by myself and others in time. You're literally getting information from the very first days of testing done outside of the labradar company. So far this testing has not included 6mm. Nor has it included .50 cal, .408, .375, .338, 8mm, 7mm, 270, 20, 17, pellets, BB's, arrows, geese or chickens. What it has included is .30 cal, .260, and .224 caliber, all of which the LabRadar works well for. The one exception so far is the cupped base, 3500+ fps .224 cal FMJ bullet, but that observation is 'preliminary'.

Preliminary results are not intended to be decisive, only suggestive.

Not only are the results preliminary, but it's very likely that the manufacturer can fix any issues prior to mass production.

Please try not to over-react and spread negative comments about a device for which there is only preliminary information available.

Thank you,
-Bryan

+1 googolplexian or whatever number suits your idea of ridiculously large. This should be a permanent statement/quote somewhere.
 
Need a like button for Brian's comment. I'm still very interested in it, the technology is there. It's just finding the fine line between the FCC, affordability, ease of use, portability.... We have a Doppler radar system at work for laboratory work. It was like a half million, not user friendly, not portable, it will pick up little particles hauling butt though. I bet it's just some more development that will result in a firmware update to fix little things like that.
 
I am looking forward to receiving mine so I can do my own testing. Production units will ship in May, although a shooter on another site said he has already gotten his. I should be getting mine soon since I preordered it in early February.

I hope I don't have to send it back for firmware changes.
 
Many thanks to Bryan Litz and especially to geneo1 for telling us about your experiences with LabRadar.

The advantage of radar is having NO equipment downrange that needs to be operated and avoided to be shot up. Also only (!) measurements over a relatively long distance show whether (for example) G7 really fits the bullet drag well.

As such I had hoped for measurements over longer distances than 100 yd. I would like to envourage the manufacturer thinking about further development in this direction. While battery operation is nice, I am afraid it lacks power. Personally, I would prefer even using a portable generator, as long as the radar has a decent range, and can pick up less-optimal heels of small calibre bullets.
 
My guess is range has little to do with how much power you can supply but regulatory limits.

I would also think that a chrono that requires a generator will have a significantly diminished buyer population – remember, a lot of us like the LabRadar because it is easier to setup, but having to bring your generator to the range would take that in the opposite direction in a huge way...… ::)
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,784
Messages
2,203,130
Members
79,110
Latest member
miles813
Back
Top