Cheating at the Chrono

[XRe]

Troy, respectfully...

I've seen some of his historical data; with the proper setup, the chronograph is accurate and reproducible.

Define accurate? I don't know of anyone that's actually calibrating a chronograph in place? They can be precise (ie, consistent and repeatable), but its a pretty long stretch to claim them to be accurate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision).

In addition, even an error rate within the device of 3% can take a shoot at 170PF and make them 164.9PF (125gr bullet example). Its hard to find error rate specs on these devices, but +/- 3% would be rather tight tolerances... Even CED notes on their website that they observe an 8% spread across the available chronos on the market (whatever that actually means...). Given the tolerances in manufacturing, and the way that modern optical chronographs operate, its amazing they're as effective as they are.

I think you're right that the consistency of operation has the biggest effect (though it assumes quality equipment, too).

[larry cazes]

I was trying to convey that doing truly random ammo collection at a major match would be difficult, at best. The best way I can think of, though, would be to have several representatives of the match staff appear on different stages at the same time, and sequester the squad (perhaps minus the on deck shooter) and require the shooters to immediately fork over ammo from their belts or from loaded magazines in their bag (if they don't have any on their belt), or whatever - the idea being to try to pul ammo from the competitor that they appear to be intended to use in the match. The shooters should not be allowed to return to their bags without supervision (the only real way to be sure they aren't grabbing the "secret stash" ammo). The guy shooting can have his collected from his belt when he gets done shooting the stage.

Its imperfect - and it has a greater "inconvenience" factor on the shooter - and if handled indelicately could cause some grief between the competitors and the match staff (you'd want to announce this procedure at the shooters meeting, I'd think, so no one was really surprised by it...). Its about the only sort of way I can come up with that avoids just surprising one shooter on the squad, and then everyone else catching a clue and quickly loading their mags with the "good stuff" - or that involves some logistical nightmare of trying to figure out who you've collected before they get to the chrono, etc...

Anyway, true random collection is almost certainly not practical when running a real match - but something more random than "everyone give me 8 bullets" is probably better...

Yup, to be truly random without allowing anyone prior notice before the rounds are pulled would be a logistical nightmare at best. I would suggest that the current system will catch all but the determined cheat. To catch a determined cheat would be very difficult and costly.

[Nik Habicht]

I have been on squads and overheard " did you bring Chrono ammo" during several matches.

I'm pretty sure that was the running joke on our squad at the 2006 Nationals in Tulsa. One member of our crew was shooting production with a .40 --- and forward falling poppers wouldn't fall for him. Those of us running 9mm, had far less trouble --- so he took quite a bit of razzing over his wimpy loads during the match....

IIRC, we even tried getting chronoman in on the act on the day that we had chrono.....

[XRe]

I would suggest that the current system will catch all but the determined cheat. To catch a determined cheat would be very difficult and costly.

The current system, as its usually implemented, only catches the careless. It doesn't even take "determined" cheating to beat it. Were I "that kind of guy", so far, I could be running minor in my race gun at every match I've shot in the past 3 or 4 years, and no one would know the difference (not even in report... the softest, flattest shooting powders for minor PF in my gun are still damn loud) - except for at the 2007 DTC, but the chrono was effectively thrown out at that match because only random competitors were chrono'ed, not every competitor. Its brutally simple to cheat with the way the chronos are usually run at our matches.

Luckily, almost all of us are stand up folk, and do not do so. Probably the vast, vast majority. (and I'm not "that kind of guy", but if my mentioning that above seems to suggest I am, and you're the MD or RM at a match I'm shooting, feel free to randomly pull me back to the chrono, and I'll prove it to you ).

[Nik Habicht]

Anyway, true random collection is almost certainly not practical when running a real match - but something more random than "everyone give me 8 bullets" is probably better...

I remember shooting one match locally a few years ago, where the CRO organized his staff, and when the time to grab chrono ammo came, each of the four ROs grabbed a competitor and told him specifically where they wanted ammo from. In about two minutes, they had random ammo from half the squad --- the other half had more time.

To do it right, and to keep chrono running efficiently, you'd probably need a full time crew of 4-6 people, running around the match with squad lists. If they coordinated their activity with ROs on the stages, random sampling could take place --- where they'd visit a squad and grab ammo from 2-3 competitors, only to return later in the day and grab ammo from 2-3 others. Even grabbing repeat ammo --- for a second run through chrono --- could be accomplished, but it would take manpower and cooperation.....

[bbbean]

Yup, to be truly random without allowing anyone prior notice before the rounds are pulled would be a logistical nightmare at best. I would suggest that the current system will catch all but the determined cheat. To catch a determined cheat would be very difficult and costly.

And you have to wonder whether the benefit of additional assurance that everyone is at PF or above would be worth the effort. If 95+% of us are making a good faith effort to show up with legal ammo, just how much effort do we really want to put into catching the occasional shooter who thinks shooting 155 PF ammo might help him slip up from 123rd to 119th in the standings?

Granted, I'm still pretty new to this, but when I hear people talk about matches they've and intend to return to, the fact that the chrono was a big deal is never in their top 10 things they liked.

Of course, if someone was intent on doing bona fide random testing, you wouldn't need to check every shooter. You'd randomly select some number of shooters and check them at randomly selected times during the day. Every shooter would stand the same chance of being chrono'd, but there'd be no way of knowing if it was at the first stage of the day or the last shooter on the last stage. Anyone trying to cheat would have to be looking over their shoulder all day, but you'd actually reduce the amount of work the event staff had to do.

[mactiger]

To go back to the original question: the rule is there to prevent barrels dripping with oil being chronographed, not clean and lightly swabbed, but loaded up. This may or may not increase your velocity, but it can cause high pressures, which was what the chrono people were concerned about. And, the rule does say that the chrono officer can ask you to fire into the berm prior to chrono-ing your ammo.

C2-32 and 48 are the relevant rules.

Troy

[BritinUSA]

I have two issues with the chronograph.

1. Margin of error. What is it for the chrono that we use ? If it's 1.5% then take the FPS for each shooter and add 1.5% to get their final FPS.

2. Geography; I shot the CO state one year and made 172PF. Went to Nationals with the EXACT same load and barely made 165. For those at altitude it becomes a lottery at every event.

[boo radley]

.... except for at the 2007 DTC, but the chrono was effectively thrown out at that match because only random competitors were chrono'ed, not every competitor. Its brutally simple to cheat with the way the chronos are usually run at our matches.

Wait.

What's wrong with that approach? Instead of everyone having to mess with the chrono, why not randomly select a percentage of names -- say 20%.

So with 200 registered shooters, over a 2-day match, you have 20 names a day to worry about. Over the course of the day, the chrono-man, and/or assistant pick a name on the list, find the shooter, ask for ammo from the belt, or -- if the shooter's just finished -- a mag on the deck. If the shooter's is on deck, they'd go to another name on the list.

Sometime between the ammo collection and the end of the match, the shooter has a responsibility to visit the chrono station.

Relieves the burden on everyone. I think someone cheating on the PF (and honestly -- is this even an issue?) isn't going to gamble on the 1/5 chance, especially given a true random collection.

And, since the chrono station is only burdened with 20 shooters, that's plenty of time to pull a bore-snake through the barrel prior to shooting, and/or check the gun for box-fit if single-stack, etc.

[boz1911]

The more organized one trys to make a "random" sampling of competitors ammo, the more likely anyone attempting to cheat will continue to beat the system.

[LChico]

.... except for at the 2007 DTC, but the chrono was effectively thrown out at that match because only random competitors were chrono'ed, not every competitor. Its brutally simple to cheat with the way the chronos are usually run at our matches.

Wait.

What's wrong with that approach? Instead of everyone having to mess with the chrono, why not randomly select a percentage of names -- say 20%.

So with 200 registered shooters, over a 2-day match, you have 20 names a day to worry about. Over the course of the day, the chrono-man, and/or assistant pick a name on the list, find the shooter, ask for ammo from the belt, or -- if the shooter's just finished -- a mag on the deck. If the shooter's is on deck, they'd go to another name on the list.

Sometime between the ammo collection and the end of the match, the shooter has a responsibility to visit the chrono station.

Relieves the burden on everyone. I think someone cheating on the PF (and honestly -- is this even an issue?) isn't going to gamble on the 1/5 chance, especially given a true random collection.

And, since the chrono station is only burdened with 20 shooters, that's plenty of time to pull a bore-snake through the barrel prior to shooting, and/or check the gun for box-fit if single-stack, etc.

In previous versions of the rulebook, random selection of a portion of the shooters was allowed. We no longer have that option.

Linda Chico (L-2035)

Columbia SC

[XRe]

What's wrong with that approach?

The word "every" in 5.6.1... Someone who goes minor can successfully contest that not everyone was measured, and therefore no trend is available to determine if the chrono is actually sane or not (ie, if everyone, or a large percentage thereof, go minor, you're not going to be keeping those chrono results...). The rules cover what to do if the chrono breaks mid-match, and what to do if a chrono simply isn't available, but doesn't cover allowing totally random and incomplete sampling...

[scirocco38s]

I dont believe that there are a large group of shooters out there cheating the chrono. As an open shooter, typically the load that I like the best is way over pf in the first place.

The ones that do cheat are cheating themselves, as I dont believe if they are spending all this time to cheat the chrono and thinking about it instead of getting their stage strategy correct for their run on the stage. I doubt that many of the cheaters are winners of classes or divisions. The cream will still rise to the top inspite of the cheaters.

I will say though that chrono operators can influence the chrono more than anything else. I have been shooting a load for the last 3 yrs that has been to many major matches and my pf from this load has been 170-172. (I use a ced with IR screens inside when measuring). At a section match earlier in the year I was chrono'd at 166.8 with this load (same type of chron)and this puzzled me so I measured again the next weekend. When I checked the load was still in the 170-172 range. I just shot the sc section and my chrono pf was 171.(different chrono mfg). I also know of shooters that have gone minor at a match, only to shoot their same load at the next match and it makes major easily. I have come to the conclusion that there may be some deviation from the electronics portion of this way of determining pf but I think the people running it are far more important. They can set the screens slightly further aprt than the specified distance and guess what, you are now running slower and seeing that speed is the major multiplier in this equation you need every advantage you can get. I have used the ohler with the 3 screens as well as the ced with the IR screens and those 2 give me verysimilar readings in speed(typically within 5fps of each other) but if you setup a ced improperly your measurements could be incorrect.

As for the other topics of random sampling and chronoing I believe you either chrono everyone or no one.

I have no problem of giving the chrono people ammo off my belt as it came from the same batch as all the other ammo I have at the match. I wont load special ammo for the chrono as that means I have to change the setup on my loader and I absolutely hate having to do that.

[BritinUSA]

I've been to matches where they had two sets of screens so there are two readouts. The FPS reading from both screens was RARELY the same.

I think there is an inherent in-accuracy with these chrono's and that in-accuracy will change each time it is setup. We need some way to measure or quantify that inaccuracy and use it to give a margin of error for the FPS readout. If we know that the MOE is 1.5% then just adjust the FPS upwards by that amount to give the shooter the benefit of that doubt.

[scirocco38s]

I've been to matches where they had two sets of screens so there are two readouts. The FPS reading from both screens was RARELY the same.

I think there is an inherent in-accuracy with these chrono's and that in-accuracy will change each time it is setup. We need some way to measure or quantify that inaccuracy and use it to give a margin of error for the FPS readout. If we know that the MOE is 1.5% then just adjust the FPS upwards by that amount to give the shooter the benefit of that doubt.

I dont have a problem with that as I have seen folks go minor when they shot 164.9 and you see them drive poppers over with 1 shot just as good as the guy who was shooting 172. I dont dissagree that their can be variances but I havent noticed it as bad seeing I live at or very close to sea level and altitude doesnt come into play with us as much.

I do believe as I stated that the people setting up and running the chron can make a huge impact on the measurement.

[BritinUSA]

18. For single chronograph configurations, or whenever one of the dual chronographs fails and cannot be replaced, the single functioning chronograph is subject to subsequent daily verification check. Specifically:

a. On each of the following days, the process specified in Item 16 will be repeated using the same firearm and ammunition supply.

b. The chronograph is deemed to be within tolerance if the daily average is within +/- 4% of the first day’s average.

So according to the rules, if they find that the chrono is running slow by 3.9% then it's still okay for use.

Assuming a PF of 172 with a 124 grain bullet gives us a velocity of about 1388 FPS, while a -3.9% rating for the chrono gives us 1334 FPS and a PF of 165.4 !!! This is cutting it a tad close.

To counter that potential effect we need to increase our FPS by enough to offset the huge 3.9% variation that is permitted.

The rules indicate a potential 3.9% variation is acceptable. Should we not automatically allow the shooter a 3.9% variation in FPS to determine the PF rating ???

[Nik Habicht]

18. For single chronograph configurations, or whenever one of the dual chronographs fails and cannot be replaced, the single functioning chronograph is subject to subsequent daily verification check. Specifically:

a. On each of the following days, the process specified in Item 16 will be repeated using the same firearm and ammunition supply.

b. The chronograph is deemed to be within tolerance if the daily average is within +/- 4% of the first day’s average.

So according to the rules, if they find that the chrono is running slow by 3.9% then it's still okay for use.

Assuming a PF of 172 with a 124 grain bullet gives us a velocity of about 1388 FPS, while a -3.9% rating for the chrono gives us 1334 FPS and a PF of 165.4 !!! This is cutting it a tad close.

To counter that potential effect we need to increase our FPS by enough to offset the huge 3.9% variation that is permitted.

The rules indicate a potential 3.9% variation is acceptable. Should we not automatically allow the shooter a 3.9% variation in FPS to determine the PF rating ???

Given that 165 PF plus 4 % is a 171.6 PF, could we not just as easily argue that loading to 172 is cutting it to close? After all USPSA provided a standard.....

For minor that would be 131.....

[shred]

I'm all for a 10% random sample chrono procedure. Obviously people might complain about being singled out, so have an EZWS option "pick 10% 20%.. random shooters". I think that would do far more to deter the actual cheaters without interfering with the well-meaning shooters that might or might not be just over or under the line depending on the chrono.

I have a 3-screen Oehler 35, calibrated by Oehler themselves many years ago. Extremely rarely do both screens correspond down to 1 fps, and that's with the exact same electronics and sensors measuring the exact same bullet going by. The dual-in-line chronos at Nationals likewise. Watch 'em and see.

Giving the 'best' reading allows for a little fudge factor, but we can't be sure the 'best' reading is actually accurate or even as-fast as the bullet was going, especially as the readings are also very rarely consistently 'off' from one another.

Using far more than the available significant figures from the chrono is also a travesty that is ignored in the name of 'convenience' and 'drawing a line somewhere' (ignoring how meaningless as that is in this context).

Btw, 'ballistic pendulums' (calibrated poppers, etc) do not work because the impact forces vary based on bullet construction. In the old days some jokers slipped some pewter bullets on top of their regular lead bullet load. The pendulum almost did a complete loop yet the ammo had the same PF as the lead bullets the pendulum was calibrated for.

The paintballers are starting to use radar guns, which have some promise (especially integrated into a stage) but I've yet to see a consumer model that picks up real bullets, and they will no doubt have somewhat similar variability and accuracy issues.

[kevin c]

//rant/drift/thinking outside the box mode on...

IMHO, the ultimate measure of at least minor PF, which basically is knock down power, should be every properly calibrated popper in the match.

By that, I mean calibration of steel per what I was told was the original concept - that steel should only fall to minor PF ammo striking inside the calibration zone. None of this forward falling steel that falls to a .22 hit at the foot of the target.

No way that I can see around using ammo that will KD the poppers, especially if they are a significant # of match points.

Now major PF might be a problem. Perhaps the rules could be modified so you could have steel calibrated to fall only to major PF, and give "ring and paint" hit credit to minor pf shooters on those steel only. Those steel couldn't be used for activators, though.

...rant/drift/thinking outside the box mode off//

[George Jones]

The concept that poppers (all poppers in a match) could be set to fall at an exact power factor would be impossible to execute on the range. Uneven ground, soft ground, and popper design/contruction are variables which would prevent setting poppers at such a precise point.

Imagine trying to set a popper so that it falls to a 125PF load hit at the bottom of the ball, yet does not fall if that same shot hits just below the ball. I don't think so.

YMMV

[DrawandDuck]

AND I hear CED runs slower than Chrony type chronos......I have seen one (hell we used one) chrono with screens no IR in the sun, shade...no screeens, no IR under a tent....some with box some without box, numerous variations in the setup.......THAT is what I am refering to....suggestion is only a suggestion...make a specific set of equipment rules that ALL matches have to follow.

It is also my understanding that if Friday shooters chrono and lets say the chrono is suspect.....5 shooters go minor that never do and question the chrono......Then on Saturday the same issue arrises for the first squad then the Range Master determines that in fact there IS issues with the chrono and tosses it......Is is correct, that according to the rules, that everyone that chronoed prior to the chrono being tossed their power STANDS???

Edited June 3, 2009 by DrawandDuck

[buddy_fuentes]

I admit it. I HATE the chrono "stages". It's more black magic than anything else to me. I have yet to see a lot of ammo chrono the same pf over different chronographs, even if those chronos were side by side. Hell, even the chronos at one of the A4 matches a few years back got 20-25 fps difference between the two of them; and those chronos' screens were right next to each other! I hear ya when you say don't run at the edge - my loads are usually in the 172-175pf - but if that's the case, what's the point of having a 165 pf at all?! We all have stories - either through personal experience or from watching friends suffer through it - of going minor at a major match when the ammo was well above power factor at home.

How's this for a solution? Design a knock down plate that can be set for minor and major power factor. I'm sure someone can be smart enough to design a system that requires "X" number of foot pounds to be knocked over. The system should have a base that can be used on rocks, grass, mud, gravel, whatever, and still be reliable. Have one plate for minor and one plate for major and there you go. Knock the plate down and you're good to go. Don't knock the plate down and you're scored as minor or "no score".

If you wanted to be devious about it and make sure that shooters weren't using their super special chrono ammo, incorporate the plate(s) into stages at random.... then, not only will you be scored minor (at least!) but you'll get the mike as well....

I like the way you think.

Buddy

[Flexmoney]

Given that 165 PF plus 4 % is a 171.6 PF, could we not just as easily argue that loading to 172 is cutting it to close? After all USPSA provided a standard.....

For minor that would be 131.....

But...but...

+1

[Sam]

Chronograph? Power factor?

What would John Wayne do?

[Nik Habicht]

Chronograph? Power factor?

What would John Wayne do?

Meet a sidekick in a cute manner, argue with a woman with whom he's had a past relationship, punch an annoying guy in the nose, throw someone in jail, kiss the woman awkwardly and shoot a bunch of men......

....then he'd report to chrono --- Not! :roflol:

.....unless we're talking about Hatari or Hellfighters, of course --- then the plot's a little different..... :D