A Computer-based Smart Rifle With Incredible Accuracy, Now On Sale 551
WheezyJoe writes "A story on NPR reports that the TrackingPoint rifle went on sale today, and can enable a 'novice' to hit a target 500 yards away on the first try. The rifle's scope features a sophisticated color graphics display (video). The shooter locks a laser on the target by pushing a small button by the trigger... But here's where it's different: You pull the trigger but the gun decides when to shoot. It fires only when the weapon has been pointed in exactly the right place, taking into account dozens of variables, including wind, shake and distance to the target. The rifle has a built-in laser range finder, a ballistics computer and a Wi-Fi transmitter to stream live video and audio to a nearby iPad. Every shot is recorded so it can be replayed, or posted to YouTube or Facebook."
pfftt... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No skill.
No Sport.
Might as well go to the game farm and shoot the deer in the small holding pen with a shotgun.
Just like fishing with dynamite.
Sounds like something invented by the same folks who did the Zune.
Re:pfftt... (Score:4, Interesting)
I understand that some people fish for the heck of it, but when I'm bothered enough to do it, it's because I want some fresh fish to eat. I'd use dynamite a heartbeat if it were legal and I had a big group to feed.
Re:pfftt... (Score:5, Informative)
I understand that some people fish for the heck of it, but when I'm bothered enough to do it, it's because I want some fresh fish to eat. I'd use dynamite a heartbeat if it were legal and I had a big group to feed.
Dynamite is indiscriminate, it kills a whole lot of other animals that you don't eat, explosives can harm species like whales that are important apex predators and who rely upon hearing for hunting, if the explosive sinks low enough it can ruin the features on the lake/ocean bottom that are important fish habitat which has already happened through the over-use of ocean bottom trolling nets in many places and it has ruined fisheries to the point where people have begun to sink artificial reefs to try and restore stocks, basically the list over why this is a bad idea goes on ... and on ... and on. Fishing with dynamite is about as intelligent as slaughtering your cows with an RPG.
Re:pfftt... (Score:4, Informative)
God damn hippie.
Re:pfftt... (Score:4, Funny)
God damn hippie.
And proud of it...
Re: (Score:3)
"Really ?? Haven't seen any whales at the local fishin' hole."
I don't know you, but my guess is that's because you don't live near the ocean. Where I previously lived, in Juneau, Alaska, there were whales in the local fishing hole. Now I live in Madison, Wisconsin, and there are no whales in the local fishing hole.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like something invented by the same folks who did the Zune.
If one looks at the price tag, one would be tempted to compare the folks with the other (usually white, with its rounded corners protected by a patent) brand.
I'd bet the market-segments for both of the products would show a higher overlap too.
Re:pfftt... (Score:5, Informative)
This article doesn't say it but they throw in an iPad with their app when you buy one of their guns. A $500 iPad is an affordable freebie when you are selling a $17,000 weapon.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:pfftt... (Score:4, Funny)
Citation needed. As far as I know there is no place on earth where you can go a few miles without seeing a McDonalds and forgetting about prey animals.
Re:pfftt... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:pfftt... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the long distance running adaptation, my hypothesis is we might have evolved that not mainly because of persistent hunting but because of war. There's not really much selection pressure for persistent hunting if you are a social animal (like humans and apes) you can hunt very successfully in groups - lions, hyenas, wolves, dogs, apes etc do it.
In contrast war could have produced rather significant selection pressures. In human-human wars, the predator and prey are the same species- whatever big advantage you have is likely to be in the next generation of survivors. Being able to run away from dozens of persistent enemies till you find a hiding place or till the sun sets keeps your genes alive. In contrast being able to sprint at 80kph for a minute when the enemy can also sprint at 80kph for a minute doesn't help much with your survival when there are many enemies. Being able to run long distances to attack an enemy or carry messages is also helpful.
Re:pfftt... (Score:4, Informative)
There isn't much to back up your thesis, especially since persistence hunting is still practiced in Africa.
Re:pfftt... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:pfftt... (Score:5, Interesting)
Might as well go to the game farm and shoot the deer in the small holding pen with a shotgun.
There are plenty of places that raise and release tame gamebirds with little fear of humans, and charge people to go out and shoot them. Dick Cheney was on of these "hunts" when he shot a lawyer in the face [wikipedia.org].
Re:pfftt... (Score:5, Informative)
Such hunting isn't much easier. When you hunt birds it should take one 1 shot, maybe 2, to take it out of the sky. A "tame" bird has to fly away, just like a wild bird, in order to be shot. It's not like it walks up to you. They're not really tame, just farmed, just as a chicken on a chicken farm isn't tame.
What those ranches provide is time. When you hunt wild birds there's lots of waiting. Either you're walking and waiting for some random bird to be flushed, or you're waiting for them to leave or return (happens only twice a day for ducks).
If the farmed birds flock and you're pumping out shots like a crazy man then, sure, you're just an idiot.
You can argue authenticity all you want, but at the end of the day shooting a small bird flying away with a single shot is actually pretty hard, whether "tame" or not. And unless you're subsistence hunting and doing it on a regular basis, you have to learn somehow. Clay pigeons don't exactly zig-zag.
Re:pfftt... (Score:5, Interesting)
Such hunting isn't much easier. When you hunt birds it should take one 1 shot, maybe 2, to take it out of the sky. .
Yup, true dat. I bought a single shot German break-action rifle and every once in a while when I take it to the range somebody comes over for a look (sometimes they even mistake my KB for a shotgun) and then criticises me for not buying a bolt action repeater. I usually reply by asking them how many shots they feel are optimally optimally needed to take down one deer. I only do target shooting but even I know that the answer is one shot, two at the most if something goes very wrong and for a rapid second shot I'm better off with a double rifle than a 5 shot bolt action repeater since semi automatic rifles are forbidden here except for shooting at paper targets and getting caught hunting with a semi auto rifle can get your firearms license revoked for a loooooong time.
Re:pfftt... (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm.... organizing hunts where lawyers can be shot in the face... sounds like a business model!
Re:pfftt... (Score:4, Interesting)
While you can fault his activity as that of an utter coward, you cannot fault his aim.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod you up, but you're already at five. You deserve a 6 out of 5, my good man.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
2nd Amendment Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Where do you draw the line between what is and isn't a firearm?
Does the 2nd Amendment allow (in your mind at least) a citizen to have a rocket launcher or a laser gun?
What are you going to do when the technology of simple side arms develops to the point where you an take out a room full of people by pressing a trigger and letting you gun do all the aiming etc..?
Would genuinely like to hear from a pro gun NRA type.
Re: (Score:3)
Would genuinely like to hear from a pro gun NRA type.
Not sure I qualify but I think you would think I do so here goes:
Where do you draw the line between what is and isn't a firearm? Does the 2nd Amendment allow (in your mind at least) a citizen to have a rocket launcher or a laser gun?
Cannon were not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment. Rockets were not mentioned and they were around (if relatively ineffective) when it was drafted as well. That would mean a rocket launcher would not be considered a firearm. As for a laser, the only ones that actually work as weapons are of cannon size so I would put it in that category. We have also decided that fully automatic weapons fit into the 'bigger than a firearm' category and their owne
Re:2nd Amendment Question (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Everything is a chemical.
A non-chemical weapon would be a weapon that does not consist of baryonic matter.
Re:2nd Amendment Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First a couple clarifications: The Second Amendment doesn't allow or create a right to keep and bear arms for us. The Second Amendment simply protects the right from being infringed upon by our government (read it and see). The right to keep and bear arms is actually derived from our Natural Rights. This is often difficult for non-Americans to understand since rights are given or allowed by the government of most other countries. In the USA, while our Constitution is the foundation for all our laws and
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
A gun is a weapon first and foremost (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want aim assist, play a console FPS. Otherwise, what's the point? I enjoy shooting, but to me this is not shooting.
The point is to actually hit what you are shooting at. While I enjoy the challenge of target shooting as well, the actual primary purpose of a firearm is to kill/injure. There is a reason guns have targeting/tracking systems when used in anger. Perhaps you have forgotten that a gun is a weapon?
With technology like this, you aren't hitting the target, the computer is.
Sometimes the point it just to hit the target and it doesn't matter who gets credit for the aiming.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want aim assist, play a console FPS. Otherwise, what's the point? I enjoy shooting, but to me this is not shooting.
The point is to actually hit what you are shooting at. While I enjoy the challenge of target shooting as well, the actual primary purpose of a firearm is to kill/injure. There is a reason guns have targeting/tracking systems when used in anger. Perhaps you have forgotten that a gun is a weapon?
With technology like this, you aren't hitting the target, the computer is.
Sometimes the point it just to hit the target and it doesn't matter who gets credit for the aiming.
This weapon will never be used in anger by any entity authorized to use lethal force in anger: snipers would never use this, it is too expensive and is unnecessary for the average foot soldier, and too large and cumbersome to be used on anything other than a rifle that is stationary and supported, ie on a target range. This technology is clearly designed for target and hunting use only, which would completely negate the point of both activities.
actually, lots of snipers are interested (Score:2, Interesting)
According to the previous article professional snipers (swat, hostage rescue, etc.) are interested, mainly because of the video record of exactly what the aim point was.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This weapon will never be used in anger by any entity authorized to use lethal force in anger: snipers would never use this, it is too expensive and is unnecessary for the average foot soldier, and too large and cumbersome to be used on anything other than a rifle that is stationary and supported, ie on a target range. This technology is clearly designed for target and hunting use only, which would completely negate the point of both activities.
i'm pretty sure the problem is the people NOT authorized to use legal force, like my gf's husband...
Not just for putting holes in paper (Score:5, Insightful)
This weapon will never be used in anger by any entity authorized to use lethal force in anger:
You cannot possibly be that naive. That specific weapon may not be used in combat but the basic technology will without a doubt make its way to people who will use it to kill living beings, either human or animal. I'm not even making a moral judgement about that, it's just a clearly obvious fact.
snipers would never use this,
They might not use that particular system but I promise you snipers can and will use a targeting/tracking system should one be available that fits their mission parameters. I would be deeply shocked if such technology was not being very actively worked on by the military.
it is too expensive and is unnecessary for the average foot soldier, and too large and cumbersome to be used on anything other than a rifle that is stationary and supported, ie on a target range.
Technology can be miniaturized and will be. Furthermore if the technology is large and needs support, it isn't exactly hard to attach it to a vehicle. The military does it all the time.
This technology is clearly designed for target and hunting use only, which would completely negate the point of both activities.
The technology is designed to cause a bullet to hit a target more reliably. The nature of the target is irrelevant. Plus you are contradicting yourself. If it can be used for hunting then it is portable. It if is designed for hunting there is little difference between hunting animals and hunting humans beyond the fact that humans can (and will) shoot back.
Re: Not just for putting holes in paper (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It will be used by your kid (Score:4, Insightful)
In a situation where there are other armed people, you want something that can just keep shooting, you'd just "spray and pray" something that this gun can't do. In something where you've got no chance of return fire (like in designated "gun free zones" like in Sandy Hook) it doesn't much matter because you can just walk up to someone and shoot them point blank if you want because they have no way to (effectively) defend themselves.
When it comes to kids, its important that kids learn at an early age to shoot responsibly. The problem is, too many kids get their first experience about firearms from Hollywood, from GTA and from rap music, rather than responsibly target shooting/hunting. The key is to teach them responsibility and facts, not that shooting a gun is a toy, nor that guns should be feared.
Re:It will be used by your kid (Score:5, Insightful)
"This weapon will never be used in anger"
I bet every hot head, whose gone on a gun rampage has said that, and every dad whose kid gets hold of it.
Gun rampages are typically entered into with cool calculation and a bit of psychopathy/sociopathy; they are done by mentally ill persons or political zealots. The one exception I can think of is the Texas Tower Sniper, and it turned out he had a brain tumor.
Re:It will be used by your kid (Score:4, Informative)
Long guns are almost never used to kill people (domestically, anyway). Your odds of being beaten to death with fists are five times greater. For the rampage killer pistols make more sense for a whole host of reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. Concealment is a pretty big plus for these kinds of people - if you lug a rifle around populated areas people start calling the cops. Beyond that, pistols are lighter, pistol ammunition is lighter and deadly enough at close range, pistols are faster to reload, it's easier to shift targets with a pistol, and it's harder to grapple someone with a pistol. Beyond that these guys are mostly penniless losers, and pistols are cheaper.
Re:It will be used by your kid (Score:5, Informative)
I disagree. Concealment is a pretty big plus for these kinds of people - if you lug a rifle around populated areas people start calling the cops.
In most of those cases, the crazies go by car until the very spot where they start shooting, so they can easily transport pretty much any gun they want.
Beyond that, pistols are lighter
Doesn't really matter - it's only a factor when you have to lug it around for a considerable amount of time to notice the difference. When actually shooting, a heavier rifle is still easier to handle because most of its weight is supported by your shoulder.
pistol ammunition is lighter
It's not, actually. The case is shorter and has less powder, but the bullets themselves are heavier. For example, a Federal HST 147 gr 9x19mm round (which is about the best as you can get in this caliber in terms of stopping power and overall efficiency on unarmored targets) weights the same as a Hornady TAP 62 gr .223 round, while the latter is considerably more efficient and deadly.
Not that it's really relevant - a person can easily carry 6 30-round mags of 5.56mm concealed (under a jacket or vest, say), which is more than was ever actually used in such circumstances.
And, of course, there are many rifles chambered in pistol cartridges - Hi-Point carbines, Kel-Tec Sub-2000, Beretta CX4, Marlin Camp 9 and 45, Ruger PC9 and PC4, and semi-auto replicas of various submachine guns - Thompson, PPSh, PPS, Uzi etc. Not to mention pistol-caliber AR uppers.
pistols are faster to reload
Only insofar as "hand meets hand" arrangement of the mag well, which is not exclusive to pistols, either. From the list above alone, four carbines are designed in the same way.
it's easier to shift targets with a pistol
Not so. Shifting targets with a pistol requires a wide movement of both arms, which at the same time bear the full weight of the firearm. With a rifle, you only have to swing one arm - the one supporting the front - and even then a good half of the gun's weight is not moved much and is supported by the shoulder. This is especially true of straight blowback pistol-caliber carbines, which tend to be less front-heavy due to bolt's position and weight (Sub-2000 in particular has a very heavy bolt that is completely behind the pistol grip - it rides in the stock tube).
and it's harder to grapple someone with a pistol.
I doubt it comes to that often (but if you seriously think it is a consideration, a knife bayonet on the rifle would largely rectify this problem).
Beyond that these guys are mostly penniless losers, and pistols are cheaper.
Not really. A Hi-Point carbine can be easily had for $300, and even less if you look around - that's 50% less than a Glock 17. Going into "real rifle" territory, a WASR AK-47 can be had for around $400 (still less than a Glock); a Chinese SKS that takes AK mags, for $500. A used Mini-14 in 5.56mm can be found for under $600; a Kel-Tec SU-16 in the same caliber, for as little as $400.
For a handgun, the cheapest I can think of that isn't woefully inadequate (i.e. fires a reasonably potent round and can be quickly reloaded) would be Tokarev or a clone - e.g. Zastava M57, which would go no lower than $200; or one of Hi-Point pistols for about $150. But both of those are kinda crappy and not particularly reliable, and that's not that big of a difference in price compared to a much more reliable and powerful AK.
Besides all that, don't you think that your points don't quite match the observed facts? I mean, in most rampages so far, we have seen the perpetrators use long guns. One can argue whether that is the most suitable weapon for it or not, but that's what actually get used.
Re:It will be used by your kid (Score:4, Informative)
Besides all that, don't you think that your points don't quite match the observed facts? I mean, in most rampages so far, we have seen the perpetrators use long guns.
No, in fact I don't think that's true at all. The guy who shot Rep Giffords used pistols, as did the VA Tech shooter.
Re:It will be used by your kid (Score:4, Informative)
What are we talking about, movie theaters and classrooms, targets 15' away and moving?
Yes, exactly.
A rifle with more moving parts will be more likely to misfire or jam
A rifle doesn't have to have more moving parts. In fact, a 9mm pistol would have a more complicated internal mechanism than a 9mm carbine (because the carbine can use straight blowback thanks to the ability to stick a heavier bolt into it, while the pistol would have to be locked breech or some form of delayed blowback).
easier for someone to grab onto
I very much doubt that is a practical consideration.
more difficult to control.
A rifle is far easier to control than a handgun. Inexperienced handgun shooters, until they're taught the Weaver stance and learn to do it right from practicing it, have pretty crappy accuracy (yes, even at 15 feet). Seen it plenty of times firsthand. Not so with a rifle, it's a much more "intuitive" interface, so long as you shoulder it (even if it's not done quite right).
Why on Earth would you use a clunky rifle
Because it's faster to aim (so it's not really "clunky")?
Note that we're talking AR, AK and similar carbines here, as short as a civilian-legal firearm can get (without ATF stamps and other hurdles). Not a full-sized medium- or high-power rifle, like a .308 or .30-06. The point here is having a stock, not having a longer barrel. Weight-wise, you can trim an AR down to around 5.5 lbs (with a plastic lower and carbon fiber forend and stock). Or you can take Kel-Tec SU-16, which is 4.7 lbs, and takes the same standard AR mags.
And if you look at pistol-caliber carbines, they can be surprisingly light. Sub-2000 is under 4 lbs unloaded, and most of that weight is in the heavy bolt that is in the stock tube - so the shoulder bears most of it. Aiming it is lightning quick, much more so than with a full-size pistol.
If you figure you'd reload either weapon at least once, you're looking at what, 60 rounds for the rifle, 40 for the handgun?
Reliable 40-round mags for ARs do exist, so it would be 80 rounds for a rifle. For pistols, you can get 30-rounders, though they're somewhat unwieldy.
How many reloads do you think are realistic in this situation?
Adam Lanza reloaded six times (tactical reloads - fresh magazine before each room; he didn't actually spend all 30 rounds in every mag).
Re: (Score:2)
There is a reason guns have targeting/tracking systems when used in anger
Sure. But I know very few people who are "angry" at the deer that they are planning on having for dinner. (I'm excluding military applications for this)
Sometimes the point it just to hit the target and it doesn't matter who gets credit for the aiming.
Um, if the point isn't to demonstrate/exercise your skills in the field, why not go buy your game meat from the store?
Re:A gun is a weapon first and foremost (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A gun is a weapon first and foremost (Score:5, Insightful)
(I'm excluding military applications for this)
I'm not. The primary application for any targeting system is military. The fact that it can be used for game or target practice is secondary.
Um, if the point isn't to demonstrate/exercise your skills in the field, why not go buy your game meat from the store?
Apparently it wasn't sufficiently obvious that I was talking about military applications. When you are trying to kill something dangerous it doesn't really matter if you or a computer does the actual aiming. However even if we are talking about hunting, the important decision was to pull the trigger. That is when the person controlling the weapon decided to kill something. Focusing on how the aiming is being done kind of misses the most important thing.
I don't really understand the point of "demonstrating your skills" by killing some harmless creature. That is just killing for fun which is frankly rather barbaric and certainly not very respectful of the life that was just ended. I don't object to hunting if you really need the food (not applicable for most of us) or if there are humane environmental considerations. But most hunters I know do it because they find it to be fun. They enjoy the act of killing something and sometimes they also enjoy the challenge of accomplishing that feat. But if they really wanted a challenge, why not do it with a knife or at worst a bow, up close and personal. Using a rifle that can kill at several hundred yards to hunt a woodland creature is not exactly a huge challenge. If you want to test your sharpshooting abilities, you don't need to kill something to do that. Hunting isn't evil but it frequently is pointless and cruel.
Re: (Score:3)
Since when did they sell game meat in stores?
Aside from the obvious problem that "game meat" doesn't come from stores by definition, even when you can find it (e.g. duck meat, which is relatively easy because it's common in Chinese and French cooking) it isn't from the same (sub-)species as the wild version and tastes different because it's been raised on commercial feed instead of foraging.
What country do you live in? (Score:3)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Next you'll be petitioning against adding rifling to barrels.
Now I know its not the same but the point of shooting is to hit the target accurately.
You want accuracy and not blind luck so you add rifling to the barrel.
This is just another feature which improves accuracy.
If your point isn't accuracy then sure do whatever you want. You could do it with one arm tied behind your back just as a challenge.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Next you'll be petitioning against adding rifling to barrels.
Agreed. The "real" way to do something is whatever somebody grew up with. People talk about a manual tranny being real driving, but I say it's degenerate ever since they added synchromesh. A caveman, heck, somebody from the early 19th century would think a modern rifle is cheating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Pfah. *Real* men solve multivariate differential calculus problems entirely in their head. A few charcoal marks on the wall are permissable for truly complicated problems, but only after the first couple hours of work.
Re: (Score:3)
I would agree. But for most people the primary purpose of a car isn't "fun", but "get from A to B". Similarly for a gun, the entire reason the device was invented is to kill things.
Re: (Score:3)
So....Fantastic! The sooner the better.
Actually add human recognition software to this and it could reduce accidental (and deliberate) deaths drastically.
Funnily enough just like self driving cars. Computers just do it better.
Re: (Score:2)
You will quickly learn the point when the target is shooting back at you.
Relax, your skeet have no trigger fingers.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want aim assist, play a console FPS. Otherwise, what's the point?
TFA
"They like to post videos; they like to be in constant communication with groups or networks," Schauble says. "This kind of technology, in addition to making shooting more fun for them, also allows shooting to be something that they share with others."
...
Rifle maker Remington Arms wants to use the technology in rifles it wants to sell for around $5,000.
Answer: this is the "iPad of guns" - owning and using one set's the owner a head over the others (with the "Android" version to be sourced from Remington).
Apropos "head over the others" - I imagine it won't be so funny if the term "share to shooting" would be used under some other meanings/contexts. You know... the ongoing success of the sharing may highly depend which end of the gun is used in sharing.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is the iPad of guns...then I am dying to see what HP comes up with! Perhaps it'll shoot cake mix and spite instead of bullets?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
More sinisterly, this means that someone can shoot the president from farther away, for example, a range of 265 ft, without any training.
Re: (Score:3)
There are a whole lot of people out there who can hit the kill zone on a man-sized target from 265 ft. That's not a long distance for a rifle. A novice could probably do it after a lesson and a half hour of practice. Qualification range for marines is 500 meters from a prone position.
Re: (Score:3)
Your novice wouldn't even get a chance to fire, even with this rifle.
Assuming the Secret Service saw the assassin. I suspect camouflage/hiding is at least as important as marksmanship. Heck, Reagan came within a hair's breadth of being killed by a guy with a pistol. Sheer luck he didn't die.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
From the graph the 300WM PGF FSSP is almost 100% accurate out to about 1000 yards, or almost two thirds of a mile. At that distance it's going to be virtualy impossible to locate someone from a single shot if they're even moderately hidden. Moreover if someone is commited to their cause it's not a question of whether they can get away - the odds of that after taking out a high profile target are pretty slim unless they're an experienced professional. The question is only whether they can get the chance to
Re: (Score:3)
To me it completely misses the point of shooting, whether target shooting or hunting (and for hunting it completely removes the sport aspect).
For some hunters, the point is to get food.
Re: (Score:3)
Bah, that's nothing, I once killed a polar bear with a banana.
Show us the video!
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:3, Interesting)
A gun with an internet-connected onboard computer. Malware for it could be deadly.
Re: (Score:2)
A gun with an internet-connected onboard computer. Malware for it could be deadly.
To say nothing about malintent.
Re:What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Funny)
A gun with an internet-connected onboard computer. Malware for it could be deadly.
Malware doesn't kill people... people kill people.
(grin)
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Don't you know Linux [thenanobyte.com] is secure by default?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
Uh ... never mind.
Sounds compltely useless as a sniper weapon. (Score:3, Insightful)
Snipers use cover and concealment to hide their position. That's not really going to happen with a glowing video display and a spotter with a glowing iPad. Sounds like little more than an expensive toy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's probably still too expensive; but I wouldn't count it out of the 'lite' end of the sniper market just yet.
Outside of jurisdictions where(either because they are large and rough, or because the sheriff is compensating for something) some sub-group of the police are practically a standing army, a lot of police forces spend most of their time doing things that require little or no marksmanship(during which time budget cuts or apathy are liable to come after their range time), with the occasional incident
Re:Sounds compltely useless as a sniper weapon. (Score:5, Insightful)
any trained sniper already has a ballistics computer and range finder wherever they go. It's called their head.
That's what some engineers said when they first came out with this wussy CAD stuff. Sliderule and paper is all you need. Probably some truth to it in the early days, but the tech improves.
Re:Sounds compltely useless as a sniper weapon. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, most snipers now carry around a ballistics computer that their spotter uses to calculate the hold offset. This is sold for example by the folks that sell the 408 Cheytac. (The CheyTac holds the -- non-published-or acknowledged -- record for the longest wartime kill in Afghanistan / Pakistan btw. at a distance of approximately 2 miles.) The military buys the 408 CheyTac and ballistics calculator as a complete "system".
I should also point out that despite what the article says, it will still take an experienced shooter to shoot this to its maximum potential. How you hold and handle the rifle will affect its recoil and its accuracy as the rifle recoils while the bullet is still in the barrel. The rifle will also need to compensate for mirage at longer distances. Hard to hit something at 1,000 yards when the target keeps dancing around in your sights.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not designed with the military in mind. Just not rugged enough. This is designed for the rich hunting and target shooting crowd in benign environments.
But law enforce has taken an interest. Not for the targeting capability, but for the video. Now the brass can look over a sniper's shoulder and see what he sees. The video recording also allows for later evaluation.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like this one?
http://www.cheytac.com/Products/components/Kestrel.pdf
(See my earlier reply regarding the 408 CheyTac sniper system. This is the associated linky.
Um.... (Score:2)
While the computer will do a better job with regard to bullet drop and deflection due to wind (assuming the computer is given correct information about wind, that is), there's still the question of shake when it comes to "pulling the trigger" on the laser. To some degree, this is nothing more than a wee bit more automation than you get from using a computer to calculate what your sight adjustment should be. A wee bit.
Interesting as a technology experiment, but... (Score:2)
...outside of static target shooting, it doesn't appear to be of much use; and, for static target shooting it is only of value as an evaluation tool.
I saw this in a movie and they used to frame some (Score:2)
I saw this in a movie and they used to frame some up in assassination
Re: (Score:2)
I presume there is a hardwired failsafe that requires the trigger to be held down for the gun to be able to fire. You just keep the trigger held while fine tuning the aiming.
Re:Cancel? (Score:4, Informative)
According to the article that is exactly how it works.
Re:Cancel? (Score:4, Informative)
TrackingPoint is quick to emphasize the rifle doesn't fire "by itself," but rather the trigger's pull force is dynamically raised to be very high until the reticle and pip coincide, at which point the pull force is reset to its default. In this way, the shooter is still in control of the rifle's firing, and at any point prior to firing you can release the trigger.
Quoted from the Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] article, from back when Slashdot originally ran the article [slashdot.org].
Re:Cancel? (Score:5, Informative)
A gun that decides when to fire is nothing new. Battle Ship main guns did this before WWII. The target was locked in, and the firing computers (Mostly mechanical) fired when the pitch and roll of the ship allowed a hit. And they didn't have an abort.
But the big problem that the summery overlooks is that its just about as hard to put a laser range finder on a target as it is to put a bullet on target.
Re:Cancel? (Score:5, Informative)
But the big problem that the summery overlooks is that its just about as hard to put a laser range finder on a target as it is to put a bullet on target.
Not really. With a laser range finder you don't have to worry about wind. You don't have to worry about range (by definition). You don't have to worry about the smooth trigger pull since laser range finders don't usually have a multiple pounds of pressure activation button. You also don't have to worry about properly absorbing the recoil to avoid jerking the round off target.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You should probably WTFV - there is no need to hold it on the target, it basically just marks the target spot first and then fires as soon as the shooter manages to put the gun in the right position to hit it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. But it does allow you to "shoot" with the laser without missing with a bullet
Tanks work the same way (Score:5, Interesting)
The FCS on a tank works mostly the same way.
The sight is mounted on a mirror that can pivot in two axis on good tanks, an one axis on an Abrams. The ballistic computer knows what ammunition is in the breach (a user input - by the loader on good tanks, by the gunner on an Abrams) and so knows the ballistic profile of the round being fired. A slew of other sensors measure crosswinds, barrel droop, and the like. The laser rangefinder provides range, and an angle encoder in the turret slip ring provides rate of turret rotation, which provides a measure of target relative motion.
Gunner tracks target and then lases to get range. The FCS then jumps the gun barrel in both elevation and rotation while the sight mirror jumps back in the other direction(s) to keep the sight picture unchanged. The gunner fires, and the round impacts where the ballistic solution says it should.
From the gunner's perspective, you lay on target, track for a second, then fire the laser and fire the gun in close succession ("lase and blaze") and the round "magically" flies out and hits the target - no matter if you are moving, the target is moving, or both. You can be driving along at 60 km/h and hit a target moving 60 km/h 2500m away on the first shot.
DG
Re:Tanks work the same way (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm.... looks like the M1 Abrams might be a proper tank after all.
Line-of-Sight Stabilization Systems [astronautics.com]
The dual-axis head mirror can be operated with either analog or digital VME control electronics.
The dual-axis system provides improved image acquisition, improved target tracking, and maintains the sight aim retinal at the sight's center of view.
The dual-axis system is available in two configurations. The larger assembly is designed for the M1 Abrams head assembly envelope. The smaller unit will fit within the M60 tank or standard M36 sight head periscope sight.
A great book on the M1 Abrams: King Of The Killing Zone [amazon.com]
Hats off to Her Majesty's research establishment for the development of Chobham armour [wikipedia.org].
Re:Tanks work the same way (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you implying that a tank with one of the best operational records in the history of tanks
You don't get "one of the best operational records in history" by pitting your tank against competing models that are two generations older than it (and then also trimmed-down export models). You rack up kill count, yes, but it's not the same thing. And I'm not aware of any instance in which Abrams actually went against any of its direct competitors.
And yes, Abrams does have quite a few WTF moments about it compared to most other modern tanks that are in the same category. They aren't secret, either; but there's no real point in fixing them since massive tank-on-tank WW2-style battles are not happening any time soon, and it does work great against older tanks or in counter-insurgency operations, which is the kind of things that it's actually being used in today.
Re: (Score:2)
One could capture a series of snapshots of the aiming point, use some sort of smoothing algorithm to filter out the jitter and figure out what the intended target point is.
From that point on, its similar to how a marksman shoots. You don't try to hold the rifle perfectly still. You squeeze as the crosshair swings across the target.
Re: (Score:3)
On a gun that decides when it's time to fire, I hope there's a cancel button.
I also bet there's someone that gets this, pulls the trigger at a picture of someone they hate, and then leaves the gun lying around their house. It wouldn't work, not that it wouldn't be fun to try.
The abort would be when you release the trigger.
Re: (Score:2)
The video says that the wind is manually entered by the operator. I find it odd that it shows the temperature and barometric pressure. Is that really useful information when you're lining up a shot?
After watching their little YouTube clip, I wonder how useful this is. Placing the aiming dot seems really similar to aiming in the first place, I guess the only difference is you don't have to compensate for gravity/etc. I found it conspicuous that they didn't show their simulated target moving in the video. Ca
Re: (Score:3)
How does it detect the wind at 100, 200, 300, and 400 yards? How does it detect the change in wind speed over that full distance? It is impossible.
While, in this implementation the wind speed is not automatically detected, it [wikipedia.org] is [leosphere.com] not [gizmag.com] impossible [klimasnakk.com] to do it... and neither new [bts.gov] (at least as old as 1977).
Re: (Score:2)
You use a spear? Try not clipping your fingernails for a month and hunting like a real man.
That said, it's a very curious definition of 'fair' when a game's historical stats are as lopsided as hunting. Call me back when team wildlife kills and butchers the hunters at a rate with, say, three orders of magnitude, of the rate at which team hunters kills and butchers the wildlife...
Re: (Score:2)
Call me back when team wildlife kills and butchers the hunters at a rate with, say, three orders of magnitude, of the rate at which team hunters kills and butchers the wildlife.
I'll settle for even odds. Anything less challenging and you might as well use a slaughterhouse.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if tragicomic alcohol-related accidents help compensate; but slaughterhouses(by virtue of the absolutely punishing pace and general powerless expendability of the peons on the line) actually chew people up pretty hard. They process livestock a great deal faster, of course; but the rates of occupational morbidity and mortality aren't pretty.
Re: (Score:3)
I for one welcome our new cowardly infantery overlords. They can join the heroic drone pilots bravely risking life and limb on their daily commute to Langley so they can keep the world safe from goat herds and wedding parties.