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."
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:Cancel? (Score:4, Informative)
According to the article that is exactly how it works.
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: Not just for putting holes in paper (Score:5, Informative)
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: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: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, 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.
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: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: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:5, Informative)
Re:pfftt... (Score:4, Informative)
God damn hippie.
Re:2nd Amendment Question (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 government, that foundation is built upon the bedrock of an ideal first put forth in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The right to keep and bear arms, therefore, is derived from our Natural Right to protect our (and other's) individual life and to secure our liberty. The 'pursuit of happiness' means we basically get to do what we wish as long as it doesn't directly impinge upon someone else's rights. Our Second Amendment to the Constitution simply keeps our government from disarming and rendering helpless the citizenry of our country. If you read the text of the Amendment (and others of the Bill of Rights) you'll notice they don't 'give' or 'allow' rights so much as they protect various aspects of our Natural Rights from an over zealous government.
As for what is or isn't allowed: whatever weaponry common to an individual infantry soldier would be minimum. I don't know what it's like in other countries, but in the USA we can legally (with paperwork, background check and $200 transfer tax) purchase everything from machine guns to field artillery. In the last 80 years I think there has been a grand total of 2 deaths by legally owned weapons of those types. The weapons currently getting all the press are semi-automatic rifles (usually paperwork and a background check, but no transfer tax), though statistically they are used very rarely in crimes. Unfortunately the crimes they are used in are horrific enough to make headlines.
Most murders in the US (over 80%) are committed by convicted felons against other convicted felons (75%); gang members killing rival gang members and criminals killing during criminal business dealings. The most common firearms are overwhelmingly handguns (over 80%) and usually the cheapest available (we call them Saturday Night Specials in the US). For these people, owning a firearm is already illegal, using it during the commission of a crime is illegal and murder is certainly illegal. Creating yet another law for them to break wouldn't even slow them down since they already work outside the law to acquire the firearms. It would be like making more laws about how pharmacies dispense drugs in an attempt to stop crack dealers.
Re:pfftt... (Score:4, Informative)
There isn't much to back up your thesis, especially since persistence hunting is still practiced in Africa.