Connected Gun Lets Anyone Watch What Or Who You Are Shooting 138
DavidGilbert99 writes A gun that lets novices make mile-long shots likes experts and which allows the owner to stream live video to show what the gun is aiming at to anyone, anywhere around the world is being showcased at CES. From the article: "Previously the longest range TrackingPoint’s weapons could accurately hit was about 1,200 yards with the company’s XM1 bolt-action rifle; the 'Mile Maker' adds 600 effective yards onto the range of the XM1 by using different rounds, a longer barrel, and most importantly, updated software in the computerized tracking scope. Aside from the 'Mile Maker,' TrackingPoint also announced that it will be expanding its weapons’ audio and visual capabilities—rather than streaming videos directly over local Wi-Fi or recording and uploading things after the fact to YouTube or Facebook, TrackingPoint firearms will gain the ability to live-stream the scope’s picture to remote users using TrackingPoint’s smartphone app. Later in 2015, the company will be shifting its lineup somewhat, removing all of the XS-class weapons from its catalog and replacing them with two, new lighter-frame options. The two, new bolt-action options will be chambered in .308 and .300 Winchester Magnum and will use the smaller scope from TrackingPoint’s AR platform. Finally, the company will also begin selling a smaller 'varmint gun' chambered in .260 Remington.
I can here it now. (Score:2)
Fatality!
Re: (Score:1)
I was imagining getting emailed a video of somebody aiming at my head. but then I am a pessimist
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if it likes editors? (Score:5, Funny)
A gun that lets novices make mile-long shots likes experts
So, some sort of AI built into the system, wired to prefer the company of experts? Or does it learn, over time, to like experts?
Re: (Score:2)
It waits for you to wander back over the target before it fires the bullet.
It just holds back firing pin when trigger pulled. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You know the cops are going to want it .. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't even really assist in aiming. It just delays the actual firing of the round until its computer detects that the gun is actually aimed at the designated target.
That's one heck of an "assistance." Just point it about where the target is and wiggle it around until it shoots.
Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. (Score:5, Informative)
Kind of. There are a few systems that improve your accuracy but you definitely still need some solid basics.
Lasers don't have any drop, nor are they affected by wind conditions, so you tag your target with the laser and then the computer on the rifle calculates where you need to aim in order to hit the target. Really advanced ones will test wind conditions, humidity, and temperature before giving you the aim point. Some can also hold the firing till you have a perfect shot lined up. So you hold the trigger and the gun will fire when the target lines up. There is a little more too it than wiggling it around though.
Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The other huge impact on your accuracy is the ammo. It is why I load my own. I will see a significant increase in spread unless I spend stupid amounts on commercial ammo. Much better to weigh your own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At what range? That is a hell of an accuracy on an M39. Either way that is a damn good result for that rifle. Most decent ones are 2MOA, to be close to one makes it one of the top ones.
That said my experience is that ammo makes a bigger and bigger difference as your range increases. The difference in your muzzle velocity and the weight of the rounds themselves is magnified over range.
Use cheap ammo at 1000 yds and I know I will get some complete misses in a set of 10. If I am using my "I've really take
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At 100 yds the ammo makes limited difference. You don't really see the difference until you get to about 300yds. At that point the difference in muzzle velocity starts to be noticeable, even if you have the rifle held in a vice. What also makes a difference is the weight of the actual bullet. A gram difference will through the bullets out at longer range.
At 100 yds your skill and the quality of the rifle is what has the biggest effect. That rifle has obviously been looked after and had some money spent
Re: (Score:2)
I try to keep in good practice and was initially taught how to properly shoot by my grandfather who was a marine and later in boy scouts by a retired marine. For the boy scout rifle merit badge with the
Re: (Score:2)
Consider trying lighter loads on the deer. I'm going to guess you get a pretty clean punch through with that ammo and are wasting a lot of the stopping power on the trees behind. Consider trying Igman 7.62x54r 150 gr. SP, still a nice cheap round but could increase the number of drops you have at 100-150yds. If your finding your range starts growing over 200yds go back to the Bears - http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/Mo... [62x54r.net]
I wish I could use an air rifle / pistol in my country at home. Even though I live on ac
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely falls in the pedantic category :P. For the purposes of my example photons have no drop. They also lose no speed through the air which is what makes the calculations for bullet trajectory so difficult.
Not to mention there is a maximum effective range on bullets as below a certain speed they will tumble, go sideways and get to the point that even if they still hit the target they will do almost no damage. It's the reason why people don't die like crazy when morons shoot auto weapons up into the
Re: (Score:2)
Earth at exactly the same rate of acceleration as bullets do (namely 32 ft per second per second).
I am going to be pedantic. The photons and bullet do not accelerate at the same speed due to air resistance and the aerodynamic qualities of a spinning bullet.
Re: (Score:2)
And meanwhile the target shoots at you?
No, in the meantime the target has no clue you even exist - and since your first shot will hit the target, he or she won't be warned by a near-miss.
Re: (Score:2)
This technology, in law enforcement hands, is going to be more useful in hostage situations and will probably be mostly deployed to police sharpshooters. This would allow them to fire on a suspect that they wouldn't normally fire on due to a risk of harming a bystander or hostage. It would also be helpful to police sharpshooters that are stationed on helicopters in order to account for the motion of the helicopter on a shot.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't even really assist in aiming. It just delays the actual firing of the round until its computer detects that the gun is actually aimed at the designated target.
So it assists in capping the perp, and/or unarmed citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus cops should start going to the range and practicing to get good at it, every cop I know sucks at shooting.
Re: (Score:2)
thank goodness! can you imagine how bad it would be if they were good at it? i would strongly prefer that the cops are like this guy [deadspin.com].
Not Far Off, Now... (Score:3)
It won't be long until something like this scene from Ghost in the Shell: SAC [youtube.com] will be commonplace.
Looking forward to personal Cruise missiles... (Score:2)
...3D-printed of course, and powered by ordinary household baking soda.
Does anybody really know what time it is?
Re: (Score:1)
Does anyone really care?
Just what's needed! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You got it, my good man. We do need more and better of just about anything, that's legal and desired by consumers: TVs, refrigerators, toothbrushes, vibrators [vice.com], cars, and, yes, weapons.
Now, where were you going with that maxim of yours?
Re: (Score:2)
If there was the option for "smart" guns to be sold alongside regular guns I doubt you would have heard a peep from the NRA, besides maybe a review in guns and ammo. But New Jersey decided that the moment a smart gun becomes available it must be mandatory on every weapon sold, then it becomes a matter of force vs choice. Repeal that little law and those who chose to use the smart guns can have them, while everyone else can purchase weapons wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You know, I'm a bit right-of-center on gun issues (which means that in most conversations I manage to piss off both my more conservative and more liberal friends, often with the same statement). I have no problem with widespread gun ownership and use of guns for personal self-defense.
But this... holy mother of Charles Whitman [wikipedia.org], how can this not get into the wrong hands with tragic consequences? Random urban sniper sprees just got a whole lot worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I have not seen any evidence in the news reports lately. Is CNN burying a story on a sniper spree?
In the grand scheme of things, this rates a large yawn. Guns (especially rifles) still make a hell of a boom. Yes, you can not shoot from a LOT further away, but the people around you can still hear it, call the cops, etc. Even IF you managed to put a suppressor on this thing, any round that can reach any appreciable distance is, by necessity, g
Makes it easier... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
This will certainly make marksmanship training instruction easier.
And it will make anybody who uses this thing unable to hit the broad side of a barn the moment the batteries run out.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't put cameras on everything (Score:4, Interesting)
Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?
And what's next? Cameras installed in the bullets?
Despite the chill this technology gives me, I can see military applications (e.g., real-time mission-monitoring) but its use by consumers makes no sense to me.
Re:Don't put cameras on everything (Score:4, Insightful)
Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?
And what's next? Cameras installed in the bullets?
Despite the chill this technology gives me, I can see military applications (e.g., real-time mission-monitoring) but its use by consumers makes no sense to me.
That's what I was thinking...but with a chilling difference. Imagine if the shooters in the Paris attack had something like this, and chose to shoot their targets at distance, while producing videos they could later put up on YouTube? Not good...
Re: (Score:2)
Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?
And what's next? Cameras installed in the bullets?
Despite the chill this technology gives me, I can see military applications (e.g., real-time mission-monitoring) but its use by consumers makes no sense to me.
That's what I was thinking...but with a chilling difference. Imagine if the shooters in the Paris attack had something like this, and chose to shoot their targets at distance, while producing videos they could later put up on YouTube? Not good...
It's worse: the rifle live-streams to the internet. So, even if the attackers don't survive (though they likely will if they're a mile away) their deeds are broadcast already to the world.
That said, the Paris terrorists went inside a building to kill their targets, so long range wasn't really a factor.
Re: (Score:2)
"That said, the Paris terrorists went inside a building to kill their targets, so long range wasn't really a factor."
Maybe because of the lack of rifle able to aim from a mile afar and, at the same time, broadcasting it live to the Internet.
Oh, wait!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because of the lack of rifle able to aim from a mile afar and, at the same time, broadcasting it live to the Internet.
No, because they had to enter the building in order to see their targets. They forced one of the employees to surrender her pass-code in order to enter the offices.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because of the lack of rifle able to aim from a mile afar and, at the same time, broadcasting it live to the Internet.
No, because they had to enter the building in order to see their targets. They forced one of the employees to surrender her pass-code in order to enter the offices.
Um, no.
They chose to enter the building in order to attack their targets. Because when you're using automatic weapons against multiple unarmed, unarmored targets (one person was armed, but all you have to do is shoot him as early on in the process and the dynamic stays the same) you want to have them in an enclosed area so that you can keep them corralled while you slaughter them. Simple truth, dark as it may be. But they had an option. In fact, they exercised an alternate option in the case of the firs
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine if the shooters in the Paris attack had something like this ...
Exactly. Just wait until some guy with a thick accent named Abdul Mohammad Mustafa buys a couple and they wind up in Syria or Palestine...
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait until the next school shooting when one of these is live streaming.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Just wait until the next school shooting when one of these is live streaming.
Let's go for the trifecta!
1) School shooting,
2) by a black guy,
3) with a Muslim name.
Re: (Score:2)
Mohamed Merah already filmed [lefigaro.fr] this killing spree with a GoPro, including killing two boys six and three as well as chasing down an eight year old girl in the school yard and shooting her in the head at point blank range. Al-Jazeera got the tape but refused to show it to anyone, oddly enough it never showed up on the Internet. So disgusting shit was still possible long before this gun cam.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see where it would be beneficial to some types of training - working on follow through, etc. for shooting skeet, trap, or sporting clays. Or working on control for position shooting matches.
But for the common consumer end user? Pure novelty. And we've been doing similar for a long time - taking pictures or video thru scopes, etc. so it really isn't much new. I guess being able to include range finder and calculate distance so you know about the drop would be nice, but usually wind is a much bigger
Re: (Score:2)
I can see where it would be beneficial to some types of training - working on follow through, etc. for shooting skeet, trap, or sporting clays. Or working on control for position shooting matches.
Fair enough, although live-streaming isn't crucial for those applications.
But for the common consumer end user? Pure novelty. And we've been doing similar for a long time - taking pictures or video thru scopes, etc. so it really isn't much new.
It's the live-streaming that gives me pause. Real-time remote viewing might be useful for the military, but in consumer hands it seems like sick voyeurism.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be fantastic for long range rifle competition training. Having your trainer sat next to you and seeing what you are seeing at point of fire would be highly useful.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the difference between live remote viewing or viewing a static file of the event later? Other than the "no spoilers" part, I can't think of one....
Re: (Score:2)
Live remote viewing implies broadcasting, and that raises the question of the intended audience, and of the expected fate of the rifle-operator.
To me, the situations that would "require" live viewing instead of a static file after the fact are one or more of the following:
1. The audience has a real-time tactical interest in the video.
2. The rifle-operator may not be able to provide a static file later (i.e., may be captured or killed.)
3. The rifle-operators or their organization wish to send a real-time mes
Re: (Score:3)
I could see the snipers on the SWAT teams using this to give additional information to those in command rather than just relaying information over the radio and also for verifying a shot when there is time.
Re: (Score:3)
Take away the killing someone aspect and replace it with a sporting aspect and you start to get reasons.
When your coach is trying to get your LR Bench Rest groups to improve having them able to real time see what you see at point of fire would be excellent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Most folks have no need of NV or Thermal optics, but you gotta admit they are pretty cool to play with
Re: (Score:2)
I used to know a guy who hit a target a mile away while standing up on his first try (he'd been doing it from the prone position, which is the only way you're going to get any accuracy at that distance, and stood up just to try it once). He never tried it again, because he knew he'd never get that lucky again, and he wanted to keep his perfect record.
Re: (Score:2)
Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?
My first thought was the justice system. Tasers, for example, log a heck of a lot of information - time and duration of any shocks, when it was fired, etc... Some have proposed 'gun cams' to have a view of exactly what the officer was aiming at.
Second thought was training - here's what went down in situation XYZ - police, hunting, military, whatever.
Last thought(should have been earlier) was military. They already have 'gun cams' in aircraft and many land vehicles. Intelligence agents will go over the f
Re: (Score:2)
A good hitman might appreciate it. Got a high profile target, what better way to achieve real time anonymous attribution prior to payment? This technology has no place outside the military. I'm a strong supporter of gun rights, but I see some serious risks to allowing this technology outside the military and every time a gun is used for evil it hurts the cause of protecting their legitimate ownership and use.
Re: (Score:2)
And what's next? Cameras installed in the bullets?
Just like in Natural Born Killers! Maybe we can add "filters" to give it a retro feel and sound fx!
Re: (Score:2)
Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?
When you go shooting, lots of people (especially beginners) take home the target with the bullet holes. This sounds like the next step.
markets everywhere (Score:1)
High tech Toy (Score:2)
Unless the aiming assembly package has the ability to let environmental sensors which allow for real-time feeds along the whole path of the bullet, this won't be anything but a novelty. A very cool and expensive one, but still a toy.
Who is this for? (Score:2)
Military use? I could see a lot of application there, snipers are some of the most intensively-trained soldiers. But then why show it off at CES?
Are they planning to sell this to hobbyists? Hunters? Do we really want this kind of thing in the hands of civilians? It's absolutely useless for self-defense, but it'd make one really good murder weapon if the police have to search an 1800yd-radius circle to find where the shooter was.
Re: (Score:3)
Hunters like to take long shots. Realistically the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with cheap "throw-away" handguns. The use of rifles - particularly bolt action scoped rifles - is negligible in overall crime rates. Strange though - SHOT Show (http://shotshow.org/) - basically the hunting/shooting equivalent of CES - is kicking off in 2 weeks. Seems like it would be a lot more appropriate there.
Re: (Score:2)
Realistically the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with cheap "throw-away" handguns.
Roughly 90% of firearm murders. More people are killed by 'bare hands' than by rifles or shotguns.
Nope, more are killed with guns (Score:2)
Realistically the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with cheap "throw-away" handguns.
Roughly 90% of firearm murders. More people are killed by 'bare hands' than by rifles or shotguns.
[citation needed]
Actually, one quick google shows that in 2011 in the US 8583 of 12664 homicides were committed with firearms, vs only 726 with bare hands. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj... [fbi.gov]
Things may be different worldwide, in places with much less firearms available to the public of course. But then so is the homicide rate (in first world countries at least)...
Re: (Score:3)
You didn't read the question;
""More people are killed by 'bare hands' than by rifles or shotguns." The rifles and shotguns are the important part. Previous poster was discussing the fraction of total firearm murders done with long guns vs handguns.
So, were more than 726 people killed with rifles and shotguns? It's probably buried somewhere in that same report.
Re: (Score:3)
I ran your link, and rifles were 323, and shotguns were 356. Total is 679, so parent is correct. Bare hands (726) kill more than rifles and shotguns combined.
However, there are 1684 "undefined gun" homicides in the list. Not sure what is up with that. Never recovered the weapon, so couldn't say for sure?
Incidentally the homicide count for knives is 1694. So knives kill more people than assault rifles and assault shotguns combined by a two to one margin.
Re: (Score:2)
However, there are 1684 "undefined gun" homicides in the list. Not sure what is up with that. Never recovered the weapon, so couldn't say for sure?
Probably so. You can normally tell the difference by the wound characteristics between a center-fire rifle shot, shotgun, or handgun. However, a surprising number of people are murdered each year with a .22lr caliber firearm, which besides being the smallest and least powerful caliber(.17HMR is actually more powerful), is commonly chambered in both handguns and rifles. So unless you recover a weapon or have some other evidence, somebody killed with one could have been killed by either a handgun or rifle.
Re: (Score:2)
So knives kill more people than assault rifles and assault shotguns combined by a two to one margin.
Worse, actually, with the including of 'assault' in the description. Not all murders by those two categories are by weapons that also meet the 'assault' standard.
Re: (Score:2)
As Mspangler mentioned, follow your own cite [fbi.gov], rereading what I said:
~90% of firearm murders are with a handgun
'bare hands'(in quotes because I'm not being literal, kicking somebody to death still counts) murders outnumber the statistics for rifles and shotguns, at least counted separately. Even adjusted they add up to 'darn close'.
Pulling the statistics from the cite:
8,583 murders with a firearm.
6,899 where the firearm was known. We'll figure that the 'other gun/type not stated' follows the ratio where kn
Re: (Score:2)
Australian laws are definitely most targeted at hand guns. Rifles in comparison are almost simple to own. That said semi-automatic and automatic rifles and shotguns are outright banned here.
You can have a magazine fed bolt action rifle though and you can cycle through those pretty quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
That said semi-automatic and automatic rifles and shotguns are outright banned here.
Why? Is it really helping anything?
But yeah, I can understand why handguns are so controlled. I was making more of a comment about the US gun control movement, which seems to concentrate 90% of their efforts on targeting the most popular rifles in the country, which are responsible for less than 5% of firearm murders(not even ALL murders), while not saying much at all about handguns.
They're also notorious about introducing legislation in response to a famous shooting, dedicated to said famous shooting, wh
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it is helping or not. The laws have been in place since 1996 and we have a very low level of gun crime. If someone fires a weapon it makes the national news.
The major incident that sparked the laws was the port arthur massacre in tasmania. In that 35 people were killed and 20+ more injured, the weapon used was an AR-10. That said Martin Bryant is extremely disturbed and would have found some other way.
Re: (Score:2)
Going by the last two famous spree killings in Europe, you end up with two options: Bombs and illegal guns. The man up north used both, as well as dressing as a police officer to deter suspicion. Down in France you had the recent attack where they apparently used illegally obtained full auto AK type rifles. If they had been unable to get those, a bomb may or may not have killed as many people.
Re: (Score:2)
In Australia it helps that we dont have any land borders so it is much harder to smuggle weapons into the country.
That said the recent cafe shooting in sydney was done with an auto-shotgun. A weapon that is on the restricted list. I don't think there is any 100% solution. But I do believe that reducing the number of readily available guns does make certain actions harder.
At least here the number of accidental shootings is almost zero. Violent crime still exists and people do get shot. But they are rare
Re: (Score:2)
1800 yds is a long way. But high velocity rounds from 1000 yds with a standard scope are more than doable if the target is stationary. If you can setup with a rest and know where your target is a good shooter can put 10 rounds inside a palm sized spread.
It's already been done (Score:1)
Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)
Not looking forward to the selfies...
Re: (Score:2)
Not looking forward to the selfies...
Well, you've got to admit, it would be an effective form of gun control :-)
Bad Ideas (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who says you need skill or training to carry aroun (Score:2)
Video: Precision Guided Firearm Demonstration .. (Score:1)
Wow ... (Score:2)
There's some scary internet videos waiting to happen.
What problem does that solves? (Score:2)
Vastly overrated capability (Score:2)
Perverse (Score:2)
The title says it all, really. I mean, even if you are against guns, you can still follow the idea that it is exciting to own a gun and be able to shoot well, because it is something that requires skill, but this sort of thing? Wouldn't a gun enthusiast be ashamed of him/herself rather than broadcasting to the world at large?
It needs F1-F10 keys (Score:2)
Re:Bahd Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope. Dick Cheney. It's the "wont shoot your friends face" model.
Re: (Score:2)
Been able to do this for years. I have a Picatinny mount for an iphone in an otterbox case.
Re: (Score:2)
I had to look this up, imaging a phone on a rifle rail would look pretty funny (and obtrusive), and I was not disappointed...
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/i... [images-amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I have mine on a tactical mug.
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-M... [amazon.com]