Slashdot Mirror
A Computer-based Smart Rifle With Incredible Accuracy, Now On Sale
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."
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.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
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.
I guess the article didn't point out that this isn't a novel idea or new invention, this is just the first commercial application of a technology already developed and in use by militaries (at least the U.S.) for both large and small arms.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
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.
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.
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.
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.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
It's called persistence hunting, basically you (marathon) run down your prey, humans are superbly adapted for doing it barefoot on warm dry plains.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
God damn hippie.