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."
If you want aim assist, play a console FPS. Otherwise, what's the point? I enjoy shooting, but to me this is not shooting. To quote Ace from the movie adaptation of Starship Troopers: anyone can push a button. I have hunted, shot skeet, and done some target shooting: the fun, the adrenaline rush, comes from knowing you hit your target. My longest shot was about 175 yards with a .30-06, clean kill. While it might not be that far, I take pride in the fact that I took the shot. With technology like this, you aren't hitting the target, the computer is. To me it completely misses the point of shooting, whether target shooting or hunting (and for hunting it completely removes the sport aspect).
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
A gun with an internet-connected onboard computer. Malware for it could be deadly.
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.
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.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
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
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
I've crept Slashdot forever, but I had to comment on this score 5 POS comment.
"There is little difference between hunting animals and hunting humans". . .are you fucking retarded? There is a MOUNTAIN of difference between an unsuitably heavy, delicate rifle and a proper assault rifle. Loadout, round selection, mission profile: hunting involves a SINGLE shot meant to kill/fatally wound in a short period of time. This massive retardism makes it hard to take any of your other comments seriously. "Technology can be miniaturized and will be", yeah, but laser rangefinding equipment has real optical boundaries that keep it from getting really small, and huge scopes with ridiculous optics on them are well beyond the need for any sniper and beyond the cost that 99.9% of hunters are willing to pay. Ask the serious photographers why they aren't using the much smaller 4/3 system instead of their antiquated full sensor sizes. Surely, we can miniaturize camera sensors without serious, mission critical issues, right? Same principals apply to laser rangefinding: optics, sensor size, etc. We'll never get a 1000 yard capable rangefinder in a reasonably sized package for attaching to a scope (and not weighing a ton, or being too delicate, or costing an absolute fortune.)
Will a few rich guys shoot a deer with one of these guns? Probably. Hauling a 30lb rifle out into the bush isn't practical, but you can do it if you're stupid enough. Keep in mind that the calculations and ballistics technology used in this rifle barely matches tech available in 50 year old tanks. It's fun to look at an iPad display, but who really cares? It's amusing that they've put it into a rifle, but not practical or earth-shattering.
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.
While you can fault his activity as that of an utter coward, you cannot fault his aim.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
As a English man who cannot really understand the arguments in favour of the 2nd Amendment can I ask a few questions to my gun loving cousins?
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.