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."
Aimbotter
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.
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.
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.
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.
Better known as 318230.
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.
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.
...will be very pleased with this. Now every "jerky" robot can be an efficient terminator.
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. In fact, the best way to calibrate is to actually fire a bullet. But even then, you can't be assured that the wind didn't change for the next shot. I guess if you fire and adjust in rapid succession, you could hit a needle after multiple shots.
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.
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.
Bipod.
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.
Bah, that's nothing, I once killed a polar bear with a banana.
Show us the video!
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.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
According to the article that is exactly how it works.
...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.
Loading...
That's true. But it does allow you to "shoot" with the laser without missing with a bullet
Yeah, because its going to be so easy to use something like that in a shooting rampage...
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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...
Easy to say.
Go out and free hold a laser on a target at 100 yards.
Without a bipod it's very difficult.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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.
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
You aren't painting the target, its gathering range information, this can be done in literally a millionth of a second. The only time you paint something with a laser (in relation to weapons) is when you are guiding a laser homing weapon to a target.
I saw this in a movie and they used to frame some up in assassination
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.
"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.
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.
Have gnu, will travel.
In before the ban!
Rick B.
That's why you got to kill the whole family.
Where this technology will really make a difference is remotely-fired platforms - drones and robotic gun mounts. The operator paints the target with the laser, hits a selector when the beam hits a good point, and commands the platform to fire. The computer figures out the rest. Fragile meat people aren't exposed to take the shot.
It's expensive now, but this is the introductory enthusiast version. The open source v3 equivalent will be have plans online using easily acquired inexpensive components and a 3d printer.
(As scary as this can be, part of me thinks this is awesome - but then I always play riggers in Shadowrun. ;) )
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
No need for a professional anymore.
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.
I can't imaging a countryside where a lot of the people have these being invaded very easily.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
When will the first assassination occur with this weapon? That is the real reason it exists in the first place. As target shooters have already said, it's meaningless for sport shooting because it removes the skill component. For hunting it's like using explosives to catch fish, no fun if for anglers who enjoy the sport.
The target audience (pun intended) is extreme gun geeks, psychopathic hunters and assassins. So who will be the first human victim?
By using the term "psyochopathic hunter" do you mean to imply that a normal hunter weeps for the death of his prey? To answer your rather silly question, if it's an effective weapon, of course someone will eventually use it to kill someone else since violence is part of human nature. Maybe the first victim will be an innocent child or maybe it'll be a pedophile threatening an innocent child.
Run.
What?
I said... Run.
The Jackal was a rather enjoyable movie, and this gun reminds me of it somewhat. Similarities: remote targeted gun. Differences: Everything else.
Somehow you have to tell the gun where you want the bullet to go, if not with the laser than with the cross-hairs. There's no practical difference from the shooter's perspective.
Well, you can always file a lawsuit. But I doubt you'd actually win.
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.
The rifle doesn't need the laser to be continuously marking the target. Once you've got the laser on your target you confirm it (button) and then you can stop using the laser.
Don't you know Linux is secure by default?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
Uh ... never mind.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Take a look at the demo video. The deer apparently got away, as when the sight gets back on it after the shot is taken, it is running away, looking uninjured.
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.
22k USD ensures only spoiled rich Goth kids'll use them. That may not be a good thing. But online videos are about to get even more creepy.
-- Jimtown Kelly
I imagine the actual target audience is law enforcement and military - applications where the point of firing a weapon begins and ends with hitting your target. I'm betting this would dramatically increase the medium to long-range combat effectiveness of almost any soldier wielding i. Of course it's something you'd want to be a situational enhancement rather than the default, for those spray-and-pray situations, but when any halfway competent soldier who can find some cover can become a halfway competent sharpshooter with the flip of a switch, well that could turn the tide of a lot of battles.
And as I understand it the black-box video snapshot holds a lot of appeal for law enforcement - no more questions about the actual intended target in awkward situations. Covers the ass of the honest cops that got unlucky, and blows the lid off those who exploited their position for their own ends.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Right. A weapon that nobody who wants to shoot near a school zone would use. At least not without first installing the region-unlocking crack.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
There's a huge difference. A normal scope is sighted in for a specific distance. 100 meters, 200 meters, etc. Anything closer or farther away and hitting the target isn't as simple as putting the crosshairs over it and pulling the trigger; you have to aim above or below the target to account for bullet drop. That requires knowing how far away your target is, and assumes the scope is sighted in correctly. If there's wind, you have to account for that as well.
Umm, and what exactly would be the point of owning a gun that won't fire at people? An auto-aiming system pretty much eliminates any claim of "sportsmanship" for those who enjoy the recreational use of a deadly weapon. This thing exists strictly for those people whose sole purpose in firing a gun is to hit their target - i.e. (quasi) military, police, people who hunt for food or to eliminate vermin, and self defense. And a rifle isn't exactly a self-defense weapon unless you're planning to defend yourself against (quasi)military attackers.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
What I meant was there's no difference between using the cross-hairs to select the aim point and using a laser.
Understood. But he was saying the laser was only for rangefinding.
For the rampage killer pistols make more sense for a whole host of reasons.
Such as?
Anything a pistol can do, a short carbine can do better. Easier and faster to aim, more accurate, better recoil control for follow-up shots, larger magazines, more potent rounds... there is literally no disadvantage other than that a handgun is easier to conceal - but it is usually not a factor in a rampage.
A warez site with region-unlocking crack that could be a perfect honeypot set-up by the FBI.
Any additional hurdle increases the chance of detection and eliminates the dumber would-be killers.
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.
There are lots of countries where it is common for hunters to sell their game meat to (specialty) stores and restaurants. Just because wherever you live you can't buy game meat in a store, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
That was not his response at all, and you know it.
The only way to do that is to give a gun to a bad man.
It is easy to shoot accurately, if you know how. Don't try to hold the rifle still. It is impossible. If you try to hold it still on a target, then it will move in a little circle around the point you are aiming at and you will never hit the bulls-eye. The more you try to hold it still, the worse the movement will get. The trick is to find the target direction and point slightly above it, then move the rifle down, down, down, sloooowly and when you move over the target, squeeze the trigger. I hope this tip will save some newb from embarassment at the rifle range...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
For some people hunting is not sport but a way of acquiring food. For you it is a challenge. For others it is food on the table.
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.
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.
Or you have a separate range finder and adjust the elevation in the sight for the range, and the windage for the wind, if any. It's not rocket science, but having a computer to do the math for you helps, if you don't have massive experience.
Learn to love Alaska
Yes, and it'd take a pretty spectacularly dumb killer to spend tens of thousands of dollars extra for a weapon that wouldn't work in the area they wanted to use it.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Took long enough, I'd bet on this 2 years ago. Next step is heads up displays with high res video, letting soldiers mark their targets from cover in playback and firing around cover through such systems. Spray and pray is near over, hopefully thereafter collateral damage will be history as well.
You don't have to. The laser sight just has to pass in front of the target while you're waving the gun roughly in it's direction.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Because a laser reflection off a deer looks so much different than tree?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
What about the Charles Whitman "rampage"? He shot at range, and not every shot was a kill. Something like this could have helped him kill more efficiently. Or just slowed him down.
Learn to love Alaska
It might interest you to know that the gun doesn't fire itself. What it does is control the trigger pull. Take a look at the Ars Technica article on it. Or the original Slashdot article.
Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
The ZF-1.
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 article, from back when Slashdot originally ran the article.
Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
Call me when you can 3D print this...
If the code for this thing is written in C, you can now really shoot yourself in the foot (very accurately) :-) http://m5p.com/~pravn/foot.html
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
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.
The difference is that you can press the lock on button as the laser spot crosses the desired target and the stabilizing mechanism will stop the laser movement. This is very different that holding the target spot while calming your breathing and timing the squeeze of the trigger. It takes a split second to do the former and a few seconds to do the latter.
Stop using her in your demo pics.
I had enough trauma when I was a kid
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).
You could also use this system in a reverse situation. You light a target, and subsequently try to hit it by sending shoot orders via the trigger. When you get all parameters right (winds, elevation,... ), you score a point, no round is ever fired. Maybe this already exist for training, I am not literate in that matter. You could also shoot blank rounds, should you need to take recoil into account.
Yep, and pre-WW2 the word "computer" meant somebody who calculated artillery tables by hand. Compiling artillery tables was a very early use for the first "real" computers.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Who cares about recognizing reflections when the system can recognize the deer shape?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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.
It is? While I never held of fired a real gun, I have no problems at all hitting even small things with a laser-pointer. Requires correction, obviously, but that is the whole point.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jVsQToSfag
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Here's how:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4
Believe it or not, we figured out a long time ago how to shoot at moving targets ;-)
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.
I'd wager that a true professional will use any available technology to maximize their efficiency. The only thing standing in the way is machismo. There was a time when professional chefs eschewed the use of food processors for preparing ingredients - they were fast enough without them. There was a time when pilots would never give up mechanically linked controls or allow a machine to fly their planes.
To be so short sighted that the data-human interface will never evolve beyond an ipad (a very inexpensive way to develop a technology interface), or that a custom scope wouldn't be fabricated at a cost 100x the current unit cost for specialty operations, is to ignore the past entirely.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
This is a horrible idea, so now instead of having students shooting up schools by coming through the front door, they can just sit on a hill and take out the teachers?
Ever heard of a "sniper" numbnuts? Only a few months ago "American Rifleman" profiled a Marine Corps sniper and his rifle. They also frequently have reviews of advanced optics and rifles which are effective at long range. This is just an advanced sniper rifle and would be rather useless in most combat engagements.
Furthermore, neither the NRA as an organization, nor the vast majority of the 5 million members have any profit motive whatsoever when it comes to sales of firearms or ammo.
Most of the standard military rifles these days fire semi-auto or 3 round burst, precisely because of the ineffectiveness of the "spray and pray" habit that soldiers developed in VIetnam.
Gun manufacturers (like every other industry) have their own lobbying group called the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). The NRA by contrast is a grassroots organization that raises the vast majority of its funds from members AND spends most of its money on direct communication with members, not lobbying and not campaign contributions.
I'm going to hold out for the Aperture Science Sentry Turret version of these. What could possibly go wrong?
"This next test involves turrets. You remember them, right? They're the pale, spherical things that are full of bullets. Oh wait, that's you in five seconds. Good luck."
-GLaDOS
The proper object of fear here is the person pointing the gun. If someone seriously threatens to kill me, you bet your ass I'll be afraid, whether they have a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, or their own hands and feet. (More people are murdered via hands and feet than via either rifles or via blunt objects.)
It is a fact of human existence that the only direct protection a person has against someone intent on violence is their own ability to use defensive force ("a revolver"), or the ability and willingness of others to use force on their behalf ("our posse"). That's true whether you live in ancient Rome, the Wild West (which was probably not as "Wild" as our mythology makes it out to be), a gang-controlled part of a city, or a low-crime gated community.
Indirect forms of protection, where we have socioeconomic, educational, criminal justice, and mental health care systems that don't lead to people developing along violent lines or make serious efforts at reform if they do, may have more overall impact. But when a crazed stalker breaks into your home, it's past the time where those can come into play.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I may have to get one of those.....
I can easily see them being disallowed for hunting though....
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
No. Not only have plenty of rampage shooters used handguns, some have used revolvers.
Campo Elias Delgado killed between 26 and 30 people (accounts differ and some may have been killed by police in the crossfire) and wounded 15 with a knife and a single revolver..
Wellington Menezes de Oliveira killed 12 (not including himself) and wounded 12, using two revolvers and firing over 60 shots.
Charles Andrew Williams killed 2 people and wounded 13 with a single revolver.
Thomas Hamilton, the Dunblane shooter, killed 17 people (not including himself) and wounded 15 more. He had four handguns: two six-round revolvers and two 9mm pistols.
George Hennard, the Luby's shooter, killed 23 (not including himself) and wounded 20 with two semi-automatic handguns.
Jiverly Antares Wong, the Binghamton shooter, killed 13 people (not including himself) and wounded four more with two handguns.
Nidal Malik Hasan, the Foot Hood shooter, fired 214 rounds from a single handgun, killing 13 people and wounding 13.
Patrick Henry Sherrill, the Edmond post office shooter, killed 14 people and wounded six. He had three handguns and fired approximately 50 rounds.
Howard Unruh killed 13 people and wounded 3 with a Luger (a handgun).
The demonization of rifles is completely irrational, not just in terms of their overall use in homicides but in terms of their use in spree shootings.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
In the last school shooting it was the mother's insufficiently secured guns that were used. Intrinsic build in security features like this could prevent this.
Jerks with laser pointers seem pretty good at it, and they don't even use scopes.
I find it not a surprise. Because NPR. .50 ant-materiel rifles, especially bolt-action ones are available in even some of the most restrictive states. Yet there doesn't seem to be a problem with them. Really, there's not much of a problem with "assault weapons" other than sensationalism. Income disparity + handguns are by far the problem if you want to be rational about it.
They could have designed it so you use the crosshairs. Lasers are cooler. The point is that you select the target, the gun remembers where it is, then fires when the crosshairs once again cross over it. You don't have to hold the laser OR the crosshairs over the spot you want to hit.
An issue as in "Why can't we have the fun toy too?"
Probably because most of the civilian shooters here recognize this piece of gear as not having a sporting application. It allows people to shoot without developing a real skill. And most gun enthusiasts are interested in shooting as a sport.
Have gnu, will travel.
To answer your rather silly question, if it's an effective weapon, of course someone will eventually use it to kill someone else since violence is part of human nature. Maybe the first victim will be an innocent child or maybe it'll be a pedophile threatening an innocent child.
At $17-22,000 a piece, I doubt any person who isn't already the enemy of some government will be killed with one of these for a long, long time.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
In the last school shooting it was the mother's insufficiently secured guns that were used.
Is that verified? Because thus far, I've heard at least 3 contradictory stories about how he accessed the weapons.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Seriously, NPR needs to stop being subsidized by the taxpayer if they are going to spend this much time and effort carrying water for the gun control lobby.
Hilarious irony: When Bush II was prez, his administration accused NPR of being "too liberal."
He was wrong, too.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
A stand and a few servo motors. Why even have a human shooter with all their breathing and giggly muscles. Already broadcasts to your phone, just laser mark the target and let the gun do it's thing (that's essentially what's happening anyway.)
I've been wondering when something like this would become available. All the tech pieces to put it together have been around for quite some time. The scariest part about such a weapon is that there are only a couple of simple pieces to add to it to make it remotely controlled. Imagine how handy such a thing would be for an assassin. Set up the shot ahead of time, then make the kill at the appropriate time, in safety, perhaps even with an alibi.
This weapon is a security professional's nightmare.
Proverbs 21:19
Not normally, no. As I said. However it depends heavily on exactly who you're defending yourself against. If you're under siege by overzealous police or military I imagine it would come in quite handy, and there is a pretty good argument to be made that that is *exactly* who the Second Amendment had in mind when it reinforced the right of US citizens to bear arms. There's plenty of governments in the world that demonstrate exactly why such a last line of defense is important. Some of them even propped up by the US government.
Given that the last decade plus has made abundantly clear that there are factions within the government with tyrannical ambitions, and that our military is busy perfecting *exactly* the sort of weaponry that would be most effective against the domestic population, I'm inclined to believe that they are an important target to consider for self defense, just in case we can't reclaim our government using more acceptable methods.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Speaking as an outdoorsman that has come across far too many dead/wounded deer in the woods... If a hunter using this setup is much more likely to score a single fatal shot on game, killing it with as little suffering as possible, I hope this makes it to market as quick as possible.
Around here half the deer hunters don't bother going to the shooting range, and they're god-awful shots because of it. So they end up wounding whatever deer they shoot at, and the poor thing takes off and suffers for hours until it either bleeds to death or a coyote brings it down.
It should be noted that whatsisbutthead who shot up Sandy Hook fired nearly 150 times to get his 26 kills.
At close range. Against helpless targets.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Bah, that's nothing, I once killed a polar bear with a banana.
Show us the video!
NSFW.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
There is.
With the cross-hairs, you have to pull the trigger when the cross-hairs is on the target, at which point a bullet is fired at the target, inducing recoil.
With the laser, you have to "pull the [laser's] trigger" when the cross-hairs is on the target, at which point the target is marked, sans recoil. Additionally, the bullet is not yet fired, thereby allowing the shooter to try again if they are unsatisfied with the placement of their target marker, without having alerted the target of the shooter's position.
So yes, from the shooter's perspective, it's very much different in that:
a) you don't have to worry about recoil (during the targeting phase)
b) you get as many tries as you like before you actually shoot a bullet
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
High end custom .308 with 6-24x scope & AAC suppressor: $5000
Magpul Dynamics Precision Rifle Class: $750
Travel, hotel, food, etc. for class: $500
500 rounds of match ammo: $350 (I handload)
Kestrel wind/temperature/pressure meter: $200
Total: $6800
And I can stack shots at 100y (my three-shot groups are under 0.5"), and hit a 10" steel plate at 1km all day long. And unlike the $17k rifle, I can observe the wind at a distance, and account for it. Oh, and the class is a load of fun!
The NRA is not a "gun manufacturer lobbyist" group. It's a club of shooters. Most of what the NRA does is training for skills and safety. One of the group's branches (the NRA-ILA) lobbies for gun rights. The gun manufacturer lobbyist group is the NSSF.
But hey, anti-gun idiots like you haven't been concerned about factual accuracy in the past, so why start now?
Charles was ex-military with actual training. He used no more than one shot per target, kill or not. Sandy Hook was shot up by a guy with no formal training.
Learn to love Alaska
To answer your rather silly question, if it's an effective weapon, of course someone will eventually use it to kill someone else since violence is part of human nature. Maybe the first victim will be an innocent child or maybe it'll be a pedophile threatening an innocent child.
At $17-22,000 a piece, I doubt any person who isn't already the enemy of some government will be killed with one of these for a long, long time.
Indeed, that's exactly why this weapon will have no effect on public safety as some seem to think. Someone who can afford that much for a single weapon can afford various other extremely effective means of murder.
Agreed, lots of FUD on this one.
To that end, I was perusing the comments on the NPR page cited in the summary.. you would not believe the sheer volume of people there who seem to believe either A) you can show the gun a picture of someone, and it will go hunt them down all by itself, or B) it's some sort of auto-turret that can be set up in a location and indiscriminately mow down anyone unfortunate enough to step in front of the barrel.
The sad part isn't that people think in such a ridiculous manner; it's the fact morons like that get to vote.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Someone who can afford that much for a single weapon can afford various other extremely effective means of murder.
Side note: From what I've read in news articles and darknet listings, most hitmen charge between $5,000 and $15,000 for a contract killing, and the buyer doesn't have to soil their own hands.
So... yea.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I would assume that the point of a rifle like this is to rapidly learn how to hit a target at a distance, like training wheels. It seems like a pretty neat product, but I wouldn't want to see one used from the top of the UT tower, or to make Jack Reacher-style targeted killings easier.
A self-targeting scoped rifle would be very useful for defending one's compound during a zombie outbreak.
No offense, man, but if you're under siege by the police or military in the U.S., your best defense is to wait until the news cameras arrive, wave a white flag, and come out with your hands on your head. Does the term "shock and awe" sound familiar? These are good for zombie attacks, sniper simulation, and hunting for food. That's about it.
Hmm, a fair point, I hadn't thought of that. Still, it sounds like this thing is already pushing the accuracy limits of all but the most dedicated marksmen, as such it's pretty much guaranteed to be used by any amateur with ambitions of effectiveness, once the price comes down at least. And at present they make for pretty ridiulously expensive training wheels, I seriously doubt that's the intended market, it's far more appealing in situations where lives are going to be on the line.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
That's great today, but in a budding tyranny controlling the media will be a high priority. Not to mention that if there's any sort of even semi-credible resistance making an example of "freedom fighters" is likely pretty high on the to-do list, in which case surrender won't help you much. Not to mention that if you actually care about resisting tyranny rolling over isn't really an option, and self defense means staying alive as long as possible while doing as much damage as possible to the tyrants. "Self" doesn't necessarily end at your skin, it can easily encompass your family, your ideals, your society, even your species at large or the entire cosmos (for the Enlightened among us)
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Some make the case that they prefer natural shooting, and I would too. But this is a good way to train a shooter. Considering wind speed, direction and a lot of variables. You can easily mod this to be used as "training wheels" for shooters. The army and police trainers could really benefit from this. I had to use the paper and bare sights training route... Wouldn't mind getting a better understanding of trajectories through this. Someone make a hacked firmware already... ;)
IMHO guns are tools. This is a tool that gets a job done quicker easier and more safely. Some people do like the recreational use of guns, and this isn't for that.
Greed is the root of all evil.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/09/tiny-drone-ethe
Casteism
Seems like a highly unstable device that will shoot only when it's aligned correctly. I wonder how well the borderline cases like not found after so many seconds have been tested. I mean, if a novice cant get it to shoot, he will usually reverse the rifle and try to look down the barrel. OK
It sounds like a marketing speech. I seriously doubt that they know what is really involved in hitting a distant target.
The most likely result, of the system described, is to prevent the rifle from ever firing!