Slashdot Mirror
Point-and-Shoot: TrackingPoint's New Linux-Controlled AR-15s
Ars Technica takes a look at the next generation of TrackingPoint's automatically aimed rifles (not "automatic" in the usual sense), and visited the shooting range where they're tested out. Like the company's previous generation of gun (still in production, and increasingly being sold to government buyers), TrackingPoint's offerings integrate a Linux computer that makes acquiring and tracking a target far easier and more accurate than it would otherwise be. Unlike the older models, though, this year TrackingPoint is concentrating on AR-15s, rather than longer, heavier bolt-action rifles. A slice:
The signature "Tag-Track-Xact" system has gained additional functionality on the AR models, too. With the bolt-action guns, there was only one way to put a round onto a target: first, you sighted in on the thing you wanted to hit and depressed the red tagging button just above the trigger. A red pip would appear in the scope’s crosshairs, and you’d place the pip onto the target and release the button. The scope’s rangefinding laser would then illuminate the target to measure its distance, and the image processor would fix on the object; if you moved, or if the target moved, the red pip would remain atop the target. Then, to fire, you squeezed the trigger and lined the crosshairs up with the target’s pip. When the two coincided, the weapon fired. This method works fine for a bolt-action rifle where every round has to be manually chambered, but it’s less than ideal for a carbine, which one might want to fire off-hand (i.e., standing up and aiming) or from the hip. With this in mind, the AR PGFs have a new "free fire mode," in which you can tag a target once and then shoot at it as many times as you want by pulling the trigger directly, with all the shots using the ballistic data from the first shot’s tag.
That means, says writer Lee Hutchinson, a rifle "with essentially 100 percent accuracy at 250 yards."
Because being able to do that with a fully-automatic heavy weapon will be the new level of warfare.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Remote controlled troops will kill the terrists for US! And they be doped up with alertness droogs so they see wat they do! God Bless 'Merica!!!!!
RMS must be tearful with pride.
It's awesome being a Linux hacker. I used it to shoot off this first post.
With this in mind, the AR PGFs have a new "free fire mode," in which you can tag a target once and then shoot at it as many times as you want by pulling the trigger directly, with all the shots using the ballistic data from the first shot’s tag.
With the replay button, another Zorg invention, it's even easier. One shot...and replay sends every following shot to the same location.
Although I guess in this case you actually want to push the little red button.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
So, okay, rifle, take a picture through a scope, assuming the target doesn't move, it's quite possible to get some fairly nice help on activating the trigger only when your "mark" is in your sights with some hard coded ballistic information to help with ranging.
Throw real world movement of the target, change of the landscape, and now you're talking something freakishly hard.
I might enjoy something like this target shooting, but other than some fairly narrow sniping applications against static targets, this isn't anywhere near ready for primetime.
At this point, the main problem seems to be putting the human into the mix. I could see putting a laser distance gauge, and some rudimentary calculator to automatically adjust for distance; I am sort of thinking, highlighting the correct location in the scope instead of actually adjusting it. But if you you are going to design complete tracking tech, put the gun on a tripod with a few motors. Hell, you could probably even mount it on a guys backpack.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
First, you need to perfectly accurately sight the target, with no help. Then after you have done that, the computer will track for you. And if you screwed up the first step, and tagged a plant instead, you are screwed.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
How many more children will die because of this invention?
Must we have something worse than Sandy Hook for people to wake up and say "no" to gun violence
How does it know what the target is after it has moved? Does it have to stay within the sights at all times, you cannot even lose sight of it in that tiny reticule? Or is it like marked at long distance with some sort of tracer?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
With a software driven firearm, you've committed a felony by writing a simple for loop.
(Created a machine gun)
I mean, what's the worst that could happen?
Now to ensure that every high-school age child in America gets one!
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
Are you sure you want to shoot this target?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
it’s less than ideal for a carbine, which one might want to fire off-hand (i.e., standing up and aiming) or from the hip.
nobody wants to fire from the hip (except in libtards' imagination)
anyone who even tries to enter without my permission is instantly turned into swiss cheese :-)
Could this be Linux's killer app that would blow the competition out of the water?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
It's an aimbot for real rifles. Now, any rifleman can be a sniper.
Yes, it's too big, too complicated, and too expensive. That's a temporary problem. Ever see the first laser sight, from the 1980s? It used a helium-neon laser tube and required a power cord. There's been some progress since then. This aimbot technology should be down to smartphone size, if not cost, soon enough.
Really? You're shooting an AR-15 from the hip at a range where a trackpoint system would be helpful?
Like that scene from The Fifth Element? I'd post a link but I find it amusing that if you search youtube for "That scene from the 5th element", it's the second link.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Will the be a version that blind people can use too?
How accurate is that at 250 yds?
I cant tell from TFA, but when you shoot a person to death, does the tracking system support Double Tap mode so you can put two bullets into a persons brain?
Or does the system detect that the majority of the skull and brains are splattered against the wall/floor so you can save ammunition for the next person you want to shoot to death?
God Bless Murica.
Ideal for home defence.
Requiem for the American Dream
Does anyone know what benefit is actually provided by using Linux? This is precisely the type of embedded system with life-or-death consequences where I'd expect to see the entire thing done in heavily-audited assembly, or something close to it, interfacing directly with the hardware, with no OS to get in the way.
Certainly I'd trust it more than a Windows CE-based weapon, and I suppose if you want to reduce your attack surface, open source is the way to go - you can cut out the components that aren't needed. But, even still - I see little reason for an operating system to be there, except for convenient/cheap/fast development.
There is one simple answer.
People (on average) are less afraid of things that they are FAMILIAR with and that they FEEL they have more control over. So people are comfortable driving to the airport but worry about the flight.
People are scared of "terrorists" killing them but are, statistically, more likely to be killed by someone in their own family.
So the scariest thing would be someone that you don't know who is planning to kill you or your child for a reason you don't understand.
But the reality is that if you're living in the USofA and you're white then you will die from the food you've chosen to eat and the exercise that you've chosen to skip. But since you have control over that (I'll start tomorrow) and it's familiar you won't worry about it.
It is amazing how much misinformation flies around about guns. One of the common ones is "OMG the M4/16 is such crap, the AK is so much bettar!"
You are quite correct about the range. The AR-15 platform weapons are much more accurate. Anyone who has ever fired both can easily tell that.
The issue that people like the grandparent conflate is the lethality of the 5.56x45mm round at longer ranges. Though the M16 can easily hit a target at long range (with a skilled marksman operating it), because of the small size and low mass of the round, it is often not as effective as you would want. If the bullet does not fragment or tumble, it can go right through someone and the small hole does little damage.
That is the issue it has at range, not accuracy or ability to reach that range.
Also this isn't like it is some completely unknown, or unsolvable, thing. The military also has weapons that use 7.62x51mm rounds which are larger rifle bullets and have much greater range, mass, and kinetic energy. For longer engagements still things like 8.58Ã--70mm and 12.7Ã--99mm are used.
Of course as you move up in caliber and amount of propellant, weapons become bigger and heavier, and have larger amounts of recoil to deal with, it is always a tradeoff and is one reason why the standard personal weapons use 5.56.
In terms of 5.56x45mm vs 7.62Ã--39mm (which is what the AK uses, is is not the same as the larger NATO round) the real issues come up at medium range (100-300m) and with barrier penetration. The light, high velocity 5.56 round tends to be fantastically lethal below 100m because the high velocity results in fragmentation when it hits the target. However since military rounds may not be specifically designed to fragment or expand (the Geneva convention prohibits it, civilian and police rounds are available that do), as it slows down at greater ranges they lose that ability and are not as damaging. Also, because of their low mass and tendency to fragment they are poor performers when shooting through barriers like windshields, doors, and so on.
THAT is the issue the rounds have in general use vs 7.62Ã--39mm rounds. Not long ranges. While they aren't super effective beyond 300m, they are reasonably accurate at least, which is not the case with the 7.62 rounds. At a long range engagement an M4 would be at a decided advantage to an AK-47.
However neither was designed for long range use. They are carbines, made for medium range and below. They trade overall power and range for smaller size, lower weight, and better portability. As their widespread use in many conflicts around the world indicates, they do well in that arena.
....Linux deathtop?
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Return Fire!
I can't Sir, It hasn't finished compiling!
God dammit! I knew Gentoo was the wrong distro for our rifles.
We have nasty spiders and snakes, but you don't use firearms to kill either of those. Both only strike humans defensively. Our large land animals are all herbivores; kangaroo, emus and cassowaries have a very nasty kick but they'll run away in preference to attacking you. Dingoes, despite the high-profile death of Azarea Chamberlain back in 1978, are basically wild dogs, and represent little threat to people.
We also have a collection of potentially lethal acquatic species, including the Blue-Ringed Octopus, several species of jellyfish, and some sharks. Again, guns aren't a lot of use against them.
Crocodiles, which I guess you're referring to with the giant knife reference, are the one animal that will actually try to eat an adult human. They only live in the tropical north of the country, far away from the major population centres, and any that move in near the cities in those regions are killed or relocated by professional shooters.
So, no, you don't need a gun to protect yourself from the wildlife in Australia. And despite some myths, if you want a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target shooting, or need one for farming or pest control, you can get one in Australia. You just can't walk into a gun shop and buy an AR-15 or a big-calibre handgun for "self-defence" here. And, nearly 20 years after the changes to the gun laws, that remains overwhelmingly popular here.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
It takes a child with a gun to stop a mass murdering gun nut with a gun.
I'm concerned... these children keep bouncing around and won't stand still long enough for me to massacre them.
The reality of life is that it's trivial to kill someone. A human body is an incredibly complex machine, with billions of interacting parts, and it's just so easy to screw it up fatally. Sure, you could ban guns with fancy sights, but it's still just as easy to build a bomb, grab a knife, or slip a bit of poison into a meal.
All of which are more harder and/or more convoluted than a firearm.
To stab someone you have to get up close and personal and that increases your risk. If they're bigger than you it is a much greater. You also have to get them in the right spot/s or they can survive.
Building a bomb takes patience and learning to get it right. Similarly with poison, where there are certainly household chemicals that can be used, but they tend to be harsh and easy to taste. Getting more subtle poisons would take much more effort.
Contrast all of these things to a firearm which is both relatively easy to get, not too hard to operate, and exposes minimal risk to the attacker.
Read Marshall McLuhan: any particular technology changes the culture in which it exists. Sadly he didn't cover them explicitly, but just like everyone carrying around a smartphone with 'net connectivity and photo and video capabilities, a society which has firearms carried about (legally or illegaly) is altered by their availability.
How does it tell the difference between an innocent bystander and a terrorist/infidel ?
Is a satellite in sub-orbit with a pinprick sized high energy laser on it. Zap target from 8++ miles high, give him what looks like an aneurism, & bingo: No "hitman" (or huge contract fee) cleaner required to "terminate with extreme prejudice" & hard to detect that it wasn't "natural causes" since the wound would cauterize itself and not be the size of an immediately noticeable bullethole. Situation, is contained. Hope I didn't give anyone any ideas, however, I doubt severely this is "original thought" on my part either. If I can think of it, odds are, it's been done and is being done.
I thought it was well established that the purpose of carbines like the AK and M-16 was to essentially serve as a long range shotgun, not to be a long range highly accurate rifle.. fire it down range and those folks 300-500 meters away will tend not to stand up and come running towards you. You then wait for the artillery or close air support to remove them.
The idea also was that "muzzle rise due to recoil" means that in a three shot burst, you'll nicely straddle the range of elevations needed to compensate for the drop for all ranges, so all the guy/gal with their feet in the mud needs to do is get the left right azimuth reasonably close.
This merely pushes engagement ranges out once again. WWI riflemen were trained to shoot at hundreds of yards, in fact the sight-system on the old WWI bolt-action rifles is often stepped out to crazy ranges like 1200 yards. (Not that they'd actually hit anything.) It's only with the advent of general-issue personal weapons with rapid fire capability that aimed-fire ranges have shrunk in the modern era. (Some would say that they shrunk to what typical engagement ranges were ANYWAY.)
Now, the conventional wisdom of shooting from 500 yards instead of 100 yards is shooter safety, as it gives the advantage to the shooter - the reply-fire (even if it's of large volume) is likely to be reflexive, hasty and (normally) unlikely to hit anything 500y away.
This is no longer necessarily true. Counter-sniper systems are getting better every day - more sophisticated, quicker, and more accurate - meaning .50 cal or heavier suppressive fire can land on the shooter's position as quickly as 0.75 seconds from registering the incoming shot.
What this means only is that infantry combat is truly entering the computer age.
Human reflexes have been recognized to be largely too slow to perform any but the grossest weapons-release functions for air and (some) naval combat, this now means that even for infantry combat we're going to have automated rifles firing on targets, and automated systems firing back - both quicker, and better than people could do it.
-Styopa
It gives it a whole new meaning if they're using Suicide Linux.
War has changed.
With increasing lethality brought on by machine targeting, how about we shoot the weapons that the enemy is holding/operating instead of shooting the enemy that is holding the weapon? After all, eventually, it's going to be weapon vs weapon and no humans will go anywhere near combat.
I'd just love it if America could send nearly-invulnerable machines after ISIS that simply destroyed or confiscated all their weapons without serious harm to a single person. [In Arabic] "Play time is over. Set down the RPG. You have been a bad boy." The idea of machines being made progressively more lethal and more invulnerable makes me awfully nervous. But I digress; shoot the weapon, not the man (or woman, or child, or dog, or bird, or whatever).
Alternately, send in machines that break enemy machines. Suppose somebody invented a robotic insect that flies onto a weapon and welds itself to a key point that would prevent the weapon from working? Triggers seem ideal. High kinetic energy solutions aren't always necessary.
the US did not create Al Quaeda, stop repeating that lie.
I do not think you realize how difficult it is to train third world people to use state of the art military equipment.
been there done that. not even something worth doing. i give you the current state of Iraq as an example of 10 years of training flushed down the drain.
besides these weapons should be fairly easy to neutralize by any reasonably modern military.
They are developing software that works with moving targets and changing backgrounds.
It already takes into account barometric pressure, elevation, range, temperature, shooting angle etc.
They are working on one with compensation for cross-wind as well
FOr a slashdot reader you dont seem to have a very good grasp on technological advancement.
I am not sure, but I do know it has wireless interface to an ipad with which your spotter or whatever can watch what you are seeing through the scope.
That I can mount lasers AND ar15s to my sharks now?!
...until their crap breaks and leaves the untrained shooter up shit creek without a rifle he or she can use effectively. And, break it will.
That's what I thought of too when I saw this.
I would probably call it a trigger-bot... splitting hairs.
Seriously, this would be better used on a tri-pod mounted railgun that is used to guard a base.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Sounds good to me. I think a railgun that shoots out the weapons and their depots would make sense. Then have troops follow in and then decide if they need to shoot or noth.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
For Jack Black, did it?