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."
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
Get your FLOSS personalities right: Eric S Raymond is the gun nut.
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.
Throw real world movement of the target, change of the landscape, and now you're talking something freakishly hard.
Don't forget variable winds between you and something 250 yards away... 100% accuracy my ass...
Yeah, that seems to be the case.
It's just a regular gun that waits to fire until you've lined up with where you tried to shoot initially.
Nothing too new on the image processing front... but it runs Linux and pisses off the peaceniks, so Slashdot runs the story.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Now to ensure that every high-school age child in America gets one!
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
How many more children will die because of this invention?
I'm going to go with "none in the foreseeable future".
Must we have something worse than Sandy Hook for people to wake up and say "no" to gun violence
How about the Bath School disaster, where 45 people died, mostly children? Or perhaps looking away from human causes, we could consider infant diarrhoea, which kills a couple million children per year and can be cured with a few pennies' worth of salt? How about political violence and genocides, which kill thousands of civilian children?
The simple answer is that there is no simple answer. The Bath School disaster was done with explosives. Infant diarrhoea is mostly a problem because parents don't have access to medical care, or realize that they need it. Political conflict is never so simple as having the good guys fight the bad guys - all sides think their righteous virtues are worth dying for, and worth having innocent people die for.
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.
Let's say "no" to pithy slogans and short-sighted politically-convenient campaigns.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Are you sure you want to shoot this target?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I don't think there will ever be such a thing as a 100% accurate shotgun.
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.
Aaah, a true killer application, the year of GNU/Linux on your favourite weapon of choice :)
You can't handle the truth.
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?
Remote controlled troops will kill the terrists for US!
Other way around. This is the perfect assassination weapon.
Politicians will be queuing up to ban it as soon as they realize how big a threat it is to them. All the "terrists" need to do is to set the suitably disguised receiver and barrel of the rifle on an intentionally randomizing mount pointing where a politician is speechifying, tag the legislator via a phone link as soon as they're in sight, then walk away. A timer on the trigger can keep clicking away after a preset interval to get the job done.
Who knows, this might be the Colt Peacemaker of our day?
Will the be a version that blind people can use too?
250 yards is not particularly far away with a fast/flat cartridge like 5.56 NATO.
My ballistic calculator says that given the torso is, on average, 18" across, this system could aim dead center/upper chest (zeroed for 100 yds) and with no correction at all, hit its target correcting for elevation and windage for +/- 17mph wind with M855.
I am actually fairly unimpressed by this. Any dope can make a 300 yard shot with an AR on a head sized target and telescopic sights. If this was able to make those shots at 500+ yds, that would really be something.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Ever hear of deer slugs (a.k.a. slugs)?
http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/guns/shotguns/shooting-tips/2009/11/accuracy-methods-and-gear-tips-competition-slug-shooter
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
It's easier to aim a laser tag with a small switch - and correct it if you've got it wrong - than to aim and fire using the trigger perfectly the first time.
It's all about repercussions and sensitivity - the target probably wont get alerted by the tagging beam, and you can correct it as many times as you like whilst maintaining stealth. Once you have it right, the first real bullet will hit it's mark and the show is over.
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.
Hmm... let's see...
1. You get asked at least 3 times whether you're really, really sure you want to kill that file, I mean target.
2. Just when you're about to take a shot, your rifle insists that it needs to install upgrades, then shuts down without even asking you.
3. You pull the trigger, your sights get grey, you hear a ping and get asked whether you want to allow or deny that shot.
4. In the next version of your gun your sights and trigger get replaced by huge, unwieldy and flashy tiles that you have to lug around, where nobody on this planet can explain why you need them (allegedly they're great for those Navy guys, why you need them in the infantry is explained with an attempt to unify the troops), and it will take at least a year of complaining from your whole platoon 'til you get your old sights and trigger back. And even then only if you ask for them.
5. Your gun would come without cleaning equipment, without safety and a few other things (unless you bought the "ultimate" version), but you'd get a free deck of playing cards.
6. Cleaning the gun is a hassle and a half. Technically, what people do instead is throwing it away once it gets so dirty that you can't shoot reliably anymore and get a new one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Its still not gonna be terribly accurate with a smoothbore barrel.
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.
will be the new level of warfare.
Yes, and not in a good way.
It used to be the case that you needed experienced, diciplined soldiers to make snipers. If you tried to fight a proxy war by arming insurgents the way the U.S. armed the Mujahideen (al Quaeda), or the way Russia is arming Ukranian separatists, then you got a pretty inefficient force that could only win by war of attrition.
These new weapons will make it much easier for anyone with money (like the IS) to recruit people out of the slums and quickly turn them into effective fighting units.
Also it will increase the efficiency of child soliders, and therfore lead to more recruitment.
So does a stinger. Better warhead. Heat seeking is easy with all that hot air and inflated sense of importance.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Take your meds. The ATF probably wants to buy these things.
Since these guns have been all over the gun-nut press for the past couple of years, I'm sure that various three letter government agencies have heard about them and paid them some visits. Most cordial visits.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
http://tracking-point.com/innovations/hardware/tag-button The target is not marked by anything physical. The distance to target is measured with a laser range finder, but they don't go into any details as to how the subsequent tracking is performed (and understandably so, that's where they make their money). It could be an active system, where the scope continuously bounces laser off the target and corrects for movement within reasonable limits. It could be visual, where the system guesses the target's outline and then tracks it using the camera. Or it could be something else. Either way, automated tracking of ground targets is notoriously difficult compared to targets in air or on water, so it would be interesting to know how they deal with things like one deer moving briefly behind another, or standing behind a tree for a while and then coming out again.
You mean give some insurgents a Buk and they'll shoot down a civilian plane?
In this particular case, "intended" is not the same as "illuminated". The gun doesn't know what your intended target is, only what you light up. If you point it at a child, that's what it will track: the responsibility is yours. Or put another way, guns don't stop people from killing people - people do.
This product is marketed as a way to improve accuracy and record shot videos, not to make the gun safer. Weapons are inherently unsafe, and the only way to make one safe is to destroy it.
'Australia banned guns: Sure, there are no school massacres but the murder rate hasn't decreased.'
You're reading the wrong newspaper, the Washington Post says otherwise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
"So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness."
Perhaps this is not about accuracy at these kinds of ranges; eventually, weapons like this might be able to give you much faster reactions. E.g., you see four enemies, you press the trigger (the weapon doesn't fire), you swing the weapon across the general direction of the enemies, and it fires automatically four times at just the right time as the barrel is passing over the targets (or, more accurately, the proper aiming points).
Ezekiel 23:20
You would be surprised how bad people shoot in the real world... I hunt. I fire about 50 shots on big game (mostly boar, deer and moose) a year, and well over thousand if you count small game. I compete, primarily in sporting and skeet but also 300 meter rifle.
In my experience the wast majority of shooters have a hard time hitting a deer sized targets with a rifle at 300 meters without special training. Add any sort of complication, like a little bit of stress, moving target, bad light or the like, and most people won't hit a deer sized target consistently (that is, 10 out of 10 in the heart-lung area) at 100 meters. The performance of the cartridge barely matters. Most people simply need a lot of training to aim and fire a rifle well, especially under stress.
I spend a considerable amount of my spare time tracking down deer which were wounded by people with the "Any dope can make a 300 yard shot" attitude. They are typically not quite so tough at 4 am in the morning when we have spent a few hours tracking down the deer they wounded. While it is good training for the dogs, and it is very rewarding work, it would be better if people learned how hard it is to shoot well on distances over 100 meters.
I've never seen any of you at People With Girlfriends or Humans That Wash either.
There is no "overkill".
There is only "kill" with varying levels of confidence.
Shoot a guy once, and there's always the possibility he's not dead.
Shoot him 300 times, and yeah, you're pretty certain of him.
Shoot him with a missile, and now you're sure he's not just merely dead, he's really most sincerely dead.
Just...fire it from outside it's blast radius...(See "Fireball in 10x10 room")
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Go look at the real data. Homicides are declining in Austrailia and the US. Since Austrailia banned guns the firearm murder rate dropped but it dripped faster than the overall homicide rate which means that quite a few killers still decided to kill even without a gun. In the same time the US had more guns and more people carrying guns and also saw a decrease in homicides. If you remove the places with strict gun laws the homicide rate drops even further.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
AA-12? Sort of an overkill for a personal weapon, I'd say...
That's loser talk.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Does the phrase "M1A1 Abrams" have any meaning for you?
Hint: the Abrams gun is a 120mm smoothbore. It's probably the most accurate tank gun in current use.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
...And if you screwed up the first step, and tagged a plant instead, you are screwed.
For that you need a Salad Shooter.
... it would be better if people learned how hard it is to shoot well on distances over 100 meters.
The corollary to this is "don't shoot beyond your abilities." If you know you're inexperienced or a poor shot while under the influence of 'buck fever', don't try the long shots in the first place. These days there are plenty of does* that will basically walk right up to you for a clean, humane kill.
*Where I live, they've basically declared open season on deer - 6 a year, three of which must be anterless, the whole 1.5 month firearms season is either-sex, plus all the bonus deer tags you can buy.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
it also fires shells that cost more than a car.
Everything is porn to somebody.
It fires fin-stabilized sub-caliber darts with an extremely high ballistic coefficient. Of course it's going to be highly accurate even at long distances. I'm just not sure that this scales down to small arms.
Ezekiel 23:20
Hi!
I'm a recreational shooter and have at least a passing familiarity with small arms doctrine. This has very little military application.
Why?
Well...
If you are running a crew serviced weapon, what is traditionally thought of as a 'machine gun', you aren't trying to match every bullet to some knucklehead's torso. That isn't your job. Your weapon isn't accurate enough for that sort of milarky. What you can do is drop 600+ rounds a minute in a sustainable way. You end up with what's referred to as a 'beaten' area. Say a machine gun has an accuracy of around 6 MOA.. which they don't. An MOA means minute of angle.. roughly 1" at 100 yards, 2" at 200 yards, and doubles every time you double the distance.
Say you have that super-accurate MG. It's dropping 600 rounds a minute into 6" at 100, a foot at 200, two feet at 400 and etc. Say you've got a guy prone hiding behind a stump at 200 yards. You aren't concerned with trying to one-shot his brain pan. It's far more efficent on your time to drop a 2-3 second burst (20-30 rounds) than take the 5 seconds it'd take to setup a perfect shot with a better weapon. It's about hit probabilities. If you can fill a space with enough bullets fast enough you'll overcome inaccuracy. Accuracy is difficult to achieve in the field. More bullets in a given space is relatively easy.
Rifles work the same way. 3-4 MOA is typical on modern combat rifles. within 200 yards, wind drift and bullet drop is less than your accuracy threshold. At 3 MOA that maybe true all the way to 400 yards. Forcing me to slow down and achieve a 'perfect' aim point doesn't buy me anything -- name of the game is me + 2 or 3 supporting fellows filling the same space with bullets till probability gives us a center punching of the target. IE, 6 rounds into 8 MOA in 5 seconds is more likely to hit center than 2 rounds at 3 MOA in the same time. That's a major part of the point of burst fire. You can't overcome inherit inaccuracy in the system with better aim. Only by recovering from the shot and pulling the trigger faster.
The gizmo can't do that. The combat revolution you envision was achieved decades ago by semi and fully automatic weaponry.
500m with an M16A2 is part of normal training in the Marine Corps. This is with open sights. I can put 10 rounds in an 8" circle at such distances.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
"(See 'Fireball in 10x10 room')"
Edition dependent: Yes in 1-2E. No in 0E, BX, 3-4-5E.
http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2011/07/spells-through-ages-fireball.html
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
yes, slugs are *extremely* accurate and are designed to be fired through smoothbore barrel *with a choke*, look it up how they work. I get 3" groups at 100 yards out of my Remington 870 with 3" rounds