Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Connected Gun Lets Anyone Watch What Or Who You Are Shooting

Posted by samzenpus on from the point-and-double-click dept.

DavidGilbert99 writes A gun that lets novices make mile-long shots likes experts and which allows the owner to stream live video to show what the gun is aiming at to anyone, anywhere around the world is being showcased at CES. From the article: "Previously the longest range TrackingPoint’s weapons could accurately hit was about 1,200 yards with the company’s XM1 bolt-action rifle; the 'Mile Maker' adds 600 effective yards onto the range of the XM1 by using different rounds, a longer barrel, and most importantly, updated software in the computerized tracking scope. Aside from the 'Mile Maker,' TrackingPoint also announced that it will be expanding its weapons’ audio and visual capabilities—rather than streaming videos directly over local Wi-Fi or recording and uploading things after the fact to YouTube or Facebook, TrackingPoint firearms will gain the ability to live-stream the scope’s picture to remote users using TrackingPoint’s smartphone app. Later in 2015, the company will be shifting its lineup somewhat, removing all of the XS-class weapons from its catalog and replacing them with two, new lighter-frame options. The two, new bolt-action options will be chambered in .308 and .300 Winchester Magnum and will use the smaller scope from TrackingPoint’s AR platform. Finally, the company will also begin selling a smaller 'varmint gun' chambered in .260 Remington.

20 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. I wonder if it likes editors? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Funny

    A gun that lets novices make mile-long shots likes experts

    So, some sort of AI built into the system, wired to prefer the company of experts? Or does it learn, over time, to like experts?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  2. You know the cops are going to want it .. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    You know the cops are going to want these. Why risk a face-to-face encounter with someone when you can safely cap them?

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Kind of. There are a few systems that improve your accuracy but you definitely still need some solid basics.

      Lasers don't have any drop, nor are they affected by wind conditions, so you tag your target with the laser and then the computer on the rifle calculates where you need to aim in order to hit the target. Really advanced ones will test wind conditions, humidity, and temperature before giving you the aim point. Some can also hold the firing till you have a perfect shot lined up. So you hold the trigger and the gun will fire when the target lines up. There is a little more too it than wiggling it around though.

    2. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by floateyedumpi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not to be pedantic, but lasers most certainly have drop. In fact, the photons in a pulse of laser light fall towards the center of the Earth at exactly the same rate of acceleration as bullets do (namely 32 ft per second per second). It's just that they travel so fast, the transverse velocity they develop (v=gt) and distance off target that they move (d=1/d g t^2) during their short time of flight (t) are negligible.

    3. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think you meant "To be pedantic,".

    4. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by nicoleb_x · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have you ever shot a rifle at long range? There is this this thing called atmosphere that actually slows down a bullet such that it slows and drops far out of proportion to the gravitational effects or even the Coriolis effects. Those damn lasers are hardly effected by the atmosphere. I'd even wager that the laser, traveling at the speed of light, reaches it's target so fast that drop is irrelevant where line-of-sight is a limiting factor. Now, when there is mirage, all bets are off. The target doesn't appear where it really is so laser or regular optics are going to be frustrated. So remember to start a big ass fire between you and the snipers or plan to be in the area only when bright sun is heating the air between you and the sniper.

  3. Not Far Off, Now... by IonOtter · · Score: 2

    It won't be long until something like this scene from Ghost in the Shell: SAC will be commonplace.

    --
    [End Of Line]
  4. Just what's needed! by GrahamCox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Finally! Just what America needs - more and better guns!

    1. Re:Just what's needed! by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 2

      You know, I'm a bit right-of-center on gun issues (which means that in most conversations I manage to piss off both my more conservative and more liberal friends, often with the same statement). I have no problem with widespread gun ownership and use of guns for personal self-defense.

      But this... holy mother of Charles Whitman, how can this not get into the wrong hands with tragic consequences? Random urban sniper sprees just got a whole lot worse.

  5. Makes it easier... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2

    This will certainly make marksmanship training instruction easier.

  6. Don't put cameras on everything by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?

    And what's next? Cameras installed in the bullets?

    Despite the chill this technology gives me, I can see military applications (e.g., real-time mission-monitoring) but its use by consumers makes no sense to me.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    1. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Shoten · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?

      And what's next? Cameras installed in the bullets?

      Despite the chill this technology gives me, I can see military applications (e.g., real-time mission-monitoring) but its use by consumers makes no sense to me.

      That's what I was thinking...but with a chilling difference. Imagine if the shooters in the Paris attack had something like this, and chose to shoot their targets at distance, while producing videos they could later put up on YouTube? Not good...

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    2. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Nutria · · Score: 2

      Imagine if the shooters in the Paris attack had something like this ...

      Exactly. Just wait until some guy with a thick accent named Abdul Mohammad Mustafa buys a couple and they wind up in Syria or Palestine...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      I could see the snipers on the SWAT teams using this to give additional information to those in command rather than just relaying information over the radio and also for verifying a shot when there is time.

    4. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      Take away the killing someone aspect and replace it with a sporting aspect and you start to get reasons.

      When your coach is trying to get your LR Bench Rest groups to improve having them able to real time see what you see at point of fire would be excellent.

  7. Re:Bahd Idea by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nope. Dick Cheney. It's the "wont shoot your friends face" model.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  8. Re:Who is this for? by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

    Hunters like to take long shots. Realistically the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with cheap "throw-away" handguns. The use of rifles - particularly bolt action scoped rifles - is negligible in overall crime rates. Strange though - SHOT Show (http://shotshow.org/) - basically the hunting/shooting equivalent of CES - is kicking off in 2 weeks. Seems like it would be a lot more appropriate there.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  9. Uh oh by tool462 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not looking forward to the selfies...

  10. Re:Nope, more are killed with guns by Mspangler · · Score: 2

    You didn't read the question;

    ""More people are killed by 'bare hands' than by rifles or shotguns." The rifles and shotguns are the important part. Previous poster was discussing the fraction of total firearm murders done with long guns vs handguns.

    So, were more than 726 people killed with rifles and shotguns? It's probably buried somewhere in that same report.

  11. Re:Nope, more are killed with guns by Mspangler · · Score: 2

    I ran your link, and rifles were 323, and shotguns were 356. Total is 679, so parent is correct. Bare hands (726) kill more than rifles and shotguns combined.

    However, there are 1684 "undefined gun" homicides in the list. Not sure what is up with that. Never recovered the weapon, so couldn't say for sure?

    Incidentally the homicide count for knives is 1694. So knives kill more people than assault rifles and assault shotguns combined by a two to one margin.