Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Self-Guided Bullet Can Hit Targets a Mile Away

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the just-in-case-you're-too-lazy-to-walk-over-there dept.

The Military 421

New submitter jpwilliams writes "Gizmag reports that researchers at Sandia National Laboratories have tested a 10-centimeter bullet that can be fired from a smooth-bore rifle to hit a laser-marked target one mile away. The bullet 'includes an optical sensor in the nose to detect a laser beam on a target. The sensor sends information to guidance and control electronics that use an algorithm in an eight-bit central processing unit to command electromagnetic actuators. These actuators steer tiny fins that guide the bullet to the target.' Interestingly, accuracy improves with targets that are further away, because 'the bullet's motions settle the longer it is in flight.'"

cancel ×

421 comments

Hmmmmm (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38883975)

Interesting. If you were looking for gun.nut and came to slashdot by mistake.

Dart Maybe? (3)

avandesande (143899) | more than 2 years ago | (#38883983)

Sounds more like a dart than a bullet.

Re:Dart Maybe? (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884011)

Sounds more like a dart than a bullet.

The real trick is training the sharks to fire the rifles.

Re:Dart Maybe? (4, Insightful)

squidflakes (905524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884141)

Sounds more like it is laser-guided than self-guided too.

Re:Dart Maybe? (1)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884261)

No, laser guided implies that there are lasers on the bullet that are helping to measure its location wrt it's surroundings. Instead, the laser just paints a target; it guides itself to the target. Hence, self guided.

Re:Dart Maybe? (4, Informative)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884359)

No, laser guided implies that there are lasers on the bullet that are helping to measure its location wrt it's surroundings. Instead, the laser just paints a target; it guides itself to the target. Hence, self guided.

Laser Guidance [wikipedia.org]

Re:Dart Maybe? (1)

exomondo (1725132) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884545)

No, it just steers itself in that direction, the laser is what guides it to where it needs to get to. The 'paint' is what guides it to the target.

Re:Dart Maybe? (2)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884325)

Can't snipers already hit a target a mile out, without needing million dollar bullets?

Re:Dart Maybe? (5, Insightful)

bamwham (1211702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884469)

But it costs money (no idea how much) to train that sniper, and if they are injured you've lost their value. Whereas if the guy using this gun is injured the person next to them can pick it up and use it. Not an expert of course...

Re:Dart Maybe? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884493)

Yep. In the right conditions, you can get a headshot at 5 miles.

Re:Dart Maybe? (5, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884673)

World record is a mile and a half. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/sniper_kills_qaeda_from_mi_away_sTm0xFUmJNal3HgWlmEgRL [nypost.com]

5 miles? That's pushing the limits of physics just a little too much. It would take a shitload of luck to get a hit from that far away. Farthest I've personally seen done is just over a mile (1800m).

And as others have pointed out, it takes time and money to train a sniper. It also takes a *lot* of luck at the upper ends of distance. You have to account for ballistic trajectory, air resistance (which changes with the temperature), wind (which can change directions remarkably easily), moving targets, etc.. Even at the speeds a bullet travels at, it still takes a discernable amount of time to reach the target at that distance. Having something you can fire and forget, and let your spotter guide it to its target with a laser pointer is a huge improvement, IMO. And besides, it's not going to cost a million bucks a pop once it's in production. Development may have cost that, but nothing in the device is all that expensive to actually make.

Re:Dart Maybe? (5, Funny)

chill (34294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884517)

In the gaming universe this is known as an "aim bot", and is routinely derided as a hack for no-skill n00bs.

It should be popular.

Re:Dart Maybe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884623)

This round is to make snipers out of regular infantrypersons.

Lasers? Fired from a shark? (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38883997)

Of course, the laser (even IR) will give away the spotter's position. This is no sniper weapon. I wonder, then, what applications the technology does have.

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884115)

Of course, the laser (even IR) will give away the spotter's position. This is no sniper weapon. I wonder, then, what applications the technology does have.

So don't be all day about it - aim and fire and let the bullet do the rest of the work, that's what it's for.

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? (4, Interesting)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884169)

So don't be all day about it - aim and fire and let the bullet do the rest of the work, that's what it's for.

The 'other side' already has someone with night-vision goggles scanning for muzzle flashes of sniper weapons. He will easily see the IR laser too. In fact, that laser will give him a short warning that a sniper is about to fire. At 1.5 kilometers range, a second's warning is enough to yell "down" so nobody's torso is in the same place that it was when the trigger was pulled.

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884251)

nobody's torso is in the same place that it was when the trigger was pulled.

As long as the guy with the laser can keep the laser on you, that's not going to help a lot.

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? (2)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884327)

As long as the guy with the laser can keep the laser on you, that's not going to help a lot.

How about an LED decoy thrown to the side?

You do bring up an interesting point, though. Who is responsible for the kill, the guy pulling the trigger or the guy pressing the button on the laser?

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? (2)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884291)

No, the only way you would see the origination point of the laser is if it were pointed directly at your goggles. Otherwise you can't tell where the laser scope is situated.

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? (1)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884675)

There's no laser with a perfect optics. There will be light spilling off to the sides. Lighting up a laser at night is light standing around smoking a cigarette. It will give away your position.

I guess what they could do is have the laser only turn on when the trigger is pulled. That way it won't add any visibility that the flame doesn't already give.

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? (2)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884321)

Can't you put a hood on a laser so that it would only be visible within a vary narrow angular range? You can't really do that with a muzzle flash.

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? (1)

RMingin (985478) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884661)

Actually, you can do exactly that. Most wouldn't bother fully concealing the muzzle flash, but a flash suppressor does the meaningful percentages of that job.

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? (1)

pastyM (1580389) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884509)

laser guided that makes adjustments in flight, sounds like if the laser would move to fallow that torso it would still hit.

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? (5, Insightful)

Troggie87 (1579051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884215)

Application? How about an overhead drone carrying a payload thats roughly the same weight as now, except instead of blowing things up it just shoots you in the face. You dont have to carry a huge amount of munitions when 95% of the bullets will hit the target.

From now on, whenever you see a new military technology you should think about how it works with drones. For example, it probably isnt a coincidence that our new magnetic launch systems on carriers will allow lighter, more fragile aircraft (read, composite drones) to be launched. The official line is it does less damage to tradition aircraft, which it does. But the guys calling the shots on this stuff make war for a living, and the writing is on the wall as far as the future goes. "Lighter. Cheaper. Disposable"

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? (2)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884227)

Hunting.

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? (4, Insightful)

Hentai (165906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884305)

This is absolutely a sniper weapon. It's just not a sniper weapon to be used against prepared military assets.

It'd do a fine job of assassinating unprepared civilian targets, though.

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? (1)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884421)

Maybe no good in the traditional sniper role but if this weapon ever gets to the point where it has an effective range that's much greater than any small arms fire then it will have a new role all of its own. That role will be called "shoot the Taliban and laugh at the counter fire".

Re:Lasers? Fired from a shark? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884447)

A) there doesn't need to be a human at the laser's position, it could be pointed by robot.

B) the laser doesn't need to be continuous. You could PWM it with a small duty cycle and a decreasing aperiodic frequency, at the sacrifice of accuracy.

Really? (5, Funny)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884029)

Personally i don't believe it. A mile away? They probably couldn't hit an elephant at that dist

Re:Really? (-1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884153)

seeing as the longest distance confirmed sniper kill (against a human) is 2,707 yards i'd say you're a moron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills [wikipedia.org]

Re:Really? (5, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884231)

I don't normally do this, but woosh [wikiquote.org]

Re:Really? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884165)

Just remember to keep your head down at all times . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills

Of course, they weren't aiming at elephants . . .

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884181)

Not that far fetched. Snipers in Afghanistan have made kills with conventional sniper rifles at over 1.5 miles (.338 Lapua, .50 BMG).

There are enthusiasts in the ELR shooting community who hit targets a mile out quite regularly.

Re:Really? (2)

squidflakes (905524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884243)

A mile away is 5280 feet or 1760 yards. Even during WW2, German snipers were killing American soldiers from 1000 yards, and the world record sniper shot during war time is currently two human targets at 2707 yards.

Re:Really? (1)

hawk (1151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884247)

But who would have thought that *snipers* of all people would have to worry about becoming obsolete due to new technology . . .

Next: a self-administering poison . . .

hawk

Re:Really? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884333)

But who would have thought that *snipers* of all people would have to worry about becoming obsolete due to new technology . . .

Next: a self-administering poison . . .

hawk

I'm thinking along the lines of .. you can make a rifle that fires a 10 inche laser guided bullet. Um. Why not just make a laser rifle?

Easy solution (1)

taniwha (70410) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884463)

IR chaff - IR LED throwies are cheap compared to these bullets and will be brighter than any IR laser (that you can't actually feel as 'hot')

Re:Really? (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884495)

Your post whooshing over the head of all of the replies must make you feel a bit like Gen. Sedgwick right now!

Great (0)

omganton (2554342) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884033)

A fancy new way to kill people. Great. Maybe we should invest some of the R&D money spent on this pointless project and fund medical research or a space program that isn't humiliating.

Re:Great (0)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884137)

A fancy new way to kill people. Great. Maybe we should invest some of the R&D money spent on this pointless project and fund medical research or a space program that isn't humiliating.

Really neat development .. in the country which has had 4 presidential assassinations and a few unsuccessful attempts.

Pass a new law: It is illegal to shoot the President with this bullet, this action may result in fine, imprisonment or both.

Re:Great (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884281)

Who said anything about people? That troublesome bear invading your neighborhood is also a likely target, especially if the animal control officer knows he won't have ANY collateral damage because every bullet hits every time.

Sweet! (3, Interesting)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884037)

Since soldiers will be using this, I can enable auto-aim without being called a noob.

Laser DoS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884043)

What happens if the enemy wises up and starts aiming lasers at you?

Re:Laser DoS (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884467)

I doubt the bullet can do more than steer a few degrees... it certainly couldn't look behind itself.

But I assume all the enemy would need is a bunch of very bright LED's on a board around the intended target and the projectile would get confused...

Runaway - the movie (3)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884049)

Where's the Tom Selleck slashdot icon when you need it

Re:Runaway - the movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884095)

i was so thinking of exactly whis when i read the title

Re:Runaway - the movie (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884205)

Where's the Tom Selleck slashdot icon when you need it

Thinking of Quigley Down Under, myself. See guy running away. Prop rifle on a rock. Fiddle with site. Look through it at guy still running away. Pull trigger. Guy still running .. still running .. then falls down.

Re:Runaway - the movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884417)

It must have Runaway.

Congratulations (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884059)

Congratulations. You've invented the laser guided missile launcher.

Re:Congratulations (3, Funny)

chromas (1085949) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884161)

I was thinking Bullet Bill.

Re:Congratulations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884191)

Congratulations. You've figured out how to increase the cost of sniping the next mooj by an order of magnitude.

Re:Congratulations (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884219)

Congratulations. You've invented the laser guided missile launcher.

*facepalm*

Nano-missile, thank you.

This is Slashdot, after all.

Re:Congratulations (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884451)

10 cm is hardly nano. More regular than anything. You could call it a "centi-missile" if you must, but that particular buzzword probably lost its buzz factor in the 1300's.

Re:Congratulations (1)

cmburns69 (169686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884525)

Congratulations. You've invented the laser guided missile launcher.

Technically, it's a ballistic missile since it doesn't carry it's own fuel. A laser guided ballistic missile launcher. Sounds cool!

10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! (5, Informative)

terraStorm24 (1752736) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884063)

If everything went metric we wouldn't have these problems. The bullet is 10cm not 10in.

Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! (4, Funny)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884081)

The bullet is 10cm not 10in.

That's what she said..

Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! (5, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884109)

If everything went metric we wouldn't have these problems.

The bullet is 10cm not 10in.

Maybe a NASA engineer submitted the fine article?

Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884125)

The bullet is 10cm not 10in.

That's what she said.

Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884529)

No, that's what goldaryn said ;)

Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884313)

Yeah, but Aerosmith would not sound the same singing "Big Ten Centimeter".

Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884347)

If everything went metric we wouldn't have these problems.

The bullet is 10cm not 10in.

Well, that explains why we kept missing Mars when shooting at it...

Re:10 CENTIMETERS NOT INCHES!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884365)

Oh wow, im actually impressed now haha. I originally thought it was almost like a self guided canon shell...which isnt terribly impressive. When actually its more along the lines of an extended 7.62 mm shell.

Umm, 4 inches (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884069)

At least the article says that the dart is 4 inches or 10 centimeters, not 10 inches. (IE it's a little smaller than the 120mm canon the M1 uses.)

Re:Umm, 4 inches (1)

JeanCroix (99825) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884583)

They're talking 4-inch length, not caliber. Look at the picture - the caliber appears to be in the .30 range.

Re:Umm, 4 inches (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884645)

Wow, I didn't scroll down enough to notice that. Then again everything bullet related I've ever seen gives the size as caliber but this is the first time I've ever heard a bullet rated by length. (Hmm, rated by length. There's a dick joke that practically writes itself right there.)

Re:Umm, 4 inches (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884605)

Good god no. It's 4 inches *long*, not wide. Caliber = diameter. From the picture it looks no more than .45 caliber (11.5mm).

If you are going to fire a 100mm shell at someone you don't need quite that pinpoint accuracy ;)

Farther (3, Informative)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884075)

accuracy improves with targets that are further away,

Farther. Actual distance is farther. Metaphorical distance is further, like furthering one's goals. Thanks, I feel better now.

High Tech (5, Funny)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884079)

At last, our technology is starting to catch up to 1940s cartoons! I can't wait for my portable hole...

Re:High Tech (2)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884319)

At last, our technology is starting to catch up to 1940s cartoons! I can't wait for my portable hole...

Yeah .. but just watch out for the Rabbit in drag.

Terminology (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884099)

smooth-bore rifle

"Smooth-bore" and "rifle" are mutually-exclusive terms. Pick one.

Re:Terminology (2, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884497)

smooth-bore rifle

"Smooth-bore" and "rifle" are mutually-exclusive terms. Pick one.

Except in common usage, "rifle" has come to mean any type of long gun, whether or not the barrel has rifling. In any case, what other, easy to use term would you use for a modern long gun. Musket wouldn't apply, and those are the only other shoulder arms that use smooth bores. You are just being overly pedantic.

Re:Terminology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884579)

Common usage is stupid, and GP is not pedantic.

A smoothbore firearm, by virtue of its lack of rifling, cannot be referred to as a rifle, period.

This is no more pedantic than pointing out that, no, your monitor is not a computer or that your motorcycle is not a car.

Re:Terminology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884629)

Except in common usage, "rifle" has come to mean any type of long gun, whether or not the barrel has rifling. In any case, what other, easy to use term would you use for a modern long gun. Musket wouldn't apply, and those are the only other shoulder arms that use smooth bores. You are just being overly pedantic.

Common usage by people who use know what they are talking about?
Me thinks you are the one being overly pedantic.

Inches? (1)

echo_kmem (982727) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884121)

10 *inch* Bullet that's Guided using Laser and has Fins? I think those are also known as Missles!

Re:Inches? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884263)

Or naval rounds.

(is it jsut me or do the old battleships with rows of massive triple gun turrets simply look cooler than modern ones?)

If this was a 10 INCH bullet! (2)

terraStorm24 (1752736) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884139)

.50cal snipers have some serious kick and that's about a 4 inch bullet. This is at the high end of what a personal weapon can fire. Increase its size by 2.5x and you no longer have a rifle you have an anti aircraft bullet. At the rate obesity is going the next generation might just be able to handle the recoil from a 10in anti aircraft shell........

Here's my deleted (censored?) submission (1, Informative)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884171)

My story title was: The Future of War... and Assassination!

(I think it was the word Assassination that got the slashdot editors to remove it from the "recent" listings. It was on the "recent" listings one second at "yellow" and then *poof* gone! Do they think various government agaencies don't approve of such topics?). Anyway, here's what I wrote:

"From TFA: "This self-guided bullet can chase you down from over a mile away"

A long LONG time ago, I remember reading something that claimed that in every successive war (WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War) the amount of bullets it took to kill someone was INCREASING, that is (maybe) an average of 100 rounds was spent per soldier killed in WWI whereas by Vietnam it was maybe 10,000 possibly due to smarter tactics and better protection. The commentator said the only way this would change is if they somehow managed to put a VAX (kiddies, that's an old computer) into a bullet.

Well, it looks like that's been done now, here's a bullet that has computer, sensors and fins that is fired out of a rifle. It requires a laser designated target and it doesn't guarantee pinpoint accuracy but an 8" miss instead of 30ft. at half a mile is a HUGE improvement. Fire a few rounds in quick succession and chances are a body sized target will be hit.

Of course it will be much more expensive than "dumb" ammunition but I'd guess it'd still be a lot cheaper than the aforementioned 10,000 rounds. What's more it's falling into the Pentagon's plans for a military focused upon small "hit" teams, drones and special ops. For this strategy, this kind of weapon is invaluable. For example; instead of a huge $100 million Global Hawk drone carrying big (heavy) hellfire missiles designed to wipe out a vehicle or house; just use a small (hand launched?) drone carrying a gun with a few rounds of this ammo. (I would imagine such a drone would be a lot quieter so it could get within the shorter range easily). Much cheaper, equally capable of carrying out its mission (killing a few insurgents).

Unfortunately another use would be to have a forward "spotter" at a public event with an infra-red laser pointer/binocular. The shooter could be quite distant and just has to shoot the bullets (in quick succession mind you) on a ballistic trajectory that will get them near the target. They will home into the (invisible to the naked eye) illuminated target by themselves.

You'll see security agencies beginning to see this as a threat when they start carrying sensors capable of detecting infrared lasers. The next step though is when enough computing power is available to put face recognition algorithms into the bullet...

*What really intrigues me isn't the computer power in the bullet but rather how do the fins work! How do they get such tiny (and rugged) motors into a bullet?

**So is this the kind of invention that Larry Niven was thinking about when he invented the U.N. ARM? It was an agency who's goal was to stop technological innovation that would lead to anarchy (like things that would make murder legal)."

not a rifle... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884175)

It it's smooth-bore, it's a musket, not a rifle...

Re:not a rifle... (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884253)

It it's smooth-bore, it's a musket, not a rifle...

Don't worry, the next version will have a flash pan.

Makes sense too (1)

droidsURlooking4 (1543007) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884397)

Rifling increases accuracy for a 'dumb' bullet. However, this bullet is receiving updates and making adjustments in flight, so rifling wouldn't make sense here. Doesn't matter. Until a box of cartridges sells for less than $30, it means nothing to me anyway.

10 inch bullet that can hit the spot from a mile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884183)

I know a whole gender waiting to sign up to that one.

Typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884187)

"Further" should be "Farther" dummies.

Smooth bore rifle? (3, Interesting)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884213)

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Re:Smooth bore rifle? (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884339)

Yes. Yes it is.

Re:Smooth bore rifle? (1)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884473)

Turns out Slashdot editor is an oxymoron too.

Smaller version of existing tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884241)

Once upon a time known as a " RAP " round. ( Rocket Assisted Projectile )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Range_Guided_Munition

I just saw that episode (3, Funny)

Jethro (14165) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884265)

I've been watching season 4 of Chuck and just saw this episode. We have nothing to worry about, the CIA will have no problem recovering the bullets. Also the female CIA agent will develop a severe clothing allergy half-way through.

Video of the bullet in action (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884413)

Mother of god... (1)

lazycam (1007621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884423)

I'm guessing every enlisted sniper will be begging his commander for one of these. Especially this guy [wikipedia.org] .

Very scary.

Full circle (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884445)

Nice tech! I think I saw the same movie these guys did, Runaway [imdb.com] with wall climbing robotic killer spiders, and self guiding bullets from handguns, and Tom Selleck!

Damn I hate wall climbing robotic killer spiders... Those must be next :/

Well as long as they don't make a self guiding robotic Tom Selleck, I think we will be OK.

Go go gadget circuitry! (1)

mikebald (946978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884491)

I think it's amazing that they had circuitry that could survive the forces exhibited on it by the sudden acceleration of a gunshot. Am I wrong in thinking that this is one of the first successful applications?

8 Bit Bullets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884499)

Wait for the upgrade!

I've seen this before.. (1)

sisko (114628) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884521)

What, no mentions of 'Wanted' yet? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493464/

Great ... (1)

blackfireuponus (2026394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884577)

another amazing weapon that will be used against us in 20-50 years.

Does it come with a little red button? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38884587)

But i would first ask about what it does :o)

Not even really a bullet at all (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884593)

If you look at the final video in the article, this thing isn't even really a bullet. All it is is a scaled-down KE sabot round of the type fired by tanks as an anti-tank round. This is especially true when you consider it is fired from a smooth-bore, as pretty much all modern tanks use smooth-bore cannon as well. It's almost as if they took the 2 main weapons of the modern Western MBT (sabot round and a Hellfire missile), combined them, and shrunk it down for use against personnel. I think it would be interesting to see what type of rifles they would use to fire this round. Would the design and specifications of this round require the development of a new weapon system, or can existing sniper rifles be modified by changing out the barrels from rifled to smooth-bore?

Error (1)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38884669)

It would probably be better if they had the whole thing in proper measurements. Showing technology in hogsheads and furlongs etc seems to mislead some people into thinking that "imperial" measures are a valid idea.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...