Beta
×

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!

A Computer-based Smart Rifle With Incredible Accuracy, Now On Sale

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the buy-now-shoot-later dept.

Technology 551

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."

cancel ×

551 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

pfftt... (5, Funny)

ToxicBanjo (905105) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737367)

Aimbotter

Re:pfftt... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737449)

No skill.

No Sport.

Might as well go to the game farm and shoot the deer in the small holding pen with a shotgun.

Just like fishing with dynamite.

Sounds like something invented by the same folks who did the Zune.

Re:pfftt... (4, Interesting)

tibit (1762298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737641)

I understand that some people fish for the heck of it, but when I'm bothered enough to do it, it's because I want some fresh fish to eat. I'd use dynamite a heartbeat if it were legal and I had a big group to feed.

Re:pfftt... (1)

noobermin (1950642) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737555)

I'd mod you up, but you're already at five. You deserve a 6 out of 5, my good man.

Re:pfftt... (5, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737595)

No, the Super aEgis II (sentry gun) is the ultimate "Aimbot". I wouldn't fucking go near one of those in a time of war. Hell, I wouldn't walk in front one even if someone told me it was in shutdown mode.

Re:pfftt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737771)

One savanna, two zebras ... Ten thousand headshots.

Cancel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737371)

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.

Re:Cancel? (1)

Dan East (318230) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737399)

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.

Re:Cancel? (3, Informative)

Intropy (2009018) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737581)

According to the article that is exactly how it works.

Re:Cancel? (5, Informative)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737459)

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.

Re:Cancel? (1)

Deluvianvortex (2908365) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737563)

Bipod.

Re:Cancel? (5, Informative)

Bender0x7D1 (536254) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737567)

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.

Re:Cancel? (1, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737631)

Easy to say.
Go out and free hold a laser on a target at 100 yards.

Without a bipod it's very difficult.

Re:Cancel? (2)

NouberNou (1105915) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737699)

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.

Re:Cancel? (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737589)

That's true. But it does allow you to "shoot" with the laser without missing with a bullet

Tanks work the same way (5, Interesting)

DG (989) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737697)

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

Re:Tanks work the same way (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737887)

(a user input - by the loader on good tanks, by the gunner on an Abrams)

Are you implying that a tank with one of the best operational records in the history of tanks doesnt qualify as "good"?

Re:Cancel? (1)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737783)

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.

Re:Cancel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737819)

Well, if this works like one I read about, you can adjust your aimpoint after initial designation. So, you would just have to designate in the general vicinity then you could move the aimpoint to the desired location and pull the trigger while following a director to get your aim correct.

Re:Cancel? (0)

mellon (7048) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737803)

One cool thing about this is that if the gun is ever used by a sniper, the family of the victims will be able to sue the pants off the manufacturer for not detecting that it was pointed at a person. Cold comfort for the victim, of course.

Re:Cancel? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737873)

That's why you got to kill the whole family.

Why? (3, Interesting)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737381)

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).

A gun is a weapon first and foremost (5, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737409)

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.

Re:A gun is a weapon first and foremost (2, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737471)

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.

This weapon will never be used in anger by any entity authorized to use lethal force in anger: snipers would never use this, 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. This technology is clearly designed for target and hunting use only, which would completely negate the point of both activities.

It will be used by your kid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737513)

"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.

Re:It will be used by your kid (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737607)

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.

Re:It will be used by your kid (4, Insightful)

tlambert (566799) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737729)

"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.

Re:A gun is a weapon first and foremost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737531)

And no one will ever need more than 640K of RAM.

actually, lots of snipers are interested (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737535)

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.

Re:A gun is a weapon first and foremost (3, Funny)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737543)

This weapon will never be used in anger by any entity authorized to use lethal force in anger: snipers would never use this, 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. This technology is clearly designed for target and hunting use only, which would completely negate the point of both activities.

i'm pretty sure the problem is the people NOT authorized to use legal force, like my gf's husband...

Not just for putting holes in paper (4, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737549)

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.

Re:A gun is a weapon first and foremost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737559)

This technology is clearly designed for target and hunting use only, which would completely negate the point of both activities.

Some people hunt for food. If this comes down in size and price, I'd appreciate needing less time and only one bullet to secure food for a few days.

Re:A gun is a weapon first and foremost (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737807)

Wow, you probably sound exactly like a medieval archer did when he was critiquing an arquebus. The major selling point of firearms technology has always been to reduce the impact of human skill - this just another step in that direction.

I can't believe I am seeing this sort of Luddism get upvoted on Slashdot!

Re:A gun is a weapon first and foremost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737499)

But in a combat scenario, you wouldn't want to rely on a computer-controlled gun. There's a reason manufacturers try to make gun mechanics as simple as possible, and that's because reliability is a top priority for firearms. This weapon is a sports equipment.

Re:A gun is a weapon first and foremost (1)

Imagix (695350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737515)

There is a reason guns have targeting/tracking systems when used in anger

Sure. But I know very few people who are "angry" at the deer that they are planning on having for dinner. (I'm excluding military applications for this)

Sometimes the point it just to hit the target and it doesn't matter who gets credit for the aiming.

Um, if the point isn't to demonstrate/exercise your skills in the field, why not go buy your game meat from the store?

Re:A gun is a weapon first and foremost (4, Funny)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737541)

Because I don't want to eat human burglar meat?

Re:A gun is a weapon first and foremost (4, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737673)

(I'm excluding military applications for this)

I'm not. The primary application for any targeting system is military. The fact that it can be used for game or target practice is secondary.

Um, if the point isn't to demonstrate/exercise your skills in the field, why not go buy your game meat from the store?

Apparently it wasn't sufficiently obvious that I was talking about military applications. When you are trying to kill something dangerous it doesn't really matter if you or a computer does the actual aiming. However even if we are talking about hunting, the important decision was to pull the trigger. That is when the person controlling the weapon decided to kill something. Focusing on how the aiming is being done kind of misses the most important thing.

I don't really understand the point of "demonstrating your skills" by killing some harmless creature. That is just killing for fun which is frankly rather barbaric and certainly not very respectful of the life that was just ended. I don't object to hunting if you really need the food (not applicable for most of us) or if there are humane environmental considerations. But most hunters I know do it because they find it to be fun. They enjoy the act of killing something and sometimes they also enjoy the challenge of accomplishing that feat. But if they really wanted a challenge, why not do it with a knife or at worst a bow, up close and personal. Using a rifle that can kill at several hundred yards to hunt a woodland creature is not exactly a huge challenge. If you want to test your sharpshooting abilities, you don't need to kill something to do that. Hunting isn't evil but it frequently is pointless and cruel.

Re:A gun is a weapon first and foremost (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737719)

Um, if the point isn't to demonstrate/exercise your skills in the field, why not go buy your game meat from the store?

Since when did they sell game meat in stores?

Aside from the obvious problem that "game meat" doesn't come from stores by definition, even when you can find it (e.g. duck meat, which is relatively easy because it's common in Chinese and French cooking) it isn't from the same (sub-)species as the wild version and tastes different because it's been raised on commercial feed instead of foraging.

Re:A gun is a weapon first and foremost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737767)

Most people acting out of anger want to be up close when they do it

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737417)

Next you'll be petitioning against adding rifling to barrels.

Now I know its not the same but the point of shooting is to hit the target accurately.
You want accuracy and not blind luck so you add rifling to the barrel.
This is just another feature which improves accuracy.

If your point isn't accuracy then sure do whatever you want. You could do it with one arm tied behind your back just as a challenge.

Re:Why? (0)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737451)

Next you'll be petitioning against adding rifling to barrels.

Now I know its not the same but the point of shooting is to hit the target accurately. You want accuracy and not blind luck so you add rifling to the barrel. This is just another feature which improves accuracy.

An automatic transmission is a feature. A self driving car takes all the fun out of driving. This is the firearm equivalent of a self driving car.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737621)

Next you'll be petitioning against adding rifling to barrels.

Agreed. The "real" way to do something is whatever somebody grew up with. People talk about a manual tranny being real driving, but I say it's degenerate ever since they added synchromesh. A caveman, heck, somebody from the early 19th century would think a modern rifle is cheating.

Re:Why? (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737639)

For that matter I bet most people reading this do calculations with a computer, or at least a calculator. Real men still use slide rules, or pencil and paper (log tables allowed for beginners).

Re:Why? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737469)

You will quickly learn the point when the target is shooting back at you.
Relax, your skeet have no trigger fingers.

Re:Why? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737475)

If you want aim assist, play a console FPS. Otherwise, what's the point?

TFA

"They like to post videos; they like to be in constant communication with groups or networks," Schauble says. "This kind of technology, in addition to making shooting more fun for them, also allows shooting to be something that they share with others."
...
Rifle maker Remington Arms wants to use the technology in rifles it wants to sell for around $5,000.

Answer: this is the "iPad of guns" - owning and using one set's the owner a head over the others (with the "Android" version to be sourced from Remington).

Apropos "head over the others" - I imagine it won't be so funny if the term "share to shooting" would be used under some other meanings/contexts. You know... the ongoing success of the sharing may highly depend which end of the gun is used in sharing.

Re:Why? (1)

Shoten (260439) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737625)

If this is the iPad of guns...then I am dying to see what HP comes up with! Perhaps it'll shoot cake mix and spite instead of bullets?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737487)

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).

shiiiit. guns are for pussies. kill live game with a sharp stick (e.g. harpoon/spear) and then tell me about an adrenaline rush. pshhhhhhhhhhh

A pointed stick? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737517)

Bah, that's nothing, I once killed a polar bear with a banana.

Re:A pointed stick? (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737569)

Bah, that's nothing, I once killed a polar bear with a banana.

Show us the video!

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737489)

You could extend your argument that using a firearm is unsportsmanlike as well, use a bow and arrow or marathon run the animals down to exhaustion and spear them. Hell, running them off a cliff is more honorable then using advanced chemicals, forged metal and precision optics. Do you care more for the experience or the result? It all depends on what your goals are. If that target absolutely, positively has to be destroyed, im going to trust the computer. As much as we all want to be Luke and 'use the force', its best to leave it up to the computer if the results really matter.

Re:Why? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737509)

I agree with you, but the existence of aim-bots proves that there is a market for this kind of thing.

More sinisterly, this means that someone can shoot the president from farther away, for example, a range of 265 ft, without any training.

Re:Why? (0)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737521)

More sinisterly, this means that someone can shoot the president from farther away, for example, a range of 265 ft, without any training.

Except the people protecting the president, using standard rifles and scopes, have trained constantly for years and can hit a target at just under a mile. 265 feet for them is nothing. Your novice wouldn't even get a chance to fire, even with this rifle.

Re:Why? (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737599)

Your novice wouldn't even get a chance to fire, even with this rifle.

Assuming the Secret Service saw the assassin. I suspect camouflage/hiding is at least as important as marksmanship. Heck, Reagan came within a hair's breadth of being killed by a guy with a pistol. Sheer luck he didn't die.

Re:Why? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737635)

The president isn't the only person who might be targeted by someone who thought they could shoot from a range and then get away.

Re:Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737647)

This is a Freedom Rifle. When Obama's Muslim Death Squads come to take away the liberty bequeathed by the Founding Fathers, then only Freedom Guns like this can defend the 300 pound couch lardass, er, red-blooded American against the lean, highly-trained communist goosestepping bootlickers that call themselves the Armed Forces ( of Jihad)

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737745)

I think the target (pun intended) market for this is assassins.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737779)

With technology like this, you aren't hitting the target, the computer is.

With technology like a gun, you aren't hitting the target: the gun is. Every single technology that makes hunting easier (rocks, spears, woomeras, bows, recurve bows, crossbows, gunpowder, rifled barrels, and now computer-assisted aiming) has reduced the emphasis on human capability and allowed technology to take over more of the work for us. What's so special about the second-to-last step in this chain (rifled barrels) rather than all the ones that came before it?

If you want to do hunting properly, leave the gun at home, and bring a rock.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737793)

To me it completely misses the point of shooting, whether target shooting or hunting (and for hunting it completely removes the sport aspect).

What the fuck is this sport aspect in killing an animal??!!!!

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737899)

Anyone can pull a trigger. I build my own bow and arrow using my hands and a loincloth, then I run down my prey Bronze Age style. You're a violent loser who revels in a metal projectile coming out a tube. Be ashamed.

Oh Please (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737383)

One hunter who doesn't want one is Chris Wilbratte. He says the TrackingPoint system undermines what he calls hunting's "fair chase."

Pussy.

>I hunt with a spear wile wearing a loin cloth.

Althow, a few dear have kikked me in the hed. Thair's no permament damage but I my nose bleeds when I pickj it.

Re:Oh Please (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737619)

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...

Re:Oh Please (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737679)

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.

Re:Oh Please (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737727)

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.

What could possibly go wrong? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737387)

A gun with an internet-connected onboard computer. Malware for it could be deadly.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737485)

A gun with an internet-connected onboard computer. Malware for it could be deadly.

To say nothing about malintent.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (5, Funny)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737495)

A gun with an internet-connected onboard computer. Malware for it could be deadly.

Malware doesn't kill people... people kill people.

(grin)

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737501)

A gun with an internet-connected onboard computer. Malware for it could be deadly.

Absolutely!

That same malware would MAKE the shooter point the gun at people and KILL them! Why who knows what the malware would do to the SHOOTER - maybe make him NOT pull the magazine out! Or NOT point the thing at the ground or...

I give up. Who is the idiot who mod'ed the parent up.

Really people?!

Right above this, I posted something that was really funny - at least _I_ think so and it got mod'ed down for some fucking reason - maybe because I typed 'pussy' or some such fucking thing.

Being mod'ed +5 - anything - means you appeal to stupid people.

Think about that.

Sounds compltely useless as a sniper weapon. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737397)

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.

Re:Sounds compltely useless as a sniper weapon. (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737421)

There's also the fact that any trained sniper already has a ballistics computer and range finder wherever they go. It's called their head. Like you said, this is nothing but a toy for people who want to pretend to be snipers or excellent marksmen but don't want to take the time to actually earn and develop the skills.

Re:Sounds compltely useless as a sniper weapon. (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737583)

It's probably still too expensive; but I wouldn't count it out of the 'lite' end of the sniper market just yet.

Outside of jurisdictions where(either because they are large and rough, or because the sheriff is compensating for something) some sub-group of the police are practically a standing army, a lot of police forces spend most of their time doing things that require little or no marksmanship(during which time budget cuts or apathy are liable to come after their range time), with the occasional incident that could really use substantially greater abilities in the 'lethal action at a distance' area.

The 'buy this widget and turn anyone who doesn't flinch violently when using a rifle into a marksman!' pitch could likely move some units in a context like that...

Re:Sounds compltely useless as a sniper weapon. (4, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737695)

any trained sniper already has a ballistics computer and range finder wherever they go. It's called their head.

That's what some engineers said when they first came out with this wussy CAD stuff. Sliderule and paper is all you need. Probably some truth to it in the early days, but the tech improves.

Re:Sounds compltely useless as a sniper weapon. (4, Informative)

pollarda (632730) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737809)

Actually, most snipers now carry around a ballistics computer that their spotter uses to calculate the hold offset. This is sold for example by the folks that sell the 408 Cheytac. (The CheyTac holds the -- non-published-or acknowledged -- record for the longest wartime kill in Afghanistan / Pakistan btw. at a distance of approximately 2 miles.) The military buys the 408 CheyTac and ballistics calculator as a complete "system".

I should also point out that despite what the article says, it will still take an experienced shooter to shoot this to its maximum potential. How you hold and handle the rifle will affect its recoil and its accuracy as the rifle recoils while the bullet is still in the barrel. The rifle will also need to compensate for mirage at longer distances. Hard to hit something at 1,000 yards when the target keeps dancing around in your sights.

Re: Sounds compltely useless as a sniper weapon. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737477)

You don't think I could just point the rifle and camera out my apartment window, but move the screen over to my couch? It's not like I actually have to physically look through a scope, or pull the actual trigger

Re:Sounds compltely useless as a sniper weapon. (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737829)

It's not designed with the military in mind. Just not rugged enough. This is designed for the rich hunting and target shooting crowd in benign environments.

But law enforce has taken an interest. Not for the targeting capability, but for the video. Now the brass can look over a sniper's shoulder and see what he sees. The video recording also allows for later evaluation.

Re:Sounds compltely useless as a sniper weapon. (2)

pollarda (632730) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737877)

You mean like this one?

http://www.cheytac.com/Products/components/Kestrel.pdf

(See my earlier reply regarding the 408 CheyTac sniper system. This is the associated linky.

How about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737447)

This with Google Glass?

Re:How about (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737529)

Great idea, but only if the bullet flies out the back of the gun.

Runs Linux BTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737453)

This was mentioned in Linux Format 2 months ago if you are interested in having a look. there is a little more information about how the identified target provides some safety, because if something job s between you and the intended target it won't fire as well as when you haven't lined up the shot. also the scope adjusts to view lower then the target after sighting so you lift up to account for droppage.

Skynet... (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737519)

...will be very pleased with this. Now every "jerky" robot can be an efficient terminator.

Wind (1)

Bigby (659157) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737527)

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.

Re:Wind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737571)

Maybe it is a different sort of wind... A microphone on the aimer's gut?

Re:Wind (1)

MBCook (132727) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737591)

The video says that the wind is manually entered by the operator. I find it odd that it shows the temperature and barometric pressure. Is that really useful information when you're lining up a shot?

After watching their little YouTube clip, I wonder how useful this is. Placing the aiming dot seems really similar to aiming in the first place, I guess the only difference is you don't have to compensate for gravity/etc. I found it conspicuous that they didn't show their simulated target moving in the video. Can this only help with a stationary target? It seems like it would screw up your aiming if half the time you had to do it manually (compensating for everything) and half the time the system handled it.

Re: Wind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737597)

The rifle

Re:Wind (1)

Radworker (227548) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737667)

Look up lidar wind speed detection. Basically light reflected off of airborne aerosols. I would suppose that it could sample by time of flight to determine distance and develop a usable solution very rapidly. Out to 500 yards being off 1 MOA is not significant enough to miss the killing shot. Let's not forget that laser precision isn't necessary just somewhere inside the pie pan. (For those who don't shoot, I am saying that holding a pie pan over center mass of your target. As long as it hits the pan, it is probably a killing shot).

Re:Wind (1)

Bigby (659157) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737795)

Wind is far more significant than 1 MOA. However, If they can detect wind with the lidar stuff you are talking about, then it would pretty much nail down all the significant variables. That would be incredible.

Um.... (1)

Shoten (260439) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737579)

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.

Re:Um.... (1)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737849)

This is certainly a gimmick. The key here is you can play with your expensive toy and post it to facebook. It will appeal to those who want to play soldier, you know, walk through the NRA convention in full gear, and those who love to post criminal activity.

The jiggling of the gun is not necessarily going to be a great problem. The way it seems to works is that you pull the trigger, the gun waits to be pointed in the right direction, and the engages the striker. The movement due to trigger is apparently expected as part of random walk to get the proper aim. However, we assume that muzzle will be in constant motion, and there might be a delay between the proper aim and the exit of the bullet. 5000 feet is essentially a mile. This is shooting that most people cannot do.

My fear is that someone will think they are a hot shot shooter, and try to take out a deer at 1000 feet. A 1/10th of a degree variation, however, means a two feet deflection. This either means that the deer is not shot properly, or the bullet goes off into a random direction. If one is playing in the suburbs, and trying to shoot stop signs down the road, this will invariable lead to bullets entering homes.

So while I think that as a social networking device the fun might be innovative, as a weapon it builds overconfidence and promotes recklessness.

Interesting as a technology experiment, but... (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737585)

...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.

Re: Interesting as a technology experiment, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737749)

not what I had read. it could lock onto moving targets as well.

First assasination? (0)

Required Snark (1702878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737587)

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?

"Now On Sale" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737609)

How is this not an ad?
We already had an article [slashdot.org] about this, and all that has changed is that the rifle is on sale.

Re:"Now On Sale" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737747)

How is this not an ad?
We already had an article [slashdot.org] about this, and all that has changed is that the rifle is on sale.

Go back to the Soviet Union you dirty commie.

Just what we need (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737645)

Excellent, high school massacres with 100% kill rate...

Now add a GPS so that it won't shoot ... (0)

quax (19371) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737705)

... close to a school zone and we may have something.

I saw this in a movie and they used to frame some (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737717)

I saw this in a movie and they used to frame some up in assassination

NPR gun control fetish (1)

approachingZero (1365381) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737839)

Isn't it interesting that of all things NPR could report on they would choose this?

How quickly the Tsarnaev brothers and their pressure cooker amputation IED have come to be ignored.

Pull quote from the NPR piece is from Democrat Chris Frandsen, "Where we have mental health issues, where we have children that are disassociated from society early on, when we have terrorists who have political cards to play, we have to restrict weapons that make them more efficient in terrorizing the population"

Really?

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.

Roll your own? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737845)

So DARPA had a system like this in 2010.

How hard would it be to cobble something up from iPhone bits? They already have iPhone scope adapters with ballistic computations in them.

In before the ban! (1)

Grand Facade (35180) | about a year and a half ago | (#43737863)

In before the ban!

Seen this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737869)

"With a replay button, it's even easier. one shot, and replay sends every other shot to the same location." Watch [youtube.com]

Drones on the NJ Turnpike? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43737895)

I just read the thread about the drones over the New Jersey Turnpike, and then I saw this.

I'm going to head over to Mashable to see if there is a thread about a car with a sunroof.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?