10 ms·

Bullseye from 1,000 yards: Shooting the $17,000 Linux-powered rifle

134 points by zoowar 14y ago

bmelton 14y ago
Even at $17,000, I give it less than a year before it's banned in California. It seems as though it doesn't do on-the-fly wind calculations, as they (or at least the preface) mentions having to dial it in, but if they could a 360° wind sensor onboard, this will almost certainly eliminate the need for a spotter on sniper missions. Couple this with a .50 cal Barrett (instead of a .338 lapua) and I'm guessing there will be a huge military contract, but it looks like the 338 is the biggest round a Surgeon will fire (though I admittedly know nothing about the 6.5 creedmoor.)
- pekk 14y ago
  What kind of non-military applications are there for sniper missions in the US (say, California)?
  - mjmahone17 14y ago
    Do the police count as military? Because SWAT would almost certainly love to have better snipers. Also, javelina hunting.
  - aidenn0 14y ago
    SWAT, though they tend to be much shorter range than this.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    More accurate hunting results in a cleaner kill for the animal being hunted, as well as keeps missed shots from potentially ricocheting to unexpected places. Further, missed shots potentially contaminate water supplies (lead bullets). Otherwise, defense of one's home / ranch? I know that there are routinely horrible instances of drug cartels trespassing during the commission of drug or people smuggling across private property and literally killing anyone that gets in their way. Also, a more accurate rifle provides better defense against coyotes, bears, predatory animals.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - thefreeman 14y ago
      I know that there are routinely horrible instances of drug cartels trespassing during the commission of drug or people smuggling across private property and literally killing anyone that gets in their way. You know of this routinely happening? In the US? I'd like to see some sources for that. Also, a more accurate rifle provides better defense against coyotes, bears, predatory animals. You need to tag the animal, then keep the sight on the reticule for up to a few seconds before the weapon will even fire. I'm pretty sure if your 1000 yards away from a coyote or bear you're already safe. And if not, this thing is going to be far less useful then a regular firearm. edit: removed snarky question about whether the parent read the article. my b.
      - bmelton 14y ago
        I did read the article, thank you very much. If you look elsewhere in this thread you'll see that I remarked that after a few more iterations of the technology, they'll likely be able to sort out the delay from being necessary. Regardless, I think you're overlooking that the animal doesn't need to be 1,000 away for the technology to be effective. It also doesn't seem to indicate whether or not weapon need engage the targeting computer for each trigger pull either, but I think that, at least in future iterations if not right now, I would likely be able to manually fire via the trigger where it wasn't necessary. As for citations: - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/media_and_communications/pr032713.htm http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/media_and_commun... - http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_11770847 http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_11770847 - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/media_and_communications/threatOverview.pdf http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/media_and_commun... (linked to from the first reference I believe) - http://www.protectyourtexasborder.com/portals/border/Narco-Terrorism%20PowerPoint%20(2).pdf http://www.protectyourtexasborder.com/portals/border/Narco-T... Also worth noting that there is an unknowable amount of cartel-related crime that goes unreported for fear of getting on a hit list.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    He's not arguing for it to be legal, he's making a jab at California gun legislation, which many people believe wastes time banning things that seem frightening but in actuality are not much of a threat. I think the subject he had in mind may have been the ban of .50 BMG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_Caliber_BMG_Regulation_Act_of_2004#Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_Caliber_BMG_Regulation_Act_... Such rifles are, as one result on Google put it, "the Rolls-Royce of rifles", and as my wiki link puts it: not only has the .50 BMG never been used to harm or kill anyone in California, there is no record of a .50 BMG rifle ever being used in the United States to commit a crime. One particularly choice comment from the time the subject was being discussed: we certainly don't want to wait until a terrorist buys one before we ban it Just think of all the things we could ban with that kind of logic.
    - bmelton 14y ago
      Honestly, I don't think I was making a jab at anything in particular, just observing that it likely would be banned soon given California's gun politics. That said, I am politically biased in favor of the Bill of Rights, so I probably couldn't swear that my bias wasn't showing -- but at least consciously I didn't intend anything more than what was said. Regardless, you bring up some interesting points -- specifically that the 50 cal has never been used in a crime, but at least in today's political climate, the least criminally used guns are the most targeted by gun control legislation. I guess that logically, if the 50 BMG has never been used in a crime, then it should be obvious that it's already banned. I know that you can reload "California Fifties", which are just slightly shorter, which I think does point out the ridiculousness of the ban, but that's probably digressing.
      - sliverstorm 14y ago
        Aww man, and I thought I was so clever :(
        bmelton 14y ago
        You might just be the "Obama Translator" of my own personal subconscious. I had to be careful about the way I refuted what you wrote because I might very well have been thinking exactly that, and it looks exactly like the sort of thing I might have said.
- rdl 14y ago
  I believe there are already ATF issues with remote firing, and they could make an argument that this supports remote firing and heavily restrict it, if they want. There were target (pistols? rifles? I forget) with electronic triggers for a while, but they got banned in competition. The Remington 700 EtronX was essentially stillborn in 2004 too. The spotter in a 2-man (or for some ops, 3-man) team provides a lot of value beyond just wind -- both local security and usually being the senior person, command (and communication with those beyond the team). It's kind of the same thing as with tanks -- we can autoload the main gun, going from a 4-man to 3-man crew, but a 4-man tank can generally be self sufficient on the battlefield; a 3-man tank crew really has a hard time. It would be maybe more meaningful for a police or other static precision marksman situation, where it usually is a one-man sniper deployment in radio contact with command. But most police shots are very short range (100-200 meter), where .308 or .300winmag are less affected by most wind.
  - cdash 14y ago
    I think the largest application would be making a sniper out of a non-sniper. The guy in the video had never fired a rifle before and was able to hit the target dead center at 1,000 yards. If you can lower the costs enough, everyone would be a sniper.
    - rdl 14y ago
      It would work for "turn a Rifleman into a Designated Marksman", but turning a random person into a great 1000 yard shot is not going to turn them into a conventional sniper (which implies a huge array of other skills beyond shooting). Turning the DM in a squad into someone who can go from 400-600m to 1000m would be pretty useful, though.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    This isn't remote firing though. At least if I read it correctly, this just moves all the functions of a spotter into the reticle itself, where it automatically does calculations. You still have to aim, pull the trigger, etc. Otherwise, I don't disagree with anything you've said, except to perhaps posit that despite the general utility of a 4-man tank, how much combat is going to be offloaded to drones that can be just as lethal without putting any men in harm's way whatsoever? Edit: It's also probably worth noting that with a few more iterations of the tech, they can do away with the pin-blocking technique they're using and just calculate more in realtime, perhaps with a secondary trigger or button to initiate 'live-targeting' so that the trigger can be manually activated by the trigger pull instead of on a delayed mechanical system.
dbaupp 14y ago
> I'd argue that it's far more likely a mass shooting event would take place with conventional firearms than with a PGF; a bolt-action hunting rifle isn't exactly the quickest method of getting a lot of lead on a lot of different targets. The very nature of the PGF's "Tag-Track-Xact" scope encourages methodical target selection at range, and hauling even a hypothetical smaller PGF into a crowded place and letting loose would be enormously difficult. It's not a close-quarters weapon by any stretch of the imagination. Sure it's not a close-quarters weapon, but a imagine a mass shooting where the shooter was a mile from the deaths: almost untraceable, and very hard to stop in a short time, so the shooter could sit and pick off targets for twenty minutes.
- kevingadd 14y ago
  Doesn't this apply to any long-range rifle? Or do you mean that the specific technology here makes it feasible where it's not feasible with an ordinary rifle? I can see how the latter might be true.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    What this tech does isn't something a competent shooter couldn't do anyway with a high degree of accuracy, it just lowers the bar on who can do it, and eliminates much of the need for many hours of practice before hand. So, in short, yes, this already applies to any long range rifle, and a rifle capable of this degree of accuracy (though not auto-aiming) can be had, just about everywhere, as a cash and carry item for a retail price of under $500.
- aidenn0 14y ago
  Both of the cartridges mentioned in the article are going to be quite loud; combined with the relatively low rate of fire, it would be fairly tractable to track someone down who is firing multiple shots. Someone setting up, firing a single shot and then waiting a week could be a bit more difficult, but then there are many more opportunities for them to get seen lugging around an 18lb rifle.
  - rdl 14y ago
rdl 14y ago
I obviously want one of these :) The place where this kind of thing would be most useful is integrated into a CROWS mount -- a fully automated turret which can be put on top of a vehicle, in static emplacements, etc. Being able to make single, aimed, highly accurate shots on vehicles approaching a checkpoint from a .50bmg mounted on an unattended vehicle up forward would be really nice, since you could then not put any of your own forces at risk, while taking single shots to the engine (to disable the vehicle) vs. unloading on the vehicle with multiple bursts (which would be highly likely to kill the occupants, who may not be "bad guys"). Deskilling the precision marksman job isn't as important -- a real sniper needs huge amounts of other training beyond precision shooting, so the shooting training isn't the biggest barrier there, and the level of skill required for ordinary police 100-200m designated marksman isn't really much for the shooting, so much as for shoot/no shoot, various intermediate/barrier materials, etc. The only way to do police levels of accuracy at 1000m would be with some kind of actively guided round; they generally won't accept a shot a military sniper would consider acceptable, as it's usually for hostage rescue situations. A military sniper is probably ok with taking a shot where if he misses, another enemy beside the one he's trying to kill gets killed instead, most of the time, as long as his odds of hitting the target are high enough. So those shots can be in the 600-1500m range. I've never heard of police shots beyond 300m. They're usually 50-150m but often with glass or other barrier material between them and the target.
- bmelton 14y ago
  Completely agreed. Also worth noting is that a 338 lapua wouldn't get you much mileage in a military sniper situation, which is why God invented the Barrett M82 and its ilk. I haven't ever seen anything resembling it in the hands of SWAT or urban-area police, which is probably for the better for exactly the reasons you mentioned.
  - rdl 14y ago
    The NYPD just tried to buy a Serbu .50bmg rifle (a half-price M82), and got denied (because of NYS gun laws, Serbu refused to sell, and lulz were had by all.) I personally do not want NYPD to have .50bmg except maybe harbor police for interdicting boats. Once they have stuff like that, they'll want to use it, and their record for use of firearms isn't particularly stellar. I've seen plenty of .338 Lapua used in military anti-personnel applications, but by far the #1 is still .308 (168gr SMK type). .338 with 300gr VLD is essentially the same for range and enough ft-lbs to wound humans vs. .50bmg; it's just inferior for anti-materiel. The M82 is just way too big for anyone to carry. OTOH, the whole "stalk for a week to take a single shot at the enemy" kind of never happens anymore, either -- if they're stalking like that, it's an air force FACP or CCT who is going to just use a laser and call in much more firepower without compromising his position. Most military sniping I saw involved being within friendly lines, or driving to/from in a low-profile or hmmwv and setting up in a building. In early 2003-2005 I guess there were "go out with a motorized patrol, drop off along their route, do it all night, and then get picked up the next evening", but I obviously never observed this. So "too big to carry" isn't a real showstopper.
kghose 14y ago
Isn't this a 4/1 prank?
- cdash 14y ago
  No, it is real I have seen articles about this gun before. Maybe up to even a year ago.
- ra 14y ago
  That was my initial thought too
chrissnell 14y ago
I'll pass. I'd rather have my Accuracy International Arctic Warfare and my Schmidt und Bender scope and save the extra $10,000 for ammo. My rifle is a .308 Winchester but for that money, I could have easily bought the .338 Lapua version and still had several crates of match-grade ammo, a Bluetooth wind gauge, and a nice ballistics computer app for my iPhone. My AW rifle: http://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/7960052026/in/set-72157631475228416/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/7960052026/in/set-72... My S&B scope: http://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/7960054928/in/set-72157631475228416/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/7960054928/in/set-72... I don't understand the point of this rifle. Is it to enable non-shooters to shoot? It's not hard to learn how to shoot. With an afternoon of instruction and a few practice sessions, you can hit 1000 yd targets with a normal scoped precision rifle without much difficulty.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  The "point", I imagine, is that it is high-tech and fancy. People like that. It doesn't shoot for you; from what I can tell, it's basically just a step up from a traditional scope.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    From what I gleaned from the article, it does indeed "shoot for you" so far as it is what actually fires the shot.
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      Modern cars electronically control the throttle plate based on your input on the throttle. Modern planes modulate ailerons in the same fashion. Do you consider the computer to be driving/flying for you?
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        I would consider an automatic transmission to be shifting for me. I'm not trying to slight the gun or anything, it seems pretty cool. I'm just saying that "you tell the gun what you want to shoot and when to start, and then the gun decides when to shoot and promptly does so" is a straightforward description of what it is going on.
ghshephard 14y ago
Having played with the iPad simulator for a few minutes - probably the best "feature" of this weapon, is the "Fire and Confirm" feature for hunting - that is, after you place a pip on your target, the weapon doesn't fire until you take the time to confirm your target. This gives you the opportunity to determine whether a heartbeat moved the gun a few millimeters (which, at 200 Yard+ range, could mean the difference between an immediate kill, and injuring the animal). It will be interesting to see whether that ability to confirm a shot, is mitigated by hunters who would normally consider 200 yards to be the extreme end of their range, now taking 500 yard shots.
hristov 14y ago
This is pretty fucked up. The author conveniently ignores the fact that sniper mass killings have already happened (e.g. the Washington sniper). The reason we do not get more sniper mass killings is that it takes a lot of skill to hit a target at a very long range with a sniper rifle. This rifle of course removes the skill element and allows for shooting at an extremely long range.
- bmelton 14y ago
  I have to apologize because I knee-jerk downvoted you because frankly, your position disagrees with my own. Had I waited half a second longer, I wouldn't have, because I don't believe that disagreement is a valid reason for downvoting, but my instinct took over apparently and got away from me. I'd reverse it if I could, though I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to prevent development of new technology. Also, since I'm bothering to respond, I'll try to at least make it informative and relatable, and I think that this article is relevant: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/overreaction_an.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/overreaction_a...
  - abraininavat 14y ago
    Kudos for the apology. I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to prevent development of new technology It's a bit of a stretch to call this new technology. Aside from some clever trickery to get around remote firing laws, this is just a (maybe) novel assemblage of standard technology. The argument is obviously about its legality and its availability to consumers. Given that, surely you can't stand by your statement if it's modified as follows: I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to make something illegal That statement's so clearly wrong to any reasonable person that it's simply not defendable.
    - bmelton 14y ago
      I think you're not giving nearly enough credit to an automated, laser-guided range-finding and compensation device. I agree that it isn't nuclear fusion, or in any way related to the Higgs Boson, but that doesn't make this in any way less noteworthy. Regarding ATF guidelines on remote firing, the wording of their rules seem geared towards actual remote firing, not aided or delayed firing, as this is. The difference is, I think, as large as the difference between a Google automated vehicle and a car with by-wire steering (or perhaps a better example is a drone to a traditional aircraft). In cars with by-wire technology, I still have to steer, brake, accelerate, etc., but there are technologies in place that mean I am still physically driving it. There are assistive mechanisms in place that help me brake faster, or alert me when I'm crossing lanes and what have you, but I'm still driving, and presumably, still free to wreck the car, at least in most cars. I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to make something illegal That statement's so clearly wrong to any reasonable person that it's simply not defendable. Why? Look at the dangerous potential of a baseball bat, or a crowbar, or a javelin. Should we not ban all those things? Cars? Airplanes? Ice Picks? By your argument, how are those things legal? Are you honestly suggesting that everything with dangerous potential should be legislated out of existence? Isn't that exactly what the DMCA and other digital legislation has tried to do with crypto?
bluedino 14y ago
Linux-powered, but the biggest 'feature' of the rifle is the iPad interface. Nice headline.
leephillips 14y ago
Another good user report is from Bryan Jones: http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2013/01/tracking-point/ http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2013/01/tracking-poi...
leot 14y ago
The more distant a man is from his quarry, the less compunction he feels. One bad consequence of this technology is that by permitting accuracy from a much longer range, it thereby further lowers barriers to homicidally bad behavior.

134 points by zoowar 14y ago

Even at $17,000, I give it less than a year before it's banned in California. It seems as though it doesn't do on-the-fly wind calculations, as they (or at least the preface) mentions having to dial it in, but if they could a 360° wind sensor onboard, this will almost certainly eliminate the need for a spotter on sniper missions. Couple this with a .50 cal Barrett (instead of a .338 lapua) and I'm guessing there will be a huge military contract, but it looks like the 338 is the biggest round a Surgeon will fire (though I admittedly know nothing about the 6.5 creedmoor.)

pekk 14y ago
What kind of non-military applications are there for sniper missions in the US (say, California)?
- mjmahone17 14y ago
  Do the police count as military? Because SWAT would almost certainly love to have better snipers. Also, javelina hunting.
- aidenn0 14y ago
  SWAT, though they tend to be much shorter range than this.
- bmelton 14y ago
  More accurate hunting results in a cleaner kill for the animal being hunted, as well as keeps missed shots from potentially ricocheting to unexpected places. Further, missed shots potentially contaminate water supplies (lead bullets). Otherwise, defense of one's home / ranch? I know that there are routinely horrible instances of drug cartels trespassing during the commission of drug or people smuggling across private property and literally killing anyone that gets in their way. Also, a more accurate rifle provides better defense against coyotes, bears, predatory animals.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - thefreeman 14y ago
    I know that there are routinely horrible instances of drug cartels trespassing during the commission of drug or people smuggling across private property and literally killing anyone that gets in their way. You know of this routinely happening? In the US? I'd like to see some sources for that. Also, a more accurate rifle provides better defense against coyotes, bears, predatory animals. You need to tag the animal, then keep the sight on the reticule for up to a few seconds before the weapon will even fire. I'm pretty sure if your 1000 yards away from a coyote or bear you're already safe. And if not, this thing is going to be far less useful then a regular firearm. edit: removed snarky question about whether the parent read the article. my b.
    - bmelton 14y ago
      I did read the article, thank you very much. If you look elsewhere in this thread you'll see that I remarked that after a few more iterations of the technology, they'll likely be able to sort out the delay from being necessary. Regardless, I think you're overlooking that the animal doesn't need to be 1,000 away for the technology to be effective. It also doesn't seem to indicate whether or not weapon need engage the targeting computer for each trigger pull either, but I think that, at least in future iterations if not right now, I would likely be able to manually fire via the trigger where it wasn't necessary. As for citations: - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/media_and_communications/pr032713.htm http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/media_and_commun... - http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_11770847 http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_11770847 - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/media_and_communications/threatOverview.pdf http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/media_and_commun... (linked to from the first reference I believe) - http://www.protectyourtexasborder.com/portals/border/Narco-Terrorism%20PowerPoint%20(2).pdf http://www.protectyourtexasborder.com/portals/border/Narco-T... Also worth noting that there is an unknowable amount of cartel-related crime that goes unreported for fear of getting on a hit list.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  He's not arguing for it to be legal, he's making a jab at California gun legislation, which many people believe wastes time banning things that seem frightening but in actuality are not much of a threat. I think the subject he had in mind may have been the ban of .50 BMG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_Caliber_BMG_Regulation_Act_of_2004#Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_Caliber_BMG_Regulation_Act_... Such rifles are, as one result on Google put it, "the Rolls-Royce of rifles", and as my wiki link puts it: not only has the .50 BMG never been used to harm or kill anyone in California, there is no record of a .50 BMG rifle ever being used in the United States to commit a crime. One particularly choice comment from the time the subject was being discussed: we certainly don't want to wait until a terrorist buys one before we ban it Just think of all the things we could ban with that kind of logic.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    Honestly, I don't think I was making a jab at anything in particular, just observing that it likely would be banned soon given California's gun politics. That said, I am politically biased in favor of the Bill of Rights, so I probably couldn't swear that my bias wasn't showing -- but at least consciously I didn't intend anything more than what was said. Regardless, you bring up some interesting points -- specifically that the 50 cal has never been used in a crime, but at least in today's political climate, the least criminally used guns are the most targeted by gun control legislation. I guess that logically, if the 50 BMG has never been used in a crime, then it should be obvious that it's already banned. I know that you can reload "California Fifties", which are just slightly shorter, which I think does point out the ridiculousness of the ban, but that's probably digressing.
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      Aww man, and I thought I was so clever :(
      - bmelton 14y ago
        You might just be the "Obama Translator" of my own personal subconscious. I had to be careful about the way I refuted what you wrote because I might very well have been thinking exactly that, and it looks exactly like the sort of thing I might have said.
rdl 14y ago
I believe there are already ATF issues with remote firing, and they could make an argument that this supports remote firing and heavily restrict it, if they want. There were target (pistols? rifles? I forget) with electronic triggers for a while, but they got banned in competition. The Remington 700 EtronX was essentially stillborn in 2004 too. The spotter in a 2-man (or for some ops, 3-man) team provides a lot of value beyond just wind -- both local security and usually being the senior person, command (and communication with those beyond the team). It's kind of the same thing as with tanks -- we can autoload the main gun, going from a 4-man to 3-man crew, but a 4-man tank can generally be self sufficient on the battlefield; a 3-man tank crew really has a hard time. It would be maybe more meaningful for a police or other static precision marksman situation, where it usually is a one-man sniper deployment in radio contact with command. But most police shots are very short range (100-200 meter), where .308 or .300winmag are less affected by most wind.
- cdash 14y ago
  I think the largest application would be making a sniper out of a non-sniper. The guy in the video had never fired a rifle before and was able to hit the target dead center at 1,000 yards. If you can lower the costs enough, everyone would be a sniper.
  - rdl 14y ago
    It would work for "turn a Rifleman into a Designated Marksman", but turning a random person into a great 1000 yard shot is not going to turn them into a conventional sniper (which implies a huge array of other skills beyond shooting). Turning the DM in a squad into someone who can go from 400-600m to 1000m would be pretty useful, though.
- bmelton 14y ago
  This isn't remote firing though. At least if I read it correctly, this just moves all the functions of a spotter into the reticle itself, where it automatically does calculations. You still have to aim, pull the trigger, etc. Otherwise, I don't disagree with anything you've said, except to perhaps posit that despite the general utility of a 4-man tank, how much combat is going to be offloaded to drones that can be just as lethal without putting any men in harm's way whatsoever? Edit: It's also probably worth noting that with a few more iterations of the tech, they can do away with the pin-blocking technique they're using and just calculate more in realtime, perhaps with a secondary trigger or button to initiate 'live-targeting' so that the trigger can be manually activated by the trigger pull instead of on a delayed mechanical system.

dbaupp 14y ago

> I'd argue that it's far more likely a mass shooting event would take place with conventional firearms than with a PGF; a bolt-action hunting rifle isn't exactly the quickest method of getting a lot of lead on a lot of different targets. The very nature of the PGF's "Tag-Track-Xact" scope encourages methodical target selection at range, and hauling even a hypothetical smaller PGF into a crowded place and letting loose would be enormously difficult. It's not a close-quarters weapon by any stretch of the imagination. Sure it's not a close-quarters weapon, but a imagine a mass shooting where the shooter was a mile from the deaths: almost untraceable, and very hard to stop in a short time, so the shooter could sit and pick off targets for twenty minutes.

kevingadd 14y ago
Doesn't this apply to any long-range rifle? Or do you mean that the specific technology here makes it feasible where it's not feasible with an ordinary rifle? I can see how the latter might be true.
- bmelton 14y ago
  What this tech does isn't something a competent shooter couldn't do anyway with a high degree of accuracy, it just lowers the bar on who can do it, and eliminates much of the need for many hours of practice before hand. So, in short, yes, this already applies to any long range rifle, and a rifle capable of this degree of accuracy (though not auto-aiming) can be had, just about everywhere, as a cash and carry item for a retail price of under $500.
aidenn0 14y ago
Both of the cartridges mentioned in the article are going to be quite loud; combined with the relatively low rate of fire, it would be fairly tractable to track someone down who is firing multiple shots. Someone setting up, firing a single shot and then waiting a week could be a bit more difficult, but then there are many more opportunities for them to get seen lugging around an 18lb rifle.
- rdl 14y ago

rdl 14y ago

I obviously want one of these :) The place where this kind of thing would be most useful is integrated into a CROWS mount -- a fully automated turret which can be put on top of a vehicle, in static emplacements, etc. Being able to make single, aimed, highly accurate shots on vehicles approaching a checkpoint from a .50bmg mounted on an unattended vehicle up forward would be really nice, since you could then not put any of your own forces at risk, while taking single shots to the engine (to disable the vehicle) vs. unloading on the vehicle with multiple bursts (which would be highly likely to kill the occupants, who may not be "bad guys"). Deskilling the precision marksman job isn't as important -- a real sniper needs huge amounts of other training beyond precision shooting, so the shooting training isn't the biggest barrier there, and the level of skill required for ordinary police 100-200m designated marksman isn't really much for the shooting, so much as for shoot/no shoot, various intermediate/barrier materials, etc. The only way to do police levels of accuracy at 1000m would be with some kind of actively guided round; they generally won't accept a shot a military sniper would consider acceptable, as it's usually for hostage rescue situations. A military sniper is probably ok with taking a shot where if he misses, another enemy beside the one he's trying to kill gets killed instead, most of the time, as long as his odds of hitting the target are high enough. So those shots can be in the 600-1500m range. I've never heard of police shots beyond 300m. They're usually 50-150m but often with glass or other barrier material between them and the target.

bmelton 14y ago
Completely agreed. Also worth noting is that a 338 lapua wouldn't get you much mileage in a military sniper situation, which is why God invented the Barrett M82 and its ilk. I haven't ever seen anything resembling it in the hands of SWAT or urban-area police, which is probably for the better for exactly the reasons you mentioned.
- rdl 14y ago
  The NYPD just tried to buy a Serbu .50bmg rifle (a half-price M82), and got denied (because of NYS gun laws, Serbu refused to sell, and lulz were had by all.) I personally do not want NYPD to have .50bmg except maybe harbor police for interdicting boats. Once they have stuff like that, they'll want to use it, and their record for use of firearms isn't particularly stellar. I've seen plenty of .338 Lapua used in military anti-personnel applications, but by far the #1 is still .308 (168gr SMK type). .338 with 300gr VLD is essentially the same for range and enough ft-lbs to wound humans vs. .50bmg; it's just inferior for anti-materiel. The M82 is just way too big for anyone to carry. OTOH, the whole "stalk for a week to take a single shot at the enemy" kind of never happens anymore, either -- if they're stalking like that, it's an air force FACP or CCT who is going to just use a laser and call in much more firepower without compromising his position. Most military sniping I saw involved being within friendly lines, or driving to/from in a low-profile or hmmwv and setting up in a building. In early 2003-2005 I guess there were "go out with a motorized patrol, drop off along their route, do it all night, and then get picked up the next evening", but I obviously never observed this. So "too big to carry" isn't a real showstopper.

kghose 14y ago

Isn't this a 4/1 prank?

cdash 14y ago
No, it is real I have seen articles about this gun before. Maybe up to even a year ago.
ra 14y ago
That was my initial thought too

chrissnell 14y ago

I'll pass. I'd rather have my Accuracy International Arctic Warfare and my Schmidt und Bender scope and save the extra $10,000 for ammo. My rifle is a .308 Winchester but for that money, I could have easily bought the .338 Lapua version and still had several crates of match-grade ammo, a Bluetooth wind gauge, and a nice ballistics computer app for my iPhone. My AW rifle: http://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/7960052026/in/set-72157631475228416/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/7960052026/in/set-72... My S&B scope: http://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/7960054928/in/set-72157631475228416/lightbox/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/7960054928/in/set-72... I don't understand the point of this rifle. Is it to enable non-shooters to shoot? It's not hard to learn how to shoot. With an afternoon of instruction and a few practice sessions, you can hit 1000 yd targets with a normal scoped precision rifle without much difficulty.

sliverstorm 14y ago
The "point", I imagine, is that it is high-tech and fancy. People like that. It doesn't shoot for you; from what I can tell, it's basically just a step up from a traditional scope.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  From what I gleaned from the article, it does indeed "shoot for you" so far as it is what actually fires the shot.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    Modern cars electronically control the throttle plate based on your input on the throttle. Modern planes modulate ailerons in the same fashion. Do you consider the computer to be driving/flying for you?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      I would consider an automatic transmission to be shifting for me. I'm not trying to slight the gun or anything, it seems pretty cool. I'm just saying that "you tell the gun what you want to shoot and when to start, and then the gun decides when to shoot and promptly does so" is a straightforward description of what it is going on.

ghshephard 14y ago

Having played with the iPad simulator for a few minutes - probably the best "feature" of this weapon, is the "Fire and Confirm" feature for hunting - that is, after you place a pip on your target, the weapon doesn't fire until you take the time to confirm your target. This gives you the opportunity to determine whether a heartbeat moved the gun a few millimeters (which, at 200 Yard+ range, could mean the difference between an immediate kill, and injuring the animal). It will be interesting to see whether that ability to confirm a shot, is mitigated by hunters who would normally consider 200 yards to be the extreme end of their range, now taking 500 yard shots.

hristov 14y ago

This is pretty fucked up. The author conveniently ignores the fact that sniper mass killings have already happened (e.g. the Washington sniper). The reason we do not get more sniper mass killings is that it takes a lot of skill to hit a target at a very long range with a sniper rifle. This rifle of course removes the skill element and allows for shooting at an extremely long range.

bmelton 14y ago
I have to apologize because I knee-jerk downvoted you because frankly, your position disagrees with my own. Had I waited half a second longer, I wouldn't have, because I don't believe that disagreement is a valid reason for downvoting, but my instinct took over apparently and got away from me. I'd reverse it if I could, though I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to prevent development of new technology. Also, since I'm bothering to respond, I'll try to at least make it informative and relatable, and I think that this article is relevant: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/overreaction_an.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/overreaction_a...
- abraininavat 14y ago
  Kudos for the apology. I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to prevent development of new technology It's a bit of a stretch to call this new technology. Aside from some clever trickery to get around remote firing laws, this is just a (maybe) novel assemblage of standard technology. The argument is obviously about its legality and its availability to consumers. Given that, surely you can't stand by your statement if it's modified as follows: I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to make something illegal That statement's so clearly wrong to any reasonable person that it's simply not defendable.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    I think you're not giving nearly enough credit to an automated, laser-guided range-finding and compensation device. I agree that it isn't nuclear fusion, or in any way related to the Higgs Boson, but that doesn't make this in any way less noteworthy. Regarding ATF guidelines on remote firing, the wording of their rules seem geared towards actual remote firing, not aided or delayed firing, as this is. The difference is, I think, as large as the difference between a Google automated vehicle and a car with by-wire steering (or perhaps a better example is a drone to a traditional aircraft). In cars with by-wire technology, I still have to steer, brake, accelerate, etc., but there are technologies in place that mean I am still physically driving it. There are assistive mechanisms in place that help me brake faster, or alert me when I'm crossing lanes and what have you, but I'm still driving, and presumably, still free to wreck the car, at least in most cars. I don't believe that the potential for misuse should be a valid reason to make something illegal That statement's so clearly wrong to any reasonable person that it's simply not defendable. Why? Look at the dangerous potential of a baseball bat, or a crowbar, or a javelin. Should we not ban all those things? Cars? Airplanes? Ice Picks? By your argument, how are those things legal? Are you honestly suggesting that everything with dangerous potential should be legislated out of existence? Isn't that exactly what the DMCA and other digital legislation has tried to do with crypto?

bluedino 14y ago

Linux-powered, but the biggest 'feature' of the rifle is the iPad interface. Nice headline.

leephillips 14y ago

Another good user report is from Bryan Jones: http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2013/01/tracking-point/ http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2013/01/tracking-poi...

leot 14y ago

The more distant a man is from his quarry, the less compunction he feels. One bad consequence of this technology is that by permitting accuracy from a much longer range, it thereby further lowers barriers to homicidally bad behavior.