5 ms·

> 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 exact

by 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
  If you suppress a .338 Lapua or other serious, loud, supersonic rifle, you can usually get a fair number of shots off before humans can figure out your direction/range. It's still really loud, but makes localization much harder. I'm not sure how it affects shotspotter/boomerang, though. (Now that WA allows suppressor use, I'm totally getting a 20" bbl folding stock TRG-42 .338 Lapua and can once I move up there).
  - daenz 14y ago
    Doesn't suppressing significantly lower the velocity of the round? Won't that affect the ability to hit the target and as well as the damage done?
    - rdl 14y ago
      I don't have the table in front of me, but you give up 10-20% (mainly from going to a 20" from a 27"). It reduces range, but using e.g. 300gr Lapua Scenar, it retains plenty of terminal energy and is above 1400fps for >1200m (vs. 1600m otherwise). I've never had access to a range beyond 1000 yards, anyway.
  - phreanix 14y ago
    Having been (accidentally) downrange of a suppressed AR (556), I'd say I localized the direction of fire within a few seconds. Granted I knew the terrain and probably had an idea where shooters would be set up, so that probably helped. I've worked with suppressed PCP's a lot (legal where I was), and it does affect shot dynamics. I'm guessing one could hack this monster scope to reflect that. I just don't really see anyone, good intentioned or not, going through all that trouble.
- bmelton 14y ago
  While I think that the notion of banning something on the potential for misuse is absurd, it is possible to suppress the shot-noise as well as suppress the muzzle flash somewhat to make it harder to locate. It's still not going to be foolproof, especially as the range of a 338 lapua is going to put you in relative sight distance, vs a more traditional sniper rifle which has an effective range of a mile, mile and a half. Also it's worth noting that the DC sniper used a very pedestrian AR15 for his sniping, and just hid himself in a trunk to keep things hidden, which would work well for pretty much any kind of gun (except if anybody was very near it and saw the muzzle blast).
rdl 14y ago
At that point, why not just put a rental truck full of ANFO at the target, a cellphone trigger, and a webcam?
- pekk 14y ago
  There could be all kinds of reasons not to do that. Just for example, suppose the shooter has a specific grievance against black people, or some form of local backing to eliminate certain classes of individuals, rather than just generically being angry at society. Such things have been known to happen in the history of South America, for example.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    So then it should be banned not because of the extremely unlikely possibility that it could be used criminally, but the infinitesimally unlikely possibility that it could be used for crime of an extremely specific purpose?

by dbaupp 14y ago

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
If you suppress a .338 Lapua or other serious, loud, supersonic rifle, you can usually get a fair number of shots off before humans can figure out your direction/range. It's still really loud, but makes localization much harder. I'm not sure how it affects shotspotter/boomerang, though. (Now that WA allows suppressor use, I'm totally getting a 20" bbl folding stock TRG-42 .338 Lapua and can once I move up there).
- daenz 14y ago
  Doesn't suppressing significantly lower the velocity of the round? Won't that affect the ability to hit the target and as well as the damage done?
  - rdl 14y ago
    I don't have the table in front of me, but you give up 10-20% (mainly from going to a 20" from a 27"). It reduces range, but using e.g. 300gr Lapua Scenar, it retains plenty of terminal energy and is above 1400fps for >1200m (vs. 1600m otherwise). I've never had access to a range beyond 1000 yards, anyway.
- phreanix 14y ago
  Having been (accidentally) downrange of a suppressed AR (556), I'd say I localized the direction of fire within a few seconds. Granted I knew the terrain and probably had an idea where shooters would be set up, so that probably helped. I've worked with suppressed PCP's a lot (legal where I was), and it does affect shot dynamics. I'm guessing one could hack this monster scope to reflect that. I just don't really see anyone, good intentioned or not, going through all that trouble.
bmelton 14y ago
While I think that the notion of banning something on the potential for misuse is absurd, it is possible to suppress the shot-noise as well as suppress the muzzle flash somewhat to make it harder to locate. It's still not going to be foolproof, especially as the range of a 338 lapua is going to put you in relative sight distance, vs a more traditional sniper rifle which has an effective range of a mile, mile and a half. Also it's worth noting that the DC sniper used a very pedestrian AR15 for his sniping, and just hid himself in a trunk to keep things hidden, which would work well for pretty much any kind of gun (except if anybody was very near it and saw the muzzle blast).

rdl 14y ago

At that point, why not just put a rental truck full of ANFO at the target, a cellphone trigger, and a webcam?

pekk 14y ago
There could be all kinds of reasons not to do that. Just for example, suppose the shooter has a specific grievance against black people, or some form of local backing to eliminate certain classes of individuals, rather than just generically being angry at society. Such things have been known to happen in the history of South America, for example.
- bmelton 14y ago
  So then it should be banned not because of the extremely unlikely possibility that it could be used criminally, but the infinitesimally unlikely possibility that it could be used for crime of an extremely specific purpose?