5 ms·

I evaluate military technology and I have shot the rifle myself. I think the rifle has a lot of potential, but I see this rifle as more of a technology demo tha

by steve19 14y ago

I evaluate military technology and I have shot the rifle myself. I think the rifle has a lot of potential, but I see this rifle as more of a technology demo than the future of marksmanship. I was easily able to put rounds into a man sized target at long range despite less-than-ideal shooting conditions with a lot less concentration and effort than I would normally need. I think this would make an excellent police marksman tool. It lowers the skill needed for a police sharpshooter to do his job without injuring anyone. I don't see it being used by military snipers. It is big and heavy. It requires active ranging (two separate range finders) lighting up the location of the rifle for anyone with NVG (and the onboard electronics probably have a terrible heat signature). The "closed loop" (their words) of the system means that it requires everything, including ammunition, to come from the company who makes the rifle. Change one thing and the accuracy might be terrible. It is complex: you can diagnose and fix many problems with a normal rifle in the field. You can carry a spare optic in case your primary optic breaks. Expect to see this technology integrated into fighting vehicles and static emplacements (like the parent suggested).

rdl 14y ago
I don't think it would be too hard to have a "training mode" for something like this, where you bring it some new ammunition on a measured range, fire, and calibrate. In the police/military world, they generally only fire a couple types of ammunition anyway. (I wanted to do a company making custom suppressors tuned for your own specific rifle, load, etc., but it turns out almost all of the people buying suppressors and shooting a lot of rounds suppressed are using an issued rifle and ammunition, not developing custom loads.)
shpxnvz 14y ago
> ...means that it requires everything, including ammunition, to come from the company who makes the rifle. This is baffling... what on earth makes the ammunition proprietary? Does the chamber or priming system deviate from the SAAMI/CIP specifications for those cartridges?
- tcpekin 14y ago
  From the article, > "The problem with hand loading is that you just have inconsistent results. Some people do it very good, and some don't. What I really want to avoid is the situation where someone says, 'Look, your gun doesn't work. I'm missing, and it's your fault.' And the real issue is, well, you're missing because you screwed up the ammunition—you have it loaded too hot and it's firing too high. But you're never going to believe me!" He laughed. "I'm really not trying to make a ton of money on ammo, but I want to control the outcome and I want people to have a good experience." I don't think it is proprietary, rather than just very repeatable. Using the company made ammunition, they can (hopefully) ensure that every bullet has the same characteristics, so it can leave the barrel at the same velocity. From the quote above, I doubt the software can compensate for different grain bullets or different amounts of powder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloading#Accuracy_considerations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloading#Accuracy_considerat...
  - bmelton 14y ago
    I thought the point was that other mass-manufactured ammunition would be more likely to contain equally consistent loads that could be 'dialed in' and adjusted for. That said, I don't have a problem with the 'proprietary' ammunition, but gun owners tend to be informed on that kind of purchase. It should be easy to match the load profile and come up with a "Surgeon-compatible" ammunition, should the tech ever catch on to that degree.
  - shpxnvz 14y ago
    > The problem with hand loading is that you just have inconsistent results... That's a pretty ridiculous statement for them to make. A person who drops $17K on a precision rifle (and you can drop a heck of a lot more than that on a quality rifle without all the electronic crap) damn well knows about consistency in ammunition, and most of them are going to be experienced handloaders as well. The best shooters in the world handload, and that includes the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit (who can certainly afford the most expensive factory ammo). They do so because you simply can't mass produce cartridges that are as accurate and consistent as handloads. You can't mass produce ammo tailored to the chamber tolerances of a specific rifle. You can't fire form enough brass at the factory to load a lifetime's worth of ammo for an individual rifle. Even if you tried, you're back to square one after you replace the barrel at 5K rounds. As a result, you end up paying $17K for a rifle that cannot possibly be used to it's fullest potential. > From the quote above, I doubt the software can compensate for different grain bullets or different amounts of powder. This could be, but if so would destroy the premise that this computerized gizmo offers any improvement over a human calculator. Experienced shooters have no problem memorizing ballistics tables for their particular loads - that this computer could not would be, well, laughable. I apologize if I'm being grumpy about all this. It's simply depressing to me that with all the challenges, intricacies and fascinating phenomena in the world of shooting folks here are so fixated on the little computer they strapped on top.

by steve19 14y ago

rdl 14y ago

I don't think it would be too hard to have a "training mode" for something like this, where you bring it some new ammunition on a measured range, fire, and calibrate. In the police/military world, they generally only fire a couple types of ammunition anyway. (I wanted to do a company making custom suppressors tuned for your own specific rifle, load, etc., but it turns out almost all of the people buying suppressors and shooting a lot of rounds suppressed are using an issued rifle and ammunition, not developing custom loads.)

shpxnvz 14y ago

> ...means that it requires everything, including ammunition, to come from the company who makes the rifle. This is baffling... what on earth makes the ammunition proprietary? Does the chamber or priming system deviate from the SAAMI/CIP specifications for those cartridges?

tcpekin 14y ago
From the article, > "The problem with hand loading is that you just have inconsistent results. Some people do it very good, and some don't. What I really want to avoid is the situation where someone says, 'Look, your gun doesn't work. I'm missing, and it's your fault.' And the real issue is, well, you're missing because you screwed up the ammunition—you have it loaded too hot and it's firing too high. But you're never going to believe me!" He laughed. "I'm really not trying to make a ton of money on ammo, but I want to control the outcome and I want people to have a good experience." I don't think it is proprietary, rather than just very repeatable. Using the company made ammunition, they can (hopefully) ensure that every bullet has the same characteristics, so it can leave the barrel at the same velocity. From the quote above, I doubt the software can compensate for different grain bullets or different amounts of powder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloading#Accuracy_considerations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloading#Accuracy_considerat...
- bmelton 14y ago
  I thought the point was that other mass-manufactured ammunition would be more likely to contain equally consistent loads that could be 'dialed in' and adjusted for. That said, I don't have a problem with the 'proprietary' ammunition, but gun owners tend to be informed on that kind of purchase. It should be easy to match the load profile and come up with a "Surgeon-compatible" ammunition, should the tech ever catch on to that degree.
- shpxnvz 14y ago
  > The problem with hand loading is that you just have inconsistent results... That's a pretty ridiculous statement for them to make. A person who drops $17K on a precision rifle (and you can drop a heck of a lot more than that on a quality rifle without all the electronic crap) damn well knows about consistency in ammunition, and most of them are going to be experienced handloaders as well. The best shooters in the world handload, and that includes the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit (who can certainly afford the most expensive factory ammo). They do so because you simply can't mass produce cartridges that are as accurate and consistent as handloads. You can't mass produce ammo tailored to the chamber tolerances of a specific rifle. You can't fire form enough brass at the factory to load a lifetime's worth of ammo for an individual rifle. Even if you tried, you're back to square one after you replace the barrel at 5K rounds. As a result, you end up paying $17K for a rifle that cannot possibly be used to it's fullest potential. > From the quote above, I doubt the software can compensate for different grain bullets or different amounts of powder. This could be, but if so would destroy the premise that this computerized gizmo offers any improvement over a human calculator. Experienced shooters have no problem memorizing ballistics tables for their particular loads - that this computer could not would be, well, laughable. I apologize if I'm being grumpy about all this. It's simply depressing to me that with all the challenges, intricacies and fascinating phenomena in the world of shooting folks here are so fixated on the little computer they strapped on top.