The Gun That Aims Itself (Documentary) - YouTube
What fun is that? We all know it's coming or already here rather.
What fun is that? We all know it's coming or already here rather.
- Thread starter Sako man
- Start date
Same fukin here. That's some bullshit.
this was discussed at length already, hmmm where'd that thread go....
Just because you can do something ,does not mean you should.
They started up about December of last year. Tons of them that even the crappy search function turns up:
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...95137-trackingpoint-firearms-pretty-dumb.html
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...uipment/188300-tracking-point-thing-cool.html
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/bear-pit/196321-$27-500-sniper-rifle-never-misses.html
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/snipers-hide-bolt-action-rifles/195662-cant-miss-gun.html
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/snipers-hide-bolt-action-rifles/191748-i-know-my-next-rifle.html
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...n-rifles/191475-latest-advanced-weaponry.html
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...183772-trackingpoint-arstechnica-article.html
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting/bear-pit/157465-trackingpoint-system.html
Oh the scope pisses you off. I thought the al jazeera America ad was what you were talking about.
Haha, I was so pissed I didn't even notice those. Well that pisses me off as well, so now I'm double pissed off, and my frekin eyes are shooting fire.
I think of all the tenants of marksmanship that my Grandfather and Father passed down to me and practiced for thirty years have just flown out the window. It's now a video game.
meh, im not gonna bother. lol.
You still need to find the target. You need to stabilize the rifle. You need to acquire the sight picture, and maintain it while pulling the trigger. You have to time all of this to your breathing. That's still a lot of marksmanship that has to occur for things to go correctly.
And if you're so offended by the effects of technology on shooting skills, I imagine that you don't use a ballistic calculator, or a weather meter, or a range finder, or a high-magnification spotting scope, or a riflescope with reticle graduations and exposed knobs with zero stops, or a modern cartridge utilizing stable powders and high-BC bullets, or any of that voodoo. In fact, if you're shooting anything more modern than a Krag-Jørgensen, you're practically cheating!
Not sure if you intend to come across as condescending but thats how you sound, be aware. While I see your point, I fully disagree with your technophile stance. This is why:
I would argue that not all applications of technologies are good. Or should I say as I appear to be a luddite in commentary, this is clear gamafaction of the ability to kill. There is an obvious disconnect that now happens in this process. The clear technological splicing of synaptic and neurological processes (see, making it too easy to pull the trigger). There are some things that should not be easy, perhaps thats the strongest point I can make here.
This is not some simple "me caveman who is scared of technology" knee jerk response. To the contrary, technology is my job. Doesn't mean I endorse all of it. As stated this tech is here already and here to stay, doesn't mean I have to like it.
Sako
I'll continue to teach my boys the basic Fundamentals of Marksmanship as per Marine Corps doctrine. They will shoot far better than anyone around them, and when scopes break or fail, they will have the skills to go irons like it was riding a tricycle with a diaper full of excrement(ie, without thinking). As of now, they shoot scoped really well. They also shoot single holes with irons too
I thought I was making a good point. Thank you!
I dont like the idea of this thing either. BUT! the fundamentals will still apply!! You can have a $10000.00 rifle if you dont hold true to the fundamentals then you might as well have bought a bat beacuse you will have better luck hitting something with that. (maybe)
I would like to see how that thing does trying to shoot out of a loophole
I would like to see how that thing does trying to shoot out of a loophole
So, you've got the soap box - how far should we go in adapting technology to our shooting needs? Where do we draw the line? Lots of folks want to draw the line right where things are now (or were a couple of years ago); a hundred years ago, there was probably some dude, raised on blackpowder lever-actions, who took one look at a Mauser and put his own twist on concern-trolling.
Whether you wish to interpret my remarks as condescending or otherwise, it doesn't change the fact that a shooter will still need to apply the fundamentals of marksmanship to put metal on meat, whether they are shooting irons or the latest gee-whiz electro-optical sight. Might someday we remove trigger control, breathing, and NPA from that list via the use of technology? Yeah, probably - and then we can continue having the same conversations that marksmen have had ever since the first one of 'em decided to mix some charcoal and saltpeter. Getting pissed off about that isn't going to change the inherit nature of man when it comes to the ruthless advancement of technology.
It's expensive.
It's another thing that needs and will run out of batteries.
It's a vital piece of equipment that has a higher chance of something making it go down while in the field.
It's 'formula' for calculating hits uses wind at the shooter only.
It's electronic and video based so I am sure there are ways of messing with it, scrambling it and making it show false readings. Also, I'm sure it gives off some sort of signature other than the obvious NV spectrum the rangefinder laser puts out.
Besides that, it still needs someone to pull the trigger. I can tell you, "hit that plate out there at 676 yards" and set the optic up for you - doesn't mean you'll come close if you do not know how to properly shoot.
This thing is going to be an expensive lesson for alot of Call of Duty kids, rednecks and yuppies that think they just became a sniper when they bought this thing and will probably be an indicator as to if you are a fucking moron or not. For the price point, and it will come down and the performance I see these putting out I do not see them catching on as a single unit.
Why? They bring nothing new to the table; they are just a huge piece of integrated parts, some of which may be inferior, that we all already have. If this thing somehow sat itself down, made the calculation and fired itself that is different. The human 'interface' is still required, and people that want to use this will be ones that do not have the fundamentals or knowledge made ever so evident by their use of this contraption.
Secondly, let's simply assume it works and this is what people go with in the future; ok. Now go shoot a rifle that doesn't have that $12k thing hanging off of it and see what happens.
It's another thing that needs and will run out of batteries.
It's a vital piece of equipment that has a higher chance of something making it go down while in the field.
It's 'formula' for calculating hits uses wind at the shooter only.
It's electronic and video based so I am sure there are ways of messing with it, scrambling it and making it show false readings. Also, I'm sure it gives off some sort of signature other than the obvious NV spectrum the rangefinder laser puts out.
Besides that, it still needs someone to pull the trigger. I can tell you, "hit that plate out there at 676 yards" and set the optic up for you - doesn't mean you'll come close if you do not know how to properly shoot.
This thing is going to be an expensive lesson for alot of Call of Duty kids, rednecks and yuppies that think they just became a sniper when they bought this thing and will probably be an indicator as to if you are a fucking moron or not. For the price point, and it will come down and the performance I see these putting out I do not see them catching on as a single unit.
Why? They bring nothing new to the table; they are just a huge piece of integrated parts, some of which may be inferior, that we all already have. If this thing somehow sat itself down, made the calculation and fired itself that is different. The human 'interface' is still required, and people that want to use this will be ones that do not have the fundamentals or knowledge made ever so evident by their use of this contraption.
Secondly, let's simply assume it works and this is what people go with in the future; ok. Now go shoot a rifle that doesn't have that $12k thing hanging off of it and see what happens.
Last edited:
I believe my reaction like many others is really to the stark reminder that there is no emotional or human context to technology. It was only a matter of time that this be developed. As well the self guiding projectile, etc..etc...
True, it still needs someone to pull the trigger but I don't believe the art-of should not be removed from such a grand task. True, it does need batteries. But no doubt the technology may become so passé and cheep this is how things go in the future. Drive through sniping, polaroid vs. painted portraiture. Can you imagine when the first firearm killed a man only armed with a sword or spear, "how unchivalrous" they proclaimed.
While I see the practicality of this technology I still question the sanity of those who would defend it.
So somewhat out of context but it's the only clip I could find of Goldblooms' monologue, classic!
Ian Malcolm discusses Alice in Wonderland 3D - YouTube
You question the sanity of those who advocate technology that, even by your own admission, is practical? And you were trying to call me out for being condescending earlier?
How is the work progressing on your tactical flintlock? Trying to figure out the spin drift calculations for a smooth-bore should be interesting...
Just curious, if it works and it makes our service men and women's jobs easier at stopping threats and protecting lives, why the complaining? If they make something that aims, shoots, all under its own decision, then the contempt would be validated IMO. Aren't you glad you don't have to ride a horse to work anymore?
For the WIN! (put Samuel Jackson's voice in your head, ready, set..) "....You a smart motha fucka, that's right!"
Interesting, I was giving you the benefit of a doubt as it's a fair debate, thus I warned you of your tone. But obviously you are too emotionally compromised to act without condescension. Perhaps you were bullied as a child and therefor too weak to speak up without using the anonymity of the internet to lash out. Pussy tactics at best.
1) You are not my parent/teacher/boss, so take your "warning" and shove it. Your tone is that of someone who only wants to debate on your own terms. Public discourse doesn't work like that.
2) I don't think I'm going to accept that I'm the one who is "emotionally compromised" in this discussion.
3) You've yet to establish what level of technology does not leave you feeling so pissed off.
I think you all need to take a time out. You read sales hype and want to fly off the handle. It is nothing more than existing gizmos rolled into one turd. and it STILL can't dope the wind all by it's self. You still can screw the shot up .Some are acting as this is a complete robot that you feed a picture of the target and it sends guided heat seeking missiles. There are a lot of thing that should piss you off in todays world if this is one get a life.
I believe this has been said already but your probably right.
Similar threads
