TrackingPoint Demonstration Video & Poll


PDA






arcticap
November 30, 2012, 12:15 PM
High Tech Product Video:

Now Everyone Can be a Sniper (if this works)

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/now-everyone-can-be-a-sniper-if-this-works.htm

I would like to know opinions about this product that can apparently turn anyone into a high tech sniper or super long range hunter.
Is this a product that should only be made available to the military?
Would it or should it be ethical or legal to use for hunting?
Should anyone be able to own one?
I guess that my concerns would be about malfunction, what if the trigger or tag system malfunctioned?
Once activated, the shooter is no longer in control of the trigger release.
What if such a system were incorporated into a pistol, would that change anyone's view?
It's such a new concept to me, I'm unsure if it should be allowed for public ownership and for sport hunting.
All opinions and any facts are welcome.

Note about the poll questions:

When answering the poll questions, please realize that law enforcement use would also be included with ownership by the general public.

The poll option "Public ownership and use should be restricted to those having special licenses" is intended to mean that the circumstances of its use should also be restricted for those who are licensed to own it. For example, for target shooting only, for target shooting on private land only, restricted to private agricultural land culling by special permit only, or only for killing diseased or nuisance animals likes feral hogs, coyotes etc...

If you enjoyed reading about "TrackingPoint Demonstration Video & Poll" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jackal
November 30, 2012, 01:31 PM
Theres nothing wrong with that product at all, for any purpose. I wish more poorly skilled hunters could employ something like this, there would be far fewer animals running off after being wounded by poorly placed rounds only to die a long, painful death to infection or starvation. I personally see little value in it, since I can indeed put bullets where I want them. There is no ethical debate. Anyone can do what that does with a rangefinder and a scope. The only thing that matters is the conclusion : a clean, fast, ethical kill.

This is just a toy for those who have the means to flush $$$$ down the toilet though. I highly doubt to see one of those in the woods after deer.:rolleyes:

This is kind of like "dont shoot until you have a good shot" for dummies.

As for civilian ownership, this is not the kind of thing to be used in a shooting in public. I see no plausible threat to civilians owning this.

BCRider
November 30, 2012, 01:49 PM
I'm guessing that there's some form of image recognition in the sight. Assuming you can tag the target correctly then I can see it working. But what about if the target is game? Will the tag hold if the game moves behind an obstruction and then re-appears? What if it alters it's position aspect by turning?

Still lots of questions for sure.

M-Cameron
November 30, 2012, 01:55 PM
i dont know why......but damnit i really want one of these!

Ohio Gun Guy
November 30, 2012, 08:28 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/see-the-new-intelligent-rifle-that-claims-to-give-you-a-perfect-shot-every-time/

WOW, cool!

jakk280rem
November 30, 2012, 09:36 PM
I didn't see from the short video where it had the capability to track a moving target. and in order to fire the weapon you have to press and held the trigger then move the scope back on target? what about engaging a target of opportunity after you have already set your lock? guy said in the video it was going to be available 2013. i think its gonna be more like 2023 before they have this thing sorted out.

oh, and as far as restricting ownership goes, say what?

arcticap
December 2, 2012, 04:20 PM
Considering the number of views, it would nice to know more opinions.

Ash
December 2, 2012, 08:14 PM
Why on earth should there even be a discussion of what we should be ALLOWED to own? We are not subjects but free men. Our rights to purchase and use this scope system should not be infringed.

arcticap
December 3, 2012, 10:20 PM
I recall in the past that there was a hunting rig set up that was totally operated by remote control from a distant control panel. IIRC, it created sort of a firestorm of public opinion. I guess that it was like how some weapon technologies are okay to be used by folks with disabilities but not others who don't have a disability.
Another example is the use of scopes on muzzle loaders during primitive arms seasons in some states. Folks must prove a vision disability to be able to use a scope for primitive hunting.
Other states restrict the type of bullets used.
Some states don't allow 209 primers to be used, or smokeless powders or muzzle loaders to be used, or muzzle loaders with electronic ignitions.
Some states have restrictions on the calibers and types of guns that can be used for hunting certain game and during which season.
There are restrictions on using an antique weapon like an atlatl for hunting deer which is widely restricted, and also crossbows which have recently grown more popular and acceptable to use.
One question that I have is whether the police should be able to use this weapons system against civilians. If the weapons system malfunctions and an innocent person dies, then who takes the blame or the punishment for the mistake?
We are all taught that mechanical safety devices can fail, and therefore should not be relied upon. And since this weapons system is also a mechanical device, then it must also be subject to failure.
So why should anyone rely upon this automated mechanical device to perform the function of releasing the trigger and a lethal shot?
There can also be relevant discussion about whether the public should be allowed to own and operate armed drone aircraft like the military uses. Why shouldn't the public be able to own and use these? Just because it's automated and remote controlled and operates in public air space? Or maybe they are legal for civilians to own and use?
Or how about whether this new TrackingPoint technology should be allowed to be transferred around the world, eventually to potential enemies who could kill our soldiers with them. Once it's on the market then that's where it will end up.
And each state will probably end up regulating such weapons systems if the Federal gov't. chooses not to anyway. Every state will enact their own restrictions.
Who would even think that the U.S. Supreme Court would consider this Trackingpoint to be a weapons system protected by the 2nd Amendment? Maybe the SCOUTUS would even allow to be legally owned and operated in Chicago and Washington, D.C.?
i wonder what if the NRA has formulated an opinion about it? Hmmmm. :rolleyes:

taliv
December 3, 2012, 11:21 PM
first of all, it's not like a guided missile. it doesn't turn a bad shot into a good shot. all it does is set the gun off when you're pulling the trigger and your sights are on the target you've previously 'tagged', but think about the implications of that.

if you can "tag" a small, or difficult target, and then move the rifle onto the target a second time, why not just pull the trigger the first time? seems like it'd be a lot faster.

if you're prone to yanking the trigger, you're probably going to yank it when you're trying to "tag" the target too, so what's the difference?


i actually wouldn't use it even if it were free. it would get in my way. i'm pretty sure most competent shooters in the military would feel the same way.

why?

it can't judge wind, and it would interfere with holding for wind.

how would you shoot a moving target with it? how would you lead? how would the tagging software handle the target changing appearance, you know, like if a person turned their head?

it may or may not know your dope and appropriately compensate for DA and other changes, like wear on your barrel

there are actually lots of reasons but i don't feel like typing them all.


but i will stop to offer an opinion about your line of questioning: I find repulsive and sickening the general desire to ban anything you don't understand.


instead of discussing the technology itself, it seems every thread i see about this product is started by someone who doesn't know how it works, and is concerned and wondering if everyone else thinks they should be for relieving the rest of us of our rights.

it's seriously depressing that you would even ask a question like that.

arcticap
December 3, 2012, 11:28 PM
but i will stop to offer an opinion about your line of questioning: I find repulsive and sickening the general desire to ban anything you don't understand
instead of discussing the technology itself, it seems every thread i see about this product is started by someone who doesn't know how it works, and is concerned and wondering if everyone else thinks they should be for relieving the rest of us of our rights.

it's seriously depressing that you would even ask a question like that.

Then please answer me this:

We are all taught that mechanical safety devices can fail, and therefore should not be relied upon. And since this weapons system is also a mechanical device, then it must also be subject to failure.
So why should anyone rely upon this automated mechanical device to perform the function of releasing the trigger and a lethal shot?

And:

One question that I have is whether the police should be able to use this weapons system against civilians. If the weapons system malfunctions and an innocent person dies, then who takes the blame or the punishment for the mistake?

ZGunner
December 3, 2012, 11:39 PM
One question that I have is whether the police should be able to use this weapons system against civilians. If the weapons system malfunctions and an innocent person dies, then who takes the blame or the punishment for the mistake?

And for that reason, and the reasons taliv stated, it will probably never be deployed in a combat or tactical situation. It is much faster and reliable for an experienced marksman to take a shot when human lives are at risk.

Fat_46
December 3, 2012, 11:40 PM
That would take a bunch of the fun out of shooting longer ranges, at least for me. I'm a very avid prairie dog shooter, and finally, this last trip, got "the dope" all sorted out and had a blast at 500 to 550 yards. My next milestone is 750. But I want to do it with a round I made, and using my skill(or lack thereof) to make the hit.

Do I use laser rangefinders? Certainly. Do I use ammo I reload to or near "match standards"? Of course. But I really like the feeling I get when I connect! I'm afraid something like this would take much of my fun away. Just my opinion, but then again I'm just a yokel.

rduckwor
December 3, 2012, 11:44 PM
If you have the money and want it, go for it. I have no use for it. More fun the old fashioned way.

RMD

taliv
December 4, 2012, 12:24 AM
We are all taught that mechanical safety devices can fail, and therefore should not be relied upon. And since this weapons system is also a mechanical device, then it must also be subject to failure.
So why should anyone rely upon this automated mechanical device to perform the function of releasing the trigger and a lethal shot?

i really don't understand your point. all guns are mechanical devices.

there are 4 rules. they haven't really changed. don't point your rifle at a target you don't intend to shoot. it's still your responsibility. keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

i don't rely on "safeties" at all. heck, i don't even have a safety on either of my match rifles.

taliv
December 4, 2012, 12:26 AM
One question that I have is whether the police should be able to use this weapons system against civilians. If the weapons system malfunctions and an innocent person dies, then who takes the blame or the punishment for the mistake?

why not?

the same people who take the blame if a weapon system malfunctions today? i'm sure the lawyers will figure it out. what difference does it make?

arcticap
December 5, 2012, 03:58 AM
My point is that an automated system is in control of the release of the shot. The shooter won't be able to predict with absolute certainty when the shot will be fired since it's an automated "mechanical" system that's subject to failure. That's just like relying on a mechanical safety device which we're taught not to do since they can fail.
Folks can choose to trust an automated firing system, but I think that runs counter to what we are all taught about being in absolute control of the release of the shot.

jim243
December 5, 2012, 04:25 AM
it can't judge wind, and it would interfere with holding for wind.


Very good point, besides the price would be way beyond the average hunters pocket book. If spending that kind of money, I would rather get a infra red or thermal scope.

Just my view on it.
Jim

taliv
December 5, 2012, 10:20 AM
That's just like relying on a mechanical safety device which we're taught not to do since they can fail.
Folks can choose to trust an automated firing system, but I think that runs counter to what we are all taught about being in absolute control of the release of the shot.

how is it like a mechanical safety?

68wj
December 5, 2012, 10:32 AM
The video does little to explain how it works, so many of the criticisms should honestly be phrased as questions. Speaking from a background that dealt with Abrams tanks and their fire control systems built on relatively ancient computing hardware, this system could do very well with wind, moving targets, etc. It could be a miserable failure too, we don't know and are only speculating.

I personally don't want one, even if I had the disposable income to try it out. I can see where there might be some application, especially as the technology is vetted and/or improves.

arcticap
December 6, 2012, 12:28 AM
how is it like a mechanical safety?

Because they are both man made devices that are subject to failure.
They are both connected to the gun's trigger.
The failure of each may release a shot at an unplanned time with potentially lethal consequences.
We already know that safeties aren't to be trusted, so then why trust that this automated system will shut off when you want it to, and won't malfunction unexpectedly?
Who would be able to predict all of the potential scenarios associated with any & all malfunctions?
Is the right to own and use such a fire control system protected by law or by the 2nd Amendment?
Could the right to own or use such a system be justifiably restricted?
If there's not any potential for controversy with it, then perhaps others can read the American pulse better than I. :)

allaroundhunter
December 6, 2012, 12:34 AM
Well....it is late and I was too lazy to read through all of these well enough.... As a result I voted for the wrong one...

Justin
December 6, 2012, 01:54 AM
My hat is off to Taliv.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

helotaxi
December 6, 2012, 09:46 AM
Because they are both man made devices that are subject to failure.
They are both connected to the gun's trigger.
The failure of each may release a shot at an unplanned time with potentially lethal consequences.
We already know that safeties aren't to be trusted, so then why trust that this automated system will shut off when you want it to, and won't malfunction unexpectedly?
Who would be able to predict all of the potential scenarios associated with any & all malfunctions?
Is the right to own and use such a fire control system protected by law or by the 2nd Amendment?
Could the right to own or use such a system be justifiably restricted?
If there's not any potential for controversy with it, then perhaps others can read the American pulse better than I. :)Lets take this line of thought over to a much more prolific product. Let's ask the same questions about automobiles with "drive by wire" throttles and brakes. Who can predict all the possible scenarios where something like that could fail with potentially much more lethal consequences. The driver is no longer connected to the throttle body or carburetor or the brakes. A man made system is in control and is prone to failure. Should civilians be able to own and control such potentially dangerous equipment? Should police be able to drive around with such systems potentially putting civilians at risk?

Yes, that is a silly argument. So is yours.

K1500
December 6, 2012, 10:53 AM
Looks cool, but I doubt it is the total solution. Adjusting for drop is the easy part. Releasing the trigger at thr correct time is harder. Compensating for wind and/or a moving target is the hardest of all.

This system appears to adjust for drop and release at the proper time, which is pretty cool. It does not appear to compensate for wind.

68wj
December 6, 2012, 11:19 AM
It does not appear to compensate for wind.
As he said in the video, the system incorporates fighter jet technology into a rifle system. Part of that is a very precise forward facing radar array that is capable of tracking individual dust particles at 100 yard intervals between the shooter and target. This allows the fire solution computer to calculate the bullet's drift in multiple directions and values along the flight path. This advanced technology has been completely fabricated by me, but is just as valid as the above.

taliv
December 6, 2012, 11:29 AM
even if it had a built in kestrel and could read wind at the shooter AND was smart enough to be able to read mirage, those aren't always the prevailing winds, and there isn't always mirage to read.

K1500
December 6, 2012, 12:45 PM
I'm not quite sure what you mean 68wj. Do you believe that my point about the systems failure to compensate for the wind is invalid?

As taliv mentions, even if the wind value was known at the rifle, compensating for it is not merel a mathematical exercise, as the wind typically varies over the course of a long shot.

68wj
December 6, 2012, 12:55 PM
I'm not quite sure what you mean 68wj. Do you believe that my point about the systems failure to compensate for the wind is invalid?

As taliv mentions, even if the wind value was known at the rifle, compensating for it is not merel a mathematical exercise, as the wind typically varies over the course of a long shot.
What I mean is, we don't know what it is capable/incapable of. That little youtube commercial leaves a lot to be answered. I am skeptical about its real-world abilities too, but trying not to to be speculative.

allaroundhunter
December 6, 2012, 02:21 PM
Can it compensate for a simple lead on a moving target? If it can't at least do that then there is no application for this outside of paper punching for me....

mp510
December 6, 2012, 05:18 PM
Originally Posted by arcticap
Because they are both man made devices that are subject to failure.
They are both connected to the gun's trigger.
The failure of each may release a shot at an unplanned time with potentially lethal consequences.
We already know that safeties aren't to be trusted, so then why trust that this automated system will shut off when you want it to, and won't malfunction unexpectedly?
Who would be able to predict all of the potential scenarios associated with any & all malfunctions?
Is the right to own and use such a fire control system protected by law or by the 2nd Amendment?
Could the right to own or use such a system be justifiably restricted?
If there's not any potential for controversy with it, then perhaps others can read the American pulse better than I.

I don't think you have a realistic understanding of what exactly this device/ 'weapons system' does. In effect, it is not much more than a sort of range finder and a self-adjusting optic. The shooter paints the target with the laser, which results in the system receiving range data. From that data, the system caliberates the scope for that difference. When the reticle is lined up with the painted target, the recticle gives indication and the shooter makes the decision to fire. The rep in the video uses the specific phrase 'release' referring to the trigger, but if you familiarity with how a bolt action rifle works, the sort of system that you think this is is just about mechanically impossible. Instead, his use of the word 'release' is more or less a way of saying 'fire.' That decision is up to the shooter- not any computer. Even in a situation where a superior gives the shooter a shoot command, in a use of force situation, the decision is still ultimately his to make. This technology does not change that. What it does do, however, is eliminate potential error in range estimation and scope adjustment- where there is room for user error and mechanical failure- but operators make an assumption that thier proven equipment and skills will work as expected. Between that, training, and judgement- shooters/ officers would have to make their decision about whether a shot is proper (or not).

Revoliver
December 6, 2012, 05:33 PM
I just doesn't appeal to me. Otherwise I have no opinion and voted as such.

stubbicatt
December 8, 2012, 09:33 AM
Near as I can tell all this device would do is remove any errors due to flinch on static targets with no wind conditions.

Pass.

arcticap
December 8, 2012, 09:00 PM
Instead, his use of the word 'release' is more or less a way of saying 'fire.' That decision is up to the shooter- not any computer. Even in a situation where a superior gives the shooter a shoot command, in a use of force situation, the decision is still ultimately his to make.

The infomercial states that it has a guided trigger and that it will release the round. That means that once armed by squeezing the trigger, the exact timing of the release of the shot is ultimately up to the weapons system. And if there's any kind of malfunction then there is no predicting what could happen next.
It's like hooking up a weapon to a motion detector and once it detects motion it will automatically fire.

Nebuchadnezzar
December 9, 2012, 11:27 PM
Dont worry guys this thing will be priced well above what most of us can afford.

They are not marketing it to the military.

Their target audience is hunters who want to hunt big game etc. , but lack the physical ability to do so.

If you enjoyed reading about "TrackingPoint Demonstration Video & Poll" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!