1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

TrackingPoint Demonstration Video & Poll

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by arcticap, Nov 30, 2012.


Who should be allowed to own and use this product?

Poll closed Dec 30, 2012.
  1. For military use only.

    1 vote(s)
  2. For military and law enforcement use only.

    1 vote(s)
  3. Legal for the general public to own and use.

    23 vote(s)
  4. Legal for the general public to own but not legal for hunting.

    5 vote(s)
  5. Legal for the general public to own and to use for hunting.

    14 vote(s)
  6. Public ownership should be restricted to those having special licenses.

    0 vote(s)
  7. Public ownership and use should be restricted to those having special licenses.

    1 vote(s)
  8. No opinion / don’t know.

    2 vote(s)
  1. arcticap

    arcticap Well-Known Member

    High Tech Product Video:

    Now Everyone Can be a Sniper (if this works)


    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...
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2012
  2. Jackal

    Jackal Well-Known Member

    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.
  3. BCRider

    BCRider Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. M-Cameron

    M-Cameron member

    i dont know why......but damnit i really want one of these!
  5. Ohio Gun Guy

    Ohio Gun Guy Well-Known Member

  6. jakk280rem

    jakk280rem Well-Known Member

    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?
  7. arcticap

    arcticap Well-Known Member

    Considering the number of views, it would nice to know more opinions.
  8. Ash

    Ash Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. arcticap

    arcticap Well-Known Member

    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:
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2012
  10. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    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.


    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.
  11. arcticap

    arcticap Well-Known Member

    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?


    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?
  12. ZGunner

    ZGunner Well-Known Member

    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.
  13. Fat_46

    Fat_46 Well-Known Member

    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.
  14. rduckwor

    rduckwor Well-Known Member

    If you have the money and want it, go for it. I have no use for it. More fun the old fashioned way.

  15. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    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.
  16. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    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?
  17. arcticap

    arcticap Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2012
  18. jim243

    jim243 Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    how is it like a mechanical safety?
  20. 68wj

    68wj Well-Known Member

    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.

Share This Page