TrackingPoint Demonstration Video & Poll

Who should be allowed to own and use this product?

  • For military use only.

    Votes: 1 2.1%

  • For military and law enforcement use only.

    Votes: 1 2.1%

  • Legal for the general public to own and use.

    Votes: 23 48.9%

  • Legal for the general public to own but not legal for hunting.

    Votes: 5 10.6%

  • Legal for the general public to own and to use for hunting.

    Votes: 14 29.8%

  • Public ownership should be restricted to those having special licenses.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Public ownership and use should be restricted to those having special licenses.

    Votes: 1 2.1%

  • No opinion / don’t know.

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • Total voters
    47
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
K1500 said:
It does not appear to compensate for wind.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
K1500 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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....
 
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
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.
 
mp510 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top