Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
They claim a lot of things, don't they. They claim that the system is "automatic" but it is only "automatic" if you do a lot of the work for the system and input it into the computer. It automatically accounts for the wind. So like sure, it can compensate for the wind if you assess all the wind conditions yourself between you and the target, plug them in, and then it will help with aiming. It automatically accounts for the humidity of you have the equipment to assess humidity and plug that in to the computer. About the only thing that seems truly "automatic" is the ranging aspect.
Okay, here is a video claiming it tracks the target from Liveleak.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9df_1354237550&comments=1
At 38 seconds, they tag the SHOULDER of the hog, but the hog is moving from right to left. If you look close, you can see a sapling to use for visual reference. The red tag dot remains relatively stationary to the sapling (watch closely), but the hog continues to move across the FOV. If the claim is that the shot goes to where the red tracking dot is, and that is the claim, then the shoulder tagged hog ended up being gut shot.
The "tag" is not actually on the target. The target moved and the tag did not. There was no "tracking" of the target. This is obvious when you watch the sapling during the segment.
If you back up in the video to shooting the grapefruit that precedes the hog. They claim that you Tag, Track, Xact. Cool. They were "tracking" a stationary object.
--- edited-in material ---
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/tracking-point-smart-rifle-sniper/
I thought this was interesting. The specifically note that there is a wind speed input interface and when going over the features of the scope, fail to note any capability of being able to assess wind speed or humidity. If you don't know how to assess wind at distance, does that mean that you will be able to shoot well at long ranges?
This is from the Colbert Report, but uses Trackingpoint's own video. Notice the claims being made and what is demonstrated and several don't jive. For example, it claims that the ballistic computer instantly accounts for all range and environmental factors. That is simply untrue. It implies that the ballistic computer is actively monitoring all such factors and correcting for them in real time. While it has the capability to know the temperature and pressure, it does not measure wind speed and then account for it. It would appear that the only environmental factors it monitors are temperature and pressure, not wind speed or humidity. So it really doesn't instantly account for all and part of what is being accounted for is manually input based on the shooter's assessment of the environmental conditions...which can rapidly change and can require considerable skill and experience to do well.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/426792/june-03-2013/trackingpoint-rifle
(actual video from Colbert Report ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gik6XNHH2ek )
There are the repeated claims of tracking moving targets, but how many of the videos show this? I noted above the hog example where the rifle did not actually track on the hog that was being targeted. The hog moved and the point where the shot was to go remained stationary. If you watch their vids, and of the several I have seen, the scope does not track the targets because the targets are all stationary.
For example...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvbyAcYjzlc
Now this next video is pretty long, 5 minutes. The first kill shows and "unbelievable" shot of 698 yards, that hits the animal way back in the lumbar vertebrae. However, the interesting thing is that despite showing every one of their game (IIRC) in motion just before the shot (action footage), at the time of the shot, all the game are stationary.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/83026602/
Here is a vid from the factory where several neat features of the rifle are explained, but Shauble notes moving game numerous times. With such a big selling point, I have to wonder why they don't show the moving game being tracked in the videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO1t1Q-U_os
Now this video claims to show tracking and shooting moving targets. It shows pigs being shot from helicopters, but none of the tracking footage. The heli footage doesn't look any different than when other rifles are used so you can't tell what the rifle is or is not doing differently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=55WsyTkpTCc
In fact, it would appear that they are using the short range mode for 100 yards and less for the helifootage, which is fine, but hardly 1000 yard capability stuff. So while all the other videos show the screen display of the shots, this video does not, not until the end with shooting a pig from the ground at fairly short range.
You have to watch closely. At 1:23 they have pig driven into a field with a helicopter. You can see that it is pretty close. They are physically tracking the pig with the scope at 1:27. The display reads that the wind is 40 mph and that the pig is at 275 yards.
275 yards? That doesn't jive with the previous shot showing how close the pig was.
Then there is a cut to an overhead shot showing them sighting on the pig and it can't be more than 75 yards, then cut back to the scope view. Despite the pig running towards the shooter, the ranging never changes. It remains at 275 yards.
Now, the scope tracking dot DOES appear to be tracking the pig in the video. However, the very clear video of the pig does not appear to be 275 yards and the imagery showing the pig driven into the field and the overhead view of the guys sighting on the pig indicate that the pig is MUCH closer that what is being shown in the display. Of course, over the short sequence of imagery flipflopping back and forth that shows the situation, there are things that appear in some images that don't appear in others. There are cows, a feeder, trees at short range in one shot not visible in the others, and at one point the shooter is obviously in shade (1:25) and then shown out in the open (1:27).
Maybe the scope does have some ability to track targets if his last vid on the running pig purported at 275 yards is truly a pig at 275 yards. I have my doubts it is, but will assume for argument sake that the video is valid. If so, then what the video demonstrate then is that they don't track a position on the target. This may account for the lumbar and gut shots shot in the videos. Just hitting the gazelle, kudu, wildebeast, etc. isn't necessarily what is appropriate.
The bottom line, from my perspective, is that while this setup shows some very neat technology, the claims being made are not being met in the videos put out by the company making the claims and there is some weird stuff going on in at least one video (the last one) where they don't show the vital "tracking" when the pigs are going shot from the helicopter and when they do show a pig being tracked, it is a ground shot where the imagery doesn't jive.
Okay, here is a video claiming it tracks the target from Liveleak.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9df_1354237550&comments=1
At 38 seconds, they tag the SHOULDER of the hog, but the hog is moving from right to left. If you look close, you can see a sapling to use for visual reference. The red tag dot remains relatively stationary to the sapling (watch closely), but the hog continues to move across the FOV. If the claim is that the shot goes to where the red tracking dot is, and that is the claim, then the shoulder tagged hog ended up being gut shot.
The "tag" is not actually on the target. The target moved and the tag did not. There was no "tracking" of the target. This is obvious when you watch the sapling during the segment.
If you back up in the video to shooting the grapefruit that precedes the hog. They claim that you Tag, Track, Xact. Cool. They were "tracking" a stationary object.
--- edited-in material ---
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/tracking-point-smart-rifle-sniper/
I thought this was interesting. The specifically note that there is a wind speed input interface and when going over the features of the scope, fail to note any capability of being able to assess wind speed or humidity. If you don't know how to assess wind at distance, does that mean that you will be able to shoot well at long ranges?
This is from the Colbert Report, but uses Trackingpoint's own video. Notice the claims being made and what is demonstrated and several don't jive. For example, it claims that the ballistic computer instantly accounts for all range and environmental factors. That is simply untrue. It implies that the ballistic computer is actively monitoring all such factors and correcting for them in real time. While it has the capability to know the temperature and pressure, it does not measure wind speed and then account for it. It would appear that the only environmental factors it monitors are temperature and pressure, not wind speed or humidity. So it really doesn't instantly account for all and part of what is being accounted for is manually input based on the shooter's assessment of the environmental conditions...which can rapidly change and can require considerable skill and experience to do well.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/426792/june-03-2013/trackingpoint-rifle
(actual video from Colbert Report ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gik6XNHH2ek )
There are the repeated claims of tracking moving targets, but how many of the videos show this? I noted above the hog example where the rifle did not actually track on the hog that was being targeted. The hog moved and the point where the shot was to go remained stationary. If you watch their vids, and of the several I have seen, the scope does not track the targets because the targets are all stationary.
For example...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvbyAcYjzlc
Now this next video is pretty long, 5 minutes. The first kill shows and "unbelievable" shot of 698 yards, that hits the animal way back in the lumbar vertebrae. However, the interesting thing is that despite showing every one of their game (IIRC) in motion just before the shot (action footage), at the time of the shot, all the game are stationary.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/83026602/
Here is a vid from the factory where several neat features of the rifle are explained, but Shauble notes moving game numerous times. With such a big selling point, I have to wonder why they don't show the moving game being tracked in the videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO1t1Q-U_os
Now this video claims to show tracking and shooting moving targets. It shows pigs being shot from helicopters, but none of the tracking footage. The heli footage doesn't look any different than when other rifles are used so you can't tell what the rifle is or is not doing differently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=55WsyTkpTCc
In fact, it would appear that they are using the short range mode for 100 yards and less for the helifootage, which is fine, but hardly 1000 yard capability stuff. So while all the other videos show the screen display of the shots, this video does not, not until the end with shooting a pig from the ground at fairly short range.
You have to watch closely. At 1:23 they have pig driven into a field with a helicopter. You can see that it is pretty close. They are physically tracking the pig with the scope at 1:27. The display reads that the wind is 40 mph and that the pig is at 275 yards.
275 yards? That doesn't jive with the previous shot showing how close the pig was.
Then there is a cut to an overhead shot showing them sighting on the pig and it can't be more than 75 yards, then cut back to the scope view. Despite the pig running towards the shooter, the ranging never changes. It remains at 275 yards.
Now, the scope tracking dot DOES appear to be tracking the pig in the video. However, the very clear video of the pig does not appear to be 275 yards and the imagery showing the pig driven into the field and the overhead view of the guys sighting on the pig indicate that the pig is MUCH closer that what is being shown in the display. Of course, over the short sequence of imagery flipflopping back and forth that shows the situation, there are things that appear in some images that don't appear in others. There are cows, a feeder, trees at short range in one shot not visible in the others, and at one point the shooter is obviously in shade (1:25) and then shown out in the open (1:27).
Maybe the scope does have some ability to track targets if his last vid on the running pig purported at 275 yards is truly a pig at 275 yards. I have my doubts it is, but will assume for argument sake that the video is valid. If so, then what the video demonstrate then is that they don't track a position on the target. This may account for the lumbar and gut shots shot in the videos. Just hitting the gazelle, kudu, wildebeast, etc. isn't necessarily what is appropriate.
The bottom line, from my perspective, is that while this setup shows some very neat technology, the claims being made are not being met in the videos put out by the company making the claims and there is some weird stuff going on in at least one video (the last one) where they don't show the vital "tracking" when the pigs are going shot from the helicopter and when they do show a pig being tracked, it is a ground shot where the imagery doesn't jive.
Last edited:
