Point-and-Shoot: TrackingPoint's New Linux-Controlled AR-15s 219
Ars Technica takes a look at the next generation of TrackingPoint's automatically aimed rifles (not "automatic" in the usual sense), and visited the shooting range where they're tested out. Like the company's previous generation of gun (still in production, and increasingly being sold to government buyers), TrackingPoint's offerings integrate a Linux computer that makes acquiring and tracking a target far easier and more accurate than it would otherwise be. Unlike the older models, though, this year TrackingPoint is concentrating on AR-15s, rather than longer, heavier bolt-action rifles. A slice:
The signature "Tag-Track-Xact" system has gained additional functionality on the AR models, too. With the bolt-action guns, there was only one way to put a round onto a target: first, you sighted in on the thing you wanted to hit and depressed the red tagging button just above the trigger. A red pip would appear in the scope’s crosshairs, and you’d place the pip onto the target and release the button. The scope’s rangefinding laser would then illuminate the target to measure its distance, and the image processor would fix on the object; if you moved, or if the target moved, the red pip would remain atop the target. Then, to fire, you squeezed the trigger and lined the crosshairs up with the target’s pip. When the two coincided, the weapon fired. This method works fine for a bolt-action rifle where every round has to be manually chambered, but it’s less than ideal for a carbine, which one might want to fire off-hand (i.e., standing up and aiming) or from the hip. With this in mind, the AR PGFs have a new "free fire mode," in which you can tag a target once and then shoot at it as many times as you want by pulling the trigger directly, with all the shots using the ballistic data from the first shot’s tag.
That means, says writer Lee Hutchinson, a rifle "with essentially 100 percent accuracy at 250 yards."
Now do that with an AA-12 (Score:2)
Because being able to do that with a fully-automatic heavy weapon will be the new level of warfare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/guns/shotguns/shooting-tips/2009/11/accuracy-methods-and-gear-tips-competition-slug-shooter [fieldandstream.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Its still not gonna be terribly accurate with a smoothbore barrel.
Re:Now do that with an AA-12 (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the phrase "M1A1 Abrams" have any meaning for you?
Hint: the Abrams gun is a 120mm smoothbore. It's probably the most accurate tank gun in current use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now do that with an AA-12 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Right but you wouldnt compare the accuracy of an M1A1 to the accuracy of an infantry rifle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you are ignorant of slug guns, just shut up already
Re:Now do that with an AA-12 (Score:4, Informative)
yes, slugs are *extremely* accurate and are designed to be fired through smoothbore barrel *with a choke*, look it up how they work. I get 3" groups at 100 yards out of my Remington 870 with 3" rounds
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Aaah, a true killer application, the year of GNU/Linux on your favourite weapon of choice :)
Re:Now do that with an AA-12 (Score:5, Interesting)
will be the new level of warfare.
Yes, and not in a good way.
It used to be the case that you needed experienced, diciplined soldiers to make snipers. If you tried to fight a proxy war by arming insurgents the way the U.S. armed the Mujahideen (al Quaeda), or the way Russia is arming Ukranian separatists, then you got a pretty inefficient force that could only win by war of attrition.
These new weapons will make it much easier for anyone with money (like the IS) to recruit people out of the slums and quickly turn them into effective fighting units.
Also it will increase the efficiency of child soliders, and therfore lead to more recruitment.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean give some insurgents a Buk and they'll shoot down a civilian plane?
Re:Now do that with an AA-12 (Score:5, Interesting)
Hi!
I'm a recreational shooter and have at least a passing familiarity with small arms doctrine. This has very little military application.
Why?
Well...
If you are running a crew serviced weapon, what is traditionally thought of as a 'machine gun', you aren't trying to match every bullet to some knucklehead's torso. That isn't your job. Your weapon isn't accurate enough for that sort of milarky. What you can do is drop 600+ rounds a minute in a sustainable way. You end up with what's referred to as a 'beaten' area. Say a machine gun has an accuracy of around 6 MOA.. which they don't. An MOA means minute of angle.. roughly 1" at 100 yards, 2" at 200 yards, and doubles every time you double the distance.
Say you have that super-accurate MG. It's dropping 600 rounds a minute into 6" at 100, a foot at 200, two feet at 400 and etc. Say you've got a guy prone hiding behind a stump at 200 yards. You aren't concerned with trying to one-shot his brain pan. It's far more efficent on your time to drop a 2-3 second burst (20-30 rounds) than take the 5 seconds it'd take to setup a perfect shot with a better weapon. It's about hit probabilities. If you can fill a space with enough bullets fast enough you'll overcome inaccuracy. Accuracy is difficult to achieve in the field. More bullets in a given space is relatively easy.
Rifles work the same way. 3-4 MOA is typical on modern combat rifles. within 200 yards, wind drift and bullet drop is less than your accuracy threshold. At 3 MOA that maybe true all the way to 400 yards. Forcing me to slow down and achieve a 'perfect' aim point doesn't buy me anything -- name of the game is me + 2 or 3 supporting fellows filling the same space with bullets till probability gives us a center punching of the target. IE, 6 rounds into 8 MOA in 5 seconds is more likely to hit center than 2 rounds at 3 MOA in the same time. That's a major part of the point of burst fire. You can't overcome inherit inaccuracy in the system with better aim. Only by recovering from the shot and pulling the trigger faster.
The gizmo can't do that. The combat revolution you envision was achieved decades ago by semi and fully automatic weaponry.
easier said then done. (Score:2)
the US did not create Al Quaeda, stop repeating that lie.
I do not think you realize how difficult it is to train third world people to use state of the art military equipment.
been there done that. not even something worth doing. i give you the current state of Iraq as an example of 10 years of training flushed down the drain.
besides these weapons should be fairly easy to neutralize by any reasonably modern military.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now do that with an AA-12 (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no "overkill".
There is only "kill" with varying levels of confidence.
Shoot a guy once, and there's always the possibility he's not dead.
Shoot him 300 times, and yeah, you're pretty certain of him.
Shoot him with a missile, and now you're sure he's not just merely dead, he's really most sincerely dead.
Just...fire it from outside it's blast radius...(See "Fireball in 10x10 room")
Re: (Score:2)
Good comment, however when I got to this line:
Shoot him with a missile, and now you're sure he's not just merely dead, he's really most sincerely dead.
...my mind was suddenly speaking with a helium voice. Don't you know that helium is rapidly becoming very expensive?!?
Re: (Score:3)
"(See 'Fireball in 10x10 room')"
Edition dependent: Yes in 1-2E. No in 0E, BX, 3-4-5E.
http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2011/07/spells-through-ages-fireball.html [blogspot.com]
Re:Now do that with an AA-12 (Score:4, Insightful)
AA-12? [wikipedia.org] Sort of an overkill for a personal weapon, I'd say...
That's loser talk.
Zorg? (Score:5, Funny)
With this in mind, the AR PGFs have a new "free fire mode," in which you can tag a target once and then shoot at it as many times as you want by pulling the trigger directly, with all the shots using the ballistic data from the first shot’s tag.
With the replay button, another Zorg invention, it's even easier. One shot...and replay sends every following shot to the same location.
Although I guess in this case you actually want to push the little red button.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the OP last night, I could hear Gary Oldman in my head.
Nice to know I'm not the only one.
Robot (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Robot (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much the summary.
Except instead of the bot finding the target, you designate the target, then pull the trigger. The gun won't fire until it's positioned in such a way that the designated target will be hit.
The thing is, the basic skills still need to be there. For their rifle, well, you still need to calm yourself down enough to be able to find the target, designate it, then squeeze and wait for it to fire. Sure it means you don't need to discipline your
Re: (Score:3)
You need a servo mechanism that is fast enough to be useful and stable, and for that they're using human arms. Human arms (when controlled by a reasonably sober brain) are very very good servomechanisms. Duplicating them with motors seems trivial - Until you run into stability problems.
What stability? What do we have computers, dynamic system state prediction, and feedback control for? In fact, a certain lack of stability might be exactly the thing you might need for a truly smart weapon. Imagine a soldier holding a weapon with the second grip being not too far forward and held somewhat loosely (so that the end could swing slightly). In that case, a reaction control system near the end of the barrel ought to be able to exercise limited adjustments in azimuth and elevation to swing the bar
So let me get this Straight. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that seems to be the case.
It's just a regular gun that waits to fire until you've lined up with where you tried to shoot initially.
Nothing too new on the image processing front... but it runs Linux and pisses off the peaceniks, so Slashdot runs the story.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier to aim a laser tag with a small switch - and correct it if you've got it wrong - than to aim and fire using the trigger perfectly the first time.
It's all about repercussions and sensitivity - the target probably wont get alerted by the tagging beam, and you can correct it as many times as you like whilst maintaining stealth. Once you have it right, the first real bullet will hit it's mark and the show is over.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...And if you screwed up the first step, and tagged a plant instead, you are screwed.
For that you need a Salad Shooter.
How does the Tagging Work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great for High Schools (Score:3, Funny)
Now to ensure that every high-school age child in America gets one!
You have selected a headshot: (Score:3)
Are you sure you want to shoot this target?
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Could this be Linux's killer app that would blow the competition out of the water?
A real-world aimbot (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an aimbot for real rifles. Now, any rifleman can be a sniper.
Yes, it's too big, too complicated, and too expensive. That's a temporary problem. Ever see the first laser sight, from the 1980s? It used a helium-neon laser tube and required a power cord. There's been some progress since then. This aimbot technology should be down to smartphone size, if not cost, soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A real-world aimbot (Score:4, Informative)
It's an aimbot for real rifles. Now, any rifleman can be a sniper.
The majority of sniper training is about field craft, not shooting.
And 100% accuracy at 250 yards is not as useful as you'd think.
The engagement ranges in Iraq/Afghanistan were mostly 300 to 500 meters (328 to 546 yards) .
Unfortunately, the M4 + 5.56 is intended for ranges less than 300 yards.
This leaves a big gaping hole in the infantry's ability to effectively kill past 300 yards.
The Iraqis and Afghans have no such range problems with their AK-47s and 7.62 ammo.
TLDR: The military needs to reclaim 300-500 yards with a suitable infantry weapon.
FYI - A trained sniper is expected to have 90% accuracy at 600 yards.
Re: (Score:2)
The cynic in me would say, considering the accuracy of an average AK, range only minimally influences its chance to hit...
Re: (Score:2)
Does this set of statistics have any bearing on that 2011 soundbyte that "an estimated 250,000 bullets fired for every [Iraqi] insurgent killed"?
Re: (Score:3)
Im not seeing where you're getting your info; everything Ive ever heard indicates that the only issues reported with the M4 are reliability, due to its tighter tolerances, but that its also more accurate. Thats backed up by this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Which indicates the M16 /5.56 is accurate to 500m, whereas the AK47 with 7.76 ammo is only effective to 380m. If those are accurate, the M4 is lighter, uses 50% lighter ammo, and is accurate 25% further
Someone who reads random gun stuff on the net (Score:5, Informative)
It is amazing how much misinformation flies around about guns. One of the common ones is "OMG the M4/16 is such crap, the AK is so much bettar!"
You are quite correct about the range. The AR-15 platform weapons are much more accurate. Anyone who has ever fired both can easily tell that.
The issue that people like the grandparent conflate is the lethality of the 5.56x45mm round at longer ranges. Though the M16 can easily hit a target at long range (with a skilled marksman operating it), because of the small size and low mass of the round, it is often not as effective as you would want. If the bullet does not fragment or tumble, it can go right through someone and the small hole does little damage.
That is the issue it has at range, not accuracy or ability to reach that range.
Also this isn't like it is some completely unknown, or unsolvable, thing. The military also has weapons that use 7.62x51mm rounds which are larger rifle bullets and have much greater range, mass, and kinetic energy. For longer engagements still things like 8.58Ã--70mm and 12.7Ã--99mm are used.
Of course as you move up in caliber and amount of propellant, weapons become bigger and heavier, and have larger amounts of recoil to deal with, it is always a tradeoff and is one reason why the standard personal weapons use 5.56.
In terms of 5.56x45mm vs 7.62Ã--39mm (which is what the AK uses, is is not the same as the larger NATO round) the real issues come up at medium range (100-300m) and with barrier penetration. The light, high velocity 5.56 round tends to be fantastically lethal below 100m because the high velocity results in fragmentation when it hits the target. However since military rounds may not be specifically designed to fragment or expand (the Geneva convention prohibits it, civilian and police rounds are available that do), as it slows down at greater ranges they lose that ability and are not as damaging. Also, because of their low mass and tendency to fragment they are poor performers when shooting through barriers like windshields, doors, and so on.
THAT is the issue the rounds have in general use vs 7.62Ã--39mm rounds. Not long ranges. While they aren't super effective beyond 300m, they are reasonably accurate at least, which is not the case with the 7.62 rounds. At a long range engagement an M4 would be at a decided advantage to an AK-47.
However neither was designed for long range use. They are carbines, made for medium range and below. They trade overall power and range for smaller size, lower weight, and better portability. As their widespread use in many conflicts around the world indicates, they do well in that arena.
Re: (Score:2)
There were also issues when firing the same cartridge from the original length barrel
Vs the shortened barrel.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Geez, another limbaugh-type master of the half-truth. Am so very glad that 'gun stuff on the net' has enabled your brilliance.
Former marine here - and the 5.56 NATO ball round does NOT fragment unless there is some intervening hard mass (concrete, rebar, etc). The boys in Afga were routinely taking 200m head shots and 400m body shots. And we qualify at 500m with both the M16 and M4 - whether you will be a cook or technician or infantry, you do not get out of boot camp until you can qualify. And you have to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Im not seeing where you're getting your info; everything Ive ever heard indicates that the only issues reported with the M4 are reliability, due to its tighter tolerances, but that its also more accurate.
I guess people have short memories
2006: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-faulty-ammo-failing-troops/ [cbsnews.com]
In a confidential report to Congress last year, active Marine commanders complained that: "5.56 was the most worthless round," "we were shooting them five times or so," and "torso shots were not lethal."
That's just the first article google kicked up.
Complaints about stopping power started showing up once the Iraqi insurgency picked up.
The M4/M16 is very accurate, it just doesn't have the same stopping power past 300 meters as larger rounds.
This is intentional, because the military did research and concluded that most engagements take place inside 300 meters.
This is also a problem, because in Iraq/Afghanistan,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will no doubt benefit from the same economies of scale as they build millions and millions of them...
Re: (Score:2)
Not really an aim bot. Aimbots typically give you one button to press that aims the weapon, and it might fire with the same keypress. It doesn't matter where you were already aiming or looking when you press that button the screen snaps to a target.
This system requires actually sighting in on the target and tagging it with a laser range finding system. The system uses some fancy image recognition software to then keep track of the target within your sight picture. When you then pull and hold the trigger the
You Mean (Score:4, Informative)
Firing blind (Score:2, Interesting)
Will the be a version that blind people can use too?
Re: (Score:2)
Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
Certainly I'd trust it more than a Windows CE-based weapon, and I suppose if you want to reduce your attack surface, open source is the way to go - you can cut out the components that aren't needed. But, even still - I see little reason for an operating system to be there, except for convenient/cheap/fast development.
Re: (Score:3)
The guys just really wanted to give Linux a boost by creating the killer app.
It's the year of the.... (Score:2)
....Linux deathtop?
Automatically aimed weapon? (Score:2)
How does it tell the difference between an innocent bystander and a terrorist/infidel ?
Evolution, not revolution (Score:2)
This merely pushes engagement ranges out once again. WWI riflemen were trained to shoot at hundreds of yards, in fact the sight-system on the old WWI bolt-action rifles is often stepped out to crazy ranges like 1200 yards. (Not that they'd actually hit anything.) It's only with the advent of general-issue personal weapons with rapid fire capability that aimed-fire ranges have shrunk in the modern era. (Some would say that they shrunk to what typical engagement ranges were ANYWAY.)
Now, the conventional wi
Re:a rifle with 100 percent accuracy (Score:4, Funny)
Get your FLOSS personalities right: Eric S Raymond is the gun nut.
Re: (Score:2)
Get your FLOSS personalities right: Eric S Raymond is the gun nut.
Is he a member of Geeks with Guns [geekswithguns.com]? I have never seen him at any of our shoots.
Re:a rifle with 100 percent accuracy (Score:4, Funny)
I've never seen any of you at People With Girlfriends or Humans That Wash either.
Re: (Score:3)
Throw real world movement of the target, change of the landscape, and now you're talking something freakishly hard.
Don't forget variable winds between you and something 250 yards away... 100% accuracy my ass...
Re: Apply liberal amounts of gloss. (Score:5, Informative)
My ballistic calculator says that given the torso is, on average, 18" across, this system could aim dead center/upper chest (zeroed for 100 yds) and with no correction at all, hit its target correcting for elevation and windage for +/- 17mph wind with M855.
I am actually fairly unimpressed by this. Any dope can make a 300 yard shot with an AR on a head sized target and telescopic sights. If this was able to make those shots at 500+ yds, that would really be something.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Apply liberal amounts of gloss. (Score:5, Informative)
You would be surprised how bad people shoot in the real world... I hunt. I fire about 50 shots on big game (mostly boar, deer and moose) a year, and well over thousand if you count small game. I compete, primarily in sporting and skeet but also 300 meter rifle.
In my experience the wast majority of shooters have a hard time hitting a deer sized targets with a rifle at 300 meters without special training. Add any sort of complication, like a little bit of stress, moving target, bad light or the like, and most people won't hit a deer sized target consistently (that is, 10 out of 10 in the heart-lung area) at 100 meters. The performance of the cartridge barely matters. Most people simply need a lot of training to aim and fire a rifle well, especially under stress.
I spend a considerable amount of my spare time tracking down deer which were wounded by people with the "Any dope can make a 300 yard shot" attitude. They are typically not quite so tough at 4 am in the morning when we have spent a few hours tracking down the deer they wounded. While it is good training for the dogs, and it is very rewarding work, it would be better if people learned how hard it is to shoot well on distances over 100 meters.
Re: (Score:3)
The corollary to this is "don't shoot beyond your abilities." If you know you're inexperienced or a poor shot while under the influence of 'buck fever', don't try the long shots in the first place. These days there are plenty of does* that will basically walk right up to you for a clean, humane kill.
*Where I live, they've basically declared open season on deer [virginia.gov] - 6 a year, three of which must be anterless, the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
500m with an M16A2 is part of normal training in the Marine Corps. This is with open sights. I can put 10 rounds in an 8" circle at such distances.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'll have to wait a few years until they integrate radar and track the bullet's flight. The first one might miss, but the one behind that will hit exactly. By then they'll have dropped the pretense of a human pulling the trigger too.
Re: (Score:2)
So, okay, rifle, take a picture through a scope, assuming the target doesn't move
Motion tracking isn't exactly an untested idea. In fact, years ago, I "invented" (well, "conceived" would perhaps be a better word) almost exactly the same thing as this rifle, only mine had a target discriminator, tracker, and a 2D actuator (for automatically swinging the barrel towards the target by a modest amount).
Re: (Score:3)
So does a stinger. Better warhead. Heat seeking is easy with all that hot air and inflated sense of importance.
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
How many more children will die because of this invention?
I'm going to go with "none in the foreseeable future".
Must we have something worse than Sandy Hook for people to wake up and say "no" to gun violence
How about the Bath School disaster [wikipedia.org], where 45 people died, mostly children? Or perhaps looking away from human causes, we could consider infant diarrhoea, which kills a couple million children per year and can be cured with a few pennies' worth of salt? How about political violence and genocides, which kill thousands of civilian children?
The simple answer is that there is no simple answer. The Bath School disaster was done with explosives. Infant diarrhoea is mostly a problem because parents don't have access to medical care, or realize that they need it. Political conflict is never so simple as having the good guys fight the bad guys - all sides think their righteous virtues are worth dying for, and worth having innocent people die for.
The reality of life is that it's trivial to kill someone. A human body is an incredibly complex machine, with billions of interacting parts, and it's just so easy to screw it up fatally. Sure, you could ban guns with fancy sights, but it's still just as easy to build a bomb, grab a knife, or slip a bit of poison into a meal.
Let's say "no" to pithy slogans and short-sighted politically-convenient campaigns.
One simple answer. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is one simple answer.
People (on average) are less afraid of things that they are FAMILIAR with and that they FEEL they have more control over. So people are comfortable driving to the airport but worry about the flight.
People are scared of "terrorists" killing them but are, statistically, more likely to be killed by someone in their own family.
So the scariest thing would be someone that you don't know who is planning to kill you or your child for a reason you don't understand.
But the reality is that if you're living in the USofA and you're white then you will die from the food you've chosen to eat and the exercise that you've chosen to skip. But since you have control over that (I'll start tomorrow) and it's familiar you won't worry about it.
Re: (Score:2)
we could consider infant diarrhoea, which kills a couple million children per year and can be cured with a few pennies' worth of salt?
Really? Are you sure just a little salt can solve that problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Salt (well a sachet of infant electrolyte mix) and access to clean water would solve that problem as the kids tend to die from dehydration.
Not in ALL cases but the death rate would definitely go down. Back when I was working as a dive master on the coast of the Sinai desert, we used to take the baby rehydration sachets all the time if we'd overindulged in the post-diving beers the night before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Salt is the cure for the medical condition. The underlying problem is abysmal access to even that minimal amount of medical care, and that doesn't have such an easy solution.
Re: (Score:2)
If I had known the cure were that easy, I would have told more people. One problem is that people just don't know that is the cure (even if they are worried about diarrhoea as an issue)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that because mother's milk doesn't have enough salt?
In short, yes. It's a problem mostly in places where the mother's milk doesn't have enough of pretty much anything, but salt's the one that kills first.
Consider a place where an average salary is $40 a month. Unfortunately, there are millions of people (infants and mothers included) who live where half of that would be considered a wealthy income. Surely you've seen the desolate scenes on TV where they ask for some number of cents per day to buy little Mary a pair of shoes to walk over the rocky debris to s
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that there are some would-be snipers out there, currently restrained only by incompetence; but barring those this system isn't of obvious interest for most spree killing purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up and take my positive mod points!
Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)
'Australia banned guns: Sure, there are no school massacres but the murder rate hasn't decreased.'
You're reading the wrong newspaper, the Washington Post says otherwise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
"So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness."
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't (Score:2)
We have nasty spiders and snakes, but you don't use firearms to kill either of those. Both only strike humans defensively. Our large land animals are all herbivores; kangaroo, emus and cassowaries have a very nasty kick but they'll run away in preference to attacking you. Dingoes, despite the high-profile death of Azarea Chamberlain back in 1978,
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Go look at the real data. Homicides are declining in Austrailia and the US. Since Austrailia banned guns the firearm murder rate dropped but it dripped faster than the overall homicide rate which means that quite a few killers still decided to kill even without a gun. In the same time the US had more guns and more people carrying guns and also saw a decrease in homicides. If you remove the places with strict gun laws the homicide rate drops even further.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you cite data like GP did? It's like you're going out of your way for people to disbelieve you.
Re: (Score:2)
Only as long as they get to choose the targets. It's much less fun if your enemy gets to pick who gets to bite the bullet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want to know who the hell shoots a rifle from the hip at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it, how will a gun give them a firm texture and a slightly nutty taste?
Re: (Score:2)
All a matter of ammo.
Re:now graft it onto a grunt's arm (Score:4, Insightful)
Remote controlled troops will kill the terrists for US!
Other way around. This is the perfect assassination weapon.
Politicians will be queuing up to ban it as soon as they realize how big a threat it is to them. All the "terrists" need to do is to set the suitably disguised receiver and barrel of the rifle on an intentionally randomizing mount pointing where a politician is speechifying, tag the legislator via a phone link as soon as they're in sight, then walk away. A timer on the trigger can keep clicking away after a preset interval to get the job done.
Who knows, this might be the Colt Peacemaker of our day?
Re:Why didn't they use Windows? (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm... let's see...
1. You get asked at least 3 times whether you're really, really sure you want to kill that file, I mean target.
2. Just when you're about to take a shot, your rifle insists that it needs to install upgrades, then shuts down without even asking you.
3. You pull the trigger, your sights get grey, you hear a ping and get asked whether you want to allow or deny that shot.
4. In the next version of your gun your sights and trigger get replaced by huge, unwieldy and flashy tiles that you have to lug around, where nobody on this planet can explain why you need them (allegedly they're great for those Navy guys, why you need them in the infantry is explained with an attempt to unify the troops), and it will take at least a year of complaining from your whole platoon 'til you get your old sights and trigger back. And even then only if you ask for them.
5. Your gun would come without cleaning equipment, without safety and a few other things (unless you bought the "ultimate" version), but you'd get a free deck of playing cards.
6. Cleaning the gun is a hassle and a half. Technically, what people do instead is throwing it away once it gets so dirty that you can't shoot reliably anymore and get a new one.
Re:For loops are illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Take your meds. The ATF probably wants to buy these things.
Since these guns have been all over the gun-nut press for the past couple of years, I'm sure that various three letter government agencies have heard about them and paid them some visits. Most cordial visits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)