PaulSpoerry.com

Social Media, technology, and geeky stuff for your brain.

You are here: Home / Google+ Posts / Linux powered, auto-aiming, smart rifle with 1,800-yard range

Linux powered, auto-aiming, smart rifle with 1,800-yard range

by 124 Comments

 

This bad boy can shoot a target moving 30 miles per hour at 1,800 yards distance. That's just a little over one mile (or 1.6 kilometers). TrackingPoint firearms can already streaming videos directly over local Wi-Fi or record and uploading the action after the fact to YouTube or Facebook and will soon will gain the ability to live-stream the scope’s picture to remote users using TrackingPoint’s smartphone app. It's going to cost $40,000 and they expect to sell out.

Moar here: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/01/trackingpoint-shows-off-the-mile-maker-a-smart-rifle-with-1800-yard-range/

Check this out on Google+

Comments

  4. Amazing tech.Horrible implications.
    Shooting things should take, like, skill, effort and thought. – and no amount of carrying a gun yourself will protect you from this.

  6. Fuckyou people crazy!! Buy ship for what??? help the people what really need the money for eat for school for the kids please don't put pictures fuck rifles is stupid..

  7. +West Kagle " my photojournalist buddy Steven Michael nailed a target at 1,008 yards—about 0.91 kilometers—on his first try, in spite of never having fired a rifle before."
    (earlier model)
    If you don't think think sort of thing "is" scary as opposed to just "look" scary I don't know what you do for a living. Maybe your DareDevil.

    There certainly is plenty of irrational fears in this world, but devices that make it skillless to kill anonymously from insane distances seems pretty rational too me. How can anyone protect themselves from such things?

  9. +maria vazquez it's people like you that are crazy read the amendments of the bill of rights not just the right to bare arms but it's your responsibility to protect yourself not rely on hired protection. Guns are for everyday food back then not part of the amendment in the bill it states for militia groups case the gov tries to wrongfully take over. If everyone carried it's a fact less crimes would happen.

  13. Tech will go forward in all areas…. good and evil.. Nothing can be done. I look at like this… Even though this weapon is now a reality, the tech within it is also available for those developing "good" products to help save lives… An example… My wife had a mamogram today.. The clinic just got a new unit that is not only more comfortable but has much better image detail. If the knowledge acquired allowed that unit to be developed as well as that rifle I'd say OK if it means the difference between early detection or the alternative for my wife and countless others.

  14. YeahThat is so sweet, but to those who think that it is new tech or Bad, I personally know of a small arms co. In OK. That has made and shipped "Dump guns" that we used to drop out of planes and choppers and they were able to self deploy and setup that was over 30 years ago.so all ya ANTI-Second amendment Peep's go get your homemade pepper spray..

  15. nice gun bro like the double and single nvg scopes but you could not show that military case in the backround that means you got this in the front line bro next time don't show the case

  18. +Thomas Wrobel I wonder what Linus thinks about this?

    +West Kagle At $40,000 I don't think we'll be seeing just anybody sporting this thing.

    +maria vazquez What West said.

    +Drew Mann Agreed. Sadly, a lot of our awesome tech has come down from the military.

    +jason osborne WTF are you talking about? I got the image from the article. The article got the images from the manufacturer.

    +Big Game Slayer Sorry but you're wrong about if everyone open carried. More guns equals more homicides.

    * Harvard Injury Control Research Center – "Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ (2004)

    * Stanford research reaffirms that right-to-carry gun laws are connected with an increase in violent crime. This debunks – with the latest empirical evidence – earlier claims that more guns actually lead to less crime. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/november/donohue-guns-study-111414.html (2014)

    * The largest study of gun violence in the United States…
    Results: Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.
    Conclusions: We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph (2013)

    Much of this idea that everybody packing heat is safer was pushed after More Guns, Less Crime came out, a book by John Lott that says violent crime rates go down when states pass "shall issue" concealed carry laws. However, after a 2010 re-examination of Lott's work and the NRC's previous analysis of his work, as well as six years of additional data, found that "… Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from the array of models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime." – The United States National Research Council. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632599 (2010). There was of course those who supported Lot's conclusions. Unfortunately for them "…all except one were published before coding and aggregation flaws of Lott's datasets came to light". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime#Support

  19. +Thomas Wrobel If it can't see you, it can't shoot you…Active image refraction/camo would be a good defense. It's electronic… EMF pulse would disable it. It's wirelessly linked to the glasses so hacking it can turn it against the fool that wants to shoot you with it.

  33. PROVEN FACT:In analysis compiled from multiple States from California to Chicago- Boston to Washington , D.C.: In All instances of violent crimes down where LEGAL CITIZENS WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE AND CARRY -open or concealed with permit or not the crimes over the last 30+ years was "Significantly(less than 20%) lower in States or Cities where citizens carried firearms. It is a truly saddening fact that all of our media coverage is strongly Biased. But if you want to become enlightened , Check out the 60 Minutes episode featuring a special segment on #FRONT SIGHT FIREARMS TRAINING INSTITUTE.

  34. OK. I understand what a gun enthusiast sees in shooting at stuff (as long as it isn't human). However, if it aims for you, where is the skill, the thrill?

  35. ooo ooo a minature version of that assassin boomboom rifle used in the movie the jackal, hell yeah, can it get smaller? with wheels, better still mounted onto a drone, yeah whoa so much fun….. pewpewpew :p

  45. The more I looked at this pic it came to me that the lower+mag look like the brand in **"May/2014__tactical weapons mag.com"©®™ on that one the upper and rails were a skel-Alum w/user adjustable 4-setttings,piston driven system, this picture on post looks to have a ~7.62×51 NATO MAG but the bbl. Looks to be a .22variant,_weird?BUT so #supercool

  58. The good that can from this, is saving a lot of questions and asses against the brass, on whether the kill was justified. Yes we have implemented devices currently being used in the Corps now, but this takes it to another level. I truly believe the shooter will be more than happy to hump this bad boy. Just hope the cost comes down. Granted the Corps will be amongst the last to get it no matter the price. I certainly hope I'm wrong on that.

  60. Old saying, the weapon of choice, is only capable of so much,…in many conflicts, not only taking out the selected, but wounding the groups will also determine the outcome ..but hey,cool gun..still like the 50cal..

  79. My days of study in laser is rather outdated, the time when laser tech was just a new science, getting old I be..should probably have stayed with it..l.o.l late 70s-early 80s..in my late teen early twenties..

  95. middle east regions have a wi fi weapon that beats this gun. it is called 'wi fi suicide bombers' who self destruct with a phone app

  99. +Paul Spoerry personally that's bullshit fact coming from a party that is controlled by our gov and will say anything it's told to its sheeple like you that believe main stream media too. If criminals knew people were packing heat they would think twice fact ask the NRA and they will give you a different answer as well. You can defend yourself a lot faster then waiting for the law to show up cause now your a statistic. And research isn't fact unless it's history no one can see what the future holds so saying guns are evil is bullshit the gun is a mechanical devise it has no brain to make it go off its the person behind it, so if you want to sit and wait for help to arrive which could take a while or help yourself in seconds go for it they can put on your tombstone also couldn't defend himself RIP.

  101. +Big Game Slayer For one, I didn't attack you so fuck off with your sheeple personalized attack. Now let's break down what you've said….

    "personally that's bullshit fact coming from a party that is controlled by our gov and will say anything it's told to its sheeple like you that believe main stream media too."

    So you person opinion (as you state explicitly via the first word) is a bullshit fact? You believe Stanford and Harvard are controlled by the government? Wrong Both are private institutions. Also, I don't watch any main stream news… I don't even have cable, satellite, etc TV.

    "If criminals knew people were packing heat they would think twice fact ask the NRA and they will give you a different answer as well."

    First… are you saying the NRA will say that if a criminal knows you have a gun they'd disagree with your statement about packing heat? Additionally, the ACTUAL research that's been done does not support that. It could be wrong, but the NRA lobbies to block firearm related statistics collection by the CDC. So much so that when it was tried to be revisited in the 90's they have a had language added to the appropriations bill that specifically stated "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Now why would they do that? Oh because they're self serving and not really interested in the truth, only the one sided position they hold.

    "And research isn't fact unless it's history no one can see what the future holds"

    You do know you sound like an idiot when you say that right? What's cited above was taken from past data; how the fuck else would science work but to analyze current and historical data?

    "so saying guns are evil is bullshit the gun is a mechanical devise it has no brain to make it go off its the person behind it"

    I didn't say guns are evil. My dad was a cop and a hunter (as were my grandfather and uncle). I grew up around guns. Since they were always around it was important I knew how to use them. I've been shooting them since I was old enough to learn how to safely handle and fire one. All I was showing was that your statements weren't factual and citing the sources that showed that. In contrast, you've done the Internet equivalent of yelling like a 3 year old "nuh-uh… you're a sheeple… they can put RIP on your tombstone…". You could have either not commented, or cited actual sources to back up what you were saying but you didn't so I'm sorry, you're statements aren't valid.

  102. ok for one i said nothing about the nra so for one u have no clue how to make a better come back than the nra then u are stupid i just gave a suggestion and i didn't attack u i'm now attacking u back because u didn't even read my statement i just thought the world should know the case and gun is from the front line

  103. Hmmm +Paul Spoerry just looked up Harvard gun control research and it said banning gun would not lower crime rate in fact it would increase it according to their study. FBI homicide table show a decrease since 2008 every year. And I'm sorry wasn't trying to be such a asshole to you.

  113. If you're referring to the 2013 one (found here: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf) they did not study crime law in the US, but studied firearm and crime data worldwide. Considering we know that places like Israel have tons of firearms but less issues around this subject than we do (compulsory military service likely plays a huge role in this) that's not really a game changer +Big Game Slayer. I will agree though that if there is questions in if the data is accurate or not, it should be retested, and retested. That's how science works and I'd be down for that. Sadly, the NRA continues to attempt to block the government from tracking and studying statistical data. Why?

  115. I own a .308 howa saka from finland, I bet it'll keep up with that thing and I don't have 5000 in mine with a badass luepold scope on it

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.