
Bullseye from 1,000 yards: Shooting the $17,000 Linux-powered rifle - zoowar
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/03/bullseye-from-1000-yards-shooting-the-17000-linux-powered-rifle/
======
rdl
I obviously want one of these :)

The place where this kind of thing would be most useful is integrated into a
CROWS mount -- a fully automated turret which can be put on top of a vehicle,
in static emplacements, etc. Being able to make single, aimed, highly accurate
shots on vehicles approaching a checkpoint from a .50bmg mounted on an
unattended vehicle up forward would be really nice, since you could then not
put any of your own forces at risk, while taking single shots to the engine
(to disable the vehicle) vs. unloading on the vehicle with multiple bursts
(which would be highly likely to kill the occupants, who may not be "bad
guys").

Deskilling the precision marksman job isn't as important -- a real sniper
needs huge amounts of other training beyond precision shooting, so the
shooting training isn't the biggest barrier there, and the level of skill
required for ordinary police 100-200m designated marksman isn't really much
for the shooting, so much as for shoot/no shoot, various intermediate/barrier
materials, etc.

The only way to do police levels of accuracy at 1000m would be with some kind
of actively guided round; they generally won't accept a shot a military sniper
would consider acceptable, as it's usually for hostage rescue situations. A
military sniper is probably ok with taking a shot where if he misses, another
enemy beside the one he's trying to kill gets killed instead, most of the
time, as long as his odds of hitting the target are high enough. So those
shots can be in the 600-1500m range. I've never heard of police shots beyond
300m. They're usually 50-150m but often with glass or other barrier material
between them and the target.

~~~
steve19
I evaluate military technology and I have shot the rifle myself. I think the
rifle has a lot of potential, but I see this rifle as more of a technology
demo than the future of marksmanship.

I was easily able to put rounds into a man sized target at long range despite
less-than-ideal shooting conditions with a lot less concentration and effort
than I would normally need.

I think this would make an excellent police marksman tool. It lowers the skill
needed for a police sharpshooter to do his job without injuring anyone.

I don't see it being used by military snipers. It is big and heavy. It
requires active ranging (two separate range finders) lighting up the location
of the rifle for anyone with NVG (and the onboard electronics probably have a
terrible heat signature). The "closed loop" (their words) of the system means
that it requires everything, including ammunition, to come from the company
who makes the rifle. Change one thing and the accuracy might be terrible. It
is complex: you can diagnose and fix many problems with a normal rifle in the
field. You can carry a spare optic in case your primary optic breaks.

Expect to see this technology integrated into fighting vehicles and static
emplacements (like the parent suggested).

~~~
shpxnvz
> ...means that it requires everything, including ammunition, to come from the
> company who makes the rifle.

This is baffling... what on earth makes the ammunition proprietary? Does the
chamber or priming system deviate from the SAAMI/CIP specifications for those
cartridges?

~~~
tcpekin
From the article,

> "The problem with hand loading is that you just have inconsistent results.
> Some people do it very good, and some don't. What I really want to avoid is
> the situation where someone says, 'Look, your gun doesn't work. I'm missing,
> and it's your fault.' And the real issue is, well, you're missing because
> you screwed up the ammunition—you have it loaded too hot and it's firing too
> high. But you're never going to believe me!" He laughed. "I'm really not
> trying to make a ton of money on ammo, but I want to control the outcome and
> I want people to have a good experience."

I don't think it is proprietary, rather than just very repeatable. Using the
company made ammunition, they can (hopefully) ensure that every bullet has the
same characteristics, so it can leave the barrel at the same velocity. From
the quote above, I doubt the software can compensate for different grain
bullets or different amounts of powder.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloading#Accuracy_considerat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloading#Accuracy_considerations)

~~~
shpxnvz
> The problem with hand loading is that you just have inconsistent results...

That's a pretty ridiculous statement for them to make. A person who drops $17K
on a precision rifle (and you can drop a heck of a lot more than that on a
quality rifle without all the electronic crap) damn well knows about
consistency in ammunition, and most of them are going to be experienced
handloaders as well.

The best shooters in the world handload, and that includes the U.S. Army
Marksmanship Unit (who can certainly afford the most expensive factory ammo).
They do so because you simply can't mass produce cartridges that are as
accurate and consistent as handloads. You can't mass produce ammo tailored to
the chamber tolerances of a specific rifle. You can't fire form enough brass
at the factory to load a lifetime's worth of ammo for an individual rifle.
Even if you tried, you're back to square one after you replace the barrel at
5K rounds.

As a result, you end up paying $17K for a rifle that cannot possibly be used
to it's fullest potential.

> From the quote above, I doubt the software can compensate for different
> grain bullets or different amounts of powder.

This could be, but if so would destroy the premise that this computerized
gizmo offers any improvement over a human calculator. Experienced shooters
have no problem memorizing ballistics tables for their particular loads - that
this computer could not would be, well, laughable.

I apologize if I'm being grumpy about all this. It's simply depressing to me
that with all the challenges, intricacies and fascinating phenomena in the
world of shooting folks here are so fixated on the little computer they
strapped on top.

~~~
VikingCoder
It's ABS. Most professional drivers can outperform Anti-lock Braking Systems,
or at the very least the first several iterations of them.

But putting ABS makes a mediocre driver able to do things they wouldn't
otherwise.

The article itself highlights that someone shooting this hit a target from
1,008 yards - using a rifle for the first time, ever.

------
chrissnell
I'll pass. I'd rather have my Accuracy International Arctic Warfare and my
Schmidt und Bender scope and save the extra $10,000 for ammo. My rifle is a
.308 Winchester but for that money, I could have easily bought the .338 Lapua
version and still had several crates of match-grade ammo, a Bluetooth wind
gauge, and a nice ballistics computer app for my iPhone.

My AW rifle:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/7960052026/in/set-72...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/7960052026/in/set-72157631475228416/lightbox/)

My S&B scope:
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/7960054928/in/set-72...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/7960054928/in/set-72157631475228416/lightbox/)

I don't understand the point of this rifle. Is it to enable non-shooters to
shoot? It's not hard to learn how to shoot. With an afternoon of instruction
and a few practice sessions, you can hit 1000 yd targets with a normal scoped
precision rifle without much difficulty.

~~~
sliverstorm
The "point", I imagine, is that it is high-tech and fancy. People like that.
It doesn't shoot for you; from what I can tell, it's basically just a step up
from a traditional scope.

~~~
jlgreco
From what I gleaned from the article, it does indeed "shoot for you" so far as
it is what _actually_ fires the shot.

~~~
sliverstorm
Modern cars electronically control the throttle plate based on your input on
the throttle. Modern planes modulate ailerons in the same fashion. Do you
consider the computer to be driving/flying for you?

~~~
jlgreco
I would consider an automatic transmission to be shifting for me.

I'm not trying to slight the gun or anything, it seems pretty cool. I'm just
saying that _"you tell the gun what you want to shoot and when to start, and
then the gun decides when to shoot and promptly does so"_ is a straightforward
description of what it is going on.

~~~
nearengine
No, the gun doesn't shoot for you. It replaces the trigger with one with a
solenoid behind it that it can dynamically change the pull of. It sets the
trigger pull restrictively high until your reticle matches your tag, and then
quickly drops it so you make the shot. You just hold the trigger down until it
lets you shoot.

------
ghshephard
Having played with the iPad simulator for a few minutes - probably the best
"feature" of this weapon, is the "Fire and Confirm" feature for hunting - that
is, after you place a pip on your target, the weapon doesn't fire until you
take the time to confirm your target. This gives you the opportunity to
determine whether a heartbeat moved the gun a few millimeters (which, at 200
Yard+ range, could mean the difference between an immediate kill, and injuring
the animal).

It will be interesting to see whether that ability to confirm a shot, is
mitigated by hunters who would normally consider 200 yards to be the extreme
end of their range, now taking 500 yard shots.

------
hristov
This is pretty fucked up. The author conveniently ignores the fact that sniper
mass killings have already happened (e.g. the Washington sniper). The reason
we do not get more sniper mass killings is that it takes a lot of skill to hit
a target at a very long range with a sniper rifle.

This rifle of course removes the skill element and allows for shooting at an
extremely long range.

~~~
nettdata
Funny, the first thing I thought of was long-distance target shooting or
hunting, not mass killings.

The fact that you immediately go to the sniper mass killings angle is what I
find to be pretty fucked up.

~~~
phreanix
I really don't see any long range precision shooters getting any joy out of a
computer that does all the hard work for them.

~~~
RyJones
It does the least interesting part of the work. It doesn't read wind or
mirage, which is the hard part.

Also, read up on rail guns and benchrest shooting; then get back to me on
"doing all the hard work for you".

~~~
phreanix
I've dabbled in BR (rimfire and airgun) and while yes, wind doping is quite
challenging, a lot of the satisfaction behind a good shot still comes from the
aggregate effort: breathing, trigger pull, muscle control. For me at least.

The guys with the rail guns tho, that's a whole 'nother level.

------
bmelton
Even at $17,000, I give it less than a year before it's banned in California.

It seems as though it doesn't do on-the-fly wind calculations, as they (or at
least the preface) mentions having to dial it in, but if they could a 360°
wind sensor onboard, this will almost certainly eliminate the need for a
spotter on sniper missions.

Couple this with a .50 cal Barrett (instead of a .338 lapua) and I'm guessing
there will be a huge military contract, but it looks like the 338 is the
biggest round a Surgeon will fire (though I admittedly know nothing about the
6.5 creedmoor.)

~~~
pekk
What kind of non-military applications are there for sniper missions in the US
(say, California)?

~~~
sliverstorm
He's not arguing for it to be legal, he's making a jab at California gun
legislation, which many people believe wastes time banning things that seem
frightening but in actuality are not much of a threat.

I think the subject he had in mind may have been the ban of .50 BMG:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_Caliber_BMG_Regulation_Act_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_Caliber_BMG_Regulation_Act_of_2004#Controversy)

Such rifles are, as one result on Google put it, "the Rolls-Royce of rifles",
and as my wiki link puts it:

 _not only has the .50 BMG never been used to harm or kill anyone in
California, there is no record of a .50 BMG rifle ever being used in the
United States to commit a crime._

One particularly choice comment from the time the subject was being discussed:

 _we certainly don't want to wait until a terrorist buys one before we ban it_

Just _think_ of all the things we could ban with that kind of logic.

~~~
goostavos
You raise an interesting point, and honestly, one I just realized a few nights
ago.

The legislation around gun bans seems to based on what could _possibly_
happen, and not what's been _demonstrated_ to happen. There seems to a be a
"scary" factor, or maybe a public appeal, or maybe even just a future
politicking angle when it comes to weapon bans. (i.e. what if the terrorists
get 'em!?)

I had a "let's get caught up on current events" night last week, and decided
to dig into the proposed rifle ban (of which I hear about constantly from my
family). So I read through Obama's Now is the Time plan, and the only thing
that stuck out like a sore thumb was the ban on Assault Rifles (Barring that,
and two of the other items, I actually think it's a pretty good approach).

I remember when Clinton's ban was set to expire, and the media exclaimed that
it would be like the "Wild West," and then it happened, the bill expired, and
rifles went on sale.. and.. everything was exactly the same. It was actually
reminiscent of Bill Hicks' bit:

>"War, famine, death, AIDS, homeless, recession, depression, war, famine
death, AIDS…"

>Then you look out your window it's just: (Birds chirping)

>Where is all this shit happening, man? Ted Turner is making this shit up!

This fear of these weapons seems based on, well, a characterization that
doesn't line up with reality. Yes, they have great lethality, but when you
look at the stats, the data that you would need to see to justify a ban just
isn't there.

When checking all this stuff out, I pulled the [FBI's Uniform Crime
Reports]([http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-
the-u.s/2011/c...](http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-
the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-
enforcement/expanded-offense-data)) so I could investigate everything for
myself. Here are some fun stats:

* Of the total gun related felonies, only 3.8% of them involved rifles. One unfortunate bit about the available info, is that all rifle types are lumped together. So there's no way to tell if the weapon used was of the "assault" class, or a simple hunting rifle. However, I'd wager, that "assault" rifles make up only a small proportion of the rifle category -- but that's pure assumption; back to the data!

* You're actually slightly more likely to be murdered with someone wielding a shotgun, than one wielding a rifle (though only marginally so at 4.1%)

* You're 2.3 times as likely to be punched or kicked to death than to meet the same fate by riles.

* You're _Five_ times as likely to be stabbed to death than to meet the same fate by rifles.

So, as I looked through all the stats, I was left with this feeling of "What
the F __* is the point?" Banning rifles just seems based on terrible, fear
based, reactionary logic.

~~~
bmelton
Without trying to come off as a paranoiac, my genuine suspicion is that
banning these 'scary rifles' that, by your own admission, you didn't know much
about until you performed a LOT more research than the average person is
likely to ever do, that it's the first step in eventually banning more and
more categories of guns until eventually, they're all banned.

The other points I'd like to make that I feel are somewhat relevant is that
you should very much read up on _DC v Heller_ , which is the most recent
Supreme Court decision on the matter (except for _Heller II_ ) that specifies
weapons "in common use" as a protected class of weapon from government bans.

I would go further to suggest that I honestly believe (though I cannot
substantiate) that the AR15 is able to be categorized as 'evil' because of its
use in some of these high profile, but otherwise unlikely mass shootings, but
what I really think is that they're most likely being used because they are
just so popular. The AR15 is the most popular rifle being sold in the United
States, and has been since 1994.

~~~
goostavos
Just a quick note on your last paragraph, because that reminded me of the
other data I looked at. I don't have the exact data handy (I'm doing some
before bed hacker news browsing on my tablet), but I think it was assembled
by, I want to say, a site called Mother Jones..? It was a google spread sheet
of some kind. Anyway, it was a table with every mass shooting in the history
of the US, the number of fatalities, and the weapon types used.

After I finished playing with the FBI's data, I started to wonder if the ban
was not to stop the kind of day-to-day gun crime, but to prevent the mass
shooting, High profile, high fatality events like the recent school shooting,
or the Aurora movie theater shooting, or any similar event.

So, I pulled the data from that collection, and could find absolutely no
correlation between rifle involvement in a mass shooting and the number of
fatalities. Our worst shooting, with (going from memory here) 33 fatalities
was the Virginia tech masacre. It involved absolutely no rifles, or shotguns,
just the lowly handgun. I'll have to double check all the numbers tomorrow,
but if I believe that in the 10 most dealy mass shootings in our history, of
the 22 or so weapons used, only 4 or 5 of the were rifles. To my number
crunching, rifle usage was pretty inconsequential in the number of fatalities
-- which I'll admit was pretty damn unintuitive. But that's what the data
shows, so given all that information, it's tough for me to figure out a reason
for the administration pushing for the ban.

~~~
bmelton
I have a hard time swallowing the Mother Jones data whole, because I know on
issues that I am very informed on, their data has shown to be misleading in
the past.

Here's a fun statistic though, since you're in the process of number crunching
-- every mass shooting in the US since 1950 (except for perhaps that Gabby
Gifford shooting in Arizona) has occurred in a 'gun free zone', where the
shooters had the highest probability of completing their shooting sprees with
the least fear of being stopped.

Of those, most telling (to me at least) is the Aurora, CO shooting, because
while Colorado is generally a fairly well armed state, the shooter bypassed
six other theaters that were closer to his home, including the largest
theater, where he could have done the most damage, in lieu of taking his gun
into the one nearby theater that specifically disallowed guns from being
carried inside.

~~~
BryantD
That's a myth. Consider the Clackamas Town Center shooting: Nick Meli had a
concealed carry permit and was carrying a weapon, although he correctly didn't
take a shot. We could argue about whether or not the shooter saw Meli and
committed suicide as a result, but that's irrelevant: the shooter didn't
choose a gun free zone.

~~~
MrMember
It depends on how you characterize "gun free." In many states signs
prohibiting firearms don't carry the weight of the law. That is, if you are
found to be carrying you can be asked to leave (and charged with trespassing
if you refuse), but that's it.

From my understanding the mall in Clackamas is a posted "gun free zone," but
the posted signs don't actually carry any legal weight.

~~~
BryantD
Ah, didn't know that!

But aren't we walking a fairly narrow line here? In order for this to be a
meaningful distinction, we have to assume that mass shooters a) plan their
attacks, b) are smart enough to choose gun free zones, and c) are dumb enough
not to know that a gun free zone isn't necessarily free from guns?

~~~
bmelton
I think that in many cases, we would find that yes, mass shooters _do_ plan
their attacks (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora) and actually have long
fantasies about them.

Calling mass shooters stupid is, I think, a naive assertion. They're obviously
flawed, but not necessarily in a way that makes them less effective at
planning or committing violence.

And while 'c' is potentially valid, I think that what you'd find is that, as
most citizens tend to fall into the 'law abiding' category, where there are
signs posted disallowing guns, you'd find that most citizens won't carry them.
So even if the 'gun free zone' is not found to be 100% devoid of guns, you are
almost certain to find it less armed than if signs weren't posted.

~~~
BryantD
We've slipped from "every mass shooting" to "in many cases." I thought your
comment was worth researching, and I should note that I found more mass
shootings taking place in gun-free zones than I'd expected -- I'm glad you
made the point. But I would also suggest that you may be accepting the
research done by gun rights partisans with less skepticism than it deserves.

[http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?398679-62-Mass-S...](http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?398679-62-Mass-
Shootings-Since-1982-How-Many-in-soft-GUN-FREE-ZONES) is I think my final
point here; it's a sympathetic gun rights advocate who went to the trouble of
tracking and linking local ordinances where possible. He's only proven the
case in about half the incidents. I know John Lott claims he researched all of
them. If you happen to know where his supporting documentation is I'd be
sincerely interested.

~~~
bmelton
You may be right. I'm looking at an MAIG report, and while I trust their
analysis even less, it clearly points to newer incidents that I was previously
unaware of. This may be an overlap on the data, as I'm quoting a fairly old
study, or it may be that the study was incomplete.

I might be looking at a full on amendment here, or there may have been more
statistical jiggery pokery that somehow excludes findings incongruent with the
expected results. Either way, I'll do more research and get back. Thanks for
the correction -- while the link you posted isn't necessarily conclusive, it
did spur me to freshen my data sets at the very least.

------
dbaupp
_> I'd argue that it's far more likely a mass shooting event would take place
with conventional firearms than with a PGF; a bolt-action hunting rifle isn't
exactly the quickest method of getting a lot of lead on a lot of different
targets. The very nature of the PGF's "Tag-Track-Xact" scope encourages
methodical target selection at range, and hauling even a hypothetical smaller
PGF into a crowded place and letting loose would be enormously difficult. It's
not a close-quarters weapon by any stretch of the imagination._

Sure it's not a close-quarters weapon, but a imagine a mass shooting where the
shooter was a mile from the deaths: almost untraceable, and very hard to stop
in a short time, so the shooter could sit and pick off targets for twenty
minutes.

~~~
aidenn0
Both of the cartridges mentioned in the article are going to be quite loud;
combined with the relatively low rate of fire, it would be fairly tractable to
track someone down who is firing multiple shots. Someone setting up, firing a
single shot and then waiting a week could be a bit more difficult, but then
there are many more opportunities for them to get seen lugging around an 18lb
rifle.

~~~
rdl
If you suppress a .338 Lapua or other serious, loud, supersonic rifle, you can
usually get a fair number of shots off before humans can figure out your
direction/range. It's still really loud, but makes localization much harder.
I'm not sure how it affects shotspotter/boomerang, though. (Now that WA allows
suppressor use, I'm totally getting a 20" bbl folding stock TRG-42 .338 Lapua
and can once I move up there).

~~~
daenz
Doesn't suppressing significantly lower the velocity of the round? Won't that
affect the ability to hit the target and as well as the damage done?

~~~
rdl
I don't have the table in front of me, but you give up 10-20% (mainly from
going to a 20" from a 27"). It reduces range, but using e.g. 300gr Lapua
Scenar, it retains plenty of terminal energy and is above 1400fps for >1200m
(vs. 1600m otherwise).

I've never had access to a range beyond 1000 yards, anyway.

------
leephillips
Another good user report is from Bryan Jones:
[http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2013/01/tracking-
poi...](http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2013/01/tracking-point/)

------
leot
The more distant a man is from his quarry, the less compunction he feels. One
bad consequence of this technology is that by permitting accuracy from a much
longer range, it thereby further lowers barriers to homicidally bad behavior.

------
bluedino
_Linux-powered_ , but the biggest 'feature' of the rifle is the iPad
interface. Nice headline.

------
kghose
Isn't this a 4/1 prank?

~~~
cdash
No, it is real I have seen articles about this gun before. Maybe up to even a
year ago.

