|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
View Poll Results: Do "precision guided" rifles beat regular rifles? | |||
Yes | 4 | 25.00% | |
No | 12 | 75.00% | |
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 25, 2016, 09:58 AM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: September 30, 2015
Posts: 8
|
Tracking point
In 2013 I remember hearing about these modified rifles that supposedly give the shooter a 1,000 yd range with an 80%+ first shot success rate. I thought that is was just another stupid invention that would fall apart in a year or two. After all, who wants a rifle that takes no skill to shoot? That's the fun of shooting isn't it? Well, not too long ago they stopped taking orders and I thought that they were going out of business. Well, they came back shortly after and are doing quite well, from what I've heard. I find this highly unsettling. If people are actually buying this, what does that mean for the future of the traditional (non-electronic) rifle? The army is once again testing Tracking Point's optics as said here:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...urces-say.html If the army accepts these things as standard, I worry that the popularity of these things will skyrocket. What do you guys think? Do "precision guided" rifles beat normal rifles? |
January 25, 2016, 10:47 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
|
Bows replaced spears.
Crossbows replaced long bows. Technology has always been on the march. So, why not this?
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez: “Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.” |
January 25, 2016, 10:51 AM | #3 |
Staff in Memoriam
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
|
1. I've never had a problem with a conventional scope, so these serve no needed purpose to me as a hunter.
2. Since I don't like excess weight on my hunting rifles, I'd happily say, "No thanks," to one of these. |
January 25, 2016, 01:16 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 11, 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 1,766
|
Quote:
As for your poll I find it hard to answer with the question being more precise: Better for what? Better for a new shooter to hit a target at long range, yes. Better for a hunter in the mountains chasing elk, not a chance! |
|
January 25, 2016, 02:35 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 12,453
|
At $15,995USD a pop they better be. However, that article is talking about the sights, not the rifle. Military tests all kinds of stuff. Overpriced silly stuff as well as useful stuff.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count! |
January 25, 2016, 03:18 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2016
Posts: 337
|
As far as I can tell it doesn't do anything for $15K that I don't do for myself for free or using much less expensive equipment.
I'll pass. |
January 25, 2016, 04:55 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 646
|
Even if I could afford a system like that, I wouldn't own one. I doubt that my personal shooting/hunting disciplines could ever be re-wired to use something like that. On the other hand, anything that could/would help our military troops take out bad guys and save the lives of us good guys, then that's something that certainly should be used. A whole squad being able to target together a really bad guy? Special ops stuff? Absolutely use it. The comments after the article are quite good, and give a lot of food for thought, too. I think that "Hogout" system would be a fine civilian-use tool for the feral hog problem down in Texas, even if it does cost 13k. That could almost be a "chip-in" deal, there.
|
January 26, 2016, 01:49 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 26, 2010
Location: Yellowstone Co, MT
Posts: 489
|
This device may have an application on the battlefield, but I don't think it will be more than an expensive toy for a hunter. Most shooters and hunters have access to modern optics, range finding technology, and instant ballistic data.
I don't have any interest in a device that takes credit for my shooting or hunting skill. |
January 26, 2016, 02:55 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 25, 2008
Location: In the valley above the plain
Posts: 13,421
|
Quote:
The fact that they seem to have gotten the visual tracking down pretty well does increase their odds at succeeding in the military/security sector (if they can add some security to the electronics), but it doesn't do anything to bring the price down for the average shooter.
__________________
Don't even try it. It's even worse than the internet would lead you to believe. |
|
January 27, 2016, 12:02 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2008
Posts: 3,224
|
Military use is one thing and hunting quite another. I doubt that something like that will ever be allowed for hunting, as well, it shouldn't be. For use on Feral hogs in Texas, I refrain from even having an opinion, but rather, defer to those who have that problem. Perhaps a rancher with a lot of acres being over-run by wild hogs would be entirely prudent to invest in a tool like that and write it off as a business expense. But I sure don't want to see some Nimrods running around the woods hunting Deer and Elk with them.
|
January 27, 2016, 12:58 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Interesting idea, but one can purchase a very good .308 / .338 and 1K rounds of match ammo and have $s left over for their asking price.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
January 27, 2016, 08:22 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,716
|
The poll is way too vague and answering either way could represent my views.
Trackingpoint, when it works, works very well at putting rounds on target. In that regard, yeah, it beats regular gear. Given that it is heavier, problematic/glitchy, and more fragile, then no, it does not beat other gear.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
January 27, 2016, 02:28 PM | #13 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Quote:
$15,000 now, but I would be surprised if that doesn't drop significantly over the next few years. I don't think it handles wind that simply either. |
|
January 27, 2016, 02:33 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 1998
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 4,307
|
Yes and no, as others have said.
Taya Kyle beat Bruce Piatt, who I would not call a slouch. I know him and have shot with him and the man is a pro when it comes to hitting targets. Oh, and they would not let him use a rangefinder. If they had let Bruce use conventional equipment many use in PRS and hunting applications, the outcome could have made Bruce a millionaire. But on ethical shots on animals in the field, I have no doubt Bruce would beat Taya and TP. Last edited by MarkCO; January 27, 2016 at 05:14 PM. |
January 27, 2016, 04:54 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 29, 2006
Location: Montana (Montucky?)
Posts: 1,273
|
Every now and again a piece of gear comes out that, for one reason or another, the local FWP sees fit to outlaw for hunting on the grounds that it is unsporting. I certainly hope this contraption will make the list in my home state.
__________________
You'll probably never NEED a gun. I hope you never do. But IF you do, you will need it worse than anything you've ever needed in your life. IF we're not supposed to eat animals, howcome God made 'em outta meat? |
January 27, 2016, 07:48 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2001
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 391
|
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how this scope reads wind and wind shifts. Until then it's just a scope with an automatic range finder to me
__________________
Texas - envied by lesser states since 1845 |
January 27, 2016, 09:49 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,236
|
I don't see this as putting meat in the table. A feller that can put down 15k on this and not blink or get a scornful look from his wife probably has a hobby ranch and eats $100 hamburgers.
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!! |
January 27, 2016, 11:43 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 8, 2015
Posts: 1,021
|
If all this is doing is rangefinding and then automatically adjusting for elevation I don't think it's that ground breaking. Note that you have to use their supplied ammo--probably so they know the BC and fps. It's no different than a thousand different phone apps, it just enters the data and adjusts the clicks for you. Meh.
|
January 28, 2016, 03:41 AM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2008
Posts: 3,224
|
Quote:
|
|
January 28, 2016, 06:50 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,097
|
The technology will continue and the price will come down.
We had BDC turrets in WWII (ZF-39, PU for example). We had rangefinding and BDC compensated scopes in Vietnam manipulated with the power ring (Redfield accurange). We had/have range finding BDC reticles in the War on Terror (ACOG). Now we have built in laser range finders with a BDC reticle that matches your particular load, being marketed to hunters. http://www.burrisoptics.com/scopes/e...erscope-series So whether it is Tracking Point that becomes a commercial success, eventually it will become a "norm" in the ecosystem of military hardware. But, these advances aren't being made in a vacuum. As precision fire systems (ie sniper systems) advance, so do the counter sniper systems and technologies. These two systems target lenses used on sniper scopes, they are "pre-shot" systems: http://www.wired.com/2007/04/darpa_countersn/ http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...sniper-scopes/ These two are "post shot" systems: This system uses the IR of a muzzle flash: http://i-hls.com/2012/12/israeli-cou...per-systems-2/ This system uses acoustic signature tech:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang_(countermeasure) As you can see, the ideal sniper rifle of the future to avoid these counter sniper systems is a big bore air rifle launching a subsonic projectile aimed by iron sights. Much like the Girandoni Air Rifle. Everything old is new again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle Jimro
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one. |
January 28, 2016, 07:36 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,716
|
Quote:
When you have parts of the competition where the rifle is to be fired from where you can't see it (obviously favors TP) but don't have a part of the competition where you have no batteries (and TP won't work) or other obvious flaws of the platform, you realize the who thing was a sham. Piatt was never going to win. It was a fundraiser designed to raise charity money for Taya Kyle's cause and to promote TP. ------------- As to what is "sporting" or not. That is just a matter of perspective. There used to be folks who thought using optics wasn't sporting, LOL. What is "sporting" is just a currently accepted norm.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
January 28, 2016, 09:47 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 1998
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 4,307
|
Yes, I fully realize that. I am not sure if Bruce knew all the parameters, he would have accepted the challenge.
|
January 28, 2016, 03:22 PM | #23 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Quote:
|
|
January 28, 2016, 03:46 PM | #24 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
I would argue if you spent $5k on a rifle and $10k on training; you'd have a better practical capability that would be transferable to other rifles.
|
January 28, 2016, 06:22 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 1998
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 4,307
|
I think $2K on a rifle and $2K on training you'd be well ahead of the gear only $15K thingee.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|