Tracking point

[Jack Falcon]

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?

[g.willikers]

Bows replaced spears.
Crossbows replaced long bows.
Technology has always been on the march.
So, why not this?

[Art Eatman]

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.

[AllenJ]

If people are actually buying this, what does that mean for the future of the traditional (non-electronic) rifle?

This is a very expensive system, I don't think the average shooter is going to be able to afford it. If the price does go down I still don't think it'll replace "non-electric" rifles, after all look how popular black powder still is today.

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!

[T. O'Heir]

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.

[Llama Bob]

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.

[reinert]

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.

[handlerer2]

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.

[FrankenMauser]

Well, they came back shortly after and are doing quite well, from what I've heard.

The last (recent) report that I read indicated that they have yet to turn a profit, and that orders have fallen off substantially. --LE agencies haven't been terribly interested, they sold what they could to the deep pockets / novelty market, and there aren't many 'average' customers left that can afford the products.

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.

[Pathfinder45]

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.

[TXAZ]

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.

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

[johnwilliamson062]

I doubt that something like that will ever be allowed for hunting, as well, it shouldn't be.

What if I just want to fill a freezer and could care less about being "sporting."
$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.

[MarkCO]

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.

[samsmix]

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.

[Rottweiler]

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

[rickyrick]

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.

[Radny97]

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.

[Pathfinder45]

What if I just want to fill a freezer and could care less about being "sporting."

Really? I can't afford a $15K pickup truck, let alone a scope like that. Should America's game animals fill the freezers of only those who can throw the most money at them? There are also laws about helicopters and hunting.... Let's not allow hunting and fishing to be the privilege of the wealthy and out of the question for those who work hard just to get by.

[Jimro]

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

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

Taya Kyle really didn't beat Bruce Piatt. It was a staged competition by TP that heavily favored TP. Piatt was allowed to use a rangefinder in the sniper portion of the competition, but that was the only time.

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.

[MarkCO]

Yes, I fully realize that. I am not sure if Bruce knew all the parameters, he would have accepted the challenge.

[johnwilliamson062]

Really? I can't afford a $15K pickup truck, let alone a scope like that.

Just ignore the part where the price drops. The electronic components in these aren't worth much. With time they will drop to a point they are reasonable for hunting.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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.

[MarkCO]

I think $2K on a rifle and $2K on training you'd be well ahead of the gear only $15K thingee.