pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
‘super gun’ capable of shooting over 3,100 yards with pinpoint accuracy
#1
Quote:TrackingPoint Technology, creators of Xact precision-guided firearm technology, wants to push the limit of long-range shooting. The company announced Wednesday that they are developing a “super gun” that will be able to shoot accurately over 3,100 yards, “farther than the longest confirmed long-range small arms shot of all time,” according to the release.

“What we have tried to do is allow technology to take what usually takes many years to get good at, the skill sets of long-range marksmanship, and to make the experience a better one,” Jason Schauble, TrackingPoint CEO told the Daily Caller.



http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/17/gunmak...z2ZLxedteV
It's the "BILL OF RIGHTS" not the bill of "needs"
Reply
#2
I'll take a baker's dozen.
tolerance for failure meter... LOW
Reply
#3
Group buy?
LostCyborg, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Jun 2013.

You wouldn't be able to run as many people over with that car if it didn't drive as far. It should only have a 10 gallon fuel tank.
Reply
#4
Some of the stories I have heard, these guys are too late.

I know several people that claim to be able to do that, with a .22, off hand, no sling, iron sights. Just only if no one is there to see them.
This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins. -Ben Franklin
Reply
#5
Connal;111341 Wrote:Some of the stories I have heard, these guys are too late.

I know several people that claim to be able to do that, with a .22, off hand, no sling, iron sights. Just only if no one is there to see them.

I did it, but I was using suppressed sub-sonics.
Reply
#6
Connal;111341 Wrote:Some of the stories I have heard, these guys are too late.

I know several people that claim to be able to do that, with a .22, off hand, no sling, iron sights. Just only if no one is there to see them.

They're add-on accessories for Ruger 10-22s. They're at all gun shows...as in...every third table.

Here's one in use:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC4deRmJ4tc
Subject matter expert on questions no one's asking.
Reply
#7
middlefinger;111324 Wrote:
Quote:TrackingPoint Technology, creators of Xact precision-guided firearm technology, wants to push the limit of long-range shooting. The company announced Wednesday that they are developing a “super gun” that will be able to shoot accurately over 3,100 yards, “farther than the longest confirmed long-range small arms shot of all time,” according to the release.

“What we have tried to do is allow technology to take what usually takes many years to get good at, the skill sets of long-range marksmanship, and to make the experience a better one,” Jason Schauble, TrackingPoint CEO told the Daily Caller.



http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/17/gunmak...z2ZLxedteV

I hate to break it to you, but this whole system is NOT what it is advertised as. On the other forum I hashed out LOTS of problems with their original system, and how it wasn't what they were advertising it as, or to do. Originally, it didn't have some of the features it has now, and was supposed to end up being the end all be all rifle for the military. After they figured out nobody was gonna bite on that bullshit, they had to change it up and start to market it to hunters. That's when they added in all the funky reticles, extras on the display, networking so others could see what was happening on the scope, etc. etc. They just added a bunch of gadgets for the rich people that would spend the money on it, so they could be pleased with all the bells and whistles. I took their original videos apart and showed them for what they were. Now they're trying to say that they're going to come out with a system that can have "pinpoint" accuracy at 3 times the distance. It's not gonna happen, but I have no doubt that they'll market it like it is.

The scope does NOT read the wind for you. That's why later on in the original article, they talk about how they want to later try to develop something that will read the wind for you. Lockheed Martin has been working on a system for the military for over 10 years, and they finally came out with a prototype this past year that I hear works VERY well. I'm sorry, but these guys aren't gonna beat Lockheed Martin to the punch. These guys have some skills, I'm not saying they don't. They even have some skills at long range shooting, because someone is having to call the wind on the shots that they're taking because the scope can't do it. You'll notice at around the 1:33 mark in the video that's linked to the article that someone is dropping grass because he's having to dope the wind. At the 2:31 mark in the video, it flat out says that the wind input is a manual input. They talk about how this is a way for you not to have to spend years and years to shoot long range. The fundamentals of marksmanship can be learned fairly quickly, heck, just look at our military. The thing that takes the longest to learn how to do is read the wind, and the scope doesn't do it for you.

They might can get away with guessing at the wind at 700 yards or maybe even 1,000 yards, and edit things to look a certain way on tape. There is no WAY that any of them possess the skills to do it at 3,000 yards and beyond; there's no way that they can do it at 2,000 yards. You know how I know this? Because these guys can't even call the wind right at 700 yards, and barely even right at 400 yards. The shot on the Kudu at 698 yards was horrendous, and I'd feel HORRIBLE if that's the way I hit that animal. It was almost even with the back legs and broke the spine. They didn't do that on purpose, someone missed a wind call by a lot, and their dope was a little high and they got lucky. I wish the animal hadn't been hit at all. Then on the 399 yard shot on the Impala, it's still just a bit further back than it should have been, especially for African game which typically has it's heart just a little further forward than most North American species. Sure it was close enough and in the lungs so that it could drop the animal, but it's WAY too large of a margin of error to pretend that you can consistently make that shot at even 600 or 700 yards. It's obvious that someone missed the wind call because the trigger will only break when the hold is right. The shot on the Eland at 680 yards doesn't impact where the spot was, it's too far back. There's a reason they didn't show they animal get hit broadside and it's because the hit was too far back. You can see as the animal is going down how far back he's hit, and I don't know anyone that would purposefully hold that far back. You also have to keep in mind that they're shooting a .338 Lapua, so there's no reason that they should be missing wind calls by as much as they did at the "closer" distances that they're shooting. I feel really sorry for the Springbok at 1,099 yards. It's very obvious by the hit that he didn't hit the vitals, he may have broken the front leg, but the hit is way on the front side of the leg. They show lots of other animals down, and I think there's a reason they didn't show that one down and just said he was down; maybe because he didn't do down. There were a few good shots, but if you take enough shots at animals and all you're doing is shooting footage, you'll end up with a few that look good.

All you'll end up seeing from their "super gun" is a highlight video of them walking rounds on target, and making it look like the system will do it for you. Most people don't even have access to try to shoot those kind of distances, and these guys know it and are banking on that. It's just like all the guys that build "sniper rifles" and never shoot them past 300 yards. That's fine if that's what you choose, but they know that people aren't going to be really stretching out the system, but they can still sell them. If you're having to call wind for yourself, and only shooting 300 yards, there's lots of systems that would work just as well for you and cost less than $1,500 as opposed to $20,000-50,000. Just the rangefinders that will range the kind of distances they're talking about wouldn't even fit the platform that they're talking about, and cost $8,000 or more. This is just some gimmick that some people with more money than sense have bought into. This is nothing more than an expensive little fantasy that isn't even close to the sticker price. If you're interested in my critique of the original system, I'd be happy to post it.
Tomcat088, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#8
I consider this a "super gun"

[Image: pa_zps59e4c512.png?t=1379682235]
Reply
#9
Tomcat088;112551 Wrote:
middlefinger;111324 Wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/17/gunmak...z2ZLxedteV

I hate to break it to you, but this whole system is NOT what it is advertised as. On the other forum I hashed out LOTS of problems with their original system, and how it wasn't what they were advertising it as, or to do. Originally, it didn't have some of the features it has now, and was supposed to end up being the end all be all rifle for the military. After they figured out nobody was gonna bite on that bullshit, they had to change it up and start to market it to hunters. That's when they added in all the funky reticles, extras on the display, networking so others could see what was happening on the scope, etc. etc. They just added a bunch of gadgets for the rich people that would spend the money on it, so they could be pleased with all the bells and whistles. I took their original videos apart and showed them for what they were. Now they're trying to say that they're going to come out with a system that can have "pinpoint" accuracy at 3 times the distance. It's not gonna happen, but I have no doubt that they'll market it like it is.

The scope does NOT read the wind for you. That's why later on in the original article, they talk about how they want to later try to develop something that will read the wind for you. Lockheed Martin has been working on a system for the military for over 10 years, and they finally came out with a prototype this past year that I hear works VERY well. I'm sorry, but these guys aren't gonna beat Lockheed Martin to the punch. These guys have some skills, I'm not saying they don't. They even have some skills at long range shooting, because someone is having to call the wind on the shots that they're taking because the scope can't do it. You'll notice at around the 1:33 mark in the video that's linked to the article that someone is dropping grass because he's having to dope the wind. At the 2:31 mark in the video, it flat out says that the wind input is a manual input. They talk about how this is a way for you not to have to spend years and years to shoot long range. The fundamentals of marksmanship can be learned fairly quickly, heck, just look at our military. The thing that takes the longest to learn how to do is read the wind, and the scope doesn't do it for you.

They might can get away with guessing at the wind at 700 yards or maybe even 1,000 yards, and edit things to look a certain way on tape. There is no WAY that any of them possess the skills to do it at 3,000 yards and beyond; there's no way that they can do it at 2,000 yards. You know how I know this? Because these guys can't even call the wind right at 700 yards, and barely even right at 400 yards. The shot on the Kudu at 698 yards was horrendous, and I'd feel HORRIBLE if that's the way I hit that animal. It was almost even with the back legs and broke the spine. They didn't do that on purpose, someone missed a wind call by a lot, and their dope was a little high and they got lucky. I wish the animal hadn't been hit at all. Then on the 399 yard shot on the Impala, it's still just a bit further back than it should have been, especially for African game which typically has it's heart just a little further forward than most North American species. Sure it was close enough and in the lungs so that it could drop the animal, but it's WAY too large of a margin of error to pretend that you can consistently make that shot at even 600 or 700 yards. It's obvious that someone missed the wind call because the trigger will only break when the hold is right. The shot on the Eland at 680 yards doesn't impact where the spot was, it's too far back. There's a reason they didn't show they animal get hit broadside and it's because the hit was too far back. You can see as the animal is going down how far back he's hit, and I don't know anyone that would purposefully hold that far back. You also have to keep in mind that they're shooting a .338 Lapua, so there's no reason that they should be missing wind calls by as much as they did at the "closer" distances that they're shooting. I feel really sorry for the Springbok at 1,099 yards. It's very obvious by the hit that he didn't hit the vitals, he may have broken the front leg, but the hit is way on the front side of the leg. They show lots of other animals down, and I think there's a reason they didn't show that one down and just said he was down; maybe because he didn't do down. There were a few good shots, but if you take enough shots at animals and all you're doing is shooting footage, you'll end up with a few that look good.

All you'll end up seeing from their "super gun" is a highlight video of them walking rounds on target, and making it look like the system will do it for you. Most people don't even have access to try to shoot those kind of distances, and these guys know it and are banking on that. It's just like all the guys that build "sniper rifles" and never shoot them past 300 yards. That's fine if that's what you choose, but they know that people aren't going to be really stretching out the system, but they can still sell them. If you're having to call wind for yourself, and only shooting 300 yards, there's lots of systems that would work just as well for you and cost less than $1,500 as opposed to $20,000-50,000. Just the rangefinders that will range the kind of distances they're talking about wouldn't even fit the platform that they're talking about, and cost $8,000 or more. This is just some gimmick that some people with more money than sense have bought into. This is nothing more than an expensive little fantasy that isn't even close to the sticker price. If you're interested in my critique of the original system, I'd be happy to post it.

Good Info as always

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." -Patrick Henry
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Shooting The Biggest Centerfire Rifle (.950 JDJ) Ever Made! das 2 772 08-24-2014, 09:32 AM
Last Post: Rik Bitter
  Beretta ARX 100: The Ultimate Tactical Rifle-Review-VIDEO das 14 3,027 06-10-2014, 09:58 PM
Last Post: Ten*K
  Thunder Valley Precision - LONG Range Shooting Specialists DaveM55 10 3,515 12-02-2012, 10:25 AM
Last Post: DaveM55



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.