Not sure if you've seen this yet, so here it is...

 

 

 

 

Only one problem...

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/05/robert-farago/breaking-tracking-point-going-bust/

I thought the main problem with that thing was the insane price tag. Well, that and not developing any actually shooting skill and relying on a computer to shoot for you...

I thought the main problem with that thing was the insane price tag. Well, that and not developing any actually shooting skill and relying on a computer to shoot for you...

 

Yes but no. Yes the price is/was insane. Relying on a computer to shoot for you is a thing the military does all the time, we don't aim bombs with Norden bomb sights, we don't aim cannons down the barrel, etc.  It may not be the answer for say a scout/sniper but maybe throwing it on the rifle of every designated marksman could save a lot of training and increase effectiveness. 

 

But it just can't cost as much as good used car.

Yes but no. Yes the price is/was insane. Relying on a computer to shoot for you is a thing the military does all the time, we don't aim bombs with Norden bomb sights, we don't aim cannons down the barrel, etc. It may not be the answer for say a scout/sniper but maybe throwing it on the rifle of every designated marksman could save a lot of training and increase effectiveness.

 

But it just can't cost as much as good used car.

I agree that it could be good as a designated marksman platform but as it was designed it had no manual override to be able to pull the trigger without the computer. That seems like a tremendous liability for actually fielding the rifle in combat. Also, they seemed to be primarily targeting a slim civilian market of people with too much money and nothing else to spend it on.

Oh I'm not saying they've gone about it the right way, or that the product was perfect, my point is that we can get stuck on "learn to shoot like we did 100 years ago" when time and tech moves on. Optics have changed how we used weapons, red dots are now primaries, low power scopes are used on everything, and they are game changers. More game changers will come. We need to embrace them not view them as "cheating". I'm not saying you do, but as a group we sometimes do that

 

I agree that it could be good as a designated marksman platform but as it was designed it had no manual override to be able to pull the trigger without the computer. That seems like a tremendous liability for actually fielding the rifle in combat. Also, they seemed to be primarily targeting a slim civilian market of people with too much money and nothing else to spend it on.

 

 

Our military would be stuck in the 1980s if they had to rely on the Colts, Littons, General Dynamics, and FNs that are willing to risk $50-100 million dollars for a possible military contract vs. zero sales. The US Civilian market drives generational shifts in military technology at the warfighter level.

I think we actually agree more than anything. I think they have a great concept but leave a lot to be desired in the execution. My hope is that someone else will learn from their mistakes and build something better.

On a side note, I heard an interview with the owner of Tracking Point about his attempts to patent a system to disable smart guns in designated locations (i.e. inoperable in gun free zones) He said at the time that the strategy was to get the patent to lock up the concept so no one else could build it, preventing the system from ever being developed. I'm not sure how far he actually got but I'm sure that won't happen now with the company folding.

Patents can be held by an individual, regardless if his company folds. 

I thought the main problem with that thing was the insane price tag. Well, that and not developing any actually shooting skill and relying on a computer to shoot for you...

kinda like most modern drivers rely on all of the safety crap on their cars.

 

 keep catering to the lowest common denominator, and the lowest common denominator keeps getting lower.

kinda like most modern drivers rely on all of the safety crap on their cars.

 

Sorry I disagree for two different reasons.

 

First, most of the safety crap in cars may not be something you an I need (or at least we think so) but you know .. I want every distracted Marry and Tom on the road to have it in their cars because they will be less likely to smack into me. I've been rear ended and t-bones a couple of times by distracted idiots so if their car can avoid that by braking or telling them I'm in their blind spot or keeps them from wondering into my lane while they are yelling at the kid in the back seat, then I'm happy that they have this stuff in their car. It makes the roads safer for me, I don't care if it makes it safer for them. 

 

Secondly, soldiers are expensive. It costs roughly $100k to train a basic infantry foot soldier. Add some additional schools and the costs double. Specops types cost between $350k and one million, depending which type they are.  Snipers cost a pile of money to train as well, and their training is only 20% shooting, the rest if recon, field craft etc.  If you could reduce the costs on one aspect of their training by replacing it with technology that can make them more effective or safer, I don't see the down side. Think of the attrition rates for sniper school, and the money that gets spent on people who may not make the grade on shooting scores but excel at the rest of the curriculum.  Now imagine that you use technology to make them just as effective on the shooting side and how much return on investment you get from that.