-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Tracking Optics?
- Thread starter T2CH
- Start date
Re: Tracking Optics?
Yep. Should be interesting. I'm sure the price will be rather expensive... $15K? I'm sure many will badmouth it, but it's just where things are going.
While some may use it as an excuse to not learn to shoot properly, those who are smart will enjoy it for what it is: another tool to aid and assist.
Just because I can carry a GPS doesn't mean that I don't learn land nav using a compass, and regularly practice it. Just because I can use a calculator for multiplication doesn't mean that I don't need to know how to multiply without one.
Those who would use such a scope as a crutch or shortcut will fail quickly.
IMO: very cool technology.
Yep. Should be interesting. I'm sure the price will be rather expensive... $15K? I'm sure many will badmouth it, but it's just where things are going.
While some may use it as an excuse to not learn to shoot properly, those who are smart will enjoy it for what it is: another tool to aid and assist.
Just because I can carry a GPS doesn't mean that I don't learn land nav using a compass, and regularly practice it. Just because I can use a calculator for multiplication doesn't mean that I don't need to know how to multiply without one.
Those who would use such a scope as a crutch or shortcut will fail quickly.
IMO: very cool technology.
Re: Tracking Optics?
Wow, I just expected a laser rangefinder and superimposed digital reticle. That unit is quite a bit more involved than that. Very interesting.
Wow, I just expected a laser rangefinder and superimposed digital reticle. That unit is quite a bit more involved than that. Very interesting.
Re: Tracking Optics?
Rather interesting, not sure it would be for me, as most of the fun is getting out in the field and ringing steel for dope.
As technology grows and electronics shrink, I can see something like that becoming a common option on a hunting scope. Something that can be turned on and off.
Rather interesting, not sure it would be for me, as most of the fun is getting out in the field and ringing steel for dope.
As technology grows and electronics shrink, I can see something like that becoming a common option on a hunting scope. Something that can be turned on and off.
Re: Tracking Optics?
I don't know... Did it say that it electronically discharges the firearm? I understand that certain things needed to be lined up correctly and the trigger held etc.. However, it sounds like an extreme liability, I can't imagine something like that being available for civilian use. I'm sure there are safety measures, but anything electronic can malfunction or fail. Maybe I heard incorrectly, but I can't see anything that completes, furthers, delays or engages any stage of the firing process (not manually) being cleared by the ATF. Even if one must manually pull the hammer back and the system is involved in the holding or release it would seem that a firearm you thought had a simple malfunction or was on safe from last session, could get complicated quick.
Interesting technology, kind of strange it's advertised as suitable for those without firearm experience. It was also said its set up to make 1,200 yard shots...Even with ballistic information, how would a novice account for different winds down range? It still seems like a laser range finding scope, with the difference being that it makes sure that your reticle/hold over info is in the same spot you originally targeted when pulling the trigger. I'm not sure how this would be any more effective than something like Burris' Eliminator.
If it had lead information and could track moving targets that would be a whole different story. That would also sound more like the technology they are describing.
I don't know... Did it say that it electronically discharges the firearm? I understand that certain things needed to be lined up correctly and the trigger held etc.. However, it sounds like an extreme liability, I can't imagine something like that being available for civilian use. I'm sure there are safety measures, but anything electronic can malfunction or fail. Maybe I heard incorrectly, but I can't see anything that completes, furthers, delays or engages any stage of the firing process (not manually) being cleared by the ATF. Even if one must manually pull the hammer back and the system is involved in the holding or release it would seem that a firearm you thought had a simple malfunction or was on safe from last session, could get complicated quick.
Interesting technology, kind of strange it's advertised as suitable for those without firearm experience. It was also said its set up to make 1,200 yard shots...Even with ballistic information, how would a novice account for different winds down range? It still seems like a laser range finding scope, with the difference being that it makes sure that your reticle/hold over info is in the same spot you originally targeted when pulling the trigger. I'm not sure how this would be any more effective than something like Burris' Eliminator.
If it had lead information and could track moving targets that would be a whole different story. That would also sound more like the technology they are describing.
Re: Tracking Optics?
I believe it increases the trigger pull weight until you are on target, then allows you to fire.
I believe it increases the trigger pull weight until you are on target, then allows you to fire.
Re: Tracking Optics?
Looks like the software for it can take into account wind, etc, but I'd imagine that that needs to be added by the shooter, manually.
From the video, I got the impression that you essentially "laze" the target's intended POI with the red button forward of the trigger. Then, you have to manually depress the trigger with your finger (though it won't fire at this point) and when the crosshair covers the "lazed" point you set earlier, as long as your finger is still pressing the trigger, the gun will fire.
Good shooting mechanics aside, I don't see any reason why this would cause the ATF to have a hissy for a bolt action rifle, as it is intended for.
I'd imagine that to set this up on a semi-auto would require significant modification, as it seems that it obviously interacts with the firing mechanism internals, so it's not like it would be a drop-in for some other model rifle.
Looks like the software for it can take into account wind, etc, but I'd imagine that that needs to be added by the shooter, manually.
From the video, I got the impression that you essentially "laze" the target's intended POI with the red button forward of the trigger. Then, you have to manually depress the trigger with your finger (though it won't fire at this point) and when the crosshair covers the "lazed" point you set earlier, as long as your finger is still pressing the trigger, the gun will fire.
Good shooting mechanics aside, I don't see any reason why this would cause the ATF to have a hissy for a bolt action rifle, as it is intended for.
I'd imagine that to set this up on a semi-auto would require significant modification, as it seems that it obviously interacts with the firing mechanism internals, so it's not like it would be a drop-in for some other model rifle.
Re: Tracking Optics?
that 338 should make it out to 1200yrds pretty easy without all those fancy gadgets.if you needed/wanted to push the rifle out further then that, and the system cant do it for you, can you manually set windage and elevation? it seems like that system would be way more appealing if it was able to get that round on target consistantly out to extreme ranges that even really skilled shooters are pushing to hit. i wonder what kinda accuracy theyre going to be expecting out of that system, and also what size targets will it be able to lock on to out to the longer distances?
that 338 should make it out to 1200yrds pretty easy without all those fancy gadgets.if you needed/wanted to push the rifle out further then that, and the system cant do it for you, can you manually set windage and elevation? it seems like that system would be way more appealing if it was able to get that round on target consistantly out to extreme ranges that even really skilled shooters are pushing to hit. i wonder what kinda accuracy theyre going to be expecting out of that system, and also what size targets will it be able to lock on to out to the longer distances?
Re: Tracking Optics?
Expect to see other optics like this coming out at SHOT. See Outdoor channel website and go to shooting links and then featured gear.
Expect to see other optics like this coming out at SHOT. See Outdoor channel website and go to shooting links and then featured gear.
Re: Tracking Optics?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtb33</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looks like the software for it can take into account wind, etc, but I'd imagine that that needs to be added by the shooter, manually.
From the video, I got the impression that you essentially "laze" the target's intended POI with the red button forward of the trigger. Then, you have to manually depress the trigger with your finger (though it won't fire at this point) and when the crosshair covers the "lazed" point you set earlier, as long as your finger is still pressing the trigger, the gun will fire.
Good shooting mechanics aside, I don't see any reason why this would cause the ATF to have a hissy for a bolt action rifle, as it is intended for.
I'd imagine that to set this up on a semi-auto would require significant modification, as it seems that it obviously interacts with the firing mechanism internals, so it's not like it would be a drop-in for some other model rifle. </div></div>
Just to be clear,
The reason I mentioned the ATF was because I made the presumption that the firing process of the rifle was engaged, guided etc... Electronically . I wouldn't think it would matter whether or not it was designed for bolt action or semi auto. If a firearm can be discharged remotely an accidental stray single round from a 338 would be quite alarming. Either way, if that was the case, the technology wouldn't be confined to bolt action, it's just the idea that any firearm could be fired in that manner. I stood corrected as to how it works, and I'm not against the idea in any way, it was just one of the first things that came to mind.
As far as imputing the wind; even if it could read wind at the device end the user would still have to account for winds down range. It was only my comment toward their claim that it makes it easy for any novice to shoot long distances up to 1,200 yards. User would still have to have experience reading that.
Not argumentative at all, I believe just was under a false impression from the video. I'm sure there's more the technology that what disclosed and I have no issue with it personally.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jtb33</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looks like the software for it can take into account wind, etc, but I'd imagine that that needs to be added by the shooter, manually.
From the video, I got the impression that you essentially "laze" the target's intended POI with the red button forward of the trigger. Then, you have to manually depress the trigger with your finger (though it won't fire at this point) and when the crosshair covers the "lazed" point you set earlier, as long as your finger is still pressing the trigger, the gun will fire.
Good shooting mechanics aside, I don't see any reason why this would cause the ATF to have a hissy for a bolt action rifle, as it is intended for.
I'd imagine that to set this up on a semi-auto would require significant modification, as it seems that it obviously interacts with the firing mechanism internals, so it's not like it would be a drop-in for some other model rifle. </div></div>
Just to be clear,
The reason I mentioned the ATF was because I made the presumption that the firing process of the rifle was engaged, guided etc... Electronically . I wouldn't think it would matter whether or not it was designed for bolt action or semi auto. If a firearm can be discharged remotely an accidental stray single round from a 338 would be quite alarming. Either way, if that was the case, the technology wouldn't be confined to bolt action, it's just the idea that any firearm could be fired in that manner. I stood corrected as to how it works, and I'm not against the idea in any way, it was just one of the first things that came to mind.
As far as imputing the wind; even if it could read wind at the device end the user would still have to account for winds down range. It was only my comment toward their claim that it makes it easy for any novice to shoot long distances up to 1,200 yards. User would still have to have experience reading that.
Not argumentative at all, I believe just was under a false impression from the video. I'm sure there's more the technology that what disclosed and I have no issue with it personally.
Re: Tracking Optics?
You guys arent thinking about what is possible with electronics. It most likely works like some of the other laser based technology in use like the beacon illuminator for airborne based laser missle intercept systems.. Basically is uses a few different optics that are "calibrated" out of focus and then based on the adjustments that the system has to make to "focus" the beam, it can read atmospheric conditions such as humidity at distance, wind direction, (Turbulence) etc, Its pretty neat stuff. Ill see if I can find the article.
The laser beam illuminates a spot on the target and measures the distortion caused by turbulence in the air. Longer version http://www.kirtland.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070404-023.pdf
Basically, since its a laser, it knows what the beam should look like when it leaves the device. (Think mathematical representation of the image.) Then it reads it again when it sees the reflection on the target. It also knows the distance at this point and what the ideal image should look like. Based on the distortions of the image it sees, it can calculate the rest. (humidity, turbulance, etc. ) crazy but pretty cool technology. They are doing this at ranges of XXX miles while the plane is flying 300+ MPH and the missile is well, who the hell knows. On the ground at a static target at <1mile is cake at this point
At least thats my theory. Im sure we will learn more about the how next week.
You guys arent thinking about what is possible with electronics. It most likely works like some of the other laser based technology in use like the beacon illuminator for airborne based laser missle intercept systems.. Basically is uses a few different optics that are "calibrated" out of focus and then based on the adjustments that the system has to make to "focus" the beam, it can read atmospheric conditions such as humidity at distance, wind direction, (Turbulence) etc, Its pretty neat stuff. Ill see if I can find the article.
The laser beam illuminates a spot on the target and measures the distortion caused by turbulence in the air. Longer version http://www.kirtland.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070404-023.pdf
Basically, since its a laser, it knows what the beam should look like when it leaves the device. (Think mathematical representation of the image.) Then it reads it again when it sees the reflection on the target. It also knows the distance at this point and what the ideal image should look like. Based on the distortions of the image it sees, it can calculate the rest. (humidity, turbulance, etc. ) crazy but pretty cool technology. They are doing this at ranges of XXX miles while the plane is flying 300+ MPH and the missile is well, who the hell knows. On the ground at a static target at <1mile is cake at this point
At least thats my theory. Im sure we will learn more about the how next week.
Re: Tracking Optics?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Based on the distortions of the image it sees, it can calculate the rest. (humidity, turbulance, etc. ) crazy but pretty cool technology.</div></div>
A precise read of windage and distance is powerful to say the least. Distance can be done well on targets of precise known size or using one of the very common lazer rangefinders out there. Windage is not so easy to get a fix on an is constantly changing. A scope that can do all this in real time, precisely, along with elevation, humidity, up or down hill etc. That is something to see. I'm excited to take a look anyhow. I have my doubts.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Based on the distortions of the image it sees, it can calculate the rest. (humidity, turbulance, etc. ) crazy but pretty cool technology.</div></div>
A precise read of windage and distance is powerful to say the least. Distance can be done well on targets of precise known size or using one of the very common lazer rangefinders out there. Windage is not so easy to get a fix on an is constantly changing. A scope that can do all this in real time, precisely, along with elevation, humidity, up or down hill etc. That is something to see. I'm excited to take a look anyhow. I have my doubts.
Re: Tracking Optics?
The future is coming and it is coming faster and faster. Very soon laser rangefinders will be within the rifle scope. Aiming point will be adjusted automatically to match the distance. Of course Bushnell already has a simple scope along these lines already. Ziess is another. They are not very efficent yet. Within five years (ten at the longest) that will change. Cost will come down and quality will go up. I don't know whether they changes will be good or not. However it is coming.
The future is coming and it is coming faster and faster. Very soon laser rangefinders will be within the rifle scope. Aiming point will be adjusted automatically to match the distance. Of course Bushnell already has a simple scope along these lines already. Ziess is another. They are not very efficent yet. Within five years (ten at the longest) that will change. Cost will come down and quality will go up. I don't know whether they changes will be good or not. However it is coming.
Re: Tracking Optics?
I've shot the system. It's wild and it really works. Think fighter aircraft.
I've shot the system. It's wild and it really works. Think fighter aircraft.
Re: Tracking Optics?
Pretty good guess on my part in my post above on 1/10, prior to the release.
Pretty good guess on my part in my post above on 1/10, prior to the release.
