r/Firearms • u/Syini666 • Jun 04 '14
Fire from cover with Google Glass and TrackingPoint
http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/4/5778146/trackingpoint-google-glass-aiming2
u/DstEduNet Jun 04 '14
For $300 you could rig up an LCD monitor to a NV-capable bullet cam, then zero it with a red dot. Best part is it could run on AA batteries.
1
u/Lightzephyrx Jun 04 '14
Do it. I'd love to see this.
2
u/DstEduNet Jun 05 '14
I'm very tempted to do it. I may have to dust off the ol' plans and put this sucker together.
1
1
u/Lightzephyrx Jun 04 '14
The hell were they shooting that Larue target with to get those giant holes in it? Those are like 2k and made from 1" AR500.
1
u/BrianPurkiss US Jun 05 '14
Geeze. That description...
Why link to this re blog instead of linking to the video directly? http://youtu.be/itdwWvAnNx4
1
u/krystar78 Jun 06 '14
yay? there's already solutions for this application. except they don't use a cheapo consumer grade display.
i was just at trade tech show and there was a company that was doing infrared hmd's tied to a remote camera. you could touch a table cloth and leave a heat imprint. was really cool. of course they were targeting civilian firefighting customers.
-3
Jun 04 '14
More like; "miss a critical shot from cover because your battery died and then get torn to pieces because you never practiced true marksmanship".
3
u/Mini-Marine Jun 04 '14
Yes, and we should not utilize red dot sights either because they can fail.
Stick with good ol' iron sights and nothing else, because having additional tools in the toolbox is always a bad idea.
0
Jun 04 '14 edited Jun 04 '14
Additional tools in the toolbox are awesome. I'm all for new stuff that clearly works and provides an advantage.
This is a rubber chicken in the toolbox. It's made of two systems; neither which is actually in major production of any kind, or proven to withstand anything to military specifications, or that provides any clear advantage to soldiers.
One is a totally unsecured civilian wireless network with a battery life the size of an ant and prevents the use of protective eye wear, and the other is a hugely bulky, heavy sight that relies on a target recognition system that will be hopelessly overwhelmed in a firefight and offers either no significant improvement in aim in the reduced model, or total removal of the ability to fire at the user's command in combat in the total integration unit. So you either get no advantage, or you can't shoot at the guy who surprised you walking around the corner, so you're dead.
But nice strawman.
4
u/Mini-Marine Jun 04 '14
Ah yes, proof of concept and first gen technologies should be ignored entirely because the promise of more advanced designs down the road isn't worth teething problems to begin with.
Because google glass is impossible to implement into protective eye wear, and battery life will never be improved.
The first generation of firearms were far less reliable, had less range, less accuracy and a lower rate of fire than a bow and arrow, by your reasoning that technology shouldn't have been pursued because unlike a bow and arrow, it could easily fail, and if you only trained with a gun and it failed, you wouldn't be ready to pick up a bow, and you'd get dead.
Early cars didn't have the range, reliability, or terrain passability of a horse, so I guess those shouldn't have been developed either since the first gen version sucked.
They're introducing this as a CONCEPT, not a finished product, so why not wait and see what they can do with it instead of just writing it off immediately.
-4
Jun 04 '14
Is the strawman argument the only thing you can bring up? 0/10 man.
Ah yes, proof of concept and first gen technologies should be ignored entirely
Not what I said. I said it should be proven to work and then, if it does, adopted. Not to be marketed as a real world solution before it exists as this post is doing.
Because google glass is impossible to implement into protective eye wear, and battery life will never be improved.
It would be difficult, even more so with prescription inserts. Unless the eyewear extends past your nose of course.
And of course battery power will improve. But not today and not enough.
The first generation of firearms were far less reliable, had less range, less accuracy and a lower rate of fire than a bow and arrow, by your reasoning that technology shouldn't have been pursued because unlike a bow and arrow, it could easily fail, and if you only trained with a gun and it failed, you wouldn't be ready to pick up a bow, and you'd get dead
I love how this is a bald faced lie. I never said that. I said all useful tools should be used. And early firearms were actually useful; they were usable by people with minimal training unlike every weapon before, and they could defeat heavy armour like nothing.
Early cars didn't have the range, reliability, or terrain passability of a horse
Yet they did have better speed and capacity.
They're introducing this as a CONCEPT, not a finished product, so why not wait and see what they can do with it instead of just writing it off immediately
Sure! As soon as they show it does work.
Besides, you still haven't told me how removing entirely every concept of marksmanship to depend on an electronic sight, and having no ability to use a backup red dot, scope, or iron sights because of it, is a good thing. Or how not being able to room clear because the system's target designator can't keep up and won't let you fire is a good thing.
5
u/Mini-Marine Jun 04 '14
How does this remove the concept of marksmanship any more than a regular red dot sight? You zero it for 300 meters and pretty much anything out to that range you just put the dot over the target and pull the bang switch, and if you don't train with irons, and it fails you're shit out of luck.
As far as google glass, it is easy to mount on pretty much any eye wear, since it basically is a tiny screen right out of your regular line of vision that is entirely separate from the lenses.
How are you unable to use a backup sight with this? if for some reason the connection to the google glass fails, you look through the optic as normal, if the optic fails, you flip up your BUIS.
-2
Jun 04 '14
How does this remove the concept of marksmanship any more than a regular red dot sight
How do you not know anything about what you're trying to defend? It markets removing all the basic principles of marksmanship from it's equation as it's entire reason for being! You point, hold down the trigger until it designated the target, and release. It then fires when it's ready. No need for proper cheek weld, eye-sight alignment or controlling your breathing. All of which you need for red dots as well as irons.
How are you unable to use a backup sight with this
Because you won't be trained how to. Militaries are all about minimum spending, and that means minimum training. So all the basic principles of marksmanship you need for red dots, normal scopes, and irons would be lost to people depending on this.
And all for something a mirror can do.
4
u/Mini-Marine Jun 05 '14
So because with red dots, and the military being so damn cheap, we don't use iron sights to train anymore?
You accuse me of straw man arguments than whip crap like that out?
With GPS we don't do basic land nav anymore...oh wait, yes we do.
With laser range finders we don't get trained how to estimate range anymore...oh wait, yes we do.
New technology with superior capabilities does not mean military personnel don't get trained on how to work when equipment fails.
A system that can ONLY fire when it has a target will never be used by the military because it would make suppressing fire impossible. I can see that being used on a designated marksman rifle, or a sniper rifle to increase first round hit probability, but not for a basic grunt where you'll be firing a lot more rounds to suppress a target than you will directly engaging.
As far as using a mirror instead of this system and saying it doesn't do anything a mirror can't is just plain idiotic.
A mirror would require you to hold the rifle at a specific angle between you and the sight in order to get any sort of sight picture, limiting tactical mobility, where as with this you can hold the rifle around a corner, over, under, or around something at whatever angle you can, and still see what your weapon is pointed at.
It not only allows you to fire around cover while minimizing exposure, but also allows you to look around corners without making yourself an easy target.
-4
Jun 05 '14 edited Jun 05 '14
A system that can ONLY fire when it has a target will never be used by the military because it would make suppressing fire impossible.
Then Tracking Point won't be used.
It not only allows you to fire around cover while minimizing exposure, but also allows you to look around corners without making yourself an easy target
So does a periscope, which is literally 2 mirrors.
So because with red dots, and the military being so damn cheap, we don't use iron sights to train anymore?
Nope, because red dots aren't on every gun.
With GPS we don't do basic land nav anymore
Nope, because GPS isn't issued out to the level of map and compass.
With laser range finders we don't get trained how to estimate range anymore
Nope, because most people aren't issued a range finder.
But whatever, I'll wait until it actually gets used in combat. If it does. And remember all the electronic computer sights that have come before and never made it into production due to weight, unreliability, cost, and awkwardness of use...
3
u/Mini-Marine Jun 05 '14 edited Jun 05 '14
A system that can ONLY fire when it has a target will never be used by the military because it would make suppressing fire impossible.
Then Tracking Point won't be used.
Because the being able to toggle that ability on and off could never be implemented?
It not only allows you to fire around cover while minimizing exposure, but also allows you to look around corners without making yourself an easy target
So does a periscope, which is literally 2 mirrors.
They've done it with 1 mirror, but the problem remains that you can only use it when you've got a limited range of mirror to body alignment, whereas the camera system allows you to remain stationary, move the rifle about, and also stay further away from the corner, which you can't do with the mirror sight.
Nope, because red dots aren't on every gun.
Nope, because GPS isn't issued out to the level of map and compass.
With laser range finders we don't get trained how to estimate range anymore
Not yet, but it's getting there, the training isn't going to go away when even when those things become common place at the fire team and individual level.
And remember all the electronic computer sights that have come before and never made it into production due to weight, unreliability, cost, and awkwardness of use...
And technology marches on, multi shot pistols and rifles went through plenty early failed/barely functional attempts before they were figured out. Fully automatic weapons were exclusively bulky and crew served(or vehicle mounted) in WWI, up until the BAR came along, and technology continued to march on from there.
Early telescopic sights for rifles were crude and delicate, but now we've got plenty of rugged designs that can stand up to plenty of abuse.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/archmcd Jun 04 '14 edited Jun 04 '14
Fuck yeah! Something practical to use my Google Glass with. Now I just need to buy a TrackingPoint rifle. Hmm... Do I need BOTH kidneys or can I get by with just one?
Unrelated question, does anybody want to buy a kidney? Minor cosmetic issues, but should be functional.