I'd be skeptical, Don. Note that the system John described isn't an expert system at all: it's a feedback system that re-calculates ballistics based on the results of an initial test shot. That's just correction based on feedback of measured results.
I'd wonder how many of those "sensed" variables are even fully conscious. But, maybe.
Yes, very tricky.
Might be part of the reason why they use scopes.
i
Yes. However..it would be "killed" in very short order. It simply cannot move from place to place fast enough to not become a target.
Absolutely correct.
A good sharpshooter "feels" his trajectory and his shot.
Gunner
11B-4, 71-73, RVN
On paper. But the vise cannot feel the moment when its the Right Time to squeeze the trigger. Now if the shooter is in control of the trigger...it becomes better indeed.
Gunner
Check out the DARPA EXACTO program
Indeed. Most indeed.
Gunner
There is "the knack" among shooters who really do shoot well over long distances. Seldom with rail gun shooters.
Gunner
Nonsense, like most of your made up gummerBS. You ought to trademark it. Inserting a weapons sysyem - even a big one - surreptitiously is relatively easy today.
And of course...my favorite video of all time.
Poor little girl attacked by violent felon....brrrrrrr
Gunner
Short answer: no, if accurate means OSOK one shot one kill.
Benchrest competitors approximate use of a vise in that they employ rests with micro adjustments, and in some cases the only part of their body that touches the rifle is the trigger finger on a 2-oz trigger.
Snipers use bipods and occasional sandbags or other field-expedients. Both must judge wind, mirage, and air density (hence drag on bullet). Benchrest competitors get to fire one or more check shots at known range before firing for score, snipers don't. Snipers must estimate or measure the range, factor in elevation angle correction, wind which is about never uniform over the entire trajectory of the bullet, and on very long shots Coriolis effect depending upon the azimuth of the shot, and they must get it right first shot -- or second shot if the target is so cooperative.
The sniper must be able to nimbly adjust aimpoint because (politically) designated targets are seldom stationary for long and often are only briefly visible and shootable. That about precludes a benchrest or vise approach. A sniper must be able to get it done with a bipod and perhaps a sandbag, undetectably infiltrated and then hidden for as long as is necessary to get a shot. Stealthy infil can take days. Exfil is a whole 'nother matter, the bastards.
The sniper and his spotter must also verify identity of target, then anticipate target behavior because bullet time of flight is significant on long shots.
Excellent summation. Very well done.
Gunner
To prove a point I've demonstrated that I could position a sensitive indicator to within one micron with finger pressure.
At air shows I check out the Army display while the crowd is busy watching the the Thunderbirds. I found I could just barely hold the crosshairs on the top or the bottom edges of a grid line on the target, which is about 1/16" at 100 meters or 1 inch at 1600. I couldn't keep it within an inch while dry-firing, though.
It was hard to hold the sight of a Stinger on a maneuvering airplane, or track even a C-130 flying straight with a heavy TOW.
Long range shots with black powder:
jsw
From that same link...
" At the annual meeting of the Company of Military Historians, I sold one book to a former 82nd Airborne soldier who served as a sniper. He told me that they were able to hit the metal gongs at 1,100 meters with their M-21 (souped up M-14 with the ART-1 sniper scope). Anyway, his sergeant instructor had an original whitworth that he brought out. His groups at 1,100 yards were tighter than those shooting the M-14. Furthermore, he was able to hit out at 1,500 yards consistently with his whitworth. It shocked his students that a muzzle loading, blackpowder rifle was capable of out performing the modern 7.62 mm Nato cartrige"
Ive fired the Whitworth and the later 45-70 at ranges further than 1000 yrds and made good, repeatable hits on 2'x2' steel plates
.45-70 at Two Miles: The Sandy Hook Tests of 1879 W. John Farquharson
Originally published in Rifle Magazine, Nov-Dec 1977. Reprinted with permission.
THE SHOOTER at the heavy bench rest squinted as he aligned his .45-70 Allin-Springfield Model 1873 Army rifle on the distant target. The rifle fore-stock and barrel was cradled in a rest; the butt was supported by his shoulder. The rear sight was flipped up to its full height, so with no stock support for his head, the rifle tester from Springfield Armory worked carefully to align high rear and low muzzle sight on the speck that was the target - a surveyed 2,500 yards distant.
Holding his breath, he squeezed the 7-pound trigger. The rifle fired, and some 15 seconds later, signals from the target indicated that his shot had struck well inside the 6-foot diameter bullseye on a target well over a mile away! The Report of the Secretary of War, 1880, Volume III, under the chapter titled, "Extreme Rangesof Military Small Arms," had this to say:
"The firing was done by Mr. R.T Hare of Springfield Armory who has the enviable distinction, so far as is known, of being the only person in the world who has hit the 'Bull's-Eye' six feet in diameter at 2,500 yards with three different rifles, and who has ever fired at and hit so small a target as that described in this report at 3,200 yards.
In comparison with this, all other so-called 'long range firing' pales into insignificance. The gun was held under the arm, a muzzle rest only being used." The chapter on long range firing begins with a report from the Armory at Springfield, Massachusetts, May 9, 1879. It records the results of long range tests of U.S. Army Model 1873 .45-caliber rifles using 405 and
500-grain lead bullets, including variations in muzzle velocity and penetration of lead bullets through one-inch target boards and into sand. These tests were made at the request of the Chief of Ordnance. His interest had been aroused by reports of long range infantry fire, up to 1½ miles, during the1877-78 Turko-Russian War.The lineage of the "trapdoor" rifles used in the tests is apparent from the separate lock plate, the massive side hammer, the milling out of a portion of barrel and fitting a breechblock hinged at the front - all clear indications that the rifles were merely breech-loading variations of the traditional muzzle-loading infantry-man's rifle. The Allin conversion of the 1861 and 1863 models Springfield muzzle-loaders came out first in .58 caliber rimfire. Later refinements resulted in the .50-70 rimmed centerfire for the 1866 model. The .45-70 cartridge was first introduced with the Model 1873 single shot Springfield. Several model changes were made from 1873 through 1889, relatively minor differences being the type of sights, modified and improved breech-blocks and changes in stock furniture.
Gunner .
Jim Wilkins wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@j33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
The site also ignored the fact that quite a few shooters were more than "just competetive" with their .30-40 Krag rifles.
For the unenlightened, the .30-40 was the US Military's last non-blank blackpowder rifle cartridge.
snipped-for-privacy@j33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
The blackpowder-style designation is misleading, it was loaded with the new smokeless:
innews: snipped-for-privacy@j33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
As was the 30-30
Gunner Asch wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
The 30-30 was never loaded with blackpowder but (IIRC) the 30-40 was (initially).
FWIW, Winchester "wildcatted" the .32 Winchester Special from the 30-30 specifically to permit reloading with blackpowder although the cartridge was never loaded that way by any factory.
The neck was enlarged to .32 cal. and the rifling changed to 1-in-16" from 1-in-10" to enable purchasers of the rifle to reload factory cases with blackpowder and cast bullets. (The changes reduced fouling considerably.)
AFAIK the .32 WS is the only factory-produced rifle/cartridge combo ever made to enable the use of blackpowder and cast bullets in a piece for which smokeless powder and jacketed bullets were and are the only factory-produced loads.
The only piece (that I know of) offered for this cartridge was the Winchester Model 94.
Being anonymous pays more? What is the inside skinny on this?
Wes
-- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
When you're writing for someone else, they usually have a commercial, or a political, reason for having an article published over their byline. They're paying what are essentially public-relations rates, which tend to be two to four times what special-interest magazines pay for the same number of words.
I never actually charged by the word, although that's how I calculated my estimates. It was a shorthand for the amount of time it would take to research, illustrate (mostly with photos) and write an article, and to work with an editor to shape it to their needs.
Most trade magazines only paid a modest "honorarium" in the old days. They weren't paying freelance writers a living wage. When I was at _AM_, in the '70s, we paid $250 for a typical 2,000-word article. They paid me 4 or 5 times that much after I left and was writing for them as a freelancer. A couple of years ago, though, the trade magazines were running with short staffs and actually paid decently for freelanced material. I was being offered $2,000 by one well-known metalworking magazine. That didn't last long. They'll still pay me that rate, but they have almost no slots for freelanced articles, because they don't have enough advertising to support an expansive editorial well. I don't bother because it takes too much time to come up with something they'd want that badly.
But my PR rate was twice that much. On the average, you had to figure that writing directly for publication would pay 1/3 what you would get for the same writing done as PR. And I wrote editorials, including one op-ed for the NYT, which paid nothing if you wrote over your own byline. If you wrote it for someone else and the Times published it over their byline, I'd be paid PR rates.
Except for the extreme upper crust of writers, it's very hard to make a living freelance writing. But it's within range if you write PR.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.