Better Shooting Through Technology [Cabinet of Curiosities]

Photography by Straight 8 & Kenda Lenseigne

Editor’s Note:

In this column, we look back at iconic guns that have either stood the test of time or vanished without trace.  

About a decade ago, the folks at TrackingPoint seemed to have a whole pot of tech startup capital to throw around on R&D and put guns in the hands of “influencers,” then poof! They disappeared. A lot of uncritical articles appeared in both mainstream techy journals and the gun press, but as far as we know, we’re the only ones to put them up against a decent shooter with a familiar platform. Whereupon, they got outshot. 

Until someone markets the fabled “phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range,” today’s firearms are about as refined as they’re going to get. 

While this may seem like heresy coming from a gun rag, since Borchardt developed an effective self-loading mechanism in the 1890s, we’ve not really seen much in the way of paradigm-shifting technology since then. Sure, there have been advances in materials technology, but nothing has really fundamentally changed the way we either look at, or employ, guns. Line up the sights, press the trigger, rinse and repeat.

The adaptation of consumer electronics to the gun industry has been painfully slow. Almost everything else we use on a daily basis has a user interface — our cars, our TVs, hell, even our washing machines talk to us — but guns seem to be stuck in the 1950s. That’s now changing. So, we decided to take a look at a couple of innovations that might just gain consumer acceptance and, in doing so, shape the way we view our guns.

PFLUGERVILLE’S FINEST

TrackingPoint (TP) has certainly led the way when it comes to making precision shooting a trending topic in social media. Because of the unusual intersection of technology and guns, the company has waged a marketing campaign that targets both special-interest audiences, with dog and pony shows tailored to each one. It’s been wildly successful, with TP’s YouTube channel being the most viewed among firearms manufacturer and features on its targeting system aired on CNN, Colbert, Bloomberg, Businessweek, and so on. 

In the firearms media, writers have been courted with the usual chaperoned hunts and range trips. One other magazine, which will remain nameless, went so far as to print a puff piece written by TrackingPoint’s marketing director and passed it off as editorial, right next to a full-page ad bought by the company. 

At no time in any of the reports, however, has a representative of the media made any sort of assessment of the TP system when pitted against a regular old firearm. Consequently, no one has ever answered — or even asked — whether the juice is worth the squeeze. With TrackingPoint debuting its new line of semi-auto rifles, we reckoned it was about time.

At the heart of all TrackingPoint Precision Guided Firearms (PGF) is a ballistics computer, mated to either a bolt or semi-auto rifle. The guns themselves are all top-shelf and were no doubt chosen to maximize the mechanical accuracy of the system, but all real innovation has gone into the electro-optical package. With 150 years since the adoption of the centerfire cartridge, there’s not a whole lot more that can be wrung out of that technology…

Instead of looking through a conventional sight, the shooter on a PGF observes the target on a display at the rear of the Networked Tracking Scope, which houses a camera and laser rangefinder. Its on-board computer receives input from a suite of sensors and will calculate a ballistic solution based on range, inclination, temperature, elevation, barometric pressure, spin drift, cant, barrel wear, and Coriolis effect. 

Ammunition is matched to the gun and loaded specifically for it by Barnes to tight tolerances, again in order to maximize mechanical accuracy. 

To engage a target in the system’s Advanced Mode, (i.e., the one that has gotten all the attention) the shooter first ranges it by placing the display’s crosshairs either on or close to its location and pressing a button mounted on the trigger guard. 

From here on in, the computer takes over and calculates a firing solution which results in the crosshairs changing color and leaving the target, coming to rest somewhere lower down in the screen. Once a range has been established, the shooter will then “tag” the target by repositioning the crosshairs and pressing the button a second time, designating the point he wants to hit. 

This tagging process is as important as actually making the shot in a conventional firearm, as the PGF will then lock onto the designated position, using pixel recognition software to keep the tag in place, even if the target moves at speeds of up to 15 mph.

To send lead downrange, the shooter pins the trigger to the rear and moves the rifle in order to place the crosshairs back onto the tag location, which is marked with a red dot. When the sight recognizes that the reticle is over the tag spot, a solenoid releases the striker or hammer and the shot is fired. Because the shooter’s physical input is minimized when the primer is struck, jerking the trigger, poor breathing technique, or an imperfect hold is not a barrier to making the shot.

TrackingPoint has studiously avoided making any claim in its marketing materials that it’s impossible to miss a shot, but from all the breathless hyperbole in the mainstream media, you might get the impression that the system suddenly enables a neophyte to outperform the saltiest of SEAL snipers. It doesn’t. 

Like any weapons system, it has its own set of limitations and weaknesses and requires some effort on the part of the user to master. The ballistic computer does, however, allow a user to be confident that the gun will shoot where it’s pointed under ideal conditions. 

If you’ve expended hundreds of rounds to fill your DOPE (data of previous engagement) book and know exactly how much your rifle’s point of impact shifts when you move from sea level to 8,000 feet, or if the temperature drops from 90 to 40 degrees, or if the barometric pressure changes from 1,008 to 1,033 millibars, then you probably won’t see too much improvement in your performance from the TrackingPoint system. 

Alternatively, if you think that all you have to do to connect at 1,000 yards is to aim a little bit higher, then you either need to spend a lot more time at the range, or pony up for something that will provide that data for you. TrackingPoint provides a complete, off-the-shelf solution to making hits at extended ranges — at a price.

HEAD TO HEAD

One shortcoming was made apparent when we tested the TrackingPoint 750 series rifles in Colorado. We set up on a shooting bench, with multiple steel targets set out at 450, 750, and 800 yards. We gave a 750 series PGF .308 bolt gun to three shooters of varying levels of experience, ranging from complete novice to expert. Because the targets were set out on the side of a mountain, the shooters were forced into a compromised position, “floating” the buttstock in order to gain enough elevation to engage despite their bipod legs being fully extended.

As a control, we used a shooter equipped with a Colt LE901, Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40mm scope, Bushnell 1 Mile laser rangefinder, and Winchester 168-grain match ammo — low tech and fairly low budget in comparison to the $12,500 price tag of the TrackingPoint gun. The shooters were then told to engage their targets as quickly as possible. While the gas gun had an advantage when it came to jacking rounds into the chamber, this was offset by the PGF’s greater accuracy. 

Plus, as any designated marksman will attest, bolt guns are just plain easier to hit with, as they’re more forgiving of poor shooting form and compromised positions, such as we faced here. We didn’t expect the results we got, with the shooter using the “steam-powered” equipment beating all three of the guys equipped with the TrackingPoint system. On reviewing video shot of the session, we noticed a number of factors in play.

Firstly, due to the sub-optimal shooting position, many of the TP shooters’ shots missed high, as the rifle recoiled and shifted position fractionally while the bullet was still traveling down the barrel. The Colt shooter also missed high initially, but was able to quickly compensate on his next shot by holding below the target. 

He was able to do this as he could see his bullet impacts through the scope and adjust accordingly. This brings up the biggest problem currently faced by the TP system — namely, the difficulty the shooter has in spotting his own shots. 

Under recoil, the display image shakes so much that seeing bullet strikes is almost impossible. So if you miss with the first round, you’d better have a spotter to make your corrections. 

Remember that with the TP, you’re looking at a display screen, like a video camera — you’re not looking through glass at the target as with a traditional optic. The system’s ability to stream the scope’s image via Bluetooth to the spotter’s mobile device is a huge advantage when it comes to target identification, but in order to call corrections, the spotter needs to use conventional glass, otherwise he faces the same problem as the shooter. 

Interestingly, in later testing we found that the AR variant least affected by this condition was also the most powerful. As noted in RECOIL Issue 14, the NEMO .300 Win Mag features a very effective brake and buffer system, which results in a straight-back push, allowing the shooter to see his strikes at least 50 percent of the time.

As ranges increase, the greatest factor in connecting with a target is wind. Until DARPA delivers its much-anticipated wind-monitoring system, we’re all stuck with having to make corrections for wind speed and direction the same way our ancestors did. Learning to read wind is one of the most difficult aspects of long-range marksmanship, and there are no shortcuts.

 In order to correct for wind drift on the PGF, the shooter must use a rocker switch located on top of the sight to input a mph value, which is displayed on the screen. If there’s say, a 10 mph, half value wind (i.e., one that’s blowing from 45 degrees, rather than 90 degrees from the bullet’s path) then the shooter must input a value of 5 mph. Simple enough, but being able to accurately estimate the wind’s value across the bullet’s entire arc is one of those skills that only comes from putting rounds downrange. 

It’s perhaps instructive that in all of the videos out there of the system being demonstrated on a range, wind value is always input by, or under the direction of, a TrackingPoint representative. Despite any claim to the contrary, complete newbies just aren’t going to be able to make wind calls that will allow them to hit consistently at 1,000 yards right off the bat. 

Will a PGF enable an average shooter to hit more targets at greater range? Absolutely, no question about it. But any claim that a novice can pick up a PGF and immediately become the modern-day incarnation of Simo Haya is unadulterated horsesh*t.

CUT-PRICE CONTENDER

TrackingPoint’s greatest selling point — that it offers a complete, off-the-shelf system — is also a potential weakness to the customer who wants increased hit probability across multiple weapons platforms. If you’ve got, say, an AR-10, a couple of precision bolt guns, and a SCAR 17, then you might find utility in a system that could be transferred between guns. You’ll be pleased to know then that such a system exists — to use a careworn and hackneyed phrase, the Eagle has landed.

The RIANOV Eagle costs $750, weighs 1.7 ounces, attaches to any scope or rail, and provides a firing solution in any condition based on its full complement of environmental sensors. This firing solution is output to a tiny display showing both windage and elevation corrections, which the user then either dials into a conventional scope, or in the case of a Horus reticle, simply holds on the target. 

In use, the shooter first determines the range to target. This can be done either by means of a weapon-mounted rangefinder which outputs to the computer, or the shooter can input data manually from other sources, such as a handheld laser rangefinder (LRF), range markers, or previous engagements. 

To do this, a remote controller attached to the computer via a cable is used, and the shooter toggles through modes and values using basic commands such as up, down, left, and right. The control box also houses a CR123 battery, powering the unit for up to a year.

With our very first shot using the system, we were able to make a hit on a torso-sized steel target, using a .308 Win Remington 700 at 1,300 yards — well beyond the transonic range of the round. The military version of the Eagle accepts input from either an L3 STORM or Wilcox RAPTAR rangefinder, and it will calculate a firing solution out to the maximum ballistic range of any weapon system, be it a .17 HMR varmint gun or a 120mm cannon, should you have one lurking in your gun safe. 

To maximize the ability to use the Eagle on multiple weapon systems, the user first inputs basic data such as caliber, ballistic coefficient (BC), muzzle velocity, rate of twist, height over bore, and zero distance. Up to 16 different data sets can be stored, and once set up, the unit can be swapped at will between firearms. We used it on both our LE901 test mule and the aforementioned Rem 700, and found it takes longer to zero the rangefinder than change over the computer.

One hugely valuable feature is the ability to “true” the ballistic solution to the weapon. In most commercially available ballistic computers, if you discover that your rounds aren’t hitting where the program says they should, you might wind up tweaking an input slightly (usually the bullet’s BC), in order to get a result that mirrors reality. This is a Band-Aid solution that only works accurately at one particular distance. The Eagle instead allows the user to bend the ballistic curve to match real-world results, giving a much better model, particularly at extended ranges.

Compared to the TrackingPoint, the Eagle is much more basic in terms of its user interface, and engagement times are a little slower due to the need to manually input data. The control box is a bit clunky and flops around at the end of its cable, unless Velcroed to the stock. It can, however, accommodate any kind of projectile weapon, any caliber, and any load. 

Presently, the available rangefinding options are extremely expensive due to their military origins and additional functionality — a RAPTAR costs around $6,000 and offers a visible laser, IR target designator, and floodlight. If a rangefinder company were to introduce a simple, rugged rail-mounted LRF that could output to the Eagle via either cable or Bluetooth, this combination would be virtually unbeatable. Bushnell, are you listening?

Ballistic computers of all types are starting to make inroads to the long range scene, and our overview here is by no means comprehensive, with several other small companies providing their own take on the problem of hitting targets way out there. As the technology matures and trickles into other products, we predict that in a few years it will be commonplace to see chips integrated into conventional optics. 

We know of a few major companies who are well down the road when it comes to placing computers into their glass, and we’ll bring you updates as we get them.

THE TRACKINGPOINT ARs

In October, TrackingPoint introduced three models of semi-auto rifles, based on the AR platform. The entry-level gun is a Daniel Defense-based AR-15 with a price tag of $6,000. Despite an MSRP of less than half its brethren’s, the optics and electronics suite is exactly the same.

Jumping up the ladder, the 7.62mm NATO version is based on the well-respected LMT product, which in TrackingPoint guise retails for 15 grand. The bigger caliber provides the shooter with a greater maximum range — software limits each PGF to stay within the capabilities of the laser rangefinder which, given restrictions placed on its output by the FDA, is capped in this case at 750 yards.

The mack daddy of the group starts out life as a NEMO .300 Win Mag, which then gets the TrackingPoint treatment to emerge as an 800-yard capable precision rig. You may well think that 800 yards is barely stretching the legs of the round, and you’d be right. Hopefully, improvements in rangefinder technology will bump this up to at least the transonic range of each cartridge. But for now we’re stuck at the distance at which an accurate range measurement can be made on a non-reflective target.

In comparison to previous models, the AR lineup’s scopes are significantly more compact and streamlined. Another significant change is that a second zoom control has been placed on the trigger guard. As a result, engagement times are further reduced as the shooter no longer has to come out of the scope to first find the target and then zoom in to pick a tag spot. Rechargeable, replaceable batteries are housed in the buttstock, which outwardly resembles Vltor’s products, but is non-adjustable.

In keeping with the ethos of a complete, ready-to-go system, each gun arrives pre-zeroed from the factory, with no user-serviceable components (apart from normal weapon cleaning duties — there’s no getting away from that). In order to maintain zero throughout the weapon’s service life, a barrel reference device similar to that employed on an M1 Abrams main gun takes the place of a front sight.

Wearable technology is the latest big thing to emerge from tech titans such as Apple and Samsung, so it should come as no surprise that TP is getting in on the act with a heads-up display mounted in a pair of sunglasses. With this rig, multiple people can stand around a PGF and see exactly what’s going on in the scope, without the need to carry an iPad or tablet. It also permits a shooter to engage from cover, without exposing himself to the target.

Apps are another area of development, two of which are launching to coincide with the arrival of the AR models. One, a prey finder app, allows the shooter to pinpoint the location of downed game based on data used to make the shot. Each PGF is equipped with a GPS unit, so by extrapolating from the shooter’s location, distance to target, and direction of the shot fired, the impact point can be calculated in a process no doubt familiar to anyone who’s ever called in a fire mission.

We tested several pre-production versions of the guns and found that they did indeed perform as advertised when it came to banging steel in the Arizona desert — but being advanced prototypes also suffered from a couple of glitches. Although we’re confident the problems will be addressed before launch, it’s worth mentioning that when shooting in 102-degree heat and bright sunlight, the black finish applied to the sight unit caused some overheating.

As a result, the electronics package became buggy and failed to range a 700-yard target, as well as locking up the image on a wearable heads-up display. Apart from minor software glitches, the guns themselves proved to be accurate, providing dependable fire solutions out to the maximum advertised range.