Wow - Interesting Scope for DARPA
- Thread starter NelsErik
- Start date
- Status
Z-Michigan
Member
Hey, if Tom Selleck could do it with a .45-110, that's all we should issue to our troops.
One mans waste is another man's ability to hit a target at 1100m in an 18mph cross wind with little to no effort. I suppose paying extra for rifling when a smooth bore musket works just fine with a little practice is crazy too...
Bobarino
member
ya, those military snipers just aren't very good. maybe YOU should be the one to teach them how to do it right. I'm assuming by your comment that you DO know how to shoot better than them, right?
Bobby
Cosmoline
Member
$7 million is INCREDIBLY cheap by DOD standards. I mean like fast food lunch cheap. Cheaper than what they pay for MRE brownies. The cup holder in a stealth fighter costs more than that.
I'm the last one to defend the Pentagon, but DARPA has always been an interesting outfit, and overall has been money very well spent.
I'm the last one to defend the Pentagon, but DARPA has always been an interesting outfit, and overall has been money very well spent.
Last edited:
The USA is at war. Memorial Day is upon us.
Let us not remember one more killed in action, when a team of well placed riflemen, from across a valley over a mile away, who could protect their brothers there, be prevented and limited from that protection, due to those who advocate stifling advancements of equipment.
Let us not remember one more killed in action, when a team of well placed riflemen, from across a valley over a mile away, who could protect their brothers there, be prevented and limited from that protection, due to those who advocate stifling advancements of equipment.
NelsErik
Member
Well, I was more or less commenting on the price of the things... but I can hit a 12" x 12" gong at 1,000 yards about 50% of the time. It doesn't usually get that windy, but it does sometimes. My dad and two of my brothers can hit it almost any time they want to. They were all trained by the military, but I am learning by watching. But whatever, I just thought it was interesting, but slam away...
Last edited:
Dr T
Member
Well, practice is one thing on a range.
But get down in the canyons where the wind is eddying and the uneven heating of the rocks creates up drafts and downdrafts--it is a different world.
And the guys are not trying to hit a 12" x 12" gong 50% of the time. They are trying to hit a target less than one quarter of that size from much farther away.
The $7 million likely includes the hours of engineering time that it took to develop the technology as well as the custom (not mass production) fabrication costs. This is not exactly walking into your favorite gun shop and plunking down $466,666.67 for a product that has already been developed, tested, and deemed adequately accurate and reliable for field use.
But get down in the canyons where the wind is eddying and the uneven heating of the rocks creates up drafts and downdrafts--it is a different world.
And the guys are not trying to hit a 12" x 12" gong 50% of the time. They are trying to hit a target less than one quarter of that size from much farther away.
The $7 million likely includes the hours of engineering time that it took to develop the technology as well as the custom (not mass production) fabrication costs. This is not exactly walking into your favorite gun shop and plunking down $466,666.67 for a product that has already been developed, tested, and deemed adequately accurate and reliable for field use.
Jeremy2171
Member
Unfortunately the OP has a legit point...
Just because you are a "Sniper" doesn't necessarily mean you are an excellent shot. I've know many that aren't "experts" with an M16A2/4 and certainly aren't with an M40 but they can run fast.
USMC Snipers do NOT get enough trigger time IMHO... when I can get on the line with them and use my Win M70 that is only bedded and the rest stock and can put 5 rounds into a 1" paster at 100yds and they can't...then they need more practice. Same day I pulled out my low number M1903 and shot a 5 round group of HXP M2 ball from the sitting that was the same size or smaller than "most" of them shooting the M40 prone.
They were amazed an old rifle like that shot so well...
The key here is practice, practice, practice and they aren't getting it.
They are too busy going to mandatory sexual harassment classes and equal opportunity BS that there isn't enough time to train OR there isn't enough ammo in the units allocation to allow a good course of fire.
Just because you are a "Sniper" doesn't necessarily mean you are an excellent shot. I've know many that aren't "experts" with an M16A2/4 and certainly aren't with an M40 but they can run fast.
USMC Snipers do NOT get enough trigger time IMHO... when I can get on the line with them and use my Win M70 that is only bedded and the rest stock and can put 5 rounds into a 1" paster at 100yds and they can't...then they need more practice. Same day I pulled out my low number M1903 and shot a 5 round group of HXP M2 ball from the sitting that was the same size or smaller than "most" of them shooting the M40 prone.
They were amazed an old rifle like that shot so well...
The key here is practice, practice, practice and they aren't getting it.
They are too busy going to mandatory sexual harassment classes and equal opportunity BS that there isn't enough time to train OR there isn't enough ammo in the units allocation to allow a good course of fire.
Jon_Snow
Member
$7 million for 15 prototypes and R&D? Dirt cheap. Compared to hours of classroom time, range costs, ammo, etc. Hell, DoD might be SAVING money (and more importantly lives) if this hits full production.
Youth doesn't always equate to ignorance, but ignorance is correctable with information and an open mind to use the information.
The difficulty in hitting a target doesn't double as the distance doubles, it increases more exponentially. If your 1,000 yard/50% shot becomes a 2,000 yard shot like the article discusses your success rate won't just drop to 25%, it becomes less than 12%. A 12% success rate is failure for a sniper who must try to defeat an enemy with one shot, i.e. 100% success. That's with still air that won't deflect your shot. Toss in winds that are crossing or quartering and your shot becomes even harder to make. That missed shot now means the enemy is moving or in concealment/cover and you have closer to 0% chance of success hitting them.
What the article is saying is that there's an amazing new technology that is developable into a prototype optics package that will allow snipers who can make your 1,000 yard shot 100% of the time improve their odds of engaging successfully at 2,000 yards when faced with quartering and turbulent winds that occur in mountainous regions. The cost of a prototype is essentially the cost of developing a custom one off package, which is always far more expensive than the eventual cost of the production model. Ask any custom knife maker or saddle maker or even boot maker why any new individually crafted item costs so much more than what you'd get at Walmark in a blister pack. Now think about what it might cost to make the prototype, the very first trial and error/days of frustration until the right combination is found, item and you can probably have a better appreciation for the costs associated with it all.
The difficulty in hitting a target doesn't double as the distance doubles, it increases more exponentially. If your 1,000 yard/50% shot becomes a 2,000 yard shot like the article discusses your success rate won't just drop to 25%, it becomes less than 12%. A 12% success rate is failure for a sniper who must try to defeat an enemy with one shot, i.e. 100% success. That's with still air that won't deflect your shot. Toss in winds that are crossing or quartering and your shot becomes even harder to make. That missed shot now means the enemy is moving or in concealment/cover and you have closer to 0% chance of success hitting them.
What the article is saying is that there's an amazing new technology that is developable into a prototype optics package that will allow snipers who can make your 1,000 yard shot 100% of the time improve their odds of engaging successfully at 2,000 yards when faced with quartering and turbulent winds that occur in mountainous regions. The cost of a prototype is essentially the cost of developing a custom one off package, which is always far more expensive than the eventual cost of the production model. Ask any custom knife maker or saddle maker or even boot maker why any new individually crafted item costs so much more than what you'd get at Walmark in a blister pack. Now think about what it might cost to make the prototype, the very first trial and error/days of frustration until the right combination is found, item and you can probably have a better appreciation for the costs associated with it all.
NelsErik said:
It is incredibly interesting to me also, especially as a Bullseye shooter. I am always amazed at you rifleman, and I personally hold that as a higher skill, maybe due to something I wish to aspire to. I am pretty good with my pistol at 50 and 25 yards, but hold, still, the Ideal as what it is to be a competent rifleman which you and you father and brother seem to me to be.
That being said, the ability to hit 100% of the time in my Bullseye pistol sport is extremely important to separate the best from the rest.
I can only imagine however, the magnitudes higher in importance, that hso refers to, that is needed for those that are in actual need to make that shot count 100% of the time. Bullseye and Riflemen are not even remotely related, and I fully know that.
Whatever advantage that they can be given by R&D, especially for "only" 12 million, is, in my mind, money well spent.
ps I would love to shoot at 1000 yards if someone would take me....
Hatterasguy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,604
$7 million isn't much to get worried about, thats pocket change for the DOD.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
You are incorrect.
NelsErik
Member
About what?
My buddy at work's son is an Army sniper in the pit. His rifle is a Rem 700 .308 with a Swar scope. His spotter saw a scope reflection, the sniper found it and followed it back to the head. Dialed in to the spotter's directions-head shot 1470 yards.
I think new technology is great if it works, but old style marksmanship will always be my preference.
I think new technology is great if it works, but old style marksmanship will always be my preference.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Ah, but if you can have old style marksmanship and new technology, then you can do amazing things.
They're talking about the capability to make 2000-yard hits in a 40-mph crosswind as an eventual goal. I'd say that is beyond human capability with current optics.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
A point touched on above: Consider the R&D aspect. It's probably 99% of the cost.
Reminds me of the first small-block 400 CID Chevy engine. One of the engineers in the dyno room commented, "That's $100,000 worth. The next one will cost $300."
Sorta like setting up for a production run with computer-aided lathes or mills. The first unit might be $10K. After that? A buck apiece, for 10,000 or so.
Reminds me of the first small-block 400 CID Chevy engine. One of the engineers in the dyno room commented, "That's $100,000 worth. The next one will cost $300."
Sorta like setting up for a production run with computer-aided lathes or mills. The first unit might be $10K. After that? A buck apiece, for 10,000 or so.
HorseSoldier
Member
+1. Technology should always augment sound training, not replace it.
Zak Smith
Member
If I take rifle shooter who has only experience at short range, and is reasonably competent at that, ad plunk him in back of one of my AI's, hand him my Swarovski laser rangefinder, and point him at targets, within very short order he's going to be dead on for elevation (using my good data)-- but his misses will be due to wind estimation error.
The slow part of the learning curve for long-range shooting is learning to accurately judge the average wind effect over the bullet's path with no instruments and only some unreliable downrange indicators. In long-range matches, the ability to read the wind is what separates the winners from the mid-pack shooters.
To emphasize the point, at 1000 yards, shooting M118LR (175gr) from a .308, every 1 mph you are off on the average speed will result in a windage error on target of approx 7.5 inches. That's really not much margin of error. Step up to a .338LM and it's still (or "only" depending on your point of view) about 4 inches. At 2000 yards the number for .338 is about 20" per 1 mph.
If a very talented wind doper can get it right within 2 mph over 1000 yards, this technology would make the wind call at 2000 yards easier (ie, 5.25" at 2000 with the device vs. approx 8" at 1000 yards without the device).
At the same time, it definitely could reduce the training required to make extreme range shots. Right now making a first-round hit in anything other than dead calm conditions has a very large component of luck, and even making a first-round hit at 800m with .308 requires a talented shooter and some luck. If this device can reduce the "long tail" of the learning curve, it can enable more soldiers to be effective at long and extreme long range.
The slow part of the learning curve for long-range shooting is learning to accurately judge the average wind effect over the bullet's path with no instruments and only some unreliable downrange indicators. In long-range matches, the ability to read the wind is what separates the winners from the mid-pack shooters.
To emphasize the point, at 1000 yards, shooting M118LR (175gr) from a .308, every 1 mph you are off on the average speed will result in a windage error on target of approx 7.5 inches. That's really not much margin of error. Step up to a .338LM and it's still (or "only" depending on your point of view) about 4 inches. At 2000 yards the number for .338 is about 20" per 1 mph.
If a very talented wind doper can get it right within 2 mph over 1000 yards, this technology would make the wind call at 2000 yards easier (ie, 5.25" at 2000 with the device vs. approx 8" at 1000 yards without the device).
At the same time, it definitely could reduce the training required to make extreme range shots. Right now making a first-round hit in anything other than dead calm conditions has a very large component of luck, and even making a first-round hit at 800m with .308 requires a talented shooter and some luck. If this device can reduce the "long tail" of the learning curve, it can enable more soldiers to be effective at long and extreme long range.
- Status
