A newer, smarter bullet

[Glassunion]

A guided bullet that can strike a target a mile(2000 meters) away. It has been developed by a couple of researchers at Sandia National Laboratories. Both researchers Red Jones and Brian Kast are hunters who came up with the idea while talking about hunting.


That white streak you see is from an LED on the back end of the bullet tracing the actual path the bullet took during flight.

Now I'm sure as development continues and eventually the product hits the market that there will be some legalities that will need to be ironed out. Should it be legal for non-military / non-LEO purchase?

What I am sure of is that there will be a lot of hand wringing over the product by folks who are unfamiliar with the product and how it is used.

Here are some facts.
1. Most likely it will be very expensive.
2. The technology cannot be used in any firearm. It requires a smooth bore and the vast majority of firearms are rifled. It may be worth it to dust off the old flintlock.
3. The projectile itself is 4 inches long so it is impractical for hand guns.
4. It is laser guided, so from the impression I get from the articles is it requires more than one person to operate. One to shoot and another to put the laser on the target.
5. The bullet pitches radically as it is fired and stabilizes the farther it moves downrange. This makes it ineffective at close range.

I'm torn on how I feel about this technology. I can see practical uses for it in our military. I can also see practical uses for hunters. In the end I do not see an issue with civilian ownership. My feelings are that the cost and uses would dissuade criminal use of this new product. This is not some product that will be used for drive by shootings, drug deals gone bad, etc...

How do you feel about the legality of such a product?

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news-DS-Self-guided-Bullet-Prototype-Hits-Targets-a-Mile-Away-013112.aspx?et_cid=2455514&et_rid=41411654&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.scientificcomputing.com%2fnews-DS-Self-guided-Bullet-Prototype-Hits-Targets-a-Mile-Away-013

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57368488/self-guiding-bullet-could-strike-from-a-mile-away/

[Hoyt]

1. Shoot, manufacturers already have 31 round magazines and smooth bore rifles on drawing board.

You think they are going to miss out on the latest, and deadliest new gun innovation in decades. Not hardly. They'll be putting fins on them and other "tactical" stuff to pique gun owners' baser instincts.

Heck, those who carry because they are afraid of the bogeyman hiding behind every tree, will now be able to shoot them before the bogeyman shows him/herself.

Hope legislators ignore whining of NRA and gun culture that the 2nd Amendment allows not-so-well-regulated people to own and carry these new weapons.

[gejohnston]

5. why would you want smoothbore rifles

today, other than muzzle loaders? You know better than that.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

25. "smoothbore rifle"? good oxymoron

if it's got a smooth bore, then it's got no rifling.

Some of the latest tank cannons are smoothbore. Accuracy doesn't come from the spin on the projectile, but from course tracking and correction gizmos.

I have a feeling that these new bullets and guns will not fit in my budget.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. I'm sure those 'smoothbore rifles' will have shoulder things that go up...

...and red dot sights.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. I just hope they use bullet clips ;) n/t

[gejohnston]

35. I get that

but it would be hard for me to call it a musket and certainly not a shotgun. Rifle seemed to be more modern although imprecise term for the lack of a better one.

Either way, this thing won't be in my budget either.

[michreject]

46. I have a reproduction CVA 1860 Colt

At 20' it's equivalent to a 45 ACP without ballistics.

[SteveW]

51. For years, controller/prohibitionists have said 2A was about "flintlocks," "muskets," etc....

Well, here it is.

"Smooth bore rifles?" Sounds like howitzer technology.

[Glassunion]

6. It pays to read...

1. The bullet is still in development. So no one is making anything for this bullet yet.
2. There is no cartridge for it, so you cannot even contemplate a magazine for it. If you look at the picture of the bullet in the CBS article, the tail end looks like it was created for a muzzle loader. So as of now a magazine is out of the question.
3. Furthermore in the article it mentions the use of sabots to create a gas seal in the rifle. This further backs up my theory of it being a muzzle loaded projectile.
4. I explained how it would not be practical for shooting the bogey man behind the tree. Unless that bogey man is probably 1000 meters or so away, and you have a friend nearby to point the laser for you.
5. So far no one is whining about anything.

FYI, the most practical weapon I can think of for this projectile is a muzzle loader, or an old flintlock.

[liberal_biker]

10. Just when I think you cannot get any more inane...

"smooth bore rifle"? Um...that's impossible Hoyt. A rifle, by definition, has a rifled barrel, not a smooth bore.

As far as 30 round magazines, so what? Just makes it easier to shoot more between reloads ...or it would if they were worth a damn....

[Callisto32]

12. Smooth bore rifles?

[PavePusher]

13. "smooth bore rifles"?

Cite, please.

"They'll be putting fins on them" On... what?

Seems you missed a large portion of the article. The part about how it all actually works.

If only we could harness your arrogant ignorance to something useful....

[Callisto32]

16. Maybe we can attach tiny dynamos to his typing fingers?

[PavePusher]

32. Ahem, I did say "useful". ;>) n/t

[krispos42]

67. In the rack, next to rifled smoothbore muskets,

honest politicians, and compassionate conservatives.


*rimshot*

[ManiacJoe]

14. Hoyt, you are good entertainment, but you should have read the article.

They'll be putting fins on them and other "tactical" stuff to pique gun owners' baser instincts.

You must have missed the part in the article where they mention the current fins to steer the bullet.

Heck, those who carry because they are afraid of the bogeyman hiding behind every tree, will now be able to shoot them before the bogeyman shows him/herself.

You need to brush up on the laws in your jurisdiction. Murder is already illegal there.

Hope legislators ignore whining of NRA and gun culture that the 2nd Amendment allows not-so-well-regulated people to own and carry these new weapons.

Nothing wrong with folks wanting to own them. However, I can think of other things to spend the large sums of money on. They certainly will not be used for CCW purposes. You must have missed that part in the article, too.

[rl6214]

17. and another post made without anything being said except

blah, blah, blah, NRA, blah, blah, blah, baser instincts, blah, blah, blah...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. oh

[TheWraith]

43. Again, showing your total ignorance.

"Smooth bore rifle" is a contradiction in terms. Either a weapon is smooth bore, like a shotgun, in which case it has only a tiny amount of range, or it's rifled. What you just said is kind of like "Genuine fake leather." Not to mention that you seem to be imagining that there's some kind of special magic that makes "smooth bore" weapons more deadly than, you know, the same shotguns that have been used for centuries. Which there's not.

And of course you trot out your stereotyping, like you're so aware of what REALLY goes on in gun owners' heads, even though you clearly don't know the first thing about firearms let alone the people who own them. And what's more, you're proud of your ignorance.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. How the hell do you paint someone with a laser designator, if you can't see them?

Does this neat-o invention come with the ability to bend light around a tree?

[Union Scribe]

65. So many words to make no point at all.

I think you need to visit a spa or go on a retreat and rediscover your passion. Your recent posts have been mere shadows of their predecessors.

[Hoyt]

66. No need to spend a lot of time on posting to "flat earthers. "

[demosincebirth]

2. The NRA is now, probably, trying to get it sold on the open market.

Last edited Thu Feb 2, 2012, 08:10 PM - Edit history (1)

[liberal_biker]

11. and you base this statement on what?

Just curious, because it obviously isn't based in anything factual...

[demosincebirth]

38. I was being facetious. I thought it would be quite obvious...guess I was wrong.

[liberal_biker]

45. Sadly no....

...it wasn't obvious. There are people in here who make comments like that in complete and total sincerity.

[Callisto32]

18. That doesn't even make sense.

[rl6214]

20. Why would the NRA want to get sold on the open market

and to whom would the NRA sell itself?

[demosincebirth]

39. Jeez, see my edit.

[rl6214]

41. Jeez, edited at 7:10pm when my post was at 3:25pm

Hmmmmm.

[demosincebirth]

42. Better late than never. Thanks for your post otherwise I wouldn't have noticed it.

[rl6214]

47. Hey, all in good fun

Take care

[Tuesday Afternoon]

23. oh

[PavePusher]

29. What, are they doing an IPO?

That would be worth buying into.

[liberal_biker]

3. I don't see why not.

As you pointed out - its 4" long and requires a smoothbore AND a second person actually doing the lasing. Not exactly going to be a ginormous market in the private sector.

[gejohnston]

4. kind of moot for now.

If understand NFA correctly, any smoothbore pistol is legally a sawed off shotgun
be super expensive
I doubt there will be much of a market for it.

[jeepnstein]

21. They really only need one customer.

One fat military contract and they're set for life. I can see where they may very well have a need for such a weapon but I doubt it would or could be used by the overwhelming majority of troops.

[zipplewrath]

7. Gun control

If you're part of the crowd that asserts that "gun control is hitting what you aimed at" this merely makes that a more likely outcome. Truly, more accurate weapons tend to be in everyones interest except the target. But this is technically a "guided projectile" and I think those are already controlled at some level. That said, this, and a laser equiped rifle would make a very effective weapon in the hands of a trained marksman. The real trick would be keeping the laser on the target after you fired.

[Glassunion]

8. Personally I see it as more of a Sniper/Scout or Hunter/Guide weapon.

I don't think you could effectively have the shooter and laser designator being the same person.

[MicaelS]

9. What's the caliber of the projectile including sabot?

If it's greater than .50 then the weapon is an NFA weapon. That's a whole other can of worms right there.

With the current militarization of law enforcement, I imagine law enforcement will get them.

Frankly, I don't see the US government ever letting this get into civilian hands.

As for hunters, isn't part of it supposed to be giving the animal a sporting chance? Canned hunts, and killing animals from helicopters are bad enough. What's the point of giving some slob hunters the ability to sit on their ass in their camp and kill a trophy animal a mile or more away while the guide does the "work" of lazing the animal?

[Callisto32]

15. Not if it isn't a cartridge?

I believe that NFA only deals with cartridge firearms, otherwise there are an awful lot of old muskets that are now NFA weapons.

I do agree about the "sport" of the hunt to a degree. If one is hunting for sustenance, I don't really care much about the methods you employ, so long as they are humane. However, I don't imagine a lot of poor folks that need to hunt to eat will have access to something like this.

[Glassunion]

19. From the photo, I would guess less than .50.

Considering also that the developers are hunters and they had the civilian market in mind. I would think that they would be aware of the .50 NFA rule.

As far as my hunting goes, I do not look at it as sport. I don't want to give an animal that I am hunting a sporting chance. I want to put food on my table in the most humane way possible for the animal. The reason that I use a guide when I hunt is 1. They know better than I where the animals are. 2. They do it more often than I do, so they are more skilled at tracking than I am.

If I can be guaranteed a hit on the first shot knowing that it will be more humane to the animal, then I would be willing to pay for that.

[MicaelS]

22. OK, so you're putting food on the table...

What's the final cost per pound of that animal's dressed weight? Once you factor in the cost of your guide, license, hunting lease, travel expenses and other incidentals, like the cost of weapon, and this specialized ammunition and targeting system?

[Glassunion]

34. Not sure, as there is no price tag on it at the moment.

But instead of each hunter buying all of this. Think of the guide buying a system or two and the hunter pays for the ammunition. The guide could make up the cost after a period of time. This would make it more inexpensive to the individual hunter.

Last year I payed about $3.40 a pound(boneless meat) to stock my freezer for the year. This included travel, lodging, guide and meals. I'm speculating here, but if the cost of a single round was $200, it would increase my cost by about 0.80 per pound. I would pay that higher rate if I was all but guaranteed a humane death for the animal. This of course is based on the assumption that I'm able to get a decent sized bull who is 5 to 10 years old. Last year's bull weighed in at 498 pounds.

But if the ammunition costs that much, it would not be economical for all types of game.

[Clames]

40. Actually...it's probably considerably larger...

...than a .50 Caliber. Something in the 20mm - 30mm range more than likely.



History lesson time.

Smooth bore sniper/anti-material rifles are not exactly a new concept. Steyr developed a 15.2mm APFSDS (armor-piercing, fin-stabilized, discarding sabot) rifle in the 1980's called the IWS 2000. Basically a man-portable variant of a tank cannon. Tanks have used the smooth bore design for decades (1960's Soviet T-62's were the first) as the system allows considerable flexibility in ammunition design. What you are looking at is the progressive miniaturization of guidance systems but even at best they are still going to be packaged in weapon system costing tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[Glassunion]

58. I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on the size...

And myself as well...

The first article I linked to specifically mentions it as "small caliber", but I cannot be certain exactly the caliber. So I used my highly scientific method of holding a ruler up to my screen I came up with the following...

I know that the projectile is 4&quot the 1st article I linked)

On my screen the projectile is 32mm long(What luck! It's a multiple of 4!).
So, if 32mm = 4in, then 8mm = 1in.
I then measured the width, I got 3mm at the widest point.
So the projectile is 3/8" wide or .375.
I could not accurately gauge the sabots. But I could guess that they could fit into a .50cal.


But we can take everything I did above and toss it in the trash, because it is bullshit. I read in another article that they are specifically looking to try developing it for the M2. Which is a .50cal weapon. The new article mentions that it is 4" long and 1/2 an inch wide. I'm thinking from the most recent article that the sabots may reside between the fins keeping it a uniform .50 cal.

http://www.adn.com/2012/02/01/2295623/sandia-labs-engineers-create-self.html

[tularetom]

27. I hope this doesn't become available to the public in my lifetime

It will ruin hunting as a sport for all except the very wealthy.

[liberal_biker]

30. Nah - you can still hunt with lower tech items.

People still hunt with bows today...

[PavePusher]

31. How so? Only the very wealthy would be able to afford it, and practical issues....

mean you need two people to operate it. One for the targeting laser, one for the gun.

[jpak]

33. That's not sporting

nope

[liberal_biker]

36. Not meant to be n/t

[PavePusher]

37. "Sporting" is for people who don't have to think about where next months' meals are coming from.

Or if they will live to see the next sunrise.

Only fools and rich people put any credence into "sporting".

[Logical]

48. I know of no hunters who do it for food.

[jeepnstein]

50. I know several.

I'm probably going out with a friend to shoot a wild pig this weekend. He needs the food. I have the fancy guns. I guarantee anything we kill will be eaten.

[Glassunion]

59. Pleased to meet you.

I'd introduce you to my uncle as well. But he does not have access to the internet.

[Logical]

60. So he has no money for food? That is a tough life. I wish him well.

[Glassunion]

61. There is a difference between

NO money and LITTLE money.

What difference is it if one pays $10 a pound from the super market or $3.50 a pound from the forest? If money is tight what avenue would you take?

[SteveW]

52. I can't agree with your characterization of "sporting..."

Some folks think the term "sporting" should be changed because of its recreational connotations, as opposed to sure-shot or pot-shot methods (upland bird hunters often decry any shot taken other than a "wing shot," but they should try to put the sneak on doves in a tree). There may be credence in a name change, but "sporting" was the rubric used by T. Roosevelt and others when a new hunting culture was promoted to replace the dreaded market-hunting of a hundred years ago. In that regard, regulated "sport hunting" has served us well. Further, most hunters are not rich, though the "sport" has become increasingly expensive due to lack of accessible public lands.

There are some hunting advocates who prefer the term "nature hunting," an activity which presumably would take into account habitat conditions and game selection based on sustainability, not trophies. It will take some time to promote an alternative to "sport" hunting since there are fewer hunters, and MSM shows a disdain for hunting every bit as deep as possession of firearms in general.

[DWC]

49. Nothing new here

Simply super miniturizing existing technology used in laser guided bombs, etc.

Semper Fi,

[Atypical Liberal]

53. The bigger issue here.

While many people are going off on tangents and making fun of Hoyt's firearm mis-terminology, there is a larger, more serious issue here that I have considered often.

What happens when the state of the art of firearm technology changes?

Are we going to be barred its use? I bet attempts will be made.

Suppose, for example, that the 100+ year old technology of magazine-fed firearms is displaced by something like a Star Trek phaser without a stun setting. The military adopts it. The police adopt it. Will they prevent civilians from owning them? If the second amendment was created to keep military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians, what does that mean for future military small arms in the hands of civilians?

Let's suppose a Star Trek phaser WITH a stun setting is invented. Will it become illegal to use firearms or other deadly force for self-defense? Imagine a non-lethal weapon with the ammunition capacity and range of a handgun. Why would anyone use deadly force for self defense then?

These are the bigger issues.

[Glassunion]

54. Scew all that....

Give me a Holodeck, a Replicator, a Tricorder and a hypospray injector. I'll never leave the house.

No Jeffries tubes or red shirts... Bad shit always happens in the tubes or to red shirts.

[liberal_biker]

55. Why should we be?

The wonderful thing about the 2nd Amendment is it does not say "guns", it says "arms". Simple as that.

Oddly, in many areas, it is the less than lethal alternatives which non-LEO's are forbidden to own. Try to buy a real Taser for example...

If an alternative comes out that is as reliable, effective, easy to use, relatively inexpensive as a firearm and NON-lethal, I'm all for it. I don't WANT to have to kill anyone. As of yet, that technology does not exist

[Atypical Liberal]

56. Exactly my point.

Oddly, in many areas, it is the less than lethal alternatives which non-LEO's are forbidden to own. Try to buy a real Taser for example...

Exactly what I'm afraid of.

[liberal_biker]

57. Ah - i misunderstood.

I'm more worried about the alternative happening - having to fight to even obtain newer tech, regardless of lethality. I already have a bit of an issue with Tasers being LE-only devices. If they were made more available to the general public, I suspect we'd see some real advancement in that area.

[petronius]

62. Something that strikes me about that image is that the bullet seems to have

dipped below a terrain obstruction before (fortuitously?) lifting over it. If there's nothing in the system to detect obstructions, that makes me think the erratic flight path would make this much less useful in forests or other complex areas...

[ManiacJoe]

63. Yes, that was an odd flight path.

Since laser-guided needs line of sight, until the laser is detected the bullet should behave just as a non-guided one does.

[petronius]

64. I imagine it has to do with the over-correcting they mentioned:

when it loses sight of the laser reflection, it veers back until it finds it. If it veers too far, it lurches back, and repeats as necessary. A zigzag path would be fine in the desert, but that meandering could lead it right into a tree-trunk if there are objects adjacent to the straight-line path...

(But then, these are rocket scientists, so I'm sure they've considered these things! )

[GreenStormCloud]

68. I don't see any real use for it.

Interesting technology demonstration but of little real value.

A laser does spread out as range increases. Inside 500 meters a good marksman with a good scope can make the hit almost every time. At long ranges the laser dot will be bigger than the target which will make the bullet often miss. Snipers are already making hits at ranges of over one mile.

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. Not as an individual weapon, but as the basis of an antiaircraft/antimissile CIWS.

Scaled up to use the 120mm tube from an M1 tank (on a high-angle mount) with proximity warheads it would be pretty handy to have in lieu of
a GAU-8/Goalkeeper- based system.

[Dissonance]

70. Why would anyone oppose...

...a very expensive, more accurate bullet? I mean I can understand if not agree with opposing something that was deadlier in some way, like explosive or poisonous or super high velocity; but I can't see the rationale for protesting precision.

Of course you see this a lot in gun laws, putting a stock on a pistol, for example, doesn't make it any deadlier, just more controllable and thus more accurate, which you'd think would be desirable. I would think most people would agree that if shooting must be done, that accurate shooting is preferable to inaccurate shooting, but the laws do not reflect that.