It's a nifty idea in many ways. I'd heard about the off-bore sight capability but hadn't realized they also incorporated an automated ballistic compensation system.
But as indicated, the ballistic compensation system probably isn't worth the weight for most infantrymen. As long as the system functions, it should be helpful to marksmen able to place the target in their sights before pulling the trigger, but the 'distressed' paintjob on the pictured example doesn't fully convince me that this thing (the RapidLok) will work all that long in a real combat setting (I have somewhat more faith in the durability of solid-state electronics than all the moving parts in that fat stock).
Still, the theory is pretty sound, and this would be a good system to use on a vehicle-mounted weapon (obviously with some modifications) where the weapon's weight and being smashed into things would be less problematic.
November 7, 2015 at 4:35 AM
Anonymous said...
Landwarrior was going to "Change the face of warfare" too. That is a bitched up M-16 with a battery operated "will break" on top. The government has wanted a way to stop teaching weapons skills for decades. This is all part of the "big plan" for human disarmourment and another step toward armed AI's----Ray
November 7, 2015 at 6:39 AM
Anonymous said...
This type of optic is all first generation stuff. I have been looking at ATN's X-sight which is an electronics based day/night scope using IR at night. ATN continues to work out the "bugs" on the software and I am hoping Gen 2 will be smaller and less power hungry. That said they are pretty cool and relatively inexpensive $500-600. Guys are having good results for coyote and hog hunting with them. Others have scopes with range finders and ballistics adjustment built in. I just hope the old computer saying of cheaper, faster, smaller and better applies to these electronic scopes.
November 7, 2015 at 7:14 AM
Anonymous said...
The left will see this deadly battlefield implement as an 'unfair advantage' and want to ban it on some Geneva Convention bullshit grounds.
Still, the shooter has to get the first shot off before being shot himself. 600 yard advantage? Only in open terrain, how about in close combat situations such as bush, jungle or the local village?
November 7, 2015 at 5:27 PM
Anonymous said...
This should not be ignored. A quick search online will show some respected and experienced shooters reviewing the tech and stating that it works.
Yes, it's pricey. I'm sure it has a lot of the flaws you see in 1st-gen tech. But if there's a chance that I'm going to find myself on the wrong end of one, I'd really like to learn as much as I can about it.
Wikipedia says experiments with arming Predator drones started around 2000-2001. Imagine if you were in 2005 and got a chance to pilot one for a few hours and launch a missile or two. Would that have value? Would you learn anything about the system's capabilities? Or would you say "Oh no, the tech isn't mature, you can jam this, me no likey, etc"?
$10K is about what a decent .50 cal setup costs with optics, ammo, etc. This looks to have less range or punch but less of a learning curve. I'm intrigued.
"M600 SR Squad-Level Precision-Guided 5.56 Service Rifle"
9 Comments -
Until an infantryman gets ahold of it. By day three, it will be useful as a club.
November 6, 2015 at 9:23 PM
Great until some teenage jihadist learns how to jam the electronics and you're left with a rifle with no sights.
November 6, 2015 at 10:27 PM
only thing left to do now is give it to ISIS and Iran, Russia and China.
November 6, 2015 at 11:00 PM
It's a nifty idea in many ways. I'd heard about the off-bore sight capability but hadn't realized they also incorporated an automated ballistic compensation system.
But as indicated, the ballistic compensation system probably isn't worth the weight for most infantrymen. As long as the system functions, it should be helpful to marksmen able to place the target in their sights before pulling the trigger, but the 'distressed' paintjob on the pictured example doesn't fully convince me that this thing (the RapidLok) will work all that long in a real combat setting (I have somewhat more faith in the durability of solid-state electronics than all the moving parts in that fat stock).
Still, the theory is pretty sound, and this would be a good system to use on a vehicle-mounted weapon (obviously with some modifications) where the weapon's weight and being smashed into things would be less problematic.
November 7, 2015 at 4:35 AM
Landwarrior was going to "Change the face of warfare" too. That is a bitched up M-16 with a battery operated "will break" on top. The government has wanted a way to stop teaching weapons skills for decades. This is all part of the "big plan" for human disarmourment and another step toward armed AI's----Ray
November 7, 2015 at 6:39 AM
This type of optic is all first generation stuff. I have been looking at ATN's X-sight which is an electronics based day/night scope using IR at night. ATN continues to work out the "bugs" on the software and I am hoping Gen 2 will be smaller and less power hungry. That said they are pretty cool and relatively inexpensive $500-600. Guys are having good results for coyote and hog hunting with them. Others have scopes with range finders and ballistics adjustment built in. I just hope the old computer saying of cheaper, faster, smaller and better applies to these electronic scopes.
November 7, 2015 at 7:14 AM
The left will see this deadly battlefield implement as an 'unfair advantage' and want to ban it on some Geneva Convention bullshit grounds.
November 7, 2015 at 8:33 AM
Still, the shooter has to get the first shot off before being shot himself. 600 yard advantage? Only in open terrain, how about in close combat situations such as bush, jungle or the local village?
November 7, 2015 at 5:27 PM
This should not be ignored. A quick search online will show some respected and experienced shooters reviewing the tech and stating that it works.
Yes, it's pricey. I'm sure it has a lot of the flaws you see in 1st-gen tech. But if there's a chance that I'm going to find myself on the wrong end of one, I'd really like to learn as much as I can about it.
Wikipedia says experiments with arming Predator drones started around 2000-2001. Imagine if you were in 2005 and got a chance to pilot one for a few hours and launch a missile or two. Would that have value? Would you learn anything about the system's capabilities? Or would you say "Oh no, the tech isn't mature, you can jam this, me no likey, etc"?
$10K is about what a decent .50 cal setup costs with optics, ammo, etc. This looks to have less range or punch but less of a learning curve. I'm intrigued.
November 7, 2015 at 9:08 PM