(c) zcool.com.cn

By GENE HOWINGTON

Throughout the ages, tools have been limited by two factors: skill of the user and design. But what happens when the design decreases the skill required of the user? Usually there is an increase in efficiency.  For example, consider that some with a pneumatic nail gun can frame, lay decking or put down shingles ten time faster than a skilled carpenter with the best hammer. Sometimes a design improvement makes a tool more difficult to use but has some other efficiency trade-off.  For example, an automobile is more difficult to operate than a bicycle, but it gets you to your destination orders of magnitude faster and allows you to carry more cargo.  This same logic applies to tools of war, especially with projectile weapons. Throwing is a complex action and not everyone is good at it.  However, once man started using machines to aid in throwing, it has been a steady progression of design improvements that have decreased the required skill of the operator.  An atlatl is easier than throwing a rock. A short bow is easier to use than an atlatl. A longbow is harder to use than a short bow, but it has greater range and stronger impact. A composite bow is easier to use than a longbow but has some of the same benefits. A composite bow is easier to use still.  But tool design is like all endeavors of applied science. Just because we can do something doesn’t always equate to doing it being a good and/or wise idea. Which brings us to the smart rifle.

One of the big hits at this years Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Austin, Texas was a smart rifle. Developed and presented by arms manufacturer TrackingPoint, the newest edition to their offerings isn’t the smart scope tracking and tagging technology on the weapon. Their “Precision Guided Firearms” technology has been available on bolt action rifles designed for hunting for about a year.  The short manufacturer videos below describe how this technology basically works:

As a self-confessed technophile, this all sounds really exciting from a technological standpoint. As a reader of science fiction and science fact, the application of existing technology to develop this new application seemed inevitable. Within minutes, a novice can be hitting a target at up to 1000 yards.  Woe be unto the critters being hunted. Dinner is served.

TrackingPoint 500 Series AR Smart Rifle

However, just because we can do something, should we?  TrackingPoint’s presentation at this year’s CES was for the PGF system on their first semi-automatic AR style assault rifle, the 500 Series AR Smart Rifle. An assault rifle is not designed for hunting game. They are designed for hunting people. Their original and still primary use is as a military weapon. Because of the basics in design difference in the firearms part of the system, TrackingPoint says their PGF system on the AR platform only comports to greater efficacy at 500 yards.  The scopes are networkable (Bluetooth) and can stream/store video.

The military applications are fairly apparent. First, you reduce weapons training time for the individual soldier drastically. Second, with networked video, a squad leader could have a pad device showing every soldier in their unit’s target and field of fire in real time (which would be a fantastic tactical advantage). However, we need to consider who might want to misuse this technology.

The truly advantageous part of the technology is in the scope. The ATF doesn’t regulate scopes, only firearms (and only the carrier assembly of firearms). Because the TrackingPoint system is only available on their rifles, someone would have to pass a background check to buy one new, but once sold, it is in the stream of commerce and that owner might resell the weapon to anyone with no registration required.  Consider too that the system as applied to the bolt action hunting rifles not only create instant game hunters, but at 1000 yards, create instant snipers as well.

Right now, the product is expensive. The bolt action rifles run around $25,000 a piece.  The 500 Series AR Smart Rifles are a relative bargain though starting at about $10,000 a piece.  But as we all know from experience, technology becomes cheaper as a matter of economies of scale. If the military buys into these systems (and right now they are silent on the matter), how long will this remain an expensive techno-toy?  Not very long.

As a species, we’ve proven that we can do something.  Should we?  Can this genie be put back into the bottle? Should requiring a minimal amount of skill remain as a purposeful design element to increase safety?  Or is human innovation in killing methodology an unstoppable force?

What do you think?

Source: NBCNews.com