Comment by tcpekin | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tcpekin | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

From the article,

> "The problem with hand loading is that you just have inconsistent results. Some people do it very good, and some don't. What I really want to avoid is the situation where someone says, 'Look, your gun doesn't work. I'm missing, and it's your fault.' And the real issue is, well, you're missing because you screwed up the ammunition—you have it loaded too hot and it's firing too high. But you're never going to believe me!" He laughed. "I'm really not trying to make a ton of money on ammo, but I want to control the outcome and I want people to have a good experience."

I don't think it is proprietary, rather than just very repeatable. Using the company made ammunition, they can (hopefully) ensure that every bullet has the same characteristics, so it can leave the barrel at the same velocity. From the quote above, I doubt the software can compensate for different grain bullets or different amounts of powder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloading#Accuracy_considerat...

> The problem with hand loading is that you just have inconsistent results...

That's a pretty ridiculous statement for them to make. A person who drops $17K on a precision rifle (and you can drop a heck of a lot more than that on a quality rifle without all the electronic crap) damn well knows about consistency in ammunition, and most of them are going to be experienced handloaders as well.

The best shooters in the world handload, and that includes the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit (who can certainly afford the most expensive factory ammo). They do so because you simply can't mass produce cartridges that are as accurate and consistent as handloads. You can't mass produce ammo tailored to the chamber tolerances of a specific rifle. You can't fire form enough brass at the factory to load a lifetime's worth of ammo for an individual rifle. Even if you tried, you're back to square one after you replace the barrel at 5K rounds.

As a result, you end up paying $17K for a rifle that cannot possibly be used to it's fullest potential.

> From the quote above, I doubt the software can compensate for different grain bullets or different amounts of powder.

This could be, but if so would destroy the premise that this computerized gizmo offers any improvement over a human calculator. Experienced shooters have no problem memorizing ballistics tables for their particular loads - that this computer could not would be, well, laughable.

I apologize if I'm being grumpy about all this. It's simply depressing to me that with all the challenges, intricacies and fascinating phenomena in the world of shooting folks here are so fixated on the little computer they strapped on top.

It's ABS. Most professional drivers can outperform Anti-lock Braking Systems, or at the very least the first several iterations of them.

But putting ABS makes a mediocre driver able to do things they wouldn't otherwise.

The article itself highlights that someone shooting this hit a target from 1,008 yards - using a rifle for the first time, ever.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Good handloads are better than anything you can buy. However, I personally don't see extremely experienced shooters buying this rifle. It seem's to be more of a gun for the moderately experienced who want to have a high degree of accuracy with a minimum of practice. Maybe the assumption is that these buyers do not have the precision to create a repeatable handload? However, I completely agree with you. Did the article mention that handloads are not allowed? I can't imagine handloads not being made for this rifle.

The computerized gizmo does not offer any improvement over a highly experienced human calculator/shooter. What I see is a computerized gizmo that greatly simplifies the act of a 1000yd shot, not something to help out military trained snipers. They don't need it. A rich, casual hunter needs it.

I thought the point was that other mass-manufactured ammunition would be more likely to contain equally consistent loads that could be 'dialed in' and adjusted for.

That said, I don't have a problem with the 'proprietary' ammunition, but gun owners tend to be informed on that kind of purchase. It should be easy to match the load profile and come up with a "Surgeon-compatible" ammunition, should the tech ever catch on to that degree.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com