h a l f b a k e r yBusiness Failure Incubator
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I have been pondering ways to make shooters more accurate; to turn anyone into a sharp shooter without the use of tripods etc.
One solution would be to add gyroscope(s) to stabilise the gun. This might work well, although I’m guessing that the weight/size of the battery and motor(s) would detract
from the benefits.
A more compact solution would be a computer controlled stabilizer which finely adjusts the angle of the barrel relative to the body of the gun. So the barrel is kind of ‘floating’ on the gun body.
The chamber and barrel by are hingedly connected to the gun stock, so the chamber and barrel have a small degree of freedom to pivot in azimuth and elevation relative to the rest of the gun. The muzzle end of the barrel is coupled to the gun body by a fine-adjustment mechanism e.g. several solenoids or piezoelectric elements.
An onboard computer tracks the movement of the gun by means of accelerometers. Alternatively the gun’s movement is tracked by its position relative to a fixed object e.g. by using reflected light or sound etc.
When a gun is being aimed it is held fairly steady, but there is lots of small distance vibrations (caused by breathing, pulse and constant re-adjustment by the shooter). If you fix a laser onto the barrel of the gun the path the laser resembles a ‘random walk’. The desired target is approximately in the middle of this random walk.
As the computer detects the gun is being aimed (lots of small shaking, no big shaking), it calculates the desired target. Alternatively, pressure on the trigger could be sensed to indicate the gun is being aimed.
The barrel orientation is adjusted by the fine-adjustment mechanism to be aimed at the target and could either be constantly re-adjusted, or adjusted at the moment the trigger is pulled.
Shameless self-promotion
Tremorless_20Tools
[bristolz] has already gone here in an anno [normzone, Oct 28 2005]
Nerf gun auto aim
https://gfycat.com/jealouscleandiplodocus
[xaviergisz, Nov 01 2020]
Nerf gun auto aim - maker video
https://youtu.be/GoZubkaNvcE
[xaviergisz, Nov 01 2020]
Bow and arrow aim correction
https://youtu.be/1MkrNVic7pw
Stuff made here [xaviergisz, Aug 20 2021]
BB/airsoft aimbot
https://www.youtube...watch?v=miRnNy7ZvIc
[xaviergisz, Apr 11 2024]
[link]
|
| |
Firing a gun is as much about what happens moments after it is fired, and not just moments before... |
|
| |
I'd be tempted to float the whole firing
assembly to keep as good a seal as
possible on the breach. (not that I know
anything about guns, though.) |
|
| |
//don't try to invent something for a problem that is easily solved.//
B-b-but this is halfbakery! |
|
| |
I'm with Calum. There is usually more than
ne way to skin a cat and sometime the
existing method is far superior. I don't see
that as a reason not to look at other
methods. |
|
| |
If there was somehow a way of tracking the first round, and comparing the path with the direction of the gun at the moment of firing, then compensation could be made for distance and wind, do you think? |
|
| |
Wouldnt the recoil damage the computers etc.? |
|
| |
//So, don't try to invent something for a problem that is easily solved//. I don't consider "practice" to be an "easy" solution. |
|
| |
If you replaced the stock and trigger with video game controls and a perfectly damped computerized gun, you still wouldn't achieve instant perfect accuracy - just look at how much practice it takes to beat most video games. |
|
| |
And you haven't even started thinking about wind velocity and the movement of the target. |
|
| |
I agree with the general sentiment that this is not going to make a completely useless shooter into a great one... it's only going to improve an already competent shooter. so I agree with [Pa ' ve] that practice (and other sensible things like not drinking coffee etc) is important. however I don't see any reason why this is, a priori, //precisely the opposite way to go.// |
|
| |
[Ling], the increase in complexity required for the computer to zero the weapon is large, since it would probably require a camera and associated computing power etc... the beauty of this invention is it's simplicity. |
|
| |
[DrCurry], I'm not saying this would give perfect accuracy, just better accuracy. This is not replacing the shooter; they still have to consider all external parameters (wind velocity, moving target etc.), it's just removing one parameter that's easy to identify, but impossible for the shooter to remove themselves. |
|
| |
Separate the "holding" bits from the "working" bits (including
the sight). Gyro stabilising camera mounts are now WKTE;
the technology is perfectly transplantable (shock loads
notwithstanding; recoil system might be needed too...) to a
gun. Finger (independent x- & y-axis) controls allow fine
movement to aim precisely (movements that would
otherwise be counteracted by the stabiliser). |
|
| |
Reading this reminds me of the current cell phone camera
technology. The camera has been programmed to
recognize human faces so when it finds one it draws a
square around it. Moving the camera does not disrupt the
face-square acquisition; is this tech also used here? |
|
| |
Yep, one of the versions of the Nerf gun auto aim in the linked
YouTube video has face acquisition. |
|
| |
The problem for deploying this is that the system adds complexity and requires power. Conventional personal weapons are by and large extremely simple, purely mechanical devices, energy coming either from the user or from the discharge of a cartridge. |
|
| |
Stabilized weapons are Baked and WKTE in AFVs and have been since WW2; the ones in modern tanks, like the Challenger II and the Abrams are very sophisticated, but there's plenty of space and abundant electrical power for operation. Note that they do always have a "hand-cranked" backup mode for when the electronics fail (and they do fail,despite everything). |
|
| |
It can be done, but no experienced combatant would want to carry one of these into battle. |
|
| |
For hunting, there might be a small market, but since both hunting and target shooting is a test of skill, and this diminishes that element, then they're not going to sell well there either. |
|
| |
For vermin destruction, where the intention is to make every shot count, and the means isn't so important, then you might find buyers. |
|
| |
//For vermin destruction, where the intention is to
make every shot count, and the means isn't so
important, then you might find buyers// - although
it's more likely that if you're after vermin, rather
than spend big money on a super-duper stabilised
rifle, you'll just use a shotgun. |
|
| |
Not so. For instance, when dealing with pigeons and rats* indoors, it's desirable (to the owner) to limit "collateral damage" to the structure - so the pinpoint accuracy of a small-calibre rifle is preferable to a shotgun. It's possible, indeed easy, to pick off dozens of pigeons from their roosts at night with a suitable air rifle or a .22LR, and the living ones just flutter round and re-perch because they don't want to go outside. Using an IR sight is even better, because they can't see, so won't fly at all. |
|
| |
But it's not as much fun as when they try to escape the slaughter. It's just CRACK-thud ... CRACK-thud as the fluttering corpses plummet from the rafters. |
|
| |
*pigeons are just flying rats anyway. |
|
| |
// fluttering corpses plummet from the rafters // {makes
note to incorporate phrase into upcoming book} |
|
| |
There's a sort of comet-tail of feathers that swirls down following the body, and another small puff when they hit the floor. Rather messy, but at least there's rarely much blood - they're dead by the time they hit - and the feathers do soak up quite a bit of it. |
|
| |
It's surprising how heavy a modestly sized sack of dead pigeons can be ... |
|
| |
// incorporate phrase into upcoming book // |
|
| |
If the book is called anything like "101 small-bore homeloads" or "Pigeon - the under-rated poultry" or "So you want to be a sniper ? " we expect at the very least a complementary copy, and quite possibly a percentage of the gross ... |
|
| |