Shot a Tracking Point XS1 yesterday

[CCK]

One of my best friends ordered a XS1 in 338 Lapua a few months ago and took delivery of the rifle yesterday.

We took it to a local 300 yard range to get acquainted. Obviously this is too short of a range for the round, we just wanted to see how the system works.

I've shot a large variety of firearms having worked for a good sized class 3 dealer. I have to say shooting the XS1 was by far the most awesome firearms related thing I have ever done.

Open to answer any questions anyone may have.


Chris

[WickedWillis]

To afford one of those, I cannot imagine how many children your friend had to sell. Was it as easy as point and shoot as advertised? What exactly goes into the process of getting the scope to hard zero?

[VIP3R 237]

I'm putting in some time with a XS2 in .300 win mag this weekend, the rep stopped by earlier and gave us the rundown. I am impressed but the $ point puts it way out of my reach. It really is tag, hold down the trigger, and then when you line it up the rifle fires for you.


Was it as easy as point and shoot as advertised? What exactly goes into the process of getting the scope to hard zero?

The unit comes already sighted in with a laser alignment feature that is mounted directly to the bore, after every shot the optic re-aligns itself within .01MOA in under a millisecond, so you never need to re-zero.

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u440/Jason_Prisbrey/ac9b53c6-9603-408a-bc68-47c4ac368207_zpsa57b06fa.jpg

[CCK]

To afford one of those, I cannot imagine how many children your friend had to sell. Was it as easy as point and shoot as advertised? What exactly goes into the process of getting the scope to hard zero?

It literally is like working a computer mouse and point and click. Tag the target, press and hold the trigger( light but it doesnt matter cause the rifle isn't firing then anyway), and then putting the crosshairs on the tagged dot.

The 338 had surprisingly little recoil. I'm sure partially because the rifle weights a ton.

What really struck me was the $9 a round price of proprietary ammo.

But I have to think that you could take someone who has never shot a rifle at all and if they have every played any first person shooter they would almost instantaneously know how to make 500 yard shots.

Chris

[CCK]

I'm putting in some time with a XS2 in .300 win mag this weekend, the rep stopped by earlier and gave us the rundown. I am impressed but the $ point puts it way out of my reach. It really is tag, hold down the trigger, and then when you line it up the rifle fires for you.



The unit comes already sighted in with a laser alignment feature that is mounted directly to the bore, after every shot the optic re-aligns itself within .01MOA in under a millisecond, so you never need to re-zero.


I think after you tag the crosshair appears blue and not immediately red (near ready to fire) because of height over bore and distance/drop issues. I think with practice you could start making shots from tag to impact in less than a second.

As far as price goes. I agree, but stomaching the cost of the rifle is easy to me compared to the ongoing proprietary ammo costs. 200 round cases for $1800. My kitted AR was only slightly more than that.

[WickedWillis]

I'm putting in some time with a XS2 in .300 win mag this weekend, the rep stopped by earlier and gave us the rundown. I am impressed but the $ point puts it way out of my reach. It really is tag, hold down the trigger, and then when you line it up the rifle fires for you.



The unit comes already sighted in with a laser alignment feature that is mounted directly to the bore, after every shot the optic re-aligns itself within .01MOA in under a millisecond, so you never need to re-zero.

http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u440/Jason_Prisbrey/ac9b53c6-9603-408a-bc68-47c4ac368207_zpsa57b06fa.jpg

Thank you for that I had not seen one up close like that yet.

[FeltaDorce]

I do not like this technology. The reasons are two fold. 1) Any person with enough practice to "naturally" shoot 500 yds or more will have gained an expansive knowledge about ballistics, safety, rifle mechanics, etc. 2) Any machine technology can fail, and the results of failure in this platform are completely unknown.... Someone who doesn't understand guns might do something EXCEPTIONALLY unsafe trying to remedy the issue. In short, I believe that a person should be capable and responsible for the operations that cause a bullet to come out of the gun. All of the software should be in the skull, IMHO.

[CCK]

I do not like this technology. The reasons are two fold. 1) Any person with enough practice to "naturally" shoot 500 yds or more will have gained an expansive knowledge about ballistics, safety, rifle mechanics, etc. 2) Any machine technology can fail, and the results of failure in this platform are completely unknown.... Someone who doesn't understand guns might do something EXCEPTIONALLY unsafe trying to remedy the issue. In short, I believe that a person should be capable and responsible for the operations that cause a bullet to come out of the gun. All of the software should be in the skull, IMHO.

I agree, I also think the keyboard you are typing on should only be sold with a proper government permit. I mean think of all the dangerous things an irresponsible person could type and disseminate via that new fangled world wide webby thingy.

[Dead Man]

I do not like this technology. The reasons are two fold. 1) Any person with enough practice to "naturally" shoot 500 yds or more will have gained an expansive knowledge about ballistics, safety, rifle mechanics, etc. 2) Any machine technology can fail, and the results of failure in this platform are completely unknown.... Someone who doesn't understand guns might do something EXCEPTIONALLY unsafe trying to remedy the issue. In short, I believe that a person should be capable and responsible for the operations that cause a bullet to come out of the gun. All of the software should be in the skull, IMHO.

You're going to HATE the future.

[FeltaDorce]

I believe that CCK has grossly misrepresented what I have said here..... I'm not calling for gov permits! Would you let your 16 year old kid drive an Indy car? What if the car automatically avoided the walls, but still drove 200 MPH? You need to use your brain here CCK, I am not your enemy.

[WickedWillis]

I agree, I also think the keyboard you are typing on should only be sold with a proper government permit. I mean think of all the dangerous things an irresponsible person could type and disseminate via that new fangled world wide webby thingy.

Yeah your whole statement is pretty out of line.

[CCK]

I believe that CCK has grossly misrepresented what I have said here..... I'm not calling for gov permits! Would you let your 16 year old kid drive an Indy car? What if the car automatically avoided the walls, but still drove 200 MPH? You need to use your brain here CCK, I am not your enemy.

Read your own signature line. I'd rather live in a world that treats everyone as adults and hopes that they behave like it than one which says only qualified (by whom?) professionals should own something.

Go ahead, be a Luddite but don't expect to not be treated with derision.

ETA: Danica Patrick was racing Formula Ford at 16.
Plenty of 16 year olds get Private Pilots Licenses. I have no issues with either.

[VIP3R 237]

I do not like this technology. The reasons are two fold. 1) Any person with enough practice to "naturally" shoot 500 yds or more will have gained an expansive knowledge about ballistics, safety, rifle mechanics, etc. 2) Any machine technology can fail, and the results of failure in this platform are completely unknown.... Someone who doesn't understand guns might do something EXCEPTIONALLY unsafe trying to remedy the issue. In short, I believe that a person should be capable and responsible for the operations that cause a bullet to come out of the gun. All of the software should be in the skull, IMHO.

Honestly the price point alone will place this out of the hands of the mass majority. This is a rich kids toy for the guys who want to have the coolest gun on the block. Yes it is incredibly functional and the technology it cutting edge, but not everyone has $10-$27K to drop on a shooting system.

[CCK]

Yeah your whole statement is pretty out of line.


This is a technical forum, if he wants to shit on his own thread about how stupid this tech is let him start it and do it in GD.

[WickedWillis]

This is a technical forum, if he wants to shit on his own thread about how stupid this tech is let him start it and do it in GD.

He brought up how he feels about the rifle and the new technology and stayed on point as to what the topic was about. I understand you are wanting to defend this rifle, and that is perfectly fine, just there are better ways to go about it. The technology is fascinating and even in the pro-gun community it's still going to be polarizing.

[CCK]

Feelings?

I don't have any skin in the game here. It's my buddies rifle.

The toothpaste is out of the tube.

[Leaveammoforme]

I would prefer the system wasn't 'tied' to the trigger. I understand that it needs to be for the system to work but that could cause lots of possible issues. I would like a CCAS over this but it is only 6x and not for sale anyways. About the only system within reach of normal people is the BORS. However, people still complain about a shooter relying on a BORS and not 'knowing' how to make the shot otherwise which I think is ridiculous. Most of Joe Blow public won't even drop $500 on an entry level optic. The 'shooter assist' systems are for a certain market and they will not be purchased by new shooters. The problem I have with the systems is the manufacturer always seems to put out a want ad for people who have never shot. Then they make a big deal about how the system allowed a 13 year old new shooter to shoot ping pong balls on earth from the moon. I'm all for the assist systems but think they could be marketed in a better way.

[CCK]

Understood and I can agree with this. I don't necessarily care for the marketing because most of the people you will find that haven't shot will be at best gun ambivalent at worst like the guys from VICE who did a whole bit about the "scary" repercussions of the technology.

I get upset about "purists" in just about anything as I have a slight physical disability and often times you hear purists talk about automatics in sports cars or something similar. The new tech doesn't meet their notions of what the experience is. So the technology must be bad mouthed and be met with Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.

[cbx]

Maybe someday if they expand the ammo offerings to other makers with a data input or something. Otherwise it won't be usable to the masses. But at its current price and proprietary ammo, its a rich man's toy/ military prospect only.

Incredible tech. Watched a you tube video of some gal with terrible technique, and she had no problem. Takes the average person and force multiples them ump-teen fold.

I think the future will bring a more compact version in a semi auto Dmr/Sapr type, incorporated with optical targeting similar to what the F35 runs. Data link it with aerial platforms and other soldiers and you have total battle field awareness.

Until weapons that don't use gunpowder and it's a suit instead of just a rifle show up that is...

[steyrman13]

It is "cool" in that someone with little experience (After it is sighted in) could pick it up and make a first round hit at 1000, however it isn't guaranteed to hit it if the move or have poor breathing techniques. After shooting one, I did not care for having to come on target twice to make a shot. Once to tag and once to line up and fire. I would rather just fire the first time I bring the crosshairs on target. I would also agree that the knowledge and experience that could be gained with the $20k price tag could be spent gaining the experience and knowledge and could probably outperform the optic in the first place.

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

$9.00 / round ammo - why is that?

The tech does not read wind - correct? It is still a variable that must be input - correct?

[VIP3R 237]

$9.00 / round ammo - why is that?

The tech does not read wind - correct? It is still a variable that must be input - correct?

That is correct.

[BrigandTwoFour]

$9.00 / round ammo - why is that?

My guess is that .338 ammo is already expensive, and the ballistic computer in the TP XS1 is built around the ammo that is loaded by the company. Like the ACOG is geared towards a 20" barrel firing mil spec ammo, the XS1 is built for a specific cartridge. In order to get the most accuracy, the company that sells the cartridge gets to rake you over the coals for it. Honestly, probably not a big deal since anyone who can afford to buy the rifle in the first place probably isn't all that concerned about the cost of ammo.


I think the future will bring a more compact version in a semi auto Dmr/Sapr type, incorporated with optical targeting similar to what the F35 runs. Data link it with aerial platforms and other soldiers and you have total battle field awareness.

Trijicon is already working on it. I came across this article a while back: http://www.thenewrifleman.com/the-future-of-combat-weapon-sights-trijicon-and-kopin-corp/

Trijicon has partnered with a digital display company in hopes of putting the same kind of digital HUD tech you're talking about into a gunsight meant for general issue.

http://i0.wp.com/www.thenewrifleman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/g658328658328z0010.gif?resize=720%2C540
http://i1.wp.com/www.thenewrifleman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/g658328658328z0011.gif?resize=720%2C540
http://i0.wp.com/www.thenewrifleman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/g658328658328z0012.gif?resize=720%2C540
http://i1.wp.com/www.thenewrifleman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/g658328658328z0013.gif?resize=720%2C540

I always thought the TP rifle was cool for what it was: 1st generation tech. But it is still a niche market with limited application. What I was really interested in was how the tech evolves over the next 5, 10, 20, or 30 years. As others have said, there's no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Until they devise a means to read wind, one still needs to be a skilled shooter. Skilled shooters today are using LFRs, computing atmospherics, which are then factored into their ballistic software - which is tuned to their load. The technology makes a skilled shooter faster, and may or may not increase their first round hit probability. It does not turn a non LR shooter into David Tubb.

Laser guided projos on the other hand.....

[cbx]

That was a good read. Thanks for the link.

[Mjolnir]

My only concern is if it ever is turned on us. Other than that it's a development. I prefer to go about it the old fashioned way as nothing is tied to me making or missing the shot but a little pride. If I were on a battlefield things would be different as I'd welcome it.


-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

[Digital_Damage]

I do not like this technology. The reasons are two fold. 1) Any person with enough practice to "naturally" shoot 500 yds or more will have gained an expansive knowledge about ballistics, safety, rifle mechanics, etc. 2) Any machine technology can fail, and the results of failure in this platform are completely unknown.... Someone who doesn't understand guns might do something EXCEPTIONALLY unsafe trying to remedy the issue. In short, I believe that a person should be capable and responsible for the operations that cause a bullet to come out of the gun. All of the software should be in the skull, IMHO.

I guess we should rip all the armaments from every Aircraft/Ship produced after 1947 then.

[Digital_Damage]

My guess is that .338 ammo is already expensive, and the ballistic computer in the TP XS1 is built around the ammo that is loaded by the company. Like the ACOG is geared towards a 20" barrel firing mil spec ammo, the XS1 is built for a specific cartridge. In order to get the most accuracy, the company that sells the cartridge gets to rake you over the coals for it. Honestly, probably not a big deal since anyone who can afford to buy the rifle in the first place probably isn't all that concerned about the cost of ammo.



Trijicon is already working on it. I came across this article a while back:

Trijicon has partnered with a digital display company in hopes of putting the same kind of digital HUD tech you're talking about into a gunsight meant for general issue.


I always thought the TP rifle was cool for what it was: 1st generation tech. But it is still a niche market with limited application. What I was really interested in was how the tech evolves over the next 5, 10, 20, or 30 years. As others have said, there's no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

Not just them,

I wish these leaks would stop... that presentation carries an FOUO Document handling instruction.

[HKGuns]

This is an expensive Gen1 gimmick. Glad you got to shoot it, but you are a bit too defensive. Having no feelings but being upset is contradictory.

If I am holding something capable of taking a life, I want control of the trigger. It is really that simple.

[MotoXer311]

One of my best friends ordered a XS1 in 338 Lapua a few months ago and took delivery of the rifle yesterday.

We took it to a local 300 yard range to get acquainted. Obviously this is too short of a range for the round, we just wanted to see how the system works.

I've shot a large variety of firearms having worked for a good sized class 3 dealer. I have to say shooting the XS1 was by far the most awesome firearms related thing I have ever done.

Open to answer any questions anyone may have.


Chris

Old post I know.. Is your friend looking to update his firmware to reach higher distances?

[ubet]

The tech is scary. We let computers run to much for us.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk