Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Trying to contain nuts.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Gun aim correction

you can be a sniper too!
  (+2, -3)
(+2, -3)
  [vote for,

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.

xaviergisz, Oct 28 2005

Shameless self-promotion Tremorless_20Tools
[bristolz] has already gone here in an anno [normzone, Oct 28 2005]


       Firing a gun is as much about what happens moments after it is fired, and not just moments before...
JoeyJoJoShabadoo, Oct 28 2005

       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.)
st3f, Oct 28 2005

       //don't try to invent something for a problem that is easily solved.//
B-b-but this is halfbakery!
calum, Oct 28 2005

       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.
st3f, Oct 28 2005

       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?
Ling, Oct 28 2005

       Wouldnt the recoil damage the computers etc.?
andrew1, Oct 28 2005

       //So, don't try to invent something for a problem that is easily solved//. I don't consider "practice" to be an "easy" solution.
zigness, Oct 28 2005

       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.
DrCurry, Oct 28 2005

       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.
xaviergisz, Oct 29 2005


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle