EXACTO Demonstrates First-Ever Guided .50-Caliber Bullets

Another possibility is the muscle wire technique where the back end of the bullet bends slightly to alter it's path.

How long have you got to change its path? I mean it is gonna be quick...ffar too quick for a human sto see that bullet and process any info.
Must paint a target on the target. I dunno.
Expensive I bet.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
How long have you got to change its path? I mean it is gonna be quick...ffar too quick for a human sto see that bullet and process any info.
Must paint a target on the target. I dunno.
Expensive I bet.

I'd imagine it will be a laser painted on to the target.

originally posted by: JimTSpock
That is some pretty incredible technology. I read about work on guided bullets for 0.50 and 20mm probably about 15 years ago.
You need to make a guidance system and flight control system small enough and tough enough to go on a bullet, it's like a miniature guided missile and probably fairly expensive so would only be used when really needed. If they could add a propulsion system to increase range it could be like a magic bullet.

Indeed " about 15 yrs ago" to 22-24 yrs ago , their was talk of such development.. Though the above pic [ NO ] .. a mud trail on that one .

a reply to: sg1642

Awesome pic. Very informative.

For all you idiots talking about them using these on us why in the eff would they resort to using a $10,000 plus full metal jacket laptop on us???

Do you really think your that special they IF ANYONE wanted to kill you, they would resort to such a measure????!?

Couple a hundred grains of good ole fashioned lead will do the trick just fine and for a hell or a lot cheaper and easier to obtain.

If it needs the target to be painted I don't know if that's a good thing. It's not hard to see designators and that could seriously compromise the shooter/shot. I'd rather have an old fashioned slug if it really really counted and I bet anyone who's actually a snipe probably would too. I carry a revolver to avoid issues with moving parts when the shot counts. Could you imagine this thing steering your shot off target by 6 inches cause something went wrong!?!!! Omg I would wanna cry lol

Interesting technology. It won't be sending bullets around corners but can correct for aim, wind drift, etc.

Are you sure the reporter just didn't misspell Homie? As in, homie bullets? As in, targetting blacks only?

Sorry for the distasteful joke, the temptation was too great in light of all the recent current events.

a reply to: mindseye1609

What is the import of this?

The snipers will soon be sitting on computer terminals 6000 miles away.

"Are you sure you want to delete JNZ.123.X1Y82.MMJ? This operation cannot be undone."

With image recognition and tracking you could "lasso" the targets, have the software track them, and fire in quick succession.

A 100 lb drone with 50 rounds on near permanent loiter would be devastating to enemy morale.

Consider also the kinematic advantages of shooting down vs going sideways.

a reply to: mbkennel

Kind of like the old QH-50 variant that carried a mini gun?

www.gyrodynehelicopters.com...

I believe LM is bringing this idea back....

a reply to: mbkennel


This guy with guided ammunition?


Good bye fire scout. Which btw I heard is getting some rockets soon.

a reply to: aholic

I was thinking of something much smaller and cheaper. Something used by soldiers.

a reply to: mindseye1609

So you carry a weapon that's about a hundred times MORE sensitive to even the tiniest displacement or change in it's operating parts over a short recoil or blowback semi pistol why again?

Oh because you bought the hype and totally unjustified regressive and genuinely progress arresting BS that's sold as "common knowledge" in the firearms community?

Oh and fyi.... I have been building a variety of semiautomatic weapons from parts kits and et cetera for nearly two decades... Care to guess how long ago I started feeling like I have the skills to work on revolvers?

If you guessed less than 5 years you win... Right now I'm working on a project that uses a cz-26 smg parts kit combined with a .38 special revolver kit to build a 35 shot low bore axis ny safe act legal pistol or rifle in semiautomatic pistol or carbine form with interchangeable barrels etc...

So I'm thinking... Maybe just maybe I might have an idea of what I'm talking about.

Now guys when they say this bullet is guided they're not lying but this idea of guiding the round safely out of the way of a bystander just won't be feasible. You're going to have less than 2 seconds generally from trigger pull to impact...and it'll be less than 1 second at 600 meters....

The guidance system is a scaled down version of beam rider technology. This implies that your designation gear will be very easy to localize using rapidly miniaturizing laser threat warning gear.

In much the same way as a man on the ground can guide air to ground munitions to target by painting with a laser, there is no reason why the shooter/weapon system has to be anywhere near the targeting system. I can see some advantages with this idea. Accuracy over long ranges or tracking of targets for example. Here comes the obligatory but..

This is a gimmick. It is an expensive way to solve problems that we have been solving for hundreds of years in much cheaper ways. Snipers stalk targets and get close enough for a kill and have done for many a moon. Moving targets have been getting dropped by higher rates of fire and target leading for years. Sure it seems amazing. Bullets that chase their targets down but it isn't much use if the (most obvious) laser targeting system can't actually 'see' the target.

It's a step forward in weapon design and development and it is admittedly interesting. Can you imagine a browning letting off a hundred box and every round hitting their target? However, it won't catch on.

originally posted by: sg1642
In much the same way as a man on the ground can guide air to ground munitions to target by painting with a laser, there is no reason why the shooter/weapon system has to be anywhere near the targeting system. I can see some advantages with this idea. Accuracy over long ranges or tracking of targets for example. Here comes the obligatory but..

This is a gimmick. It is an expensive way to solve problems that we have been solving for hundreds of years in much cheaper ways. Snipers stalk targets and get close enough for a kill and have done for many a moon. Moving targets have been getting dropped by higher rates of fire and target leading for years. Sure it seems amazing. Bullets that chase their targets down but it isn't much use if the (most obvious) laser targeting system can't actually 'see' the target.

The difference is that there are only a few snipers good enough to do what you say, and many more soldiers who can operate a camera with designator, and a device with a laptop.

The question is the reliability and effectiveness. If your ordinary grunt team can do this, and 9 out of 10 times accomplish the job without alerting the enemy with large movement or noise, it's a big advance.

Back in the old days, you could also sneak up to somebody and knife them quietly, but a sniper from a long distance is a big improvement.


It's a step forward in weapon design and development and it is admittedly interesting. Can you imagine a browning letting off a hundred box and every round hitting their target? However, it won't catch on.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: sg1642
In much the same way as a man on the ground can guide air to ground munitions to target by painting with a laser, there is no reason why the shooter/weapon system has to be anywhere near the targeting system. I can see some advantages with this idea. Accuracy over long ranges or tracking of targets for example. Here comes the obligatory but..

This is a gimmick. It is an expensive way to solve problems that we have been solving for hundreds of years in much cheaper ways. Snipers stalk targets and get close enough for a kill and have done for many a moon. Moving targets have been getting dropped by higher rates of fire and target leading for years. Sure it seems amazing. Bullets that chase their targets down but it isn't much use if the (most obvious) laser targeting system can't actually 'see' the target.

The difference is that there are only a few snipers good enough to do what you say, and many more soldiers who can operate a camera with designator, and a device with a laptop.

The question is the reliability and effectiveness. If your ordinary grunt team can do this, and 9 out of 10 times accomplish the job without alerting the enemy with large movement or noise, it's a big advance.

Back in the old days, you could also sneak up to somebody and knife them quietly, but a sniper from a long distance is a big improvement.


It's a step forward in weapon design and development and it is admittedly interesting. Can you imagine a browning letting off a hundred box and every round hitting their target? However, it won't catch on.

I agree but like you said without being on the ball with concealment average grunts using this are going to be easy pickings for, ironically, snipers. Guided bullets or not the most efficient and effective way for dealing with a sniper is another sniper. And some grunt using this is going to come off second best every time to a trained and experienced marksman. You can't guide a bullet to a target you can't see. The only way round that is to issue this to the highly trained men who already know what they are doing to compliment their abilities and effectiveness even further. I do think it's a step forward and a glimpse of warfare in the future but I don't think it's going to see widespread use any time soon.

It could make map predicted fire a thing of the past though. Or at least take the prediction out of it. If you had a man sat in an op on high ground lasing targets for a gun line further behind him it could deny massive areas to the enemy and halt patrols and advances in their tracks. That's if the technology would support the removal of the targeting system from the actual weapon and allow it to pick the target up mid flight much like a hellfire.
Which is an interesting thought. Because if they can cram all that in the nose of a .50 there is no reason why it wouldn't fit in an 81mm mortar bomb for that to pick the painted target up on its downward trajectory and guide itself to target with high accuracy. It's bloody mental torture having them come down around you and the only thing keeping you going is telling yourself it doesn't have your name on it. If men were lying on their belt buckles knowing that wasn't the case it would break them pretty quickly.