back to article Watch: DARPA shows off first successful test of STEERABLE bullet

The military boffins at DARPA have just released footage of their first successful shots of a bullet dubbed EXACTO (EXtreme ACcuracy Tasked Ordnance) that can be steered onto a target when fired from a standard rifle. The video, shot at a government firing range in February and April, shows two .50-cal rounds maneuvering in …

  1. LaeMing Silver badge

    Hax!

    They use Hax! I don't want to play in this war any more!

  2. Old Used Programmer

    It's been done before.

    Not the steering...the firing of an electronic device from a gun. During WW2, a vacuum tube (valve to our friends east of The Pond) based proximity fuse was fitted to 20mm AA shells.

    If you can do that with a tube, doing it with solid state electronics should be a trivial exercise.

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: It's been done before.

      Firing a missile out of a gun which after that deploys active guidance systems has been the de-facto standard for tank-on-tank weaponry for 20 years now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M119M_Refleks

      The "new" part is making this small enough to be fired out of a .50cal

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It's been done before.

        IIRC most tank guns now are smoothbore since things like finned and sabot rounds don't get much advantage from being spun upon firing, plus it's easier on the barrel. Not only that, tank guns are of a larger bore, making it easier to squeeze electronics into the shells. One of the tricks they designers of the AA proximity fuse had to deal with was making it compact enough to cram into a 20mm AA shell. Cramming course correction into a .50 round, particularly a rifled one that means it has to endure spinning, too, is another matter.

      2. dan1980

        Re: It's been done before.

        @Voland's right hand

        "Firing a missile out of a gun which after that deploys active guidance systems has been the de-facto standard for tank-on-tank weaponry for 20 years now."

        As you rightly say, that is a guided missile - i.e. self-propelled. There are, of course, non self-propelled munitions, such as the Copperhead but, again, there is a fundamental difference in that the trajectory is a more pronounced arc than that of a bullet and it's steering is done by affecting the descent portion of the flight - gliding towards the target assisted by gravity.

        No such luxury is allowed for a small projectile like this.

        There is also a longer range and thus more time for the round to correct its flight. Sure, this bullet may be designed primarily for longer range shots but, as it requires a special, smoothbore barrel, any gun using these projectiles will be unable to fire conventional rounds and thus be limited in utility.

        Perhaps that's not really an issue, though, as presumably there would have to be a fairly sophisticated target selection method, which might preclude engagement of targets of opportunity anyway.

        And the size difference is a pretty big thing, seeing as a guided projectile launched from a standard tank gun is some 6 times larger than a .50 cal cartridge. That has repercussions not just for how much fanciness you can fit in but the durability of the round as well.

      3. Psyx

        Re: It's been done before.

        "Firing a missile out of a gun which after that deploys active guidance systems has been the de-facto standard for tank-on-tank weaponry for 20 years now"

        A guided missile form a 120mm tank gun is not the same thing as a bullet form a rifle. I'd also contest that such munitions are 'de facto' at all. Tanks use unguided conventional HEAT or sabot ammunition for the vast majority of engagements. It's accurate and better able to resist countermeasures.

  3. DerekCurrie Bronze badge
    FAIL

    DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear

    I consider DARPA to be an abomination of humanity. How dare we? This is the exact opposite of human survival. You'd think we'd have figured that out by now. But no. Psychopathic thinking wins again.

    1. Sporkinum

      Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear

      Are you enjoying the DARPA developed internet?

      1. Pavlov's obedient mutt

        Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear

        so wait, Stephen Fry didn't - in fact - actually invent the internet?

        fu€k - there goes my understanding of history

        1. 's water music Silver badge

          Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear

          so wait, Stephen Fry didn't - in fact - actually invent the internet?

          Duh! I have one word for you.

          Al Gore

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear

        "Are you enjoying the DARPA developed internet?"

        Ah, the old "if the military didn't take all our money and spend it on toys and prostitutes no one else would ever think of a way to use it well" argument, eh?

        I'll take the chance, frankly. The only reason we need a military is to protect us from the sort of person that joins the military; we don't need to be grateful to them as well.

        1. SundogUK

          Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear

          Twat.

    2. Mikey

      Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear

      @DerekCurrie

      Hmmm, I can see why you think that, but then stop for a moment and think about why things like this do get developed.

      If a single round can be used to pick off a strategic target with little chance of missing, then that one round is all that may be needed to bring about a cessation of conflict, rather than just destroying an entire building, block or town to eliminate a potential threat. A round like this actually has more possibility of saving lives from collateral damage than causing mass murder, which is a sobering thought.

      And the other thing to consider if that think-tanks like DARPA usually produce many, many failures before they ever come out with something usable. These failures may then go on to become the basis for some rather tasty peacetime technology, with a purpose far removed from conflict or killing. The battlefield is the mother of innovation, and we have so many technologies developed for such a theatre. Superglue comes to mind, developed as a surgical adhesive to be used in an emergency in the field. There's a reason that the best things it sticks together are usually fingers...

      So sure, war and conflict are ugly. But never forget that out of the crap, comes the good. Make sure you see both sides before decrying 'pointless' technological developments!

      1. ciaran

        Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear

        Well we already have precision guided wepons. Funny thing, if a precision guided wepon hits a civilain, you can't say it was a mistake - you deliberetly aimed at an objective and then killed a civilian. That's a war crime. So maybe a sniper is happy to have the excuse of saying "I was aiming at something in fromt of the civilian and the shot veered off...", which is not a war crime...

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear

          But the excuse is that precision guidance to this point has generally been with decently big things: things that can easily hit more than one thing at once or cause enough collateral damage that innocents can get caught up in it. They're precision guided but NOT for the most part precision effect. Now, a .50 cal round is tiny enough that you CAN get a precision effect. It's HERE that your trope would apply barring a case of mistaken identity.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. cray74

          Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear

          Nitpicking: "civilian" is not always synonymous with something like "innocent untouchable non-combatant." A civilian that, say, wields a weapon by night but attempts to hide behind the classification of a civilian by day may be dealt with harshly under the Geneva Conventions as they're (if I read this correctly) excluded from the protections of the Third and Fourth Conventions. Civilians who join organized resistance movements and carry arms openly are in much better legal shape (gaining protections of the Fourth Convention), but they can still be shot in a warzone without it being a war crime.

        3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear

          >Funny thing, if a precision guided wepon hits a civilain, you can't say it was a mistake

          I believe that at that point you simply define the target as an enemy, presumably on the basis that somebody you have just shot is unlikely to still be your friend

      2. Martin Budden Bronze badge

        Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear @ Mikey

        If a single round can be used to pick off a strategic target with little chance of missing, then that one round is all that may be needed to bring about a cessation of conflict

        OTOH, remember how the First World War started?

        1. Psyx

          Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear @ Mikey

          "OTOH, remember how the First World War started?"

          Not personally.

          But wasn't it something to do with Imperialistic nation states unwilling to back down and being stubbornly determined to escalate a fairly unrelated matter into open warfare?

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Big Brother

        Precision guided non-com weapon in action

        @Betacam: 'It does seem to be the case that humans will always argue, fight and compete. Given this it makes sense to limit casualties to non-coms. "Steerable weapons do this so lives get saved.'

        Precision guided non-com weapon in action

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Fungus Bob Silver badge
        Mushroom

        Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear

        "It does seem to be the case that humans will always argue, fight and compete."

        BULLSHIT!

  4. ~mico

    Cheaters!

    Using this should get them banned from this server... wait... oh shi~

  5. trottel

    Use a sword

    Steerable, does a lot of damage,... what more can you ask for? And generals should be in the first line, followed by their officers. No horses - do not drag those poor animals into it.

    My guess would be we would see a significant drop in armed conflicts.

    Like an old knight once said: A sword... an elegant weapon from more civilized days.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Use a sword

      I recall knights in armor sort of fell out of favor when armor-piercing ranged weaponry became all the rage (longbows and crossbows and finally firearms). Forget up close and personal; reach out and touch someone is the preferred doctrine now; the farther out you can hit the enemy, the sooner you can finish the fight (since to get in melee range, you have to MOVE into melee range--by that point you'll have been raked several times over). As for the horses, consider that horses can run faster and provide more force than a man can; if YOU don't bring the horse into play, THEY will to their advantage.

      The final rule of war: when things get ugly, the rules go out the window.

      1. itzman

        Re: Use a sword

        "I have finally realised what is the point of dead heroes? The point is that they are dead."

        Sheri Tepper.

      2. Long John Brass Silver badge

        Re: Use a sword

        > since to get in melee range, you have to MOVE into melee range -- by that point you'll have been raked several times over

        Which is why the rule is; kill the Mage FIRST! Kill it now! Focus fire, kill it, kill it, kill it

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Use a sword

          Actually no. Kill the healer first. Then you take out the ranged opposition with concentrated firepower, while avoiding the guys with axes and swords. These are usually the last guys to go, and must be turned into charred pincushions before dying, they are really tough.

          Leaving the analogy, it applies to every war, which is why Geneva Convention exists to avoid the slaughter of Medics and Red Cross-tagged vehicles. Then you take out their long-range effectiveness, (usually the Air Force and Navy), and end up on infantry and MBTs.

    2. cray74

      Re: Use a sword

      "My guess would be we would see a significant drop in armed conflicts."

      Richard Gatling had hopes his invention would lessen the slaught of armed conflicts, too. "It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine – a gun – which could by its rapidity of fire, enable one man to do as much battle duty as a hundred, that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished."

      "Like an old knight once said: A sword... an elegant weapon from more civilized days."

      That knight probably never saw actual battle, then. Swords leave horrific injuries and are usually wielded with very uncivilized anger.

      1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: Use a sword

        That knight probably never saw actual battle, then. Swords leave horrific injuries and are usually wielded with very uncivilized anger.

        Usually - yes. If you want to be a swordsman and live to a retirement age - no. Sword requires clarity of thinking and control of emotions to be effective. The moment you "use your anger" is the moment you die (assuming you are trying to engage someone who is competent with the blade - they will make a shish-kebap out of you).

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This reminds me of that target tracking gun from Runaway, I can't wait for the acid injection spider assassin bots.

    1. 4ecks

      Made me think of

      The "Homer" from Logan's Run

  7. moiety

    Obvious concept is obvious. The first time I encountered the concept was in a Vernor Vinge book; and the protagonist popped up from behind a treestump and whacked a bunch of possible bandits with one burst of a machine gun.

    Lovely concept in a book; but it's the sort of thing that absolutely should not be allowed in real life.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      but it's the sort of thing that absolutely should not be allowed in real life.

      You'd have to disallow any ball sport as well then :). Curving balls has been a mainstay of many sports for years although they just use spin effect to achieve it.

      1. PhillW

        It's just not cricket...... oh hang on.......

    2. cortland

      Lovely concept in a book; but it's the sort of thing that absolutely should not be allowed in real life.

      Right. Hellfires are so much more humane.

    3. Psyx

      "Obvious concept is obvious."

      Way to belittle every engineering feat mankind has ever made.

      Piling rocks up in a pyramid shape is obvious.

      Building bridges to cross massive divides to link communities is obvious.

      et al.

      "Lovely concept in a book; but it's the sort of thing that absolutely should not be allowed in real life."

      Like single missiles which can kill a million people at once? Best we never invent those, then.

  8. Roger Stenning
    Black Helicopters

    Tom Selleck must sue!

    They're using the idea from his movie "Runaway"! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_%281984_film%29)

    hang on. what's that drumming sound, getting louder? OHSH-

    1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

      Re: Tom Selleck must sue!

      Or Angelina :)

    2. Chozo
      Terminator

      Re: Tom Selleck must sue!

      Don't forget the ZF-1 by Zorg industries from "The fith Element".

      One shot and 'Replay' sends every following shot to the same location...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7wOX2WqbXE

      Small caliber steerable ammunition also gets a brief mention in the novel "Across Realtime" by Vernor Vinge circa 1984 but the daddy of them all has to be Judge Dredd who's been loosing off heat-seeker rounds since 1977.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Tom Selleck must sue!

      What is wrong with dumdums?

      http://youtu.be/kbRZKrvAZ7U

  9. Scott Broukell

    Presumably . . .

    Should such a projectile miss the intended target it will come to an abrupt halt in mid air, squidge up a bit, turn around, about it's centre axis, and head back towards said target with a 'peww' sound as if being released from some invisible, yet very powerful, spring?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Presumably . . .

      Hmm, I rather like the idea of a "return to sender" bullet. Selling that to wannabee criminals or terrorists would be a hoot :)

      1. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: Presumably . . .

        Re: "return to sender" bullet.

        The US deployed these in vietnam. Basically, take one cartridge, remove the propellent which is a low explosive designed to propel the bullet and replace it with the highest grade explosive possible. The resulting round weighs the same, and looks the same.

        When fired however, it explodes with such force that the weapon is destroyed along with the person using it.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: Presumably . . .

          I assume sabotage rounds are no longer so useful in modern conflicts because (1) the enemy probably has its own ammunition supply chain, and (2) the increased likelihood of armed civilians meaning a civilian might get one of the sabotage rounds.

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Presumably . . .

          The only mistake they made was then issuing the resulting equipment to their own side

    2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: Presumably . . .

      Clearly the "Coyote" model.

  10. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Trollface

    V-weapons!

    Now we can win back Iraq, stabilize Syria, control Pakistan, pacify Afghanistan, blow up Yemen cowherdes, defeat Putin, crack down on Coloradan dope dealers, neuter China, squash Yemen, secure the border with Mexico, put down Venezuela, keep the Pacific the Matre Nostrum and be forever friends with Saudi Arabia, Israel, Uzbekistan, Ukraine and other nasty shitholes. Did I mention that we can bring justice to whistleblowers?

  11. Ian Emery Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Bugger !!

    Now the US can kill allied troops even when they are hiding around corners.

    1. IanTP
      Pint

      Re: Bugger !!

      Oh, yes, a whole new meaning to 'friendly fire'

      Its the weekend, so have a beer!

  12. Gert Leboski

    Cynical much?

    Deep, in this thread, the cynicism is.

    You have won my heart, commentards.

    Yours forever more.

    Gert. X

  13. David Pollard

    Nominative determinism?

    "The current record distance for the caliber is a 2.43km shot achieved in March 2002 by Corporal Rob Furlong ..."

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Martin Budden Bronze badge
      Coat

      Re: Nominative determinism?

      I saw that joke coming a mile off.

  14. Turtle

    DARPA

    DARPA has its own YouTube account. I would never have guessed.

  15. Jonathan Richards 1

    Record distance...

    ... for the calibre, note.

    Cpl Furlong's distance was beaten, *twice in succession*, by two confirmed kill shots taken by Household Cavalry Corporal of Horse Craig Harrison at 2,475 m. However, he was using .338 ammunition.

  16. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
    Headmaster

    My hopes are dashed

    I was hoping "EXACTO" would be a pedantic superhero, flying from error to error righting (and writing) wrongs like "Banana's on sale".

    Instead it's a miniature cruise missile. I wonder what it feels like to work on this stuff?

    1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

      Re: My hopes are dashed

      I was hoping "EXACTO" would be a pedantic superhero, flying from error to error righting (and writing) wrongs like "Banana's on sale".

      Ah, a sort of grammar nazi on steroids. Love it :)

      1. Christopher E. Stith

        Re: My hopes are dashed

        But what if Banana is on sale?

    2. Cardinal

      Re: My hopes are dashed

      "I wonder what it feels like to work on this stuff?"

      Probably not what you meant but.......

      People actually spend their working lives devising new and improved ways to kill, maim, etc.

      Hiram Maxim (of machine gun fame) was born in America but became Naturalized British and died in 1916. He must have been aware in the last two years of his life of the vast scale of human destruction caused by HIS invention. Wonder how he coped with it? He was an atheist of course, but still....

      How do you justify it to yourself? How do you live with it? Does money or nationalism really still your conscience? Do you HAVE a conscience?

      What IS conscience actually?

      Could YOU do it?

      I'm also a non-believer, but if perchance there really IS any truth in it - there presumably must be an especially hot place in hell.....

      1. Blofeld's Cat
        Mushroom

        Re: My hopes are dashed

        "I wonder what it feels like to work on this stuff?"

        "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." - J. Robert Oppenheimer, 16 July 1945

      2. ian 22

        Re: My hopes are dashed

        Re Hiram Maxim:

        I suspect Hiram knew exactly how his machine gun would be used and to what ends. He was advised by a friend that the Europeans wanted to slaughter one another, and they would love to buy his gun.

        And so it came to pass.

      3. graeme leggett

        Re: My hopes are dashed

        Maxim may have been disappointed had he lived to find that artillery and disease were the greatest takers of life between 1914-1919.

        I wonder if he felt his nearly-flying steam loco and a fairground ride were things to be remembered by.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: My hopes are dashed

          "Maxim may have been disappointed had he lived to find that artillery and disease were the greatest takers of life between 1914-1919."

          Mostly because his gun made it impossible to infantry to be mobile in the way it had been, so they ended up in unsanitary trenches that they had to be blown out of.

          Anyway, Maxim didn't care one way or the other as long as the royalties rolled in.

      4. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge

        Re: My hopes are dashed

        Quite. You spend your day calculating how to cut and maim other human beings then go home to your family, and eat your dinner.

        Naïve, I know, but it must require a strange sort of mind set and a flexible sort of conscience.

      5. southen bastard

        Re: My hopes are dashed

        Conscience, whats that? Blood should flow in rivers, bodies piled high like mountians, the crows feed and grow fat on the result of one mans brillance, a warm place in hell, bring it on i hate the cold!

      6. Psyx

        Re: My hopes are dashed

        "How do you justify it to yourself? How do you live with it? Does money or nationalism really still your conscience? Do you HAVE a conscience?"

        Taking a step back, if you analyse your own job, it's not likely to be much morally better. Maybe you help create or sell a must-have gadget that increases avarice and dissatisfaction on a global scale and uses rare elements for trivial reasons. Perhaps you make choices about healthcare that are more about costs than saving lives, or prioritise people's needs based upon their wealth rather than actual need. Maybe you work for a bank whose entire existence is based around getting people into debt.

        when you think about it a lot of the jobs we do are massively immoral. Making a bullet that might kill fifty people a year is chicken-feed in the world of job morality.

      7. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: My hopes are dashed

        I don't know how Maxim felt, but I know the soldier using his invention felt releaved when he could cool his gun by peeing on it.

        Coat.

    3. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: My hopes are dashed

      "I wonder what it feels like to work on this stuff?"

      You tell yourself that snipers are the most efficient and humane operators on the battlefield. You tell yourself that this will help our side win against their side. You tell yourself that the basic tech will be developed anyway and in twenty years it will be trivial to buy the necessary parts off the shelf, so you are simply making sure that our lot get it first.

      You tell yourself that our arms dealers won't be given special credit facilities by our government to enable them to sell this to the other side, who can't otherwise afford it because they've hammered their own people (and economy) into the ground. Then you shoot yourself.

      I wonder what it feels like to work in the foreign office.

    4. Muscleguy Silver badge

      Re: My hopes are dashed

      Mostly they are 'my country right or wrong' types. I'm a biologist and I have perused job ads at Porton Down and the like and wondered. I have also worked with people who are ex that world and they my country etc patriots.

      I'm a pacifist and anyway my skill set is not really a good fit for that stuff anyway.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: My hopes are dashed

      I know a few chaps that work at LockMart etc in various divisions. Most of them work on tiny component bits (leading edge design on a missile fin for example).rather than the whole thing.

      I've asked them about it, and the general response is, "If I wasn't doing it someone else would be, so the stuff would all still be designed and exist anyway. The money is alright, and the engineering challenges we have to solve are awesome."

      A lot of them are fairly hippy lefty types as well, which always makes me chuckle.None of them have killed themselves yet...

  17. jai

    Shooter

    So, when Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch was sniping in 2008's Shooter, as far as I can tell from Google (am working this Saturday, so can't take the time to re-watch the movie to double check before i post), they were only talking about distances around 1800m.

    So was the movie that being uncharacteristically modest (for Hollywood) in it's claims? Or was 1800 at the higher end of the records back then, but in the last 6 years the distances have increased?

    1. Bitbeisser

      Re: Shooter

      Try even to get a clear view on target on 1800m....

  18. DJO Silver badge

    An ACME product?

    Bloody clever of course but the name! Sounds like something Wile E Coyote would buy from ACME.

    That's All Folks....

  19. gerdesj Silver badge

    Judge Dredd's Lawgiver (?) had steerable munitions in its inventory.

    1. graeme leggett

      "Heatseeker" - though a special round that fitted over the muzzle if I recall.

      "Rubber Ricochet" could go round corners too....

  20. Scroticus Canis

    Less lead less impact.

    Unless they have lengthened the round it would weigh less and not have the same cross sectional density and thus would not penetrate as much on a hard target. Making the rounds lighter would also affect ballistic efficiency, shortening the range.

    The course corrections looked rather abrupt on the video and not quite feasible for a ballistic object but hard to judge given no range or view point parallax info.

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: Less lead less impact.

      On the other hand, if you are confident that it will hit the target, and if you've already spent a small fortunate putting the smarts in, you'd probably make the round out of tungsten and give it a diamond tip.

    2. Psyx

      Re: Less lead less impact.

      .50 cal sniper rounds aren't for shooting hard targets, unless used in an anti-materiel role, in which case you're generally shooting at a large, static target and don't need much in the way of help.

      Lighter-weight explosive 50 cal rounds have been used since WW2 and work just fine. If the mass reduction is an issue, it can be rectified by adding a tungsten pointy-bit, which weighs hell of a lot more than lead and cruises through armour quite nicey. Not that military ammunition is a lump of lead anyway.

      "The course corrections looked rather abrupt on the video and not quite feasible for a ballistic object but hard to judge given no range or view point parallax info."

      I'm going to bet that it was a ballistic object and that they're not lying, rather than your armchair assessment being correct.

  21. OrsonX

    ...pass me the EXACTO ordinance!

    you want the ordinance ordinance?

  22. C. P. Cosgrove

    Non-coms ?

    " it makes sense to limit casualties to non-coms"

    I find this remark by Betacom (9 hours ago) difficult to understand. I thought the object of this design project was to limit casualties to justifiable military targets. Or does he really have something against NCOs ?

    Chris Cosgrove

    1. Kanhef

      Re: Non-coms ?

      There are multiple grammatically-valid ways of parsing that statement, but I believe he meant "limit (i.e., reduce) [the number of] casualties to non-coms".

      1. A Twig

        Re: Non-coms ?

        Also "non-coms" as in non-combatants, not non-commissioned officers...

  23. Zher0
    Boffin

    is it just me..

    and Deek Jackson or??

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNTvDxgn3L8

  24. Bitbeisser

    Just a correction to the original article, but the weapon that Cpl.Harrison used was NOT a .50 cal rifle, but a Accuracy International L115A3 in caliber .338 Lapua...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019