Talk:TrackingPoint

NPOV

This page reads like a press release. 174.16.241.140 (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It does. Considering that there is quite a lot of criticism in the media, this article is very one-sided. Tis could be a decent start:

The TrackingPoint “Smart Rifle” Exemplifies Everything That’s Horrible About American Gun Culture slate.com, June 5, 2013. Nemissimo (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

TP is a Canadian firm based in the U.S.?

According to this article. - ^theWOLFchild 21:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Questions

I can't tell from the descriptions, but it sounds like the trigger is entirely computer-controlled. Can the weapon fire at all if the battery is dead? Just Passing Through 19:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.199.20 (talk)

• No. The rifle can be used as a traditional analog rifle if the aiming computer has been bricked. Geo Swan (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Induced inaccuracy... would or could...

Another contributor made what I am sure was a good faith correction. Originally the article said third parties could modify parameters the aiming computer relied, which would make the rifle inaccurate. The correction modified that to say it could make the rifle inaccurate. While well-intended this correction is misleading. "Could" implies the shooter might be lucky, and still have the rifle fire accurately, in spite of parameter modifying. But modifying the bullet weight would ALWAYS make the rifle inaccurate.

I restored the original wording. Geo Swan (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no particular concern about the wording but in my edit (to fix a template) I felt I had to also fix the excess word in "which would could be counted on to make the rifle inaccurate". I think correct grammar would be "which would make the rifle inaccurate" or "which could be counted on the make the rifle inaccurate". However, it doesn't seem right to mix "would" and "counted on". Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Responsible use of tags

Someone added a {{cn}} to the last paragraph, even though the reference to Wired's article, at the top of the paragraph, fully substantiated that paragraph. So, I removed it. Geo Swan (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Objectionable Marketing Term

In addition to reading like a press release (which others have pointed out) I have a fundamental objection to the unabashed use of a made up marketing term like "Precision Guided Firearm". Between that and the references like fighter jet missile technology the manufacturers are trying to imply that the bullet is somehow guided to the target after it leaves the muzzle. This may be a computer aided firearm or computer enhanced firearm but in my opinion "guided" implies a lot more than this system is able to deliver. I pointed out in the Talk section of the wiki page "precision Guided Firearm" that it was basically a page created to offer legitimacy to a TrackingPoint marketing term.John Simpson54 (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)