A cross-section of many business leaders, entrepreneurs, investors, and public health experts recognize the opportunity. And yet, no one is stepping forward to invest in new smart gun technology, which describes weapons that can only be fired by the authorized user. The technology would significantly reduce the many thousands of deaths caused by childhood firearm accidents, suicides involving third-party firearms, and criminal acts perpetrated using as many as 500,000 stolen guns annually.The answer is very simple, and here are the reasons (details and comments available 'below the fold'):
In ascending order of importance"
- There is currently only one version of a "SmartGun(TM)" available: The Armitrix iP1
- It's is incredibly under-powered for a 'Home Defense" weapon, which one would reasonably assume is the justification for this configuration. (.22 Long Rifle isn't anyone's first choice)
- It's incredibly expensive: "Costing $1,798 for a package of one iP1 smart gun, and one RFID smartwatch (which must be worn to operate the gun), Armatix's smart gun costs more than four times Glock's new G43 concealed-carry handgun"
- It's incredibly inefficient: it takes up to 12 seconds to 'run up' from the time you pick it up to the time it has identified you as an "authorized user"; not good in a 'home invasion' scenario
- It requires EVERY "Authorized User" to have a "SmartWatch" .. at a cost of $400 each .. before they can use it
- When "they" kick down the door in the middle of the night,, you have x-seconds to find your gun and another y seconds to find and put your SmartWatch on ... when you awake from a sound sleep and the adrenaline is rushing through your veins. (Ever try to operate a doorknob when you're on an adrenaline high?)
- Did I mention "battery powered"?
I'm 'almost' sure (I say "almost" because I'm too polite to say "never gonna happen!" that this technology can be refined, and more efficient, more effective versions may be developed. But until the 'smart money' decides that 'smart guns' are the wave of the future, there money just isn't there to make it happen.
The Armitrix is nothing more than a test-bed today; call it a bread-board circuitry version of something that only serves to show that something MIGHT be evolved into a viable, marketable product.
But until the progenitors of the Bread-Board can convince someone with bigger pockets that there is a market for this product, nobody will touch it.
And here, I'm not afraid to say "Not Gonna Happen"!
(Unless the Brady Campaign decides to fund the project ... and wouldn't that be the richest irony?)
BELOW THE FOLD:
"... can only be fired by the authorized user":
.. weapons that can only be fired by the authorized user
Let's talk about that for a minute. Supposing you're not at home and your home is invaded. Is your wife able to use the SmartGun? Does she have a ring/wristband too? Is the smartgun coded for your fingerprints? They can only be coded (currently) for one person. If you drop the gun, can she pick it up and defend yourself? These and other questions are not even mentioned, let alone addressed, at this time.
And how about when your home is invaded and you pick up your finger-print SmartGun (TM) and your hands are sweaty? Will your SmartGun (TM) function? What if you bobble the grip, and your fingerprint can't be read?
Or if you take off your jewelry before you go to bed (nobody wants to wear a ring 24/7), can you not use your gun until you find your activating ring in a dark bedroom nightstand?
Let's face it; there are far too many "Point Failure" issues with SmartGun (TM) technology.
WHY HAVE A GUN IN THE HOME?
Most people who might be interested in this technology are looking as having a home-defense weapon which would be 'safe' in the home. You know, from children and other 'unauthorized users'.
So ... how many are currently available for sale?
As far as I can determine, there is only ONE; the Armitrix iP1, and it's only available in .22 Long Rifle caliber. Since most people don't consider that a reliable 'self-defense' cartridge, it hardly qualifies for the ONLY market which is currently being touted.
So why not buy THAT one, now?
According to this article, there are some significant issues with this particular make and model:
- The Armatix pistol initially required a full 20 minutes to pair with the watch, even with the aid of an IT pro trained in its use. Without pairing, the Armatix functions like any other handgun, capable of being fired by anyone.
- Once paired, a “cold start” still requires a minimum of seven push-button commands and a duration of 12 seconds before the gun can be fired.
- While the gun holds a maximum of 11 rounds (10+1), the best our experts could manage was nine consecutive rounds without a failure to fire (and that only once). Three or four misfires per magazine were common, despite using various brands of ammunition.
- Although the Armatix has a decent single-action trigger, it has the worst double-action trigger we’ve ever tested, requiring more force than any other pistol we’ve fired.
- The pistol must be within 10 inches of the watch during “start up.” This slows and complicates the use of the pistol if one hand is injured or otherwise unavailable.
- The design of the Armatix’s hammer prevents it from being safely thumbed forward.
- All this malfunction comes at a high price: At $1,798 ($1,399 for the base pistol and another $399 for the enabling watch), the Armatix is a more than five times the cost of other common .22s, like Walther’s excellent P22 ($319) or Browning’s tried-and-true Buckmark ($349), and four and a half times that of Smith & Wesson’s M&P22 polymer semi-auto ($379) or Ruger’s SR22 ($379). It’s also more than three times the cost of pistols like Glocks and Smith & Wesson M&Ps made in true self-defense calibers.
So what does that mean, Gene?
The gun is awkward, complicated, under-powered, slow to respond, hard to shoot accurately, unsafe and not competitively expensive (compared to other poodle-shooters with which it can be reasonably matched).
Also, in the supposed 'home invasion' incident for which the firearm (and I use the term loosely, Lucy)
The good news ...
.. is that yes, you CAN get another "enabling watch" if you're willing to shell out and additional $400.
Which must also be 'enabled'; if can figure out how to do it. And you can get a 'technician' to come to your home to do that all-too-complicated process.
No comments:
Post a Comment