Colt's Smart Gun

I'll never forget the infamous quote of former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, "We've got to make safer bullets." She simply had no concept what bullets are supposed to do. Rush Limbaugh thought it so ludicrous, he ran a clip of that statement on his television show.

You might call a full metal jacket bullet, as used by the military, a "safer" bullet. But the purpose of a military round is to wound, so two additional combatants are taken out of action to carry the wounded one to treatment. The purpose of a police round is to stop an aggressor's felonious assault before he causes death or grievous bodily harm. That's why police cartridges use "controlled expansion bullets" to more effectively impart their kinetic energy to the target.

When the Colt's Manufacturing Company's new "Smart Gun" was announced in an unusual way -- at a news conference for the general media in Washington DC, rather than a presentation to police and firearms media -- I heard a collective gasp from the police community.

I saw Associated Press, Reuters and broadcast media reports, but I saw no reports from any medium that knows what it's talking about when it comes to firearms or police work.

The announcement caused quite a stir among police on computer networks. On CompuServe's Police Forum, I saw such words as "ridiculous," "silly," "questionable," "amazed," "goofy," and "liability when it fails to work." On an Internet police discussion group, I saw such phrases as "bone headed idea," "iffy," "a disaster waiting to happen."

How did this new technology come about? The smart gun is the result of a 22-month study by Sandia National Labs. The study's $620,000 cost was underwritten by the National Institute of Justice, a research arm of the Justice Department.

One in six police officers killed with a firearm is shot with his or her own gun -- after it has been taken by an assailant. This has held statistically steady for years, until recently. Officers credit increased handgun retention training developed by Jim Lindell for the decline.

"What we're trying to do is reduce those risks," Rep. Steven Schiff, R-New Mexico, told the news conference.

"If a criminal steals this gun, it won't work. If a child finds this gun, it won't work. This technology gives me hope that we can figure out a way to prevent gun deaths," said Rep. Patricia Schroeder, a Colorado Democrat who attended the demonstration.

"It is not enough to be tougher on crime -- we have to be smarter," Schroeder added. "Crime-fighting technology is not just for James Bond. It should be available to our cops on the street."

It's true. Cops are killed with their own guns. That's why departments teach Handgun Retention techniques.

It's also true that home gun accidents are a concern. That's why gun safes are on the market. And training programs by the National Rifle Association (NRA) have resulted in declines in gun accidents year after year. Education does an effective job of reducing accidents.

Take a narrow view of the smart gun as unusable except in the hands of its owner and the idea looks good. But one very serious failing was actually demonstrated at the news conference. According to newspaper reports, Doug Overbury, Colt's vice president of engineering, held the 40S&W caliber EP-1 pistol over his head, explaining that the electronic system built into the magazine receives radio signals from a transponder -- in this case worn on his wrist. When the codes in the two match and they're in close proximity, the gun will fire.

Then Overbury shifted the gun to his other hand, and he could not fire the pistol.

Police officers train with their weak (non-gun) hand so they can still defend themselves if their strong hand is disabled. With the smart gun demonstrated, they couldn't.

The Smart Gun Technology Project conducted by Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, first surveyed the firearm takeaway problem. It also defined the concerns of police officers. Primary was reliability under adverse conditions. Officers want to be able to use the gun in either hand or use another officer's gun if need be.

Reliability is so much a concern of officers that if the smart system should fail, they want the gun left in shootable condition.

The search for a "safer" gun isn't new. Twenty years ago, I saw a Smith & Wesson 38 M&P revolver with the cylinder release modified to also function as a safety. I never saw anything beyond the prototype.

A fellow in New Hampshire will customize your gun with a magnet. You wear a metal ring. When your ringed finger hand is holding the gun, it shoots. If someone else has your gun but no ring, it won't shoot. The only modified guns I ever saw were a few done for gun writers. No doubt more than that were sold.

Now being advertised in gun magazines is a "quick click" combination lock that, when fitted to your gun, lets you make it shootable "in less than three seconds." Yeah, right! If I don't have a half dozen shots off in less than three seconds, I'm probably dead.

With all due respect to good intentions, such devices as these are fine for the civilian market. Parents with children in the house could use these guns to keep their guns safe from nosey kids who might visit. They should have trained their own kids to be safe with guns.

As one firearms instructor said, "Many departments have a big problem getting officers to change out their ammo. Now they will have batteries to worry about?"

Said a police officer, "I could imagine if the bad guy wrestled the gun from the cop, the gun (in the bad guys hand) would probably be very near the officer's hand as well, when the bad guy pulls the trigger. The gun would fire anyway since the cop would most likely still be grappling for it and the transmitter would be near enough to allow it to fire. I'll pass."

Another added a bit of levity. "I can see the scene now. when someone grabs your gun you no longer use handgun retention techniques - you run around and try to maintain a one meter distance! Should be interesting in a closed room."

And if police wear a smart gun, how long do you think it will take the bad guys to develop a device to jam the transponder signal so the officer could not shoot? That should be a lot easier than cloning a cellular phone.

Or perhaps the bad guys simply develop a transponder receiver to warn them whenever police are in the vicinity. Nothing like wearing a radio beacon to warn the crooks, especially if you're working undercover.

As another officer said, "Anything that one engineer can do, another engineer can undo."

"I know it can happen," said a ranking officer and firearms instructor, "but if I get into a position where I lose my primary weapon to an attacker I'd rather trust in my BACKUP weapon than some gimmick that might keep the gun from firing for ME as well as the bad guy."

One officer quipped, "You show me somebody in law enforcement who thinks this is a good idea and I'll you an administrator."

To which an administrator responded, "Not all administrators think this is even close to a good idea. I can speak with some authority as I am a staff level officer (and firearms instructor). They couldn't give me one. On second thought, they could give me one. It should fit nicely as a valuable collectors item due to its small numbers."

But another officer raised a more serious question. "Can you imagine the liability Colt would face if an officer were killed because the device didn't work? Either it wouldn't fire when the officer needed it, or it fired when a bad guy had it?"

Overbury said the company's new firearm would be ready for use by law enforcement agencies in about three years. The possibility of sales to the general public has yet to be examined, he said. He also said the technology would add about 50 percent to the cost of a firearm. The prototype, for example, would cost around $900, compared to $600 for its corresponding conventional model.

That's another reason the smart gun will have a hard time penetrating the police market. Budget-strapped police departments have hard enough time coming up with $600 per gun. How quick will they be to buy at $900 per? Nearly half of the police departments that sorely need computers, or those that have them but need to upgrade their systems, can't get the money for that technology.

"What scares me about this, however, is that in following the line of making cars safe, this technology could be required on all new guns," said another officer on CompuServe. "It then follows that the codes for civilian guns could be in one group that could be killed by remote control while law enforcement weapons would be in a secure group. This is the approach used in current two-way radio technology. In the old days, it was always great fun when someone lifted a police two-way and drove everyone nuts until the battery died. The new ones can be killed with a few keystrokes at dispatch. Easy to see how it could be done with guns."

A gun dealer who sells to law enforcement, had this to say, "Colt could solve their problems if they just resurrected the original Agent, Cobra, Detective Special, and Government Models. I don't think they would be able to keep up with the demand for the first 5 years, provided they were the original design -- no product enhancements or other nonsense. I've suggested this to various Colt officials at the SHOT Shows each year, but as someone commented, the bean counters have taken over and all they are concerned with is perceived liability."

The Colt EP-1 is a fascinating experiment in technology. Perhaps it's a phase we must go through until we're able to "set our phasers on stun." But I see a snowball's chance that it will ever be adopted by police departments. As for the civilian market, which would you buy; a $900 gun that's smart enough to recognize you as its authorized owner, or a $300 to $500 gun that shoots every time you pull the trigger?

The original idea behind the so-called 'smart gun' technology was to prevent criminals from getting cop's guns and shooting the officers with them. When that little chrade fell apart, the emphasis was then shifted to the bogus "gun safety" argument. Now, the morons in the New Jersey legislature have fallen all over themselves passing smart gun legislation, ostensibly for "saftey" reasons, but its really just another thinly-veiled attempt to disarm the citizenry. When will it all end? I can see this crap coming to California in the near future. A pox on those tyrannical bastards. The first time one of these f-ing guns fails to save a citizen's life in a time of crisis, the lawyers will be all over the manufacturer, and this time, rightly so. Smart gun technology is doomed.

One could argue that bullets like Glasser slugs are "safer bullets" in that they are deadly when they hit a soft target at close range but fragment when they hit a wall to avoid killiing someone in the house or appartment next door. But somehow I doubt that's what Elders had in mind.

As for "smart guns", that's an idea whose time will never come. In the end, they will cost more lives than they save, in addition to costing a lot more money.

Any legislator that wishes to vote on gun legislation should attend a firearms seminar before being able to vote. Stupidity should not be excused for qualification to vote on an issue.

Any legislator that wishes to vote on taxes or spending should attend an economics seminar before being able to vote. Stupidity should not be excused for qualification to vote on an issue.

Don't we have laws that prevent criminals from taking police officers guns and shooting them with it? I mean, after all, if more gun control laws will work, why not just pass some more "You can't take cops gun." laws? If the Brady bunch is right then the problem would be solved.

The smart gun being praised by the lib's is only a step to make "smart guns" legal would be the first step to make all "dumb guns" illegal. Just step one of two.

Thanks for the post.

As a side bar, Vanity, I did my class room and range testing here in Texas for my C&C.

I decided not to send all the information to the state to get my license.

I guess, I did not want to have my name in the government computers as owning a fire arm, "I know tin foil hat thing".

Since 9/11 have spent a lot of time doing battle with myself to get the license.

My question is, if I do, will I have to redo the class, pass the test and re-qualify at the range?

Texas FReepers, with the answers may E me at FReep mail.

Sorry for the vanity. Tom

My hat tipped, my hand out for a hand shaking thing. But alert for a back door thing.

I am old enough to have watched the F-Troop.

I do not understand the meaning of your post.

F-Troop was very funny, I do not think anything that I wrote in my post was funny.

Or are you just trying to do the personal attack thing?

Interesting that someone without a technical background picked up on this. But what should be of more immediate concern to this officer is the possibility that the "remote kill switch" technology could be compromised. It wouldn't be hard to design a transmitter that kills any gun within range of the jammer; police guns included.

Contact the folks at the range or check your packet as I am too lazy to look it up.

Leaving the info off the forms was not a smart move. To stay out of the data base you must have left off what?? Your name, TDL or SS#?? These are kinda mandatory and they really do check this stuff.

As to the "smart gun"......this is a REALLY stupid idea in every way imaginable.

Eaker

Thanks for the reply. I did not leave anything off the forms, I sent for the forms and did not fill them out and return them. So I did not apply for the C&C.

I am just trying to figure out if I need to re-do the schooling etc. to get my license.

As things are heating up, might be a good Idea, list of C&C or not. Tom

Tom

"A gun dealer who sells to law enforcement, had this to say, "Colt could solve their problems if they just resurrected the original Agent, Cobra, Detective Special, and Government Models. I don't think they would be able to keep up with the demand for the first 5 years, provided they were the original design -- no product enhancements or other nonsense. I've suggested this to various Colt officials at the SHOT Shows each year, but as someone commented, the bean counters have taken over and all they are concerned with is perceived liability."" (Law & Order Magazine)

I doubt reviving the classic Colt DA revolvers would be profitable. Just way too many barely-"used" ones - without "smart gun" crap - for sale at every show and at gun shops at very-attractive prices that would be the ceiling on what Colt's real retail for a newly-made one could be. The "used" ones could still sell for far more than when bought new in the mid-70s - but would still be very hard to compete against for new ones.

1911s would have to compete against many different clones not plagued with Colt's labor costs - and against the barely-"used" market.

GUN REVIEWS free from ad-money biass - emphasizing woman-friendliness of tested guns!

And how long before the developement of a "wide area remote jammers" (to be be used only during times of civil disorder) that would render every weapon, other than those used by the anointed, nonfiring?

Nah, California would never authorize such a device

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.