State of the SMART GUN

Guns Magazine, Feb, 2001 by Massad Ayoob

A handgun which can instantly recognize authorized users is the Holy Grail of today's R&D departments, but is this a quantum leap in firearm safety or just a technological disaster waiting to happen.

"Smart guns" has become the latest buzzword cliche among opponents of the civil right of private gun ownership. Colt's (with a subsidiary called iColt), Smith & Wesson and Sandia Labs are all firmly on the bandwagon, having put significant funding into the research and development of such a gun.

None, however, have been able to field a working model for potential end-users to test. Colt's was embarrassed when they showed their prototype to a reporter from a major newspaper and it failed to work. An Eastern Seaboard governor who was pushing for a bill that would limit people to "smart guns" was humiliated when the model he was demonstrating locked up solid and wouldn't work when it was supposed to.

All this has left a foul taste in the mouths of legitimate gun users, in the private and police sectors alike. Those who have seen the reality of self-defense know that a protection gun must be available for use instantly. The gun-banners' "model legislation" mandating "smart guns" has been written to expressly exempt police from the requirement. This tells you cops don't trust it. If they don't, then perhaps neither should you.

The Smart Gun In Theory

The concept of the smart gun sounds great. It's a gun you can fire instantly but only you can fire at all. Imbedded technology keeps the bad guy from harming you or someone else if he gets control of your gun. You could leave your gun Where you could quickly reach it, but an irresponsible child or other unauthorized person would be unable to fire it if they found it.

If it worked...

The concept, as sold to the public, breaks down into three categories: fingerprint recognition, electronic recognition and magnetic action. Let's look at all three.

I have yet to meet a working street cop who likes the idea of fingerprint recognition technology. The sellers say that it will instantly recognize the user's fingerprint, which is programmed in, and be capable of firing immediately soon as the authorized hand takes a firing grasp.

We potential buyers have some grave concerns. What about cold weather when we will be wearing gloves? Fingerprint recognition potential is now totally. blocked, and in a fast-breaking emergency there won't be time to rip the glove off the shooting hand.

If the legitimate user has been injured in the attack, viscous blood will quickly fill up the areas between the ridges of the fingerprints, probably rendering them unreadable by the device, and thus causing an "access denied" reaction when the user needs the gun most. The same could happen in a scuffle that leaves the legitimate user's hands covered with mud or whatever.

The Network Is Down

Electronic transponder technology raises even more concerns. The theory is that the gun will be activated when it is within a certain proximity to a transponder the intended user wears on the belt or wrist. When the gun is outside this range, it will "go dead."

Where, then, shall we draw the line of the transponder's range? I've heard a distance of three feet postulated. Now, I'm only an average size man, but when I drop down into a rollover prone firing position, the grip-frame of my handgun is a measured 41.5 from my hip holster, presumably the location of the transponder. Thus, I've put my own gun out of reach of its activator.

The same could happen with a long-armed officer or citizen firing with arm extended, or anyone firing straight up at a sniper in a high vantage-point or a wildcat about to pounce from a tree limb. Therefore, the transponder would have to reach more than four feet away from itself to activate the gun to reliably be of use to the legitimate user.

The purpose, however, is to keep you from getting shot with your own gun. Virtually anyone who gets your gun out of your hand or holster is going to be within three or four feet of you. In any case, a disarmed cop will instinctively lunge toward the attacker to retrieve the snatched weapon, again putting the responder into "activation range." Therefore, the belt-mounted transponder doesn't offer much promise in the real world.

What about a wrist-mounted transponder? Of course, you'll need one for each wrist in case you have to fire with the weak hand only due to an injury to the gun hand.

But things on the wrist can be torn off in a struggle. ft happens all the time in fights, the kind of fights that escalate to deadly force situations. This is why experienced cops and bouncers are seen to take off their wristwatches and ID bracelets and slip them into a pocket when they think a brawl is in the offing. This factor makes the wrist-mounted transponder also seem impractical.

A ring on each hand is more promising -- in theory. We are, however, still waiting patiently for one to be shown to us that might actually work, given the limited space a ring offers for electronics without getting in the way of hand function in normal daily activities.