Gun Control advocates and the Media were giggling with joy at the announcement that a new Smart Gun was available and that this time for sure was going to work thus ending once for all Gun Violence… or some recycled horse hit like that. And as usual, the ignorance of the Media shows that the gun was actually less than perfect. I guess they forgot to edit that out or did not know what they were looking at.

Did you see the gun failing to fire at the end? Here is the video for future reference:


Some smart guy, probably Clint Smith said something like

The two loudest gun sounds you’ll ever hear: A gun going “BANG” when it is supposed to go “CLICK” and a gun going “CLICK” when it is supposed to go “BANG.

Ain’t that the truth.


Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

21 thoughts on “And we have another Smart Gun and another failure”
  1. I think the media and other antigunners don’t salivate over “smart” guns because they honestly think smart guns will end Gun Violence ™.

    Instead, it’s because they see the prospect of bending gun owners to their will, forcing those icky deplorables to do something they are dead-set against. The “safety” is just the excuse.

    Remind you of any other recent events?

    1. I think you’re right on target. This is about diluting the capacity for self defense.

      The gun-grabbers are very good at playing incrementalist cards — we’ve seen that over the prior several decades. They chip and chip away, and only until relatively recently have we been able to somewhat reverse things.

      But yeah. The most effective tool against this… thing is to insist they sell it to the people most as risk for having their gun stolen: police officers.

      Sidebar: I still giggle about how ‘smartgun’ has an entirely different meaning for me.

    2. My first introduction to the concept of the smart gun was in the novel _Systemic Shock_ where the Search and Rescue teams had specialized teams who were tasked with removing/killing bad people

      The guns they were issued were bio-metrically keyed to the authorized user. If an unauthorized user pulled the trigger a gas cartridge would fire causing the trigger guard to do magic and crush/trap the unauthorized user’s trigger finger.

      All cool science fiction stuff.

      But the smart guns of today, when they work, will have an extra feature. That is that some third party will be able to disable them remotely.

      You’ve got your Glock, gen 17 smart gun and you are holding it to the head of a hostage? Well our HRT just fires up their magic computer box, identifies the particular gun and disables it. Now they take the shop and kill the bad guy. The fact that he squeezed the trigger and would have blown the head off the hostage didn’t matter because dead gun.

      But it also works when the Federal Information Safety Team SWAT team comes into your town and all the smart guns in a 10 mile radius that doesn’t belong to FIST stops working.

      And for safety reasons, all guns that didn’t come from the factory with “smart technology” will have to have smart locks or some such crap on them.

      I.e. All your trigger locks stop working. All your gun safes stop working. And if your gun is seen during a random FIST search of your home without a smart lock, then it is 5 to 10 in the federal penn.

      1. Remote disabling has been a plot element in at least one movie, Hobbes & Shaw, that I can think of off-hand. I know I’ve seen it elsewhere also.

        It seems this is considered a feature, not a bug.

      2. Read “The Weapon Shops of Isher” if you want a scifi view of how it should work.

        Including an ‘underground’ justice system that directly hits the bad govt. types right where it hurts… In THEIR pocketbook…

        “The Right to Buy Weapons is the Right to Be Free.”
        – A. E. van Vogt

  2. Technology…finger print scanners and Bluetooth. I have both on my phone. Very convenient when they work, but I couldn’t tell you how many times both have failed the first time or took more than a few seconds to work.

    Not something I want on my gun. I’ll take good ole tried and true mechanics, they can keep their smart shit.

    1. To lefties and gungrabbers (BIRM), firearms are a ‘black box’ system. They do not grasp how they work. They know the bullets go in one spot, and come out the other with a loud noise when you pull the trigger, but that’s about it.

      So they think they can apply complex electronic solutions to it, not realizing that such systems are ill equipped to handle the forces involved.

    2. My shiny new Apple laptop has a fingerprint scanner to unlock it when sleeping. It worked for a little while when I first got it; it hasn’t worked at all in weeks. Perhaps my fingerprints are too worn after 65 years?

      When I see these “smart gun” [sic] notions I am reminded of the government-controlled guns in Dean Ing’s novel “Single Combat”. He writes very well, some humorous, some very scary. Single Combat is in the “very scary” category, describing levels of totalitarian control that would make Kim 3rd and Xi green with envy. The people using those guns are part of that, and the guns themselves as well.

  3. “Smart” guns rely on electronics to function. Electronics in high vibration situations require vibration isolation systems to keep them from failing. Those systems are rather large. There is no reasonable way to put that into a gun without adding measurable bulk. And, yes, your laser/rangefinder/MantisX all have the same issue. They will fail long before the gun they are attached to does.

    Every time you subject a piece of electronics to a shock like shooting, microscopic cracks will form anyplace where there is a junction. Processor to circuit board, circuit board to sensor, resistor to battery, etc… 1,000 shots/shocks, and you are probably OK. 10,000 shots, now it is iffy (unless you have outstanding build quality.). Anything more, and you are looking at a failure. (in my opinion).

    The guns I have will (if maintained) last several hundred years. A smart gun might last a decade.

    1. Longevity is indeed another issue and not just for smart guns.

      Most every semiconductor device relies on junctions between two differently doped regions, to allow current to flow or not, based on a control voltage. Over time, the doping will diffuse across the junction, making the junction fail. (This is also one reason solar cells have a limited lifetime and their output decreases over time … it isn’t just them getting dirty and scratched, it’s the junction that does the conversion breaking down an “fuzzing out” on an atomic scale.)

      You really can’t solve this problem easily; it’s a consequence of the basic laws of thermodynamics. Storing in cold temperatures will help (assuming thermal contraction doesn’t break something) but not stop it entirely, until someone opens a U-Store-It on Pluto. Elevated temperatures make the process go faster.

      I can see a modern firearm lasting literally hundreds of years, if properly stored, especially if the gun doesn’t use polymer in critical areas (e.g. pistol frame, lower receiver). Electronics? Likely not so much.

      1. Maybe they should use hollow state logic (vacuum tubes). Those can be made very shock resistant — consider WW2 era proximity fuzes for artillery shells.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.