Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Smart Gun Company Hopes To Begin Production This Summer

Posted by samzenpus on from the smarter-shooting dept.

Lucas123 writes Safe Gun Technology (SGTi) is hoping it can begin production on its version of a smart gun within the next two months. The Columbus, Ga.-based company uses relatively simple fingerprint recognition through a flat, infrared reader positioned on the weapon's grip. The biometrics reader enables three other physical mechanisms that control the trigger, the firing pin and the gun hammer. The controller chip can save from 15,000 to 20,000 fingerprints. If a large military unit wanted to program thousands of finger prints into a single weapon, it would be possible. A single gun owner could also temporarily program a friend or family member's print into the gun to go target shooting and then remove it upon returning home."

33 of 632 comments (clear)

  1. I won't be buying one... by jsrjsr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I pull the trigger, I want the gun to fire. I doubt this will be reliable enough to depend upon.

    1. Re:I won't be buying one... by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Precisely. If there is any chance at all that my gun will simply refuse to fire when I pull the trigger, I don't want anything to do with it.

    2. Re:I won't be buying one... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

      "When I pull the trigger, I want the gun to fire. I doubt this will be reliable enough to depend upon."

      More to the point: if you want it to be reliable, then the fingerprint technology has to be loose enough to be UNreliable. We already know this. With today's technology, if you want to allow access with fingerprints reliably, you have to make your parameters loose enough that false positives slip in too easily.

      Which means that in order to be near 100% reliable for an "authorized" shooter, this thing provably can't do what it's intended to do: reliably block the UNauthorized.

    3. Re:I won't be buying one... by tutufan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Me neither. If a kid finds that gun on the piano, they should pay the price...

    4. Re:I won't be buying one... by DJ+Jones · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We've dedicated well over 10 years to come up with this solution. We have a lot of people in this company who've put a lot of blood sweat and tears into it and never gotten a penny out of it. If we were in it for the money, we would have been out of it a long time ago. "Our motto is ... if we save the life of one child, it's a miracle to that child and everyone that child touches."

      If they were true to their motto they should have dropped the project and donated their funding to a children's hospital 10 years ago.

    5. Re:I won't be buying one... by bellers · · Score: 5, Informative

      a spring and a lever have a MTBF measured in millions of cycles. RoHS-compliant electronics made with commodity parts do not.

      And I buy guns with as few extraneous safeties as possible.

      --
      This space for rent.
    6. Re:I won't be buying one... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Qualifiers:

      When I say "near 100% reliable", I'm not joking. 99.9% just isn't good enough for something I'd trust my life to. But if it approached 99.99%, then it's getting near the reliability of the gun itself, and may be good enough. That's approximately 1 error in 1000 rounds. Even that is pushing what I view as acceptable limits.

      And even just given that it's battery-powered, it probably will never reach that goal in the foreseeable future.

      As for its intended purpose (blocking unauthorized users), I have no doubt that it would work some of the time. But how often, given that it has to be that accurate for the authorized? I'm not confident that it would be that good at its job. It's a very difficult balancing act, and I would need a lot of convincing.

    7. Re:I won't be buying one... by cffrost · · Score: 4, Funny

      If a kid finds that gun on the piano, they should pay the price...

      Exactly the kind of situation I want to avoid, which is why I don't have any pianos in my house.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    8. Re:I won't be buying one... by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only safeties on most revolvers is between the ears of the person holding the gun and a heavy-ish double action trigger pull.

      Some gun makers have included an internal lock on their revolvers (S&W and some Taurus) which has been controversial, although I've never had a problem with it (I don't use it, either and have never put it in the lock position).

    9. Re:I won't be buying one... by ByOhTek · · Score: 4, Informative

      As long as he only accidentally shoots himself. That's fine. However, he can't gurantee that.

      But it's irresponsible behavior like that that gives fuel to the anti-gun crowd.

      I agree with the concern about the biometric identification though, in TFS. It's too easy for it to fail, even if it's merely the battery going dead, though if it's low enough charge, the trigger action may be able to charge it up, enough so that firing actually doesn't need a battery. I can see cases where someone would want this on their guns, and it's a responsible thing in those cases. People shouldn't force their desire for irresponsibility onto others - if you don't want this, don't buy it. I know I won't. However, I don't have a situation where this would be relevant (my guns are only loaded at the range and when camping). Just because I wouldn't want this, and it doesn't add any safety benefit in my situation... doesn't mean it shouldn't be around, because it sure as hell isn't hard to think of reasons why people would want this and it would provide safety to themselves and/or others.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    10. Re:I won't be buying one... by camperdave · · Score: 4, Interesting

      a spring and a lever have a MTBF measured in millions of cycles. RoHS-compliant electronics made with commodity parts do not.

      And I buy guns with as few extraneous safeties as possible.

      Of course they do. Billions of cycles even. However, with a clock frequency measured in in megahertz, a billion cycles is only 17 minutes.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:I won't be buying one... by a1cypher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Presumably because people buy guns for security, not just for entertainment at a range.

      If you're about to be attacked/killed by a burglar and you reach for your gun and pull the trigger you want to make sure as hell that the gun works. If it doesn't work, for whatever reason, you're in a worse position than you started because now the burglar has reason to incapacitate/kill you.

      I cant see this being useful for a security gun. If you reach for your gun you'll have to very consciously "unlock" it with your fingerprint. If your nervous, it's dark, or whatever, it might not recognize you. Even in the best case scenario, this unlocking will take time. Couple that with requiring a battery, and it could be trouble.

      However, if this is just being used to secure less crucial weapons such as hunting rifles, or the kind that you might only ever use at a range, I could see the fingerprint being scanner being useful. It would help to prevent children or thieves from using your weapon and when you're hunting or at the range, you presumably have the time to check the batteries and swipe your finger a second time if it fails to register you the first go.

    12. Re:I won't be buying one... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Funny

      My revolvers are safety free, and there is no safety on the semi-autos I own as well. NO safety is as effective as an engaged brain. Treat every firearm as loaded, keep your booger hook off the bang switch until you are ready to fire, and maintain proper muzzle control.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:I won't be buying one... by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except for all the accidental trigger pulls that have gotten Glock wielders shot. Like DEA agents. ;-)

      Sorry, a Glock is designed to be utilized in a holster. I do believe it is unprofessional and irresponsible to carry a Glock without using some sort of holster/trigger protection.

    14. Re:I won't be buying one... by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or ricochet into spots higher than the person's foot? Or does he avoid walking on surfaces that would cause a ricochet?

      If you are carrying a gun in a way that it can go off without you intending it to, then you are being irresponsible, and the concerns of the anti-gun crowd are quite warranted.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    15. Re:I won't be buying one... by rohan972 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a spring and a lever have a MTBF measured in millions of cycles

      You fire "millions" of rounds from a single weapon?

      No, he doesn't, that's the point, the MTBF of a spring and lever is far higher than normal use making failure very unlikely which is not the case with consumer grade electronic components. They say there are no stupid questions but I think you've come pretty close. Do you have an emotional response to firearms that makes thinking difficult for you?

      --
      http://marriedmansexlife.com/
    16. Re:I won't be buying one... by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why, out of curiosity, would you worry about lead solder in a thing that fires lead bullets?

      I wouldn't. You probably wouldn't. But politicians and regulatorycrats in some parts of the world do. RoHS is big in the EU. If you manufacture something, it has to be RoHS, even if you are making it out of lead.

    17. Re:I won't be buying one... by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't see a problem if he wants to carry that way.

      I do. I think a case could be made for reckless endangerment, and if it goes off and hurts someone I would definitely support criminal negligence charges.

      He should just get a holster. There's really no reason not to use a holster. If nothing else one of those ultra-minimalist holsters that covers nothing but the trigger guard.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    18. Re:I won't be buying one... by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm guessing you mean any increased chance, since we live in the real world where everything always has a non-zero chance of not working as advertised. How much of an increased chance do these things have of failing? I'd be interested to see real data rather than conjecture. If this thing fails one out of every, I dunno, one thousand trigger pulls, that could be more reliable than your average Saturday night special.

      I think you'd also want to compare, if possible, the chances of you needing to shoot someone with the chances of someone shooting you with your own gun, before concluding you're worse off with this. Whether or not you're safer with a gun in the home is controversial and heavily written about, the risks of being shot by your gun vs the likelihood of you shooting a would-be-attacker. I don't have an opinion on the subject as I'm not prepared to wade into the literature, but it seems like this tech would avoid the chance of the former while still giving you the chance at the latter. That could be a net benefit even given the chance of the gun refusing to fire when you needed it.

      Either way, these are just hypotheses, we'd need hard data. I know its fun to not use data when discussing public policy and especially gun control, I certainly don't have any.

    19. Re:I won't be buying one... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Funny

      [ Picturing you in a firing range, standing shoulder deep in spent shell casings... ]

      I've got wood. Anybody else?

    20. Re:I won't be buying one... by RevDisk · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've fired hundreds of thousands of rounds through various belt fed MGs, when I was doing instructing duties with NATO militaries. It's not unrealistic as an edge case. Barrels are a consumable part with a well designed automatic weapon. If they're not, it's a bad design or not intended for serious usage. Will the average firearm see hundreds of thousands? Na.

      Will some poor firearm be the range beater? Ayep. Also, you have to take life shortening factors into account. Firearms should be built to tolerate environmental concerns (heat, water, etc), abrasion, etc.

      I don't trust many electronics to handle that. I've seen plenty of vehicle electronics fail under those circumstances, despite being generally covered or theoretically sealed. Make police carry it for two decades, and I'll start to consider testing it. That's not unusual. M16 is near 50 years old. M1911 is over a century and very popular.

    21. Re:I won't be buying one... by ducomputergeek · · Score: 4, Informative

      Tale of two guns I own, both purchased with the goal of being conceal carry pieces: Walther PPS #1 - 2300 rounds fired. Error: failure to eject last round properly: 1. No other jams and I've fed good ammo and cheap ammo through it. Had so much success a year ago I bought another as a spare. 1400 rounds through it, no failures to fire or eject. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I'll trust my life with either of those weapons. I am confident that if/when I need them to go boom they will.

      Also last year I bought a Ruger SR40c because I wanted something in .40S&W. Excellent sights, great trigger, very accurate and manageable recoil for me. But it had problems with double feeds, failure to eject, and light strikes. Put 600 rounds through it to "break it in" and still had problems through the 1000 round mark. Sent the gun back to Ruger and they replaced some parts and replaced the barrel. 500 rounds through the gun since I've got it back and other than it still hates winchester ammo (hard primer) seems to be okay if I'm shooting Hornaday Critical Duty or Defense ammo. I still refuse to carry it. It will probably take another 1000 rounds before I will even consider it again.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  2. How about gloves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People often wear gloves when shooting pistols. And in combat situations, fingers may get dirty, or even partially damaged or burnt. This strikes me as a REALLY bad idea. Lives will be lost to this.

    1. Re:How about gloves? by j-stroy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I am sure that duct taping an authorized finger to the scan pad would hack the system. The rest of the authorized individual is redundant.

    2. Re:How about gloves? by PoolOfThought · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I agree with what I think you meant to say. But the words you chose were just too wrong (all by themselves) to leave there...

      You generally want some lives to be lost in a combat situation.

      No... you want to get your way. You don't WANT some lives to be lost.

      Even for a home invasion situation you don't WANT a life to be lost. You WANT that creep OUT and you will do whatever it takes INCLUDING ending a life, but killing is not what you WANT to do. In an ideal situation you could just spot the invader and say "go away" and they'd turn and leave. But since that's highly unlikely and since there's a good chance there will be a struggle then the safest bet for you is to end the conflict as immediately as possible and in such a way that minimizes your own chances of being harmed. Therefore, you shoot 'em with an intent to kill (so they don't shoot back).

      For general political WARS, your statement still goes too far. In a combat situation the goal is almost never "to end lives". The goal is to end a dispute (in neutralize the opponent) and to get your way. Lives being taken is more of a by product of the process than the goal itself. Total annihilation / beating them to nothing is often the simplest route to achieving the end of the war, but make no mistake. It's not that you WANT lives to be lost or resources to be destroyed... you just want break your opponent and get your way.

      Then there's the extremist viewpoint. It's the viewpoint that anyone who disagrees must be the devil and should be killed. That attitude certainly breeds a type of combat, but it's not combat in general. And really, the defender (the "not extreme party") still only wants to stay alive through the combat... they're not necessarily interested in killing.

      --
      My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
  3. Is this thing battery powered? by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd prefer a fool-proof gun over a smart gun.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  4. Speed/accuracy/reliability: pick two by mcelrath · · Score: 4, Funny

    If this fingerprint scanner works as poorly and as slowly as the fingerprint scanner on my Thinkpad, there's no way in hell anyone would want this on a gun.

    If on the other hand you want to make sure no one can ever fire the gun, this sounds great.

    --
    1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
  5. I would have serious reservations... by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..about buying this equipment for my guns.

    I don't care much about the false positive rate, because I keep my guns locked up. What I need to know before I buy is, what's the false negative rate and the response time? I own some guns for sporting purposes, and a couple of big clunky rifles for hunting. A false negative or a laggy response time on those isn't necessarily a big deal. OTOH my wife and I also have guns for self defense and home defense. A false negative or laggy response time on those could get us killed.

    --
    Finding God in a Dog
  6. "Fire gun!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "You do not have permission to fire this gun."

    "sudo Fire gun!"

    *BLAM*

  7. Safety loophole by j-stroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This technology could cause accidents by people assuming the safety function is operational, similar to when electric carving knives were introduced they had a pressure activated on switch on the blade.

    It may also lead to the assumption that a gun is safe when it can still accidentally fire for other reasons inherent in a firearms mechanism.

  8. Updates are available by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pulls trigger. Nothing. Notices blinking LED by trigger. Looks at six character LCD display scrolling past. "15 updates are available, would you like to download now? Please tap once for yes, twice for no."

    1. Re:Updates are available by schlachter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      more like: Pulls trigger. Nothing. Turns gun sideways to get a closer look at a why it failed. Pulls trigger again. BAM.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  9. Re:Access management nightmare? by eth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I cannot imagine what a nightmare it will be to manage weapons access thru fingerprints into a large military unit.

    Nowhere near the nightmare caused by all the soldiers that would die when their weapons refuse to fire. Or when an enemy figures out that a relatively cheap EMP generator will disarm an entire unit.