Are your guns electronically tracked


August 6, 2007, 07:38 PM
According to the article

quote:“Since June, Iraqi units have been issued U.S.-made M-16 and M-4 rifles, which are electronically tracked, the official said.”

So how do you know if your guns aren’t electronically tracked?
It's probably a small chip in the frame

If you enjoyed reading about "Are your guns electronically tracked" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
August 6, 2007, 07:42 PM
If they aren't right now, I'd give it some time before someone tries to get a bill going to do such a thing. Their reasoning will be it could help keep firearm's away from felon's, or they could track the previous movements of a gun used in a crime and help them track down a culprit.

August 6, 2007, 07:44 PM
Probably the same way UPS packages are electronically tracked--just a bar code that read when the gun's checked in or out. I seriously doubt there's a tracking device in the gun.

August 6, 2007, 07:54 PM
Looks like this is already in. Check this out


I was told the oher day that Glock and HK have RFID chips mounted under the serial no. plate Has anyone heard this? I guess they can track you if you have one now Can you say BIG BROTHER??

August 6, 2007, 07:55 PM
The tin foil hat club is on the march again.

August 6, 2007, 07:56 PM
I am going to purchase more Alcoa stock. Lot's more.

August 6, 2007, 08:07 PM
I've heard this same rumor emanating from many friends in the DHS and the BP. Interesting. I'd be VERY interested to see more info.

August 6, 2007, 08:14 PM
The military stuff probably has a bar code inventory system. That's an inventory control system that is read by a laser scanner, not an actice "tracking" system that could find the location of an object.

It's possible they also use RFID chips. I doubt it myself as I know the bar code system has been in use for quite awhile now and I don't see the military spending the money to upgrade and retrofit to an RFID system.

Even an RFID system can only "track" an object within a certain, relatively close, distance to the reader.

That's my understanding at least. Someone please correct me on military inventory control systems or the technology issues if I'm wrong.

August 6, 2007, 08:15 PM
Rfid is basically a bar code system with better proximity coverage. Your right its probably one of those, none of the GPS tracked stuff that some of the tinfoil hatters would like us to believe.

August 6, 2007, 08:54 PM
I am going to purchase more Alcoa stock. Lot's more.

August 6, 2007, 09:33 PM
Long range RFID readers can operate up to 400' away in line of sight. Which means they are probably good for about 50' tops. The only way to track your guns movement is to put literally millions of these RFID readers all over creation.

If there were a GPS receiver in your gun, it'd need a battery. If it's going to transmit its GPS location, it'd need a BIG battery. No satellite is going to read your RFID tag.


August 6, 2007, 09:36 PM
Probably the same way UPS packages are electronically tracked--just a bar code that read when the gun's checked in or out. I seriously doubt there's a tracking device in the gun.

This is actually a good idea. If we give M16s and M4s to Iraqis, and then find one of them on a dead terrorist, we know who gave it to them. It's a lot faster than reading serial numbers.

Car Knocker
August 6, 2007, 09:43 PM
Barcodes and serial numbers aren't indestructible. Neither are RFIDs.

Average Guy
August 6, 2007, 09:47 PM
At my federal academy (under DHS), the firearms instructor told us that our HK duty pistols have a chip in the frame. I think we even saw a picture. It made sense to me for weapon ID/inventory purposes, but I was a little suspicious when he told us the chips not only tracked location, but also recorded how many rounds had been fired. For OIS purposes, of course.

August 6, 2007, 10:40 PM
Ha! Not *my* guns!

August 6, 2007, 10:41 PM
a good Strong Rare Earth Magnet will totally kill RFID device in short order.

August 6, 2007, 10:43 PM
Well, now. If they were electronically tracked, they wouldn't be lost, would they?


August 6, 2007, 10:45 PM
This is the same technology they use (or are gearing up to use) in retail. The idea is better inventory control. I don't see a satelite reading something so small, but with technology, who knows? At least we have a few years.

August 6, 2007, 10:47 PM
but I was a little suspicious when he told us the chips not only tracked location, but also recorded how many rounds had been fired.

Yeah, right. Now, I suppose someone could have written a program where you could manually enter a "round count per weapon" into a database inventory system. You could make it so you could scan the bar code of the weapon to bring up that particular weapon in the inventory system and then manually enter the amount of rounds fired at any particular session to keep a running total. It would be a little easier then keeping a manual log of rounds fire, if you really have to know that.

No way I believe there is a chip on the gun counting rounds fired though.

August 6, 2007, 10:57 PM
ROFLMAO at the foiled gun!

Wish I'd have thought of it!

I can just hear the banter at ATF: "Curses! Foiled again!"


"The Second Amendment isn't about protecting ourselves against criminals. It's about all of us protecting ourselves from all of you." ---Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp to Congressman Charles Schumer (D-NY), 1994

August 6, 2007, 11:01 PM
Oh yes, I do fear that they may be. Whatever shall I do?! Please wait. I must adjust my foil helmet and foil support garment. :neener: That's funny stuff!

August 6, 2007, 11:26 PM
Maybe it’s possible to track rounds fired– the chip could detect a sudden ‘jerk’ and update a counter on the chip

August 6, 2007, 11:33 PM
Contact Kathy at and yes they plan on putting readers all over. She will look into it. Its all about baby steps.

You might even want to read some of the info there. They are good people and deal with facts! I even support them with $$ from time to time.
Promises Full Patent Review, Tracking Notice, and Chip-Free Option

According to the patent, RFID readers called "consumer trackers" would be placed in store shelving to pick up "consumer identification signals" emitted by RFID-embedded objects carried by shoppers. These would be used to identify people, track their movements, and observe their behavior.

The patent also suggested such people-tracking systems could "be located in a common area of a school, shopping center, bus station or other place of public accommodation."

August 7, 2007, 12:01 AM
Hey do you guys recommend regular tin foil for hats, or the heavy-duty stuff?

August 7, 2007, 12:15 AM
Pretty sure my guns aren't tagged. The newest one is a 1987 Makarov, the oldest is a 1928 Mosin-Nagant 91/30.

Car Knocker
August 7, 2007, 02:05 AM
Hey do you guys recommend regular tin foil for hats, or the heavy-duty stuff?
The best is the Reynolds non-stick foil - with the coating to the outside so that the thought-control waves just slide around the head and continue on.

August 7, 2007, 02:53 AM
So I have to ask - just when did it stop being trolling and start being acceptable to take over people's threads and make fun of them?

I see it done a lot, and find it confusing. Such high standards of behaviour are demanded in most other circumstances, yet it's fine to insult the guys who posted in this thread. Why not just make a new thread and list their names, and mock them in there? At least leave them alone to discuss what they like without your interference.

Internet *******s, technology changes, people are constant.

August 7, 2007, 03:14 AM
I'm of two minds here, at least with respect to the tracking of the firearms we give to Iraqis.

On one hand: RFID can be used to track a person's movement, which could be used by jihadists (very cheaply - a scanner can be made for $100 or so) to find and then kill Iraqi troops.

On the other hand: if those Iraqi troops are Jihadists, and those rifles end up in the hands of jihadist groups, well... that could come in very handy. So I wouldn't really be all that surprised if we did it: "Hajji, it's one of the stipulations of free guns. Get used to it."

As far as RFID in guns sold here: it's not going to be in the metal of the frame, but you might have it somewhere inside the plastic of the grip. However, I believe this has been checked out fairly thoroughly by people concerned and knowledgeable about such things. An X-ray machine would (I think) show the existence of such devices - and you could use a scanner to find them, too.

August 7, 2007, 03:30 AM
Blackbeard wrote:If there were a GPS receiver in your gun, it'd need a battery. If it's going to transmit its GPS location, it'd need a BIG battery. No satellite is going to read your RFID tag.

True at present for GPS sensors.

But most RFID chips are energized by the Radio Frequency "probing" field in which they're immersed. In other words, these don't need batteries.

If you have a company ID card which opens doors and operates the building elevators, there are no battteries embedded in it. There is a coil running around the outside edges of the card which picks up the RF energy coming out of the card readers and powers a little transponder chip in the card.

The little tiny anti-theft packets which are glued onto retail merchandise contain a resonant circuit which detunes the sensors at the exits to set off the alarm if they aren't deactivated.

Deactiviation consists of demagnetizing part of the tiny resonant circuit so it no longer is tuned to the sensors at the door.

Sometimes they don't get demagnetized thoroughly at the checkout stand and will set off the sensors on your way out anyhow.

(It's apparently an open question as to whether the coil springs in your firearm can set off the door sensors in retail establishments. I for one think it's possible, but not likely.)

wd0xxx, 230RN

August 7, 2007, 03:54 AM
He's talking about running GPS though. THAT would need a battery. Otherwise the scanner could report the location, but it would still require an outside force to do the GPS.

August 7, 2007, 08:22 AM
Actually, I saw a year or two ago, they'd put really tiny GPS devices of some sort in RFID chips. I don't recall any mention of a battery being needed...

So, no, this is not tin foil conspiracy theory stuff, this is a very real danger to our privacy and our rights. They're already trying to get people chipped with the claims that it will "protect" you, think they're not going to try to get our guns chipped too? And this technology will only get improved more and more to make it easier for the big brothers of the world to use it.

August 7, 2007, 08:53 AM
Think "Digital Angel" do a google on it

August 7, 2007, 10:54 AM
Rats. I fell behind the times again:

The technology consists of a miniature sensor device, designed to be implanted just under the skin, that captures and wirelessly transmits the "wearer's" vital body-function data, such as body temperature or pulse, to an Internet-integrated ground station. In addition, the antenna receives information regarding the location of the individual from the GPS satellite. Both sets of data -- medical information and location -- are then wirelessly transmitted to the ground station and made available on Web-enabled desktop, laptop or wireless devices.

This particular article didn't say whether it was powered by batteries or not, but the ones for pets are powered by muscle movement. Somehow.

Which makes me wonder how they can find the pet if it's dead.

Well, I guess a nice five-turn coil of 1/4" copper tubing connected to a car battery for a second or two ought to kill them. The RFID chip. Not the pets or the equipment. Like your guns.

I also used to use alnico magnets from loudspeakers to hold things to my lathe headstock, like plans or drawings or gear tables, and, through droppage and possibly the field from the 1/2 HP lathe motor, they'd lose their magnetism.

So I'd wrap a starting cable around the arm of a vise a couple of times, clamp the magnet in it, and zap it with a car battery for a few seconds. Didn't bring them back to full strength, but it worked allright. Sparky, but reasonably safe with gloves and goggles and no tinder or volatiles nearby.

August 7, 2007, 12:09 PM
how long are the batteries good for that power these devices ? does the weapon have to go back to manfacture to have the battery/power source changed ? or is that "black gun" really a solar collecting coating ? jwr

The Deer Hunter
August 7, 2007, 12:11 PM
Hey do you guys recommend regular tin foil for hats, or the heavy-duty stuff?

Heavy duty, shiny side out.

August 7, 2007, 12:27 PM
RFID tags are very small, about the easiest way to block a signal from activating one is to cover it with tin foil. Sadly, I'm not even joking.

Also, those cheap RFID scanners have a VERY limited range. So about the only threat RFID tags pose right now is if someone has a more powerful(and hence expensive) unit that could potentially activate every tag within X distance, and even then you'd need 3 of them, and something very precise monitoring the return time of the signals to effectively triangulate someone's position. You'd only need one to sweep a house for weapons with tags in them, but even then a metal case(or holster/gun case lined with tin foil) would interfere. I feel such a threat would really negated by the limitations of the tags themselves.

Of course, the optimal solution would be to turn your home into a faraday cage :D.

August 7, 2007, 12:45 PM
Do a search on inverse-square law. Obviously the power required to get longer ranges is big... But pulses of high power would be enough to get RFID's to 'blip'. And the previously posted 400' limit is gigantic, if it can be referenced.

Imagine the benefits to SWAT if only everyone would get RFIDs, then they could saturate a house with kw of rf and see just where they all are, and not need to perfect that wall radar they're trying.

And the ability to catch 'criminals' if only all guns had RFIDs, you simply set up scanners by busy sidewalks. Or if only there were small structures you could put them by which would limit distance... Like turnstiles, doorways and tunnels. They'll say they're just 'enforcing' the new rules that no-guns are allowed within 2miles of any school or public building, or such.

August 7, 2007, 02:53 PM
The amount of energy needed to saturate an area to be able to read passive chips such as in RFID tags and other contactless technologies from satellites would need to be so large that you'd disrupt all normal communication and electronics activity. Probably fry out most non-hardened circuitry, stop pacemakers,even cause brain tumors (hey, tin foil might help!), etc. It would no longer be 'passive'.

I don't think the entire world generates enough power to be able to track rifles in an area the size of Baghdad, let alone Iraq.

August 7, 2007, 03:17 PM
I've done a little work with GPS.

I work with a guy who actually dabbles in that part of the electronics world.

And he's a shooter.

His response?

*Laughter* RFID, maybe. GPS? Not in your dreams. (Long technical discussion ensues.)

The biggest barrier, as mentioned above, is the power requirement.

Now, if "THEY" somehow manage to re-task RFID scanners in stores, install billions (with a 'B') of them in cities everywhere, you might have a prayer of tracking an RFID chip.

Even then, the chips are too easy to disable.

So, just from a logistics point of view it's not happening.

Now, if I set up a database where I keep the serial numbers of every piece of gear that I assign to some region, and follow them from issue to return, that would qualify as electronically tracking the gear under current definitions.

By the time they solve the science needed to keep track of every lousy gun out there, you may be assured we will have other things to worry about.

August 7, 2007, 03:45 PM
It is all TRUE! Back when I was a special forces WALRUS (like the SEALS but for fat people) we used to have missions where we'd break into various citizens houses and RFID implant their Glocks.

That was before I took with the aerial unit of the WALRUS's spraying chem trails from airplanes around the US on a vast population reduction scheme.

Many times on the way home we'd fly low level and spot yeti's. Mostly around trailer parks feeding in the dumpsters. But sometimes we'd see Elvis and he would chase away the yetis.

It is all true!:rolleyes:

El Tejon
August 7, 2007, 03:48 PM
H&H, you tell the truth on the Errornet, young man.

H&H were both in SEEL Team 37.5, not WALRUS.

user, remember--it's the media, they get nothing right. The scanning is on the outside of the crate, just like Wal-Mart.

There are no chips in your guns. Just the chips that H&H put in your head as you sleep.

August 7, 2007, 04:25 PM
After all this discussion, nobody has produced a picture of a gun with a RFID tag or similar tracking device. Must be that there is no such thing. :scrutiny:
Sig has guns with barcodes on them but of course you have to be real close and have line-of-sight to get a read on it.

I sell RFID products and the size of the RFID tag is what determines the range. The larger the tag, the bigger the antenna, the longer the range. A tag the size of a Glock and an antenna that is about 2 feet in diameter could read from a couple feet away. Unless there are antennas posted all over the place you won't have any worries anytime soon.

August 7, 2007, 04:27 PM
And MarshallDodge wins the thread.

In the meantime, my overlords at the Trilateral Commission have asked that I close this thread, lest the proles start to get uppity.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are your guns electronically tracked" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!