hacker defeats $1500 "smart gun" with $15 of magnets

Status
Not open for further replies.
In a market where people commonly remove magazine safeties from their pistols to improve the triggers, decry electronic sights because batteries are too unreliable, choose to buy guns without manual safeties because of their simplicity of operation, and rail against, or even completely refuse to buy, guns with mechanical locks, the idea that electronically controlled firearms are going to catch on is anything but smart.

The bottom line is that most people will only buy "smart" guns if they are forced to do so. Which is probably fine with many of the people who claim that "smart" guns are a good idea since it appears that their primary goal is forcing gun owners to comply with their wishes, not making guns safer or smarter.
 
In a market where people commonly remove magazine safeties from their pistols to improve the triggers, decry electronic sights because batteries are too unreliable, choose to buy guns without manual safeties because of their simplicity of operation, and rail against, or even completely refuse to buy, guns with mechanical locks, the idea that electronically controlled firearms are going to catch on is anything but smart.

The bottom line is that most people will only buy "smart" guns if they are forced to do so. Which is probably fine with many of the people who claim that "smart" guns are a good idea since it appears that their primary goal is forcing gun owners to comply with their wishes, not making guns safer or smarter.
Demonstrations like this are the perfect way to keep "smart" guns from being forced on us though, so more power to this guy IMO.
 
Its not just the magnets either. For $30 in parts the hacker showed the gun could be remotely over ridden and disabled the user had the wrist band. Bingo... remote controlled disabled gun hacked. There is ZERO market for thjs
 
He also found that someone can jam the signal to prevent you from defending yourself, which is more worrisome than the magnet hack.

I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I think the Armatix has a cool look to it, just that the "smart" feature is totally dumb.
 
In a market where people commonly remove magazine safeties from their pistols to improve the triggers, decry electronic sights because batteries are too unreliable, choose to buy guns without manual safeties because of their simplicity of operation, and rail against, or even completely refuse to buy, guns with mechanical locks, the idea that electronically controlled firearms are going to catch on is anything but smart.

The bottom line is that most people will only buy "smart" guns if they are forced to do so. Which is probably fine with many of the people who claim that "smart" guns are a good idea since it appears that their primary goal is forcing gun owners to comply with their wishes, not making guns safer or smarter.

Cogent and concise.

JohnKSa, "Member" ... and "Wordsmith" :)
 
For conventional primers, you can stop the gun from firing by either:
A)removing something from the path between trigger and firing pin (e.g. transfer bars on revolvers), or
B)inserting something that prevents the mechanism from moving (e.g. the firing pin block on some 1911s)

If a crook absconds with the smart gun, they can circumvent things either way - by using JB Weld to hold the transfer bar or whatever in the fire position, or by removing the firing pin block or whatever.

I think that a smart gun that actually work reliably (which is a tall order) would have legitimate uses. If a suspect wrestles a cop's gun away, for example, he's not going to have time to disassemble the gun and jigger it, and you could just have a box of batteries in the locker room for the monthly battery change etc.

But for normal people, they don't do much good (even if they worked as hoped). If the idea is to prevent your toddler finding the gun in the sock drawer, spending the same money on a quick access lockbox stops both the toddler and the burglar. The smart gun might save the toddler, but the burglar will just sell it to someone who 'unsmarts' it. Trigger locks have the same problem.
 
I think that a smart gun that actually work reliably (which is a tall order) would have legitimate uses. If a suspect wrestles a cop's gun away, for example, he's not going to have time to disassemble the gun and jigger it, and you could just have a box of batteries in the locker room for the monthly battery change etc.

The problem there is that governments routinely exempt their agents from such good ideas as
1. might not work as well as hoped,
2. add cost, and
3. are too new for typically very conservative users.
But it is just what We Commoners need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
But for normal people, they don't do much good (even if they worked as hoped). If the idea is to prevent your toddler finding the gun in the sock drawer, spending the same money on a quick access lockbox stops both the toddler and the burglar. The smart gun might save the toddler, but the burglar will just sell it to someone who 'unsmarts' it. Trigger locks have the same problem.

For the $1500 price of that .22 caliber smart gun you can buy 5 of the best quality quick access handgun safes made.
 
Author Michael Z. Williamson and others have pointed out two flaws in "smart gun" technology:

If the gun fires when it is not supposed to, the manufacturer will be sued. If the gun does not fire when it is supposed to, the manufacturer will be sued.

It makes one wonder why any manufacturer would be stupid enough to try to make a smart gun!
 
Sometimes my phone acts funny. Loads slow, apps crash. At most it is a minor inconvenience and I restart my phone. Why would I trust my life to a gun that uses similar electronic "safeties" when there are those on this board who believe a thumb safety will get you killed? Smart gun is a misnomer. Smart guns are stupid in application.
 
RPZ wrote:
I won't ever be buying any of them.

You may have no choice.

J-Bar wrote:
...why any manufacturer would be stupid enough to try to make a smart gun!

They may have no choice.

At present gun manufacturers enjoy a degree of immunity against lawsuits based on how their product is used. That is, if you make a gun and a thug goes out and shoots someone with it, you generally cannot be sued under either common law or product liability law. Modify that statute to say that the immunity only applies to smart guns manufactured after a certain date and conventional guns would go the way of the dinosaur almost overnight.
 
It makes one wonder why any manufacturer would be stupid enough to try to make a smart gun!

Why do car makers come up with new stuff to put in cars? Patent rights. The first maker who can come up with reliable smart gun technology is worth millions if not billions of dollars in patent money. Especially if a smart gun feature is required in the future. Maybe Armatix will be able to say in 20 years "Look! We had it first! Now pay us $100 for every smart gun made forever."
 
Sometimes my phone acts funny. ... Why would I trust my life to a gun that uses similar electronic "safeties"

The electronics in a well designed smart gun, if one ever comes along, will have more in common with the electronics in airbag sensors, GFCIs, antilock brakes, etc, than the software in a general purpose computer like a cell phone.
 
The electronics in a well designed smart gun, if one ever comes along, will have more in common with the electronics in airbag sensors, GFCIs, antilock brakes, etc, than the software in a general purpose computer like a cell phone.

I used to work for a multi billion dollar auto manufacturer. The gold link couplers responsible for the multi point safety harness that controlled the air bags were tested to fail 50% of the time. So they issued a recall. We also had an issue, caught early, where the control link in the gas pedal would cause uncontrollable acceleration which caused crashes in 19 out of 20 test drives. Please tell me again how electronics in safety components are somehow superior?

Don't get me wrong. I love technology. I am using a computer to converse on THR. I still use a stove to cook food instead of a camp fire. My car was made in the last 2 years and has some nice bells and whistles like Bluetooth audio. But when it comes to self defense I may need RIGHT NOW, I will take dumb tech.
 
Its not just the magnets either. For $30 in parts the hacker showed the gun could be remotely over ridden and disabled the user had the wrist band. Bingo... remote controlled disabled gun hacked. There is ZERO market for thjs
Yes, he showed multiple ways the "smart" gun is actually extremely stupid. But for my headline I went with the simplest one. :)
 
Author Michael Z. Williamson and others have pointed out two flaws in "smart gun" technology:

If the gun fires when it is not supposed to, the manufacturer will be sued. If the gun does not fire when it is supposed to, the manufacturer will be sued.

It makes one wonder why any manufacturer would be stupid enough to try to make a smart gun!
Maybe that's why Armatrix went out of business.
 
There's a reason that 99% of guns are still 100% mechanical in this digital age.

Remember the Remington EtronX rifle?

Nobody wants them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
There's a reason that 99% of guns are still 100% mechanical in this digital age.

Remember the Remington EtronX rifle?

Nobody wants them.
It's mostly because they have to jump through ATF hoops (Etronix) or are just extra junk on a functional gun to make it expensive (Armatix). Plenty of guns worse than the Armatix out there that cost a lot less, and sell like hot cakes.

A Hi Point with solenoid sear would cost quite a bit less, and most likely perform better. But the feds are scared that poor people could easily make them fire more than one shot, and somehow bring ruin to their precious civilization in an instant.
 
It's mostly because they have to jump through ATF hoops (Etronix) or are just extra junk on a functional gun to make it expensive (Armatix). Plenty of guns worse than the Armatix out there that cost a lot less, and sell like hot cakes.

A Hi Point with solenoid sear would cost quite a bit less, and most likely perform better. But the feds are scared that poor people could easily make them fire more than one shot, and somehow bring ruin to their precious civilization in an instant.

I'd never buy an electric gun. Just another thing to go wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top