Password Protected Ammo? Seriously.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nivek

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
61
Stumbled upon an article that linked me to this patent for microchipped ammunition that requires a password protected radio frequency to fire. Can't wait for the lobbyists to get a hold on this one...

Read the patent here
 
you do realize....that if someones thought of it....theres probably a patent for it...

....that doesnt mean its going to be used.....or was ever even planned to be used....
 
Yeah, I get that. There are some pretty ridiculous patents out there. But there's been pushes for micro-stamping, and "smart" guns already. This isn't far off from either of those concepts. Is it possible? Yes. Feasible? NO. But when did that ever stop the Anti's??
 
Watch the freq be too close to another type of RFI, and ammo starts detonating in the magazine when going by a store RFID monitor. oops.
I doubt that's going anywhere.
 
I would never carry ammo like that out in public. There are too many stray sources of radiowaves for me to be comfortable with it. I think of all the times I have seen a radar detector go off for no reason... no thanks.

But yes, as with the above posts, there are a great many patents that will thankfully never see the light of day. This will probably be one of them.
 
Not defending this idea, but I'm pretty sure it means that it is able to be fired by the trigger when the signal is on, not that the signal itself sets the ammo off. It's not going to detonate in the holster just because of radio waves.
 
Totally useless for SD anyway. "Wait, don't rob me! I have to activate my gun so I can stop you!" ...HA!

Funny what people can invent though.
 
This guy is the CEO of Simons-Voss out of Munnich Germany.

Not defending this idea, but I'm pretty sure it means that it is able to be fired by the trigger when the signal is on, not that the signal itself sets the ammo off. It's not going to detonate in the holster just because of radio waves.

If that's the case, it can be manipulated and possibly force a FTF. I agree, it would not blow the holster up. Worst case scenario... nothing would go bang at all.
 
Okay, I'm going to play devils advocate.

Just because it would be crazy to do this today, what about 25 years from now?

Look at cell phones and computers 25 years ago compared with today? Who's to say it wouldn't be cheap and unobtrusive in the future?
 
Just because it would be crazy to do this today, what about 25 years from now?

Look at cell phones and computers 25 years ago compared with today? Who's to say it wouldn't be cheap and unobtrusive in the future?

Cell phones and computers aren't fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Maybe different people with different viewpoints should all be forced to speak on specific radio frequencies as the sole outlet for free speech. That way, people who don't want to hear a contrary point of view can avoid that frequency. Free speech isn't affected, right?

(I realize this example mirrors reality to some degree anyway, but my point would require those radio frequencies to be the only outlet for speech, not just one possible avenue as it is today).
 
Last edited:
People have applied for patents for all kinds of stupid ideas.

Until someone actually tries to implement this in real life, I don't see any real reason to be terribly concerned.
 
Cell phones and computers aren't fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Maybe different people with different viewpoints should all be forced to speak on specific radio frequencies as the sole outlet for free speech. That way, people who don't want to hear a contrary point of view can avoid that frequency. Free speech isn't affected, right?

Your rude attack was uncalled for.

I never ONCE said that this ammunition would be some sort of requriment.
I would assume you would CHOOSE to have this type of ammo. Like a police officer who doesn't want to get shot by his own gun.

I accept your apology. :neener:
 
just imagine--the 'agencies' will want a master frequency neutralizer. when they come on the scene it will turn off everyone else's cartridges but theirs. of course this device will never fall into the hands of criminals:rolleyes:
 
Getting a radio signal to work properly inside a firearm would be a dicey proposition, given the amount of steel in there.
 
Getting a radio signal to work properly inside a firearm would be a dicey proposition, given the amount of steel in there.
One could make a similar argument about cars. But magically, it's not a problem.
 
I think people are focusing too quickly on the possible bad things a technology like this could be used for, which considering the classic "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line used by many Pro-gun debaters, makes me kinda laugh at the hysterics surrounding this proposed technology.

The technology in and of itself is neither good nor bad, it's the application which matters.

Quite frankly, the concept of having ammunition that only activates with a signaled "key" from the gun it was linked to, in conjunction with say fingerprinting or DNA "keying" of say the hand to the hand grip of the gun could be an invaluable tool in preventing weapons from being used by the wrong people at the wrong time.

For instance, on police issued weapons, where the possibility of a stolen gun in a heated situation where the officer's gun could be turned on him, is probably a good place for technology like this.

Now don't get me wrong, I would never be in favor mandating these technologies on firearms, but having the option is a GOOD thing.

So quit with the kneejerk "tech is evil" crap, cause quite honestly, you sound like a bunch of whining anti-gunners. :evil:
 
Cool, so you carry a cell zapper (scrambler) and their gun can't work...
sorry don't think the cops will go for this one, and hunters don't like having to carry spare hearing aid batteries, could you see the outdoor channel,
wait a minute Jake, gotta change the batteries in the gun, OH damnit the codes dumped, well we are done for today, look at that 12 point, gotta rock
 
The way to stop consideration of this...make the presidents body guards use it for two years first... then have ALL police use it for two years. It will go away.

Mark
 
Maybe the guy patented it so that govt CANT use it.

This isnt much different of an idea than the RFID bracelet device. Which IMO is a more realistic approach as is matches the bracelet to the gun. Easy to match.

This patent needs a gun to ammo match which would require some type of programming of the ammo sensor (ie - go buy ammo and the guy at the counter would have to swipe the box of ammo to allow it to work in your gun).

The technology is here now to make an RFID 'tag' small enough to fit inside the shell but is too cost prohibitive at that size.
 
One could make a similar argument about cars. But magically, it's not a problem.

That's because cars have large external antennas and don't keep their radios inside of a piston ;)

You could synch up with ammo inside of a polymer magazine no problem, but you'd have to put your transmitter antenna in the bolt or chamber to make the connection to ammunition ready to fire. Not an impossible proposition, but it's a real point of failure.
 
The great thing about guns, reloading supplies and ammo is that they will last forever. Concepts like this (Which could become reality) are great reasons to continue to purchase guns, ammo and reloading supplies.
 
Telumehtar I think it is a good thing for folks to look at negatives on new tech. There has already been too many tech ideas thrown out there without ANY consideration of drawbacks.

Looking at this tech balanced (considering good and bad) should be done before we have it in our faces. Not doing so will get you a knee jerk reaction as it is suddenly thrown into peoples faces.

Now I work in the tech sector, I am bathed in bleeding edge tech and yeah there are some awesome advances out there. As techies we tend to know the positives by heart but getting the negative feedback from the folks in the trenches can be very helpful and allow the guys developing this tech in the future to address these negatives before releasing it.

Personally, I do not want electronic in my gun. Mechanics are more reliable IMO, less complicated, and plain and simply they work. Before they roll electronics into firearms, specifically controlling the firing mechanism (not counting laser sights, tactical lights, scopes, etc) you have to consider all the environments it has to deal with. Also the cost. We cannot and must not have firearms getting expensive to the point that only the well-to-do can afford them. We need to be sure any law abiding man who wishes to have a gun can get one without mortgaging his home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top