Senior Design: Non lethal accessory for carbines/shotguns

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

geardog32

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
5
Hello I am new to this forum, I am in my senior year and decided to do my mechanical design project on a non lethal accessory for a carbine/shotgun. I am in the research/interview stage of the project and would like input from many different people on what this device means to them. I have ideas already, but I don't want to steer anyone in a specific direction. I am open to all ideas and there are no dumb ideas.

PLEASE DO NOT FLAME OTHERS FOR IDEAS POSTED, THIS IS COMPLETELY OPEN.

If you are LEO or military please specify(you don't need to be specific)


What have you used in the past? Did you like it?

What would you like to see?

What attributes would be important to you?

Would you want the same device for both personal and professional use?

What is a reasonable price for such a device?

Any other input?

Thanks!
 
You know how they have the M203 grenade launcher attached to the bottom of M4/16's?
What about the same thing... with a taser.

M4 with undercarried tazer attachment.
 
I think if you have some sort of a non-lethal device attached to a firearm, for civilians it would be important to make sure the attachment or use of the non-lethal device would render the firearm inoperable as a firearm. A non-lethal device I interpret as being most likely used in a situation where deadly force is not appropriate....to use a non-lethal device attached to a firearm, you most likely have to point the firearm at the person in a situation where deadly force is not applicable. This creates legal problems, especially if you should accidentally shoot the person with the firearm while trying to use the non-lethal device.
Also, you are then pointing a firearm at a person who, while rowdy or in need of a tasing, did not warrant a drawn and pointed weapon, or create justification for a shooting....who might misinterpret your intention to use your non-lethal device for an intention to use the gun its attached to...dramatically escalating a situation into a "must-shoot" scenario when they are forced in their own mind to act to save themselves from you.
In my mind, guns are for shooting people in a life or death situation, where immediate and deadly force is needed to preserve your own life or the lives of others. Tasers are for something different. They are usually used to prevent a person who is not an immediate threat from becoming one. They should not be in your hands at the same time competing for attention.
It is definitely a worthy focus of your efforts, I'm all for non-lethal solutions...but you might want to rethink incorporating the two and focus on a standalone non-lethal device, if you want to capture a civilian market.

The best use I'd have for some sort of a non-lethal device for firearms would be some sort of a pepper-spray bullet that could be loaded into a regular gun, so I could spray my neighbors aggressive dog without pissing my neighbor off by killing his admittedly harmless but still annoying dog. Something that would still cycle the action so if you had to you could just keep the first round pepper, and double tap if the situation merited and send a "spicy lead pill" at 'em
 
Last edited:
silicosys4 is EXACTLY right.

As a military or police item, for duty use, this is interesting but presents problems. Most of the time there is a great deal of care used in separating the lethal from the less than lethal means of applying force. Right down to using separate shotguns in distinctive colors for firing beanbag rounds and other LTL payloads, and having officers carry tasers on the opposite side from their sidearm.

As a civilian matter, there is a VERY small window of utility for less-than-lethal force. Whereas law-enforcement has a "force pyramid" an officer can work through to achieve compliance and make an arrest, a non-sworn citizen has very few opportunities to use justifiable "force" but not "deadly force." (There are a few states where some crimes may be met with "force" but not "deadly force" but the threshold is tricky and the window of opportunity fleeting.)

In other words, as a private citizen, unless you're justified in using lethal force (because you have to stop a deadly threat), you really shouldn't be using ANY force. And if you AREN'T justified to use lethal force, your application of a less-than-lethal device is almost certainly unlawful as well.


[To add -- if you fire a firearm at someone, it doesn't matter WHAT you had loaded in it. That's lethal force, and you either have to justify the necessity of that force or you'll be tried for AWD or manslaughter.]
Basically, the only really good argument for "Average Joe" citizen to use less-than-lethal weapons is in areas where firearms and other lethal weapons are prohibited -- and again, there aren't very many places that allow one but not the other.
 
This is good input and I understand what you guys are saying and let me open it up some more. The device does not need to necessarily incapacitate the target. It could disorient, confuse, cause them to flinch. Maybe you can spray a slick substance on the ground maybe mace them.

When entering unknown situations you want your main weapon ready for the worst, but what about your non lethal option you have to switch hands or put your weapon down. Is this a problem?
 
Less-than-lethal options for law enforcement are a bit of a luxury item, if you will.

If there is only one officer on the scene, s/he needs to present their sidearm and be prepared to use it if the threat advances or moves to assault the officer. Juggling multiple weapons is not a safe choice, and trying to switch between under the threat of an immediate assault is a disaster. The tool at hand needs to be the one which will most effectively handle the worst possible outcome.

If there are multiple officers on scene, the less lethal tools can come into play. At least one officer keeps a lethal-force weapon trained on the subject as an overwatch to protect the other officer(s) if the worst happens. This frees the other officers to holster their sidearms and employ the tasers, OC spray, batons, etc.

The dynamics of a lethal encounter happen in fractions of a second. The officer cannot be tasked with selecting which trigger or which option under that kind of duress. At least one officer must be ready to fire a lethal-force weapon in less than a second if another officer is endangered.
 
Last edited:
The problem still comes back to the fact you are pointing a lethal weapon at another human when deploying the nonlethal substance at them.

That flies in the face of all firearms Safety Training.

And it can & will be construed by the legal beagles as lethal force, even though you had no intention of shooting the person, and didn't. You still pointed a firearm at them.

The fact that you pointed the gun at them is all it takes.

rc
 
Keep in mind that in order to use a Less Lethal approach with this method, you would have to be pointing the gun at the target already. Since you shouldn't point the gun at someone unless you're ready to shoot them, you shouldn't be opting for less lethal at that point.
 
Buttstroke, joust etc. Also, modern convention is "less-lethal", not "non-lethal" or "less than lethal". Some people might die right dead like if you looked at them mean probably.
 
Does the carbine/shotgun need to be pointed at them? Is the device perpendicular to the bore? Can it be quickly and efficiently detached without removing your hand from it?

I know everyone here is most likely and adult and has been taught to think logically, but I am in essence asking you to think like a child.

At this stage of the project there is no solution.
 
The concept of integrating lethal and less lethal weapons into one unit is not exactly a good one, for several reasons. Most of them have already been mentioned, and a little research will show that people who use both professionally take deliberate measures to keep the two separate.

If your design being applicable in the real world is a requirement (as I suspect it is), you may want to look at a stand alone less lethal system, or possibly integrate two different less lethal weapons. Maybe a taser forearm for less lethal dedicated shotguns?



Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2
 
Does the carbine/shotgun need to be pointed at them? Is the device perpendicular to the bore? Can it be quickly and efficiently detached without removing your hand from it?
Click to expand...

If it can be quickly detached, it would be less bulk and more efficient to carry it detached. If you want to carry it perpendicular to the bore, you're asking someone to worry about sweeping their flank. That's a bigger hazard, IMO.

If your design being applicable in the real world is a requirement (as I suspect it is), you may want to look at a stand alone less lethal system, or possibly integrate two different less lethal weapons. Maybe a taser forearm for less lethal dedicated shotguns?
Click to expand...

This is a good idea. Or a grenade launcher that specifically uses tear gas grenades, since you probably don't want to use that when the suspect is 10 feet in front of you.
 
Over here about a year or so ago, the PPD shot an unarmed guy with four rounds of buckshot out of one of those "dedicated" beanbag shotguns.. oopsies! He lived.
 
Hello I am new to this forum, I am in my senior year and decided to do my mechanical design project on a non lethal accessory for a carbine/shotgun.

A true non-lethal accessory would be real interesting if it could pass reliability tests and medical documentation.

Many less-than-lethal ideas have come and gone so be sure to research your ida with the US Patent Office.
 
Another problem to having a LTL device perpindicular to the bore, besides sweeping your flank, is that your weapon is now pointed far away if LTL force doesn't work, and lethal force is then needed. That second needed to pull your weapon back on target could be crucial.

Being on the gun itself just doesn't make sense to me as a civilian. I'm sure there's a scenario or two that it'd be useful, but seems rather unlikely to me it would be very beneficial.
 
You may have just hit on something. If you had a Taser mounted on the top rail of a carbine.
And it was mounted in such a way that a person could fire it at an attacker with the carbine
held at the low ready position…….. I don’t know, just thinking.
 
If you had a Taser mounted on the top rail of a carbine.
And it was mounted in such a way that a person could fire it at an attacker with the carbine held at the low ready position
Click to expand...
Ok. Then the challenge becomes to determine what scenario you might face where you are lawfully justified in brandishing a firearm (pointing it in someone's direction), and where you're justified in using force against them (taser), but NOT firing your weapon at them.

That's an incredibly narrow window. I'd suggest that it isn't something that really happens, often, if ever.

Of course, the next question is, WHAT NEXT? You know that a Taser's effects stop after the current stops flowing, right? So you've more or less hit "PAUSE". Then the juice stops and it's "UN-pause" time. With the civilian models of the Taser, you're supposed to hit the bad guy with it, then drop it and run. The Taser will automatically give him a 30-second ride while you try to flee to safety. How does that work when attached to a rifle? Tase him, then shoot him anyway?
 
This just sounds too much like stopping them with a taser, then detaining them with the threat of a carbine. Like I said, no real civillian use.
 
Not to discourage, but you might come to realize that you can't find any examples of products like this in the real world specifically because it's a liability and doesn't work, or the application is so incredibly narrow that it's not even worth considering.
 
From an LE standpoint, use of force is a dynamic situation not static. Meaning, once you reach a certain level of force doesn't mean that you are locked in on it and can't move back down to a lesser amount of force. If you are holding a long gun on someone and the situation changes to a non-lethal encounter, you need to make the transition from the long gun to that other thing. In the case of a long gun, this could be awkward and time consuming (sling rifle, transition to spray/taser, deploy). It also gives the actor time to think. If the less lethal option were available onboard the long gun it would eliminate that transitional downtime.
I'd still have concerns about such a device. Number one, you have to make sure you pull the right trigger! Two, what will my partner do when I deploy the less lethal device? Hopefully he would recognize that I used the less lethal and not the lethal, or he might pop off a shot in reflex to me.
The taser is a great product. Something else to consider might be one of the high pressure pepper spray devices, like Kimber sells/sold. I'm thinking of a sudden, MASSIVE deployment of pepper that covers an actor head to waist in a second or less.
 
I'm thinking of a sudden, MASSIVE deployment of pepper that covers an actor head to waist in a second or less.
Click to expand...

That would be very interesting and I think it's a good thought. Sort of the M203 version of the Kimber Pepper Blaster.

Another thing would be a true eye dazzling light that is aim-able. Even one that works only for a few seconds.
 
How about a basket full of angry bees?

Or a trained police chihuahua, you could mount the carrier under the barrel.
 
It is critically important that neither the lethal nor the non-lethal weapon have any similar ergonomics to prevent confusing one for the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Senior Project Build
Replies
0
Views
227
Bugnut
B
B
  • Locked
Senior design project
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Biohazard1993
B
N
  • Locked
Requirements Set For Ultimate Survival Rifle
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
212
Views
12K
mnrivrat
mnrivrat
Flyboy73
  • Locked
10/22 M1 Carbine Project
Replies
8
Views
986
trueg50
T
S
  • Locked
Pistol-caliber carbine for home defence.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
browningguy
B
Back
Top