"Smart Gun" Metrics

[NukemJim]

Like them or not "Smart Guns" are going to be an area of discussion in the 2A Debate and discussions in the political/legislative process. Some firearms owners hate them, some firearms owners (and would be owners) want them.

Please note this is a thread about the metrics and technology of a "Smart Gun" NOT about politics/legal effects/philosophical/governmental rules/ about smart guns.

This is a thread about people who VOLUNTARILY desire a smart gun and the performance of that "Smart Gun" they want to acquire.

I'll start out with a few that I've discussed with an anti.

1) Speed: Should be imperceptable to the user, ideally less than 1/100 of a second. There is some data to suggest that if the recognition process takes a 1/10 of a second from first contact with firearm that the user will not be able to perceive it (Note: this does not apply to Jerry Miculek). ;-) For purposes of this discussion 1/10 of a second would be what is required.

2) Reliability No "Smart Gun" is going to be as reliable as a gun without the extra gadgets, the question is how reliable. Semi's are not as reliable as revolvers but they have most of the market. Many in the firearms world feel that you should be able to shoot 200 rounds of your self-defense ammunition without any problems prior to carrying the firearm. That is a failure rate of <0.5% So for reliability a failure rate of <0.5% would be required.

3) Battery Life At least a year of use while being stored in a holster or a safe. Preferably with a backup battery built in that switches automatically to the backup when the primary goes dead.

4) Indicator There should be 2 indicators visible only to the user of the firearm with one indicator showing that the battery is OK or on backup and the other indicator showing approval or denial of the attempted user.

5) Dongles Meaning any device you must have in order to use the firearm. No wristwatches, rings or radio transmitters are needed to utilize the firearm.

6) Waterproof Not in the sense of taking it deep sea diving to hunt sharks but rather I'm soaked in the rain, and have been for the last three days or i've dropped my firearm in a puddle (or more realistically the toilet ) and still need it to work. Not sure what the metric would be for this one.

Mods: I realize that this may be a hot one, sorry about that, please delete any posts that veer from technical metrics or technology of "Smart Guns" or if people are not following the"High Road" conduct in posting.

To people who hate smart guns, I say again this is about people who VOLUNTARILY want to purchase "Smart Guns" NOT forcing others to purchase them.

NukemJim

Edited to add.
Uhm, guys please READ the OP.
As previously stated some people want "Smart Guns" and some people do not and both are should make their own decision and not force their decision on other people. If you do not like or want a smart gun that is wonderful and your choice. But could you please give other people the respect to let them discuss something that you choose not to participate with.

This thread is about the metrics for assessing the technology not whether or not they are a good idea.

Please take The High Road in letting other people discuss something that you do not like without wasting time and bandwidth.

 

[Yo Mama]

It's a great future application for law enforcement or security. But past this most normal folks don't want a chip shoved in their self defense.

 

[NukemJim]

"most normal folks don't want a chip shoved in their self defense."

Some do, some don't, that's not what this thread about. Don't want to force anyone to have one, do not want to stop anyone who wants one. Whether we like them or not, whether they are practical or not, "Smart Guns" are going a topic of discussion.

 

[DIY-Pete]

1) Speed: Agree with your statement

2) Reliability: I would set the bar higher.
I have had 3 jams/FTF with my carry gun. One was a bad primer on a reload of mine. One was a FTE when I first got the gun. I was sighting in the red dot using a bench so I think I limp wrist-ed it. One stove pipe, cause unkown. This is in the course of around 3000 rounds. If I had a jam every 2 to 3 hundred rounds I would move on to a different gun or ammo.

3) Battery Life: No battery would be better, but I could live with a year of life.

4) Indicator: Agreed, but it is one more thing to check before you use the gun when seconds matter.

5) Dongles: There has to be a better way than a dongle. There are so many things that can make them not work.

6) Waterproof: agree. If you can drop it in a puddle and it still works that should be fine.

Personally I won't consider a smart gun unless that is what all military and LEO are using.

Pete

 

[rskent]

It has to be able to tell intent.
It only goes bang if its pointed at a bad guy or a target or something other than a good person.

OK Smart guns by there very nature cant work. Soldiers at times need to share their weapons.
Same with civilian police. Same with me.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

Semi's are not as reliable as revolvers but they have most of the market.

You cannot make that statement without backup data. Empirical data based upon personal usage doesn't count. It's hearsay at best.

I can prove I've had more trouble with one of my revolvers than I've had with four of my semi-autos - so I don't buy into this at all. Without documentation (real, unbiased data) and not just "Well everybody knows..." - you're going to have to throw that statement out of the conversation.

0.5% failure rate? That's pathetic.

As a real world example - microwave communications systems are designed to provide 99.999% up time - and that includes weather-related path fading. That means they can be down 0.001% of the operating time for system failures and weather interruptions. Most systems operate 24 / 7 / 365 - so it's not like they're lightly used.

What about your refrigerator? How many times has your refrigerator failed to perform?

If refrigerators and microwave systems can be made to be, essentially, nearly 100% reliable, I don't think it's out of the question to demand the same level of reliability for a life saving (or preserving) device.

I'll guarantee that either a microwave system or refrigerator are far more complicated than a gun and that includes the electronic control portions.

Reliability is the primary consideration for a gun. Unless the system can provide 5 nines level of reliability - or better - I'm not interested in going any further.

Soldiers at times need to share their weapons. Same with civilian police. Same with me.

Totally agree.

 

[SuperNaut]

7. Must remain operational when tech fails.

This will never happen.

 

[barnbwt]

"It has to be able to tell intent."
Which is why one criteria needs to be passing the Voight-Kampff test, to measure its emotional maturity in such situations (that's a Bladerunner reference, you Philistines). And I'm not joking or being sarcastic, either; I fully believe we will eventually get to the point of full-sensing automated firearms that prohibit friendly fire & synchronize neurally to filter out adrenaline/muscular noise, allowing only accurate shots at only the attacking target as you sweep the muzzle across him. We ain't anywhere close to that kind of technological development. Someone opined the tech is at Model T stage; heck no, we're more like before the first steam-powered velocipedes (that's a fancy bicycle) at this time, still trying to figure out what we can make this new 'smart technology' conceit accomplish (fyi, steam power does not make for a practical two-wheeled mode of conveyance).

...

Which is why, for now if not forever, perhaps "smart guns" proponents should stop with this wishful thinking fantasy, already (that a machine can replace or augment the will of the person holding the item).* We already have mechanical safeties of numerous styles which function to prevent unintentional --which is different than mistaken-- discharges. I fully believe an electronic switch could perform at least this task, perhaps even with advantages as far as number of moving parts and design freedom as to its position/operation.

But it will never 'think' for the person, and firearms & their owners' operation of them are too simple and too varied (respectively) for a mere switch of any sort to stop all forms of unintentional discharge. Anyone familiar with the concept of "degrees of freedom" will understand where I'm coming from here; the point & click interface of a gun is simply too crude to affix multiple redundant layers of anything to, without rapidly effecting its utility (think of a hammer you have to break glass to access in case of emergency )

All that said...
The possibilities are endless as far as electronics in guns, conceptually.
1) Electronic sights (already ubiquitous in rifles, lasers/dots gaining in pistols but still limited by size/power constraints)
2) Electronic triggers (a mechanical --to please the ATF-- trigger whose weight & pull qualities are set entirely by magnets/solenoids)
3) Assisted triggers (things like revolvers or DA could have a feedback system like power brakes that makes DA & SA the same type of pull)
4) Sensing triggers (detects flinch via accelerometer and either blocks the shot momentarily or drops trigger weight to zero to fire before the gun can be pulled off target)
5) Maintenance tracking (chipped magazines can store their quantity of loaded/unloaded rounds to track usage/wear/service, chipped gun can track the number of shots between failures, last usage date, cycle speed)
6) Performance tracking (could be linked to a competition buzzer or microphone to track hit-tallies or steel strikes, can measure recoil of different loads, can measure aspects of your recovery between shots)
7) Assisted reloading (solenoid actuation of the slide itself, potentially even as a primary driver during shooting --no more gas systems/etc)

Ideas of how I'd go about achieving these cool goals as far as handguns;
A) Put the battery (singular) which drives most functions in the magazine. We don't complain about guns running out of food being a reliability issue, so we won't if the electronics' food is dealt with similarly
B) Put the battery & data storage in the floorplate. Easily replaced, easy to interface with a charger, easy to place an indicator that will be seen.
C) Put the gun's data storage & any tiny backup/supplemental battery (to power a clock, tracks rounds fired with plain magazines, and maybe as a backup to sights if no irons) in the grip backstrap for the same reasons.
D) Build the gun's accelerometer suite into the slide, use a small capacitor to keep things running between shots when the action cycles & breaks electrical contact. The endcap of a Glock slide would be slick, & could hold a rear-mounted dot sight as well, for an all-in-one solution
E) Build the trigger sensor/actuation stuff into a removable trigger housing module like the SIGs have, since this will likely be a desirable thing to upgrade as functionality progresses
F) Have the gun be in a completely 'dumb' mechanical state (i.e. nothing energized but the time-keeper) with battery contacts separated for corrosion reasons, until a mechanical safety is disabled (I'd use a grip safety, myself)
G) Absolutely no wireless broadcast of anything in operation, nor especially the requirement for the same in order to operate. 'Gun signals' will become a recognizable thing by soon to be universal cellphone sensors, and either criminals or the government will take full advantage of 'glowing guns'
H) IF you absolutely want to have a reliable safety scheme, it needs to rely on subcutaneous programmable chips in the user(s). Anything simple or static (like plain RF) will be too easily hacked, so the signal will need rolling encryption, and it will need to be inside the user for reliability/ease of use to be at all similar to mechanical handguns. Call it the gUnplant, after the iMplant that will have swept the world by storm two years earlier, and model it after the palm-crystals in Logan's Run, only it blinks/beeps to alert authorities when a shot's been fired

TCB

*We know the so-called proponents of "smart guns" that are simply gun control freaks will never abandon the dream, since their sick minds salivate at the idea of a mindless robotic machine supplanting human free will, regardless the consequences. This is why they seek such ubiquitous state control in all things, this is why they value the collective over the individual; they are the Borg.

 

[Kiln]

Here's the big one:

Must not be able to be shut off by radio jamming, EMP, or any other form of electronic attack. This is impossible if it has electronics inside.

The 2A should never have a kill switch and if you build a smart gun, you can bet it'll eventually be mandatory. Some places already have laws in place to make it mandatory once a working smart gun is available for purchase.

Then it will be possible to shut off civilian guns in the same way that some vehicles can now be remotely shut down.

If you don't understand why this is the most serious problem with smart guns you haven't thought about it much.

 

[danez71]

Six Sigma - 3.4 defects per million opportunities.

The components are capable of achieving Six Sigma (simple electromechanical that have proven history).

Most every electronic and sime electromechanical device in the auto industry is exceeding Six Sigma.


Accepting anything less on a life critical defense weapon would be foolish.

 

[1911 guy]

I could wax verbose about my opinion, but the short version is that if you want intelligent discussion, people who are in favor of mandatory "smart gun" technology aren't your starting players.

The pistols I shoot exclusively are those cantankerous 1911's. You know, the ones that never work properly. If I had a failure of any kind every three hundred rounds, I would throw the offending magazine or pistol in the nearest body of water. I shoot thousands of rounds every year and can recall exactly ONE failure to feed from One pistol this past year. Let's say my round count is only 1,000. That's a failure rate of .001%. If your electron chasers can't at least match that, I'm not interested.

Speed should be instantaneous. Let's face it, electricity travels at the speed of light (theoretically). The furthest distance from the user to the device can be no more than a matter of inches. My ten year old television remote can change the channel instantly when I press the button.

Battery life of only a year? You can leave an Aimpoint PRO on for three years. It is emitting current, while a "smart gun" would be passive without user input to accept or deny.

Indicators. An indicator for battery life or backup power is a decent idea. However, an indicator or user acceptance or denial is a crutch to patch over two other categories the technology is a spectacular failure. The first is speed. First the criteria is set at 1/10sec., then we're going to pad it to account for deficient technology by installing a go/no-go indicator. The final result could effectively be like warming up a tube amplifier, all the while claiming "success" because the "technology" worked, but the "indicator" lags.

The second failure of the user acceptance/denial indicator is, well, failure rate. When the authorized user attempts to use the firearm, there is no need for it to tell him or her they have been accepted. If the weapon does not fire, it is failure. Suppose you attempt to start your car. I yank off your spark plug wires and say "Sorry, didn't recognize you." Does that make it O.K.? Or does it make you want to buy a car that doesn't come with a wire yanking SOB like me?

Dongles. Let me know how that works. What you describe would require some sort of biometric telemetry most would find invasive/intrusive or rely on the magnetic rings and such we've seen in the past. DNA, fingerprint, etc. All of which people are rightly loathe to give up without good cause.

Waterproof is about the only thing realist or feasible on the list.

 

[v35]

Here's the big one:

Must not be able to be shut off by radio jamming, EMP, or any other form of electronic attack. This is impossible if it has electronics inside.

That's the only one as far as I'm concerned. The discussion ends right there.

 

[gbran]

No newly introduced semi-auto firearms without micro-stamping can be sold in CA and you can be sure smart-guns will some day be mandated too.

 

[barnbwt]

"Must not be able to be shut off by radio jamming, EMP, or any other form of electronic attack. This is impossible if it has electronics inside."
If the electronics are not necessary for operation but only augment/improve it, this is not true; that's a true 'smart' gun design

"if you want intelligent discussion, people who are in favor of mandatory "smart gun" technology aren't your starting players."
Too true, which sadly prevents anyone from having an intelligent discussion about the role of electronics in gun development, either (i.e. why Aimpoints somehow aren't susceptible to the 'electronic attack' alluded to above is beyond me)

I also forgot to add the absolutely most critical of all criteria for electronic handgun design;
Must not rely on continual updates, contracts, upgrades, or replacement for continued function at a rate significantly (predictably) higher than the mechanical parts. No "planned-obsolescence" will be tolerated. Google/Apple/Msoft need not apply. Upgrades to add function are perfectly acceptable and expected, but if needed for basic function, constitute a severe liability.

TCB

 

[1911 guy]

Electromagnetic shielding would be possible, but doing so would probably defeat the technology itself. Sorta like intentionally locking your keys in the car. Everything works as intended, but you can't use it.

As far as the software update issue, accepting anything processor driven would be foolish. There are only two possible paths. First, a simple electromechanical device. Each manufacturer would come up with their own solution to the problem. The second possibility is a common technology but proprietary software. This introduces all the bad stuff you want to avoid. Updates, crashes, obsolescence, etc. The first option, however, renders this entire discussion moot as only one manufacturer can offer the best solution. First one to a patent office gets it all, everyone else has to sell the garbage.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

(i.e. why Aimpoints somehow aren't susceptible to the 'electronic attack' alluded to above is beyond me)

Do you have any evidence that they're not? Unless the military has EMP tested the devices, and you have proof of the testing + test results - I wouldn't assume they're not affected by EMP.

Real EMP testing involves huge levels of electromagnetics to the point that humans cannot be on or near the test platform or in the test cell during testing.

Aimpoints have lenses - that alone precludes them from full shielding as the EMP will enter through those openings.

 

[Twiki357]

Most of your points seem somewhat reasonable for anyone who would want one. The down sides would be:

3) Battery Life: One year? Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on what a potential puyer finds acceptable AND what the replacement cost is. Example: I had a smoke detector that had a battery that cost almost as much as the unit. And don’t me started on the cost of replacement battery for my cell phone.

4) A battery indicator would have to accurately indicate the remaining life, not just when it got low.

5) Dongles: Accessories don’t work if they are forgotten or lost (replacement cost and synchronizing to the gun) making the gun worthless. Then there is availability of a replacement. Fingerprint recognition is only good under ideal conditions. Dirty, bloody, etc. hands are it probably wouldn’t work and definitely not if gloves are being worn.

Not addressed: Acceptance will be a lengthy process, probably generations because it could only apply to new guns. It would have little impact for the millions of existing guns.

Personally, I will never have one.

 

[gamboolman]

7. Must remain operational when tech fails.

This will never happen.
__________________
What Supernaught said

 

[barnbwt]

Aimpoints have lenses - that alone precludes them from full shielding as the EMP will enter through those openings.

And yet they are one of the most trusted sighting systems despite possessing all the potential flaws of a smart weapon. It simply hasn't been an issue, which is my point. But we still have folks who claim electronics do not belong in a gun under any circumstance because they will fail --.gov killswitch or no.

TCB

 

[1911 guy]

False argument.

I can choose to use an Aimpoint, not to use an Aimpoint or to run both RDS and BUIS. This choice is not available for the technology being discussed. All or nothing.

 

[jamesjames]

smart gun doesn't address the main issues in abuse of firearms

So, forget about the technology for a minute and think about the types of "accidental" or "criminal" death that the antis want to eliminate.

1. Infant or small child finds an unsecured firearm. This scenario might acutally be mitigated by the smart gun. But it is so rare, I'm guessing a couple hundred instances out of 30,000 gun deaths a year (FBI stats, not mine), that its a feel good law that would make inroads here only if all 300 million conventional guns were turned in first.

2. Family member or friend uses firearm for crime. These scenarios are based on the idea that your associates know how to access your firearm and can turn on you or go commit crime elsewhere. Some gun deaths are murders of family members or friends (5-10% if I misremember my FBI stats correctly). Unfortunately, if you program the gun to accept the biometrics of your family or friends that you take to the range shooting, they will have a working firearm when they steal it from you.

3. Suicides. Not even touched by smart gun technology. If you decide to take your own life, you have access codes and the biometrics to make the gun operate.

4. Criminal use of firearms by criminal firearm owners. This one is too stoopid to mention, but criminals getting their own smart guns will have the access code and biometrics for their own gun just like everybody else.

There seems no significant benefit to smart guns in terms of lowering gun death rates in the real scenarios that make up the stats.

 

[jerkface11]

If anyone is going to depend on a "smart" gun then a failure of the electronics should leave the gun functional.

 

[barnbwt]

False argument.

I can choose to use an Aimpoint, not to use an Aimpoint or to run both RDS and BUIS. This choice is not available for the technology being discussed. All or nothing.

This is what I mean; people see "smart gun" and immediately stop thinking. Either it's the greatest salvation of mankind, or the evilest of plots. Plenty of folks choose to run RMR sights on handguns (there's a reason they come standard on some Glocks, FNs, and S&W's now) and they have shown to be more reliable than the magazines or ammunition. No BUIS needed, and the dot sights present very real advantages over their mechanical predecessors.

There is no 'choice' as far as available technology, because it is neither available nor even extant for the most part. All we have seen besides that stupid Armatix abortion and the dumb five-seconds-to-maybe-work trigger long dingus, is a bunch of theoretical musings on what the tech could do.

We limit ourselves by condemning the conversation to the stupidly impractical anti-gunner notions of what 'smart gun technology' is. These people don't even know what a disconnector is, and we let them shape how gun electronics technology progresses?

 

[1911 guy]

You miss the point of my statement. There are entire states (California and New Jersey come to mind) and several localities that already have laws on the books stating when the first "smart gun" becomes commercially viable, no other firearms will be permitted for sale. There is no choice.

I'm going to build the best mousetrap I can. When it's done, I'm going to legally require you to take your meals from it. Want to help me build a mousetrap?

 

[NukemJim]

" Soldiers at times need to share their weapons.
Same with civilian police. Same with me."

So one of your requirements would be that more than one person can use said firearm? For some systems that is quite doable.

How many users would the gun need to be able to handle?

"Unless the system can provide 5 nines level of reliability - or better - I'm not interested in going any further."

So your requirement is 99.999% correct?

"Must not be able to be shut off by radio jamming, EMP, or any other form of electronic attack."

If that is your requirement it will be very hard to meet, perhaps you do not want a "Smart Gun" and should not get one.

"Six Sigma - 3.4 defects per million opportunities."
That is a very desirable goal. Will probably take a while to get there if it is ever possible.

" First the criteria is set at 1/10sec., then we're going to pad it to account for deficient technology by installing a go/no-go indicator. "

No, not at all, no one is "padding". Many guns have loaded chamber indicators some visual, some tactile, some combined.How much does having a loaded chamber indicator slow down your draw and presentation. You do not have to check those prior to using the firearm in a self defense situation.

"Dongles. Let me know how that works."

You might want to read the OP.

"smart gun doesn't address the main issues in abuse of firearms"

Never ever claimed that it did. That is for another thread PLEASE! If you do not want to talk about metrics please leave this thread for others.

"We limit ourselves by condemning the conversation to the stupidly impractical anti-gunner notions of what 'smart gun technology' is. These people don't even know what a disconnector is, and we let them shape how gun electronics technology progresses?"

And yet when I try to have a rational thread discussing VOLUNTARY "Smart Gun" Metrics many people ignore the question and refuse to have a rational conversation about what would be acceptable for VOLUNTARY "Smart Guns" ownership.

I get that many people do not like "Smart Guns". But if rational conversations cannot be had among gun owners then yes the antis will be the only ones having the discussion.

The discussions ARE going to be had whether or not the gun community likes it or not. The question is whether or not people who know something about firearms are going to have input on the development of said "Smart Guns" and the laws regarding them.

"Smart Guns" are not a panacea. But like any other firearm there are tradeoffs and different firearms for different situations. There are some situations where some people would prefer to have a "Smart Gun".