Armatix – Video proof it’s a Not-So-Smart Gun

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3vkw9dRT_o[/youtube]

This video is total fail

At the very start it shows 2 kids playing with a gun.  I know the point they are trying to get across, but really?

At 51 seconds the gun clicks, indicating that it actually would have fired a round when the guy not wearing the watch pulled the trigger.

Armatix must have caught on, because on their website the video now has that failed demo conveniently edited out.

You can read more about the Armatix gun on my other post – HERE

10 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Josh February 2, 2010 at 05:17 pm

You might be able to consider the video a failure because they never should have shown that part particular part, but I disagree that the video is proof that it’s a not-so-smart gun. When the demonstrator pulled the trigger and it clicked, the pistol was still within what, two feet of the watch? If you were wearing the watch on your left wrist, like most right-handed people do, and holding the pistol in your right hand (arm outstretched, of course), with a cell phone to your ear calling 911 with your left hand, the pistol would be at least that far from the transmitter.

It would be pretty useless if you got shot or stabbed in the arm that bears the watch, picked up your pistol with the other hand, and then couldn’t fire it to defend yourself because you couldn’t move your injured arm close enough to it!

I think this thing is way too gimmicky, and any time you start adding batteries, electronics, radio transmitters and receivers, etc. to a firearm you’re adding things that are extremely prone to failure. But, I think the video still demonstrates that the concept works. The demonstrator just began pulling the trigger a little hastily; he began pulling the trigger while he was still taking the gun from and moving it away from the hand with person wearing the watch.

Reply

Admin (Mike) February 2, 2010 at 06:08 pm

Josh,
The gun switched users, and yet it still fired… I look at that as a complete failure in design. Proximity just wasn’t the right direction to take on this project.

Yea there are some situations in which it would be nice for another person to be able to pick up your gun and use it without having to put the watch on (ie. one of your team members or partners in a L.E. environment). In the case of a hand to hand struggle where it would be the most useful to have the gun not fire in anyone else’s hands, that video proved that you could easily die by your own gun if you were disarmed in a struggle.

What if the watch happened to be sitting on the kitchen counter where those little kids where playing with the gun at the beginning of the video? Well you would have 1 dead kid on your hands. Total Failure.

Reply

Josh February 2, 2010 at 06:43 pm

I guess it depends on what you think the intent of the system is. I don’t consider the intent of the system to be to prevent the owner from getting shot with his own weapon, but in that respect, this system is certainly not more dangerous than any other pistol. Rather, I consider it a safety measure to prevent unauthorized users from finding the gun and firing it.

The watch must be activated by fingerprint verification, and is then active for a pre-set period of time, or until manually deactivated. I don’t know what the manual deactivation is, but I would think that taking the watch off may deactivate the system. If that’s the case, the scenario you pose of children playing with the gun while the watch is near would not be dangerous. Likewise, if you choose not to wear the watch all the time and deactivate it before putting it away, no one can find the watch, activate the system, and fire the weapon without the owner’s fingerprint.

In any case, it seems to offer some measures of safety not available to conventional pistols, and I maintain that the video doesn’t prove the concept or its execution to be a failure.

Like I said before, it’s a gimmick, and has some disadvantages. But, I think the concept, and this application of it specifically, has some advantages that certain people may desire and benefit from; I think you’re being a little too hard on them.

Just my 2¢ worth. :)

Reply

Kristopher February 3, 2010 at 06:22 pm

“Rather, I consider it a safety measure to prevent unauthorized users from finding the gun and firing it.”

Betcha I can disable this system in under 10 minutes with hand tools.

If that was the system’s intent, then it is still a fail.

The only thing this system does well is place another expensive barrier up for honest people to buy firearms.

Reply

Josh February 3, 2010 at 07:23 pm

Well MacGuyver, you may be able to disable the system, but a 12 year old child won’t be able to. I don’t see how it’s a barrier to honest people buying firearms; this has no impact on your ability to purchase any other handgun. It’s not for everyone, but for those who want that extra safety measure to prevent their child or someone else from being able to fire it.

Nearly any safety system could be circumvented somehow by an expert. Even if you could disable the system in ten minutes with tools, that does not necessarily mean the system is a failure. If that were the case, we might as well not bother using passwords for our email, or alarms for our homes; there’s always someone out there who can bypass those safeguards.

Reply

Admin (Mike) February 3, 2010 at 10:05 pm

Yea it seems like all of us have a different idea of what kind of “safety” this gun is supposed to be providing. I look at it as introducing a whole slew of problems into a mechanical system that has been proven to work fine.

One might argue that a system like the Armatix one that has the ability to fail not only mechanically but also electrically, is actually less safe than the same gun without electronics, when you are armed with common sense.

Reply

SPC Fish February 3, 2010 at 07:06 pm

not saying you guys are wrong but it could be a firing pin style safety. and you could just be hearing the hammer drop

Reply

Admin (Mike) February 3, 2010 at 10:01 pm

The hammer actually doesn’t even seem to move in the video, which is kind of odd. The first guy gets the clicking noise every time he pulls the trigger (he has the watch on), and guy #2 gets the noise the first time he pulls the trigger (when he shouldn’t have) and then all the other times it’s silent.

Reply

kraut April 12, 2010 at 06:31 am
Admin (Mike) April 12, 2010 at 01:03 pm

Author : kraut (IP: 217.110.241.74 , mail.armatix.de)
E-mail : xy@yxc.com

You probably won’t see this message because you used a fake email address.. but if you do see it, let us know if the new model could possibly fire when it’s not supposed to like in the video in this post.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: