EE shows that a Smart Gun isn't very Smart

[Kjelt]

A gun is a very simple mechanism and one that's well known, anyone with some fairly rudimentary hand tools and the ability to use them could permanently bypass this lock quickly.

It doesn't matter. Here is a sniper computerized rifle $13k hacked.
https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-can-disable-sniper-rifleor-change-target/
After a couple of years looking at hacks I can easily say that whatever man thought up off, can be hacked by man. It might take enormous effort, time and equipment but it can be done. The only thing to do is make it so difficult that only a government agency with its resources can do it in the end

[CJay]

After a couple of years looking at hacks I can easily say that whatever man thought up off, can be hacked by man. It might take enormous effort, time and equipment but it can be done. The only thing to do is make it so difficult that only a government agency with its resources can do it in the end

Absolutely but I disagree it can be made so complex it is impractical to do so in this case, massive key length, quantum encryption etc. are all useless here, because a gun is at it's most basic, a tube with a projectile, some propellant and a nail to initiate it, you can only make it so difficult to 'unlock' on a mechanical level.

[Kjelt]

Ah ok that is a good point the same that doorlocks will never be burglarproof.
Indeed a gun is than a pretty simple device.

[EEVblog]

A gun is a very simple mechanism and one that's well known, anyone with some fairly rudimentary hand tools and the ability to use them could permanently bypass this lock quickly.
The *only* thing it's useful for is in stopping someone shooting you with it after taking your gun out of your hands or stopping your kids doing the same when you've been stupid enough to leave it in their reach.

Without getting into the gun debate, if a gun is for self defense then anything that potentially gets in the way of the reliability and simplicity of that task is not only pointless, but entirely detrimental to operation and almost certainly the commercial desirability of the product.
If the batteries in the gun or watch don't work, if the electronics fail etc, it's useless 
Why would anyone buy this?

[EEVblog]

Ah ok that is a good point the same that doorlocks will never be burglarproof.

Some locks have not been picked externally. e.g the Abloy PL362
Good and careful engineering can ensure that.

[Excavatoree]

Dave, with all respect, with your stance against politics and against any gun debate, why was the sexual insult about gun owners allowed to remain?"

It might surprise many to learn that I don't read every post on this forum.
Moderation on this forum generally work on a report basis.

Why do anti gun people feel the need for personal insults?  Debate the facts (well, not here, as you have said not to, but elsewhere) but geez, the credibility of the anti gun people takes a nose dive when they insist on insulting the sexuality of gun owners.

It was no such thing, there was no sexism here, you are interpreting the comment incorrectly.
But I will not enter into debate on that either.

I reported the post.  It looked like a sexual (not sexist) insult.   If the moderator(s) feel it is OK I'll drop it, but accusing gun owners of having repressed anal sexual problems seems like something you wouldn't allow per your warning.

[lowimpedance]

 Perhaps Benta could help clear up the ' confusion ' by explaning the intent of his comment.

edit :There was no real need for an explanation of course, Benta knew full well what he said.
Of course I'll move on now.

[CJay]

Without getting into the gun debate, if a gun is for self defense then anything that potentially gets in the way of the reliability and simplicity of that task is not only pointless, but entirely detrimental to operation and almost certainly the commercial desirability of the product.
If the batteries in the gun or watch don't work, if the electronics fail etc, it's useless 
Why would anyone buy this?

Absolutely, the old saying about how any fool can make something more complex applies here too, unfortunately the reasons for it being made more complex are hugely emotive and political so best avoided here (a decision I again wholeheartedly agree with)

[EEVblog]

Perhaps Benta could help clear up the ' confusion ' by explaning the intent of his comment.

No, it's a storm in a teacup. Move along now.

[David Hess]

Of course, with so many "dumb guns" around that cost considerably less, and responsible gun owners who are of the belief that the existing methods of securing gun ownership supposedly work, I wonder how many people will even adopt these devices?

The additional safety claims are easy to evaluate.  In the US states which have passed smart gun mandates, police officers who would benefit from not having their own firearm used against them are exempted.  They are also exempted from the limited rosters of firearms which have been approved in part based on arguably useless safety features.

I am knowledgeable about firearm mechanics and electronics and in the past, took a careful look at possible "smart gun" designs.  They all decrease reliability of the firearm itself by orders of magnitude.  (Firearms are necessarily very reliable and this is of prime importance in their design.)  There are one or more authentication devices, one or more power sources, the authentication channel, extra complexity added to the firearm itself, etc.  Even the various attempts to implement electronic priming have had reliability problems like shock damage to the electronics, dead batteries, leaving the key at home, etc.

The best safety improvements can be made by training good habits (treat fireams as loaded, keep finger off trigger, safe direction, etc.) so they become second nature including training children.  The user is the primary safety.

[rx8pilot]

David - I will agree with that.

Adding complex electronics, RF, and a lockout mechanism is a considerable hit to reliability. Gun design has been tweaked specifically to be reliably over a very long period of time. If carried as a means of self-defense - what is more important than reliability?

[MarkS]

Why would anyone buy this?

Because "safety" and because laws are being put in place mandating smart guns.

[edy]

Perhaps next we should start looking at how to design "smart bullets". All joking aside, there could be something to this and potentially open up another whole industry and patent storm of innovation. Whether it can be marketed or not is another story. Thoughts?

[WastelandTek]

I think it's destined to be a failed concept.

Indeed.  Imagine a scenario where a reasonably tech savvy criminal gang gets into a shootout with law enforcement and unleashes their high power RFID jammer, rendering all the LE weapons impotent.

Though in the current environment such an occurrence would probably prompt calls for shuttering Digikey and Mouser.

[Kjelt]

Perhaps next we should start looking at how to design "smart bullets". All joking aside, there could be something to this and potentially open up another whole industry and patent storm of innovation. Whether it can be marketed or not is another story. Thoughts?

Yes the same as with fireworks/pyro detonators they have a unique serial nr and a computer send the "detonate" sequence over a serial line. Bullets have detonation caps that are mechanically ignited, this could well be replaced by a small electronic detonation device which could even make it more reliable.
The con is that the gun needs a battery or get the energy from the trigger action.

[idpromnut]

Yes the same as with fireworks/pyro detonators they have a unique serial nr and a computer send the "detonate" sequence over a serial line. Bullets have detonation caps that are mechanically ignited, this could well be replaced by a small electronic detonation device which could even make it more reliable.

I think the added complexity can never improve reliability. I think I'm in the camp of preferring less guns than more, and even I think complex firing lock/controls like this only result in a less predicable and less reliable firearm. Dangerous things aren't the things that can kill you, they are the things that can unpredictably kill you.

[rstofer]

Electrically fired handgun patented:
https://www.google.com/patents/US5625972

Even earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_P11

A Remington attempt to use electrically fired ammo in a Model 700 rifle:
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/remington-etronx-electrically-primed-ammunition-video/

Besides zero lock time (time between the sear releasing the firing pin and detonation of the primer), the trigger wouldn't be a mechanical thing with a distinct 'break'.  The trigger switch could be a pressure sensitive device that didn't move at all.

The electrically fired primers are still available:
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1013085284/remington-etronx-electronic-primers-box-of-1000-10-trays-of-100

They are approximately 5x as expensive as similar primers:
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1601171305/remington-large-rifle-primers-9-1-2


I seem to recall reading some place where Olympic handguns used electrical firing.

If they ever invent a biometric handgun, it will be the only available technology in California.  All new firearms will have to incorporate it thus reducing to zero the number of approved firearms that could be imported.  It came close a few years ago but the inventor/manufacturer withdrew the product.

The idea of "owner-authorized" handguns is described in Assembly Bill AB 2235 (2008).  I doubt that RFID would check all the boxes because the watch and gun can be stolen together.

ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2235_cfa_20080414_093837_asm_comm.html

Fortunately, this hasn't come to pass - yet!

Believe me, nobody on eevBlog is going to invent something in the firearms world that hasn't already been done.  The question is: Will anybody buy the invention.  In most cases, no.  Simple is better.  One of today's most popular handguns was invented in 1911 and is still preferred by many.  Once you achieve perfection, no further development is necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol

The Army gave me my very first 1911.  Then they took it back!

[vodka]

Perhaps next we should start looking at how to design "smart bullets". All joking aside, there could be something to this and potentially open up another whole industry and patent storm of innovation. Whether it can be marketed or not is another story. Thoughts?

Yes the same as with fireworks/pyro detonators they have a unique serial nr and a computer send the "detonate" sequence over a serial line. Bullets have detonation caps that are mechanically ignited, this could well be replaced by a small electronic detonation device which could even make it more reliable.
The con is that the gun needs a battery or get the energy from the trigger action.

It would be very expensive than the classic fulminates.

Now i am waiting that someone invent a smart knife, it will knows when it have to cut. Avoiding aggressions and accidents .

[rstofer]

It would be very expensive than the classic fulminates.

In sporting ammunition, we haven't used fulminates in a very long time.  The primary ingredient today is lead styphnate.  Attempts at lead free primers haven't been well received.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centerfire_ammunition:

Civilian ammunition manufacturers began offering non-corrosive primers in the 1920s, but most military ammunition continued to use corrosive priming mixtures of established reliability.[19] The various proprietary priming formulations used by different manufacturers produced some significantly different ignition properties[20] until the United States issued military specifications for non-corrosive primers for 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge production. The PA-101 primers developed at Picatinny Arsenal used about 50% lead styphnate with lesser amounts of barium nitrate, antimony trisulfide, powdered aluminum and tetrazene.[17] Most United States manufacturers adopted the PA-101 military standard for their civilian production of Boxer primers.[21]

http://www.sfm.state.or.us/CR2K_SubDB/MSDS/SMOKELESS_PRIMERS.PDF

Accuracy for lead free primers has been proven, by the DoD, to be significantly less than conventional primers.  Since accuracy is everything, don't expect lead free primers to be used any time soon.  See the wiki above.