New trend for firearms?

[Etherealicer]

I like to think of it as saying no to something that introduces a lot more potential problems, the more parts you have the more likely you are to have a failure. And this idea that electronics are less likely to break than mechanical parts is a bit more than I can understand. Every week I work on (when I'm in the US) at least one firearm that is at least 75 years old and still functioning perfectly, yet I would be hard pressed to find a VCR that still works properly even though it has been stored inside a controlled environment without any controlled explosions happening inside of them.

Longevity does not equal reliability. A stick of dynamite is very reliable but also has a limited shelf-life. Also, electronics have made much more progress in the last 75 years than mechanics, so thats not really a comparison. Furthermore, most problems with electronic devices are software problems.  We also have to put it in relation, we are talking about really simple electronics, not a smart phone. The electronics for a smart gun have the complexity of a musical birthday card and those can play their song for years without problems.

The idea is to save lives, but I see way too many reasons why this could actually cost me my own life. Like say a hot robbery at 2 AM and I don't sleep with my watch attached, or my wife being the first one to the firearm but she can't pull the trigger, or a whole multitude of other reasons.

Exactly! The problem is not the smart gun, but the realization what benefits / limitations it has in which situation.
I mean you use a shotgun for home defense, but imagine a sniper using a shotgun. Because a RFID controlled smart-gun is a poor choice for home defense (especially in caliber .22) does not mean its a poor choice for all life situations. If you are a hunter in Switzerland, the only reason to have a hand-gun is to kill a wounded animal. In that case, there is virtually no drawback and only benefit.

[nate j]

What about an electronic knife that blunts itself when it senses you are about to cut or stab a living animal? Imagine how much safer the street would be! 

You jest, but a folding knife or MT that would only deploy when (1) the owner is recognized, and (2) a pre-approved "target" is also recognized, would be the direct analogue of this gun.  If you're thinking that would be a great idea and you would buy one, then perhaps you would be interested in the Armatix as well.  If (like me) you are thinking that cost and reliability issues couldn't possibly be outweighed by whatever dubious benefits such technology might provide in these applications, then you (again, like me) will have no use for the Armatix or anything similar.

So you think preventing a cop getting killed by his own weapon is dubious?

I was referring more to the fact that I (and others of like mind) quite simply wouldn't ever be interested in purchasing something like the Armatix.

However, since you brought it up, I find the idea that there is some epidemic of police being killed with their own weapons dubious indeed, and the concept that the solution to this problem is smart gun technology even more fantastic.  According to the FBI, there was exactly one law enforcement officer in the US killed with his own weapon in 2012 (the most recent year for which statistics are presently available).  While my deepest sympathies go out to the individual's family, that is not exactly a mandate for change, IMHO.

[Lynn LeFey]

However, since you brought it up, I find the idea that there is some epidemic of police being killed with their own weapons dubious indeed, and the concept that the solution to this problem is smart gun technology even more fantastic.  According to the FBI, there was exactly one law enforcement officer in the US killed with his own weapon in 2012 (the most recent year for which statistics are presently available).  While my deepest sympathies go out to the individual's family, that is not exactly a mandate for change, IMHO.

I'm afraid I'm 100% with this. Smart guns are a solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist. Have officers been killed by their own weapons? Sure. Often? No. Rarely? No. VERY VERY rarely. It's a little like putting braces on the outside of vending machines because some people are inevitably crushed to death by vending machines every year.

And, as I recall, a number of those officers killed are from people taking the firearm from the officer's holster. Improved holster designs and training with them should, if not entirely prevent the problem, cut it down significantly.

Considering the very low number of officers killed with their own firearm, it'd be absurd to switch to 'smart guns' until the technology was so robust that it insured reliable operation every time an officer was to use it. Then one could even argue that all a criminal would have to do to effectively disarm an officer is to take their watch.

And then I might even argue that you can get almost as much functional use from a simple magazine disconnect. Someone going for your gun, you eject the mag. Now the gun doesn't work. They already work, reliably. Simple. Mechanical. Couple this with a 'locking holster', and the incidents of officers being killed by their own firearm should decrease to something very near to zero. And, maybe already has.

Keep in mind when you see something that happens to X officers in the U.S., you're talking about a career field with something like 1.3 million people in it. So it happening to 3 in a year is statistically insignificant. happening to 1 is a straight up fluke. Probably more officers killed every year from snakebites.

Still, I think the idea is neat, and I'm curious to see how the technology will evolve in the future.

[ironraven]

I deal with a biometeric security system at work- it fails about 20% of the time, and doesn't take recoil forces, get rained on, get cold, get hot, or exposed to cleaning compounds. So with this thing, you have to punch in a 5-digit pin on an unilluminated watch face, and then you have a set amount of time after which you have to reenter the pin. And on failure, it locks you out. So, to use your pistol, you have to poke five tiny buttons and get it right the first time, and you have to do it again in a little while. Or if it goes out of range, say you drop it or have to  holster it to open a door (I understand it is VERY short ranged, undisclosed but possibly less than a foot). To be very honest, if the choice is being shot with my own gun after grappling with some guy, or stabbed because I was busy using a pencil to type in my PIN into my watch, I'd rather get shot with my own gun.

My revolvers have no safeties. My Glock doesn't have a safety as most people think of it, just something that makes it impossible to fire unless your finger is on the trigger. My .30-30 is old enough to not have a safety other than the half cock. Neither does my exposed hammer double barrel (which in full disclosure, I have NDed while lowering the hammer after never getting on a clay). "Safeties" are there to prevent accidents cause by poor firearms handling, and are a lot like seatbelts- they won't keep you out of an accident, just improve your odds of surviving an accident on your part, and they won't do as much to protect you if someone decides to ram you with a larger vehicle.

Further, and this is the large ape quietly sitting in the room- cost. Biometrics are expensive. This is an $1800 pistol in .22LR- .22 revolvers of good pedigree go for $600+, while autoloaders equal quality are half the cost. There is a very serious argument to be made that this is an attempt to price firearms out of the reach of the common person. Won't stop the private security details of people with billions from protecting their oh-so-very important person, but statistically it's Joe Average that actually finds himself in a defensive situation most often. Oh, and I understand that the watch, which you must be wearing, is not only not really water proof, but isn't included in the purchase cost. I've heard $400? So I'm putting a $1500 trigger lock on what might be $300 dollars worth of pistol, and I have to spend another $400 on a key. If this isn't class warfare, I'm afraid of how most people define that term. $2200 for a pistol which I wouldn't trust for target shooting or meat hunting, and sure as hell don't trust for defense. For that much money I'd get a Hammerli 280, which at least looks cool, actually is reliable, and is accurate enough to be trusted in a defensive situation using sub-optimal cartridges.

As for checking the electronics, I'm a computer and electromechanical engineer by training, and not completely useless as a machinist.  I can disassemble my gun and clean it and repair it if we're talking anything less than catastrophic failure, and I can if needed even make some parts. I can't make integrated circuits to replace this one if the magic smoke escapes, and I've seen too many software and firmware updates that started at "utter failure" and worked their way down to count. In analogy, I know the good of and support the use of anti-lock breaks, but I also know how to manage if they fail due to a bad fuse or a fried sensor- I might not do as good a job, but I'll be doing something more than whining that the technology faries aren't saving me, and even if I can't fix the fried component, I can still make do in the long term. And before anything is said about electronic reliability vs mechanical, I"ve had electronics fail much more frequently than mechanical systems. NO electronic safety in a firearm has ever had a mechanical work around, and due to lack of space, they have no redundant circuits. And the anti-tamper tech that some prior "smart" guns were such that you couldn't even run a logic check without frying it. Not if but WHEN it fails, you've got a paperweight.

I will never willingly trust something I can't repair or compensate for if it fails, and never at all something that can't be inspected. Not with my life and absolutely not with the lives of my friends and family, not ever.