New Armatix iP1 “smart gun” ain’t so smart

Shocking test results for the Armatix iP1 “smart gun”

From: hotair.com,  by Jazz Shaw,  on Nov 19, 2015,  see the article HERE.

Armatix iP1

This pistol couldn’t get into Self Defense College on an athletic scholarship.

One of the most clever tricks liberals have devised to crater gun ownership in the United States is their insistence that if we can’t get rid of guns, we should make everyone own safer and smarter guns. While neither the NRA or most gun owners I know are opposed to the exploration of new technology in firearms, there is a tremendous amount of resistance to government mandates of unproven, expensive and dubious design experiments. One of the big examples of these so called “smart guns” has been the Armatix iP1. Hailed as a dream come true by proponents of such mandates, the iP1 comes with a wristwatch which the owner must wear. Without the watch and its built in security measures, the gun won’t fire. (In theory, at least.) Sounds great, right?

The folks at America’s 1st Freedom had the chance to test the iP1 last year, but the results were held back until now. Part of the reason was that they didn’t want to lend any further legitimacy to the proposed technology while New Jersey still has a law lurking on the books which could effectively shut down gun ownership once the “smart gun” technology is available. Now, however, they’ve release the results of their testing and it’s clear that this technology is still essentially a pipe dream. Here are a few of the highlights, but be sure to read the full report.

The Armatix pistol initially required a full 20 minutes to pair with the watch, even with the aid of an IT pro trained in its use. Without pairing, the Armatix functions like any other handgun, capable of being fired by anyone.

Once paired, a “cold start” still requires a minimum of seven push-button commands and a duration of 12 seconds before the gun can be fired.

The pistol must be within 10 inches of the watch during “start up.” This slows and complicates the use of the pistol if one hand is injured or otherwise unavailable.

 If you were silly enough to purchase this gun for home defense, 12 seconds may represent the rest of your life if you needed to draw it quickly when an intruder was coming through the door. And as far as the initial “pairing” process goes, (required in order for the gun to operate with the watch) any criminal who gets hold of the gun will still be able to use it or sell it on the black market if it hasn’t been paired yet.

But why would you want to use it – either for crime or legitimate use – in the first place? The group’s test runs found that the pistol was never able to fire the full eleven rounds it can hold (ten in the magazine, one in the chamber) without jamming or misfiring. The best they managed was nine and they reported three or four misfires per series as common.

Also, we’re talking about a short barrel .22 caliber pistol here. I’m not saying you can’t kill somebody with one of these, but you’d better be a darned good shot. At any reasonable distance the knockdown power of this weapon is a joke. The muzzle velocity of a .22 short out of a snubbed barrel pistol of this class is going to be around 750 feet per second with an impact force of 36 foot pounds. Not exactly what you want to bring to a fight if the bad guys all have nines or .45s.

Oh, and just to make this an even more tasty option, you can land yourself one of these frequently misfiring, possibly unable to be fired, low power technological wonders for the bargain basement price of $1,798 ($1,399 for the pistol, $399 for watch, without which it is either useless or no longer smart.) By comparison you can get a brand spanking new Glock G17for under six hundred bucks, and most gun shops will have perfectly fine, reconditioned used models for less than half that much.

If manufacturers want to continue tinkering with this technology and eventually make it usable, I say go for it. The market will decide if this is popular. But if the government wants to mandate that we only use these weapons they may as well just come out and ban guns entirely.

++++++++++

Anyone buying this Armatix iP1 is purchasing the “Barack Obama” of personal self-defense weapons.

It requires massive overspending, especially considering the abysmal performance it offers. Describing it as a personal defense weapon is similar to describing Barack Obama as a leader – neither description is accurate. It is a poor substitute for scores of other pistols that are far more qualified to perform when the situation calls for action. Like Obama, it may not perform when needed and that is not a trait that you can bet your life on. In short, it is a sham – a poor substitute for a proven performer – and one that just might cost you your life.

Like Obama, it promises much, delivers little, and simply can’t be trusted. 

I only wish Obama had been tested and exposed as thoroughly before people voted for him – twice. We’ve learned too late that Obama is the .22 short of national leaders (under-powered and ineffectual).

It’s a damn shame that we examine our handguns more thoroughly than our presidential candidates. It could have prevented us from electing a lemon.

Garnet92.

 

 

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to New Armatix iP1 “smart gun” ain’t so smart

  1. Kathy says:

    Ok, maybe a blonde moment here, but what’s the point of ‘pairing’ it if, without that anyone can fire it? It would make more sense if no one could fire it without pairing it with the watch. At least that would follow their often over zealous safety features.

    • BrianR says:

      Yeah, Kathy, I noticed that pretty obvious lack of logic myself, and I’m not blond.

        • Garnet92 says:

          I think that it works as you’d expect it to work. That is, UNTIL pairing, the gun can be fired by anyone, but AFTER pairing it precludes anyone without the “paired” watch from funbling around, entering the combination, and waiting 12 seconds before you can fire a .22 short at your adversary.

          My problem is even after “pairing,” it “requires a minimum of seven push-button commands and a duration of 12 seconds before the gun can be fired.” In a stressful situation (when the gun is most apt to be needed), seven button depressions and a wait time of 12 seconds gives the bad guy texts time to text his girlfriend before shooting you with his Glock.

          It is ludicrous. I stand by my statement that this POS is the Obama of pistols.

  2. Uriel says:

    Amen to O test. It Should have been done but then someone would have lost bribe money or life

    • Garnet92 says:

      I’m sorry, I think that I was too generous to my comparison of the Armatix and Obama. Obams is not the .22 short of national leaders, he doesn’t come close, therefore I reassign him with being the blank round of national leaders – that’s more appropriate.

  3. Grouchy says:

    The only thing I ever found a .22 short or long good for was target plinking at 25 yards.
    The Ford had a car, called “Aspire”. A friend of mine told me, that it was well named — It did aspire to be a car~!~!
    I guess we could call this thing the “aspire” of weaponry~!

    • Garnet92 says:

      Grouchy, I remember once while fishing, I shot a .22 short at a turtle on a log. I missed the turtle and the bullet bounced off the log – it didn’t even penetrate it. That just shows that it probably would have bounced off of the turtle’s shell too! It is the Obama of pistol rounds.

  4. CW says:

    Smart guns for stupid people.

    The free market will sort out the problems with this or any other technology. It’s the term “mandate” that angers me. America can’t survive liberal cleverness.

    • Garnet92 says:

      A true statement CW. When technology can equip a gun that can only be fired by its “owner” without the need to wear a ring, bracelet, etc. then it may become viable. Until then, fuhgettaboutit.

  5. Hardnox says:

    12 seconds??????????? Geez, it would be long over before anyone could fire the damned thing. Might as well throw it at a thugly.

    Wondering if Putt’s Secret Service detail will be armed with such pieces of crap to set an example for us stupid peasants?

    • Garnet92 says:

      What a GREAT idea! I wonder if the Republicans in Congress could pass a bill requiring that the Secret Service be equipped with Amatix iP1s? I wonder how safe Putt would feel knowing that any assassin knew he/she had a full 12 seconds of “safe” time to do the deed?

  6. tannngl says:

    Thank you, Garnet.

    We’d never hear that from another source.
    Important stuff.

  7. vonMesser says:

    This is a gun that I would not even have in my collection if someone gave it to me. I sure as #377 wouldn’t give this to either of my daughterzs or my stepdaughter.