‘Smart’ Pistol Hits Shelves in California


The first so-called “smart gun” has hit the shelves at U.S. retail outlets, including one of the biggest firearms stores in California, according a news report.

The Smart System iP1, a .22-caliber pistol made by the German gun-maker Armatix GmbH, can only function with an accompanying wristwatch, which is sold separately, according to an article by Michael Rosenwald of The Washington Post.

When the RFID-equipped watch is activated by a PIN number and placed near the gun — like when a shooter grips the handle — it sends a signal to unlock the gun and a light on the back of the weapon turns green, according to the report. Otherwise, the firearm stays locked and the light on the back remains red, it stated.


The pistol sells for $1,399 and the watch retails for another $399 — more than double the cost of .40-caliber Glock handgun, according to the article.

The company is betting that demand for the technology will increase as consumers seek guns modified for safety.

231 Comments on "‘Smart’ Pistol Hits Shelves in California"

  1. "The company is betting that demand for the technology will increase as consumers seek guns modified for safety."

    They would be wrong.

    • casual observer | February 19, 2014 at 10:21 pm |

      Yeah read their website – they can use rfid jammers to disable the guns in "gun free zones" like schools, etc. So effectively the police (or a moderately competent hacker) could disable your gun at will. What a joke

    • Their other products might generate a demand, but I have a hard time believing that with the current state of the technology and the associated price tag that any government or LE agencies are going to shell out 6x the price of a Glock (LE/GOV price is lower than civie, so its not 2x the price as the article states) for an unproven design that only comes in one caliber generally regarded as unsuitable for defensive use. And I don't see a lot of civilians jumping on it other than techies for the same reason. I can buy a reliable standard semi-auto for $500 and secure it in a gun safe (that will also hold multiple other guns) for another $500, or I can buy unproven technology for $1800. Hmm….

    • what's wrong with this picture ,. gun safety starts at home ,responsible people know gun safety , criminals don't and don't care who gets shot ok ,.as for me i'll keep my regular gun ,if you don't pull the trigger it won't fire

      • Diane McGowan | February 21, 2014 at 9:21 am |

        Thank you Emmanuel..gun safety for.a start at home..I too will keep my gun..you don’t point out at anything you don’t intend to shoot..in my case that is normally a target at that range or in the desert..What happens when you don’t happen to have the wristwatch on you ??? So sorry this isn’t a great idea…maybe for morons who do not teach their families gun safety…and it figures that Ca would come out with a gun that costs 6 times as much as a normal gun…Ca is so anti-gun it isn’t funny

    • damn right, how many folks do you know personally who would choose this shit over a standard 22. cal pistol. cheaper, more reliable and as far as the safety thing…ill be DAMNED if someone has time to get my gun from me let alone use it against me!

    • this reader is betting that demand will go up as states try to force this crap on all of us.

    • this gun is a piece of crap, i guess a bad guy will buy the watch and the he can use the gun after he steals it, what a joke

    • I have doughs that a .40 glock

    • Drizzetsrevenge | February 21, 2014 at 8:33 pm |

      "Guns modified for safety"

      if you're taught proper gun safety you wouldnt need a gun to do it for you…

    • Michael Hgaer | April 9, 2014 at 11:05 am |

      What they meant was "The company is betting that demand for the technology will increase as legislators seek guns modified for safety."

    • Martin Vargas jr | May 6, 2014 at 11:18 am |

      I don't own a gun at the moment, but with this new gun-tech, I'm thinking about going down to the gun store and by my self a gun that only I can fire.

      San Diego, CA

  2. Battery dies….. YOU die!

    • Yes, because batteries are not reliable technology whatsoever. Never mind pacemakers, watches, clocks, computers, cell phones, radios, night vision, vehicles, targeting systems and the millions of other devices used for lifesaving mission critical purposes that rely on batteries every day.

      A small lithium battery can last for years, regular changes of the battery become part of routine maintenance of the weapon. If you don't like it don't buy it.

      • RealAmericanPatriot | February 21, 2014 at 12:53 pm |

        Any other gun jams, you die. Maintain your weapon, including the battery, problem solved.

        • 1LT INF, ret | February 24, 2014 at 8:29 pm |

          Actually, I see repair parts becoming a significant profit center for the manufacturer.

          Have you ever priced replacing the logic board in a dishwasher or a car dashboard? They don't fail every day, but you can count on paying through the nose for a replacement part when they do fail.

        • Former Ammo Tech | May 4, 2014 at 5:09 pm |

          Batteries fail unexpectedly.

          Only a god-damn moron makes a life-saving tool more complicated and unreliable than it needs to be.

    • Oh... now i get it | February 21, 2014 at 7:36 am |

      and there will be more and more cops that get their hands chopped/shot off just to unarm them. easy thing; shoot the wrist and and the guy is completely helpless. with a normal gun, there would be at least a chance that someone could take his/her other hand when the actual used d one got shot. i think its a great idea, but will just cause a different way of how shootings or armed roberies (or what ever situation that includes ''handy'' armed confrontation) will be ending.

      • RealAmericanPatriot | February 21, 2014 at 12:56 pm |

        Yeah, because now you just have to shot the cop in the head to disarm them. I can see your point. I wouldn't want my hands shot if instead I could be shot in the head.

    • Randy Molnari | February 23, 2014 at 4:05 pm |

      Not only that but what if the government can hack it and shut it down! Think before you purchase crap like this!

    • bob morgan | April 9, 2014 at 3:43 pm |

      why do you just tip over?..lol

    • Curt Romero | May 5, 2014 at 8:50 pm |

      That's stupid. I had a cop friend. Cops carry a back-up all the time. A standard 38 stub nose can do the job. Your argument foundation has no merit. Period… Smart guns will be the new wave. I knew a kid that got shot down the block. A 6 year old shot a 8 year old brother. Now… Consider that, Mr. Dixie.

  3. You wouldn't need a smart gun if you had smart voters!

    • We wouldn't need smart guns if we didn't have so many incredibly stupid gun owners, numb-nuts.

      • So a tiny minority should affect everybody's rights?

        maybe people like you should grow up and realize that the job of the government is to protect rights, not make everyone "safe". There is no right to total "safety" either.

        • Leaning Left | February 20, 2014 at 9:42 pm |

          The government's job does involve ensuring the safety/welfare of its citizens. That's in the constitution. Maybe you should read it sometime before you make a general uninformed opinion.

          • The United States Constitution contains two references to “the General Welfare”, one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”[2][3]
            Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[4][5] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,

      • Ken-Kommiefornia | February 20, 2014 at 6:11 pm |

        We don't need Smart Guns, we need Smart Leftists. So the odds on that happening are somewhere between zip and zero.

      • Jigaboo Jones | February 20, 2014 at 6:42 pm |

        *Cough* armed criminals, gang bangers, and anyone who claims to be a son of Obama.

      • numb-nuts? Are you 12 Fred? Go back to hugging trees!

  4. That or demand will go up once they lobby for california to require such safety deveces.

  5. I wonder what the reasoning is behind selling the pistol and the watch separately.

    • Pete Sheppard | February 19, 2014 at 7:08 pm |

      'The Children' ;) Plus; no watch, no gun…everybody's safe, right? Right???

      • If people get complacent and horse around showing how safe it is. What happens when kids copy with a regular gun?? Plus would EMPs not make your defence useless?

    • There is no Constitutional guarantee regarding the right to keep and bear wristwatches. Therefore, there are no limitations on what the government can require before allowing the owner of a "smart" gun to purchase the corresponding watch.

    • The obvious reason is if you wanted to buy multiple watches, but only wanted one gun. Or the other way around, you wanted multiple guns but only one watch. Same reason they don't sell a DVD player with every movie. You might want to watch multiple movies in that DVD player or you might want to watch a movie in a few different DVD players. I hope that analogy makes this clearer for you.

      • Former Ammo Tech | May 4, 2014 at 5:23 pm |

        I’ve yet to see a DVD player, however, that didn’t include the remote in the box.

    • Maybe because they do the $1-under-the-actual-price-to-make-it-seem-lots-cheaper trick twice, and only people who would fall for that would be stupid enough to actually buy one of these, instead of, as mr. McGarry conveniently pointed out as equally expensive, two .40 Glock pistols.

    • I guess stores could handle the selling of the gun but the company controls the watches.
      Maybe to stop the illegal selling of weapons? I guess a gun that can't fire any bullets is
      a paperweight. Unless it can be easily modified to work again.

    • Capitalism!

    • to make more money, or there must be some kind of law that would prevent the government from taking some kind of action against us if they were sold together. either way i am sure it is not just a coincidence, there is definitely a reason behind it.

    • Chris Murphey | February 27, 2014 at 2:41 am |

      simply to make the price more appealing. kinda like those nasty processing and handling fees they hit ya with when you buy something online….

    • Profit.

  6. thank you left wing socialist nanny state..

    • This is the free market buddy, no one is forcing you to buy the thing. Freedom of choice and diversity in the market is a good thing.

      • As long as it is a Free market it will fail. That's a heck of a premium over most 22's. A PPK/S cost less than $500 MSRP and you don't even have to buy the "accessory" watch to make it work.

    • And your an idiot.

      • Soupy Ed is dumb | February 20, 2014 at 6:03 pm |

        You're*. Sorry Soupy, but your grammar shows who the true idiot is.

        • Actually, his poor grammar doesn't necessarily make him an idiot. However, if we are to assume that he is a "true idiot," it would not logically follow that you are not an idiot. You can both be idiots. That's just how logic works buddy.

    • Where did it say the state was involved in this product?

  7. The only way this succeeds is if the govt. mandates it. I’m sure they received stimulus money. The separate sale of the watch is a dead givaway for liberal involvement

    • Yup, just like all the other stimulus money that went to *German* companies, right?
      (rolls eyes…)

    • Sorry but the separate sale of the watch is a dead giveaway for corporate greed more likely to be GOPTEAPartyKochRoaches involvement.

    • It could be also that multiple watches can be linked to a single pistol ie. husband and wife each have a watch so that they can both use the pistol as needed. rather than only one person being able to use it take off the watch let some one else put the watch on. than shoot.

  8. I agree if you forget your watch or the battery dies good bye!!

  9. I wonder why they call it SMART pistol? I don't see anything "smart" about it. If you can't handle a gun safely and practice safety, then that in my definition is a dumb ass person.

    • I think it's called "smart" because if someone tried to take your gun from you, they wouldn't be able to use it against you. I immediately though of the Dredd movies. The judges' guns only work for them, and it did come in handy. Clearly everything has pros and cons though. I just though I might mention that. Also kids wouldn't be able to pick them up and just shoot them. There are certain things you need for any gun. If you forget those, you are also "dead". I think they are trying to go the "futuristic route" with these. but if you don't like them. don't buy them. simple as that.

      • What's the maximum distance between gun and watch? It depends on that as to whether the bad guy will be able to use your gun against you.

    • Think about the number of childrens' lives that would be saved if they happened to find THIS gun rather than some other gun—haven't you been paying attention to the number of child deaths related to finding a gun laying around the house and playing with it?

      • More Children drown in swimming pools every year than shot with guns! So should we make "smart pools"?

    • Accidents happen, even in the safest environments. If this device keeps kids from picking up and firing the gun because you turned your back for a minute, or had it up somewhere you never thought they could get to, etc, then it's a great idea. Do you own a car without an emergency break and horn? Is that because you are a lousy driver? No, but because it is a SAFETY FEATURE. As a retired soldier, I have been around guns, and I mean REAL guns, and all kinds of other weapons my whole life, and they ALL HAD SAFETY FEATURES. It's common sense, and your comment indicates that YOU ARE THE DUMB ASS PERSON……..

    • the good things about this weapon is the fact that small children can not shoot themselves while they play with it or find it when the parents are not supervising them. If it gets stolen by a home invader it can not be used in other crimes or sold on the black market for gang bangers. I would rather have smart tech, then more gun control laws. IMO

  10. defensor fortisimo | February 19, 2014 at 8:12 pm |

    "I don't always carry concealed, but when I do, it's a battery powered .22 that would my wife out to dry if she ever had to use it in a home defense scenario because I never got her a spare wristwatch to go with it"

    He is, the world's most interesting corpse

  11. defensor fortisimo | February 19, 2014 at 8:13 pm |

    also, you really felt the the need to censor wrist watch? Seriously?

  12. Will this device save me from the unconstitutional California law requiring me to keep my pistol locked up at all times?

    Yeah, I seriously doubt it.

  13. Great idea! Lets make certain that law enforcement switches to them right away!

    • Ben Thomas | May 5, 2014 at 7:40 pm |

      The unlawful killings preformed by officers on the job would not be reduced if they possess the smart gun and the partnering watch. However, good officers that go up against real criminals and loose their weapon would not have to fear their own gun being used against them from far away and they would not have to fear the officer's gun being used later to kill someone else.

      • However, should any incident ocurr in close proximity of the officer where the officer was not in control of said weapon, he/she may have a hard time defending him/herself in court.

  14. JDs Handsome Son | February 19, 2014 at 9:37 pm |

    It should be law that all security for all elected officials be required to use these smart guns. Our politicians should set an example for the rest of us.

  15. I imagine police departments and federal agencies are lining up around the block to beta test them.


  16. And the RFID jammers will be hitting the streets soon.

    • That would be great for the police if all weapons could be remotely disabled. I have to patent that idea.

  17. Npreuss do you work there?

  18. It comes with the watch, so they can get a good read on your time of death when the EMTs get there. It also displays a message when your heart stops: "Why'd you buy a .22, stupid?"

  19. It’s my experience that those who throw out the ‘don’t like it, then don’t buy it comment’ usually have a vested interest in the products success.

  20. Apparently, glenno is trolling this website to promote this 22 cal super safe pistol that will certainly not be foisted on people in CA NY Nj. That line may work when commenting to the CNN article but not a site with informed gun owners. You clearly gave a vested interest on the piece. And I guarantee you will not buy one.

    • ^ I've read most of Glennos' stupid posts, and have come to the conclusion he/she either works for this company, and are trying to sell a piece of shit to an idiot, or he has just lost his fu*#@ng mind.
      No military member that ever handled a weapon would insinuate this as a proper weapon control method. As for the RFID readers, if you have ever been issued a CAC you would know why you carry it with a RFID blocker type case. The technology is real, but so is the countermeasure to obtain and steal it. Now a .22 has its place, but personal security isn't one of them, close kill, yes,

  21. There are a number of flaws with this design. First, you have a light on your firearm pointing back at your face which is a distraction at best in anything but a bright-light environment and an outright liability at worst. Second, the need for the watch can be negated in one of several ways (strip out the RFID emitter and attach it to the gun, build your own emitter & attach it, strip out the electronics requiring a RFID signature, etc… ). Third, this firearm is inherently overweight. Fourth, safety starts with the person holding the gun and these additional "safety" features will, in practice, result in more careless handling of firearms, not less.

  22. It's a great start. Just like the original musket guns. Would like to see wireless charging kit for the weapon.

  23. I would not want to trust my life to something that runs off a battery. Actually two batteries, watch and pistol. Not to mention a pistol in what is generally recognized as an ineffective caliber and is super expensive. Finally there is the issue of a jammer. There are such things as multi frequency jammers. Given the intellectual level of California politicians, I can see how this idea would originate there.

    • Given the number of lasers, NODs, radios to call for medevac and supporting fire, etc. in use in Afghanistan today, I think it's a little out of touch to declare you wouldn't trust your life to something that runs off a battery. People trust their lives to batteries in real-world combat every day. As many have said, if your weapon system uses a battery, testing and replacing the battery becomes part of your routine. Deal with it.

      • ^^ and another idiot. If any of those devices fail you can still fall back on your training, to shoot move and communicate under duress. As for medevac, you move, or regress, to a more secure area, assess, and act.
        If you believe we rely on technology to survive, sorry you're the idiot….

      • really? we know what he meant, you know what he meant. the fact that a gun used for defense of ones self or others is powered by a battery along with a watch and battery is useless, and if it is drawing power all day and night it could die in the worst of situations, like at gun point. you knew what he meant by it, you didn't need to comment just so you could disagree and try to make him look dumb, think for a second before you talk man…

      • And soldiers complain about those things failing all the time. But, most of all, you are talking about people using equipment daily who are trained and who, as part of their regular schedule, make certain everything works.

        This gun is being marketed to people who may keep their gun stored in a safe for 6-months a year and only use it once in their entire lives that they aren't on a range. Furthermore, it is being marketed as a prevention against disarming (which is statistically a non-concern for civilian defensive gun use) and against accidents such as children gaining access to the gun. Yet, such accidents consistently involve such negligence as the cop who left his loaded and cocked revolver on the bed next to his toddler. How is such a person any less likely to leave this gun and watch next to his child, one in the chamber and activated?

        It's a marketing gimmick designed to provide a boost for a relatively unknown company by capitalizing on ignorance and fear.

    • Yes, Moondawg, a .22 will just make the intruder or attacker more mad, and we have had available special safety devices like coded rings for over twenty years! They don't work 100% of the time and my personal need is that my Colt python fire when I squeeze the trigger!

      • This pistol wouldn't make an intruder mad, because you'd never get the watch put on and the code entered in time to be able to actually shoot an intruder.

    • Moondawg, Those jammers are on military vehicles right now. They are called Duke and Warlock. They jam every frequency in the spectrum and they require special filter systems for soldiers to be able to talk on their radios.

  24. This is an idea that is so far removed from commonsense that it deserve special noting. Maybe a "Boob Award" is in order. Consumers are much brighter than Armatix seems to think; it's unlikely that anyone planning on using this pistol for practice, or simple enjoyment, would pay $1,399 for a product they cannot use until they purchase something else to use in conjunction with it. Not only is the concept is “not there” but as an added bonus you end up with a system that has two single points of failure. Even early adopters are likely to walk away from the Smart System iP1. An interesting collector's piece – certainly, but not a mass market product.
    Go back to the drawing board…

  25. ‘Glenno
    Feb 20 – 7:55 am
    Sorry Matt, but I don’t follow your logic. Care to elaborate?’

    Well Glenn, it’s pretty clear. Every time I’ve seen someone like yourself responding to many of the posts in a passive aggressive and defensive way (ie- calling posters stupid and ‘don’t like it don’t buy it), it has turned out to be a person who worked for or benefited from the company/product in question.

    Why not just state that you like the concept and move on, instead of attacking other folks opinions.

  26. Glenn I’m a urologist… Does that help you? It’s interesting to see how defensive you get. Time to move on though

  27. It needs flip-out prongs so you can plug it into any outlet for recharging.

    • Airborne_fister | February 21, 2014 at 4:42 am |

      You have got to have a stake in this company. Multiple times you have posted the web site. If not then you are just a tUCK Fard. (Flip the cap letters). And know nothing about safe gun use. Ever had to use a firearm to save your or your buddies life? Probably not.

      Also what if you wear the watch on you left wrist and shoot right. Get into a situation where you have to shoot one handed. Then what?

    • Airborne_fister | February 21, 2014 at 4:48 am |

      Also what happens if you are in a combat zone and oh snap we use dukes. Which scramble out all radio frequencies. Then what? Shoot I can think of on both hand in Astan. When I had to react and return fire. F all that noise of putting in a pin and a bright light in my face and having not to wear two watches. One with the RFID for the pistol. And my garmin. Thanks but I already carried enough crap. I’m good with my 226 and my m4.

  28. Too easy to hack into this, I won't even need the watch. Too easy to disable as well with a nice EMP blast.

  29. This is a good of example of "just because something CAN be done, doesn't mean it SHOULD".

  30. I think this might be an option in a scenario like arming school faculty as protection from active shooters. But that's because that is a limited situation. First, the odds are pretty good you won't need to use it. And second, if you're just a little smart about it you simply require the designated faculty to wear the watch and check batteries at the beginning of the day. You only need it to last for 8-10 hours. If you don't have a charge, you lose one armed staff member, but there are others. Once school is out for the day, you can go get a replacement battery because you're not relying on it outside that environment. This would also help counter the "but what if a student finds the gun" argument because the student would need both items.

    However, it's not something I'd use for personal use where I'm on my own, without backup, and looking for 24/7 protection from threats that don't adheare to a timeline. The lower level of predictability means I need something with as few possible points of failure as possible.

    • What if a student finds the gun? If you are a teacher carrying concealed, then your arm should be ON YOUR PERSON. There we go. No need to worry about a student finding your arm that wouldn't be left lying any where in a class room or school in the first place, if you use your head. There is absolutely no reason for a fire arm like this. None, what-so-ever. It could possibly, if chambered in a more appropriate caliber, could be used to arm police, but then that might also create problems (besides cost, and a few other things already mentioned by others), such as partners not being able to use each other's side arms, should it become necessary.

  31. Now just in my observation I can see major issues already. You've got the distracting green light which can be an issue when aiming and not to mention giving away your position when you are trying to take cover from an armed criminal, since it takes batteries that alone brings an array of issues, the chances of the gun failing not just mechanically but now electronically, the fact you need an additional item (watch) for it to work, the weight, the ridiculous price tag, the political gun control measure it has sparked, etc. Idk, I'm not sold on it.

  32. I have 3 things to say about this, Dumb, Dumb and Dumber. My index finger controls my gun.

  33. Aberrant Aisherri | February 20, 2014 at 4:36 pm |

    What if someone steals your watch? The watch should be activated by your DNA

  34. A shooter holds a gun in their dominant hand, wears a wrist watch on the other arm… This wrist watch will identify you as having a gun so much for the surprise advantage of conceal & carry!

  35. i think i will stick to my glock. i know that every time i pull that trigger its going to go bang. plus, i dont wear watches. especially $400 ones. take your (explicative) system back to germany.

  36. Liberal bullshit | February 20, 2014 at 4:40 pm |

    Someone comes busting into your house will you have enough time to put on the watch and enter a code before they shoot you and or your family…I'm guessing not

    • Trying this again | February 20, 2014 at 4:42 pm |

      Just wanna clarify…tried putting the name Liberal bulls**it….but asterisked most of it out. I am not have not nor will I ever be a liberal

  37. and when an EMP is created by the enemy to knock out electronic devices, the 22. is useless

  38. So, at what point in my draw do I punch the secret code into my watch? I think I’d rather stick with a dumb gun that costs a little over 1/5 of what this costs and doesn’t require typing a pin into my watch to be able to use it.

  39. i don't believe that this will ever take off, it's a good concept but until we have the technology to make it more then just a lock very few people are going to want to buy that

  40. You will never find a weapon in my hands that relies on a battery operated watch and batteries in the gun to use it !!! ! Especially at the same time!!

  41. im sure, or at least I hope you are smart enough to realize why those 4 letters were censored. Nessuno .. TWAT.

  42. Brian bellefeuille | February 20, 2014 at 5:23 pm |

    Really cool. The only thing is the watch. The watch needs to look cool and have the many functions that gun owners, military, or techies would want. Maybe you can push to partner up with G-shock or another watch manufacturer that makes watches for military and law enforcement !

  43. The other nice thing about it is!!!! If the government wants to make sure you can't use it they could easily do so!!!!! Yay!!!!


  45. While most of the folks commenting have valid points- I see it as just another gadget that I'd like to try out!

  46. AS no one here seems to be an expert on RFID chips, I can tell you this as a Computer Science major going into the networking field: RFID chips are very good in controlled environments, but they are subject to the same issues that all wireless devices are subjected to. They are of three types, Passive, magnetic, or via high frequency radiation, due to the low operating range, we can pinpoint that this gun uses passive radio waves to detect the watch. Issues with this type can be if metal or liquids can interfere with signals or you can have re-radiation double checks that cause failure for the device to work properly or you can have reflection of the signal that degrades it's strength.

    Another issue to cause wonder is if the RFID reception on the gun is in the front or back… the front giving less room for error when you shoot, and more room for error if that gun is pointed AT you.

    A third issue would be for a gun that's highly technical, they had the over site to screw up the coding on the website and have visible coding in Metadata for the gun's page… You should be able to see [span class = "lowercase"> i [/span>.

    Telling stuff.

  47. I hope the wrist band is indestructible!!

  48. and all someone has to do is steal the rfid information and take your gun from you and shoot you with it. not an fool proof system. how do they think some one will pay 1k for a 22 pistol and another 400 for a stupid watch im sure they wont want. id rather buy a buchmark or ruger or both and use the extra money on ammo lots of ammo.

  49. Can we say useless? Hey mister criminal please wait to try and rob/kill me will I put on my watch, type in the pin# and pick up my gun, tks in advance.

  50. Seems like a lame ass attempt from the gov to try and track who owns guns via RFID.

  51. Hows this for an edge? Exchange the green led for a red one so everyone thinks it cannot be fired. Surprise your friends, enemies and the police.

  52. Glenno I guess you decided to stay after all? Thank goodness you’ll stay to educate us.

    “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt”

    Thank you for removing all doubt buddy

  53. Control-alt-delete to re-start it if it doesn't shoot when you really need it?

  54. So what happens when the battery dies In the middle of a fire fight?

  55. What happens when the batteries in the gun dies? Rolling eyes. ask yourself when was the last time you changed the batteries in your remote. Ridiculous. Cali doesn’t want a Constitutionally protected right, but will let Cheech and Chong smoke a fattie because their spleen hurts.

  56. And who pray tell can disarm the watch…you guessed it!

  57. who the hell is going to use a .22 for self defense?

    • Given that what's "special" about this gun is has more to do with the function of the mechanism, I imagine they could upgrade it to other calibers.

      Perhaps they started with a .22 because people who are leery of guns to the point of wanting this for a regular-use firearm before they'll even buy a gun may also be scared of anything bigger. You can just look at the comments here and see that folks who are likely to favor a duty caliber are also the ones who weren't waiting for technology like this before buying one.

      Either that or they figure you'll be so broke after spending this money on an off-the-shelf pistol that you won't be able to afford any ammo besides .22lr.

    • The Mossad?

  58. And just what assurances are there that the govt can’t lock it down when the decide that they want to ban guns? Hell no this is the stupid! “The company is betting that demand for the technology will increase as consumers seek guns modified for safety.” love how they make it seem like people are just going to love this idea and throw their money at this. Safety starts at home

  59. Richard Fitzwell | February 20, 2014 at 10:41 pm |

    Umm…not to nitpick, but I can buy a Glock for $500 (and that's not counting the Blue label deals). The watch plus gun equals $1,798. My beer math tells me that I can buy 3 Glocks plus a few mags and some ammo for that…

    Also, I can't trust the Germans on this, they are still trying to find ways to seek forgiveness for 60 yr old sins…

  60. Let's get the tech from "Shootem up" finger print activated grip anyone?

  61. That’s a DUMB gun, rather.

  62. Bad Idea for self-defense, but great idea for shooting competitions. That way everyone could prove they shot with their own gun and didn't have anyone shoot for them. Maybe the watch could log the discharge? Thoughts anyone?

    • What kind of discharge are we talking about here? You're not Matt the urologist are you? Discharges sound like something he would be interest in.

    • Perhaps for a purely competition gun… It could probably also be modified to record times and scores, too… For competition, IF they were willing to pay the premium for the technology, this could possibly have applications.

  63. It's a start…. Maybe we can get background checks going also, that would be a better one.

  64. Unreconstructed | February 21, 2014 at 12:41 am |

    What a remarkably STUPID idea. You couldn't GIVE me one of them!

  65. Is it out of the question to think these have a realistic purpose outside of the "home invasion" scenario? I would imagine these could be used in a range for training purposes for those new to firearms to teach safety and avoid any accidental firearm related incidents.

  66. guns are going to kill people with or with out a smart system… doesnt even matter.

  67. What they should do is put a finger print scanner for the pistol as an attachment and its rechargeable.Only the scanner unlocks the chamber for firing.

  68. So, they sell the watch separately, which means if you just buy the gun you are just buying a paperweight. Why not sell the two together as a package since the gun is supposedly useless without the watch?

    • It does make sense if you're able to have a single watch for multiple guns, or multiple watches for a single gun. That said, I think there are a lot of flaws with this concept.

  69. Norman Johansen | February 21, 2014 at 8:16 am |

    You don't go to bed at night wearing you watch. So, what happens if you need the weapon, in the middle of the night?

  70. Thats great… Tell me again how many cops’ lives have been saved by a random civilian who picked up the downed officers gun and ended the struggle. This is the dumbest fucking idea I’ve ever heard of.

  71. Thats great… Tell me again how many cops’ lives have been saved by a random civilian who picked up the downed officers gun and ended the struggle. This is the dumbest f***ing idea I’ve ever heard of.

  72. Hmmm wonder if there is a plug in charger, to charge it by my bedside next to my smart phone :)

  73. I wonder if this one will be smart enough NOT to shoot anyone and cause Legitimate Owners to suffer the unintended consequences

  74. 21st Century Soldier | February 21, 2014 at 10:13 am |

    To SFC Franklin anyone who has ever used an AN/TVS-5 knows its not an NVG but a worthless device that cant be used while actually firing the M2. And yes we do use a DAGR the PLGR as u mentioned is an outdated antique which both operate on batteries,but any good Infantrymen will also have a map compass and protractor for backup because the tech you love is prone to failure and dead batteries. You mentioned the BC-611 what era are you from? That hasn't been used in the ARMY since late 70's maybe into the 80's. Yes we do have technology in the military that require batteries but there is a backup for it all your CCO stops working you have backup iron sights your DAGR dies you go old school and use a map.

  75. OK, lets get it over with and just embed the chip in my hand? RFID chips dont need power!!! they are powered by the receiver emitting a charge, thats why they are in everything now and stores use them to track stuff. the little white alarms to the sides of the doors as you leave the store alarm if the chip is configured. thats why they swipe certain stuff on the counter. magnet removes configuration fromthe RFID so it doesnt alarm….
    Soooo, the gun needs the battery and should be able to let you know if it is dead. real technology says put the gun on the inductive charger at night and you wont have the issue. and also an override switch, though this gun is using an electric solenoid to release the sear so you NEED a battery and not just for the watch thing.

    • Batteries eventually stop holding a charge, though. I have yet to see the battery technology that is "fail proof".

      You also raised another interesting point: would it be possible for a strong magnetic field to "erase" the RFID chip like the ones used in big box stores?

  76. I stopped wearing a watch in 1999…..no watch, no shot! Don't think I would ever buy a gun with a computer chip in it, we see how reliable automobiles can be when computers go bad or have no power. They don't work.

  77. There will be no demand for it by me.

  78. They’re going to lose that bet. Savvy gun consumers want reliability derived from simplicity, not a false illusion of safety from complexity. I predict maybe 18 will sell, if that many.

  79. Too many things go wrong. You loss the watch fighting before you get your pistol. The watch is broken fighting. The battery goes dead in the watch or pistol. To many added ways to die, and the price is ridiculous.

  80. Wow. Y’all are terrified of change huh? It’s the “first” (quoting the article) of its kind to hit the shelves. So it’ll get out there to the public, consumer reviews for those who have USED it and then they can retweek it (light placement, caliber).And it carries with it a hell of a price tag. So? A Maserati goes for $130,000. Will I ever own one? Doubtful. But that doesn’t mean they don’t sell. Did you know Ducati makes a writing pen that’s $216.00? For what? I don’t know. But people buy it. And this whole deal about fear of batteries- maintain your gear. That simple. If you want to have trust in your stuff, make sure you’re doing your part by maintain gams inspecting the weapon. These batteries last for YEARS. I mean, I haven’t changed my watch battery in the 7 years I’ve been wearing it and it’s just a regular NiCad. And until mass targeted EMP blasts in my neighborhood become a problem and I have to reset my clocks every day, I’m not really gonna worry about that. It’s new(ish) technology that has room to grow, with a price tag that’s not for everyone, in a system that isn’t forcing anyone to use it.

    • Everything you said is true, but I would point out that this is really a solution looking for a problem. What problem, exactly, is this trying to solve?

      If the fear is that a burglar will steal the gun, then they will have just as much opportunity to steal the watch as well. And adding the extra steps of putting on a watch and entering a code makes this *useless* as a self-defense weapon. Many times, when people survive home invasions, it's because they were able to trick the invaders into letting them get near enough a gun (stashed in a drawer, etc) that they were able to grab it.

      We don't have a gun problem. We have an uneducated, misinformed, and mentally deranged people problem. Not that long ago (in the grand scheme of history) 10-12 year olds would have their *own* guns, and I've never heard historical anecdotes about how they were shooting each other. That seems to have been a pastime primarily reserved for hot-headed adults, but I digress. It's really quite simple: if you own a gun(s), then every person in your home with access to that gun should be taught at least basic gun safety. If you are a gun owner with children, then you need to sit down and have a very serious talk (possibly more than one) about how a gun is a tool, and how dangerous it can be if handled improperly. Teach your kids to respect the gun, not fear it. And we need to keep our guns secure when we're not there to make sure that people (including children) who should not have access to those guns are not able to get access.

      Those *simple* things would go a *lot* further than the idea of a "smart" gun.

      • I completely agree with you- proper education on safety, storage, and employment of the weapon should be the top priority of gun owners, especially if you have kids. Moreover, without the training, I would imagine that you’re more likely to have an accident in your own home than actually stop a crime. But I think these types of developments are good because they at least show gun control activist that there are steps that are being taken that don’t require a bunch more laws and restrictions. If they aren’t gonna stop attacking gun owners about safety anyway, why shouldn’t gun owners lead the charge in taking these broad steps toward a way that doesn’t solely rely on someone’s training, as it’s been proven you can’t rely on some individuals to make the best decisions.

        • Former Ammo Tech | May 4, 2014 at 6:09 pm |

          What the gun control nuts are going to do is mandate that nothing but “smart” guns can be sold.

          Which is exactly what they have already done in New Jersey. No non-smart guns can be sold there after a “smart” gun has been marketed — anywhere in the US — for three years.


  82. Anything "smart" will be hackable. Hack the gun… hack the watch… next thing you know, you're going to jail for a murder you didn't commit. No thanks.

  83. I'm sorry, I understand that we are in a technologically advancing age but it is irrational to combine the advancement of electronic securities to a firearm. Explain the root cause for creating such a design, that a firearm would need an RFID transmitting watch to be operational. Plus at a .22 caliber (most generally used for sighting, target practice, or introductory training to firearm safety) what's the viability? Half way to the range you need to turn around because you "forgot" your watch, or the Movado just looked better with your range outfit; come on people what are these companies spending R&D money on. If at all, anything to test would be palm or fingerprint scanning technology to secure a firearm and to even create data logs on a microSD card for who and when it was fired; but seriously a watch…SMH! :-/

  84. Who needs gun control legislation… Obama will just have the NSA turn all the guns off.

  85. Leo Gerald Johnson | February 21, 2014 at 2:38 pm |

    If The person who buy's a "Smart Gun "doesn't have the Responsible attitude" that it takes to be a gun owner then all the technology that is in that gun is gone for nothing.A person who ownes a gun has to have the "Responsibility " that goes with gun "Ownership"

  86. Not to sound like I support this but just to put it out there, the idea itself is intriguing though not yet suitable for wide spread use. Two major things wrong with this is (1) Price, the fact that the price for such gun is way overpriced will indeed suppress the number of sales as there is, as far I know, Beretta makes a .22 handgun for about $200 to name one. (2) Caliber size, a .22 is not much in the way self defense but I am sure larger calibers will be made available in the future IF the product becomes viable.
    Again I don't directly support this idea but I will admit that it has its uses and some of the more safety oriented people would probably purchase this and the anti-gun politicians would flock to this as a way to skirt gun owners rights to get their position of power by making the tech necessary for all new gun purchases just as the suggested in the past by attempting to implement the gum stamping, anyone remember this?
    This tech can be defeated easily but for now as I see it I agree with the gentleman who made mention of the similar tech that used the ring it will be a short lived deal until certain manufactures make another break thru in this tech. I would also point out the other gentleman who pointed good gun ownership and family oriented training basic self responsibility. That said and I daresay it would be to easy turn back the clock a number years to promote common sense and self responsibility. I quote "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" – Benjamin Franklin. I refer to the tech portion of the gun, RFID gives the government and any law enforcement to block your ability to fire that weapon ant any time….

  87. Until the gun gets into a hackers hands, that they can modify the contents to allow firing at anyone. Because If I'm seeing this correctly, if the government is able to control these "Smart" guns, if the gun is pointed at a government official, it will not shoot. From what I'm theorising is that the government would wear Counter RFID Chips that would shut the gun off, or merely not be able to target them.

  88. Since I shoot with my right hand and wear my watch on my left – DEAD WOMAN!

  89. lame

  90. Last time i checked i can buy a glock 22 40 cal gen 4 for $500 so thats technically over 3 times the cost.

  91. Yordanis RUIZ RODRIGUEZ | February 21, 2014 at 9:24 pm |

    Thay should mare like that it will be mach more safe, more life will safe if it’s gets I’m the wrong hands.

  92. Isn't it ironic that every gun safety shows RED when the firearm is ready to use and this displays a green light, and the red light is displayed when it's in a safe mode?

  93. I wouldn't consider a .22 suitable self defense. Maybe they are just testing the market.

  94. The name says all there is to say. God forbid there is an invasion of this country and we need to defend out rights, our homes and our lives. Hope the watch and weapon is sheilded. Good luck.

  95. If the battery is shot, death.

  96. So…what if you're in the shower or sleeping at night and you need to access your firearm rather quickly? It seems more of a safety hinderance than an enhancement. One more thing you have to worry about. I hope it fails miserably.

  97. And when it fails to shoot when needed because of a stupid PIN or opposite hand shooting…. Hold on evildoer, I have to put in my PIN. Plus batteries? Great, low tech has worked thus far, I'd be an idiot to use this piece of crap. Back to the drawing board genius

  98. defensor fortisimo | February 23, 2014 at 7:02 pm |

    The free market argument makes sense until you take into account the fact that in New Jersey and California, their is already legislation mandating a transition to "smart weapons". http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/20/
    Bottom line, the notion of this weapon stems from the fallacies of the gun control movement, right down to the statement that we need to "think about the children". Technology is no substitution for personal responsibility.

  99. All the gov't has to do is place a duke or warlock in a police vehicle and turn it on. Then your gun won't work at all. Youre dead.

  100. I'd buy the watch!!

  101. And, where do you buy .22LR ammunition?

  102. why get the gun for that much when you can get a gun that has even more power right at dicks as long as you have a permit to own a handgun!!!

  103. If only the watch didn't look like a brick

  104. (Laughing my ass off) Really?! $2000+/- after Taxes for a fancy .22? Incredible… I'd rather drop that on a AR…But you will have the occasional white collar buying this pistol because his Silver spoon fed children don't understand what "NO or DON'T TOUCH" mean…

  105. They are really banking on the government adopting the technology to solve gun violence but,,,they won't cause those stupid looking guns still shoot.

  106. Chris Murphey | February 27, 2014 at 2:44 am |

    Ha! If they want to make us feel "safe" MAKE IT IN SOMETHING OTHER THAN .22! Honestly people….

  107. Chris Murphey | February 27, 2014 at 2:46 am |

    and also will this set off a metal detector? From the outside it looks like a futuristic water pistol.

  108. Don't we need "smart" public servants more than we need "smart" guns?
    What's next, "smart" hammers, knives, baseball bats, golf clubs, and vagina razors?

  109. Who in the world would even want a 'smart' DUMB gun? What is the point? A burglar bashes down your door and you have to find your wrist watch, activate the code, which in turn activates the gun — oops, sorry, you were already shot by the burglar — numerous times — because you forgot your code!

    I can't imagine what type of person would even pay this much for a weapon, that is insanely ridiculous as a weapon for self defense!

  110. This is a great idea…Those of you that think "if the battery dies, you die", are wide of the mark..Pun intended..How often do you replace your watch battery? And if you consider yourself a proclaimed "responsible gun owner", can you not be bothered by replacing a battery every couple years?…If you clean your gun every time you shoot cans, check the battery. Takes 2 seconds. I live in NH, and have grown up with guns. If I could have the piece of mind, that my weapons could never be stolen and used in an act of violence, why wouldn't I be an proponent of that? Or worst case, no matter how 'responsible' I am, if there was one moment where a child could handle the gun, why wouldn't you want this technology? I feel like most of the gun owners comments on these websites are ignorant, and not the true majority of 'real' gun owners. For those that strongly feel, that The one day, they may be caught the situation, where someone might break into your house, and you are forced into using your weapon; AND you forgot to replace a battery in your gun/watch, that's your fault. It would be the same thing if your gun jammed because you failed to clean it. Support technology that reduces people who shouldn't be shooting guns, shooting guns.

  111. tdkflorida | May 5, 2014 at 11:43 pm |

    I love this gun. No one can stop the progress of technology. Not even the gun lobby! It stops kids from killing themselves and each other. Who could be against that? Apparently the backward thinking people on this site. So much for the gun rights advocates.

    • mindyourownsafety | May 9, 2014 at 4:53 pm |

      The watch is so expensive that people wont wear it and it will stay near the gun for quick access, so when the gun gets stolen they will have the watch with it. Real gun owners don't like it because they know how little it takes to have a misfire, glitch or jam at inopportune times, why give Murphy more opportunities. Just another chance to out-price or jam up gun owners.

  112. and on top of all of this, it looks like a toy… But the kids don't have a watch so I guess it won't matter if it gets pointed at the TV like a wii remote.

  113. I wonder how many parent of dead kids wish they would have had one of these.

  114. Except that as pointed out on some other websites, it becomes critical to know what the range for operation is, ie, if the gun won't function more than 1 foot from the watch, then I may or may not be able to switch hands to shoot if I'm injured, but if the range is, say, 3 feet, then the bad guy that takes my gun away from me at hand to hand distance or while wrestling with me can still shoot me with my own gun because he's within the broadcast radius of the chip. Basically, this only makes you "safer" if you are totally away from your gun, like if it is at home and gets stolen, and a decent safe can do that for you for way less than $1600 dollars…

  115. Actually, if you check into Sen. Edward Markey's proposal, it WOULD be the only gun you can purchase within 3 years of enactment. So your sarcastic dismissal ignores the fact that there are plenty of people that are pushing for this untried technology to be mandatory. As for batteries and electronics being so reliable, please explain to me why every major military unit goes into battle with backups for their electronic devices. Oh, right, because electronics fail, usually when you need them most. No electronic device has been made that can't fail, and I'd just as soon not trust my life to one that was mandated to me by a suit somewhere.

  116. actually you are both idiots. allowing this type of technological control just lets them encroach on our freedoms even more. Go support obamacare.

  117. Going to the company's site it reads that the range is 10 inches on one page and on another page it states a 15 inch range.

  118. I have a Garmin GPS watch that I use for running. You have to charge it pretty frequently. Sometimes I forget or think I have enough juice when I don’t. Sometimes, I forget to grab it in the morning while it charges overnight. So I guess that means that I’m stupid and should be living with my mother. I got it, do PCCs/PCIs on all equipment. However, if I have to charge my firearm and my watch, you are now adding two additional failure points. Additionally, I have to enter a PIN number to use my firearm. My follow-on question is, what is the sequence for the manual of arms? How frequently do I need to enter the PIN and how long is the PIN “good for?” But I got it, if I don’t like it, don’t buy it. So I won’t.

  119. Are you equating a sidewinder to a sidearm? They are both weapons but it is not quite apples to apples. Why not say a diesel electric submarine too. Do you think that the military will be adopting this technology anytime soon? I will make a prediction for you. The military will cease to have human soldiers wielding personal weapons before they adopt his technology on a wide spread basis. And you keep dismissing a very real possibility, which is politicians mandating such technology for lowly civilians. They have tried, are trying and will keep trying until they are successful. That is he nature of gun control.

  120. Nice try, but no we (people in the military) don't use battery powered small arms. That would be stupid, as is the idea of sidearm that can be disabled with a simple jamming device.

  121. Barry T Army Ret. | February 20, 2014 at 7:56 pm |

    Actually the weapons you speak of and many more are used by the Military, and they are gone over like a fine tooth comb before every mission by highly trained individuals. Would they rely on a weapon that might only get looked at once a week, or month like a lot of handguns would, end up stored in a draw, locked gun safe, high on a shelf, Hell no, they want to know that that weapon is ready to go 24/7,365, otherwise weapons go inop at the time of need. You can risk you and your families life if you want to, I won't.

  122. And none of the systems that use batteries is 100% even with rigid maintenance schedules. Ask any engineer, the part that is the least likely to fail is the one not used. The more failure points, the more chances for failure.

  123. Or how about the fact that if it works off of an RFID signal….it can easily be jammed or scrambled…..how about that? Parking a truck with a powerful antenna outside a police department with these "SMART pistols" and disabling every firearm in reach to the officers. LE will not be required to switch to anything like this so long as the tech exists to easily defeat it. Civilians on the other hand, will be required to make the switch just for that same reason…….LE and FEDS can simply disable your guns at the push of a button

  124. The ring was a rare earth magnet (strong)

  125. completing a circuit is one thing. You could even use the electricity from your body to run the thing. But batteries are not safe.

  126. SFC Franklin | February 20, 2014 at 7:48 pm |

    How about NVGs for 50 cals?
    We navigate with battery powered PLGRs.
    We (people in INF BNs, in the US Army) embrace tech.
    BTW, A minigun is considered small arms.
    Hell what about the BC-611?

    Batteries, batteries everywhere… and forever.

  127. Maybe you need to follow your own advice. There’s something called Google – go check it out.

  128. welcometothegunshow | February 21, 2014 at 6:00 am |

    Nice try, but a minigun is considered a machine gun, and as such would fall into the so-called heavy weapon category. Unless you know of a hangun that can shoot a 7.62×51 round?

  129. And all the batteries fail some time. Sometimes it is the worst possible time.

  130. Also, it's not battery powered. It says in the article, RFID. The magnets in the watch will cause a change in the circuitry in the gun, putting it into the unlocked position. It's simply completing the circuit, but there's nothing that has to be electrically powered. Think about the electronic key to an apartment building.

  131. Libertarian Avenger | February 21, 2014 at 9:43 am |

    Sounds like we got a technophobe. Get off the internet if technology scares your so much.

  132. If they stick it in your belly, the watch on your wrist would still let them shot you. It has zero benefit and many risks involved with it.

  133. I am a radio technician and I do understand how it works. Normally I would explain it, but obviously you would not understand. So why waste my time.

  134. And Bob wins the Asshole award!

  135. Yah, and isn't it great how every police department and military in the world uses that? Oh, wait, that's right, even though it was a simpler system, much less susceptible to failure and tremendously cheaper, nobody who counts on a gun to save their life wants to touch the thing.

Comments are closed.