One Shot for the Police

[Artful]

http://gizmodo.com/this-clip-on-hand...tha-1730039256

This Clip-on Handgun Attachment Makes Bullets Non-Lethal

93,767
14
Andrew LiszewskiFiled to: WEAPONS9/11/15 12:20pm





1
A California company called Alternative Ballistics has developed an easy-to-install accessory for hand guns that promises to make bullets non-lethal allowing law enforcement to incapacitate a suspect without causing life-threatening injuries.
The most important feature of the accessory, called The Alternative, is that it doesn’t interfere with the operation of a handgun in any way once it’s clipped onto the muzzle. The weapon’s sights still work, and other accessories like flashlights can still be attached.

So how do you make a speeding bullet less lethal? That’s easy, you simply reduce its speed. The Alternative holds a hollow metal sphere on the end of a gun’s barrel that’s designed to catch a bullet as it leaves the weapon and hitch a ride, in a manner of speaking.
The metal sphere, made from a proprietary metal alloy, will reduce the speed of a bullet by up to 80 percent while spreading out the point of impact on a target. So when it makes impact there’s less chance of it piercing flesh and causing serious internal injuries. Still, it hits the target with enough force to knock a person down, just like a non-lethal bean-bag round would, but with far more accuracy.

Designed as a single-use accessory, The Alternative’s orange plastic support is automatically ejected from a handgun after a shot has been fired, allowing law enforcement to immediately continue firing with regular rounds as needed. Because it’s so easy to install, teaching officers to use the accessory can be incorporated into regular firearms training with minimal additional time or cost. And because it can be carried on their person at all times, it’s a non-lethal alternative that’s always within quick reach so there’s a better chance it will be used more frequently.

[dubber123]

Innovative idea! Sadly, with how I have seen most police shoot at my range, it just means a bystander will get a black eye versus a fatal head wound.

[junkpile]

I think it's a good idea, but ill-conceived. I'd rather see a bystander get a black eye than a fatal wound, but knowing how often poor shooters are on target for the first shot, I don't care much for this. I don't see it as being the least bit useful. However, knowing what I do of the market, they may be onto some financial gain if they can convince the correct people.

But ultimately, i think this thing is dumb.

[TXGunNut]

An LE weapon is holstered, drawn and reholstered hundreds or thousands of times. I don't see this gizmo lasting through that and I don't see it fitting in common holsters.
A rather crusty old officer once told me that any criminal that deserves shooting deserves killing.

[Mk42gunner]

So what about the second shot of a double tap that most shooters have been trained to use in anti-personnel situations for the last few decades?

As I see it, this is a very stupid idea that will get good guys killed.

Robert

[Blackwater]

Let's see, felons who are dangerous enough to pull a gun on need to be coddled even THEN??? Is there no limit to the inanity of bureaucrats and politicos????

There are situations where it might be an asset, but how much are we gonna' require our cops to carry now? In bygone days, when bad guys EXPECTED to be shot and likely killed if they did something bad, we didn't have these type problems. Very simple, but of course, very out of step with "modern thinking," IF of course, you accept the modern version as actual "thinking."

Blunt force trauma can kill just as well as penetration can, and the hospital bills resulting from the use of the "less lethal" projectile should also be taken into consideration. Can we AFFORD it? May not be a popular or "humanistic" answer, but .... well, some answers just aren't very PC, but that'll never stop the PC crowd. Funny how that works, ain't it? We seem to be trying to make a world where there are no serious consequences for very serious behaviors. Bless our lil' ol' hearts, it aint' workin' out quite like we've been promised it would. But that doesn't seem to matter, and we seem to be doubling down on idiocy. A friend of mine recently commented that if we could just export our stupidity here, we'd be the economic envy of the whole world!!! I think he had a point there.

[hpdrifter]

Some liberal loonie finally give up on the idea of gun control?

He decided to make them less effective?

Wonder when the "speed loader" will appear?

[Artful]

An LE weapon is holstered, drawn and reholstered hundreds or thousands of times. I don't see this gizmo lasting through that and I don't see it fitting in common holsters.
A rather crusty old officer once told me that any criminal that deserves shooting deserves killing.

You don't keep it on the handgun you attach as needed - And I agree a firearm is a lethal choice - you should only use it with lethal intent.

[flyingmonkey35]

The term Non- lethal bothers me.

The correct term is less then lethal. As it can still cause death.

As for the concept I don't like it.

Soo many things can go wrong with that.

You are modifying your primary weapon. And that is dangerous. Keep less than lethal options different.

Untill the develop a phaser with a stun setting.

[Artful]

Military is working on it.


http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...e-ray-gun.aspx

Set Phasers to Stun: U.S. Army Channels Star Trek for Future Ray Gun
Science fiction, or science fact? The U.S. Army aims to find out.

For nearly five decades, the venerable M16 rifle (and its M4 carbine variant, pictured above) has served as the U.S. Army's standard service rifle -- but perhaps not for much longer.

Pretty soon, every U.S. soldier could be packing a real-live ray gun.

OK, maybe not "phaser rifles" like the one Captain Kirk is hoisting here, but something close to it. Because as DefenseOne.com reported last month, the Army is already testing a precursor to such weapons, dubbed a "Burke Pulser."

Designed not for killing Klingons but for eliminating electronics, the Army's new ray gun comprises "two wide antennas, a piezoelectric generator and a few other small bits and pieces," DefenseOne says, all incorporated into an attachment the size of a silencer.

This device is attached to the barrel of a conventional M4A1 carbine. When the carbine is fired, the Burke Pulser converts the energy from the discharge into an electrical pulse. In theory at least, this electrical pulse could neutralize a Bluetooth-enabled IED, fry the brain of hostile drones -- or even help Jack Bauer stop terrorists from setting off remote-controlled bombs.

How much does a ray gun cost?
The U.S. Army's Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, where the new ray gun was invented, estimates that mass-produced Burke Pulsers might cost as little as $1,000 per unit (more than doubling the cost of a $700 regulation M4). Purchasing enough Burke Pulsers to convert all M4 carbines in the U.S. Army inventory to potential directed energy weapons would then be a matter of some $500 million.

And how much is the ray gun market worth?
Now, $500 million sounds like a lot -- but really, it's just a shot in the dark at how big the market for "ray guns" might become. Recently, though, research firm MicroMarket Monitor attempted a more thorough examination of the market for "directed energy weapons," and came away with a startling conclusion:

This market is big.

And another:

This market is growing -- fast.

Who's who in ray guns
As recently as 2013, MMM estimated the value of directed energy weapon research, development, and sales in the U.S. at just under $3.1 billion. But over the next few years, MMM sees this market growing rapidly, and hitting $8.1 billion in sales by 2018.

MMM lists the primary movers in the directed energy weapons market as including most of the nation's biggest defense contractors -- companies such as Raytheon (NYSE: RTN), Boeing (NYSE: BA), Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC), and Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT). (Surprise, surprise -- we've come up with the exact same list of "usual suspects" here at The Motley Fool.)

For these companies, the advantages of investing in ray guns are obvious. Overall and across the defense industry, times are tough, and revenues are falling as the Pentagon tightens its belt. Even with cost cuts and stock buybacks, it's getting hard to grow profits. In fact, according to Yahoo! Finance, Raytheon, Northrop, and Lockheed are all expected to grow their profits at only single-digit rates over the next five years. (Boeing, at 12% projected growth, is the exception -- but its growth comes almost entirely from its Commercial Airplanes business, and with little help from Boeing Defense.) On the other hand, if MMM's predictions are anywhere close to accurate, directed energy weapons look like a 21.5% annual growth market.

Long story short:
If there's a light at the end of the tunnel for America's defense industry,
it's probably coming out of the barrel of a ray gun.

[Scharfschuetze]

Having been in gun fights as both a police officer and as a soldier, I just thank my lucky stars that I'm retired from both careers now.

Dealing with a life threatening assailant is not the time to listen to the "Good Idea Fairy," but to stop the threat right friggen now.

[TXGunNut]

You don't keep it on the handgun you attach as needed - And I agree a firearm is a lethal choice - you should only use it with lethal intent.

Well, that changes things. I could see that being an option similar to a bean bag shotgun (but a lot easier to keep handy) but it could still only be considered lethal force and only used when lethal force is called for. There are scenarios where something like that could be useful but it would be more likely to further muddy the less-than-lethal waters.

[BigAl52]

Ya Dirty Harry would have liked one of these.

[Schrag4]

I'm concerned that someone will shoot through their hand while trying to deploy it. IMO it would be just as safe for the perp and much safer for the officer to simply have a special mag loaded with one or two rubber bullets and the rest the real deal. If they have time to deploy this thing, they have time to swap the mag and chamber a new round. I realize that also opens things up for catastrophe (grabbing the wrong mag, for instance), but at least the officer won't shoot a finger or two off.

[truckboss]

I think Schrag got it.Officer gets a very excited tries to deploy this thing,blows hand off,perp laughs.The only special mag should be full of some type of explosive rounds.

[Blackwater]

TxGunNut hit the REAL problem on the head! The real problem ins't a real NEED for stuff like this, but the folks and their philosophies who WANT it. And once we have THAT, THEN they'll wind up moving the line for their standards yet again, and some cops who use this, will eventually be found "guilty" of offending their delicate sensibilities in some manner or other. It's sad that it's that way, and that this can't be used with good discretion, like with mentally ill types in a relative frenzy, but not offering the LEO's any real threat. In the right moment, it could be a very powerful distant "punch" to avoid having to kill them, and likely as not, once they got back on their meds, they'd again be "safe" to live amongst us.

I, for one, though, just don't want to see any LEO's lives lost due to trying to use this in a questionable scenario. It CAN get people killed! This whole deal is, really, a judgment call, plain and simple, and with our LEO's judgment always being "wrong" according to so many now, no matter what they do, I just remain VERY suspect that this or any of the other "less than lethal" stuff is really worth anywhere near as much as we've been spending on it. A good man with a gun CAN disable a felon, but that's been ruled something like "cruel and inhumane," and LEO's cannot now, generally shoot at a fleeing felon any more, even if they're armed, in many jurisdictions, UNLESS they raise the gun in a manner that would indicate to a jury long after the event occurs that would indicate intent to shoot the LEO or other innocents. The REAL problem isn't in the equipment issued and choices available, but in the hearts and minds of the American people as a whole now, and in our juries, which are composed mostly of folks who can't get out of serving (which is mostly the uneducated or poorly educated poor, in large part), and in the courts' general acceptance of liberal theology and ideas, that kinda' really leave reality, circumstance and necessity out of the whole body of evidence really considered. And I don't see it getting any better, either!

I know this isn't very PC. It's not intended to be. It's only intended to be accurate and valid. And it is.

[bedbugbilly]

What's next? Walk up to the perp pointing or shooting at you, hand him a "pink infraction ticket" and tell him to go to the "time out corner" for 15 minutes?

Scharfschuetze . . . . your words can't be improved on . . . well said.

[Mod42]

The solution to this non existent problem is not to make police officers less effective. The real solution is to make people more responsible for their actions. Sorry, if I point my gun at you, it is because your behaviour is such that I have to defend my life from you, and what happens to you because of your behaviour is not relevant!

[FergusonTO35]

I actually like this idea, but think it would be better served used on a dedicated less lethal gun that looks nothing like a real one, as a taser is.

[pretzelxx]

I still don't get why it's such a big deal... Stop breaking the law, how hard is it really?