Opinions wanted

[Luggo1]

on this product...

http://www.safetybullet.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good? Bad? Otherwise?

[srothstein]

Interesting concept. I wonder how many people would remember to cycle an automatic TWICE before firing in an emergency, such as a break in at night.

I still prefer training and education myself.

[Lodge2004]

I am a firm believer in simplicity. My "ready for use" firearms are always loaded. My "stored" firearms are empty but are still cleared before handling to make sure a gremlin did not sneak into my safe.

Something like this, in my opinion, just complicates matters by adding a 3rd possiblity.

[seamusTX]

Seems to me you could obtain the same effect by loading a snap cap or even an empty shell for a lot less than $27.

- Jim

[CopOnce]

Or just leave the pipe empty...which in my case won't happen.

[stash]

I am also a firm believer in simplicity. That"s why for me it is always a revolver or Glock.

[bdickens]

One should not rely on devices to make one safe instead of following safe practices.

[WildBill]

Looks very dangerous if this is a gun you expect to use for self defense.

[Excaliber]

Interesting concept. I wonder how many people would remember to cycle an automatic TWICE before firing in an emergency, such as a break in at night.

I still prefer training and education myself.

I would have to agree.

Using this device would create new risks - here are a few:

1. Someone finds the gun when you are absent, triggers the device, and puts the gun back where he found it.

2. The owner may not be thinking clearly in a life threatening situation (which alters one's ability to think clearly). He may disable his own gun and have to find another way to resolve the situation.

3. Use of the device also requires that two hands be available (they aren't always if you're in a struggle), and that the owner be in a situation where the sound of a semiauto being racked twice wouldn't attract bullets.

4. In a revolver, you'd be giving up at least one of your 5 or 6 rounds, and you'd have to remember to open the cylinder and rotate it one chamber in the direction of double action rotation. If you then have to fire multiple shots (and most people can't reliably count their shots in this situation) you'll disable your own gun when you drop the hammer on your "safety" round. If you can't remember which way the cylinder rotates, and rotate it the wrong way, you'll disable your revolver on the first attempted DA shot.

In any of these cases, you'd find yourself holding a nonfunctional life safety device. Your antagonist would likely be amused - you wouldn't be.

There may be folks whose circumstances are such that they believe the benefits are sufficient to justify trying to manage the risks.

For my own personal situation, I feel life threatening situations are complex enough already. I'll give this device a pass.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

with all of the above.

[couzin]

That, without a doubt, is the stupidest idea I have seen in years!! If a person is worried about their children 'handling' their guns/weapons - then that problem lies with the parent and is not solved by this "safety bullet" (which by the way is a 'safety cartridge or round' cuz there ain't no boolet in there). Ridiculous...

[The Annoyed Man]

Reasons this is a bad idea:

1. One less round available for your defense. If you are shooting a revolver, or a low capacity single stack semi-auto, do you want to give that one round up?
2. The guy advertises a "1 second" delay. Right. What if the next round up jams when you cycle the action because hand cycling it wasn't vigorous enough?
3. The guy advertises a "1 second" delay. Right. How much ground can an attacker cover in your direction in one second?

I thought of those 3 possibilities in about 3 seconds. More reasons would be easy. Gun owners have a responsibility to keep loaded weapons out of the hands of their children until those children are old enough to know what to do, and have been trained in how to do it. At my house we operate on the assumption that ALL guns are loaded and good to go. Most of the pistols are.

Like others have said: TRAINING, TRAINING, TRAINING.

[bryang]

Reasons this is a bad idea:

1. One less round available for your defense. If you are shooting a revolver, or a low capacity single stack semi-auto, do you want to give that one round up?
2. The guy advertises a "1 second" delay. Right. What if the next round up jams when you cycle the action because hand cycling it wasn't vigorous enough?
3. The guy advertises a "1 second" delay. Right. How much ground can an attacker cover in your direction in one second?

I thought of those 3 possibilities in about 3 seconds. More reasons would be easy. Gun owners have a responsibility to keep loaded weapons out of the hands of their children until those children are old enough to know what to do, and have been trained in how to do it. At my house we operate on the assumption that ALL guns are loaded and good to go. Most of the pistols are.

Like others have said: TRAINING, TRAINING, TRAINING.

That is exactly right! The parents ARE the safety device!

-geo

[UpTheIrons]

All I can say is...dumb...dumb...dumb.

He's capitalizing on the 'feel-goodyness' of his invention, but there's no safety involved here -- at least not for the owner of the gun! But the perp may feel pretty safe when the homeowner's gun becomes a paperweight because he doesn't remember this wonderful little 'safety' device.

[ghostrider]

bad idea.
its just a crutch like a magazine disconnect 'safety'. The right answer is common sense, personal responsibility, education and following the golden rules of gun safety.