I recently got my hands on the xEM access controller. It seems to be a RFID based car ignition immobilizer that was repurposed. I’m gonna try and reverse engineer the box, but it’d probably be a much more efficient idea to build a system from the ground up. I feel like theres a decent potential in the Arduino family of chips.
Using the safety detent spring hole isn’t a bad idea. The issue I see there is figuring out how to keep the safety from flopping loose when the pin is withdrawn. The detent pin is the only thing keeping the safety from falling out of the lower.
Also, using the M-16 selector is a no-go per the ATF. You’re not legally allowed to use any of the full auto FCG pieces in a civilian rifle. Dumb, and you’ll probably never actually get called on it, but there it is.
For the proto I’d definitely just buy one of the cheap automotive immobilizers off of eBay. I’ve had a similar one in my car for 13 years now with no issues. A cool feature that mine has is that it hooks into the driver door switch and only turns on the unit when the door is opened. It then looks for a tag for 30 seconds before going back to sleep. Hooking the door wire into a grip switch would keep the unit asleep and not drain the batteries when it sat in a corner for months at a time.
@I0TA When I say “MIL-SPEC” I’m referring to most semi auto FCG’s on modern AR models. (Basicly, using existing assemblies instead of redesigning the entire trigger package.)
You’re right when you say that that’s pretty much all it has to keep the selector from falling out. What about some sort of internal snap ring or “collar”?
Or you could just install an ambidextrous safety selector… That solves that problem right there now that I think of it…
Either way, I think it would require some custom manufacturing or at least modification to current selectors.
The only reason that the selector “holds” in the safe or fire position is that detent spring and pin. Perhaps making the hole in the selector for the “safe” position a little deeper so the pin can actually “lock” in place would work.
Or, I should say, instead of having just a straight pin going up into the safety decent, it could be positioned behind a small spring to give it a little “play” but still have tension on the pin.
When the unit “unlocks” it just retracts the pin or pushes it back.
Here are my $0.02 on the matter…
-
use the existing safety as a power switch to the RFID lock. That way, the system is not constantly draining batteries sitting idle. When the user wants to use the weapon, they flip the safety to fire position. That powers the RFID reader, which instantly reads the chip and “unlocks” or “enables” (depending on which way you want to go design wise), and then you can fire.
-
allow the user to select “fail secure” or “fail safe”. In door lock terminology, fail secure means if the system fails (batteries, malfunction, etc.) the door stays locked, but fail safe means the locks open and every door is passable (safe for people who might otherwise be trapped). With weapons, “fail secure” would mean you can operate the weapon, while “fail safe” means the weapon is disabled in the event of a system failure.
-
discussing all this on a public forum will invalidate any patent rights you may want to explore… unless you filed within 11 months of the first mention of a patentable claim… which isn’t likely to happen… so be aware and maybe move this discussion to a private message thread if you want to retain those rights. This forum allows multiple users in a PM thread.
Possibilities…
The issue with solenoids is they are likely to be susceptible to the magnet attack previously discussed. Look for a micro-servo.
I was recently discussing this with a friend. He had a lot of really good points about reliability. The thing that mainly got to me was the on time in a thousand I pick up a rifle or handgun to shoot, where my life is actually in danger. Would I remember to hold my hand on the grip in a very specific way? What if I forgot to charge the weapon’s electronics?
I’m thinking with currently available tech, the only way I would trust this mod would be to have an array of transponders in my hand, and multiple antennas integrated into the grip. This is all considering a weapon for defense, if it’s just a cool project for fun then I’m all for it. Common self defense firearms already have a myriad of failure points, which can include simply attempting to chamber a round (type 3 malfunction). I would be weary of adding an additional point of failure. Now a weapon that uses electrically fired caseless ammunition, like the Voere VEC-91 would be an awesome testbed for something like this. It already has a large battery for firing it’s caseless ammunition, and plenty of internal space for modifications. Too bad it’s nearly impossible to get an example of a Voere VEC-91, let alone the ammo for it. I am just using it as sort of a jumping off point, and that brings me to my main point. I would not want to mod an existing platform, but create a new platform that is actually designed around the main feature, the smart lockout. These are all just personal feelings and are in no way meant to be hostile towards anyone in this thread. We’re all in this together. I would love a smartgun as much as any of us. I think that if a lot of us here came together, we could accomplish nearly anything. Seems like nearly all of us have unique and diverse skillsets.
Despite the scene in Judge Dread film (lawgiver gun), on weapons in “active and ready to use” mode, there should be no locking mechanism.
Certainly not a complex one .The tool should be operated in a split second, with the most reliable and simple mechanisms.
Connecting electronics creates many failure points, making the weapon more dangerous to its owner in an emergency if it does not work.
1 Like