Add one to the "Stupidest Inventions" list! - Page 3
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 110

Thread: Add one to the "Stupidest Inventions" list!

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    only jams if you pull the trigger. ther's a primer in the case that causes a plunger to expand the white plasitc and render the firearm USELESS.


    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  2.   
  3. Thumbs down Safety Bullet

    There is a record of failures with these devices. In failing, the plastic segment will fire from the cartridge and act like a bullet. There is one incident that the plastic and aluminum thing inside of the plastic punctured a hole in a guys sheet rock wall at at considerable distance from the gun.

    I admit, this isn't much of an issue until it's your 2 year old child shooting himself in the eye with this "Safety Bullet"?

    There are other failures as well, some involving the plastic not exiting the barrel and having to be hammered out with a steel or substantial metal rod to remove it. Could you imagine firing a live round or two into such a plugged barrel?

    At this rate, a toothpick placed inside of the gun would be safer than anything that worked "some of the time" or "most of the time".

    Is there an independent testing facility that did the testing on "Safety Bullets"? If so, I wonder who did it. Perhaps the person in charge will elaborate.........

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by HKSkully View Post
    There is a record of failures with these devices. In failing, the plastic segment will fire from the cartridge and act like a bullet. There is one incident that the plastic and aluminum thing inside of the plastic punctured a hole in a guys sheet rock wall at at considerable distance from the gun.

    There are other failures as well, some involving the plastic not exiting the barrel and having to be hammered out with a steel or substantial metal rod to remove it.

    Do you have any documentation of these incidents? Maybe a link to a news article, government warning, etc. The printed documentation would come in handy for my firearms safety classes.

    I thought the product was flawed from the beginning. Then name "Safety Bullet" is very misleading. The darn thing doesn't have a "bullet". Maybe if the guy took a little time to talk to some knowledgeable firearms owners and instructors, he would have come up with a better product and a better name.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again.... What was this guy thinking!!! His target group of consumers are probably the "Mall Ninja" types.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by HKSkully View Post
    There is a record of failures with these devices. In failing, the plastic segment will fire from the cartridge and act like a bullet. There is one incident that the plastic and aluminum thing inside of the plastic punctured a hole in a guys sheet rock wall at at considerable distance from the gun.

    I admit, this isn't much of an issue until it's your 2 year old child shooting himself in the eye with this "Safety Bullet"?

    There are other failures as well, some involving the plastic not exiting the barrel and having to be hammered out with a steel or substantial metal rod to remove it. Could you imagine firing a live round or two into such a plugged barrel?

    At this rate, a toothpick placed inside of the gun would be safer than anything that worked "some of the time" or "most of the time".

    Is there an independent testing facility that did the testing on "Safety Bullets"? If so, I wonder who did it. Perhaps the person in charge will elaborate.........
    Welcome to USA Carry, HKSkully. Hope you enjoy the site.

    As for this product, it's a joke. The guy who invented it seems to think that this product is a substitute for safe gun storage.

  6. Un Safety firearm device

    Yes, I can provide you with contact information to some of the people that these devices have failed (so miserably) on. I also have some of the defective devices that indicate the failures that are backed up by what occurred during the test firing of these so called firearm safety devices and can provide pictures along with documentary.

    Some would say that I have an agenda towards the owner of this company. Personally I don't give a rats ***** about this person. I have a lot of damning information about this guy but it's not my intention to spread this knowledge.

    I just don't want to hear about some kid loosing their vision in one eye because of the greed of others. I also don't want to see someone possibly loose the same if not more due to stacking bullets down an obstructed barrel, causing a rupture of the barrel or breach explosion, which could pose a deadly situation to the shooter or bystander.

    I've been reloading ammunition for over 34 years and have been in weapons collecting since being of legal age to do so. I still have the .22 Browning that my father had given me when I was 10 years old. I've been an avid collector / broker of title II suppressed weapons and legal machineguns for over 15 years. I've held CCW license since the year that the state of Florida enacted CCW licensing.

    I've got to be out for a while today but PM me and I'll give you my e-mail addy for further information on these devices. They are UNSAFE and will eventually get someone seriously injured or worse...

    Thank you for welcoming me to USA Carry. I am humbled to be a part of such a fine website. Thank you agian,
    Skully

  7. HKskully welcome from florida in the sand hills on levy co.

  8. Thanks for the welcome from Levy Co. I'm up in NW FL.

  9. #28
    I thought "safety rounds" were invented years ago and called "blanks". I guess someone had to come up with a better mouse trap.

  10. #29
    The idea itself is not a bad one, it just comes with a few flawed premises.

    A.) If the gun owner is a serious gun owner who carries on a daily basis, he will likely have control of his loaded weapon at all times, eliminating the need for this safety device.

    B.) If the gun owner is a serious gun owner who does not carry, he will probably have his weapon(s) either secured in a safe, manually disabled (bolt removed), or protected by another system (lock, small safe, etc.)

    C.) If the gun owner is a poser, needing a gun to get his **** hard, he will not ever hear of this product, as he doesn't care about anything beyond 'I have a gun'. He very possibly doesn't even have a cleaning kit for it.

    D.) If the gun owner is a criminal, he will likely ignore the safety aspects of firearms handling entirely. This is one of the classes from which most accidental discharges come, IMO.

    E.) If the gun owner is your average, 'knows enough to get himself in trouble' Joe, this might be a good thing, as, if he does not have his weapon(s) locked up, they will likely be accessable by people other than himself. This, unfortunately, includes nosey kids. This is where the other large percentage of accidental discharges comes from. Again unfortunately, these are the people, who, faced with a threat, will probably attempt to fire their weapon, forgetting about the 'Safety Bullet', and rendering themselves immediately defenseless.

    This is, of course, just my opinion.
    We will not falter. We will not surrender. We will prevail.

    NRA Benefactor Member

  11. I agree with everything that you said. That isn't the problem. The problem is that they are failing due to manufacturing defects or component design failures which is resulting in them being unsafe.

    The actual premise behind the idea is a sound one. It could be a beneficial safety device IF (the big if) they worked as they were "Designed to". The problem is, they aren't. That is not dangerous for me, that is not dangerous for you (from what I gather) but it is a problem to "Joe Citizen" out there who buys a pistol for home protection (what can I say, they are allowed to vote as well) and then buys these defective safety devices in the false pretense that If (the big if again) by chance his young child gets a hold of it, he will be protected. Chances are, it's not going to happen. It is however the luck of the draw.

    A firearm safety device should not work due to a hope and a prayer or the "luck of the draw" in any circumstances. It should be 100% or nothing. They need to be fixed. Then they need to have an independent testing facility test them on a trial basis and then a continuing basis.

    I'm not stating this as anyone other than that of someone who just happens to care. Hypothetically speaking, if you knew that the owner was fully aware of the defects and failures of these devices and yet continued to sell them just to make a fast buck, I'm sure you'd be just as concerned (hypothetically speaking of course) Ahem.

    It's not right that the news stations love to jump on the bandwagon every time they can, that guns are dangerous to begin with. You and I know full well better than that. But soon, it wouldn't surprise me that the news is saying that you can't even trust the FIREARM SAFETY DEVICES either. This part wouldn't be a lie.
    Last edited by HKSkully; 09-18-2008 at 05:37 PM.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast