Beretta presented a novel smart-gun concept at a recent defense expo overseas, which they called iProtect. This video shows how it works, using an RF-enabled gun with multiple sensors.

You don’t have to be Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden to be a little creeped out by that.

Supposedly, the Beretta technology provides comprehensive surveillance but not control of the firearm, at least at this time. One consequence of that is that it is fail-safe: if the central office drops off the net (anyone remember the first responder commo chaos of 9/11?) the nifty features don’t work, but the gun just reverts to being a plain-vanilla PX4 Storm. This PX4i is, in fact, a PX4 with some minituarized sensors deployed in it:


Many gun vendors and writers are appalled by this idea, but the iProtect needs to be understood, both in terms of its intended niche, and its likelihood of succeeding there. Neither indicates that Beretta intends (or has produced) a threat to civilian gun owners with this technology. More realistically, this is a technology demonstration for future potential developments in law enforcement and military weapons, rather than a practical product in 2014.

Here’s Beretta’s brochure on the technology, to give you more depth than is available in the videos, although the videos are probably a better overview of this complex and interdependent system.

How Times do Change

In 1999, when other gun makers including SIG and Colt were making balky “smart guns,” Beretta issued a manifesto denying their interest in any such thing. Beretta wrote:

Although the concept of a “smart gun” or “personalized gun” has received public attention recently, we believe that careful consideration has not been given to potentially dangerous risks associated with these concepts. In our opinion, such technology is undeveloped and unproven. In addition, Beretta strongly believes that “smart gun” technology or “personalized” guns (hereinafter also referred to as “smart gun” technology) could actually increase the number of fatal accidents involving handguns.

But that was then, this is now. 

Back in the bad old 90s, the anti-gun Clinton administration and their allies in Congress and in state legislatures were pushing hard for smart guns as a means to disarm citizens and centrally control armed police. (Some officials then and now believe that cops should lock their guns in a station arms room at shift’s end, and a few PDs actually do this). The policymakers pushing this saw technology in the automotive and computer worlds (we dunno, like the chip-in-the-key in our ’89 Corvette that used to occasionally turn on the alarm for no particular reason? that they imagined would adapt to guns, no problem. They disregarded many things, like the different volumetric envelope in a car and a gun, and made no bones about their nominal “safetyt” push really being all about citizen disarmament. A key problem with the high-tech push was that politicians have never successfully scheduled an inventiuon in the past, and they didn’t this time, either. By the time quasi-working “smart guns” were going bang six times out of ten, the would-be launch customers — various anti-gun officials of the Clinton Administration — had moved on to K Street at the change of administrations.

SIG-Sauer-P229-EPLS_001SIG’s late-90s entry, the SIG P229 EPLS, illustrated some of the problems with these arms. To be set to fire, a PIN had to be entered on a keypad on the gun’s nose, and a time period entered. So, for example, policemen would have their guns enabled only for the duration of their shifts. The pistol was not fail-safe in any way: the failure mode was that, if the electronics borked, the gun remained on the last setting indefinitely, whatever it was.

The 229 EPLS was unreliable and never went into series production; 15 or so prototypes and pre-production test articles were made, some of which may have been released to collectors according to this article at Guns and Ammo.

Colt made an effort to spin off a smart-gun subsidiary, called, we are not making this up, iColt. There is no sign of it today; Colt’s perennial dance with the threat of bankruptcy was mortal to any engineering resource-suck with such an uncertain path to returns.

The “Smart Gun” that’s in the news: Armatix iP1

Beretta’s plan for intelligent duty firearms, iProtect, is radically different from the publicity-focused smart-gun maker, Armatix. Armatix’s designer is Ernst Mauch, the prime mover of HK during its decades-long phase of HK: Because You Suck, and We Hate You hostility to nongovernmental customers, and he brings his superior, anti-customer attitude to Armatix. The company’s strategy is to have its gun mandated by authorities: it has come close in New Jersey, and one candidate in the Democrats’ Sep. 9th primary for Attorney General of Massachusetts (Warren Tolman) has promised to ban all other handguns if elected. (Yes, Massachusetts law and case law does give that official this power. No word on whether he has a stake in Armatix).

The gun itself is a poor design, kind of like some of Mauch’s later HK abortions (UMP, M8). Its reliability approaches 19th-Century lows: few reviewers have gotten through a 10-shot magazine without a failure to feed, some of which seem to relate to the magazine and in some of which the slide does not go into battery. Armatix’s idea of fail-safe electronics is this: if the electronics fail, they brick the gun, therefore it’s safe.

Because the fragile Made in Germany electronics aren’t ready for centerfire prime time, the gun will be available only in .22 long rifle for the foreseeable future. For a .22 it’s bulky, and it has only average accuracy.

Pity it doesn’t have the red HK on it. Then, at least the fanboys would buy it.

The iProtect system is not like the Armatix, or other Smart Guns

Like SIG in the 90s, Beretta began with a decent pistol and then added the electronics to it, in Beretta’s case the underrated Px4 Storm. Like SIG, there’s a bulky “light” on the rail that contains the brain. The gun is truly fail-safe: if the electronics go paws up, the gun doesn’t. In fact, the operator can dismount the “brain” at any time.

Unlike Armatix, iProtect has not been launched with noises about the authorities having an ability to remotely brick the firearm. And it does not brick itself if the battery runs down. Beretta also addressed another weakness (or at least, inconvenience) of battery-powered gear by making the black box’s battery wireless rechargeable.

The “brain” is not really the key to the system, though: the key is the Black Box’s networked communications abilities. First, it talks to the sensors on the gun itself, monitoring the position of the gun and its controls much the same way a Digital Flight Data Recorder monitors the position of an airplane’s control surfaces and flight control inputs. The brain transmits that information to a central control console. Since all of the smarts are in firmware and software, they can be updated more or less on the fly to add new capabilities (and, no doubt, to squash bugs. It’s practically impossible to write a program more useful than “Hello, world!” without introducing bugs).

But the gun’s communication with the central office is only part of it, because it’s also networked to a smartphone or other communications device, and to a special t-shirt that monitor’s the officer’s position, activity, and health status of the carrier (if you’ve ever worn a chest strap when exercising, you’ll get the general idea).

And a key feature of iProtect, absent from other smart guns, is geolocation. The gun knows where it is — and tells the office, many times a second. This complicates things for those criminals who would murder a cop for his gun (like Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnayev did after they bombed the Boston Marathon finish line). It’s one thing to have a gun that’s so hot it’s radioactive, but it’s a whole other game to have one that’s constantly phoning home and otherwise subject to electronic track & trace.

Of course, it also complicates things for cops who would spend their shift cooping behind a strip mall, or unofficially 10-7 at Krispy Kreme. If you’re That Guy, the relative smartness of your gun is not going to affect your police work in any way, anyway.

Problems with iProtect?

Unlike Armatix, iProtect is not a play to disarm the public; it’s a play to increase the information flow in police dispatch offices. There it runs into a problem, in US law enforcement: the Beretta system is best used by intelligent cops and intelligent, expert even, dispatchers. But many large metro departments in the USA — exactly the target market for iProtect — have upper as well as lower bounds for cop IQ. (These departments also tend to have low closure rates on cases requiring in-depth, imaginative investigations, oddly enough). But at least the typical cop is a man or woman of average smarts. The dispatchers are a different thing. It the USA it’s a low-paid, low-status occupation, and it tends to attract people who are a half-step above the welfare lines: the same sort of people who work, if that’s the word, in the DMV or other menial clerical jobs in local government. One consequence of this is the periodic dispatch scandals like this one, a rather trivial violation that went, as usual, unpunished; or this more serious one that ended with a dead caller, a fired dispatcher, and one more illustration of the sad fact that when seconds count, police are minutes away. Literally none of the dispatchers at a modern urban police department has a place in the high-tech, high-demand dispatch center envisioned by iProtect.

The 80-IQ dispatcher is a mountain that iProtect must climb if it is going to sell here in the USA — and it’s a mountain it probably can’t summit. But even the dispatcher problem is secondary to the real Achilles Heel of iProtect: it’s a proprietary, closed system. It not only works with the PX4i, it only works with the PX4i. It only works with Beretta’s own high-tech undershirt. It only works with the Beretta communications and dispatch system.  It requires the agency to recapitalize everything at once. Line cops don’t think of budgetary and logistical problems, but chiefs and commissioners spend most of their time on them.

It’s also self-evident that iProtect has no real utility at this time for the private or individual owner, or even to the rural sheriff’s office or small-town PD: it’s only of interest to large police departments, the only users that can resource it properly. (In the long run, the sheriffs of sparsely populated counties might really like the geolocation capability, though; it goes beyond geolocating the police car, something modern tech already can do, and tracks both the officer and his or her sidearm. That’s a big deal for situational awareness if you’ve got a wide open range and very few sworn officers).

So what’s the verdict?

iprotectIn sum, the iProtect system is an ingenious adaptation of modern communications technology to the police defensive-firearm sphere. It poses no direct threat to gun rights, although cops may find being monitored all the time a little creepy. (Welcome to the pilot’s world, pal). But as it sits there are obstacles to its adoption. These obstacles are organizational, cultural and financial — we don’t yet know how well the system works, but assuming arguendo that all Beretta’s claims about it are true, there don’t seem to be technical obstacles holding it back.

Like the plain old dumb guns that just sit there until animated by human will, the good or evil of a smart gun is in the intent of the mind behind it.

This entry was posted in Foreign and Enemy Weapons, GunTech, Industry, Pistols and Revolvers, Weapons Education, Weapons of Tomorrow, Weapons Technology on by Hognose.

About Hognose

Former Special Forces 11B2S, later 18B, weapons man. (Also served in intelligence and operations jobs in SF).

10 thoughts on “Beretta’s Smart Gun for PDs, Military: iProtect Analyzed


Hackable. Use it to geo-locate the officers nearest your caper. Interrupt and feed false, useful telemetry back into the system.

Real “Sneakers” type crap, but possible.

Cost wise: I hope this competes with the kid-locate freeware available on iphones, if they simply want to use it to locate the officer. Honestly, the only difference is this thing can be hung on a picatinny rail. And it needs a special tee shirt, with a special logo. And a special software load….



Because street criminals have skills worth of a yearly 6 figure salary..


Stefan van der Borght

One will not get anywhere trying to control the tools. Control the user, and the tool used is irrelevant. How about a tattoo that permits buying and selling. No buy, means no food, no clothing no shelter. No sell, means no funds to afford same. No tatt means a free one way ticket to Magadan, or Auschwitz, or some other similar holiday camp if caught, or just a convenient shallow hole nearby.

Why bother with electropistols when your average weaponsman can print his favourite gat, and capture ammo off the dolts playing by the stupid electrogun rules, or machete rules, or oranges, hammers, pencils, or whatever means to an end is available? The tools are there, but if the motivation is compromised, you’ve won. Utopia, monopoly of violence; and no authority works without violence or threat thereof, ever. Of course, one needs a certain ambience and recent history to make folks swallow this easy solution, convincing enough to make the masses want it at any cost, and powerful enough to make the inevitable dissenting minority truly irrelevant.

Current events are interesting, perhaps not enough to sashay into implementation just yet, but with every iteration we get closer. A waterpipe full of matchheads pushing a fishing sinker initiated by a piezo cigarette igniter might net you the latest iM4 and perhaps lead to better things, but if the cost/benefit analysis falls short (as it will at some point), who will have the strength to stand? Perhaps the real war, and the real weapons, are not to be found in the tangible.

Bill K

Dear Stefan,

Am I a dog with tinnitus, or should I report you for double-plus-ungood thoughtcrime?

Your public minister,



Lots of places, there isn’t any cellular network to pick up. Probably not an issue with a police weapon in an urban area, could be a big issue for state police or sheriff’s departments, which spend much of their time out of cell tower range.

While the vast majority of people an officer might point such a gun at would have no idea about the underlying technology, I wonder how long it would be before the .01% were buying copgun jammer blue boxes off eBay or Craigslist…

Bill K

Tech marches on. Weren’t we just talking a few posts ago about how users put the toys to uses unintended by the manufacturers?

Though this poses ‘no direct threat to gun rights’, what if statists everywhere later insist that because this or some future smart gun works with selected LEOs, that’s all the public should have a right to own as well?


Ok, I admit I only sorta half-watched the videos, so maybe I missed something…but isn’t the part that does the tracking/networking (the only part that would actually have an affect if the gun were stolen) removable/separate from the gun/destroyable?

If you stole a cop’s smart beretta, wouldn’t you just remove and/or destroy the part that does the tracking…as the gun does not need it to function?

Hognose Post author

I’m not sure from the limited information Beretta has released where the communications and geolocation stuff is housed, but it makes sense for it to be in the removable iProtect brain unit. And if that’s the case, the gun would be usable by a thief exactly as you describe.

Not many criminals successfully make off with a cop’s gun. (For example, the Tsarnayev brothers successfully murdered MIT campus cop Sean Collier, but weren’t able to get his gun out of its retention rig.

Cops lose far more guns to residential burglaries and to insider corruption in, for example, evidence rooms.

Lee Cruse

Certainly a big step forward from the iP1. I suspect that when the idea is fully implemented, that it may find a home in places like NYC, LA and Chicago. I find it hard to believe that it would ever make sense to most departments and no sense at all for civilians.

I would add a camera to record the direction and target area when the trigger is first touched. It might give evidence to support the officers version of a self defense event.


Or, of you stole the pistol and pitched the tracker in a passing fishing boat, you could watch it sail away with the official fleet in hot pursuit.

Or, if you put a proximity switch on it then it could beep really loud if you accidentally left it in a bathroom stall.

Or, if you were a good hacker then you could neuter the swat team before the front door came crashing in.

Maybe good training for people with solid IQs would be a better approach, but that’s so 20th century isn’t it?