The Palm Pistol

[dude]

http://www.palmpistol.com/

What do y'all think?

[KBCraig]

http://www.palmpistol.com/

What do y'all think?

I think that just about the time they actually ramp up production and sell a few of these things, ATF will revisit their classification and declare it to be an "Any Other Weapon", requiring NFA paperwork and a tax stamp.

And if you don't think they'll do that, just remember that the Atkins Accelerator was also "approved" by ATF.

[srothstein]

It looks interesting as a back up or last ditch gun, but the one shot capability makes me a lot less interested. Make it a four shot or something and I might want one.

But I bet it also gets moved into the AOW category when it is made. The ATF letter refers to them redefining what a pistol is with a warning about it.

[bryang]

I saw that the other day and thought, now that is interesting, until I saw that it only fires one shot. I would be very uncomfortable with carrying one as a back up or anything else.

-geo

[KaiserB]

The best feature of the whole thing:

Optional Picatinny rail for accessorizing

I guess I could attach my flashlight, or a laser sight to it

[nuparadigm]

The concept and the longevity of the "Tround" comes to mind.

[mcarmel]

As the inventor of the Palm Pistol, I have spent considerable effort and money obtaining ATF approval of the design as a standard "pistol" and not AOW. My attorney Steve Halbrook is probably recognized as the top legal expert on ATF regulations. His opinion is the referenced change to definition of "pistol", which was proposed back in 2005 and which has yet to be enacted (and may never be), would have no impact whatsoever on the classification.

Regarding the single shot issue, I have been following the blog threads and this seems to be a common objection. I am aware of both the limitations and advantages to a single shot design as described in the specification document posted at http://www.palmpistol.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. There are many single shot self defensive firearms and devices which have their place in the market such as pepper sprays, Derringers, etc. Most notably, Tasers, which are quite successful, are also single shot and not nearly as effective as a live cartridge.

The Palm Pistol is not for everyone. But firearm enthusiasts fail to appreciate there are many people, particularly seniors and disabled, who due to physical limitations or simple intimidation, would be unable to properly wield a traditional revolver or semi-automatic. Also note I am applying for DME (Durable Medical Equipment) coding for the design since I believe this assistive device may qualify as such under CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) regulations. If successful, it is possible some insurance companies many offer partial reimbursement for purchase if the insured is disabled. I don't expect Medicare to reimburse but anything is possible, particularly if an argument concerning ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance can be made.

All the so-called "experts" insisted the design would be classified as AOW and I proved them wrong. I have learned long ago to ignore the advice of experts if your own logic and research suggests otherwise.

[KaiserB]

All the so-called "experts" insisted the design would be classified as AOW and I proved them wrong. I have learned long ago to ignore the advice of experts if your own logic and research suggests otherwise.

Amen to that....

[Keith B]

mcarmel,

Welcome to the forum. Interesting information. Please keep us informed as you move forward.

[srothstein]

MCarmel,

Welcome to the group, and thank you for taking the time to talk with us about your design. As I stated above, my primary objection is to the single shot factor. I would prefer more capabilities, perhaps designed along the lines of a two barrel derringer or the old four barrel COP pistol. I am not a designer or engineer, but I do not think that going to those type of higher capacities would complicate the weapon beyond the price point where it could sell.

I agree that there are several different one shot weapons that work and are accepted. The Taser is not one I would list though. The Taser is one shot in the sense of shooting probes out, but it is not one shot in the number of times I can tase a person who has been hit, and it has the drive stun capability for as many people as needed even after the probes have been deployed. A better example would be the older design pen pistols which had a single .38 shell in them. But, while some people do have those still, I do not have one for the same reason - I like more capacity.

I also wanted to clarify that we were not putting down you, your research, or your design when we talk about it as an AOW. It was, at least in my case and I think in most cases, more a sign of our distrust of the ATF than anything else. I only mentioned it because of the mention in their letter to you of a new definition for pistol. I was unaware that this was a three year old threat that had not yet come about. It may not be a factor for your pistol, but I really do not trust the ATF to stand by their letters at any given point in time.

Overall, I support anyone who wants to enter the firearms market, whether the design is new or old, necessary or whimsy. I sincerely hope you do succeed in your marketing of the pistol. If possible, i suggest you keep working on this one and getting it to market while keeping in mind the desire for more capacity. I would really be interested in a four shot version, but even a two shot would get me to take a second look.

[KBCraig]

All the so-called "experts" insisted the design would be classified as AOW and I proved them wrong.

So far, that is.

Look, I really wish you well with your product. I realize it's a niche design for special applications, and criticisms from gun enthusiasts just don't apply. I don't fault the design at all.

But I think you're mistaken if you believe you can trust ATF to stick with the current classification. It's not something I would bet my own money on, that's for sure. For starters, it does not look like a gun, which is one of the key elements for being classified as AOW. The first time one of these makes headlines because it's used in a crime, or a grandchild pulls it out of a purse and is injured, or one makes it onto an airplane, into a courthouse or prison, or into a school, you can bet that ATF will be taking a new look at the classification.

After all, the Armsel Striker was a perfectly legal shotgun, until Lloyd Bentsen declared that it was a Destructive Device.

The Akins Accelerator wasn't even a firearm; it was just an aftermarket stock until ATF declared it to be a machine gun. And just like your certification, Akins had a letter from ATF certifying that his device was a non-gun.

So I wish you well, and I truly hope you succeed, but I hope you haven't bet the farm on it.

Kevin

[NcongruNt]

Interesting design.

As was stated by others, I wouldn't particularly care for one myself, as it's single-shot. There's lots of tiny derringer-type guns that will conceal just as easily, and these generally have a two shot capacity.

Another detractor for me is the combination "lock". Not only can it compromise the functionality of the firearm at a critical time, it's hardly an effective locking mechanism, IMO. A 3 digit combination is easily defeated with enough time, as any 10-year-old boy can tell you. I assume this feature is included to meet the requirements of the integral locking mechanism laws in some of the more anti-gun states. I'd personally sooner have a keyed lock (or really, not one at all) that i can set and leave in the unlocked position and forget about than have a combination lock.

As stated, it has its benefits for folks who have difficulty holding and firing a traditional pistol. I just don't think I would ever pay $300 for a single-shot palm gun, or be convinced to carry it.

[mcarmel]

Kevin and Steve:

I am taking the liberty of responding to both your individual comments together in this one post.

I am grateful for your comments and those of other posters on the various blog sites. The feedback is very helpful and I am listening intently to those who offer constructive and civilized criticisms. I am chosing to respond here because the posters appear to be reasonable and cordial. I also would point readers to Dave Hardy's blog Of Arms and the Law whose posters are similarly thoughtful.

The number of cartidges the design is capable of holding without reloading is a multifacted issue. There are technical, legal, marketing, financial and legislative concerns all competing simultaneously. Yes, a multishot design could be more effective in the hands of a capable user. But do you think this is so in the hands of a frail 86 year old grandmother or someone with cripling arthritis? Also, some state legislatures will be more prejudiced against a multi-shot design and more apt to ban it immediately rather than allow a single shot design to come to market and given an opportunity to be proven an effective self-defensive tool. It is advisble to introduce a product that is the least intimidating, and least likely to be subject to wild exagerations, by our adversaries.

Several commentors have poked fun at the optional Picatinny rail. The principle reason for offering this was simply to provide a mount for the LaserLyte Subcompact V2 laser sight. I had considered an integral laser but the tooling and assembly costs are appreciable. I cannot justify that kind of risk for a product whose demand is still undetermined. The rail can also mount a strike bezel, a clip for extra rounds or any number of things that may be suggested by customers. Remember, optional means just that - it is an option and need not be employed. I personally would not use an external laser since this really is a "belly gun" and meant for point blank or near point blank range. My personal preference would be to maintain easier concealability and minimal potential for hanging up on clothing. However, many commentors have said they want a laser sight. I see no reason to exclude their desires.

Interestingly, I had some discussion with military representatives who suggested a possible application for tank commanders. The confined space of a tank does not lend itself to swinging a traditonal sidearm and the Palm Pistol might be suitable under these circumstances. I also think it would be ideal for pilots or airline stewards in the event of another 9/11 type event. I also think adminstrative staff who are not typically trained or inclined to carry firearms, in high risk areas such as embassies, might be interested in the design. If you look carefully at the 4th 3D drawing, you will notice the threaded barrel protector. This covers a standard 1/2 x 28 thread which accepts typical silencers. Again, this may be silly to most but it may have ultility for specialized applications.

The best potential application remains to be as an assistive device for seniors or disabled. There are approximately 30,000 non-work related phalangeal amputations involving one or more fingers annually in the US. Fingers obviously do not regenerate so the number of amputees is cumulative. Wouldn't you agree that someone missing their dominant index finger should have an alternative firearm available to them for self-defense? If one also considers those suffering from arthritis, peripheral neuropothy, phalangeal fusions, and any mumber of other medical conditions that affect motor skills, the market could be substantial.

Finally, the comments about the potential for ATF retraction or redefinition of the term "pistol" are certainly valid. However, and I can only speak from my personal experience, my contacts at ATF have been nothing but professional and helpful. My local ATF representative directed me to the correct person in at their Firearms Technology Branch to initiate my request for evaluation and classification. True, they were not as fast as I would have liked but they are understaffed and manadated by Congress to do their job with minimal resources, whether some agree with them or not. The ATF knows full well about the Atkins Accelerator and other designs that were initially approved and later reclassified. Putting conspiracy theories aside, I do not believe the agency would have approved my design as "pistol" in bad faith. They easily could have denied me, particularly if it was a initially submitted as a multishot design. Review my comments above about competeing interests. If they choose to redefine "pistol" in such a way as to make the Palm Pistol AOW, the worst thing that happens is buyers would need to pay the $5 tax (not $200 as some have stated) and go through the permitting process. If I were handicapped and needed a firearm to defend myself, this would be a small price to pay.

So those are my thoughts. Again, I appreciate your courtesy and would be glad to answer any questions offline. My personal email is mcarmel@constitutionarms.com.

Matt Carmel

[The Annoyed Man]

I guess my question would be: with the barrel positioned between the fingers as it is, doesn't it kind of beat the heck out of your fingers/knuckles under recoil?

[srothstein]

I am just guessing, but I would think the felt recoil would be lessened. One of the things that causes us to feel the recoil as much as we do is the leverage of it. The barrel above the fingers gives at least some moment arm to the recoil force. This is also a part of what causes the pistol to rotate and the muzzle to flip up. With the plam pistol, the recoil should be straight down the palm into the wrist and arm. It should be more manageable, IMHO, especially for the niche market Matt has identified (elderly or infirm).