View Full Version : DriveSmart Extreme Angle Roof Shot Punch Through!
amoney
05-10-2006, 05:43 AM
Now where are those numbers... oh yeah thats right DriveSmart did not have a unit ready again as promised, and if they ever, ever ever ever, have a proper demo video, they better have a LEO with 30 years experience shooting the roof of the vehicle as GOL did, otherwise Drive Smarts product is just a huge :?: what it is capable of doing. So all you DriveSmart supporters out there, can you answer us this question...
>insert pic of tumble weed blowing accross desolate road here<
FailedSenses
05-10-2006, 06:59 AM
What does this prove?
thestaton
05-10-2006, 07:21 AM
I would but they are saying they wont sell me one :(
amoney
05-10-2006, 10:37 AM
What does this prove?
This proves how riddiculous all these threads are on this board about AntiLaser... people jumping on one set of very unreal world numbers, how many officers are going shoot at a maximum extreme angle and aim at the ROOF of your car. Who needs a jammer if you can get the officer to divulge that he was shooting at the roof of your car in a court room...
Sure AntiLaser was proven to be not exactly as advertised with one head unit, but taking all these posts to extremes is not in the consumers best interest either...
A new person visting to the board sees all the big flashy posts and sees 800 foot punch through, sure they are going to not walk, but run to another manufacture such as DriveSmart that has unproven technology, not to mention broken many promises and acted very unprofessionally on this board.
Having threads that blow things out of porportion does not help anyone comming here to find out. As I have learned aswell lets stick to the facts, and keep things in context. :wink:
What does this prove?
This proves how riddiculous all these threads are on this board about AntiLaser... people jumping on one set of very unreal world numbers, how many officers are going shoot at a maximum extreme angle and aim at the ROOF of your car. Who needs a jammer if you can get the officer to divulge that he was shooting at the roof of your car in a court room...
Sure AntiLaser was proven to be not exactly as advertised with one head unit, but taking all these posts to extremes is not in the consumers best interest either...
A new person visting to the board sees all the big flashy posts and sees 800 foot punch through, sure they are going to not walk, but run to another manufacture such as DriveSmart that has unproven technology, not to mention broken many promises and acted very unprofessionally on this board.
Having threads that blow things out of porportion does not help anyone comming here to find out. As I have learned aswell lets stick to the facts, and keep things in context. :wink:
Okay, if we drop the GoL results completely how do you explain the Staton punch through at 700 on a plate shot and 500 punch through head on shot with mouse?
JTW
thestaton
05-10-2006, 10:42 AM
There is no staton punch through at 700FT. Those numbers you will have to discuss with Jamal I was off working on the test vehicle when him and the LEO where off playing.
The headon plate shot can be explained because you where on a tripod, going 11MPH!
There is no staton punch through at 700FT. Those numbers you will have to discuss with Jamal I was off working on the test vehicle when him and the LEO where off playing.
The headon plate shot can be explained because you where on a tripod, going 11MPH!
GoL is using a tripod next year buddy. Ask happy.
JTW
jimbonzzz
05-10-2006, 10:51 AM
Honestly, I originally wanted to use a tripod in this past test.
Show no mercy :twisted:
amoney
05-10-2006, 11:09 AM
Okay, if we drop the GoL results completely how do you explain the Staton punch through at 700 on a plate shot and 500 punch through head on shot with mouse?
JTW
As far as go.mouse very simply,
1. go.mouse had a Tipod verses a sigle head unit.
2. GOL obviously had a dual head unit (handheld if that matters, the god dam LEO had 30+ years experience and he was getting readings of a roof, how F* steady is that! BTW love the flea flicking comment by someone else earlier)
Someone is going to have to chime in here and verify because I am on a crappy dial up, but didn't GOL do a rear shot with the AntiLaser... was it a single head unit... I seem to recall that those number were pretty good.
In the end, yes AntiLaser is not as what we lead to believe, JTG... obviously we errored and ran with what looked to be impressive results.
Remember the '05 GOL laser event, the AntiLaser also performed outstanding, and that was with a officer useing standard headlight and plate shots. Yes AntiLaser at that time seemed to have a big problem with one of the guns (again crappy dial up so can not go look at the moment).
And dont overlook the '06 results, yes they are bad, but that was a first time extreme angle test, and a roof shot! When GOL retested, even at extreme angles, normal headlight and plate shots the results were minimum punch through.
I think we learned a hell of alot of information that will drive this industry to do better. Not to mention what we needed to know about worst case senerio, nothing is fool proof. AntiLaser is not the best that it can be, but it is not horrendous like some make it out to be. I just think if we focus on the data we can drive all the competition to address these concerns.
stealthJamal
05-10-2006, 12:38 PM
I would but they are saying they wont sell me one :(
That's funny they won't sell you one, lol. Ever heard of a company refusing a sale? :lol: I haven't. That is just retarded, because if the Defender2 (if it exist) ever goes on sale you can just have someone else buy it for you.