Thread: The IRIS - a great Kiwi product, what do you think?

What if saves a life but costs others?

Absolutely, don't get me wrong, it's no replacement for suitable training and a dose of common sense. I'm glad to see so many passionate comments on the subject but it does exactly what the manufacturer claims it does - detects a target known to be unintended and relays that information to the shooter.

The point I'd like to convey is not that the IRIS will eliminate firearm-related injuries/deaths in the bush, it is that those hunters who leave there common sense at home, forget their training and come to rely solely on a gadget to identify their target for them are inherently dangerous.

Just as a point of interest, the detection beam spreads out over distance, which in my experience (admittedly a prototype trial) meant that I was unable to shoulder the rifle before the detector went off. I'm not inferring that the detector will always go off before the firearm crosses over an unintended target, merely that in my experience I wasn't able to ready myself to fire before being alerted.

Just because it works under ideal circumstances, does not mean that it will work under less than ideal circumstances.... which is the world that it would be operating in. In fact the more effectively it works, the more dangerous it becomes to those not wearing the kit...

Try an analogy.... presume the same sort of technology was installed at traffic lights, and you had an audible warning noise in your car when the lights turn to orange and red. Do you think that people might learn to concentrate less coming up to intersections if they learn to rely on it? Of course while everything was working, thats not a problem... but what happens when there is a fault or an uncontrolled intersection...

We hunt in uncontrolled environments.... I don't want people on autopilot when it comes to identification of targets... and despite protests to the contrary, that will happen....

Originally Posted by HNTMAD

Chess is a sport!!!! no one got hurt playing that

Sorry HNTMAD

People die playing chess all the time.

Apparently it's quite a violent game.

Tom O'Gorman Castleknock death: Chess player stabbed to death 'during late night row with opponent over move' - Mirror Online

Cheers
Pete

Under currently NZ law, this device cannot become "mandatory". This would mean a monopoly to the manufacture/provide. The device would need to be able to be compatible with other manufacturers than just Hunter Safety Lab. However, as they would/may have applied and have had patents granted, therefore, no one else can create a device that works the same way. Maybe they needed to put a vest on there foot to prevent shooting them self there.

I also work in the technology sector, for a large US company that provides advanced guidance systems to a range of customers. Think along the lines of governments that require to guide something to a very specific location where it to unsafe to have a team of highly skilled specialist operators. We also provide systems to the construction and agg industries for automation of machine like dozers and mining trucks, these machines have no operators in them. Yes, human error is a factor in what we do and this is why systems involved in the safety of others have MULTIPLE fail safes built in. We are a user of the quality system 6 Sigma, and with the exception of a very specific line of product we built to automotive standards, this mean the same failure rate as you car...... 50 per 1,000,000

I'm all for having the right tools and education for hunting, but unfortunately, the IRIS doesn't appear to have any fail safes, other than the human using it........ therefore, back to the education again.

A practical firearms test, including moving targets and target identification may be a step in the right direction. Finland run a system like this, not sure what their hunting death stats are like.

From gunpolicy.org

"In Finland, the annual rate of unintentional shooting death by long gun per 100,000 population is

2007: 0.0216
2006: 0.06
2004: 0.02
2003: 0.02
2002: 0.04
2001: 0.04
1999: 0.10
1998: 0.04
1997: 0.02
1996: 0.04"

With a population somewhere around 5,200,000 in 2006 that would be approximately 3 people.

NZ works out about 0.030, I think.

Originally Posted by JayColli

From gunpolicy.org

"In Finland, the annual rate of unintentional shooting death by long gun per 100,000 population is

2007: 0.0216
2006: 0.06
2004: 0.02
2003: 0.02
2002: 0.04
2001: 0.04
1999: 0.10
1998: 0.04
1997: 0.02
1996: 0.04"

With a population somewhere around 5,200,000 in 2006 that would be approximately 3 people.

That's speedy research right there, 4 minutes!

Hi all, I had a little play with this at this years tahr show in CHCH, and I brought up that it was a good idea BUT at $400 plus shipping that only the guys with the spare cash can get it.

When they gave it to me to play with I "scanned" the target and YES I found that you have to "Cover" the dummy or patch of tape for it to go off.

I'm sure no one will check how much battery these devices have in them before getting to the field, little lone have spares in their kits to replace them once they are dead (the batteries not the people)

I have only hunted bunnies and went wallaby shooting once, all my other shooting has been done at paper or metal. I want to learn to hunt properly, without fancy safety devices that add weight to the firearm.

Originally Posted by P38

The biggest design flaw I see with this device is you have to attach it to your Rifle then for it to detect another person, who has to be wearing the reflectors,

You have to Point Your Rifle at Another Person.

This act alone goes against the grain of everything I have ever been taught.

If I ever saw anyone pointing a Rifle at me I would have to assume they intend to shoot at me.

It's for this reason I would never use it.

Cheers
Pete

Hey Pete, I totally agree with you on this point here!!!

Originally Posted by madmaori

How can it be one of the more stupid concepts around if it has been designed to hopefully save a few lives?!
I actually think your a bit of a bell end for making that statement.

Dude you have to point the dam IRIS at a person,and they have to wear the tape on the clothes for it to work. Enough said about that!!

So in my own opinion yes it is a good idea, but 100% waste of time as I would rather use that $400 and get a better scope or binos to scan the area that I intend to shoot in.

Originally Posted by JayColli

From gunpolicy.org

"In Finland, the annual rate of unintentional shooting death by long gun per 100,000 population is

2007: 0.0216
2006: 0.06
2004: 0.02
2003: 0.02
2002: 0.04
2001: 0.04
1999: 0.10
1998: 0.04
1997: 0.02
1996: 0.04"

With a population somewhere around 5,200,000 in 2006 that would be approximately 3 people.

Gee I thought we were in New Zealand not Finland (but Sako and Tikka are nice rifles)