Another shot was fired today in the stun-gun war. Of course, it's not a war so much as a defensive action. On the one hand, you've got TASER International
The blow came via a press release and video describing an "independent" test of TASER's weapons, side by side with a Stinger stun gun. The testing was performed by a small outfit called CRT Less Lethal, whose three principals carry bios that, to me, seem to qualify them to conduct this kind of testing.
The video they released shows something that doesn't surprise me: The Stinger stun gun doesn't appear to work so well.
Of course, there are a couple of things that prospective stun-gun investors should note here. First of all, as disclosed at the end of the video and confirmed to me by both TASER and CRT, TASER paid CRT to do this testing. On the other hand, I think the results speak for themselves -- although in one test, the testers appear to be wiring one subject up in the same room where they're interviewing another just-tested subject about his reaction to his final test, which could introduce some measure of bias. The video may be a bit low-budget, but the guys clearly explained their methodology, and for the most part, they seem to have taken great pains to make this a blind test. Unless there's more bungling or out-and-out cheating going on here -- which I doubt -- the results speak for themselves.
First off, upon firing the guns repeatedly from a vise, the lower probe of the Stinger device has a larger pattern than the TASER. As anyone who's done any target shooting (or built black-powder loads from the ground up) knows, with a steady weapon, you want to see those holes in the target as close as possible to one another. If you could put eight shots through one hole, that would be the best. It would mean that any "misses" in the field were due to faulty aim, not vagaries of the projectile's pathing after it leaves the weapon. On this count, by this video, the TASER device looks like the winner.
The results from a shock test look even more convincing to me. After taping up a few (tough and/or crazy) volunteers with probes corresponding to the average spread of each device, and hiding the weapon type by concealing it in a bag, the testers asked the volunteers to try attacking a pad held by one of them. In all of the cases shown, those shocked by the Stinger were able to continue fighting. Those shocked by the TASERs dropped like a felled tree.
Assuming this test corresponds to reality, I think evidence like this will make it doubly tough for Stinger to get any traction in the law-enforcement market. And it's got problems enough already. After all, the whole point of zapping someone with one of these things is to incapacitate him or her, and to stop the subject from harming himself, police officers, or bystanders. Just spend one Saturday evening with a can of beer, a bag of popcorn, and COPS on the boob tube, and you'll see why pepper spray, batons, and other control techniques seem so ineffective (and even dangerous or downright barbaric) by comparison.
This test also seems to confirm one of my long-standing suspicions about this industry -- it's a lot tougher to create a product that works (as opposed to simply hurting) than some of the folks out there hyping stocks on the Internet chat boards and elsewhere would have you believe. Of course, this conclusion should be obvious to anyone who's taken a look at the many previous iterations of not-so-useful stun devices that preceded the current-generation TASER weapons. But then, when investors have visions of dollar signs dancing in their heads ("I'm getting the next TASER!"), the obvious often goes right out the window.
The test notwithstanding, I'm not a fan of TASER's stock at these prices. I think there's still a higher degree of growth priced into the shares than I'm willing to believe. But as regards the other stun-gunners out there, my opinion is clear. They've got little -- or less -- on TASER. Keep your wallet to yourself, and let them fund their dreams with someone else's money.
TASER International is a Motley Fool Rule Breakers recommendation. To join David Gardner's search for the next ultimate growth stock, try a free 30-day guest pass.
Editor's note: Seth Jayson has been writing commentaries about Stinger Systems, Inc., since January 2005. In February 2006, Stinger Systems and its CEO, Robert F. Gruder, filed a lawsuit against Seth and The Motley Fool on the grounds that three of those commentaries were libelous. We believe that the lawsuit lacks merit and intend to defend against it. We do not plan to let the lawsuit influence our commentaries about Stinger, but we thought you should know about it.
At the time of publication, Seth Jayson had no positions in any company mentioned here. View his stock holdings and Fool profile here. Fool rules are here.
