Lamperd Less Lethal revolver (courtesy (lamperdtraining.com)

“You have problems,” lamperdtraining.com asserts, “and Lamperd Less Lethal has the solutions to those problem. You are worried about Officer safety, public safety and subject safety. Lamperd Less Lethal is worried about Officer safety, public safety and subject safety. It is with these objectives in mind that Lamperd has created an exceptional line of Less Lethal firearms/delivery systems and munitions ranging from 9mm to 50 caliber and impact rounds from 37 to 40 MM. The Defender I is the only true solution to these challenges. It is a five shot, compact, lightweight handheld revolver delivering 20-Gauge incapacitating projectiles.” Kuwait loves it! Me, not so much. You?

48 Responses to What Could Possibly Go Wrong: Lamperd Less Lethal Edition

    • Seriously!

      Those are not “Incapacitating” rounds, those are “That f’ing pisses me off” rounds.

      The best incapacitating projectile would be some of those 14″ rubber balls from elementary school playgrounds fired at about 80 mph, enough mass to give you a mild concussion, enough surface area to never break anything.

      • Those were debilitating when thrown by a 6th grader.

        though I guess they lose their effect when you’re not 8 years old.

      • Haha, awesome you mention that. ….I had an 8th grade female classmate rendered unconscious by one of said balls. It was a partially flat, fly ball, kicked foul that caught her on the sidelines chatting with her friends, back turned and entirely off guard.

      • read somewhere that these bullets have same force as baseball thrown 90 mph. so more damage than just “pis**ing someone off”.

  1. Direct quote from the site “WHY GO ON A FOOT CHASE – LET THE DEFENDER CATCH THEM”
    Doesn’t seem like the best message for cops. Someone running? Don’t exert yourself at all, just shoot them? They probably won’t get killed!

    • I was just about to comment on that. Not only is it an outrageous statement to make, but it’s absolutely irresponsible and negligent.

      It looks horrible, too. That 5″ distance between the sight and boreline.

    • OMFG, I just saw that. WTF man, so why did I have to take physical agility tests when I was testing for PD’s back in the day? I was just commenting about this phenomenon in the thread about the NYPD beating on the weed dealer. It is apparent that police think that the job requires no physical exertion anymore because they have all of these awesome toys (tasers, etc). Toys which they can deploy at the slightest hint of resistance, including passive resistance or running away. Sounds like this company–like taser, inc–is marketing their product in a potentially dangerous manner.

      • I just pushed a Toyota Tacoma 100 yards up an incline by hand if that helps. It’s hard to run with all this stuff on, and my ASP decides it needs to expand (I need a new one) or fall out of its holster (I need a new ASP holster). Other than that, I think its fun to run after people. I don’t usually even carry a Taser.

        • Good on you for helping a stranded motorist. That’s a good service; I do it often working in healthcare security. I’m glad you think that’s still part of police work. And no argument from me on the difficulty of running in the suit of armor police in the US wear these days. Since my employers in healthcare like their organizations to be soft targets, I have never been authorized to carry firearms or even asps (just OC, cuffs, portables, stream lights, etc).

          I think my main gripe is this: If it’s important for applicants to meet physical standards, then ALL sworn personnel should have to be tested periodically to make sure they are still meeting age-appropriate standards. If not, then these PAT’s are just adding to an already long hiring process. I would note that I never had a problem with tests related to job functions (basically simulated foot pursuits, dummy drags, etc). I did have the irritating experience of getting DQ’d on the run and bench press. Seems arbitrary to me, but whatever.

  2. Aw c’mon…it seems it might be better than pepper spray. And unless I have insurance or lots of $ being involved in a self-defense shooting will bankrupt me or leave me in jail. And that’s if I’m outside my home. In a home invasion I hope I’d get a bit more sympathy(in Cook co. Illinois).

  3. I love their products and feel they should be mandated for all police. At last, your dog will have a fighting chance to come through a police encounter alive!

    Seriously, with the increase in irresponsible police actions and the militarization of police, these products might be a way to rein them in a bit. Would love for the government to carry these products while I still carry my .40 with Critical Defense rounds.

  4. I hear those descriptions and flash on the Loogie Gun from Snow Crash: “Both metacops, under their glossy black helmets and night vision goggles, are grinning. The one getting out of the mobile unit is carrying a short range chemical restraint projector – a loogie gun. Their plan worked. The loogie, when expanded in the air, was about the size of a football. Miles and miles of tiny cables like spaghetti with sticky gooey stuff that stays liquid until the loogie gun is fired. The snotty, fibrous drops of stuff wrapped all the way around her arm and forearm, lashed to the bar of the gates.”

  5. All I know is, I’ll never bring a fake (Less Lethal) gun to a real gun fight.
    You also can be absolutely sure that the criminals won’t either.

  6. Looking quickly through the promos for this and my conclusion is that the main issue with it is that it is not lethal. Which probably translates to they may keep coming at you when you really need to stop them right away. Seems like a bad idea in most scenarios. Perhaps if there were 3 or 4 cops standing at the ready and one had this to try before the others commenced firing the idea might work. But for most of us it seems like a poor way to stop a threat when we need to.

  7. That revolver has other problems that aren’t listed…

    There’s a “backboard” on the user side of the cylinder that’s there to help keep the ammo in the cylinder, to offer additional support to the cylinder, and occasionally used to add additional cylinder lockup features.

    The cylinder appears to be broken, unless it’s a four shot revolver. The The proper chamber is out of alignment with the barrel while the hammer is down or not in motion. You’d be able to see the aligned cylinder from each side. The chambers should be at 12, 2:24, 4:48, 7:12, and 9:36

    The frame is the wrong size for the package. Sure people try to make ’em smaller to conceal, but no one does for a 410-wheel gun (or for a potentially .454 wrist breaker).

    All things considered that little revolver is likely to become your last trigger pull (you’d have way more problems than the crane cracking), if it’s real. My best guess is that it’s a photoshop-job of a of a pocket pistol with the addition of a larger cylinder.

  8. Maybe I’m not getting the point, but doesn’t “less lethal” logically mean “potentially still lethal, but less effective?” Where is the advantage in this? The innovation should either be “more effective” or “still effective, but completely non-lethal” to have any advantage. This is just BS.

    • I think they mean “less likely to kill, but still pretty nasty.”

      Even a kick in the shin is not guaranteed to be non-lethal, although it is pretty damned close.

  9. I’d like to see how it does in a test. I can’t fathom it holding up, but it might be nice to see just what it can do.

  10. Lol I thought it was a firearm at first. Like a larger version of the Taurus judge chambered in like 12g. Handcannon is the word that came to mind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *