What Could Possibly Go Wrong: Lamperd Less Lethal Edition

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?


  1. Baseball bats are cheaper and more disabling

    1. avatar Robert W. says:


      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.

      1. avatar Sian says:

        Those were debilitating when thrown by a 6th grader.

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

      2. avatar v v ind says:

        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.

      3. avatar paul says:

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

  2. avatar Vhyrus says:

    That thing looks about as lightweight and non lethal as a block of lead with a handle.

  3. avatar John L. says:

    Didn’t I see that gun in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”?

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      Heehee! I thought of the toon revolver too!!!

  4. avatar Tom says:

    What is “subject safety”…

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      It’s when a cop pistol whips a subjects (to the throne I assume) teeth out.

  5. avatar Another Robert says:

    I dunno–can you hunt ducks with them??

    1. avatar jwm says:

      It ain’t semi automatic so it’s probably alright. I want one of those for when the boy scouts come peddling from door to door. I’ve gotten to lazy to wield a sword.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        “Too lazy to swing your sword??” “Too tired to chop and dice those annoying salespeople?” “Then you need the RONCO semi auto sword swinging door hinge”!!
        “Just $19.95+S&H”
        “As seen on tv”!!

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        You just need Grant Imahara’s Sword Swinging Robot.
        Here’s the lego version.

      3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Just follow Uncle Joe’s advice and fire a couple of shotgun blasts through the screen door.

  6. avatar Stinkeye says:

    That abortion makes the Taurus Judge look like a model of ergonomics and graceful, understated design.

  7. avatar T.G. says:

    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!

    1. avatar Gene says:

      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.

    2. avatar Call Security! says:

      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.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        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.

        1. avatar Call Security! says:

          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. avatar Sian says:

          The push-button ASPs are great. In case you’re shopping.

    3. avatar Paul53 says:

      Just remember, if you run, the fatter the cop, the more likely you’ll get shot.

    4. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      The Po Po does that with Tasers now on little old ladies.

    5. avatar Wood says:

      Seems that’s just how they roll here in Tallahassee. That was just abysmal.

  8. avatar J. Zoss says:

    I might like it for some things, self defense would not be one of them.

  9. avatar Ratbikerx says:

    I don’t protect myself or my family with toys. These are toys.

    By the way their website is silly.

  10. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    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).

  11. avatar Bruce Badger says:

    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.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Border Collies everywhere will rejoice!

  12. avatar Gwen Patton says:

    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.”

  13. avatar Bigred2989 says:

    Is it wrong I want one?

    1. avatar Paul53 says:

      Sorry bro, turn in your man card.

  14. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

    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.

  15. avatar Neil D says:

    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.

  16. avatar Paul53 says:

    Nothing new here. Go to the dictionary and look up: r o c k.

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    If I want something “less lethal,” I’ll carry a twenty-two.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Since the gun will be unloaded due to lack of availability of ammunition, it will be less lethal.

  18. avatar savaze says:

    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.

  19. avatar pieslapper says:

    Are they competing with dynamic pies pimped out hi-point ?

  20. avatar JohnF says:

    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.

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      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.

  21. avatar T. Search says:

    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.

  22. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    I’ve been working on a Taser round, but results thus far are not promising…

  23. avatar Hannibal says:

    I’m not sure what niche this is trying to fill unless it is for our UK cousins.

  24. avatar LordGopu says:

    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.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email