NCJ Number
222769
Date Published
March 2008
Length
117 pages
Annotation
This report presents results from the testing of the TASER X26 and Stinger S200 weapon systems repeatedly on the following variables: distance to target, probe spread, probe distance to aim point, probe contact with target, and cartridge and weapon systems.
Abstract
Both of these systems are classified as conductive energy devices (CEDs), which are designed to disperse electricity throughout the body of the target, temporarily causing loss of muscle control, thus causing incapacitation. The majority of the 15 volunteer test people reported a much lower level of incapacitation when hit with the Stinger S200 compared with the TASER X26. A quantitative review of the two weapon systems found the TASER X26 system to be significantly more reliable than its Stinger S200 counterpart, even after researchers received a replacement weapon and cartridges from Stinger after a high incidence of malfunctions. An additional concern with the Stinger weapon system was that the probes consistently broke free from their barbs in the target. The Stinger S200 system also had problems with tangled lead wire. Although the Stinger system had a smaller probe spread than the TASER X26, allowing for greater accuracy at greater distances, the probes had a problem reaching the target. The testing showed that the lighter Stinger S200 probe penetrated deeply at close distances, but quickly lost its ability to penetrate even a soft target over greater distances. The TASER X26 also had problems, missing the target a significant number of times at 20 feet, even though the tether wire was 25 feet long, due to the probe's spread angle. Cartridge durability was tested by dropping them from a height of 4 feet. None of the TASER cartridges broke; however, 14 out of the 20 Stinger cartridges broke upon impact with a carpeted floor. 10 tables, 41 figures, and 8 exhibits