skip navigation

Justinfo Subscribe to Stay Informed

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar


NCJRS Abstract


Subscribe to Stay Informed
Want to be in the know? JUSTINFO is a biweekly e-newsletter containing information about new publications, events, training, funding opportunities, and Web-based resources available from the NCJRS Federal sponsors. Sign up to get JUSTINFO in your inbox.

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
NCJ Number: NCJ 222769   Add to Shopping cart   Find in a Library
Title: Qualitative & Quantitative Analysis of Conducted Energy Devices: TASER X26 vs. Stinger S200
  Document URL: PDF 
Author(s): Charlie Mesloh Ph.D. ; Mark Henych Ph.D. ; L. Frank Thompson M.B.A. ; Ross Wolf Ed.D.
Date Published: 03/2008
Page Count: 117
  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
Main Term(s): Science and Technology
Index Term(s): Less Lethal/ Nonlethal Weapons ; Comparative analysis ; Equipment evaluation ; Tasers ; NIJ final report ; Performance Measures
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
US Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
United States of America
Grant Number: 2005-IJ-CX-K049
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Type: Report (Technical) ; Test/Measurement
Country: United States of America
Language: English
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.