Quote:
Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy
I'm all for the 2nd amendment, but that does seem too easy. Though I suppose most criminals won't be using a 3D printer anyway.
I'm very curious if this even works. We use similar technology for rapid prototyping at work, and while it is awesome stuff it isn't incredibly robust. I'd be very curious if it could take the substantial pressure and temperature of a bullet being fired.
|
We use the same technology. We even use it to make "real" parts for precisions tooling, not just for prototyping. "Growing" a part can actually be cheaper, at times, than machining it. We use various sintered metals for the parts we are going to keep and use.
The stuff we use certainly does not have the mechanical properties necessary to withstand the stresses imposed by being used in the critical, pressure containing parts of a firearm. I'm sure the rest of the gun could be made in this way, but the barrel (and cylinder on a revolver) would have to be produced from conventional materials.
This sounds to me an awful lot like the Glock scare of 30-some-odd years ago. The "plastic gun than can get through metal detectors". That, too, was a panic engendered by the mass media's lack of knowledge concerining firearms, coupled with their burning hatred of them. They attempted (and succeeded, for awhile) to make a mountain out of a molehill, preying on the general public's lack of technical knowledge. They had folks convinced it truly was a "plastic gun" whose sole purpose was to defeat metal detectors.
Same thing here. They are painting a picture of crooks and terrorists "growing" guns in their shadowy basements, thereby defying capture by the authorities. Problem is, the technology is horribly expensive, requires a great deal of knowledge about the technology to use, and so on. It's infinitely easier and cheaper to just go get a gun.