3D Printed Guns
 

I'm all for Freedom and all, but I don't think I like the idea of just anyone being able to print guns...:eek:



3D-printed gun company gets machinery repossessed by manufacturer | Digital Trends

Can you really just print your own working firearm with a 3D printer? | Digital Trends




It's beginning to look as if someone doesn't want Defense Distributed to manufacture and distribute the world's first open-source 3D printed firearm, as the company responsible for the 3D printer used to design the prototype has reclaimed its machine for fear of illegality.

Plans to create the world’s first open-source fully operational firearm – created on a 3D printer – have hit a slight snag with the news that the manufacturer that created the printer being used in the design process has seized the machine being used by the people behind the project, claiming that it is not willing to allow its hardware to be used for a project that violates federal firearms laws.

We reported on Defense Distributed’s Wiki Weapon project last week after it reached its $20,000 crowdfunding goal essentially solo, having been pushed out by IndieGoGo for, again, concerns surrounding the legality of actually creating a working gun via 3D printer with an aim of then releasing the plans online for free, so that anyone with access to 3D printing technology could, worryingly easily, create a firearm of their own. The project is the brainchild of one Cody Wilson, a law student from Texas who defended it in the abstract under the constitution’s right to bear arms – “People say you’re going to allow people to hurt people, well, that’s one of the sad realities of liberty. People abuse freedom, but that’s no excuse not to have these rights or to feel good about someone taking them away from you,” he said in response to criticism – but also admitted that there may be valid legal concerns about the project moving forward. “I haven’t felt any real heat yet, but I think it’s very possible the project might happen outside of America or the files might be hosted outside of America,” he’s said when asked about potential legal threats. “The point of manufacture might also have to be outside of the United States.”

Apparently, that point of design may need to be outside of the United States as well, following new developments.

Stratsys, the company that created the uPrint SE 3D printer being used by Defense Distributed in the creation of the prototype, has released a statement about its seizure of the equipment, saying that it acted after discovering that Defense Distributed didn’t have a firearm manufacturer license. “It is the policy of Stratasys not to knowingly allow its printers to be used for illegal purposes,” the company explained in a letter to Wilson himself. That’s a charge that Wilson denies, saying “Our intentions are not to break the law. This is America; I don’t need to register a thing.”

If that sounds a little over-the-top and defiant to you, Wilson can apparently back it up. He told the Guardian newspaper that he approached the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives about Wiki Weapon, and was told that there were no clear guidelines on whether or not a license was necessary. “Basically, the law has not anticipated this,” Wilson explained. “Current laws rely on conventional ideas of what a gun is.”

Wilson isn’t deterred by this latest setback, having applied for a manufacturer’s license, and started work on turning Defense Distributed into a company in the traditional sense. “We’ll get there,” he said of the project’s ultimate aim, “but I guess I’ve got to turn into a capitalist before it’s all said and done.”

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.

Think of all the zip gun manufacturers it would put out of business.
Jim

What is the problem? It is perfectly legal to machine your own receiver as long as it will not be sold.

Makes for great headlines, but I seriously doubt these "guns" can be 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.

Direct metal laser sintering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Currently available alloys used in the process include 17-4 and 15-5 stainless steel, maraging steel, cobalt chromium, inconel 625 and 718, and titanium Ti6Alv4. Theoretically, almost any alloy metal can be used in this process once fully developed and validated

This technology is advancing at a very rapid pace. Not very long ago, all a 3D printer could do was make a brittle facsimile of a part for show & tell. Now, as Jeff said, newer resins and sintered metals can be used to "print" nicely-finished, precision parts that can be pretty much used as-is. The 3D printers themselves have changed dramatically in recent years too. Once as big as a refrigerator, newer units will fit on a desktop and are much easier to use. Advances in materials used to build parts, and in the printers themselves, will continue to drive costs down and make this technology more readily available.
I don't think that it would be much of a problem to "print" a working firearm. Try not to think of it producing something like a semi-auto Glock, but rather a simple, single-shot piece that could fire 3 or 4 rounds before breaking down. A device like that could cause serious problems in the wrong hands.

Firearms. :rolleyes: Extrapolating...

While the badies are in basement/caves figuring out how to print their Glocks, or whatever, our well funded guys will have the quanta-build machines producing bee-sized drones which find the badies and sing with a deadly (quanta-built) poison. --Have a nice day. :)

instead of printing a semiautomatic firearm, a single shot or even a revolver would have much less stress on the firearm pieces.

who wants to open up a new company? We3DPrintFirearmPrototypes.com *warning not for resell or redistribution*

I call BS. Materials and finish aren't there yet IMHO.

I am waiting for the pizza printer!

http://a0.img.mobypicture.com/10bc62...769e6_view.jpg

G

Oct. issue of Wired has a good article on 3D printers. Cool, relatively low cost printers are just around the corner.

Wired Issue 20.10 | October 2012 | The Design Issue | Wired Magazine | Wired.com

or http://www.wired.com/design/2012/09/how-makerbots-replicator2-will-launch-era-of-desktop-manufacturing/

The real issue here is that the important parts of an AR that see the most stress - the barrel, upper, etc - are not controlled. The lower receiver, which really doesn't do much, or need to be very strong, is the part stamped with the serial number and controlled by the ATF.

Makerbots are pretty slick but kinda pricy. Keep an eye out for the Bukobot. They are opening a store in San Francisco pretty soon, and will be selling a printer at about the $600 price point.
That said, I don't really believe that extruded plastic has much of a future in 3d printing. The parts I've seen just aren't very useful.

And no, my reprap is not running yet :/

I was actually thinking of buying a MakerBot Replicator for my kids school. Could be fun. Especially when we print our first Glock.

As for the original article, no license to create firearms? = busted. The Feds are right.

And open source.... How many numbnutz would try to change so etching to be cool and blow themselves up when they tried to fire their repliglock...


I'm all for Darwin, but that could hurt others....

If you sell them. If they are for personal use, it is OK.

LOL! Great idea as finally inner city gang-kiddies would take an interest in school! Studies in everything from ballistics to mechanical design, etc.. Kiddies gym classes would include 'fun at the range'.

I forgot that this was still in my shapeways portfolio. Uploaded as a test to see what it would cost. White Strong & Flexible is a sintered nylon material.
This is where I got the file:
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:11770

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1349907828.jpg

Almost the cost of just going out and buying a new lower--except the one you would buy at your Friendly Neighborhood Gun Store (TM) is machined from aluminum!