Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuke on May 06, 2013, 06:54:03 pm
-
http://hackaday.com/2013/05/06/the-first-3d-printed-gun-has-been-fired-and-i-dont-care/
let the mayhem begin...
-
i really do find people who think 3d printing is going to revolutionise manufacturing to be very cute
-
I'm impressed that whoever did this went through all of that effort just to fire measly .22 rimfire
-
Well the barrel is plastic I'm assuming, so you'd want to start with something small to be sure it doesn't explode in your hand. You'd need a... rather large barrel and chamber to handle rifle cartridges. But do go on with "AHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE LOL 22" :p
-
Call me when a syndicate controlled cottage industry of fabbers crop up to produce illegal sex paraphernalia, and the fuzz start widespread use of google goggles. :P
-
i really do find people who think 3d printing is going to revolutionise manufacturing to be very cute
not the cheap plastic printers for home use. while they have revolutionized home manufacturing, wont be doing anything for mass production (too slow, too expensive, too low res). professional grade printers arent even up to that task. im curious if along with other processes, you could produce negative molds for injection molding or even metal castings for bigger production runs. this would probibly involve printing a positive mold, smooth it out with acetone, then use it to make a negative mold with either a sand-glue mix or silicone depending on what you are making.
im currently more interested in direct metal laser sintering machines. they can print internal voids that would be difficult to do with other manufacturing techniques. this kinda thing is very useful for things like rocket engine parts. its not going to displace existing techniques, but it will bring new capabilities that didnt exist before.
-
i love how the anti-gun politicians have taken the bait HARD and are ****ting their pants over this in the worst way.
-
meh.. when they print a pressure cooker then its time to get worried
-
I would be a lot more concerned if this actually made practical sense. As it is, firearms are generally so easy to come by (especially in the US) that the effort of making a single-shot plastic undetectable firearm is so ridiculous (and expensive) as to be completely pointless except as a hobby.
As far as crime goes, there are a few very limited applications (primarily for bypassing security) but that is about it.
-
i really do find people who think 3d printing is going to revolutionise manufacturing to be very cute
Most of those people don't know anything about manufacturing because they never worked a single day at a workbench or in a mechanical shop.
On the pro side: you don't have to fear the college kid with some cheap home made 3D printer.
Just fear all those ordinary workers who went never to college because they were not able to pay it - some of them have access to CNC machines, and with the right blueprints and some time during night shift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Ordnance_MP2#International_Ordnance_MP2) they are able to produce real guns. :lol:
-
this thing isn't 100% plastic. it still has a metal firing pin (and obviously the bullet if it's loaded). whether or not that's enough to be picked up by a metal detector, i don't know. but being as how the article makes a point of saying the metal part was to comply with a law that bans undetectable all-plastic guns, it would seem the answer is yes.
-
this thing isn't 100% plastic. it still has a metal firing pin (and obviously the bullet if it's loaded). whether or not that's enough to be picked up by a metal detector, i don't know. but being as how the article makes a point of saying the metal part was to comply with a law that bans undetectable all-plastic guns, it would seem the answer is yes.
Metal detectors pick up magnetic metal. I think some of the modern ones may use density. X-ray scanners display using density.
From what I've read, the only essential metallic components of this gun were the bullet and the firing pin - the other metal was added to make it legal. However, bullets and firing pins don't actually have to be metal for the most part. It is already possible to build single-shot ceramic firearms, and ceramic or composite materials could be used to make a firing pin and possibly even a bullet and shell casing as well.
All of which would make it very difficult for the low-paid security working at airports and other security checkpoints to recognize in an X-ray machine when screening luggage and handbags, particularly if it's easy to disassemble.
-
LOOK OUT! HE HAS A SINGLE SHOT MUSKET!
No really though, I think most US plane goers would probably maul anyone who got on with a single shot ceramic gun.
-
I love how making a plastic gun is somehow news. It's nothing any good machinist couldn't easily do. Heck even easier with CNC machinery. Your just starting with a hunk of plastic and taking away pieces to make the final product. Now while it certainly takes less skill to print a gun it still takes the skill to make the plans. The process is just the reverse taking plastic powder and adding to it to get the final product. Either way you end up with a plastic gun. Nothing that couldn't be done since the high strength polymer was invented.
As for ammo I don't see why that couldn't be mostly plastic as well. They came out with shotgun shells that were almost all plastic over 25 years ago. They were cheaper to manufacture since they didn't contain the brass so were cheaper to buy. The downside was you could only reload them a couple of times where the standard ones could be reloaded over and over until the plastic cracked. Other then the primer I think the only part that wasn't plastic was a thin disk that held the primer.
Now repeating fire shouldn't be an issue either. Most of the stress would be in the chamber and barrel. All you need to do is make it a revolver which rotates the chamber. Unlike a standard revolver you rotate the barrel with the chamber. Now instead of having a gun that fails after 2-3 shots you multiply that but the number of cylinders/barrels. 7 barrels = 14-21 shots.
Again all of this could have been done at least 25 years ago it just took a different skill set and equipment to do it.
-
my understanding of this is that there's a large techno-libtard contingent who think the government is quaking in its boots at the prospect of them breaking its authoritarian stranglehold of gun production and are getting really smug about it (you don't need to tell me how far divorced from reality these people are)
e: pronoun confusion
-
my understanding of this is that there's a large techno-libtard contingent who think the government is quaking in its boots at the prospect of them breaking their authoritarian stranglehold of gun production and are getting really smug about it (you don't need to tell me how far divorced from reality these people are)
There is a certain amount of subject confusion in this post. Liberals have a authoritarian stranglehold on gun production? The government does? Who's doing what?
-
the idea behind this printable gun is more anti-government control than it is pro-guns. the creators are under no illusions of the practicality of this thing as a weapon. and yes, there ARE plenty of people calling for the complete and utter ban of all firearms.
-
my understanding of this is that there's a large techno-libtard contingent who think the government is quaking in its boots at the prospect of them breaking their authoritarian stranglehold of gun production and are getting really smug about it (you don't need to tell me how far divorced from reality these people are)
There is a certain amount of subject confusion in this post. Liberals have a authoritarian stranglehold on gun production? The government does? Who's doing what?
wait does libtard refer to liberals now? i always thought it meant libertarians; also i meant the government's stranglehold
-
wait does libtard refer to liberals now? i always thought it meant libertarians; also i meant the government's stranglehold
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=libtard&defid=1454864
And that makes a lot more sense now.
-
Yeah, I keep forgetting that in America the golden mean leads you to a completely whackjob right-wing perspective.
-
I love how making a plastic gun is somehow news. It's nothing any good machinist couldn't easily do.
The thing with 3d printing is that eventually, everyone will be able to easily print a gun, not only good machinists. You make it sound simple, but if I wanted to construct a gun, I would not even know how to begin and I certainly dont have access to tools required, nor do I have the time. But I predict that if 3d printers spread into every home as their proponents envision, then we will see many 3d printed weapons popping up. A lot more than is made now by amateur machinists. Do not underestimate the low barrier of entry.
-
Yeah, I keep forgetting that in America the golden mean leads you to a completely whackjob right-wing perspective.
Golden Mean is a fallacy no matter where you are.
I love how making a plastic gun is somehow news. It's nothing any good machinist couldn't easily do.
The thing with 3d printing is that eventually, everyone will be able to easily print a gun, not only good machinists. You make it sound simple, but if I wanted to construct a gun, I would not even know how to begin and I certainly dont have access to tools required, nor do I have the time. But I predict that if 3d printers spread into every home as their proponents envision, then we will see many 3d printed weapons popping up. A lot more than is made now by amateur machinists. Do not underestimate the low barrier of entry.
It's already not that hard to find simple instructions for making more effective weapons on the internet. It is my understanding that someone with a basic knowledge of the tools involved can make a submachine gun out of plumbing parts. The fact of the matter is, however that if only civillians who were able to construct weapons had weapons there would be significantly fewer of them. Also - any gun that is likely to be printed off of a 3D printer will not be an effective repeating weapon. While polycarbonate guns may indeed have the capability of firing off a couple higher pressure rounds - a true revolver with effective killing rounds would at best be unreliable.
-
yea if you can afford the 3d printer, you can also afford the machine tools neccisary for gunsmithing.
-
It's already not that hard to find simple instructions for making more effective weapons on the internet. It is my understanding that someone with a basic knowledge of the tools involved can make a submachine gun out of plumbing parts. The fact of the matter is, however that if only civillians who were able to construct weapons had weapons there would be significantly fewer of them. Also - any gun that is likely to be printed off of a 3D printer will not be an effective repeating weapon. While polycarbonate guns may indeed have the capability of firing off a couple higher pressure rounds - a true revolver with effective killing rounds would at best be unreliable.
So basically we're looking at that old Chris Rock comment that "if bullets cost $100 each there would be so such phrase as innocent bystander" from a slightly different angle.
-
I love how making a plastic gun is somehow news. It's nothing any good machinist couldn't easily do.
The thing with 3d printing is that eventually, everyone will be able to easily print a gun, not only good machinists. You make it sound simple, but if I wanted to construct a gun, I would not even know how to begin and I certainly dont have access to tools required, nor do I have the time. But I predict that if 3d printers spread into every home as their proponents envision, then we will see many 3d printed weapons popping up. A lot more than is made now by amateur machinists. Do not underestimate the low barrier of entry.
The thing is they are making a big stink about this using the argument that someone would be able to manufacture these and distribute them to bad guys. My point there are people that already could do that. If the terrorists can find expert bomb makers then they surely can find someone that can machine parts out of plastic. I don't think your regular criminals are going to be interested in something like this when they can still easily get real guns that are more reliable.
I'm waiting for some politician or lobbyist to screw up and try to take it to the next level of printing plastic pipe bombs that can't be picked up by metal detectors and someone pointing them to the plumbing department at Lowes.
-
I certainly dont have access to tools required.
If you have a garage, you can probably make a zip gun. Detailed instructions are not hard to come by; the Chechen rebels in particular have a reputation for good how-to guides on improvised firearms.
-
You guys are coming at this from the wrong perspective. First, while in America it's very easy to get a gun but that is not true in most of the rest of the western world. The existence of downloadable 3D printed weapons will be a big factor in places where guns are currently effectively controlled and are hard to get hold of.
Secondly, everyone going on about the fact that you can make guns at home from parts is fundamentally missing the significance of a 3D printer. This is a device that will almost inevitably become more complex, more capable and cheaper with time. There will come a day - and not one too far into the future I suspect - where a common household device that will cost less than a couple of thousand dollars (on par with a decent washing machine or dishwasher or refrigerator) will be able to produce complex, multi-part objects utilizing a number of different input materials and production processing. We have the capability now, it's just a matter of integrating multiple devices into one and mass producing them. The demand will be huge, so the supply is inevitable. That lowers the barrier of entry far, far more than you think.
It's the equivalent of a breadmaker - sure, anyone could have baked their own bread for years, but almost nobody did because it was a time consuming, a bit tricky and inconvenient. Replace that process with an automated one - insert ingredients and press a few buttons - and suddenly homemade fresh bread was a common thing. You didn't have to be in any way competent in the kitchen to make bread any more, and 3d printers - once they reach an appropriate level of sophistication and a low enough cost - will mean that you don't have to be in any way technical or handy to make relatively complex objects, including weapons. You wont even need the garage that NGTM1R is talking about, let alone the tools to fill it. That's a big deal.
Thirdly, assuming the above prediction does come true - this will fundamentally change the way guns are regulated. Think about the recent failed attempts at gun control laws in the US - ideas about controlling things like high capacity magazines will go right out the window. Eventually, the concept of attempting to control guns at all will be futile, unless they treat the downloading of a weapon schematic in the same way that they currently treat something like child porn - i.e. they have large, well funded and dedicated police forces looking for and prosecuting the people doing it. The regulation will have to shift towards things that can't be printed - things that involve complex chemistry - the bullets.
3D printing is going to be a huge, huge deal for a lot of reasons other than weapons control, and this is just the first of what will be hundreds of issues as the technology matures and becomes more and more common. I don't see it replacing all conventional manufacturing - there are lots of engineering constraints on 3d printing that wont be easily solved. Just like breadmakers didn't replace conventional store-bought bread or put bakeries out of business, but supplemented them, so too will 3d printing supplement conventional manufacturing. But I guarantee it's going to be a bigger deal than some of you guys seem to be suggesting.
-
BW hits the main point, it's once again referring back to an inherent 'America is the whole world' attitude in certain aspects of the US (Not unusual in any particular country, every country has its zealots), however, in the US this is particularly dangerous with regards to weapons.
It's a question really of how soon before these weapons start appearing in crimes, since people who are legally allowed to own guns would probably go for a safer metal version, these are guns designed for people who probably couldn't get one legally and which is immune to metal detection apart, I suspect, from ammunition and that is just a matter of time.
The question people should ask is, "What kind of reasonable, peaceful member of the community would even need a gun that doesn't require a license and cannot be detected by a metal detector?", and that's just in the US internally, the US may even find itself being accused of encouraging gun crime in other countries, even though they've banned the design.
-
The point is, though, that it's always been possible to make a weapon this crude, and that hasn't really caused much trouble in places that value the lives of their citizens more than their power fantasies to date. (Also, isn't the effective range of this thing not really that much bigger than a knife?)
-
Same as with the printing costs though, now the design is Public Domain other people will enhance and alter it, and as 3D printing tech grows, so will the range, calibre and accuracy of the weapon. This could be considered a 'single shot musket' type weapon, but it took less than a century for a musket to become a machine gun, and this time round we know what we are doing.
Now, I'll agree it was inevitable that this would happen, but I was actually expecting it from an entirely different source than someone acting in the name of 'Liberty', his excuses for making it public come across as thin at best, and fabricated at worst.
-
Well there is a reason guns aren't generally made out of plastic: you're building a pressure vessel capable of containing an explosion powerful enough to send a respectable chunk of metal to supersonic velocities. Ingenuity and duct tape can help to an extent, but in the end you are fighting materials science and it is probably going to win.
-
There are already plastics that are considerably stronger than steel, it's just a question of making them available as a printing medium. As the industrial demand for stronger plastics to make prototypes with grows, so will development into meeting those demands and, by proxy, stronger materials will become available for things like this.
Edit: Though, there are also good things that will certainly come from stronger plastics, being able to print things like engine parts or other replacements would save the average person a fortune. Oddly this is more likely why larger industries will resist plastic-printers than home-made weapons.
-
I think you missed the argument Flipside, Blackwolf. It's not that this could end up being some type of attributable weapon - it totally could be.
The argument we've made is thus: A 3D printed gun will, for the indefinite future, be less effective than either a true - purpose manufactured firearm, or garage made zip gun.
You guys are coming at this from the wrong perspective. First, while in America it's very easy to get a gun but that is not true in most of the rest of the western world. The existence of downloadable 3D printed weapons will be a big factor in places where guns are currently effectively controlled and are hard to get hold of.
You say that this applies only in the US, that in places where firearm control exists. This doesn't at all take into account the fact that black market cottage manufacturing of firearms is pretty much a widespread phenomenon. This is the limitation of gun control - you can't stop people from throwing them together. The barrier of entry is not high at all.
Secondly, everyone going on about the fact that you can make guns at home from parts is fundamentally missing the significance of a 3D printer. This is a device that will almost inevitably become more complex, more capable and cheaper with time. There will come a day - and not one too far into the future I suspect - where a common household device that will cost less than a couple of thousand dollars (on par with a decent washing machine or dishwasher or refrigerator) will be able to produce complex, multi-part objects utilizing a number of different input materials and production processing. We have the capability now, it's just a matter of integrating multiple devices into one and mass producing them. The demand will be huge, so the supply is inevitable. That lowers the barrier of entry far, far more than you think.
I'm not sure how sophisticated you think 3D printing will be in the near future - but I'll assume here you believe they will be able to easily assemble a fully operational blowback operated pistol or similar device. This would require the ability to machine a barrel, cast a variety of plastic parts (the 'easy' bit) and assemble all the resulting mechanical bits into an operational weapon - one that is more dangerous in criminal hands than a combat knife, match head bomb or a crossbow.
(http://www.stockysstocks.com/schematics/Glock-model17-39.gif)
That's a Glock 17 in parts
(http://www.brownells.com/userdocs/schematics/r-gp100.gif)
That's a GP-100 double action revolver.
Repeating pistols are complicated machines with many parts requiring specialty manufacturing. Yes it's possible to make a simple firearm with a 3D printer, but the upper limit is set by the assembly ability of the person in question and the access to workable materials- that in fact has been true for a long time with machine tools in no rare supply.
There are already plastics that are considerably stronger than steel, it's just a question of making them available as a printing medium. As the industrial demand for stronger plastics to make prototypes with grows, so will development into meeting those demands and, by proxy, stronger materials will become available for things like this.
Barrels are usually hammer forged and tempered in liquid salt to prevent catastrophic failure from faults along the grain structure. I don't think plastics match steel alloys in shock resistance, heat resistance, or fatigue resistance; unless they have now? I strongly doubt, but could be proven totally wrong, a plastic barrel would be accurate and otherwise reliable for very long, no matter the polymer in question.
It's the equivalent of a breadmaker - sure, anyone could have baked their own bread for years, but almost nobody did because it was a time consuming, a bit tricky and inconvenient. Replace that process with an automated one - insert ingredients and press a few buttons - and suddenly homemade fresh bread was a common thing. You didn't have to be in any way competent in the kitchen to make bread any more, and 3d printers - once they reach an appropriate level of sophistication and a low enough cost - will mean that you don't have to be in any way technical or handy to make relatively complex objects, including weapons. You wont even need the garage that NGTM1R is talking about, let alone the tools to fill it. That's a big deal.
But a crossbow or knife could easily be a superior weapon to the firearm that you printed out - and those you can typically just buy AFAIK. I don't know of a country that requires you to sign off on a Ka-bar, and in many situations it's a more dangerous weapon that even a real gun.
Thirdly, assuming the above prediction does come true - this will fundamentally change the way guns are regulated. Think about the recent failed attempts at gun control laws in the US - ideas about controlling things like high capacity magazines will go right out the window.
High capacity magazines already have startlingly bad reliability. Holmes jammed mid massacre, and thus many more people walked out of that theater. I doubt 3D printing will make a better magazine.Eventually, the concept of attempting to control guns at all will be futile, unless they treat the downloading of a weapon schematic in the same way that they currently treat something like child porn - i.e. they have large, well funded and dedicated police forces looking for and prosecuting the people doing it.
No really, I think your argument just became "3D printing will become nearly limitless in the near future." The regulation will have to shift towards things that can't be printed - things that involve complex chemistry - the bullets.
Bullets are, in many respects, the EASIEST things for an individual to make in the entire gun. There are whole communities dedicated to handloading. All it requires is lead, a mold, gunpowder, and primer. The primer and gunpowder can also be produced by someone with the right know how - and it's mostly not a complicated process - significantly simpler than making, say meth or crack.
I don't dispute that it will be possible to make weapons on a 3D printer off of plans from the internet. I dispute that they will be very effective. I dispute that someone holding up a bank with one will be any more of a threat than the same person holding up a bank with a musket, or a knife, or a bat.
-
There are already plastics that are considerably stronger than steel, it's just a question of making them available as a printing medium. As the industrial demand for stronger plastics to make prototypes with grows, so will development into meeting those demands and, by proxy, stronger materials will become available for things like this.
Edit: Though, there are also good things that will certainly come from stronger plastics, being able to print things like engine parts or other replacements would save the average person a fortune. Oddly this is more likely why larger industries will resist plastic-printers than home-made weapons.
i like how you trivialise the colossal amount of research and engineering it'd take to develop such a miracle plastic as "oh well ~market forces~ will take care of it all"
-
I like how you haven't bothered to check whether it's already taking place...
http://blog.tinkercad.com/materialsguide/
New materials are constantly being developed to meet new needs.
-
You guys are coming at this from the wrong perspective. First, while in America it's very easy to get a gun but that is not true in most of the rest of the western world. The existence of downloadable 3D printed weapons will be a big factor in places where guns are currently effectively controlled and are hard to get hold of.
If you are willing to break the Law it's easy to get a gun.
Just ask your favourite drug dealer or pimp or the guy that can provide you with cheap smart phones & car radios.
You can even get guns that are disguised as pencil. Those may be detected by metal detectors - and may still pass a standard security check because nobody will check the pencil closer.
No open society like the western ones is able to control drug trafficking, prostitution or fencing, or the illegal selling of weapons.
Secondly, everyone going on about the fact that you can make guns at home from parts is fundamentally missing the significance of a 3D printer. This is a device that will almost inevitably become more complex, more capable and cheaper with time. There will come a day - and not one too far into the future I suspect - where a common household device that will cost less than a couple of thousand dollars (on par with a decent washing machine or dishwasher or refrigerator) will be able to produce complex, multi-part objects utilizing a number of different input materials and production processing. We have the capability now, it's just a matter of integrating multiple devices into one and mass producing them. The demand will be huge, so the supply is inevitable. That lowers the barrier of entry far, far more than you think.
I don't see a huge demand for 3D Printers as common household device.
I track my monthly expenses for consumer goods, and most of those goods aren't printable ;)
-
Certainly, not right now, but then the head of IBM once said there was no need for most of the population to own a computer ;)
I can see it as a growing industry as more printable materials are developed and the manufacture of the printers becomes more standardized and cheaper. The real advantage I can see at this moment in time is for 'little' things, plug socket mouldings, light switches, handles etc, those things that cost far more to buy than print at ground level, but at the current cost of acquiring the equipment it's going to take a lot of household repairs to break even.
With the development of things like Titanium printing and, apparently, there is work on Carbon Fibre as well, the opportunities for use are expanded greatly, so it's really dependent on whether those initial prices can be pushed down.
-
Certainly, not right now, but then the head of IBM once said there was no need for most of the population to own a computer ;)
And people said we'd have colonies on Mars by the millenium. As Sagan said: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
-
There's a rather large difference between the technicalities of placing someone on another planet and and owning a 3D powder printer. But the point I'm making isn't about that, it's about the fact that when the head of IBM said that he was right, it was time, finances and circumstances that changed matters. Right now there is no need for most homes to have 3D Printers, just as there wasn't a need for computers in the 70's, they were too specialized. That's kind of the point I'm trying to make.
-
To hell with 3D printers, I'm holding out for replicators.
-
Nanofabrication!
-
Absolutely no reason to ban 3D printers or the guns they print. This is pretty awesome.
-
http://hackaday.com/2013/05/16/timelapse-of-the-3d-printed-gun-being-printed/
so they decided to print one (with a neat timelapse video). apparently the designs have trouble being printed on their lower grade printer and the design files turned out to be a total mess.