Tools of modern gun-making: Plastic and the 3-D
The three may have had different motivations but their results were the same: each built a working gun that included a part made in plastic with a 3-D printer.
What they did was legal and, except for the technology and material used, not much different from what do-it-yourself gunsmiths have been doing for decades. But in the wake of the shootings in Newtown, Conn., and the intensified debate over gun control, their efforts, which began last summer, have stoked concerns that the inexpensive and increasingly popular printers and other digital fabrication tools might make access to weapons even easier. …
A 3-D printer builds an object layer by layer in three dimensions, usually in plastic. To effectively outlaw weapons made with them, Mr. Israel wants to extend an existing law, set to expire this year, that makes weapons that are undetectable by security scanners — like a printed all-plastic gun — illegal.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Screw that, I bought a small machine shop.
Bmore on January 30, 2013 at 4:44 PM
This whole business with 3D printers making guns is mostly just a stunt. The kind of plastic used in those printers might well stand up to a handful of shots, but eventually the firing chamber is going to blow out. I wouldn’t trust one, myself.
Steven Den Beste on January 30, 2013 at 4:46 PM
Technology truly liberating people, which progressives must stop, of course.
tom daschle concerned on January 30, 2013 at 4:46 PM
Agreed, but: Combine some machineshop work for the firing chamber, and some of this for, let’s say, the stock and some of the rest of the assembly. Could make going from 0 to armed an afternoon affair.
BritCarGuy on January 30, 2013 at 4:49 PM
3D prints are fairly weak between the build layers. Not reliable enough for a gun. I’d use good old subtractive technologies for stuff like that.
MechanicalBill on January 30, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Oh, it’s not about legos.
rbj on January 30, 2013 at 4:56 PM
I like how journalists are so naive about manufacturing. To them, it’s some black art that can’t be understood thus safety out of the hands of flyover country. Relegated to just a few wizards at Smith & Wesson whom they think they can control politically. But pressing a print button? My god! Even a journalist can do that! Sound the alarms!
MechanicalBill on January 30, 2013 at 4:59 PM
Sorry, ma’am… but you’re going to have to register your printer with the BATFE, submit to a background check and be fingerprinted before I can let you leave the store.
Hill60 on January 30, 2013 at 4:59 PM
Needs a little tweaking.
tom daschle concerned on January 30, 2013 at 5:00 PM
They’re not reliable enough…yet. The materials will change in time.
A far as making an entire firearm, probably not feasible. But receivers? Stocks? Maybe magazines, st least magazine bodies? Those are the things these printers would be great for.
catmman on January 30, 2013 at 5:03 PM
About twenty years ago, here in Vegas, the police busted a ring of illegal aliens stamping out fully-auto AK-47s (with no serial numbers) in a garage. Who do these gun-control morons think they’re going to stop? This was twenty years ago. In a garage.
SailorMark on January 30, 2013 at 5:04 PM
I think they’re less concerned with the 3D printing method than the end result – a plastic weapon that has limited legitimate uses, such as this one.
peski on January 30, 2013 at 5:07 PM
What a bunch of Maroons…but hey, it is the New York Times…redundant…
The receiver is still probably metal. Grip, etc, sure. But to hold the pressure in a round…unless we’re talking a CB .22 round…naw.
Scare tactics again over something that doesn’t really exist. But I wish did
ProfShadow on January 30, 2013 at 5:12 PM
That’s where the CNC machines come into play. Between a 3D printer and a CNC … you can just about make the entire gun.
And further … once guns are outlawed, may as well “print” and “machine” fully automatic weapons.
HondaV65 on January 30, 2013 at 5:17 PM
http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-gun-markets-of-pakistan
3-d printers are only needed if you don’t want to use elbow grease
RizzyG on January 30, 2013 at 5:26 PM
One gatling gun in .308 Win., please…
Gohawgs on January 30, 2013 at 5:29 PM
True. But you could make a mold from one and use it to cast aluminum.
Socratease on January 30, 2013 at 5:29 PM
I have direct experience with some models of 3D printers. As of now, they are blowing this out of proportion. They are insinuating that inexpensive printers can be used to make working lower receivers and other gun parts. That is not currently the case. The resolution of those printers is poor, and the thermoplastic they use is weak. To do it right, you need to be able to print to ABS plastic as a minimum (I still would not trust it), which means you need a printer in the $50,000 range. And you still need access to expensive, high quality parts to finish out lower receiver, and comprise the bolt, chamber, and barrel of the upper receiver.
stvnscott on January 30, 2013 at 5:45 PM
You’re asking journolistas to do their own work and watch some of their compatriots own reports from places like Pakistan. Gunsmiths and metal workers using 50-100 year old tools and techniques making guns in caves, small shops etc.. Its not hard to make a “grease gun” like they did in WW2.
Check out Sherline’s CNC systems. A few grand gets you a mill and lathe and computer to run them.
oryguncon on January 30, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Printing lowers is only interesting from the POV that the BATFE considers that to be the “gun”.
None of the boom happens in the lower. Yeah, it gets some hot gas and whatnot during the recoil, but not a ton.
Let me know when we can 3D print barrels.
Oh, and the cost of those printed lowers at $100 a pop is more than what they cost to make in aluminum. Not lower than retail, at least now, but if you sold that printed lower retail it would presumably be more expensive.
TexasDan on January 30, 2013 at 6:23 PM
Again, these stories are all extremely misleading. Most of a gun, and nearly ALL of the important parts, CANNOT be made by plastic 3-D printers. You can’t make the barrel, you can’t make the firing chamber, you can’t make the springs or the firing pin… and you certainly can’t make the ammunition with a 3-D printer. Further, every part that HAS been made with this process has failed after only a few rounds. 3-D printers simply cannot produce finished products that are strong enough or very useful or very safe. It’s all scary sounding nonsense.
Warner Todd Huston on January 30, 2013 at 6:35 PM
This.
It just confirms that the political class has never actually done anything useful in their entire lives.
cthulhu on January 30, 2013 at 9:22 PM
In some designs, the receiver is not used to contain pressure. The chamber is part of the barrel, and the bolt locks directly to the barrel, not the receiver. In these designs, the receiver serves largely to keep the rest of the parts in alignment. It will also carry the serial number, which is the part the BATFE will consider to be the firearm.
It is perfectly legal to build your own rifle. If you can legally possess it, you can build it, and no federal forms are required. But you can’t transfer it.
There are 80% finished AR receivers on the market. These are not considered to be firearms and no paperwork is required for purchase. A skilled hand could produce a functional receiver from one using hand tools. I know of at least one gunsmith who will rent his CNC machine and assist in the setup if you want to build that way. A “parts kit” would complete the rifle.
In the right application, these plastic receivers could be more durable than one might suspect. And you could make a lot of them. If they are reliable for 500 rounds, they are practical.
novaculus on January 30, 2013 at 9:50 PM