Tools of modern gunmaking: plastic and a 3D printer
February 1, 2013
30 round magazine opened in FreeCAD (credit: Distributed Defense)
Representative Steve Israel, Democrat of New York 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, The New York Times reports.
But there are also major technical obstacles to creating an entire gun on a 3-D printer, not the least of which is that a plastic gun would probably melt or explode upon firing a single bullet, making it about as likely to kill the gunman as the target.
In the meantime, Michael Guslick in Milwaukee, Chapman Baetzel in Dover, N.H., and Cody Wilson in Austin, Tex., did something much simpler and, for now, more effective. They printed the part of an AR-15 assault rifle called the lower receiver, the central piece that other parts are attached to.
Then, using standard metal components, including the chamber and barrel — the parts that must be strong enough to withstand the intense pressure of a bullet firing — they assembled working guns.
(More)
Comments (29)
by luke
I will print 3d printers with my printer 3d. Muahahahahaha (evil laugh)
by Snake Oil Baron
I had been lead to believe that 3D printers which use metal (possibly as a powder and melted by laser) were being widely developed. Maybe I was misinformed.
The ability to make a gun at home is not the main topic of interest here, as someone mentioned already, people have done that for years. It’s the ability for the majority of the population to do it by simply downloading a file from the Internet (or uploading one from a USB chip) which is transforming. If huge numbers of people have these things for other purposes you could never know who used them to make guns. Both property crimes and political coups become more dangerous. So does old fashion kick-down-the-door law enforcement but there are plenty of technologies being developed to balance that.
by Bri
Have you ever watched a gunpowder demonstration? A dollop the size of a silver dollar will throw a 500 lb anvil 100ft in the air. Charcoal, sulfur, and saltpeter ( tree stump remover). Go have a blast. If you want to create mayhem there are lots of ways. I think that printing guns will be a rare occurrence. If you were an illegal gun provider a sintered metal 3D printer would be perfect and a worth while investment, yet I don’t think that will happen much. Honestly the DIY bioprinter is far more dangerous on so many levels. The issue is the mental stability and what is causing the violent expression of it. The Newtown Conn. Shooter could have used gasoline bombs to an even greater effect than what he achieved. He could have clandestinely hid them and tried to escape.. With a bioprinter it could have been any number of pathogens. Most of these shooters have a Rambo view of how to deal with their troubles. It’s not that they are sophisticated or technically adept.
by Locke
No-one can make a complete gun with a 3D printer, only parts of a gun. However the current revolution in home manufacturing is only driving home the futility of legislating against guns.
The barrel is the main problem in the manufacturing process. You cannot simply lump any kind of metal together in the shape of a barrel and expect it to perform as one.
You need a specific kind of steel, and that steel needs to be uniform in structure, and then it needs to be heat treated. All of this is a lengthy process akin to an art form still today unless you own a few million dollars worth of custom built machining equipment.
Very few people and companies are capable of doing this, and 3D printers are not set to revolutionize this process any time soon.
In fact most independent barrel makers still use machines made over 100 years ago.
by GatorALLin
**** What I find as an interesting topic of discussion is that right now there is Nothing that stops someone from taking their 3d printer through an airport security checkpoint and printing anything Ithey want once through security.
I am sure you would get in a lot of trouble as soon as you were caught with anything that resembled a gun (functional or not). And of course even if you were able to assemble a working gun once past security, you would not be able to get gun powder or bullets (or assemble bullets) past security, but still brings up some interesting “what if” questions. Even if they made it illegal to take a fully functional 3d printer past security, the parts are so common that they could not easily stop someone from taking parts in and then easily assembling a 3d printer once past security. Although for most dangerous things you could assemble they may prove easy to bring through security other needed parts in metal (springs, clips, barrels, tubes, screws, etc) that are not illegal as separate objects.
You have to wonder if even now they can tell if a single person enters through different security checkpoints (at the same airport) multiple times. (I forgot something in my car once and had to go back 2x and there was no extra screening that took place, or no computer list to even let them know). I think they should fix this loophole.
…anyhow… what would stop someone from flying to ATL and then spending a day or two just printing anything they wanted inside the airport? 3d printers are getting very fast and very quiet. Just saying…
by GatorALLin
***** Also the discussion right now about the Assault weapons ban, it was illegal for any company to make or sell the banned items, but what if you could just download and print the offending parts. Who could tell if they were made before the ban and thus legal? Is there a law that prevents you from making one for your own use, or for the use of improving manufacturing/testing/etc? Patent law right now helps protect a company from another taking your patented item and being able to sell it to others, but it allows the individual to make one for their own use (and gives you the plans often how to make it!). If at some point every guy who owned a $200 electric drill also owned a home 3d printer could just make one of almost everything (or buy a $10 kit for the metal and rubber parts you need and a $10 motor you need to build your own Dyson vacuum cleaner that normally sells for $395) then how to you stop or protect against that, unless you change patent or intellectual property laws. OK, I admit there must be 200 parts to make up a product like the dyson vacuum cleaner and printing one part wrong might keep it from working and most of us would give up 45% through the project and go out to buy one anyhow…but still, the what if discussion for intellectual property rules start to get interesting if 3d printing proves to be the game changer that I think it is already (and will continue to improve and materials improve and costs go down and ease of use go up and free software go up in use).
**note that for gun laws on machine guns for example you can get on the internet and take a semi automatic gun and convert it to fully automatic, but that is VERY illegal and thus very regulated, so of course I was not talking about this particular case where a class3 permit was required and special paperwork and tracking of these limited items has already been done well.
by dave
Printing guns on super bowl day. Material science will continue until we can print a barrel. That is the trick. Look at the civil war and you will get a clue. We now know one can print a zip gun. No laws will protect you from that. No matter if you are right or left. The philosophy of mob anger will not help in this case.
by Brian M.
Last I checked, Glock was a composite material. There are now composite materials stronger than diamonds (super graphite). What would stop a criminal from printing a gun?
by Neal
Glocks have composite handles and a metal slide, barrel, recoil spring, etc., like any other gun.
by Locke
Only the frame of a Glock (and most other hand guns these days) is polymer. The slide, firing pin, barrel, and many other components are still metal and will set off a metal detector and be hard to manufacture.
Don’t believe the political hype, there is no such thing as an all polymer gun that will work. Reading and understanding 5 minutes worth of technical documentation on gun smithing (and metal working in general) will dispel common myths and misinformation out there.
The most critical part of a gun is the barrel. Even with a 3D printer capable of printing metal parts, you are not getting steel. Even if you made a 3D printer somehow capable of printing with powdered steel, you would still need to correctly heat treat the barrel to avoid it blowing up. Heat treating metal usually involves a precision high temperature oven and a cryogenic very low temperature bath/freezer.
All that aside, if it was that easy to “print” a gun, how would a law keep criminals from doing it? Criminals do not obey the law by definition.
by 0z gur
I want to print another me.
by Cybernettr
This is why the current debate on gun control is so clueless (this coming from someone who used to be in favor of it). 3-D printing is becoming more and more mainstream, and if it was ever possible to ban guns, it soon won’t be. Liberalism is all about removing responsibility from the individual and placing it elsewhere (society, guns, drugs, etc.) Guns have always existed, but our present-day culture of violence hasn’t, the blame for which I place squarely on liberalism.
by Bri
Ohhh you hit a button. I fail to see how liberalism is to blame. I don’t know where your getting your information from. Times were much more violent not that long ago. “God didn’t make man equal, colt did” was a common saying in the old west. People used to come for miles to watch a good exicution. Violence has been a way of life for as long as man has existed. If anything we are less violent today. The driving force behind Americas gun violence is empowerment issues. Doesn’t have to be guns. It’s more of a John Wayne rebel without a cause kin of thing.
by Cybernettr
Compare the crime rate of the last 50 years to that of the first half of the 20th century and you’ll see what I’m talking about. It’s gone up substantially in virtually all categories. Talk to your parents or grandparents and see if they had the fear of walking the streets after dark that we do today. The rise of crime coincides with the growth of modern liberalism.
by Bob Vasquez
Let Mr. or Ms. Cybernettr talk some more. I think that another paragraph from him/her and he or she will blame Bill Clinton, too. The initial subject was on a good track until … well, you know.
by Locke
Not only the 20th century. Violent crime and the murder rate have both gone down more than 50% each in the last 20 years with an all time high in gun ownership.
by Frank
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/11/ray-kurzweils-dubious-new-theory-of-mind.html
by Kevin
Perhaps you could contribute something original rather than sarcasm? Guns are illegal in the country where i live…Australia…so the ability to print them represents nothing shy of a revolution here! Then we can start shooting kids at school here as well! Seriously though. Do something constructive. Arrange an interview with Ray.
by A4i
Well, my italian hunting rifle is broken again. Second magor issue this season. First the firing pin , then the whole bolt assembly falls apart. That’s extremely durable chrome steel part! So I am not convinced that plastic can substitute steel in a usable gun.
by Kyle
Kevin- of course you make a good point that should be a major consideration as we move into the future. Technology breeds both yin and yang. And you are right about my complaint– it should be turned into a commitment. I was indeed being a bit raw in sharing ruminations. Something the entire cast of Big Bang Theory will always jump on me for.
And Jake, agree. But my feelings remain. Perspective shift is fun, delightful, and real. Even enlightenment is nothing more or less than a perspective shift- however permanent. We thrive on them. I will be more careful in my articulation in the future, probably to the exclusion of off handed posts like the one I left.
by Gorden Russell
The article you refer to, Frank, was written by Gary Marcus, a professor of psychology at N.Y.U. While I do read and enjoy his articles any other time, I didn’t take his criticism of Ray to heart. Marcus is not a neurologist, so I’m not giving up on Ray’s ideas.
by Mr.X
So you base your understanding of these issues entirely on “appeal of the authority” (yes, I made that up); or convinience!?
Because if you do so you basically engage in something akin to: “While I know nothing about the topic at hand, and therfore can’t evaluate the ideas of any of those who discuss it, I decide that xy knows better than yx because the latter isn’t a neurologist.Let’s ignore the fact that xy isn’t a neurologist either.”
“Marcus is not a neurologist, so I’m not giving up on Ray’s ideas.”
If I give you a link in which a neurologist critizises Ray’s ideas, are you going to give up on Ray’s ideas?
by Kyle
Yawn. I can have a gun in 15 minutes- 30 years ago, or now. You are trying to make me gasp at a techno breakthrough. Didn’t work. Perspective shift is most of what I find on KurzweilIA. Honestly– what ifs, late night college dorm talks. ” yet but what if…” Sure these ideas are good foder for brainstorming . Matter of fact I haven’t seen an intelligent interview of Ray in years. They have all become– “wow– here’s another perspective shift idea– what if… we could make Franekstein look like a beauty queen and nobody would know it was really an airplane.” The fascination with Ray has becomne almost sophomoric. Beginner creativity. Granted, a lot of good ideas are born here, but to me, dissapointing.
by Jake
You missed the point in your rant. The article is not about a techno-breakthrough, its about legislation. The concern is not how long the technology has existed; it is about how many people have easy access to the technology. 3D printers are becoming more capable of printing stronger materials. That is what is, not what if. Perhaps more concerning is that 3D printers are much cheaper, accessible, and open source then they were 30 years ago. Again, that is a reality, not a prediction. People at KurzweilAI are trying inform you, so you can move beyond the good ideas that are born here and implement them in a real world. Unfortunately, you missed the point.
by Paul in Vancouver
Consumers don’t understand that 3D printers have been around for 10-20 years. The technology is basically being re-branded and re-marketed as a breakthrough by companies who are simply exploiting the new found consumer interest. Kyle is right atleast in regards to this “technology”. It’s just a perspective shift. In the promotional products industry, desktop 3D printers for various materials have been available for well over 10 years. Anyways, I wouldn’t want to be the person in charge of testing a 3D printed gun or automobile.
by oldpatriot
I would have to disagree, the change in the market for 3d printers was driven by open source projects creating 3d printers that were home assembled and very low cost. I built one of the original repraps several years ago. Makerbot and several of the other start up commercialized home 3d printers are based on this project and can sell it without intellectual property issues.
The commercial 3d printer makers have been building them for many years yes but none of them had any motivation to bring the price point to the consumer level until reprap challenged their dominance. Its not new technology but this open source model has changed how many people are contributing to the efforts and turned it into a world wide collaborative development effort.
by GatorALLin
…I have to agree with you that although 3d printers have been around for 10+ years there is a major shift when anyone with $500 can suddenly have one for home use (they were 10K -100K before and few had easy access to them). Also the materials you can print with and the availability to download almost anything to print…or software to modify another’s work and make it something new is changing so fast. It will be interesting to see how this changes the game. Patents used to protect a company from someone else making the item for sale….. and it still does. But a patent also lets you make one for your own use. (that might have assumed the average person could not really make just anything they wanted…but what if that all changed with a 3d printer….). Will be interesting to see where intellectual property issues will go in the future based on this change.
by Mr.X
@Kyle:
You’re right about the sophomoric “thing”. But:
“Matter of fact I haven’t seen an intelligent interview of Ray in years.”
What do you mean by this?Maybe you should contemplate the reasons one has to give an interview to a wider audience; many “technically” (hard sciences, computer stuff etc) skilled but “socially challenged” people actually don’t understand the concept of interview (the way it de-facto has to be, if you want to achieve something [for yourself]) at all and think themselves smarter than the rest of the world.How do I know?I guess it shouldn’t be too hard to guess this;)
A reality check would be: What did I achieve in my life that makes me think I’m so smart?
Btw: Not many people would agree that subjective assessments constitute “matters of fact”.
“You are trying to make me gasp at a techno breakthrough.”
Yeah, everyone was thinking about how to make YOU gasp at this…
Maybe you don’t even belong to the target group?See all these other people commenting on articles like this?In a sense, you (and I) are not necessary to this site (only in a sense because I included me; jk)^^
“Matter of fact I haven’t seen an intelligent interview of Ray in years.”
Matter of fact, I can’t recall having seen an intelligent interview of you either.
Have a nice day;)
Ps: There are countries in the world where this technology might prove distabilizing.Provincial thinking is the group equivalent of egocentrism;)
by Kyle
Mr X- Thanks for being a part of the salon where ideas are tossed around. I am in no way ‘against’ Ray. I am reading here because of his work. I do get weary of the same “oh, wow” headline tactics and that is my right. To express it here is also welcome. I am fully aware of the need to appeal to a wider audience. What I mean by ” haven’t seen an intelligent interview of Ray in years” is this- Instead of perspective shifts intended to make us to to a double take- like, ” what if God is a woman? Or, longevity = overpopulation, or questions that put Ray on the defensive for advanced science, I want to get to questions like this- If heierarchy is in place both in thinking and in personal development, then what post rational concepts are going to be implemented that will further the cause of rational while simultaneously going beyond it? In other words–When the leverage you are attempting to use as a fulcrum for rational advancement is itself based on rational thought, yet we know there are levels beyond rational, how do you proceed? When the known ingredients of seawater don’t make seawater, what then? More research, I know. So that’s always the answer. And while I implore patience, I get weary of it. My prerogative.