As with any invention the original purpose or intended use does not always translate to how the great unwashed masses may use the item. In the wake of much discussion about gun control, magazine control etc. could the 3D printer effectively render gun control impossible, or at the very least improbable beyond all doubt?
This link shows a gun that has been printed and proven to fire. Granted various parts of the gun where not printed but the “lower” or what is deemed the gun by legal definition in both the USA and Canada was printed.
Another possible nightmare for government monopoly of control is the so called Chemputer which is a 3D printer adapted to “print” organic compounds. the intention of the Chemputer creatures seems pure but clearly the possibility of creating drugs for more nefarious purposes is there.
What does the SD hive mind think of these developments? Are we entering a new age of drugs guns and intellectual property rights violations?
no, because just like the mythical ceramic Glock pistols which were supposed to be “invisible to airport x-rays,” the things which enable them to be a gun (i.e. the barrel, bolt, and firing pin) have to be metal. And more to the point, SLA/SLS (which is what 3D printing is) gives parts which are not very strong. In fact, they’re quite brittle. This guy made something which fires .22 Long Rifle which is possibly one of the weakest rounds in common use.
Could the model be used to make a mold? I realize this is far more complex but theoretically if you were determined enough coud you do this to get your hands on a banned item, say a part to convert a gun to full-auto?
If specs for such parts aren’t available online already, I’ll be shocked. Any competent machinist should be able to make them, 3D printers or no. If the specs aren’t available for free now, you can be damn well sure they’ll be available for a price after a ban goes into place. And, thirdly, those parts are small and ship way the hell easier than whole guns, cocaine or people, so there’ll be a market for smuggled goods.
The 3D printers are just a new toy that people are using to do something that’s as old as time. Remember, John Hancock signed the Declaration so big because he was a smuggler.
The difference between a competant machinest and a 3D printer user would be the fact that one takes more skill than the other. Downloading a file and pressing print is surely more accessable than buy a bunch of machining equipment and learning how to use it.
Also while current printing tech may form brittle objects, one would assume over time they would only get better. Not to mention that polymers will advance as well.
Perhaps even home office cnc machines will be the eventual evolution.
While the responses are all about guns I think the consequences Chemputer mod should be considered as well
It has always been possible for an amateur to create a homemade gun in a home machine shop. Decades from now when 3D printers are widespread, the easiest way to make a gun at home will still be to get yourself a machine shop.
I expect printing of guns to be in the realm of fantasy until we have an economy based on matter replicators.
Simply put, I don’t expect it to be legal nor will the technology be allowed.
The most immediate analogy is printing of currency. Not a huge problem because of technology in both scanners and printers that refuses to process currency. I suspect that restrictions will be placed on printing of certain types of 3D designs. I have no idea what the technology might be but there will be huge economic and governmental pressures brought to bear on the issue. Another example is the way HDTV recording has been restricted - by both law and technology. Seen an HD VCR or DVD recorder recently? The days of a library of HBO are gone.
Liability issues for manufacturers of 3D printers will also be significant and provide strong incentives to control the use of their technology. We have already seen a printer lease cancelled once it was learned that it was being used by a 3D gun project.
3D designs also will be tightly controlled and will be not be legally available. They have already been removed from the MakerBot repository. Yes, there will be a ‘Pirate Bay’ for illegal design files, but I would not expect it to be as easy as downloading an illegal movie.
Gun manufacturers will vigorously defend their patented designs lest their market disappear, the NRA will back them to keep the money flowing and the government will go after 3D printers in a way Hollywood studios and record companies can only dream of.
In other threads, it has been pointed out that you could make you own gun today - with easy to buy CNC tech or by hand as in the Philippines or Waziristan - but it is not happening.
Yes, I have, actually. They’re readily available from most major electronics stores here, although they’re not particularly cheap.
That’s only the “new” designs. There are a lot of still-produced guns whose patents have well and truly expired - the Colt M1911A1 springs to mind, as do all the Old West revolvers. And that’s without getting into stuff like the Tokarev TT-33 or the Makarov. (I don’t believe the Soviets had patents, FWIW).
3D printing is the new poster child for ‘what if’ scenarios of people making their own guns. The capability to do this has existed for as long as lathes and milling machines became affordable. CNC lathes and mills have been available to consumers for at least a decade. With a CNC mill in your garage such as these, or these, or these, you can manufacture precision receivers and other gun parts. These parts would be the real deal, made out of aluminum, stainless steel, or even titanium. On many gun enthusiast forums, there are people who have a small hobby business manufacturing unusual gun parts and accessories using the very same CNC mills I just linked to. Examples include suppressors for PCP air rifles, parallax adjustment wheels for side focus scopes, rail accessories, grip adapters, and trigger shoes.
Real steel parts, made at home. Not plastic, out of tolerance parts. The capability is already with us, and I personally know people who have done it. A guy in my unit has 3 AR-15 rifles, two of which have lower receivers he and another guy machined from a block of aluminum. He even anodized them at home. Illegal, yes. Difficult to do, not very.
Well, in the US they will not record any transmission protected with 5C and the display data streams are protected with HDCP. I have no idea what the 3D printing equivalents will be, but I strongly suspect something will be implemented.
Good point, existing manufacturers can’t act legally against designs they don’t own, but I doubt they will like losing market share to them.
Perhaps I am off with these opinions, but I just don’t see self-manufacture of firearms to arrive via 3D printing in the near future. There are laws in place now to control the manufacture of firearms and I expect those laws to evolve along with the technology.
Given the many still unsolved issues around 3D printing of metals and the serious ‘strength of materials’ requirements for reliable weapons, it will be cheaper and much safer to purchase a factory made firearm. (Although I’d bet on a number of injurious failures of printed weapons before this issue is settled)
The comparison to video piracy perhaps isn’t apt because of a major difference: in copy protection, the software has built in anti-copy features. If everyone had their own home 3D printer, it could be used to make the freeware gun designs already in development. To prevent a 3D printer from being used to make contraband, you would have to somehow build it to refuse to make unapproved designs, and that is hackable. The anti-counterfeiting features of copiers work because most people don’t own their own copier they could modify. And then there’s the question of what if you could use a 3D printer to make another 3D printer- one without any censorship features built in? People are already trying to make a self-reproducing fabricator; once they succeed all it takes is one to propagate indefinitely. Now of course this can all still be made illegal, but that can only stop the people who get caught.
I again must voice my amazement that the tech heads who are so blown away by 3D printing are unaware of the existence of CNC mills, which have been making precision parts for decades. What does a 3D printer do a CNC doesn’t, at least in terms of making a gun part? The folks at PopSci are well vesed in the state of 3D printing but seem to be completely, almost comically oblivious to the machining technology that exists out there right now.
MAking a gun with a 3D printer, instead of a CNC, is like making a car out of strips of hardwood flooring. It’s possible but it’s unnecessary and stupid and you don’t save any money and it won’t work as well.
I think the point is that most people envision 3D printing becoming a universal home appliance used for hundreds of purposes- the equivalent of desktop publishing. Too ubiquitous and too necessary as the basis for entire industries to effectively limit.
I think the “game changing” nature of this, would be that while someone could “easily” fabricate a firearm in a machine shop, (if they had the requiste technical skills, money, connections ) a 3D printer would in theory allow anyone to simply “print out” an item, in this case a firearm.
Dealing in hypotheticals, meaning Mr. Gang Banger with no technical skills could print out disposable untraceable firearms to conduct his buisness. He doesn’t need to seek out a black market machinist, or even engage in “old school” firearms trafficking.
They dont need the firearm to last for 50 000 rounds, if they can get even 5-10 rounds out of it before it breaks apart, that would work for spray and pray hits.
while the idea of “printing” AR-15 lower receivers is interesting, I think a much more effective use of 3D printing technology would be to print “high-capacity” magazines.