I hear 3D printers are creating a new threat because they facilitate making plastic guns that aren’t detectible with metal detectors. I don’t get it.
Ordinary guns are made using machining methods, and plastic guns could be made the same way. In fact, because plastic is so easy to machine, it would actually be easier to make a gun out of plastic than it is to make an ordinary gun.
Besides, the biggest difficulty in making a plastic gun that works is probably having a plastic withstand the pressure of firing. It seems pretty unlikely that the polymer most able to withstand this pressure happens to be available in 3D printer form. Moreover, other things you could do to make a plastic gun stronger, such as winding the barrel with an oriented plastic such as perhaps a Kevlar filament, wouldn’t integrate well with the 3D printing philosophy of making the entire assembly or the largest component all at once.
Finally, new 3D printer technology and software are a bigger deal to buy and maintain, than used machine shop tools. If you wanted to keep a low profile, wouldn’t you do better to hit garage sales and auctions, rather than join whatever user forums you’d have to to debug a 3D printer?
Isn’t 3D printers + guns a political issue (at present more of a theoretical one, in the manner of a thought experiment) - 3D printers said, by those showing off manufacture of gun parts by them, to make regulation of gun manufacture pointless?
The perception and maybe future reality is that with the technology anyone can make an untraceable gun with the press of a button. No need to have any knowledge or talent with tools.
The OP is correct. Guns are not terribly difficult to make. Having said that, there is a tremendous range in quality and accuracy between a sheet metal zip gun and a high quality firearm. The whole 3D printer angle is purely political. Anti-gunners hate the idea that people might be able to make their own guns, not understanding that a) guns were handmade before they were machine made, and b) most machine shops could turn out some sort of firearm.
Gun rights advocates love the idea because it represents a way to manufacture and own a firearm without government approval or knowledge should guns ever be outlawed.
Though I clearly sympathize with the latter sentiment, but it is obvious that any homemade gun, whether by 3D printer or standard machinery, would be vastly inferior to any number of reasonably priced guns currently on the market.
This. The theory goes that if anyone can buy a 3D printer and simply download the program to make a gun, then anyone with no skill what so ever can push a button and out pops an untraceable gun. Next think you know ex-cons, teenagers, drug addicts, every unsavory character will have an untraceable gun to go commit crimes with. That’s the theory at least.
Because they have so much trouble stealing or buying (on the black market, typically) one now. I can just picture all of the ex-cons, teenagers, drug addicts and other unsavory characters filing into computer stores buying the computers, 3D printer and software required. No, it’s about government control. You’re either for it or against it.
I’ve got no concerns about people 3D printing semi-auto handguns; as you say, there’s much easier ways to get something that’s mass-produced already.
An M-249 or an M-60, though, would make a heck of a statement from a school/workplace shooter or even a gang looking to intimidate a rival gang. When 3D printers become proficient and common enough that you can run down to Staples and pick up something that can produce a SAW, then what?
I don’t think we need to start legislating anything just yet, but it doesn’t hurt to think about the inevitable direction this technology is going.
Home computerized milling machines already exist, though, and milling is always going to be a better way to make guns (the barrels, at least) than printing.
Nitpick: Barrels are made using machine tools made for deep-hole drilling, not ordinary lathes or mills. Rifling is done using other specialized tools such as sine bar riflers. Really fancy shops will hammer forge the barrels onto special mandrels which have a negative of the rifling on them. You could also go old skool. Check out The Gunsmith of Williamsburg.
This is precisely why it’s a big issue. Many people, both pro- and anti-gun, see it as a potential way to circumvent laws to control guns.
Currently, it’s not a very effective way, but the technology will only get better, allowing more latitude to circumvent more laws.
A simple example is that Congress could outlaw magazines that hold more than a certain number of rounds. Such laws are pretty effective at controlling manufacturers. But, with 3D printer technology, it wouldn’t be hard for people to make their own magazines.
Fortunately, we’re quite a ways from being able to 3D-print a nuclear weapon.
I’ve heard law enforcement types making some good points about the ability to simply melt down the gun and then turn it into something else. The identification, resale, and eventual tracing of firearms used to commit crimes apparently solves a lot of crimes.
Well, there have been governments that mandated the death penalty for owning a gun — in particular the Irish government during their not very interesting civil war, who executed anti-Free Staters such as Erskine Childers who was shot for being in possession of a pistol given to him by the shifty Michael Collins, dead commander of the Free State, back in the day.
Which was a better fate than many other prisoners received.
But now, it will be simpler to destroy your weapon stocks and avoid detection, and just create new ones on demand, once the tech is good enough.
Not that it matters; people who need weapons are always going to get them.
There doesn’t appear to be any “all” plastic (non-metallic) “working” firearms manufactured to date. There have been firearms built with “plastic” parts but the ammo (brass or steel case, lead/copper/steel/tin bullet, and metal encased primer) is made from metal which is detectable. The propellent and primer compounds are also detectable. The barrel and the block/reciever which holds the cartridge in the barrel must still be made from metal in order to contain the extremely high gas pressure and extremely high tempurature produced.
Austin, TX – Solid Concepts, one of the world leaders in 3D Printing services, has manufactured the world’s first 3D Printed METAL Gun using a laser sintering process and powdered metals. The gun, a 1911 classic design, functions beautifully and has already handled 50 rounds of successful firing. It is composed of 33 17-4 Stainless Steel and Inconel 625 components, and decked with a Selective Laser Sintered (SLS) carbon-fiber filled nylon hand grip. The successful production and functionality of the 1911 3D Printed METAL gun proves the viability of 3D Printing for commercial applications.
In July of 2012, Popular Science magazine reported that an amateur gunsmith by the name of Michael Guslick had created “a working assault rifle from a 3D printer.” Specifically, he used a Stratasys FDM system to produce the lower receiver of an AR-15 style pistol, modified to fire a .22LR cartridge. Guslick went on to test this same part using a .223 caliber upper receiver – a full-powered rifle round. So did he really make a “3D printed gun?”
The simple answer is no – he made a firearm that had a 3D printed plastic part, and plastic parts are nothing new on firearms: Springfield Armory conducted tests with plastic stocks during WWII, most firearms today have plastic parts. The caveat, however, has to do with the specific part he printed: the lower receiver of an AR-15 style action*.
