3 ms·

US Bureau of Industry and Security Imposes ‘Ear' Restrictions on 3D Printed Guns

2 points by danboarder 5y ago

ddingus 5y ago
They could do a whole lot of good by educating people on the practicalities and risks inherent in this activity. Frankly, most common polymers are extremely likely to fail. Where they do not, they will work, until they don't and when they don't, personal risk is very high. As in that second round could fail in a highly dangerous way. "Works until it doesn't" is true for metal firearms too, but the time and conditions to fail are orders longer and more extreme than for polymers. Once people understand what 3D printing firearms in the vast majority of cases actually means, the allure is very greatly diminished. There is no way in hell I would use one. That aside, is data regulated globally? What happens when data is obtained from outside the US? What happens when the desired topology is divided into many puzzle pieces to be assembled then combined at a later time? This is trivial and any individual piece definitely will not make a firearm. However 100 files and some boolean operations later, one has a printable representation. Finally, as an exercise in physics and engineering, all this will prove to be compelling. Will this cover constructs intended to perform the task, but remain impractical for human use directly? I am thinking of the case where the round is fired from a mechanism that would definitely form the basis of a firearm, but is not incorporated or embodied in a useful, like pick it up and shoot, type firearm. Like say something mounted in a test chamber? Meta: This is not my thing. I do not trust and have no desire to trust polymers for this task. Metal printing may be a different story, but does at present time, require machining and other post processing, not unlike many unfinished, not directly usable parts do. This is all very interesting to see play out. Will this matter be used to make general purpose additive tech illegal, unless it does some sort of reporting and screening?

2 points by danboarder 5y ago

They could do a whole lot of good by educating people on the practicalities and risks inherent in this activity. Frankly, most common polymers are extremely likely to fail. Where they do not, they will work, until they don't and when they don't, personal risk is very high. As in that second round could fail in a highly dangerous way. "Works until it doesn't" is true for metal firearms too, but the time and conditions to fail are orders longer and more extreme than for polymers. Once people understand what 3D printing firearms in the vast majority of cases actually means, the allure is very greatly diminished. There is no way in hell I would use one. That aside, is data regulated globally? What happens when data is obtained from outside the US? What happens when the desired topology is divided into many puzzle pieces to be assembled then combined at a later time? This is trivial and any individual piece definitely will not make a firearm. However 100 files and some boolean operations later, one has a printable representation. Finally, as an exercise in physics and engineering, all this will prove to be compelling. Will this cover constructs intended to perform the task, but remain impractical for human use directly? I am thinking of the case where the round is fired from a mechanism that would definitely form the basis of a firearm, but is not incorporated or embodied in a useful, like pick it up and shoot, type firearm. Like say something mounted in a test chamber? Meta: This is not my thing. I do not trust and have no desire to trust polymers for this task. Metal printing may be a different story, but does at present time, require machining and other post processing, not unlike many unfinished, not directly usable parts do. This is all very interesting to see play out. Will this matter be used to make general purpose additive tech illegal, unless it does some sort of reporting and screening?