9 ms·

Is Printing a Gun the Same as Buying a Gun?

157 points by DanielN 15y ago

Jun8 15y ago
"The fact that we are now able to manufacture usable weapon parts is an important step..." It's not clear to me if a rifle part printed from plastic at home is usable. I wonder how the manufacturing of these thing are regulated normally: Can you have a professional place make 2-3 of these for you without telling them what it is?
- mooism2 15y ago
  Even if a plastic part printed at home today isn't usable, a metal part printed at home in a few years time will be.
  - 0x12 15y ago
    You can't just print a metal part without some serious post processing to reach the desired strength, and even then you'll be hard pressed to come up with a part that is the same size and just as strong. Printing full metal parts is possible but there are some penalties, relatively low tensile strength is one of those.
    - gonzo 15y ago
      AR15 lowers don't really need that much strength. The upper does, but you can buy those without a FFL transfer.
- hvs 15y ago
  The law is pretty clear cut in the U.S. about gun manufacturing. If you want to build the lower receiver of an AR-15, go ahead, but if you plan on selling it you need either a Type 7 or Type 10 Federal Firearms License. The rest of the AR-15 is just parts. If a "professional" makes them for you, whether or not he knows what they are, he better have a license or he could be committing a felony.
  - koenigdavidmj 15y ago
    But in the hypothetical future where 3D printers are ubiquitous, if you sell a script to build the lower receiver, then does that count as selling one? Reminds me of the case where Phil Zimmerman noticed that exporting crypto was a form of arms export, but exporting books was protected by the First Amendment. So he published the source code to PGP and shipped it.
    - ConstantineXVI 15y ago
      Legally, the only difference between a CAD file of the AR-15 and an AR-15 repair manual should be that one is actionable by a machine. They're both a description of the operation of the object (and thus speech). And let's go even further into the hypothetical future where we've made great advances in AI. Also, for whatever reason, a court has found weapons CAD files to be illegal. What will the law say when a machine is intelligent enough to decipher the same human-targeted AR-15 repair manual and reconstruct one from that information?
    - anelson 15y ago
      IANAL but I know my way around US federal firearms law. I am not aware of any law or rulemaking which would classify, for example, CAD files describing a lower receiver as an item subject to firearms regulations. There exist books sold openly and without restriction detailing how one can make improvised firearms, some of which if constructed would be illegal for possession by American civilians. I'm sure this information has by now made it to the Internet as well. Up to this point, such materials are treated as speech and thus strongly protected by the First Amendment. I see no reason why 3D printer instruction files would be treated any differently, under current law. It's not hard to imagine a Congresscritter raising a fuss over concerns of "children printing machine guns" or some such nonsense, and thereby introducing legislation to regulate such materials, including executable scripts for 3D printing machines. It's even possible to imagine such legislation passing the House and Senate. Our current president would likely sign any such legislation he was given. However, it is very difficult to imagine the legislation surviving a Supreme Court challenge on First Amendment grounds. Then again, I said the same thing about the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, and SCOTUS upheld that 5-4, so what do I know.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- commandar 15y ago
  >It's not clear to me if a rifle part printed from plastic at home is usable. It wouldn't surprise me if it were perfectly functional. The lower receiver on an AR houses the trigger group, buffer tube, magazine, and grip. Not really a lot of high-stress parts there. The barrel, bolt, gas tube, etc that have to withstand 60k+ PSI of pressure are all part of the upper receiver. Legally, only the lower is classified as a firearm in the United States (meaning they have to be transferred through a licensed firearms dealer if shipped); the upper and the rest of the gun are simply parts and can be shipped directly by UPS/FedEX/USPS.
showerst 15y ago
Mirror at the Washington Post since original seems to be down: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/is-printing-a-gun-the-same-as-buying-a-gun/2011/09/20/gIQAPoqeiK_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/is-printin...
signalsignal 15y ago
The article is wrong. A license isn't required to own an AR-15 except in a few states like California.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- alnayyir 15y ago
  That's not accurate either. You can own an AR-15 in California without a license of any sort, it just cannot have any of the restricted features like a 30 round magazine.
  - signalsignal 15y ago
    Thanks. I don't know the law specifically, IANAL.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- hvs 15y ago
  The article says "license to buy" not "license to own." I know that in Minnesota you need a Permit to Purchase from your local PD or a Permit to Carry from your local Sheriff in order to purchase an AR-15 (or a handgun).
  - anelson 15y ago
    The majority of US states have no such requirement. In VA I can purchase a gun from another VA resident with no paperwork; I can purchase from a dealer by filling out a one page form with name, DOB, address, and place of birth.
    - hvs 15y ago
      You can do that for long rifles in MN as well (although I think you forgot the NICS check required for all gun purchases regardless of state). It's just hand guns and "black" rifles that require the permit. VA obviously has a more enlightened view than MN (IMO).
0x12 15y ago
This is not 'printing a gun', this is printing two passive parts that you could just as well have whittled from wood or cast or put together in a hundred different ways. The 'load bearing parts' of a gun are the barrel, the breech and the trigger mechanism. For the sake of the argument let's pretend that the title is right and that you can 'print a gun'. You could always make a gun, all you needed was a lathe, some tooling, a hacksaw a file, some steel stock and a bunch of patience. Printing a gun is just another way to get to the goal, possibly an easier one but one with its own unique challenges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm The differentiating factor for a gun from printed ABS is not that you've made it at home, but that it is very hard to detect the gun itself (you'd have a hard time not using metal at all, especially for the parts mentioned above and then there is the ammo). You can bet that if you get caught with one trying to board an airplane that there will be very serious repercussions, you won't be able to say you left it in your carry-on luggage by accident. Well, you can say that but good luck to get anybody to believe you. So, printing a gun is not the same as buying a gun, it is the same as making a fire-arm at home through conventional means. On another note, the design of a working firearm, especially from unproven materials, is not something you muck around with unless you know your materials science. A gun that explodes when fired could have some pretty nasty effects on you and bystanders.
- ctdonath 15y ago
  The article focuses on a particular gun, the AR15. After much wrangling, settled law dictates that the "lower receiver" _is_ the gun; all the other parts are incidental. Sure, the lower receiver alone is little more than a big paperweight, but it's the unchanging core to which all other variable components are attached to form something functional. And no, you can't just "whittle it from wood" etc., it's a pretty serious chunk of milled steel (there exists a "plastic" version, but that ain't generic plastic). Yes, some jurisdictions aside you can make one AR15 lower receiver on your own without any paperwork, fees, checks, or permission. Understanding is that nobody going thru that much effort is going to waste it by doing something stupid (if there's criminal intent there are many far easier ways to acquire one). The issue here is: where's the line on making one? You can make one yourself legally, but if you hire someone else to knowingly make it they'll need an expensive big-hassle manufacturer's license. The key is "knowingly", as up until recently it was pretty obvious to the machinist what he was being asked to do. Now, with "printing", you just upload the pattern for what is otherwise just another odd-shaped chunk of metal, a computer & machine crank one out, and the result gets sent back to you with a minimum of comprehension by any humans involved - are _you_ "making" it? or is the printing house "making" it and, in effect, selling it to you? The legal line has been blurred.
adolph 15y ago
Is growing the same as buying? I wonder if the precedent of Gonzales v Raich would apply to printing firearms (if it were ever feasible). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich ...a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
- monochromatic 15y ago
  There will certainly be people to make that argument. But people already make guns, and it's not illegal (at least under federal law; some states probably do criminalize it). Selling a gun you've made is a problem, but making one for personal use? NBD.
  - fleitz 15y ago
    IANAL, but mere possession of an automatic weapon is prohibited, is it not? I thought the idea behind the receiver for the AR15 is that with a slightly different receiver that the AR15 becomes an automatic weapon (aka. an M16)? Or are we talking about the semi-auto (AR15) receiver?
    - philwelch 15y ago
      The receiver doesn't make any difference at all whether it's full auto. Or rather, the legally designated lower receiver contains the firing mechanism (which can be full or semi auto), but the receiver itself is just a piece of steel and you can change out the actual mechanism.
      - monochromatic 15y ago
        Usually aluminum. But you are otherwise correct.
      - commandar 15y ago
        Not entirely accurate. The ATF actually specifically requires that semi-auto weapons are not readily convertible to fully automatic by way of a simple parts swap. A standard, semi-automatic AR-15 will not accept a full-auto M16 trigger group; the M16 trigger group requires an extra hole to be milled in the receiver which isn't present on semi-auto receivers.
jarrett 15y ago
Legally, I'd think this would be the same as if a gunsmith were to make a lower receiver for himself. If that activity would be regulated in a given jurisdiction, is there any reason printing the receiver wouldn't be? This article doesn't really get into the question of printing then subsequently transferring a receiver to another person. Were that to occur, I assume that the person who printed it would be regulated in exactly the same manner as any other gun manufacturer.
- hvs 15y ago
  I'm pretty sure the gov't would look at printing the receiver as precisely the same as milling one on a CNC machine. Transferring it is going to be treated the same as any other firearm transfer in the U.S. as well.
  - jarrett 15y ago
    Exactly my point. I think all the speculation about the legal ramifications of printing a receiver is off-base. I see no reason why the government wouldn't view it as just another form of manufacturing.
  - commandar 15y ago
    >Transferring it is going to be treated the same as any other firearm transfer in the U.S. as well. i.e., expect the BATFE to get rather upset with you if you manufacture a receiver intending to transfer it to someone else without being a licensed firearms manufacturer. Manufacturing a firearm for personal use is generally good to go as long as you stay within the bounds of NFA, etc regulations.
presidentender 15y ago
There's a concept called the 80% receiver, which is a freely-transferable hunk of metal that's almost but not quite a receiver. You can order a receiver flat for an AK-type rifle, a parts kit, and assemble a complete rifle for cheaper than you'd buy one. You need a means to heat treat the metal, and probably a drill press. That's not a much greater barrier to entry than the 3d printer for the lower receiver on an AR. So really, this doesn't change anything. This brings preexisting truths more prominently to the public discussion.
- gonzo 15y ago
  an AK? who wants that PoS? You can get an AR-15 lower blank for $100 or less. You can buy the tooling to allow you to use a drill press to make the receiver M-16 ready for not much more. http://www.cncguns.com/tooling.html http://www.cncguns.com/tooling.html No heat-treating necessary (it's just aluminum). Yes, you'll need a drill press.
  - presidentender 15y ago
    I'm an FAL guy. AKs are just cheaper to build than almost anything else. The AR/AK debate is a very silly holy war. Come join on on /r/guns.
    - monochromatic 15y ago
      Fancy meeting you here.
    - gonzo 15y ago
      This must explain why ARs, not AKs or FALs took the stand at Camp Perry the past several years.
      - presidentender 15y ago
        The AR platform's direct impingement operating principle has a far greater accuracy potential than the AK or FAL's gas piston (or a piston AR, for that matter). DI is probably the best operating principle for building a supremely accurate semi-automatic rifle. That's why the M110 system is an AR, not just an updated M14. However, for the next generation of infantry rifles, you're seeing nothing but gas piston systems. Modern piston accuracy is "good enough" for the engagement distances that modern infantry units encounter. Modern DI rifles are "reliable enough" for the field conditions that trained, equipped first-world militaries operate under. However, I'm not a trained, equipped first-world military. I'm some random dude who'd rather spend more time shooting and less time cleaning. A gas piston rifle is much more tolerant of bad hygiene and maintenance than a DI rifle, and my FAL is still more accurate than I am from field positions. An AK isn't - I shoot better than even the nice Bulgarian AK-74s or converted Saigas. Most FALs are 3-4 MOA guns, and I'm about a 2-3 MOA shooter, depending on the day. But without an extremely steady rest like you see at Camp Perry, my FAL is more than accurate enough for my shooting.
Killah911 15y ago
Actual Laws aside, I get goosebumps thinking that this isn't completely sci-fi. Just because you can't print the whole weapon now doesn't mean you can't do it in 15 years or so. I can't wait till home depot is selling you "models" of nuts and bolts rather than actual nuts and bolts!
- stewartbutler 15y ago
  It is actually quite possible to print the entire gun, if you wanted to use a metal Selective Laser Sintering machine. They are just cost prohibitive ($500,000+). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_laser_sintering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_laser_sintering
tedjdziuba 15y ago
You can buy AK-47 receiver "flats", and press them into the correct shape to build a receiver. http://armsofamerica.com/ak47762flatwithrailstrunnionholes1995.aspx http://armsofamerica.com/ak47762flatwithrailstrunnionholes19... You do not need a license or a permit, just access to machine tools. Oh, and $22 for the flat.
- kryptomaniac 15y ago
  There's lots of parts you can buy that get you in a world of hurt if you make them. Say, trigger kits to turn a AR-15 in to select fire...
dholowiski 15y ago
We haven't even figured out if downloading a movie is 'stealing' yet, and now we have to figure out if printing gun parts is illegal too?
TheFuture 15y ago
Nevermind the dozen easier ways to get a gun without a background check... When will people realize bad people that want a gun, figure out how to get one. All the ridiculous waiting periods and background checks just hassle law abiding citizens.
epicviking 15y ago
http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Pistol-Workshop-Defense-Resistance/dp/0873648234/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316576203&sr=1-7 http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Pistol-Workshop-Defense-Resist... http://www.amazon.com/Bazooka-How-Build-Your-Own/dp/0873647386/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316576286&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Bazooka-How-Build-Your-Own/dp/08736473... Guns really are not that complicated. I wish I had the time and the cojones to actually try to make one of these.
- sneak 15y ago
  All the balls in the world doesn't make jail fun.
danssig 15y ago
This seems like over-analysis to me. Why is said villain going to be printing a gun? To rob money, right? And what is he going to do with this stolen money? Buy a car? Why doesn't he just print that instead? I think when the day arrives that we can just print out whatever we can get a blueprint to the world will be so drastically changed that our current biggest concerns won't even be relevant anymore.
losethos 15y ago
Pete told me I should carve soap. It took me a while...

157 points by DanielN 15y ago

Jun8 15y ago

"The fact that we are now able to manufacture usable weapon parts is an important step..." It's not clear to me if a rifle part printed from plastic at home is usable. I wonder how the manufacturing of these thing are regulated normally: Can you have a professional place make 2-3 of these for you without telling them what it is?

mooism2 15y ago
Even if a plastic part printed at home today isn't usable, a metal part printed at home in a few years time will be.
- 0x12 15y ago
  You can't just print a metal part without some serious post processing to reach the desired strength, and even then you'll be hard pressed to come up with a part that is the same size and just as strong. Printing full metal parts is possible but there are some penalties, relatively low tensile strength is one of those.
  - gonzo 15y ago
    AR15 lowers don't really need that much strength. The upper does, but you can buy those without a FFL transfer.
hvs 15y ago
The law is pretty clear cut in the U.S. about gun manufacturing. If you want to build the lower receiver of an AR-15, go ahead, but if you plan on selling it you need either a Type 7 or Type 10 Federal Firearms License. The rest of the AR-15 is just parts. If a "professional" makes them for you, whether or not he knows what they are, he better have a license or he could be committing a felony.
- koenigdavidmj 15y ago
  But in the hypothetical future where 3D printers are ubiquitous, if you sell a script to build the lower receiver, then does that count as selling one? Reminds me of the case where Phil Zimmerman noticed that exporting crypto was a form of arms export, but exporting books was protected by the First Amendment. So he published the source code to PGP and shipped it.
  - ConstantineXVI 15y ago
    Legally, the only difference between a CAD file of the AR-15 and an AR-15 repair manual should be that one is actionable by a machine. They're both a description of the operation of the object (and thus speech). And let's go even further into the hypothetical future where we've made great advances in AI. Also, for whatever reason, a court has found weapons CAD files to be illegal. What will the law say when a machine is intelligent enough to decipher the same human-targeted AR-15 repair manual and reconstruct one from that information?
  - anelson 15y ago
    IANAL but I know my way around US federal firearms law. I am not aware of any law or rulemaking which would classify, for example, CAD files describing a lower receiver as an item subject to firearms regulations. There exist books sold openly and without restriction detailing how one can make improvised firearms, some of which if constructed would be illegal for possession by American civilians. I'm sure this information has by now made it to the Internet as well. Up to this point, such materials are treated as speech and thus strongly protected by the First Amendment. I see no reason why 3D printer instruction files would be treated any differently, under current law. It's not hard to imagine a Congresscritter raising a fuss over concerns of "children printing machine guns" or some such nonsense, and thereby introducing legislation to regulate such materials, including executable scripts for 3D printing machines. It's even possible to imagine such legislation passing the House and Senate. Our current president would likely sign any such legislation he was given. However, it is very difficult to imagine the legislation surviving a Supreme Court challenge on First Amendment grounds. Then again, I said the same thing about the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, and SCOTUS upheld that 5-4, so what do I know.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
commandar 15y ago
>It's not clear to me if a rifle part printed from plastic at home is usable. It wouldn't surprise me if it were perfectly functional. The lower receiver on an AR houses the trigger group, buffer tube, magazine, and grip. Not really a lot of high-stress parts there. The barrel, bolt, gas tube, etc that have to withstand 60k+ PSI of pressure are all part of the upper receiver. Legally, only the lower is classified as a firearm in the United States (meaning they have to be transferred through a licensed firearms dealer if shipped); the upper and the rest of the gun are simply parts and can be shipped directly by UPS/FedEX/USPS.

showerst 15y ago

Mirror at the Washington Post since original seems to be down: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/is-printing-a-gun-the-same-as-buying-a-gun/2011/09/20/gIQAPoqeiK_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/is-printin...

signalsignal 15y ago

The article is wrong. A license isn't required to own an AR-15 except in a few states like California.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
alnayyir 15y ago
That's not accurate either. You can own an AR-15 in California without a license of any sort, it just cannot have any of the restricted features like a 30 round magazine.
- signalsignal 15y ago
  Thanks. I don't know the law specifically, IANAL.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
hvs 15y ago
The article says "license to buy" not "license to own." I know that in Minnesota you need a Permit to Purchase from your local PD or a Permit to Carry from your local Sheriff in order to purchase an AR-15 (or a handgun).
- anelson 15y ago
  The majority of US states have no such requirement. In VA I can purchase a gun from another VA resident with no paperwork; I can purchase from a dealer by filling out a one page form with name, DOB, address, and place of birth.
  - hvs 15y ago
    You can do that for long rifles in MN as well (although I think you forgot the NICS check required for all gun purchases regardless of state). It's just hand guns and "black" rifles that require the permit. VA obviously has a more enlightened view than MN (IMO).

0x12 15y ago

This is not 'printing a gun', this is printing two passive parts that you could just as well have whittled from wood or cast or put together in a hundred different ways. The 'load bearing parts' of a gun are the barrel, the breech and the trigger mechanism. For the sake of the argument let's pretend that the title is right and that you can 'print a gun'. You could always make a gun, all you needed was a lathe, some tooling, a hacksaw a file, some steel stock and a bunch of patience. Printing a gun is just another way to get to the goal, possibly an easier one but one with its own unique challenges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm The differentiating factor for a gun from printed ABS is not that you've made it at home, but that it is very hard to detect the gun itself (you'd have a hard time not using metal at all, especially for the parts mentioned above and then there is the ammo). You can bet that if you get caught with one trying to board an airplane that there will be very serious repercussions, you won't be able to say you left it in your carry-on luggage by accident. Well, you can say that but good luck to get anybody to believe you. So, printing a gun is not the same as buying a gun, it is the same as making a fire-arm at home through conventional means. On another note, the design of a working firearm, especially from unproven materials, is not something you muck around with unless you know your materials science. A gun that explodes when fired could have some pretty nasty effects on you and bystanders.

ctdonath 15y ago
The article focuses on a particular gun, the AR15. After much wrangling, settled law dictates that the "lower receiver" _is_ the gun; all the other parts are incidental. Sure, the lower receiver alone is little more than a big paperweight, but it's the unchanging core to which all other variable components are attached to form something functional. And no, you can't just "whittle it from wood" etc., it's a pretty serious chunk of milled steel (there exists a "plastic" version, but that ain't generic plastic). Yes, some jurisdictions aside you can make one AR15 lower receiver on your own without any paperwork, fees, checks, or permission. Understanding is that nobody going thru that much effort is going to waste it by doing something stupid (if there's criminal intent there are many far easier ways to acquire one). The issue here is: where's the line on making one? You can make one yourself legally, but if you hire someone else to knowingly make it they'll need an expensive big-hassle manufacturer's license. The key is "knowingly", as up until recently it was pretty obvious to the machinist what he was being asked to do. Now, with "printing", you just upload the pattern for what is otherwise just another odd-shaped chunk of metal, a computer & machine crank one out, and the result gets sent back to you with a minimum of comprehension by any humans involved - are _you_ "making" it? or is the printing house "making" it and, in effect, selling it to you? The legal line has been blurred.

adolph 15y ago

Is growing the same as buying? I wonder if the precedent of Gonzales v Raich would apply to printing firearms (if it were ever feasible). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich ...a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

monochromatic 15y ago
There will certainly be people to make that argument. But people already make guns, and it's not illegal (at least under federal law; some states probably do criminalize it). Selling a gun you've made is a problem, but making one for personal use? NBD.
- fleitz 15y ago
  IANAL, but mere possession of an automatic weapon is prohibited, is it not? I thought the idea behind the receiver for the AR15 is that with a slightly different receiver that the AR15 becomes an automatic weapon (aka. an M16)? Or are we talking about the semi-auto (AR15) receiver?
  - philwelch 15y ago
    The receiver doesn't make any difference at all whether it's full auto. Or rather, the legally designated lower receiver contains the firing mechanism (which can be full or semi auto), but the receiver itself is just a piece of steel and you can change out the actual mechanism.
    - monochromatic 15y ago
      Usually aluminum. But you are otherwise correct.
    - commandar 15y ago
      Not entirely accurate. The ATF actually specifically requires that semi-auto weapons are not readily convertible to fully automatic by way of a simple parts swap. A standard, semi-automatic AR-15 will not accept a full-auto M16 trigger group; the M16 trigger group requires an extra hole to be milled in the receiver which isn't present on semi-auto receivers.

jarrett 15y ago

Legally, I'd think this would be the same as if a gunsmith were to make a lower receiver for himself. If that activity would be regulated in a given jurisdiction, is there any reason printing the receiver wouldn't be? This article doesn't really get into the question of printing then subsequently transferring a receiver to another person. Were that to occur, I assume that the person who printed it would be regulated in exactly the same manner as any other gun manufacturer.

hvs 15y ago
I'm pretty sure the gov't would look at printing the receiver as precisely the same as milling one on a CNC machine. Transferring it is going to be treated the same as any other firearm transfer in the U.S. as well.
- jarrett 15y ago
  Exactly my point. I think all the speculation about the legal ramifications of printing a receiver is off-base. I see no reason why the government wouldn't view it as just another form of manufacturing.
- commandar 15y ago
  >Transferring it is going to be treated the same as any other firearm transfer in the U.S. as well. i.e., expect the BATFE to get rather upset with you if you manufacture a receiver intending to transfer it to someone else without being a licensed firearms manufacturer. Manufacturing a firearm for personal use is generally good to go as long as you stay within the bounds of NFA, etc regulations.

presidentender 15y ago

There's a concept called the 80% receiver, which is a freely-transferable hunk of metal that's almost but not quite a receiver. You can order a receiver flat for an AK-type rifle, a parts kit, and assemble a complete rifle for cheaper than you'd buy one. You need a means to heat treat the metal, and probably a drill press. That's not a much greater barrier to entry than the 3d printer for the lower receiver on an AR. So really, this doesn't change anything. This brings preexisting truths more prominently to the public discussion.

gonzo 15y ago
an AK? who wants that PoS? You can get an AR-15 lower blank for $100 or less. You can buy the tooling to allow you to use a drill press to make the receiver M-16 ready for not much more. http://www.cncguns.com/tooling.html http://www.cncguns.com/tooling.html No heat-treating necessary (it's just aluminum). Yes, you'll need a drill press.
- presidentender 15y ago
  I'm an FAL guy. AKs are just cheaper to build than almost anything else. The AR/AK debate is a very silly holy war. Come join on on /r/guns.
  - monochromatic 15y ago
    Fancy meeting you here.
  - gonzo 15y ago
    This must explain why ARs, not AKs or FALs took the stand at Camp Perry the past several years.
    - presidentender 15y ago
      The AR platform's direct impingement operating principle has a far greater accuracy potential than the AK or FAL's gas piston (or a piston AR, for that matter). DI is probably the best operating principle for building a supremely accurate semi-automatic rifle. That's why the M110 system is an AR, not just an updated M14. However, for the next generation of infantry rifles, you're seeing nothing but gas piston systems. Modern piston accuracy is "good enough" for the engagement distances that modern infantry units encounter. Modern DI rifles are "reliable enough" for the field conditions that trained, equipped first-world militaries operate under. However, I'm not a trained, equipped first-world military. I'm some random dude who'd rather spend more time shooting and less time cleaning. A gas piston rifle is much more tolerant of bad hygiene and maintenance than a DI rifle, and my FAL is still more accurate than I am from field positions. An AK isn't - I shoot better than even the nice Bulgarian AK-74s or converted Saigas. Most FALs are 3-4 MOA guns, and I'm about a 2-3 MOA shooter, depending on the day. But without an extremely steady rest like you see at Camp Perry, my FAL is more than accurate enough for my shooting.

Killah911 15y ago

Actual Laws aside, I get goosebumps thinking that this isn't completely sci-fi. Just because you can't print the whole weapon now doesn't mean you can't do it in 15 years or so. I can't wait till home depot is selling you "models" of nuts and bolts rather than actual nuts and bolts!

stewartbutler 15y ago
It is actually quite possible to print the entire gun, if you wanted to use a metal Selective Laser Sintering machine. They are just cost prohibitive ($500,000+). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_laser_sintering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_laser_sintering

tedjdziuba 15y ago

You can buy AK-47 receiver "flats", and press them into the correct shape to build a receiver. http://armsofamerica.com/ak47762flatwithrailstrunnionholes1995.aspx http://armsofamerica.com/ak47762flatwithrailstrunnionholes19... You do not need a license or a permit, just access to machine tools. Oh, and $22 for the flat.

kryptomaniac 15y ago
There's lots of parts you can buy that get you in a world of hurt if you make them. Say, trigger kits to turn a AR-15 in to select fire...

dholowiski 15y ago

We haven't even figured out if downloading a movie is 'stealing' yet, and now we have to figure out if printing gun parts is illegal too?

TheFuture 15y ago

Nevermind the dozen easier ways to get a gun without a background check... When will people realize bad people that want a gun, figure out how to get one. All the ridiculous waiting periods and background checks just hassle law abiding citizens.

epicviking 15y ago

http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Pistol-Workshop-Defense-Resistance/dp/0873648234/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316576203&sr=1-7 http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Pistol-Workshop-Defense-Resist... http://www.amazon.com/Bazooka-How-Build-Your-Own/dp/0873647386/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316576286&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Bazooka-How-Build-Your-Own/dp/08736473... Guns really are not that complicated. I wish I had the time and the cojones to actually try to make one of these.

sneak 15y ago
All the balls in the world doesn't make jail fun.

danssig 15y ago

This seems like over-analysis to me. Why is said villain going to be printing a gun? To rob money, right? And what is he going to do with this stolen money? Buy a car? Why doesn't he just print that instead? I think when the day arrives that we can just print out whatever we can get a blueprint to the world will be so drastically changed that our current biggest concerns won't even be relevant anymore.

losethos 15y ago

Pete told me I should carve soap. It took me a while...