17 ms·

The world’s first entirely 3D-printed gun has been made

135 points by marshc1 13y ago

swalsh 13y ago
I remember back in the days around columbine when zero tolerance became a thing. It was huge news when kids would bring plastic toy guns to school and get expelled. At least now there's some credible reasons to be afraid of that gun that looks like a toy ;)
winestock 13y ago
Scott Locklin had a weblog post giving background information on past attempts to use 3D printers to make guns. Note that this was published in August of last year. https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/bad-engineering-journalism-reporting-on-3-d-printing-of-guns/ https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/bad-engineerin...
btipling 13y ago
Why shouldn't we be afraid of 3D printed guns? I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the safer we are, but what can anyone do about this when you can simply buy a 3D printer and download a CAD file and begin mass producing an arsenal in secret?
- agildehaus 13y ago
  It's an eventuality we're all going to have to accept. The technology juggernaut doesn't care about its own ramifications. Unfortunately the price we pay for having convenience is people with nefarious purposes also have that convenience.
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    Speaking of "nefarious purposes": Blythe Masters, the creator of the CDS, is about to be put on the financial chopping block for her influential role in "nefarious purposes" (aforementioned creation of "convenience" and usage) that others also have the same usage of such "convenience". http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/jpmorgan-caught-in-swirl-of-regulatory-woes/?smid=tw-bna http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/jpmorgan-caught-in-sw... Where am i going with this? I'm sure the unemployed youth of spain and greece would long to get their hands on a couple "Liberators" for their "nefarious purposes".
- prawks 13y ago
  Regulate 3D printers.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    Appoint a Cabinet-level position for the War on "3-D Printers" and fund it.
    - redblacktree 13y ago
      Perfect! I'm sure we can manage something at least as effective as the War on Drugs!
      - reader5000 13y ago
        Drug regulation is incredibly effective and has saved millions of lives.
        nthj 13y ago
        [citation needed]
- exabrial 13y ago
  I really appreciate what Cody is doing for exactly that misconception. Reasonable regulations on firearms protect us from criminal lowlifes that want to make an easy dollar. However, when it comes down to it, a crazy person can take a knife and go on a mass stabbing (see recent events Apr 9, 2013). That is the point Cody is trying to make, is that we can't put our heads in the sand and pretend violence is never going to happen. Humans have fought each other since the age of written communication, so it is absurd to think removing weapons will decrease violence. I hate to sound like a hippie but what _will_ decrease violence is being less judgmental, compromise, reaching out to others, tolerance of those who are different, but most importantly: education.
  - reader5000 13y ago
    Yeah this is a common misconception. Guns cause violence and less guns correlates with less violent crime. Just remember, people are creatures of opportunity.
    - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
      IMHO, disarmament creates that opportunity for abuse. I've never seen someone take advantage of the strong.
      - reader5000 13y ago
        Every first world civilian population but a small minority of the US is "disarmed", none of them are being "abused".
        vy8vWJlco 13y ago
        Are you saying Switzerland is not part of the "first world"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gun_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gu... Germany invaded surrounding territories in WWII, but left Switzerland alone.
- ams6110 13y ago
  Don't be afraid of things. Be afraid of people with bad intentions.
  - Ives 13y ago
    Isn't it possible to be afraid of more than one thing?
  - kybernetikos 13y ago
    Or alternatively don't be afraid of either (after all, your chance of being significantly harmed by a person with bad intentions is nearly negligible in civilized countries if you don't go actively courting trouble - e.g. by being a violent gang member), but support reasonable measures to reduce the likelihood that a person with bad intentions comes into contact with massive force multipliers.
- vy8vWJlco 13y ago
  > "I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the safer we are" The best case scenario, IMHO, is that everyone has the means to defend themselves against abuse. I value equality. The worst case scenario, IMHO, is a single person or group with a disproportionate ability to abuse those who are defenseless against them - and they know it (your fewer-the-better scenario). IMHO, crime happens because people think they can get away with it. Good fences make good neighbors, IMHO, so I feel safer when everyone has a gun, for example, since disarmament creates an opportunity that wasn't there before. Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own.
  - aetimmes 13y ago
    The issue is making sure all actors in such a system is rational - no point in optimizing one constraint while ignoring the other.
    - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
      Actually, I don't see that as a necessary goal either since what is considered reasonable or rational in a society/system boils down to numbers - including what I tend to call useful or objective truths (even science is iterative). Since I also think everyone deserves an equal opportunity ("has the right") to choose what makes sense for his or her self, I don't feel a need/want to control anyone but myself (to make sure he or she chooses according to my morality, or current scientific theory) unless I absolutely have to interact with him or her. I only want to also be treated equally in any and all social interactions (such as having the right to own anything anyone else, government or non-government, may), and to otherwise be left alone wherever possible, since I am only trying to speak for myself.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own." Did it previously say "We don't like guns and we think..."?
    - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
- bmelton 13y ago
  At the risk of being polarizing, that's already a false assertion. If fewer people have guns, there will arguably be fewer gun crimes, but that depends entirely on which people still have them. If 100% of law abiding citizens' guns were to evaporate tomorrow, that doesn't make us any safer, as it still leaves possession of guns in the wrong hands. Ignoring that though, I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out that people can already legally produce weapons at their home and amass their own 'secret arsenals' with readily available technology (a drill press, $200 on Harbor Freight). The ATF allows for the purchase of what's referred to as an 80% firearm, which means it's a block of metal in the shape of a gun that simply hasn't had its trigger group milled out. A $200 drill press and a $100 jig allow me to currently manufacture a large number of firearms for personal use, so long as I don't manufacture them with the intent to sell. This might make it somewhat easier, and future generations of it almost certainly will, but at least for the moment you can rest assured that the printed product is vastly inferior to the firearms I can already manufacture in my garage and are not more convenient to make.
  - glhaynes 13y ago
    If 100% of law abiding citizens' guns were to evaporate tomorrow, that doesn't make us any safer, as it still leaves possession of guns in the wrong hands. That seems overly simplistic. How many people that shoot people were — before the shooting — law-abiding citizens? Probably lots.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Of course it's simplistic, as is the notion that less guns make us all safer. For the most part though, while there's no way to prove that a lawful citizen today won't become a criminal tomorrow, crime is largely perpetrated by known criminals. Put more simply, guns are a complicated issue. Eliminating all guns from the planet wouldn't solve all crime, nor would arming everyone on the planet. As a pragmatist, I find it hard to blame the hammer for the actions of the carpenter wielding it, but that seems to be so often the case when guns are involved.
      - 13y ago
columbo 13y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong: But anything you make with a 3d printer, ignoring super-high-precision work, you can make out of a block of wood and time, correct? The only real benefit to a 3d printer is it idiot-proofs the task and provides for greater precision. It'll be easier to create 10,000 cheap plastic guns but if you only need 1 because you're in the middle of a Tom Clancy novel then you may as well assemble it from pvc and other store-bought stuff. 3D printed guns will make great fodder for spy novels, but I don't really see them as a threat.
- leoedin 13y ago
  Pretty much yes. There are some shapes that aren't easily manufactured using traditional methods (enclosed holes, organic shapes) but those won't be needed for a gun. The fact is, someone with a few days of metal shop training and a lathe and milling machine can make a functional gun. They're not complicated things.
- krschultz 13y ago
  That's not actually true. 3D printers are additive manufacturing, i.e. you build up from nothing. Most hobbyist tools are generally subtractive manufacturing, i.e. you start with a block of raw material and remove sections with the tool. Additive manufacturing allows you to make some parts that are impossible with subtractive manufacturing. That said, you can make an entire gun using subtractive manufacturing, pretty standard metal, and a CNC mill. If we had a standardized library of CNC mill instructions you could just as easily share that as a STP file for 3D printing a gun.
  - AUmrysh 13y ago
    3d printing also allows you to make a lost-plastic cast with far less work than it would take to whittle and chisel a gun mold out of wood.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- peeters 13y ago
  The analog of a block of wood and time (or at least a chisel) would be a milling machine (e.g. CNC) since both are subtractive fabrication (you start with a solid pieces and remove material to get the result). 3D printing is additive (you start with nothing and add material to get the result). There are some things that would be possible in one but not the other. For example, creating a fully-enclosed hollow region is only possible in an additive process (though still challenging).
gunnm 13y ago
Metal detectors obsolete?
- jcomis 13y ago
  not unless they start printing plastic bullets and casings too.
  - RyJones 13y ago
    You mean like a tround ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardick_tround http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardick_tround ) or the delrin bullets used for indoors practice?
Zimahl 13y ago
There are a couple issues with the article that I'd love to address. While DD was making progress with its 3D-printed gun experiment, the company managed to get a license to become a legal manufacturer and vendor of guns, somewhat muddling the legal status of the 3D-printed gun, a weapon anyone with a 3D-printer could make at home. There's absolutely no "muddling" here. You can do any amount of gunsmithing you want, at home, and it's legal without a manufacturer's license up to a very specific point. You can feel free to make a stock, a trigger, a pistol grip, etc., but just don't make a receiver. On some guns there's a lower and upper receiver, in which case you can make the lower without the license. Make the upper without a license and you're in trouble. Side note: don't make a silencer either. They are easy enough to make and you don't need the license to make it, but you do need the license to own it. The Liberator still has some more testing to go through It's probably damn close to a 1-shot gun and then replace the barrel. It also won't have rifling so it won't be accurate. The cartridge next to the gun in the picture appears to be a .22 short which is probably the maximum the plastic can handle. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near this thing when a .38 or 9mm cartridge is fired. The plastic won't contain the significant force. but the lack of requiring a license — and the gun’s lack of a serial number — are unsettling thoughts. Much like you don't technically need a license to make a gun, you don't need a license to drive a car. Simple guns have been made by machinists for a long, long time. And you don't need a serial number on a gun either but if you are found with a gun sans serial number it's a felony with huge prison time. But cops see guns with serial numbers shaved off all the time. I understand the threat of plastic guns getting on a plane or through security but you'd still need to get a bullet through as well which wouldn't be so easy.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  When it comes to law and guns, don't be wrong. One oops and you're in prison for 10 years. On some guns there's a lower and upper receiver, in which case you can make the lower without the license. Make the upper without a license and you're in trouble. Not in the USA. Here, the "lower receiver" (at least for the AR15, the quintessential semiautomatic rifle most presume for this discussion and what DD is making) is the gun. Uppers you can freely make; lowers you can make in small quantities so long as there is no indication you'll sell them as a business. [Silencers] are easy enough to make and you don't need the license to make OH YES YOU DO. It's a $200 manufacturing tax per item, background check, Chief LEO signature, and related paperwork before you start making one. This is one of those things that WILL get you 10 years in prison fast. HN being an international phenomenon, your jurisdiction may vary greatly in both legality and severity of punishment for violations.
noonespecial 13y ago
Remember that a hammer and a pair of pliers is also a "gun" if you happen to have a bullet. Its dangerous to fire, hard to aim, and has a very low muzzle velocity, but it does meet the criteria.
- bd_at_rivenhill 13y ago
  Actually, I think you need some sort of tightly fitting metal tube as well, otherwise the cartridge case will just split.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    There have been many prison guns made from a piece of wood with a slot cut in it. That's enough to keep the case from splitting enough of the time on a low powered round to be useful.
waffle_ss 13y ago
Based on the name Liberator and the shape, it's probably an homage to the FP-45 Liberator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator The FP-45 was created to basically be good for one shot. You would use it at close range to incapacitate someone with a better weapon (e.g. an occupying soldier) and take theirs.
- nickpinkston 13y ago
  Exactly my thought too - surprised that wasn't mentioned. Also funny in this is that this gun was produced by the OSS (pre CIA) for WWII resistance groups. It was dropped en masse behind enemy lines in hope that they'd find their way to the partisans.
reader5000 13y ago
The analogous technological situation is with color printers and counterfeiting money. The color printer did not bring about a "counterfeiting revolution" or "distributed currency" or anything like that. Simply manufacturers of the printers have software preventing printing of realistic currency. When the 3d printing industry reaches some sort of maturity, IF it ever goes mainstream, similar measures will be instituted. Hell, I haven't read the relevant law but quite possibly he's already in violation of the Undetectable Firearms Act. Any federal prosecutors keeping up with this story? Ortiz? Basically all you have here is a privileged middle class kid who enjoys media attention and getting reactions from people.
- olympus 13y ago
  The article mentions that it has a 6-ounce chunk of metal in it so it is detectable. The guys at DD seem to be on top of their legal game.
  - reader5000 13y ago
    If the chunk of metal is easily removable I'm not so sure.
- samstave 13y ago
  Sorta. I think the analogy with printing money would be predicated on the materials suitable for counterfeit money were available I.E. the proper paper. With 3D printing a gun, the materials are ubiquitous and cheap.
  - reader5000 13y ago
    You don't need the exact material for a quality counterfeit bill. I don't think sufficient bill-like materials are any more scarce than the high-grade plastics these guns need, not to mention bullets and gunpowder.
    - samstave 13y ago
      Hmm... I am not willing to research if counterfeiting materials are indeed more easily available than I believed. :)
samstave 13y ago
They couldn't believe this had happened. Not because they couldn't imagine it... even though it took some great amount of imagination to develop such a cleverly devious plot, but because it has happened now. The thought of this happening in 2014 was much earlier than many would have predicted. Any average team would have thought this scenario to be a reality in the much more distopian cyber-punk fantasy of 2020... but 2014. It's still amazing that the device didn't raise red flags. The fact that she was able to get it through security is surprising and understandable at the same time. There was no way the average security agent would have any clue what he was looking at, but even then, her demonstration would fool even the most skeptical security officer. Witnesses and video show how her demonstration of the device marvelled all that saw it. While painted nicely, looking sleek and high tech - it's output seemed innocent enough. The device is an engineering masterpiece. Hard to believe that this much thought and innovation went into a plot so vile and base. It's unclear if this is the only device - but given the age we live in, surely the plans are already in the hands of every major organized crime group on the planet... At least that is how we should operate. The demonstration, using the touch screen on the side of the device to select from a vast list of printable toys and do-dads was impressive. The speed with which it output the objects was unreal. The quality unmatched. Nobody would have suspected what was to happen next. She got into the conference, past both the physical and electronic scrutiny and quelled any suspicion of her intent. What exactly happened next is still be investigated, but as best as we know, she was able to take the device into the storage room, complete her print and return to the conference floor to carry out the assassination. The gun printed was a marvel. A multi-shot, 100% printed mini rail-gun. The full body printed from the very machine that would then provide its power and ammunition. At first, there was so much confusion, the rail-gun was relatively silent, and even though the PM was shot in front of nearly a thousand spectators, the deadly near-silence of the railgun prevented immediate involuntary reactions the crowed would have to any other gun. This was different, a new era, one of those events where you know the world has changed and will never go back. The device's ability to print out a fully working, multi-shot railgun in a matter of minutes and for that weapon to then be able to be used within minutes of being produced to assassinate one of the most prominent leaders in the world amidst the most advanced security governments can provide is truly a game changing event. The assassin, while an unassuming, yet beautiful woman in her early 30s is believed to come from the Balkans. A region with a long history of controversial relations with Russia. While plots against Putin may have been considered in the past - it was not thought that there would actually be any credible threat coming from this region, and certainly never any threat as technologically advanced or innovative as this successful plot against him. It's only been hours now since Putin was assassinated - but the repurcussions from this event will be massive, swift and likely extreme. 3D printing of conventional guns has been hotly debated in the last two years - but this, this is on a whole new level. There are already talks of licensure and control of designs, supplies and media. There is no way to track plastic and no way to regulate it. Governments are in a panic as to how to deal with this now.
stephengillie 13y ago
Any bets on how long before they get some sort of printed plastic projectile to fire from this gun?
- bmelton 13y ago
  That already exists, basically. You could manufacture hard-resin BBs for use in shotgun shells, or even hard-plastic discs for use in something like a Taurus Judge right now. Manufacturing bullet tips wouldn't be any strange feat either, though you'd almost certainly find them less effective than metal bullet tips. The real trick would be in printing gunpowder, which I'm sure is a somewhat tangential field of research.
lispm 13y ago
How about 3d-printing something actually useful? Something which mankind actually really needs. Something which helps creating energy, making clean water, ...? Cool, you can print guns. Next you can print bombs and all kinds of weapons. How about using a new technology for something useful? Sure you can make a statement by 3d printing a weapon. But with a little brain one should actually understand that there are a few other things which would be much more helpful. Just 'because you can' is fine. But this has been demonstrated already. Now it would be nice if people would demonstrate that they have a brain.
- reader5000 13y ago
  Because he wouldn't get as much attention.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  > Now it would be nice if people would demonstrate that they have a brain. Thanks for contributing to the bigotry that all gun owners are pernicious idiots. How is this any better than any other form of prejudgement or "othering" based on any other political stance? Answer: it's not. "Othering" based on a political stance is slow poison to a democratic government. What Ben Franklin said about hanging together is just as true today. If you have ever complained about a media outlet like Fox News engaging in this behavior, then guess what: you just did it yourself.
  - lispm 13y ago
    > Thanks for contributing to the bigotry that all gun owners are pernicious idiots. Strawman. You made that up. There are a lot of guns already and we produce even more. There are hundreds of millions of guns on this planet. How about solving actual real problems? Clean water? Renewable energy? Food for all? What I said is this: it is brainless to produce even more guns, instead of investing brains into more important problems.
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      > Strawman. You made that up. Oh, please! > What I said is this: it is brainless to produce even more guns, instead of investing brains into more important problems. I agree with your sentiment, but what I said about the earlier quoted line is true and is also true about the above. You may disagree with someone about public policy, but that doesn't entitle you to call them "brainless." It's called "civil discourse" for a reason, and I know you don't have to look up the word "civil." Have you built a 3D printer? I have. (And not a RepRap derivative either!) Have you ever developed a your own plans for a device or a sellable useful object from one? I have. If you have, then you should know that this is not a "brainless" activity. Even producing a one-shot disposable pistol on one is far from "brainless." I also agree with your priority ordering: That was never my issue. (Reread the above, and reply to my actual position, please!)
thangalin 13y ago
In 1822, Charles Babbage wrote about a plan to print mathematical tables using a machine. Yet not until 1979, 157 years later, did Epson's competitively priced printer hit homes, establishing a market for such trinkets. The burgeoning realm of computer printers was launched. Today, mass-produced printers flourish, present in nearly every North American home, owing to a visionary mathematician. In 1984, Charles Hull invented stereo-lithography: the ability to print tangible 3D objects. By 2002, scientists had engineered a functioning kidney, demonstrating the idea of printable organs. In 2008, the first printer capable of printing most of its own parts was created. The year 2012 saw the first 3D-printed prosthetic implant. Printing 3D objects is a technology poised to bloom. In 1901, Ransom Olds invented the modern assembly line, ushering an era of mass production. His idea allowed manufacturers to make everything from horseless carriages to automatic weapons on an unprecedented scale, but not with free rein. Factory owners, distributors, and stores must abide by certain regulations, including strict gun controls. In a world of mass-produced, manufactured goods, drafting laws that restrict who can buy or produce guns makes sense. Hardly will it take 157 years for 3D printers to go from hobbyist tinker-toy to standard home appliance. The technology is advancing faster than a speeding bullet. A decade hence will dawn the age of 3D printers, wounding the mass production industry and killing certain government controls. Once people can print plastic cups and assorted nicknacks from their couch, the proliferation of untraceable guns could be... explosive.
cdjk 13y ago
I don't quite get the big concern about 3D printed guns, although printing the barrel is impressive. It's been possible to make a gun (as defined by US firearms law) at home for a long time with cnc equipment: http://cncguns.com/ http://cncguns.com/ In fact, it's possible to buy an "80% lower receiver" for an AR-15 and some jigs that will let you finish it on a drill press. 80% is the magic number at which it's no longer considered a firearm. Even with advances in 3D printing I'd much rather shoot a metal firearm than a printed one. I'd also assume that they're using a fairly pricey 3D printer, or doing a lot of finishing work, and not using a stock reprap or the like. If AK-47s are more interesting, they can be made out of sheet metal. Also, I'm pretty sure the name is a reference to the FP-45 liberator, which was designed to be used by the resistance during WWII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator
- KevinMS 13y ago
  Everybody should be aware of this. This fact makes the current debate about assault weapons seem even more convoluted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koSSNwTpaRM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koSSNwTpaRM UPDATE:: Jeez guys you are sensitive. No I'm not against guns at all. In fact I wouldn't care if you could buy machine guns at sears. I was pointing out that with all the current "debate" over universal background checks, including mental fitness in background checks, 'assault clips' etc, can't be anything else than demagoguery if anybody can go buy a drill press and order anonymously any if the parts for an AR-15 online legally.
  - sillysaurus 13y ago
    Why are you against banning assault weapons in principle? (I've been hoping for some time that someone would explain this.)
    - cdjk 13y ago
      There's no clear definition of an assault weapon. Fully automatic weapons have essentially been banned since 1986 [1]. Once you take away that, the bans on assault weapons pretty much amount to bans on firearms that look scary. Perhaps an AR-15 with a polymer stock will be lighter than a hunting rifle with a wood stock, but ultimately they amount to the same thing. My objection is that bans based on how something looks are silly. [1] If you want to get technical, only manufacture of new fully automatic weapons is banned at a federal level. Transfer is still legal, as long as you pay the appropriate taxes and the firearm was manufactured before 1986. Given the limited supply and high prices ($10k+, easily), however, they're extremely rare. States may also have separate bans, like in California.
kailuowang 13y ago
Has anyone 3D-printed a guillotine yet?
randyrand 13y ago
If we can make guns entirely out of plastic, why haven't we seen plastic guns before? For decades we've been able to do everything that's possible with a 3d printer with older technology injection molds, cnc mills, ect.
- bmelton 13y ago
  The interior of a firearm with a firearm control group, firing pin, etc., is kind of detailed. On top of that, to manufacture it with more moldable soft plastic would be very hard because the resultant product wouldn't be substantial enough to withstand the pressures of a bullet's expelled energy. You might have been able to manufacture some hard-plastic extruded gun in the past, but as with this one, it wouldn't have been great, and it would have cost a lot in the way of equipment. The only real novelty here is that it's doable from home on a relatively inexpensive device.
epynonymous 13y ago
can you imagine the ramfications of this getting into the wrong hands?
farabove 13y ago
This is just sad. We don't need more guns in this world.
kumarski 13y ago
What is the cost of printing vs. CNC milling a gun?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Are you including the cost of buying/leasing the equipment, or just the cost of renting time on someone elses? I imagine CNC mills are easier to rent time on unless you've got a local hackerspace (which quite possibly will not be keen on printing a gun for you). They would also produce a much more practical product, ...and probably be much more expensive to buy outright. If instead of a CNC mill you just need the equipment to finish an 80% lower receiver, then you need far less money than either of the other two options, and you get a very practical product for your effort.
jared314 13y ago
I have the feeling this will end up like the electric car. It will be built, proven/sold, squashed, replaced by something inferior from outside the country, then slowly reappear over the next decade.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Heh, what exactly could be technically inferior to the gun pictured? I can't imagine it being good for more than one low powered round, and not even reliable for that. Also, these people just distribute CAD files for free over the internet. I'm not sure how the country of origin or the economics of "good enough" come into this.

135 points by marshc1 13y ago

I remember back in the days around columbine when zero tolerance became a thing. It was huge news when kids would bring plastic toy guns to school and get expelled. At least now there's some credible reasons to be afraid of that gun that looks like a toy ;)

winestock 13y ago

Scott Locklin had a weblog post giving background information on past attempts to use 3D printers to make guns. Note that this was published in August of last year. https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/bad-engineering-journalism-reporting-on-3-d-printing-of-guns/ https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/bad-engineerin...

btipling 13y ago

Why shouldn't we be afraid of 3D printed guns? I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the safer we are, but what can anyone do about this when you can simply buy a 3D printer and download a CAD file and begin mass producing an arsenal in secret?

agildehaus 13y ago
It's an eventuality we're all going to have to accept. The technology juggernaut doesn't care about its own ramifications. Unfortunately the price we pay for having convenience is people with nefarious purposes also have that convenience.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  Speaking of "nefarious purposes": Blythe Masters, the creator of the CDS, is about to be put on the financial chopping block for her influential role in "nefarious purposes" (aforementioned creation of "convenience" and usage) that others also have the same usage of such "convenience". http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/jpmorgan-caught-in-swirl-of-regulatory-woes/?smid=tw-bna http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/jpmorgan-caught-in-sw... Where am i going with this? I'm sure the unemployed youth of spain and greece would long to get their hands on a couple "Liberators" for their "nefarious purposes".
prawks 13y ago
Regulate 3D printers.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  Appoint a Cabinet-level position for the War on "3-D Printers" and fund it.
  - redblacktree 13y ago
    Perfect! I'm sure we can manage something at least as effective as the War on Drugs!
    - reader5000 13y ago
      Drug regulation is incredibly effective and has saved millions of lives.
      - nthj 13y ago
        [citation needed]
exabrial 13y ago
I really appreciate what Cody is doing for exactly that misconception. Reasonable regulations on firearms protect us from criminal lowlifes that want to make an easy dollar. However, when it comes down to it, a crazy person can take a knife and go on a mass stabbing (see recent events Apr 9, 2013). That is the point Cody is trying to make, is that we can't put our heads in the sand and pretend violence is never going to happen. Humans have fought each other since the age of written communication, so it is absurd to think removing weapons will decrease violence. I hate to sound like a hippie but what _will_ decrease violence is being less judgmental, compromise, reaching out to others, tolerance of those who are different, but most importantly: education.
- reader5000 13y ago
  Yeah this is a common misconception. Guns cause violence and less guns correlates with less violent crime. Just remember, people are creatures of opportunity.
  - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
    IMHO, disarmament creates that opportunity for abuse. I've never seen someone take advantage of the strong.
    - reader5000 13y ago
      Every first world civilian population but a small minority of the US is "disarmed", none of them are being "abused".
      - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
        Are you saying Switzerland is not part of the "first world"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gun_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gu... Germany invaded surrounding territories in WWII, but left Switzerland alone.
ams6110 13y ago
Don't be afraid of things. Be afraid of people with bad intentions.
- Ives 13y ago
  Isn't it possible to be afraid of more than one thing?
- kybernetikos 13y ago
  Or alternatively don't be afraid of either (after all, your chance of being significantly harmed by a person with bad intentions is nearly negligible in civilized countries if you don't go actively courting trouble - e.g. by being a violent gang member), but support reasonable measures to reduce the likelihood that a person with bad intentions comes into contact with massive force multipliers.
vy8vWJlco 13y ago
> "I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the safer we are" The best case scenario, IMHO, is that everyone has the means to defend themselves against abuse. I value equality. The worst case scenario, IMHO, is a single person or group with a disproportionate ability to abuse those who are defenseless against them - and they know it (your fewer-the-better scenario). IMHO, crime happens because people think they can get away with it. Good fences make good neighbors, IMHO, so I feel safer when everyone has a gun, for example, since disarmament creates an opportunity that wasn't there before. Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own.
- aetimmes 13y ago
  The issue is making sure all actors in such a system is rational - no point in optimizing one constraint while ignoring the other.
  - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
    Actually, I don't see that as a necessary goal either since what is considered reasonable or rational in a society/system boils down to numbers - including what I tend to call useful or objective truths (even science is iterative). Since I also think everyone deserves an equal opportunity ("has the right") to choose what makes sense for his or her self, I don't feel a need/want to control anyone but myself (to make sure he or she chooses according to my morality, or current scientific theory) unless I absolutely have to interact with him or her. I only want to also be treated equally in any and all social interactions (such as having the right to own anything anyone else, government or non-government, may), and to otherwise be left alone wherever possible, since I am only trying to speak for myself.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own." Did it previously say "We don't like guns and we think..."?
  - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
bmelton 13y ago
At the risk of being polarizing, that's already a false assertion. If fewer people have guns, there will arguably be fewer gun crimes, but that depends entirely on which people still have them. If 100% of law abiding citizens' guns were to evaporate tomorrow, that doesn't make us any safer, as it still leaves possession of guns in the wrong hands. Ignoring that though, I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out that people can already legally produce weapons at their home and amass their own 'secret arsenals' with readily available technology (a drill press, $200 on Harbor Freight). The ATF allows for the purchase of what's referred to as an 80% firearm, which means it's a block of metal in the shape of a gun that simply hasn't had its trigger group milled out. A $200 drill press and a $100 jig allow me to currently manufacture a large number of firearms for personal use, so long as I don't manufacture them with the intent to sell. This might make it somewhat easier, and future generations of it almost certainly will, but at least for the moment you can rest assured that the printed product is vastly inferior to the firearms I can already manufacture in my garage and are not more convenient to make.
- glhaynes 13y ago
  If 100% of law abiding citizens' guns were to evaporate tomorrow, that doesn't make us any safer, as it still leaves possession of guns in the wrong hands. That seems overly simplistic. How many people that shoot people were — before the shooting — law-abiding citizens? Probably lots.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Of course it's simplistic, as is the notion that less guns make us all safer. For the most part though, while there's no way to prove that a lawful citizen today won't become a criminal tomorrow, crime is largely perpetrated by known criminals. Put more simply, guns are a complicated issue. Eliminating all guns from the planet wouldn't solve all crime, nor would arming everyone on the planet. As a pragmatist, I find it hard to blame the hammer for the actions of the carpenter wielding it, but that seems to be so often the case when guns are involved.
    - 13y ago

columbo 13y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong: But anything you make with a 3d printer, ignoring super-high-precision work, you can make out of a block of wood and time, correct? The only real benefit to a 3d printer is it idiot-proofs the task and provides for greater precision. It'll be easier to create 10,000 cheap plastic guns but if you only need 1 because you're in the middle of a Tom Clancy novel then you may as well assemble it from pvc and other store-bought stuff. 3D printed guns will make great fodder for spy novels, but I don't really see them as a threat.

leoedin 13y ago
Pretty much yes. There are some shapes that aren't easily manufactured using traditional methods (enclosed holes, organic shapes) but those won't be needed for a gun. The fact is, someone with a few days of metal shop training and a lathe and milling machine can make a functional gun. They're not complicated things.
krschultz 13y ago
That's not actually true. 3D printers are additive manufacturing, i.e. you build up from nothing. Most hobbyist tools are generally subtractive manufacturing, i.e. you start with a block of raw material and remove sections with the tool. Additive manufacturing allows you to make some parts that are impossible with subtractive manufacturing. That said, you can make an entire gun using subtractive manufacturing, pretty standard metal, and a CNC mill. If we had a standardized library of CNC mill instructions you could just as easily share that as a STP file for 3D printing a gun.
- AUmrysh 13y ago
  3d printing also allows you to make a lost-plastic cast with far less work than it would take to whittle and chisel a gun mold out of wood.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
peeters 13y ago
The analog of a block of wood and time (or at least a chisel) would be a milling machine (e.g. CNC) since both are subtractive fabrication (you start with a solid pieces and remove material to get the result). 3D printing is additive (you start with nothing and add material to get the result). There are some things that would be possible in one but not the other. For example, creating a fully-enclosed hollow region is only possible in an additive process (though still challenging).

gunnm 13y ago

Metal detectors obsolete?

jcomis 13y ago
not unless they start printing plastic bullets and casings too.
- RyJones 13y ago
  You mean like a tround ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardick_tround http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardick_tround ) or the delrin bullets used for indoors practice?

Zimahl 13y ago

There are a couple issues with the article that I'd love to address. While DD was making progress with its 3D-printed gun experiment, the company managed to get a license to become a legal manufacturer and vendor of guns, somewhat muddling the legal status of the 3D-printed gun, a weapon anyone with a 3D-printer could make at home. There's absolutely no "muddling" here. You can do any amount of gunsmithing you want, at home, and it's legal without a manufacturer's license up to a very specific point. You can feel free to make a stock, a trigger, a pistol grip, etc., but just don't make a receiver. On some guns there's a lower and upper receiver, in which case you can make the lower without the license. Make the upper without a license and you're in trouble. Side note: don't make a silencer either. They are easy enough to make and you don't need the license to make it, but you do need the license to own it. The Liberator still has some more testing to go through It's probably damn close to a 1-shot gun and then replace the barrel. It also won't have rifling so it won't be accurate. The cartridge next to the gun in the picture appears to be a .22 short which is probably the maximum the plastic can handle. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near this thing when a .38 or 9mm cartridge is fired. The plastic won't contain the significant force. but the lack of requiring a license — and the gun’s lack of a serial number — are unsettling thoughts. Much like you don't technically need a license to make a gun, you don't need a license to drive a car. Simple guns have been made by machinists for a long, long time. And you don't need a serial number on a gun either but if you are found with a gun sans serial number it's a felony with huge prison time. But cops see guns with serial numbers shaved off all the time. I understand the threat of plastic guns getting on a plane or through security but you'd still need to get a bullet through as well which wouldn't be so easy.

ctdonath 13y ago
When it comes to law and guns, don't be wrong. One oops and you're in prison for 10 years. On some guns there's a lower and upper receiver, in which case you can make the lower without the license. Make the upper without a license and you're in trouble. Not in the USA. Here, the "lower receiver" (at least for the AR15, the quintessential semiautomatic rifle most presume for this discussion and what DD is making) is the gun. Uppers you can freely make; lowers you can make in small quantities so long as there is no indication you'll sell them as a business. [Silencers] are easy enough to make and you don't need the license to make OH YES YOU DO. It's a $200 manufacturing tax per item, background check, Chief LEO signature, and related paperwork before you start making one. This is one of those things that WILL get you 10 years in prison fast. HN being an international phenomenon, your jurisdiction may vary greatly in both legality and severity of punishment for violations.

noonespecial 13y ago

Remember that a hammer and a pair of pliers is also a "gun" if you happen to have a bullet. Its dangerous to fire, hard to aim, and has a very low muzzle velocity, but it does meet the criteria.

bd_at_rivenhill 13y ago
Actually, I think you need some sort of tightly fitting metal tube as well, otherwise the cartridge case will just split.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  There have been many prison guns made from a piece of wood with a slot cut in it. That's enough to keep the case from splitting enough of the time on a low powered round to be useful.

waffle_ss 13y ago

Based on the name Liberator and the shape, it's probably an homage to the FP-45 Liberator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator The FP-45 was created to basically be good for one shot. You would use it at close range to incapacitate someone with a better weapon (e.g. an occupying soldier) and take theirs.

nickpinkston 13y ago
Exactly my thought too - surprised that wasn't mentioned. Also funny in this is that this gun was produced by the OSS (pre CIA) for WWII resistance groups. It was dropped en masse behind enemy lines in hope that they'd find their way to the partisans.

reader5000 13y ago

The analogous technological situation is with color printers and counterfeiting money. The color printer did not bring about a "counterfeiting revolution" or "distributed currency" or anything like that. Simply manufacturers of the printers have software preventing printing of realistic currency. When the 3d printing industry reaches some sort of maturity, IF it ever goes mainstream, similar measures will be instituted. Hell, I haven't read the relevant law but quite possibly he's already in violation of the Undetectable Firearms Act. Any federal prosecutors keeping up with this story? Ortiz? Basically all you have here is a privileged middle class kid who enjoys media attention and getting reactions from people.

olympus 13y ago
The article mentions that it has a 6-ounce chunk of metal in it so it is detectable. The guys at DD seem to be on top of their legal game.
- reader5000 13y ago
  If the chunk of metal is easily removable I'm not so sure.
samstave 13y ago
Sorta. I think the analogy with printing money would be predicated on the materials suitable for counterfeit money were available I.E. the proper paper. With 3D printing a gun, the materials are ubiquitous and cheap.
- reader5000 13y ago
  You don't need the exact material for a quality counterfeit bill. I don't think sufficient bill-like materials are any more scarce than the high-grade plastics these guns need, not to mention bullets and gunpowder.
  - samstave 13y ago
    Hmm... I am not willing to research if counterfeiting materials are indeed more easily available than I believed. :)

samstave 13y ago

They couldn't believe this had happened. Not because they couldn't imagine it... even though it took some great amount of imagination to develop such a cleverly devious plot, but because it has happened now. The thought of this happening in 2014 was much earlier than many would have predicted. Any average team would have thought this scenario to be a reality in the much more distopian cyber-punk fantasy of 2020... but 2014. It's still amazing that the device didn't raise red flags. The fact that she was able to get it through security is surprising and understandable at the same time. There was no way the average security agent would have any clue what he was looking at, but even then, her demonstration would fool even the most skeptical security officer. Witnesses and video show how her demonstration of the device marvelled all that saw it. While painted nicely, looking sleek and high tech - it's output seemed innocent enough. The device is an engineering masterpiece. Hard to believe that this much thought and innovation went into a plot so vile and base. It's unclear if this is the only device - but given the age we live in, surely the plans are already in the hands of every major organized crime group on the planet... At least that is how we should operate. The demonstration, using the touch screen on the side of the device to select from a vast list of printable toys and do-dads was impressive. The speed with which it output the objects was unreal. The quality unmatched. Nobody would have suspected what was to happen next. She got into the conference, past both the physical and electronic scrutiny and quelled any suspicion of her intent. What exactly happened next is still be investigated, but as best as we know, she was able to take the device into the storage room, complete her print and return to the conference floor to carry out the assassination. The gun printed was a marvel. A multi-shot, 100% printed mini rail-gun. The full body printed from the very machine that would then provide its power and ammunition. At first, there was so much confusion, the rail-gun was relatively silent, and even though the PM was shot in front of nearly a thousand spectators, the deadly near-silence of the railgun prevented immediate involuntary reactions the crowed would have to any other gun. This was different, a new era, one of those events where you know the world has changed and will never go back. The device's ability to print out a fully working, multi-shot railgun in a matter of minutes and for that weapon to then be able to be used within minutes of being produced to assassinate one of the most prominent leaders in the world amidst the most advanced security governments can provide is truly a game changing event. The assassin, while an unassuming, yet beautiful woman in her early 30s is believed to come from the Balkans. A region with a long history of controversial relations with Russia. While plots against Putin may have been considered in the past - it was not thought that there would actually be any credible threat coming from this region, and certainly never any threat as technologically advanced or innovative as this successful plot against him. It's only been hours now since Putin was assassinated - but the repurcussions from this event will be massive, swift and likely extreme. 3D printing of conventional guns has been hotly debated in the last two years - but this, this is on a whole new level. There are already talks of licensure and control of designs, supplies and media. There is no way to track plastic and no way to regulate it. Governments are in a panic as to how to deal with this now.

stephengillie 13y ago

Any bets on how long before they get some sort of printed plastic projectile to fire from this gun?

bmelton 13y ago
That already exists, basically. You could manufacture hard-resin BBs for use in shotgun shells, or even hard-plastic discs for use in something like a Taurus Judge right now. Manufacturing bullet tips wouldn't be any strange feat either, though you'd almost certainly find them less effective than metal bullet tips. The real trick would be in printing gunpowder, which I'm sure is a somewhat tangential field of research.

lispm 13y ago

How about 3d-printing something actually useful? Something which mankind actually really needs. Something which helps creating energy, making clean water, ...? Cool, you can print guns. Next you can print bombs and all kinds of weapons. How about using a new technology for something useful? Sure you can make a statement by 3d printing a weapon. But with a little brain one should actually understand that there are a few other things which would be much more helpful. Just 'because you can' is fine. But this has been demonstrated already. Now it would be nice if people would demonstrate that they have a brain.

reader5000 13y ago
Because he wouldn't get as much attention.
stcredzero 13y ago
> Now it would be nice if people would demonstrate that they have a brain. Thanks for contributing to the bigotry that all gun owners are pernicious idiots. How is this any better than any other form of prejudgement or "othering" based on any other political stance? Answer: it's not. "Othering" based on a political stance is slow poison to a democratic government. What Ben Franklin said about hanging together is just as true today. If you have ever complained about a media outlet like Fox News engaging in this behavior, then guess what: you just did it yourself.
- lispm 13y ago
  > Thanks for contributing to the bigotry that all gun owners are pernicious idiots. Strawman. You made that up. There are a lot of guns already and we produce even more. There are hundreds of millions of guns on this planet. How about solving actual real problems? Clean water? Renewable energy? Food for all? What I said is this: it is brainless to produce even more guns, instead of investing brains into more important problems.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    > Strawman. You made that up. Oh, please! > What I said is this: it is brainless to produce even more guns, instead of investing brains into more important problems. I agree with your sentiment, but what I said about the earlier quoted line is true and is also true about the above. You may disagree with someone about public policy, but that doesn't entitle you to call them "brainless." It's called "civil discourse" for a reason, and I know you don't have to look up the word "civil." Have you built a 3D printer? I have. (And not a RepRap derivative either!) Have you ever developed a your own plans for a device or a sellable useful object from one? I have. If you have, then you should know that this is not a "brainless" activity. Even producing a one-shot disposable pistol on one is far from "brainless." I also agree with your priority ordering: That was never my issue. (Reread the above, and reply to my actual position, please!)

thangalin 13y ago

In 1822, Charles Babbage wrote about a plan to print mathematical tables using a machine. Yet not until 1979, 157 years later, did Epson's competitively priced printer hit homes, establishing a market for such trinkets. The burgeoning realm of computer printers was launched. Today, mass-produced printers flourish, present in nearly every North American home, owing to a visionary mathematician. In 1984, Charles Hull invented stereo-lithography: the ability to print tangible 3D objects. By 2002, scientists had engineered a functioning kidney, demonstrating the idea of printable organs. In 2008, the first printer capable of printing most of its own parts was created. The year 2012 saw the first 3D-printed prosthetic implant. Printing 3D objects is a technology poised to bloom. In 1901, Ransom Olds invented the modern assembly line, ushering an era of mass production. His idea allowed manufacturers to make everything from horseless carriages to automatic weapons on an unprecedented scale, but not with free rein. Factory owners, distributors, and stores must abide by certain regulations, including strict gun controls. In a world of mass-produced, manufactured goods, drafting laws that restrict who can buy or produce guns makes sense. Hardly will it take 157 years for 3D printers to go from hobbyist tinker-toy to standard home appliance. The technology is advancing faster than a speeding bullet. A decade hence will dawn the age of 3D printers, wounding the mass production industry and killing certain government controls. Once people can print plastic cups and assorted nicknacks from their couch, the proliferation of untraceable guns could be... explosive.

cdjk 13y ago

I don't quite get the big concern about 3D printed guns, although printing the barrel is impressive. It's been possible to make a gun (as defined by US firearms law) at home for a long time with cnc equipment: http://cncguns.com/ http://cncguns.com/ In fact, it's possible to buy an "80% lower receiver" for an AR-15 and some jigs that will let you finish it on a drill press. 80% is the magic number at which it's no longer considered a firearm. Even with advances in 3D printing I'd much rather shoot a metal firearm than a printed one. I'd also assume that they're using a fairly pricey 3D printer, or doing a lot of finishing work, and not using a stock reprap or the like. If AK-47s are more interesting, they can be made out of sheet metal. Also, I'm pretty sure the name is a reference to the FP-45 liberator, which was designed to be used by the resistance during WWII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

KevinMS 13y ago
Everybody should be aware of this. This fact makes the current debate about assault weapons seem even more convoluted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koSSNwTpaRM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koSSNwTpaRM UPDATE:: Jeez guys you are sensitive. No I'm not against guns at all. In fact I wouldn't care if you could buy machine guns at sears. I was pointing out that with all the current "debate" over universal background checks, including mental fitness in background checks, 'assault clips' etc, can't be anything else than demagoguery if anybody can go buy a drill press and order anonymously any if the parts for an AR-15 online legally.
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  Why are you against banning assault weapons in principle? (I've been hoping for some time that someone would explain this.)
  - cdjk 13y ago
    There's no clear definition of an assault weapon. Fully automatic weapons have essentially been banned since 1986 [1]. Once you take away that, the bans on assault weapons pretty much amount to bans on firearms that look scary. Perhaps an AR-15 with a polymer stock will be lighter than a hunting rifle with a wood stock, but ultimately they amount to the same thing. My objection is that bans based on how something looks are silly. [1] If you want to get technical, only manufacture of new fully automatic weapons is banned at a federal level. Transfer is still legal, as long as you pay the appropriate taxes and the firearm was manufactured before 1986. Given the limited supply and high prices ($10k+, easily), however, they're extremely rare. States may also have separate bans, like in California.

kailuowang 13y ago

Has anyone 3D-printed a guillotine yet?

randyrand 13y ago

If we can make guns entirely out of plastic, why haven't we seen plastic guns before? For decades we've been able to do everything that's possible with a 3d printer with older technology injection molds, cnc mills, ect.

bmelton 13y ago
The interior of a firearm with a firearm control group, firing pin, etc., is kind of detailed. On top of that, to manufacture it with more moldable soft plastic would be very hard because the resultant product wouldn't be substantial enough to withstand the pressures of a bullet's expelled energy. You might have been able to manufacture some hard-plastic extruded gun in the past, but as with this one, it wouldn't have been great, and it would have cost a lot in the way of equipment. The only real novelty here is that it's doable from home on a relatively inexpensive device.

epynonymous 13y ago

can you imagine the ramfications of this getting into the wrong hands?

farabove 13y ago

This is just sad. We don't need more guns in this world.

kumarski 13y ago

What is the cost of printing vs. CNC milling a gun?

jlgreco 13y ago
Are you including the cost of buying/leasing the equipment, or just the cost of renting time on someone elses? I imagine CNC mills are easier to rent time on unless you've got a local hackerspace (which quite possibly will not be keen on printing a gun for you). They would also produce a much more practical product, ...and probably be much more expensive to buy outright. If instead of a CNC mill you just need the equipment to finish an 80% lower receiver, then you need far less money than either of the other two options, and you get a very practical product for your effort.

jared314 13y ago

I have the feeling this will end up like the electric car. It will be built, proven/sold, squashed, replaced by something inferior from outside the country, then slowly reappear over the next decade.

jlgreco 13y ago
Heh, what exactly could be technically inferior to the gun pictured? I can't imagine it being good for more than one low powered round, and not even reliable for that. Also, these people just distribute CAD files for free over the internet. I'm not sure how the country of origin or the economics of "good enough" come into this.