Gunsmith Uses 3D Printer To Make A Rifle

http://www.webpronews.com/gunsmith-uses-3d-printer-to-make-a-rifle-2012-07

by jessicaSFNY • 14 years ago

96 152 14 years ago

webpronews.com

tjic2• 14 years ago

A long post on the topic of CNC, printing firearms, and more from a few months back:

http://www.popehat.com/2011/10/06/the-third-wave-cnc-stereol...

sp3322• 14 years ago

Man, they didn't show you that in Star Trek...

edit: to be specific, they glossed over it instead of confronting a scenario where an enemy hijacked a replicator to make whatever physical or chemical weapons they wanted at a moment's notice.

simcop2387• 14 years ago

Actually it was touched on in a number of episodes (which i don't feel like digging up) but in more than once instance they mentioned that the replicators had safety systems that prevented unauthorized creation of at least some dangerous materials, (from what i recall, poisons were mentioned in one, weapons themselves i'm not sure).

pyre2• 14 years ago

True, but what could be poisonous to one species, could be nutritious to another. The idea that 'poisons' are easily identifiable is pure fantasy.

aidenn02• 14 years ago

TOS they made flintlock rifles in "Balance of Power"

TNG "Samaritain Snare" Geordi is kidnapped by technically unsophisticated, but cunning people that use replicators to reproduce high-tech (including a phasor)

adavies42• 14 years ago

istr a ds9 novel (yes, i read some) where they had to replicate some machine guns to deal with invaders who had perfect shielding, but only against energy weapons. there were security overrides involved, but it had a large collection of projectile weapons to choose from once it was unlocked.

jakeonthemove2• 14 years ago

Well, it's definitely possible to print a silencer, a pistol shouldn't be that much harder. I'm afraid that this would make the governments impose stricter laws on 3D printers, which is not a good thing...

jff3• 14 years ago

A suppressor has no moving parts and serves only to baffle the expanding gas and reduce noise. It experiences relatively low heat and gas pressure. The components of a firearm have far tighter tolerances and must withstand significantly higher levels of pressure and heat. It's not even close to the same thing.

ktizo4• 14 years ago

This technology is used to print engine parts for F1 car racing - http://www.eos.info/en/products/systems-equipment/metal-lase...

And it is only going to get cheaper - http://reprap.org/wiki/MetalicaRap

HeyLaughingBoy3• 14 years ago

People have been building guns for hundreds of years with far inferior tools.

duaneb2• 14 years ago

I'd be more scared if they could successfully manufacture lethal ammunition.

kwantam2• 14 years ago

(I don't know if this is sarcasm, but I'm answering with the assumption it's not.)

Manufacturing ammunition is simple and requires components and equipment that can be purchased for relatively little money and with (almost) no restrictions.

Buying gunpowder, primers, bullets, and casings is very possible via the internet (though gunpowder and primers are subject to hazardous shipping restrictions). After that, you could in principle make ammo using a 2x4 and a hammer if you really wanted to. A single-stage reloading press and the accoutrements can be obtained for under $200 trivially, and if you want to step up to relatively fast manufacture (hundreds of rounds per hour) you're still only talking a $500ish investment.

aidenn02• 14 years ago

Then you don't understand the current market. Most ammunition is amazingly easy to come by and the trade of it is fairly unregulated.

ef42• 14 years ago

There is a whole hobby community of people who manufacture their own ammunition. You can order everything you need to get started over the internet, with no permits (unless you live in a short list of states like Massachusetts, in which case a firearms permit is needed to purchase ammunition components).

Some people do it to save money, some because they're competitive shooters (who want to hand-optimize their loads), and others are survivalist types who want to be "off-the-grid".

HeyLaughingBoy3• 14 years ago

Sigh.

I have downloaded complete plans that were created in 1972 to make an entire .22 caliber single shot pistol by hand using a hacksaw, file and drill press. By my estimation, it can be done in one long day of work by a semi-skilled person. An even simpler pistol can be built in an hour or two. It's just not hard to make a basic gun: when I was 11 years old I used to make toy "guns" from old hollow keys, crushed match heads and nails. They worked, but only had about a 10-foot or so range.

Granted, I planned to build the pistol using a (manual) milling machine, not by hand, but is the government going to outlaw saws and files now?

jakeonthemove2• 14 years ago

Yes, but the quality of a good 3D printed gun will be better and it's easier to download the blueprints and literally print them rather than understand and build the gun yourself.

I, too, used to stuff firecrackers down a pipe and shoot steel balls (from bearings) when I was a kid - it was fun, what can I say :-)...

jff3• 14 years ago

I might be reading it wrong, but it looks to me like he printed a receiver and placed all the moving parts and the barrel etc. in it. See "I printed a modified version of the lower from cncguns.com"

Kallikrates• 14 years ago

The receiver is the only part of the rifle that is controlled. Everything other than the receiver can be bought on the internet without background checks or registering of serial numbers.

jff3• 14 years ago

Yes, I know that part, I was simply pointing out that he did not necessarily print out a barrel or trigger pin or any of the other many parts needed to make a whole pistol.

Strallus• 14 years ago

Seriously, what happened to real journalism?

Articles are now being written based on a handful of unverified forum posts. Really?

jessriedel• 14 years ago

1) Betabeat isn't the NY Times.

2) Betabeat only reported that this forum existed and that someone had made these claim, which is indisputably correct. You may think it's not particularly news worthy, but online journalism is a big places and there's plenty of room for everything.

3) Would you rather this article not be written?

cmelbye• 14 years ago

Not to mention the gratuitous editorializing by the author throughout the article.

Are there any technology news sites that are truly journalistic these days? (serious question)

cubicle2• 14 years ago

1.) Blogspam. OP is http://www.webpronews.com/gunsmith-uses-3d-printer-to-make-a...

Does HN have any mods?

2.) Have blue has a blog, he's written two posts about this: http://haveblue.org/?p=1041 http://haveblue.org/?p=1321 It appears to be down right now, though. Cache links: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DlBe32... https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z_5bOF...

3.) He printed a AR-15 lower receiver, which is the part, under US law, considered a "firearm". The high pressure components (barrel, bolt) are all made from conventional manufacturing processes, using steel.

Lowers are typically made out of aluminum, but they don't really experience any great stresses, so it's perfectly possible to make them out of plastic. (There's a number of commercial lowers made out of fiberglass: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=65134 (I'd link directly to the manufacturer's site, but it seems they're better at making guns than they are at securing web servers)) As he notes, people have even carved them from wood.

ChuckMcM3• 14 years ago

Doesn't pass the sniff test.

Chamber pressure in a .22 cal pistol is on the order of 20,000 PSI [1] The tensile strength of thermoplastic at standard temperatures is 1/2 that [2] and it goes down as the temperature goes up (its a thermoplastic for a reason). Firing a .22 caliber round using gunpowder would destroy the barrel on the first firing.

Now I could believe you built the receiver and triggering mechanism on a thermoplastic printer, but not the actual firing chamber.

[1] http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm [2] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/physical-properties-thermo...

kwantam2• 14 years ago

The part that's 3d printed is the lower receiver. In an AR-15 style design, the lower receiver doesn't handle any pressure at all, it just houses the magazine and hammer/trigger/sear/safety, and connects to the upper receiver/barrel assembly and the buttstock/buffer tube assembly.

People have made lower receivers out of aluminum basically forever. Aluminum could maybe be made to handle .22lr type pressures, but certainly not .223rem or bigger. A plastic lower is completely believable.

EDIT: to clarify, I meant if you wanted to make the whole gun out of aluminum you might be able to get away with it for a .22lr. Aluminum for a lower receiver is absolutely no problem at all. Apologies for not being clear.

cubicle2• 14 years ago

  Aluminum could maybe be made to handle .22lr type 
  pressures, but certainly not .223rem or bigger.

The Alexander Arms .50 Beowolf lower is made out of aluminum. http://www.gunblast.com/50Beowulf.htm

You can also buy single-shot .50 BMG uppers that bolt right onto regular aluminum AR-15 lowers, though of course you can't feed .50 BMG through a 5.56 magazine well.

ChuckMcM3• 14 years ago

Well there was this story (http://boingboing.net/2011/09/20/3d-printed-ar-15-parts-chal...) on BoingBoing in September of last year that was later determined to be a hoax according to the Makerbot folks at the Makerfaire this year.

blangblang• 14 years ago

If I recall correctly, the lower is also the only part of the assembled weapon that requires registration.

mgarfias7• 14 years ago

The M16/AR15 upper and lowers in milspec form are made from 7075T6 (might be T651 or some other specialized heat treatment, I am not sure off hand). Others have made them from 6061 Al.

The chamber is part of the barrel, which is made of some form of steel. Thus, the upper receiever doesn't contain the chamber pressures. What it does do is control the bolt carrier assembly when it recoils, which is pretty darned vigorous - I wouldnt trust my face to a plastic upper.

Also, note that plastic firearms have been around for YEARS. My dad's first rifle, in the later 50s, was a Remington Nylon '66, which was except for a steel stamping for a cover, a steel bolt, and the steel barrel, made of Zytel.

drone2• 14 years ago

He did not "print a rifle", he printed what is known as a "stripped lower receiver," which is only a shell that holds the trigger assembly, magazine, grip, and provides a mount point for the buffer tube and two pin mounts for the upper receiver. The upper receiver and buffer tube/buffer spring are the objects which have the force primarily exerted on them.

fr0sty• 14 years ago

In the eyes of the ATF he DID print a gun. The lower receiver is a 'gun' for the purposes of manufacturing. The upper receiver, buffer tube, trigger group, etc. are just parts...

hef19898• 14 years ago

During my studies we ssome classes in rapid prototyping. One of our favorites (since prototype car parts or funtional gear boxes aren't simply cool enough) was a fully funtional, for 20 shots or so, (semi?)-automatic rifle. And that was 6-7 years ago. The only non plastic part was the barrel, after the 20 shots the resin and plastics melted so.

ef42• 14 years ago

Any competent machinist can make functional semiautomatic weapons. This is just the next step in making it even easier.

If the United States ever got serious about banning firearms, a massive homebrew industry would grow up overnight. Gunpowder is not fundamentally harder to make than methamphetamine.

People who quite rightly see our drug laws as pointless and ineffective somehow often miss that a gun ban would be no more effective in the United States. If you want there to be less drugs or guns, you have to attack the demand side, not the supply side. Suppressing supply while keeping demand steady just ensures higher margins for the suppliers.

HeyLaughingBoy3• 14 years ago

Exactly. See my post about making guns by hand. As a 12 year old boy I was making gunpowder from drugstore items and launching rockets made from rolled-up newspaper.

This stuff ain't hard to do!!

grecy9• 14 years ago

Of course. Let's pretend Billy Bob is a heated rage because he just found out so-and-so slept with so-and-so (or whatever).

What's more likely?

a) He walks around to so-and-sos house with his legally purchased, unlicensed, unregistered semi automatic assault rifle and 1000+ rounds, and kills the whole family, and anyone else unlucky enough to be nearby.

b) He spends days (weeks?) making his own gun, gunpowder and projectile by hand, and is still motivated all those days later to walk around and kill everyone, with a small caliber, (probably) non-semi automatic, (probably) small/no magazine.

Gun control won't stop people killing each other with guns. It will make it many times harder for the average Joe, therefore it will reduce the frequency, and the overall homicide rate.

jack-r-abbit• 14 years ago

and higher margins means more incentive for people to get into the business.

reitzensteinm2• 14 years ago

> People who quite rightly see our drug laws as pointless and ineffective somehow often miss that a gun ban would be no more effective in the United States.

As an outsider, this is one of the most irrational things about American politics to me. Talk about guns, then talk about drugs, and each of the two major parties literally adopts the arguments of the other.

Then again, it's a perfectly rational system from the point of view of extracting maximum donations from supporters, so maybe I'm just looking at it the wrong way. Moderation doesn't sell.

tjic2• 14 years ago

> Talk about guns, then talk about drugs, and each party literally adopts the arguments of the other.

Except libertarians.

We believe in decriminalization of both.

InclinedPlane5• 14 years ago

What's even more hilarious, about gun laws, is that the same folks who tell you that the entire system is corrupt (that you can't trust the military or the police because they're just a bunch of power hungry savages) are the ones who think that only the police and the military should be able to use guns. Not a very logically consistent worldview.

wlesieutre• 14 years ago

>Talk about guns, then talk about drugs, and each of the two major parties literally adopts the arguments of the other.

Not really. Neither party has many elected officials in favor of changing anything about drug laws. And the main argument in favor of legal gun ownership is about the right to defend yourself, which doesn't apply as well to cocaine, for example.

The debate based on personal choice and responsibility versus increased government authority shows up almost exclusively from people of a more libertarian bent, but not necessarily on one side of D/R or the other.

grecy9• 14 years ago

> If the United States ever got serious about banning firearms, a massive homebrew industry would grow up overnight.

Do you have any stats or experience to back that up? It might happen, but you are stating as fact something that's not been tested.

Anecdotally, in Australia where gun laws are very strict, it's difficult to get firearms. Yes, serious hardened criminals still get their hands on them, which certainly is a problem. The average angry Joe can not simply legally purchase a semi automatic or handgun to walk around to his antagonists house and shoot them.

With a murder rate twice any other developed country[1], the United States clearly has a serious violence problem, and taking guns out of the hands of the average Joe would surely help reduce it.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...

Using the argument of "Hardened criminals will still get them anyway" is like saying we shouldn't have a law against murder because some people will do it anyway, so it's a waste of time. The point is to deter or make it extremely difficult for as many people as possible.

mc327• 14 years ago

I think you're right.

Japan which has a very strict sword and firearms law, afaik, has not seen a "homebrew" industry spruot since they passed the laws back in the '70s. And, it's not as though there are no criminals. The Yak syndicates are not, on principle, against the use of guns --they do occasionally used smuggled guns to settle things.

Now, Japan does allow some kinds of firearms, typically to farmers and such who need to deal with threats/vermin, but the permit process is lengthy and few people obtain them.

nitrogen2• 14 years ago

With a murder rate twice any other developed country[1], the United States clearly has a serious violence problem, and taking guns out of the hands of the average Joe would surely help reduce it.

The second clause does not follow from the first. Murder in the US is heavily demographically biased, and most gun owners are not murderers. Furthermore, will you be the one going door to door to collect everyone's firearms? It sounds like you are saying, "Surely, we must do something. This is something; therefore, we must do this."

No, no it's not. You are conflating possession of a tool with misuse of the tool to commit a crime. The US has been trying to make it "extremely difficult for as many people as possible" to do a lot of things, and failed spectacularly. Now imagine that same level of failure applied to something protected in the US constitution.

bradleyland• 14 years ago

> Do you have any stats or experience to back that up? It might happen, but you are stating as fact something that's not been tested.

It's difficult to provide stats and experience for events that haven't happened yet, but we can look at history. The last major prohibition of a product for which there was widespread demand, and has since been abolished, was alcohol in the 1920s. That didn't go so well. We continue to prohibit non-narcotic drugs, such as marijuana, and there is an equally ginormous pile of evidence that this prohibition isn't working out for us either.

It is also difficult to compare the U.S. to other countries with regard to guns because of the difference in environment here in the U.S.. The sheer number of guns and gun owners in the U.S. makes for a different set of conditions compared to somewhere seemingly similar, like Australia.

I don't think it's all that far fetched to believe that a relevant portion of gun owners would seek to make their own, should the government restrict them past a tipping point. I don't know what that tipping point is, but I suspect it exists.

learc839• 14 years ago

>With a murder rate twice any other developed country[1], the United States clearly has a serious violence problem, and taking guns out of the hands of the average Joe would surely help reduce it.

How much or our gun violence do you think can be attributed to average Joe killing his neighbor. Ordinary law abiding citizens killing each other is definitely not what makes our gun homicide rate higher than Australia's.

The vast majority of gun violence happens as a direct result of other crimes, usually drug or gang related-- exactly the kind of people who will find a way to make guns.

Additionally America is not Australia, we have more guns than people. If guns were outlawed the vast majority of criminals would still easily be able to get their hands on guns for the next 50 years. The only thing you would accomplish is to take them away from law abiding citizens, who statistics show aren't the problem anyway.

One more difference between America and Australia. If what happened in Australia happened here (anything like government confiscation), there would be riots, and a serious insurgency (I'm dead serious). There would be so much more blood spilled by an attempt to take away American's guns than could possibly be prevented by doing so.

>Do you have any stats or experience to back that up? It might happen, but you are stating as fact something that's not been tested.

After the violence stopped, yeah the people involved would switch right over to manufacturing underground firearms.

If you haven't lived in a rural area of the U.S., you can't possibly know how serious many people here are about their firearms--hell, it's written into our constitution.

majorlazer• 14 years ago

The difference between Australia and the US is that here in the US, we love our guns. A lot. Look what happened during the alcohol prohibition. Look how well our drug war is going. If you try to take guns away from Americans, especially the midwest, I will guarantee you there will be riots. I don't think some of you realize just how much American's love their guns.

I own exactly zero guns, but I fully support the 2nd amendment.

No, it is nothing like saying that. Murder in itself is a very bad thing. Owning a gun isn't a bad thing, it's what the gun can be capable of that is bad. Just like alcohol itself isn't a bad thing, it's what the person is capable of doing when drunk, that is bad. That's why alcohol isn't illegal, but driving drunk is. That's why guns shouldn't be illegal, but using them in an unsafe manner should be.

Zak• 14 years ago

I'm not the OP, but I do have evidence that a homebrew firearms industry is likely to spring up anywhere with a large number of violent criminals:

http://improguns.blogspot.co.uk/

Most of these are either machine pistols or disguised firearms, both of which are already severely restricted in the US. It seems likely to me that restrictions on firearms in those countries are the reason people are building guns instead of buying them.

Some of these guns came from Brazil and Ecuador, which have significantly higher homicide rates and tighter restrictions on firearms than the United States. This suggests to me that some other factor is likely responsible for the high homicide rates.

JabavuAdams2• 14 years ago

The US is different -- the murder rate is a cultural/economic problem, not a guns problem per se.

ericmoritz• 14 years ago

Not only is prohibition pointless; the actual harm caused by guns is relatively low compared to other causes. More people are harmed by cars than handguns.

mc327• 14 years ago

But people need to get to places. People don't need guns for daily survival. Japan annually sees double digit gun-deaths. In the US we see triple digit accidental gun deaths.

malandrew• 14 years ago

As someone with multiple near death experiences under my belt, I can attest to this.

I have almost been shot once (not in the US), but I've have had a little over a half dozen near misses in cars (several countries, as driver, passenger and pedestrian/cyclist) and two near drownings (not in US).

Of all possible dangers I may encounter, cars easily worry me the most.

drhayes96• 14 years ago

True, but cars are good for something other than killing things.

See my other, longer comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4298113

kunle• 14 years ago

Banning guns will require a change in the constitution, and will likely never happen as a result. In addition, even if it did happen, it would likely be unpopular because of the demand side as you mention.

That being said, the argument(s) for mandatory background checks, tracking whose buying what, and assault weapons restrictions are pretty compelling, and while they are supply side solutions, they can hardly be called ineffective and pointless. There are very few instances in which one individual (or a small group) assembling/developing an arsenal of military grade (and/or military quantity) can be considered defensible.

Imagine this: the same way there is a massive public outcry for sexual predators to be outed in their neighborhoods - what if people with assault weapons were also outed in their neighborhoods? Would you be willing to share a wall with someone who had 6k rounds of ammunition?

bdunbar2• 14 years ago

what if people with assault weapons were also outed in their neighborhoods?

That would be fun. A list for criminals of 'houses not to rip off'. Also: list of houses to rip off with impunity.

Would you be willing to share a wall with someone who had 6k rounds of ammunition?

6,000 rounds is not lot - a few guys can burn that many off in a weekend.

Sure, why not? What matters is intent.

Also: a prudent gun owner is not going to use a rifle in an apartment building or duplex.

That's what shotguns are for.

(edited: content)

mgarfias7• 14 years ago

What is an "assault weapon"? Oh, did you mean an AR15? The most popular firearm sold in the US for the past few years. Which Heller specifically protects ("in common use").

Dude, go ahead and out everyone in my neighor hood with an AR15 or other detachable box magazine fed automatic rifle. You know what will happen? Not a damn thing - we all have these things here.

I personally have had well over 6000 rds of ammo at some point. You know what? It didnt go bad, nor did it magically get shot at innocent people. I either buy in bulk, or reload in bulk because its cheaper. WAY cheaper. When you shoot 150+ rounds of ammo a week shooting competition, you can not do otherwise.

As far as arsenels being defensible? WTF does that even mean. I can have an arsenal if I want to. I'm not hurting anyone with it, so what business of it is yours?

nsxwolf7• 14 years ago

6,000 rounds is like 120 boxes. I have that many in my closet and at least as many empties. I don't know why this is getting tossed around as some unreasonably large amount of ammo. If you go to gun shows, you see nice deals all the time and it's kind of hard not to collect that much over a period of a few years.

DamnYuppie2• 14 years ago

This idea has been floated around many times. All you would be doing is telling every criminal where guns where. Not a good idea at all.

Also almost 50% of the people in this country own a fire arm. So I am not sure it would have the same "stigmatizing effect" as it isn't illegal or generally thought of as being a terrible act in and of itself.

Please keep in mind most people who shoot buy large amounts of ammo as it is cheaper to do it that way. Shooting 6k rounds a year down a pistol or small caliber rifle is very easy to do and isn't a sign of someone stock piling for Armageddon. So yes I would gladly share a wall with someone who has 6k rounds of ammo.

mistercow• 14 years ago

>Gunpowder is not fundamentally harder to make than methamphetamine.

I think it's actually considerably easier. If you have saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal, there isn't even any chemistry involved, and the only one of those ingredients that is remotely plausible (and I'm stretching the term "remotely plausible" here) to regulate the sale of is saltpeter. And even if they went that far, Wikipedia mentions an old process[1] for synthesizing saltpeter using only wood ash, urine, and straw. And your setup isn't even likely to explode or leak poisonous gas into your home in the process.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_nitrate#From_urine

ryanmarsh• 14 years ago

I love how HN jumps immediately into a gun control debate and almost completely misses the fact that what he printed is a long way from an AR-15. It's just a piece of metal called the lower receiver. When I say lower receiver, I believe he built just the shell not the trigger assembly or bushings. In addition, the bolt and barrel (the upper) weren't manufactured. But lets assume for a minute that he printed the entire thing from scratch, how is this any different than the fact that anybody with a good machine shop can produce a full AR-15 by hand?

sneak• 14 years ago

To be clear: he made a lower receiver, a very simple part and the one that has the serial number stamped onto it, it is the "gun" part as far as the legal authorities are concerned.

Every other part (upper receiver, barrel, magazine, trigger, hammer, etc) are just "parts" that one can order untracked.

Making an entire functional weapon is still beyond the scope of most inexpensive printers.

http://www.quora.com/3D-Printing/How-much-does-it-cost-today... (my question about this on Quora.)

Gunsmith Uses 3D Printer To Make A Rifle

Related Stories