'Download This Gun' — 3-D Printed Gun Reliable Up To 600 Rounds 582
An anonymous reader writes "We've talked previously about Texan gunsmith Cody Wilson's efforts to create 3-D-printable parts for firearms. He has a printed magazine that can withstand normal operation for quite a while. But he's also been working on building parts of the gun itself. An early version of a 3-D printed 'lower receiver' — the part of the gun holding the operating parts — failed after firing just 6 rounds. Now, a new video posted by Wilson's organization shows their design has improved enough to withstand over 600 rounds. Plus, their test only ended because they used up their ammunition; they say the receiver could have easily withstood a thousand rounds or more. Speaking to Ars, Wilson gave some insight into his reasoning behind this creation with regard to gun laws. 'I believe in evading and disintermediating the state. It seemed to be something we could build an organization around. Just like Bitcoin can circumvent financial mechanisms. ... The message is in what we're doing—the message is: download this gun.' A spokesperson for the ATF said that while operating a business as a firearm manufacturer requires a license, an individual manufacturing one for personal use is legal."
Up next (Score:0, Insightful)
Download this nuke. Just add plutonium and some conventional explosives.
Note to CIA: Get ahead of the game and make a design that doesn't work, and see if rfe North Koreans launch duds at South Korea.
A/C for a reason. Here's hoping "they" haven't cracked my proxy network.
Re:The way things have been going. (Score:0, Insightful)
I wouldn't be surprised either. Guns are not toys, and building your own gun using never-before-tested techniques is bound to result in some unfortunate mishaps before all the kinks are worked out.
Just what we need right now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The way things have been going. (Score:5, Insightful)
>building your own gun using never-before-tested techniques is bound to result in some unfortunate mishaps before all the kinks are worked out.
That's how gun technology got developed in the first place.
I TOTALLY WOULD (Score:4, Insightful)
YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A GUN
Raise a Fuss (Score:2, Insightful)
I do get it. The public mood concerning guns is highly amplified at the moment and nothing would draw attention as quickly as a gun that could be printed easily at home. Beneath that may reside an unusually powerful change in the very basics of society as we know it. Obviously if one can print a gun then one could print almost everything else. Need a bicycle, a car or a new home? Then turn on the printer. The entire monetary and investment systems now in play would be shot not only in one foot but in both feet with a shot to the head in good measure. The notions of employment, investment and even concepts of ownership could be highly effected. After all, why bother to own a bicycle when a printer can whip one out for you as needed? It is next to impossible for the bulk of the public to sense the shifting sands beneath their feet. I feel that the next thirty years will see more changes in our lives and social structures than in all of human history combined. Future shock may no longer describe the situation. Maybe we can picture it as future shock from a very potent, very large, high voltage, power line with no fuse, contacting our scalps while we stand in a pool of liquid mercury.
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the point of view of most Europeans where guns are generally banned you all look crazy. We don't have guns and yet somehow aren't being robbed, raped and murdered nearly as much as you guys. At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.
From our point of view you should be trying to figure out how to change your society so that you don't need guns, rather than trying to advocate more of them. You are treating the symptom, not the cause.
The World is not entirely filled with idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
>building your own gun using never-before-tested techniques is bound to result in some unfortunate mishaps before all the kinks are worked out.
That's how gun technology got developed in the first place.
When new models are being developed and tested at Colt, Ruger, Smith and Wesson, Winchester, Marlin, Glock, etc .... they put the gun in a "vice like" stand, behind a barrier, and fire it remotely - especially when testing high pressure rounds that you can't buy (some folks do load their own with higher than standard loads, but usually they do their research and have a pretty good idea on how far to push it. Usually.) in order to test the gun - if it survives the high pressure round then it will survive the standard one.
So, the point is, folks aren't taking unnecessary risks in gun development and I would assume that someone with the knowledge and intelligence to create a gun from a 3D printer would have the sense not to take unnecessary risks.
Now of course in this big World and with the Internet, we will see some asshat who will print a gun using sub standard material, load it up with high pressure rounds, turn the camera on, and create a Fark headline.
He will be an outlier.
Re:Reminds me of a quote from Chris Rock: (Score:3, Insightful)
A single bullet can easily cost you the chair, or life in prison, or millions of dollars. Gun control is keeping your finger off the trigger until you are on target and are sure of your target and what is beyond it. Killing innocent bystanders already costs far more than five thousand dollars. Taking your advice on self defense and safety from a comedian is.... well comedic.
Re:DIY Fuel Air explosive (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just waiting to see this ad: "Level 10 city blocks. Costs very little with parts you can purchase at Home depot. Download the plans online."
Kill people just because you can is not a healthy attitude. Neither is making it easy for others to do it on a whim.
We should not have to make everything you should not do illegal.
So the question is how, short of making it illegal, do we stop cretins like this who think they have the right to do this sort of unhealthy social engineering?
If you don't like the "state" you live under then move or change it. It's okay to think subversive thoughts but there are lines.
While I wouldn't do what he's doing, I'll fight for his right to do it. I have no idea what killing people because you can has to do with being able to print your own firearm. Wake me when you can print your own ammunition too.
First off: plans for DIY fuel air explosives are already available online.
Second off: none of this stuff can be done "on a whim". First, you need the right 3D printer, then you need the right plastics, then you need the plans. Finally, you need to know enough about firearms to be able to print and assemble and test the thing. You're also going to need to get some ammunition.
We should never attempt to stop cretins from doing things we don't like -- we SHOULD make our society one in which doing things that are illegal is seen to be unappetizing.
Personally, I have fewer issues with someone providing plans to print a gun than I do with the entertainment industry -- every day on my way to work, I have to pass an ad for a TV show that depicts an attractive young woman in front of a chart of mugshots with "killed" stamped over them -- and huge letters saying "Murder is only the beginning." Think about that for a moment. This poster is MUCH more likely to result in someone committing a violent act than someone being able to make their own gun. I guess gangs and crime syndicates might like these guns because they're untraceable, but they've already got untraceable guns - being able to print and toss will just allow them to stop robbing people for their firearms and will deflate the prices for unmarked guns on the black market -- both of which are good things.
Of course, the first time a printed gun is proven to have been used in an actual crime, things will get nasty.
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't have guns and yet somehow aren't being robbed, raped and murdered nearly as much as you guys. At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.
The you haven't been studying europe's history too well. Hell, even in the late 20th century what you said is untrue. There is so much blood in europe's soil it makes america's domestic problems look like a papercut.
Not proved reliable up to 600 rounds... (Score:5, Insightful)
they just tested a single beta copy by firing 600 rounds and it did not fail. There's a difference.
Which is not to say this isn't an impressive achievement from an engineering standpoint, or that it doesn't have important policy implications. It's just that I deal with that particular conflation of a successful test with statistically meaningful proof every day. My teenaged son will do something stupid, and when I say that he'll break his neck if he keeps doing it his response is always, "Yeah, but I *didn't*."
Re:They are not evading any laws (Score:3, Insightful)
True, this is well within the limits of the law. In fact, this guy is attempting to obtain a federal firearms license. He isn't subverting the government. He's wriggling through the holes in the legal system to do what he wants. One of these 'wants' is to show that the government isn't quite as high and mighty as many believe.
For me, this is further proof that a new "assault weapons ban" will be as useless as the previous ban. Gun related hommicides didn't decrease, only those involving so-called assault weapons. This doesn't include the full-auto Uzis, AK-47s, and other military carbine rifles that the ban didn't cover because they were never available for public purchase in the first place. The last man portable fully automatic weapon sold to the public was the Thompson sub machine gun. The current debate has nothing to do with military rifes. Instead it's about semi-automatic rifles which look like miliary rifles. The ban wouldn't stop gun manufacturers from producing semi-automatic rifles. The Tech-Point Model 995 is an assault weapons ban legal semi-automatic rifle. Identical to an AR-15 in operation, but different in appearance. The TEC DC9? Same thing.
The fact that you can "print this gun" proves that a ban doesn't mean the end of the semi-automatic rifle. Any gun is a machine constructed from a piece of machined steel with a few springs and pieces of plastic to make it into an operable weapon. 3D printing is neat, but you could "print this gun" using an auto-lathe for most of the machining and 3D printing for the non-working parts. You could set up shop in Mexico and "print" AR-15s all day long. Ditto full-auto M16s. Sneak them across the border and you're in business. This is something the Democrats aren't talking about. Instead they're focusing on magazine capacity and how the gun looks. Then again, DC politicians aren't the best and brightest people. They are merely popular, wealthy, and easily manipulated.
Re:The World is not entirely filled with idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
You just keep believing that only big companies can do things, and that people are incapable of doing anything for themselves...
And we wonder why we have such a nanny state.
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Plays right into the gun-control crowd's narrative of how gun owners are all crazies and trying to subvert the government or think a civil war is about to happen.
"Plays into"? I would have said supports the idea 100%.
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:4, Insightful)
In the UK you can own guns like that. I can't remember the exact details but they either have to be modified so they can't be used or you have to obtain a license to hold them as antiques. You can actually own a gun here (many farmers have them), you just have to have a good reason for needing one and show that you will keep and use it responsibly.
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Not a big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Guns aren't hard to acquire now and even with decent gun control they probably won't be that hard to acquire in the future.
The problem with the US (well a problem for me) is the gun culture where having a gun is considered cool and manly, as a result lots of people have guns and feel normal keeping them and using them. Change the culture so gun ownership is weird, so that when you tell someone you own a device designed to kill people they give you an odd look and get uncomfortable, once that happens you'll see a real drop in guns and violence. I don't see 3D printed guns as being a big factor either way.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
when you tell someone you own a device designed to kill people they give you an odd look and get uncomfortable, once that happens you'll see a real drop in guns and violence.
None of my guns were designed to kill people. My shotgun was designed to kill birds and small game. The rest of my firearms were designed to fire a small lead ball at a target of my choosing. That is what guns are designed to do: hit what the person is aiming at. If the person is aiming at another person, then the gun might kill them. But that is the fault of the person firing the gun, not the gun itself. It is the person killing the other person. I do not and would not ever own something designed solely to kill someone.
Re:The way things have been going. (Score:5, Insightful)
You still can't make the parts that actually carry the pressure of firing with 3D printing techniques. Barrels and bolts will still need to be machined from quality alloy steel, and rifling a barrel requires really specialized equipment as well.
First, you can easily make something that requires great strength using 3D printing if all you are printing is the mold into which you pour molten metal.
Second, barrels and bolts aren't controlled items, so as long as one person can make them, they can be sold to other people.
Third, it's not nearly as hard as you think to make these items. Rifling a barrel has been done for 200 years. If you think that an individual today can't acquire the same quality of equipment that was use to do the job 200 years ago, you're just not thinking straight.
There was this book. Some guy called Adam Smith. (Score:4, Insightful)
When it comes to anything involving large amounts of resources (such as building and testing significant numbers of prototypes) they pretty much are.
I don't think that even in the good old days you're herp-derping about people made their own muskets. Of the minority that did some didn't make their own clothes and bread (because they were professional gunsmiths) and the rest blew themselves up.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
-- George Orwell
"Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun'"
-- Mao Tse-Tung
"The gun control agenda is based on the view that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to use the physical power of arms responsibly. But a people that cannot be trusted with guns cannot be trusted with the much more dangerous powers of self-government. The gun control agenda is thus an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-government and is tyrannical in principle."
-- Alan Keyes
Re:Just what we need right now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Before I say anything else, I want to say that I do agree with your concluding point, and I'll come back around to that later.
At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.
There'a an argument to be made that the U.S. itself contradicts that statement, given that it was a collection of European colonies that broke away from European rule, largely through the use of firearms. Had it not broken away, wouldn't it still be a part of European history, at least in a broader, cultural sense, if not in reference to the literal continent?
Ignoring that, however, your comparison is a rather useless one anyway, since European history is long. Throughout most of European history, people were capable of rising up against their governments with either homemade or repurposed items. I.e. The disparity between the government's equipment and the people's equipment was small enough that the people were always a concern, and we're hopefully all aware of at least some of the rebellions, revolutions, and coups that make up the fabric of the continent's past. Guns wouldn't have helped because the people always had a means of rising up, and frequently did just that!
In contrast, at the time of that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written, that was no longer the case, so it's no surprise that their authors ensured that the people of the nation would always have a right to the same tool that the government could use to subjugate and oppress them. After all, that's exactly what they had done just a handful of years prior when they broke free from the people they viewed as oppressors.
Of course, there's a question today of whether or not firearms are still relevant in a world where fighter jets, cluster bombs, and ICBMs exist. Firearms are becoming increasingly irrelevant, since the disparity is quickly reaching the point where citizens would need to be given far more advanced weaponry than any reasonable person would suggest if they would want to have a hope of overturning their government. Even so, given enough citizens and enough guns, I do think it's possible, so I still see value there.
All of that said, I agree with your final idea about treating the symptom, rather than the cause. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to have some major societal changes take place, though I doubt that all of my ideas would be in line with those of a typical European. As you, however, I would love to see a reduced need for guns and a reduced perceived need for guns. Achieving both would likely lead to a reduced presence of guns, and, to me, that means that we need a government that protects our rights above all else and a lower violent crime rate. The latter has already been taking place, with rates dropping pretty consistently and quickly for most of the last two decades. Even so, the government's decision to engage in security theater and fear-mongering (terrorists everywhere!) have helped to spread a culture of fear that's encouraging people to arm themselves against threats that they believe are both internal and external. That needs to stop.
Re:The way things have been going. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, you can easily make something that requires great strength using 3D printing if all you are printing is the mold into which you pour molten metal.
Generally, making a strong steel or steel alloy requires that it be tempered after hardening, but that needs to be done before you cut precision features like rifling into them. So, 3D printing is unlikely to work in that situation although you could certainly make some assault shotguns. People can and do make their own firearms now using machining tools that anyone can buy, but they are expensive and take skill and thus don't offer the untraceable proliferation problem that is the main issue posed by 3D printing.
Re:The World is not entirely filled with idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
When I'm in a firefight, the last thing I want is my weapon "harmlessly" disabling it's function.
When you're in a firefight? So this is something that happen to you regularly? Remind me never to be around you, if chance ever comes up.