A Working Assault Rifle Made With a 3-D Printer

[Zep]

I personally can't wait for the day that purchasing a 3D Printer is a realistic possibility for me, but I found this interesting and wondered what people's thoughts on this particular use of the device was.

A Working Assault Rifle Made With a 3-D Printer | Popular Science

Get ready. It's now possible to print weapons at home.

An amateur gunsmith, operating under the handle of "HaveBlue" (incidentally, "Have Blue" is the codename that was used for the prototype stealth fighter that became the Lockheed F-117), announced recently in online forums that he had successfully printed a serviceable .22 caliber pistol.

Despite predictions of disaster, the pistol worked. It successfully fired 200 rounds in testing.

HaveBlue then decided to push the limits of what was possible and print an AR-15 rifle. To do this, he downloaded plans for an AR-15 in the Solidworks file format from a site called CNCGunsmith.com. After some small modifications to the design, he fed about $30 of ABS plastic feedstock into his late-model Stratasys printer. The result was a functional AR-15 rifle. Early testing shows that it works, although it still has some minor feed and extraction problems to be worked out.

[Malloy]

Printers are going to be affordable soon, the day is coming.

[guzzijason]

As the commenters on the article point out, he didn't print the entire AR, all he made was the receiver. That's a long way from printing a fully functional gun. The article is somewhat misleading in that respect.



__Jason

[Ho Chi Minh]

Printers are going to be affordable soon, the day is coming.

While an outright ban on printers is preferable, I'll settle for a one-printer-a-month law.

[Ho Chi Minh]

As the commenters on the article point out, he didn't print the entire AR, all he made was the receiver. That's a long way from printing a fully functional gun. The article is somewhat misleading in that respect.__Jason

True, but as I think you probably know, it is also the only peice that it is considered the "firearm". Everything else can be bought/sold by anyone, with no paperwork.

[guzzijason]

True, but as I think you probably know, it is also the only peice that it is considered the "firearm". Everything else can be bought/sold by anyone, with no paperwork.

Good point.

__Jason

[supersupper]

True, but as I think you probably know, it is also the only peice that it is considered the "firearm". Everything else can be bought/sold by anyone, with no paperwork.

I'm curious (really), could you expand on that please ?

[Dayman]

As the commenters on the article point out, he didn't print the entire AR, all he made was the receiver. That's a long way from printing a fully functional gun. The article is somewhat misleading in that respect.



__Jason

Because a plastic barrel is pretty much not possible right now...

[Ho Chi Minh]

I'm curious (really), could you expand on that please ?

Think of a gun as a car. You can buy all the parts to make the car, except for the frame/body. That is the part you have to hold a title for. The receiver of a firearm is that part. Google gun parts kits, you can legally buy every single part w/o paperwork, except the receiver. If you can make a receiver, you can make a working gun.

Disclaimer: I doubt any homemade receiver would function safely, or for very long. I would never fire a gun made on one.

[supersupper]

So, it seems (i'm guessing as its too complicated researching via the web) receiver manufacturing requires precision equipment and quality material(s?) to ensure 100% reliability, because thats the place where if something goes wrong it's all over for the user. So I imagine it is cost prohibitive to make something like that on one's own, so its really the only piece that can be reasonabl: regulated (?) and/or documented (?).

aside:
The Tom Clancey in me wonders if the US Gov can make these things in their own little shop without serial numbers, or if there is a shop funded by a rich guy that could do so also ?


My next question then revolves around gun laws (again, i'm not trying to start anything- just curious). Is it impossible to regulate or ban a particular kind of gun because right now only one piece is really regulated (the receiver), and the various pieces that makes something an "assault" rifle anyone could make and would therefore be almost impossible to reasonably regulate and control via "laws" ?

Or is there such a thing as a receiver thats made for and only used in assault-type weapons that could be regulated and therefore taken off the streets ?

[Sailaway]

Think of a gun as a car. You can buy all the parts to make the car, except for the frame/body. That is the part you have to hold a title for. The receiver of a firearm is that part. Google gun parts kits, you can legally buy every single part w/o paperwork, except the receiver. If you can make a receiver, you can make a working gun.

Disclaimer: I doubt any homemade receiver would function safely, or for very long. I would never fire a gun made on one.

Many people did and still do make their own from blank castings and forgings. This was quite the rage in the 90's. There are plenty still offered on the internet at varying levels of "completeness" despite attempts by the ATF to restrict this practice. Blanks do not have serial numbers, but are as safe and durable as any professionally-made receiver.

So, it seems (i'm guessing as its too complicated researching via the web) receiver manufacturing requires precision equipment and quality material(s?) to ensure 100% reliability, because thats the place where if something goes wrong it's all over for the user.

Lol, no, anything but.

[Ho Chi Minh]

My next question then revolves around gun laws (again, i'm not trying to start anything- just curious). Is it impossible to regulate or ban a particular kind of gun because right now only one piece is really regulated (the receiver), and the various pieces that makes something an "assault" rifle anyone could make and would therefore be almost impossible to reasonably regulate and control via "laws" ?

Or is there such a thing as a receiver thats made for and only used in assault-type weapons that could be regulated and therefore taken off the streets ?

No. Basically what people call "assault weapons" are nothing more than semi-auto rifles that have a military look. When the ban was in place the manufactures used the same receivers but removed some of the objectionable add ons, like the bayonet lug. Because it is scary, not that anyone has been bayonetted since the WW2.

[Tartan69]

not that anyone has been bayonetted since the WW2.

Not exactly: When was the last US bayonet charge? - Small Wars Council

Your overall point still stands though.

[Hal]

I found this interesting and wondered what people's thoughts on this particular use of the device was.

Guess we need to think bigger -

what happens when you cross a 3d printer, a cargo crane and a concrete mixer?

A house-printer




Bigger, better faster....

3D printer could build a house in 20 hours
3D printer could build a house in 20 hours | The Sideshow - Yahoo! News


Hal

[O.H. Lee]

While an outright ban on printers is preferable, I'll settle for a one-printer-a-month law.

HaHa. But you know that will only lead to Straw Printer Purchasers!

[szekely]

Very interesting article. I've been following the 3D printer news for years, but never thought about in the context of weapons.
Tax the bullets, like Chris Rock and Sen.Moynihan said. ;-)

[Sailaway]

Very interesting article. I've been following the 3D printer news for years, but never thought about in the context of weapons.
Tax the bullets, like Chris Rock and Sen.Moynihan said. ;-)

Let's not take advice from comedians and control freaks.

[Dayman]

Yes and today printers are most essential device in a computer.

Are they spambot? Do you have a printer in your computer?

[ArcticSplash]

Can someone print me some rainbow flag grips for my PT1911*?

Like, no really... being serious.





*Since it's a Taurus, the PT stands for Potty-Trained