Gun Printing Just Got Serious
- Thread starter DT Guy
- Start date
- Status
Gaiudo said:
Not really.
What was groundbreaking to the media and public and the whole premise behind the plastic printed guns was they could be made by anyone with an affordable printer.
Several of them were actually made by more expensive printers, but the entire point of those behind the project was to enable anyone with a hobby priced printer a typical household could actually budget in to print a gun whenever they wanted.
This technology by contrast is quite different. Both the production cost is high and the equipment cost beyond what is going to be purchased by most people.
For much less money you could have just demonstrated someone 'printing' or rather milling out guns on CNC milling machines that have been around decades and are already widespread and entirely capable of manufacturing most gun parts.
This is instead an advertisement and way to generate attention for the technology the company wishes to market without having to spend much.
Making other objects wouldn't generate the buzz that making a gun did. So they made a gun and got it into the media and received widespread inexpensive attention.
Not really.
What was groundbreaking to the media and public and the whole premise behind the plastic printed guns was they could be made by anyone with an affordable printer.
Several of them were actually made by more expensive printers, but the entire point of those behind the project was to enable anyone with a hobby priced printer a typical household could actually budget in to print a gun whenever they wanted.
This technology by contrast is quite different. Both the production cost is high and the equipment cost beyond what is going to be purchased by most people.
For much less money you could have just demonstrated someone 'printing' or rather milling out guns on CNC milling machines that have been around decades and are already widespread and entirely capable of manufacturing most gun parts.
This is instead an advertisement and way to generate attention for the technology the company wishes to market without having to spend much.
Making other objects wouldn't generate the buzz that making a gun did. So they made a gun and got it into the media and received widespread inexpensive attention.
I find all this "3D printing" of guns to be utterly ridiculous hype. Mostly pushed by the anti-gun media/politicians to induce sheer terror among the unwashed masses, who are horrified at the thought of an individual making a gun of any kind.
I made my own AR. I bought all the parts and put it together myself. If I had wanted, I could have purchased an 80% lower with no serial number and finished it myself. I would have a deadly untraceable assault rifle with no paper trail. Hundreds do every year. Thousands could if they wanted to bother. Nobody cares.
3D printing vs CNC, you still have to have the machine, the materials, and the coded programs proven to actually make a good part. It's only an accomplishment because the process isn't carving off metal where it shouldn't exist, its welding metal together where it needs to. It's creating the part exactly backwards from the traditional methods. It's not a guaranteed method that does it right or with the same integrity.
It's basically a geek accomplishment. Ok, so? Oh, you can print off a gun that isn't registered? You can already do that - it's legal - no law against it. If you want, you can start with basic iron ore, or jump straight ahead to ordinance billet steel, but you don't need to mark it. It's legal.
So, trying to impose laws against printing your own 3D laws could very well restrict the right that gunbuilders already exercise finishing 80% lowers, or even making your own benchrest rifle.
Wake up, it's just another alarmist attempt at more gun control.
3D printing vs CNC, you still have to have the machine, the materials, and the coded programs proven to actually make a good part. It's only an accomplishment because the process isn't carving off metal where it shouldn't exist, its welding metal together where it needs to. It's creating the part exactly backwards from the traditional methods. It's not a guaranteed method that does it right or with the same integrity.
It's basically a geek accomplishment. Ok, so? Oh, you can print off a gun that isn't registered? You can already do that - it's legal - no law against it. If you want, you can start with basic iron ore, or jump straight ahead to ordinance billet steel, but you don't need to mark it. It's legal.
So, trying to impose laws against printing your own 3D laws could very well restrict the right that gunbuilders already exercise finishing 80% lowers, or even making your own benchrest rifle.
Wake up, it's just another alarmist attempt at more gun control.
danez71
Member
LOL,,,, awesome.
With all due respect have you watch was has happened with technology in the last 20 years? What are you actually basing your opinion on?
I agree the Antis are using it as a scare tactic but 3D printed guns ARE being made now. That is a fact. With the way tech moves, the quality will only increase and the cost decrease. No doubt the antis are increasing the hype and using it against us. But just because the antis are preaching about it doesn't mean it is utterly ridiculous. 3D printing will change the future of firearms (and other industries), and probably a lot quicker than most of us think
Since the antis will use it against us it would be prudent to talk about it and not dismiss it as nonsense. Just my opinion and I mean no disrespect to you.
Last edited:
NickEllis
Member
I think it's because the application is significantly different than CNC. Its hard to CNC a spare connector for your iPhone.
This is certainly a significant step up from what I've seen with firearm and 3D printing before now. Can you point me to a similarly produced firearm before this, Zoogster?
The technology is interesting but it has no impact at this point or the near future on firearm rights or availability.
That was the premise behind the plastic printed firearms, they could actually be printed from something a typical household may have in it, and would have for uses beyond firearms.
This on the other hand is expensive.
For many firearm applications it is also backwards. With CNC you start with solid metal and remove what is not needed. This makes more sense if what you will be left with has more material left than removed, as is the case with many receivers.
The benefit of this printing technology would be in applications you wanted to make something small or intricate and where removing material would be less ideal than adding material. As such building a firearm with such technology would actually seem contrary to practical application.
It also takes a lot more steps than technology like MIM and other uses of powdered metal to create an object. With quality control more important in more steps as well. But the end result would seem quite similar.
Many receivers and parts are already made that way. The only unique and arguably dangerous difference here is if they made the barrel as well.
Which would make counting 50 successful rounds actually something worth noting, as the entire firearm minus the barrel fitted with a normal barrel should easily go for the same many thousand rounds MIM firearms do.
So the technology is interesting, but is unrelated to the plastic printing as it relates to firearm availability.
A million dollar machine in places of industry is less available than similarly and much less expensive CNC machines already present throughout industry. While being unlikely to find its way to typical households any time soon.
So nothing has changed at the level of the average citizen.
As I said they only used a firearm to generate free publicity for their technology. However it is intentionally misleading by using the scare mongering of the previously developed plastic printing to generate inexpensive widespread publicity. Plastic printed firearms actually could be printed by affordable machines widespread in the near future within homes to make a variety of items. While individuals have long already been able to make firearms, and this somehow escapes antis, the difference is even those without the skills to make a firearm could print one out.
That concept flips gun control upside down, which was the intent. The OP technology however does nothing of the sort. Yet is intentionally using that previous media buzz.
That was the premise behind the plastic printed firearms, they could actually be printed from something a typical household may have in it, and would have for uses beyond firearms.
This on the other hand is expensive.
For many firearm applications it is also backwards. With CNC you start with solid metal and remove what is not needed. This makes more sense if what you will be left with has more material left than removed, as is the case with many receivers.
The benefit of this printing technology would be in applications you wanted to make something small or intricate and where removing material would be less ideal than adding material. As such building a firearm with such technology would actually seem contrary to practical application.
It also takes a lot more steps than technology like MIM and other uses of powdered metal to create an object. With quality control more important in more steps as well. But the end result would seem quite similar.
Many receivers and parts are already made that way. The only unique and arguably dangerous difference here is if they made the barrel as well.
Which would make counting 50 successful rounds actually something worth noting, as the entire firearm minus the barrel fitted with a normal barrel should easily go for the same many thousand rounds MIM firearms do.
So the technology is interesting, but is unrelated to the plastic printing as it relates to firearm availability.
A million dollar machine in places of industry is less available than similarly and much less expensive CNC machines already present throughout industry. While being unlikely to find its way to typical households any time soon.
So nothing has changed at the level of the average citizen.
As I said they only used a firearm to generate free publicity for their technology. However it is intentionally misleading by using the scare mongering of the previously developed plastic printing to generate inexpensive widespread publicity. Plastic printed firearms actually could be printed by affordable machines widespread in the near future within homes to make a variety of items. While individuals have long already been able to make firearms, and this somehow escapes antis, the difference is even those without the skills to make a firearm could print one out.
That concept flips gun control upside down, which was the intent. The OP technology however does nothing of the sort. Yet is intentionally using that previous media buzz.
Last edited:
bigfatdave
Member
That's how emerging tech works - leaps and bounds ahead for quite a while.
I want a printed-off Volcanic pistol!
Agreed - but there's a fascination with watching something get formed from nothing that isn't there with watching one object be carved out of another.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"What was groundbreaking to the media and public and the whole premise behind the plastic printed guns was they could be made by anyone with an affordable printer."
Liberator was printed on a $50k machine, so not that different in terms of un-affordability yet. A cheap FDM Liberator will grenade without better materials (or be totally inoperative after one shot)
TCB
Liberator was printed on a $50k machine, so not that different in terms of un-affordability yet. A cheap FDM Liberator will grenade without better materials (or be totally inoperative after one shot)
TCB
OP
OP
DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,839
My first computer (a 386 something or other) cost >$1k and had less hard drive memory than my current IPOD.
Saying 'it's too expensive' or 'it's not possible for the average person' ignores the proven arc of technological progress:
A technology/process is proposed/invented
A prototype machine/process is built, refined and eventually completed
A sample, often rough or partially incomplete, is made to prove the feasibility of the technology/process
The tech/process becomes standardized and goes into limited production
The production quality improves over the sample essentially continually, or until some predefined standard of quality is met
The tech/process becomes available in less expensive and less exclusive formats until demand is satisfied by all potential users
Anybody with a cheap MP3 player banging around in their pocket next to their phone that can send emails should realize this is how the world works now.
Larry
Saying 'it's too expensive' or 'it's not possible for the average person' ignores the proven arc of technological progress:
A technology/process is proposed/invented
A prototype machine/process is built, refined and eventually completed
A sample, often rough or partially incomplete, is made to prove the feasibility of the technology/process
The tech/process becomes standardized and goes into limited production
The production quality improves over the sample essentially continually, or until some predefined standard of quality is met
The tech/process becomes available in less expensive and less exclusive formats until demand is satisfied by all potential users
Anybody with a cheap MP3 player banging around in their pocket next to their phone that can send emails should realize this is how the world works now.
Larry
Yes and it is rifled
USAF_Vet
Member
In a somewhat similar vein, wasn't there a politician who proposed banning energy weapons recently? He was laughed at for trying to ban nonexistent technology, but imagine if he had been successful. The precedent would be disastrous. Trying to ban/ regulate new technology in its infant state is bad, as it dissuades advancement, but to do the same with nonexistent tech is worse as it stymies the potential of future industry.
When anyone starts talking about regulating and banning anything, I take heed.
medalguy
Member
The whole argument about banning 3D printers reminds me of the argument currently running about requiring trusts wishing to acquire NFA weapons to have their local LEO sign off on a transfer, and the requirement to run a background check on every possible trustee.
One would think there are thousands of felons out there having lawyers write up trust agreements so they can go out and spend $15,000 and have an FBI background check run on themselves, and waiting 20 months + for the transfer to be approved. Yeah that's it. We need legislation to shut down all these felons with NFA trusts, just like we need to ban 3D printers. Imagine, someone with the capability of making a gun in their basement. How scary for the gun banners!
One would think there are thousands of felons out there having lawyers write up trust agreements so they can go out and spend $15,000 and have an FBI background check run on themselves, and waiting 20 months + for the transfer to be approved. Yeah that's it. We need legislation to shut down all these felons with NFA trusts, just like we need to ban 3D printers. Imagine, someone with the capability of making a gun in their basement. How scary for the gun banners!
When calculators first appeared they were heavy, clunky, expensive, often used reverse-Polish notation, and didn't really do much. Now they're often light-powered, or given away as promotional items. No doubt many of us could give similar examples.
Most of the people trying to "ban" printed firearms have no idea that it is completely legal to make one in a machine shop for yourself. When I tell them this, most of their eyes bug out and don't believe what I'm saying is true and that such a "loophole" (their term, not mine) is easily found via this crazy technology called "Google".
Bubbles
Member
Maybe not today. In a few decades who knows?
CapnMac
Member
Well, for 'our' community, very little in the short term.
However, if we apply Moore's Law to the printers, they will become smaller, faster, and cheaper.
In 1989, I bought a color (barely) inkjet printer, and thought it cheap at $575. In 1999, I bought a color printer, which printed at twice the resolution, at 20x the speed, and cost what I thought was a very reasonable $120. In 2009 I needed to replace my old printer, after having to search long and wide to not find a multi-function printer, the printer I found was under a hundred dollars.
When I first bought AutoCAD, it came on a stack (6 or 7, IIRC) of 3.5 'floppy' disks. When I upgraded, it was on CD-ROM. My last upgrade was just sent to me by email as an Image of the install disk. The next upgrade will be purely electronically submitted (which raises a question of what happens if I need to reload the thing).
Ok, so what?
Well, some of the people looking at the future see this: You need a shirt, you do not go to a store for it, you simply call up the pattern in your size and pass that to the 3d printer in your house. Maybe the place selling the shirt design bills you 99¢ lie a present-day iTunes music cut. You need a ladle in the kitchen? 3d printer. It's a potential future where "stores" only exist for perishables, living things, and antiques.
Such a future is something to behold. It's good to remember that the world will still need 'big' things. We will need cooling towers, powerplants, planes, trains, and automobiles--and all the place and people that make them.
How will that affect firearms? I haven't a clue. We have seen how the internet has changed the gun biz, though. How it has changed what we know about arms, about or fellow owners, about buying arms.
OP
OP
DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,839
CapNMac,
A great description of how tech changes over time.
I consider what happened to 'desktop publishing' (does anyone even use that phrase anymore?) Folks much under 40 probably can't remember mimeograph machines, or having to go to a printer (as in, a person who specializes in printing, not a device) to get copies made, or a handbill created.
Need a menu for a charity dinner? Had to go to the printer with a hand-written list, and he would turn it into typeface, lay it out and make you copies, all, of course, for a fee.
Nowadays we take for granted that we can hit a button and have anything we need, in terms of documents, printed right at home. These new machines have the potential to do for 'stuff' what our current printers did for documents, and it's mind-boggling what that could mean in a few years.
Larry
A great description of how tech changes over time.
I consider what happened to 'desktop publishing' (does anyone even use that phrase anymore?) Folks much under 40 probably can't remember mimeograph machines, or having to go to a printer (as in, a person who specializes in printing, not a device) to get copies made, or a handbill created.
Need a menu for a charity dinner? Had to go to the printer with a hand-written list, and he would turn it into typeface, lay it out and make you copies, all, of course, for a fee.
Nowadays we take for granted that we can hit a button and have anything we need, in terms of documents, printed right at home. These new machines have the potential to do for 'stuff' what our current printers did for documents, and it's mind-boggling what that could mean in a few years.
Larry
NickEllis
Member
My wife just printed out a picture sent directly from her iPhone to the printer in full 8x11 glossy. Amazing quality, and without the need for camera+film+developer. Seven years ago? Impossible.
Neo-Luddite
Member
When ammo cam be printed, I'll get really excited.
OP
OP
DT Guy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,839
Neo, I can't find the link right now, but there was an article recently about how the navy is investigating that very topic; their hope was to someday set out to sea with raw materials and fast, large printers, then print the weapons and ammunition they need for specific missions as the need arises.
They'd also hope to be able to recycle spent shells and such, just by 'dropping them back in the hopper' or the equivalent.
Larry
They'd also hope to be able to recycle spent shells and such, just by 'dropping them back in the hopper' or the equivalent.
Larry
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
