3-d printing

Status
Not open for further replies.

luger

Member
Joined
May 1, 2010
Messages
35
I carbon comes in many forms,winchester made shotgun barrels out of one form.So it seems to me that a perfecly durable pistol might be built by printing,if that form of carbon can be printed.
Also,if one is familiar with investment casting[jewelry] one could print a pistol in wax and cast it in any appropriate metal.
 
The allure of a printed gun is to be able to literally build one from scratch from essentially non firearms related materials. Of course you could make one by casting and milling, that's been done for decades. You can also make a "zip" gun from a BIC pen and rubber bands.

But a printed plastic gun is essentially a new design concept that follows non of the traditional gun making "rules". But I hear the ink's cost is extremely high.
 
This seems to be a one of the largest non-issues developing into an issue these days. The latest famous design seems more dangerous to the user than others. There is so very few gun owners seriously interested and able to use the design. Yet the tyrants are already scrambling to stop this as if the four horseman will be unleashed.

I would prefer investment casting myself. It's much more practical and sturdier.

A plastic barrel....please.
 
Current 3D printers are little more than glorified hot-glue guns. They are wonderful for certain tasks, but gun making is not one of them.
 
Current 3D printers are little more than glorified hot-glue guns. They are wonderful for certain tasks, but gun making is not one of them.

I'm not sure I'd be quite that harsh, but it is true the materials that 3D printers can work with are totally unsuited for barrels and chambers, and close to it for most of the fire control. They look great for things like custom grips, custom Beretta Pico frame, and the like.

sent using CPIP (see RFC 1149)
 
Current 3D printers are little more than glorified hot-glue guns. They are wonderful for certain tasks, but gun making is not one of them.
I think we need to start selling the idea we can make guns out of used Styrofoam using a homemade compression machine. I don't know ... made from a bicycle pump or something. If we play this right, we can have the gun grabbers buying back used coffee cups, meat product trays and etc. If it goes according to plan, we could be selling our garbage to the grabbers for their "safe"disposal or destruction.
 
I think we need to start selling the idea we can make guns out of used Styrofoam using a homemade compression machine. I don't know ... made from a bicycle pump or something. If we play this right, we can have the gun grabbers buying back used coffee cups, meat product trays and etc. If it goes according to plan, we could be selling our garbage to the grabbers for their "safe"disposal or destruction.
Then they'll create a large registry so that they can monitor said illicit materials and create a division of government in charge of said monitoring.

Then we'll get taxed to cover the agencies' expenses.

As much as I'd like to think I'm joking, one of the CNN reporters right after the Boston marathon bombing was genuinely suggesting that people report buyers of pressure cookers as suspicious. That proves that there really are people out there who think that the government should literally regulate EVERYTHING.
 
The problem here is that a revolution is coming, at it will be sooner rather than later, and the change will be very hard on the elite Brahmin of "old money" who think themselves our "betters" by right of riches.

There's a great deal of confusion right now between the technology and end products used in RP (Rapid Prototyping) and what is used in actual consumer product manufacturing.

So, many of the materials used in RP are not much more substantial than "hot melt glue." Which is fine, they do not have to be. (The very first prototype for Google Glass was made from clay and bent coat hanger wire and part of a sheet protector sleeve, and was finalized in 45 minutes.)

There are many out there talking about how "complicated" the process is. Except, it's not--the reason it's called "printing" is that a finished file for anything, a coat hanger, kitchen tools, filter wrench, the ^&@$#@ vinyl rivets that hold license plate frames to front bumpers are simply loaded into the printer with suitable feedstock, and the "Print" button is pushed. To the End User, it will be no more complicated than running a reloading press.

Case in point--suppose you wanted to buy an entry-level 3D printer, they are on eBay now, and for $2-3K. The parts on those printers are largely made on other printers.

Materials technology is not sitting still, either. Partially from the fact that the problem is being looked at from a different angle.

Imagine if, instead of filling up a cabinet with tupperware, you simply pull up a storage container web page, and click on the container you need. If there's IP involved, you get dunned for using that intellectual property, same as you would buying a product in a store. But, you'd only pay the royalty, since you are providing the raw material.

Things will change; others will stay the same.
 
Then they'll create a large registry so that they can monitor said illicit materials and create a division of government in charge of said monitoring.

Then we'll get taxed to cover the agencies' expenses.

As much as I'd like to think I'm joking, one of the CNN reporters right after the Boston marathon bombing was genuinely suggesting that people report buyers of pressure cookers as suspicious. That proves that there really are people out there who think that the government should literally regulate EVERYTHING.
Well, I was wanting the non gubment "gun grabbers" be the buyer of our garbage. But, as they say, cooler heads have prevailed and I guess I'll just have to keep processing all my garbage per the local gubment regs ... taxes and all.
 
This seems to be a one of the largest non-issues developing into an issue these days. The latest famous design seems more dangerous to the user than others. There is so very few gun owners seriously interested and able to use the design. Yet the tyrants are already scrambling to stop this as if the four horseman will be unleashed.

+1. Its a bad idea in my book. I can build a better pistol in my garage for a fraction of the cost of the printer alone.
 
+1. Its a bad idea in my book. I can build a better pistol in my garage for a fraction of the cost of the printer alone.

That's not the point. I too have enough experience to build my own rendition of a GAU-8 Avenger cannon if I so chose - don't forget that we (as in we, the firearms enthusiasts) have an intrinsic skill to understand how firearms function, and many of us have mechanical aptitude to boot..

What the 3D printer does is allow my friend's 29 year-old cousin with an Art History degree and can't drive stick to make a fully functioning firearm with no help from us, the mechanically inclined. HE can do it because he's savvy with iTunes and photobucket, all of which require the same skill set as selecting a program and running it. Designing your own is different, but he won't have to. (So I guess we're STILL helping...). And it's done without purchasing incriminating material, like gunpowder and schedule 40 pipe in the same errand.
 
Yes. I think it's amazing that so many of us are missing the point, which is twofold.

The first point is to demonstrate that it's actually possible to print a functioning firearm. The second is political. It doesn't matter that it barely functions. This is just a proof of concept. It's not the ultimate end to be all firearm to ever be printed. I'm sure some of us could do at least as well with a hacksaw and a trip to the hardware store. The point is that it can be printed and not blow up every single time.

It's just the first successful test. The Wright brother's first flight was only 120 feet in 12 seconds, 10 feet over the ground. Almost all us here would be able to easily outrun it on foot.

Besides, the Liberator isn't that bad. A $25 disposable pistol that will slip through a metal detector and be integrally suppressed after 5 minutes in CAD sounds pretty good for a first try.

And I'm sure the Liberator MKII will be even more capable still.
 
I think it's amazing that so many of us are missing the point, which is twofold.
I think very few of us missed the point, or points as it were.

The salient points are: 1.) It was printed, 2.) It fired. As a first attempt, or at least one of the very early attempts, the points were gotten across very effectively. The US State Department and others certainly "got it". And quite frankly, I'm of the opinion members of this board are far more astute that the run-of-the-mill government guy.
 
Hummm,......well

"If you print it they will come." Wasn't that in a Kevin Cosner movie? no maybe not. Anywho,... our guberment hates this as they have no "Control" over it(yet). If they can't control it they can't tax it. Furthermore, if you print your own gun are you going to put a serial number on it and register it so it can be traced back to you? :rolleyes:
 
If they can't control it they can't tax it. Furthermore, if you print your own gun are you going to put a serial number on it and register it so it can be traced back to you?

Right... But you can already manufacture your own gun, without any sort of registration or serial numbers.
 
And it's done without purchasing incriminating material, like gunpowder and schedule 40 pipe in the same errand.

Well I mean, at some point, some incriminating material will have to be purchased, like gunpowder (3D printers aren't printing that, at least not yet).

I think the thing I worry most about the 3D printed guns is that while it's entirely legal in the US to manufacture your own guns, it's not entirely legal to make one entirely out plastic (ie it must have enough metal to set off a detector). So while that's not a problem if there truly is a "fight off the oppressive totalitarian regime" scenario, in our current reality it could be a pitfall into which a lot of would-be-gun-owners-without-knowledge-of-the-laws would fall and then lose their gun ownership rights for life. I suppose that could be easily resolved by adding a step to the assembly instructions to add a bit of metal in if required by law. I guess I shouldn't worry about it because people need to have personal responsibility but I could see it being a mistake a lot of youngsters make in a future with ubiquitous 3D printers.

Certainly it's not a point that should negate the totality of the project but something to note.
 
Case in point--suppose you wanted to buy an entry-level 3D printer, they are on eBay now, and for $2-3K. The parts on those printers are largely made on other printers.

You can get a portabee printer for 700 assembled or 500 some assembly required
http://portabee3dprinter.com/shop/

a solidoodle for 500


2k for a 3d printer is crazy. These can print in the same abs as your higher cost models, BUT they dont produce quite as pretty prints.
 
When I was 16 (1962), I made a gun out of an 8" piece of 3/4" galvanized pipe, a "T" fitting and two threaded plugs.

Attached the pipe to the fitting inline with its long axis and installed the two plugs. I then drilled a small hole in the "T" fitting between the two holes that held the plugs. The plug at the rear inline with the "barrel" was cleaned and greased to be finger secured and easily removable.

I put a cherry bomb in the fitting, snaked the fuse out the hole, installed the plug and dropped a marble down the barrel. At 10' that marble badly cracked a cinder block. Needless to say, it would have severely wounded a human.

Homemade guns and launchers are nothing new and you don't need specialized tools to make one.
 
I carbon comes in many forms,winchester made shotgun barrels out of one form.
Actually, they didn't.

The Model 59 Winchester Win-Lite (1960-1965) had a thin steel barrel liner.
Overwrapped with a gazillion yards of fiberglass strand and epoxy.

I don't believe carbon fiber had been invented yet at the time.
Well, maybe it had at the Lockheed Skunk Works?

But Winchester wasn't using it then.

rc
 
In terms of missing things, that you can build a prototype gun or a locking plastic container to put a sandwich in, seems to be low on the list of the potential impact of "Rapid Prototyping".

Likely it will be in modeling for industry. Possibly eventually production.

It will also set off a good many entrepreneurs/hobbyists/inventors in buying better and better machines for their garages. A small market is available for that alone.

I can also see it doing what the portable electric sewing machine did. You can have one in your house if you want to make your own pants. Or you can take home piece work from a boss somewhere. How many shirt cuffs can you produce at your kitchen table after dinner at $1.00 a set? How many widgets can you make on your RP machine in the garage at night for a $1.00 for some company?

Do I wanna make my own pants at home, or buy a set at Sears? For $300. or so I can pick up a used Glock in good shape or I can make one in my house that's nowhere near as strong (at least not now).

I wonder how many RP machines can fit in a rickety 6 story building in Bangla Desh? Or Detroit? There's your revolution coming at ya?

tipoc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top