celem
Member
Watch the video again. To me, the problem worked itself out after the first few shots. Later on it went smoothly to battery.
Gun Printing Just Got Serious
- Thread starter DT Guy
- Start date
- Status
Watch the video again. To me, the problem worked itself out after the first few shots. Later on it went smoothly to battery.
celem
Member
Fee Zee, 3D printer prices have fallen well below $500 and lost wax casting is simpler than mold making. River uses lost wax casting. Flip back and read post 64
This thread is evidence of the real purpose of making a gun with a 3D printer. The purpose is to generate HYPE. There are so many better purposes for this technology and so many better ways to manufacture a firearm. This technology may be the future but I don't live there yet. I'll stick with what works today.
yzguy87
Member
DT Guy, The emoticon with rolling eyes I used in post #9 was used to denote the sarcasm in my comment "our elected finest" and had not inteded it to show a lackadaisical attitude towards our RTKBA. Just so everyone doesn't get the wrong impression, I care a lot about keeping all of our rights.
I will say that I was unaware that Democrats already "fear" criminals will print guns with this new technology, although I'm not surprised that they would act upon the emotion of fear and not facts.
I will say that I was unaware that Democrats already "fear" criminals will print guns with this new technology, although I'm not surprised that they would act upon the emotion of fear and not facts.
LOL I knew reading all but the last page of the thread would probably mean I would miss something. I haven't seen the prices that low before but then I haven't really looked. I do know the technology is approaching consumer level for price and functionality. We are on our way to a Star Trek type replicator IMO. With patterns stored in memory and materials available for many different things it's not hard to envision a 3D printer cooking up just about anything within reason. It may take a good bit of money to operate a 3D printer that heats metal up to be melted then formed into whatever design the user wants though. Plus just the price of metal will make things expensive. But the technology is coming. Heck it's almost here already. I see no problem making hard to find parts and even illegal parts for those of a mind to do such things. I doubt some kid will be printing up a nuke in his bedroom because there won't be any fissionable materials available. But printing up parts to make an AR full auto might not be all that hard. And certain other guns that have been easy to convert to full auto in the past until the parts were made illegal might become full auto again in the hands of people willing to break the law. And there's no shortage of people like that unfortunately. Lots of laws are useless and cause more problems than they create. But I'm not so sure I want an army of gang bangers armed with 20 mm cannons mounted on their SUV's. I hate gun laws for the most part but the idea of someone like Chuck Manson getting his hands on a few hundred machine guns isn't my idea of a good thing. I really am not in favor of the laws that limit ownership of full auto weapons but there are dangers involved. I'd hate to see background checks to get a printer though and it may come to that considering how things have gone in this country for too long.
celem
Member
Cee Zee - re background checks on 3D printers - 3D printers do not have to purchased - they are self replicating. The RepRap printer was one of the first in this regard. Any RepRap 3D printer can create more RepRap printers. All you need is temporary access to a friend's RepRap printer to create your own printer. I see no way to successfully regulate 3D printing. You can read about RepRap at this link:
http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap
Cesiumsponge
Member
There's a weird misconception that industrial and manufacturing grade 3D printers will one day cost a few hundred bucks, giving hobbyists the ability to do precision work. That'll likely never, ever be the case. There is a large difference between consumer-grade products and commercial/industrial. The technology might trickle down but you're not going to print out parts with 0.0001" tolerances.
There are hobby-grade mills and lathes. They're a thousand bucks or two. They're neat but severely limited. They have nothing on commercial grade equipment and the most basic enclosed CNC mill or lathe will run you $30k.. Lathes and mills have been around for over a hundred years. CNC automation close to 50. MasterCAM seats are still five figures compared to hobbyist CAM and G-code software that only cost a few hundred bucks. Not everything follows a Moore's Law-esque pricing and performance scheme over time.
Heck, if you want to print your own complex precision parts like gun components, you'd have to pony up for a coordinate measuring machine for inspection to verify the part is to print, and those cost $50k+ and require a temperature-controlled room, sits on a thousand pound granite slab (for a small CMM) level to 5 arcseconds, and requires an isolated concrete pad. Metrology (not meteorology) is a pain in the ass. You can't just make parts and ignore inspection equipment to verify you actually have good parts.
Even if you do "longhand" inspection with optical comparators, height gages, micrometers,te st indicators, etc. there's a significant expense associated to tooling to verify your parts. And yes, there is a difference between cheap Chinese micrometers, calipers, or indicators you can pick up versus $400 micrometers and calipers.
There are hobby-grade mills and lathes. They're a thousand bucks or two. They're neat but severely limited. They have nothing on commercial grade equipment and the most basic enclosed CNC mill or lathe will run you $30k.. Lathes and mills have been around for over a hundred years. CNC automation close to 50. MasterCAM seats are still five figures compared to hobbyist CAM and G-code software that only cost a few hundred bucks. Not everything follows a Moore's Law-esque pricing and performance scheme over time.
Heck, if you want to print your own complex precision parts like gun components, you'd have to pony up for a coordinate measuring machine for inspection to verify the part is to print, and those cost $50k+ and require a temperature-controlled room, sits on a thousand pound granite slab (for a small CMM) level to 5 arcseconds, and requires an isolated concrete pad. Metrology (not meteorology) is a pain in the ass. You can't just make parts and ignore inspection equipment to verify you actually have good parts.
Even if you do "longhand" inspection with optical comparators, height gages, micrometers,te st indicators, etc. there's a significant expense associated to tooling to verify your parts. And yes, there is a difference between cheap Chinese micrometers, calipers, or indicators you can pick up versus $400 micrometers and calipers.
Last edited:
First off lathes date back to ancient Egypt and maybe before that. The Assyrians used them for example. So did the Greeks. But back to the present. People said the same kinds of things about digital cameras at one time, that they could never match the quality of film. Now you would have to look for a film camera because they are almost extinct except for specialist functions.
If we've learned anything about electronics is that you should never say never. I have already said in a previous post that the consumer grade 3D printers do not come close to producing the accuracy of the high end systems. But saying they will "never" do it is a big jump. When I bought my first printer and scanner the idea that they would become what they have was laughable. It was a 9-pin printer which means the print head had 9 pins to choose from instead of the 16 that later became standard for dot matrix printers. Trust me there was a huge difference. But within 5 years no only had printers become able to recreate nearly perfect text but they could also produce full color photography. I don't know if you're aware how accurate a print head must be to print photographs that are equal to or better than chemical photography but it's very, very accurate. When they stopped using actual dot printing in ink jets they were using 300 dpi (dots per inch). That's pretty accurate but of course methods were developed to far exceed the quality of those 300 dpi printers. Inks were blended instead of sprayed on a dot at a time and the quality jumped drastically. And all that happened within about a 5 year period. The printers at the time that were doing that cost around $50,000. Now you can get one for $50.
I certainly understand that there are more complications to 3D printing than there are with 2D printing but I'm not about to say it will never happen. When they got to 300 dpi with ink jets that was already down to .003 inch or so and the quality has gone up a lot since then.
I'm just talking about ink jet printers because they were developed so quickly. We should be talking about laser printers and what they can do. There are laser printers with at least 2400 DPI. That gets us down to the range of about .0004 or so. That's not so far away from your .0001 example you cited. Yes those printers are expensive at this point but a 1200 dpi printer isn't expensive at all. And the plain fact is that there was no consumer demand for printers that printed better than this level. There could certainly be a demand for a 3D printer that printed to a higher degree of accuracy.
There are already 3D printers on the market that will produce details down to 100 microns. I could do that math but I'm just not that interested. I do know that it's very detailed and accurate compared to what was on the market just 10 years ago. I know the price is about the same as what I looked at 10 years ago which is $2500-$3000 for the entire unit including scanner and printer.
Never say never friend. 100 microns could reproduce a lot of parts already. The price of making those parts may not be economical for all I know but the price of the printer and scanner is not all that high. That first 9 pin printer and scanner I had back in 1984 cost about $4500. I made some money with it too. Technology marches on and it's always shaky ground to say "never".
If we've learned anything about electronics is that you should never say never. I have already said in a previous post that the consumer grade 3D printers do not come close to producing the accuracy of the high end systems. But saying they will "never" do it is a big jump. When I bought my first printer and scanner the idea that they would become what they have was laughable. It was a 9-pin printer which means the print head had 9 pins to choose from instead of the 16 that later became standard for dot matrix printers. Trust me there was a huge difference. But within 5 years no only had printers become able to recreate nearly perfect text but they could also produce full color photography. I don't know if you're aware how accurate a print head must be to print photographs that are equal to or better than chemical photography but it's very, very accurate. When they stopped using actual dot printing in ink jets they were using 300 dpi (dots per inch). That's pretty accurate but of course methods were developed to far exceed the quality of those 300 dpi printers. Inks were blended instead of sprayed on a dot at a time and the quality jumped drastically. And all that happened within about a 5 year period. The printers at the time that were doing that cost around $50,000. Now you can get one for $50.
I certainly understand that there are more complications to 3D printing than there are with 2D printing but I'm not about to say it will never happen. When they got to 300 dpi with ink jets that was already down to .003 inch or so and the quality has gone up a lot since then.
I'm just talking about ink jet printers because they were developed so quickly. We should be talking about laser printers and what they can do. There are laser printers with at least 2400 DPI. That gets us down to the range of about .0004 or so. That's not so far away from your .0001 example you cited. Yes those printers are expensive at this point but a 1200 dpi printer isn't expensive at all. And the plain fact is that there was no consumer demand for printers that printed better than this level. There could certainly be a demand for a 3D printer that printed to a higher degree of accuracy.
There are already 3D printers on the market that will produce details down to 100 microns. I could do that math but I'm just not that interested. I do know that it's very detailed and accurate compared to what was on the market just 10 years ago. I know the price is about the same as what I looked at 10 years ago which is $2500-$3000 for the entire unit including scanner and printer.
Never say never friend. 100 microns could reproduce a lot of parts already. The price of making those parts may not be economical for all I know but the price of the printer and scanner is not all that high. That first 9 pin printer and scanner I had back in 1984 cost about $4500. I made some money with it too. Technology marches on and it's always shaky ground to say "never".
Cesiumsponge
Member
The reference was to modern industrial manufacturing, or I'd have included mention of leather drive belts and steam engines, or stone water wheels.
Inkjets don't match chemical printing. The chemical film and print development process works at a molecular level with grains of silver under 50nm in diameter. CCDs don't have resolutions going down to the molecular level, nor do inkjets deliver such discrete packages of dye. There's also the factor of consumer expectation. Convenience and cost trumps quality in the consumer market. Digital is cheaper and more convenient. Chemical developing of prints have been around for over a hundred years. No one ever developed a consumer home negative/photo print product because cost and convenience wasn't there. Consumer-friendly DIY photo development was NEVER achieved. I'm not poo-pooing the technology or being a luddite. I'm pointing out market and demand limitations shaping the success of consumer products.
There's a degree of silliness assuming anything new is always better in every way. Digital can't replicate the glass negatives and monster prints done by Ansel Adams (but such old technology is clunky). LCDs are still working on reproducing the color gamut, color space and blacks of CRTs (it cost me four figures for a decent NEC commercial monitor that could reproduce most of the sRGB and Adobe color spaces). LED and CFL bulbs still have inferior color spectrum reproduction and aren't dimmable, despite marketing (the Philips DOE L-prize LED bulb at $50 ea comes close though with a fantastic color rendering index. I use these).
Longevity of legacy digital formats is a concern for archiving right now. So is developing a proven archival quality ink and photo paper medium, something that already exists with traditional negatives and prints. Durability is also a low priority factor for consumers today. Managing working color spaces and gamut, dynamic range, calibrating monitors and printer's to known standards , etc. These are complexities introduced with digital which vary wildly compared to wet photography but ignored by most consumers because of the principles of convenience and cost and demand for absolute quality. You hinted at the areas where film is still used in the scientific and industrial sectors because digital doesn't match it in various ways. That only shows the consumer-end is hardly the gold standard to reference technology by.
Besides, you do realize many of the dpi figures from various printer companies are marketing-inflated and interpolated figures, right? I had a 2880 dpi inkjet printer years ago. It did not have "2880 dpi" quality. Spraying ink that only went to saturate the medium without increasing detail is pointless and led to bleeding. DPI is a nebulously abused term adapted as a marketing gimmick for consumers just like the megapixel marketing for cameras. Marketing establishes several "selling points" and consumers judge performance based solely on those marks, and demand more. This argument is also predicated on the assumptions that, for example, a 1440 dpi printer is actually laying down dots at 0.0007" spacing with accuracy and repeatability, and that squareness, flatness, parallelism, and backlash variables of the device being low enough to achieve this. It isn't. It is a printer head on a floppy rubber toothed belt that hops around and shakes the entire printer. Ask me how often my home printing ended with clogged jets or horizontal artifacts due to the imperfect repeatability when laying down ink ad advancing the paper feed, even with the newer generations that stepped away from the old 4-color printing heads. Many were usable in image quality but I didn't find the performance acceptable (maybe I had unrealistic expectations). Build quality to meet consumer price points play a factor here and inaccuracies in inkjet printing tends to manifest itself as softness in the image, which most people wouldn't notice. It's why printers aren't making full-width, .500" multiple spray passes before advancing the feed another half inch (very early inkjets did this). Instead, while the heads are laying down .500" in ink at a time, it's split into progressively denser ribbons of .050-.100" overlaps and the paper feeds in these intervals. The errors blend much better this way as an image is printed.
Compare the print quality of the best inkjet to "low resolution" commercial technology like dye sublimation or rotogravure printers used in many high quality magazines. I send out my proofs and prints to a lab that uses a 300dpi Chromira printer that uses an LED print head to expose real photographic paper that goes through a traditional chemical developer process. It's archival and looks much better than anything I could print on inkjets or laser printers. I've tried the lab's lower cost professional inkjet options and didn't care for the results. Believe me, I wanted to since it would save me a bundle. My sepia images had to be injected because the only way to do that with photo prints was to play with bleaches and selenium chemicals that I didn't want to deal with at home (it was fine when I had access to a darkroom with proper ventilation). There are plenty of printing technologies, many quite old, which produce fantastic quality vs inkjet but will never be miniaturized and made affordable to the consumer. Inkjet has found its role in the free market as a consumer or "prosumer" good. Cost and convenience. Everything finds it's role.
Steering it back to guns and the manufacturing technology, here's the thing. People print book reports and photos at home. They aren't depending on it to print standard optical test patterns to known standards. 3D printers have many potential applications but if the consumer is going to use it specifically to print replacement parts at home for a stove or new alloy car wheel, or gun parts, what good is it if they can't verify the part is actually to tolerance and safe to use? That is a huge hurdle in the cost and convenience realm. But if people are printing sculptures and chairs and puzzles, mechanical tolerances become a smaller or negligible issue and these printers will excel. For precision and critical work, a layperson cant just print something out. You change the temperature in your house and you can already kiss repeatibility goodbye. Just having an exceptionally accurate machine doesn't make it so unless the environment it operates in is up to speed and the operator knows what to do. Printing images and manufacturing something that has to conform to dimensional standards are vastly different things.
Inkjets don't match chemical printing. The chemical film and print development process works at a molecular level with grains of silver under 50nm in diameter. CCDs don't have resolutions going down to the molecular level, nor do inkjets deliver such discrete packages of dye. There's also the factor of consumer expectation. Convenience and cost trumps quality in the consumer market. Digital is cheaper and more convenient. Chemical developing of prints have been around for over a hundred years. No one ever developed a consumer home negative/photo print product because cost and convenience wasn't there. Consumer-friendly DIY photo development was NEVER achieved. I'm not poo-pooing the technology or being a luddite. I'm pointing out market and demand limitations shaping the success of consumer products.
There's a degree of silliness assuming anything new is always better in every way. Digital can't replicate the glass negatives and monster prints done by Ansel Adams (but such old technology is clunky). LCDs are still working on reproducing the color gamut, color space and blacks of CRTs (it cost me four figures for a decent NEC commercial monitor that could reproduce most of the sRGB and Adobe color spaces). LED and CFL bulbs still have inferior color spectrum reproduction and aren't dimmable, despite marketing (the Philips DOE L-prize LED bulb at $50 ea comes close though with a fantastic color rendering index. I use these).
Longevity of legacy digital formats is a concern for archiving right now. So is developing a proven archival quality ink and photo paper medium, something that already exists with traditional negatives and prints. Durability is also a low priority factor for consumers today. Managing working color spaces and gamut, dynamic range, calibrating monitors and printer's to known standards , etc. These are complexities introduced with digital which vary wildly compared to wet photography but ignored by most consumers because of the principles of convenience and cost and demand for absolute quality. You hinted at the areas where film is still used in the scientific and industrial sectors because digital doesn't match it in various ways. That only shows the consumer-end is hardly the gold standard to reference technology by.
Besides, you do realize many of the dpi figures from various printer companies are marketing-inflated and interpolated figures, right? I had a 2880 dpi inkjet printer years ago. It did not have "2880 dpi" quality. Spraying ink that only went to saturate the medium without increasing detail is pointless and led to bleeding. DPI is a nebulously abused term adapted as a marketing gimmick for consumers just like the megapixel marketing for cameras. Marketing establishes several "selling points" and consumers judge performance based solely on those marks, and demand more. This argument is also predicated on the assumptions that, for example, a 1440 dpi printer is actually laying down dots at 0.0007" spacing with accuracy and repeatability, and that squareness, flatness, parallelism, and backlash variables of the device being low enough to achieve this. It isn't. It is a printer head on a floppy rubber toothed belt that hops around and shakes the entire printer. Ask me how often my home printing ended with clogged jets or horizontal artifacts due to the imperfect repeatability when laying down ink ad advancing the paper feed, even with the newer generations that stepped away from the old 4-color printing heads. Many were usable in image quality but I didn't find the performance acceptable (maybe I had unrealistic expectations). Build quality to meet consumer price points play a factor here and inaccuracies in inkjet printing tends to manifest itself as softness in the image, which most people wouldn't notice. It's why printers aren't making full-width, .500" multiple spray passes before advancing the feed another half inch (very early inkjets did this). Instead, while the heads are laying down .500" in ink at a time, it's split into progressively denser ribbons of .050-.100" overlaps and the paper feeds in these intervals. The errors blend much better this way as an image is printed.
Compare the print quality of the best inkjet to "low resolution" commercial technology like dye sublimation or rotogravure printers used in many high quality magazines. I send out my proofs and prints to a lab that uses a 300dpi Chromira printer that uses an LED print head to expose real photographic paper that goes through a traditional chemical developer process. It's archival and looks much better than anything I could print on inkjets or laser printers. I've tried the lab's lower cost professional inkjet options and didn't care for the results. Believe me, I wanted to since it would save me a bundle. My sepia images had to be injected because the only way to do that with photo prints was to play with bleaches and selenium chemicals that I didn't want to deal with at home (it was fine when I had access to a darkroom with proper ventilation). There are plenty of printing technologies, many quite old, which produce fantastic quality vs inkjet but will never be miniaturized and made affordable to the consumer. Inkjet has found its role in the free market as a consumer or "prosumer" good. Cost and convenience. Everything finds it's role.
Steering it back to guns and the manufacturing technology, here's the thing. People print book reports and photos at home. They aren't depending on it to print standard optical test patterns to known standards. 3D printers have many potential applications but if the consumer is going to use it specifically to print replacement parts at home for a stove or new alloy car wheel, or gun parts, what good is it if they can't verify the part is actually to tolerance and safe to use? That is a huge hurdle in the cost and convenience realm. But if people are printing sculptures and chairs and puzzles, mechanical tolerances become a smaller or negligible issue and these printers will excel. For precision and critical work, a layperson cant just print something out. You change the temperature in your house and you can already kiss repeatibility goodbye. Just having an exceptionally accurate machine doesn't make it so unless the environment it operates in is up to speed and the operator knows what to do. Printing images and manufacturing something that has to conform to dimensional standards are vastly different things.
celem
Member
Plastic Guns from 3D Printer
From today's Wall Street Journal:
---------
WASHINGTON—New plastic guns made by 3-D printers could beat metal detectors and compromise security around the country, federal authorities warned Wednesday—and an expiring law could soon make them legal.
Law-enforcement agencies have grown increasingly concerned about plastic guns since late last year, when a Texas man posted online gun blueprints for 3-D printers, which build three-dimensional objects using plastic materials.
The ability to build a working gun from plastic has excited technology geeks and gun enthusiasts, but law-enforcement officials say plastic guns could compromise security measures in countless schools, government buildings and other areas.
There is additional urgency around the issue because next month a 1988 law that bars production of firearms that don't contain enough metal to be read by metal detectors is set to expire. Congressional aides say the legislative calendar is so uncertain it's unclear how or if legislation to renew the law would come to a vote.
"It does create a public-safety concern…whether we appear in court, whether we get on an airplane, whether we go to a concert—any type of venue, it presents a challenge for law enforcement," said Richard Marianos, an official with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Plastic guns can defeat security procedures "that have been tried and true for the last 30 years," he said.
To date, there haven't been any known instances of a person being shot with a plastic gun in the U.S., nor are there currently any criminal investigations for possession of such a weapon, ATF officials said.
The weapons are still expensive to produce, and quality is uneven. A cheap 3-D printer can cost as little as $1,000, but to make a working gun requires more expensive printers, which can cost $100,000 or more.
Law-enforcement officials say the risk so far isn't that street criminals will find a new source for weapons. "This is more for someone who wants to get into an area and perhaps be an assassin," Mr. Marianos said. "Or they want to go to a courthouse and shoot a witness."
Late last year, a firearms dealer named Cody Wilson posted online instructions for how to make a gun called a "Liberator" with 3-D printing. Such weapons can use a roofing nail as a firing pin—an amount of metal so small that many metal detectors wouldn't sense it.
Mr. Wilson couldn't immediately be reached for comment.
Earl Griffith, chief of the ATF's firearms technology branch, on Wednesday showed reporters videos of plastic guns made according to the Liberator design. The gun holds a single bullet. Made out of a readily available type of plastic, the gun will fire a bullet but shatters into pieces. ATF officials said these weapons are also dangerous to people who try to use them.
But with a more high-tech type of plastic, the gun doesn't shatter and can be repeatedly reloaded and fired. Mr. Griffith said he expected evolving technology, such as the development of ceramic firing pins, would continue to make such weapons harder to detect—and potentially more dangerous. Mr. Griffith said he also believed it was possible to build a fully automatic plastic gun.
Under the soon-to-expire Undetectable Firearms Act, anyone making a gun has to include a certain amount of metal, even if it's unnecessary for operating the weapon. The Liberator is designed to hold such a piece of metal, but it can be easily removed.
At the time the law was passed, an all-plastic gun was still just a theory, but Congress was trying to make sure such weapons weren't produced in the future. Now that the technology exists, the law is due to expire in less than a month, and it is unclear if Congress will take action to extend it.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said the law's expiration, combined with 3-D printing advances, "make what was once a hypothetical threat into a terrifying reality. We are actively exploring all options to pass legislation that will eliminate the threat of completely undetectable weapons."
From today's Wall Street Journal:
---------
WASHINGTON—New plastic guns made by 3-D printers could beat metal detectors and compromise security around the country, federal authorities warned Wednesday—and an expiring law could soon make them legal.
Law-enforcement agencies have grown increasingly concerned about plastic guns since late last year, when a Texas man posted online gun blueprints for 3-D printers, which build three-dimensional objects using plastic materials.
The ability to build a working gun from plastic has excited technology geeks and gun enthusiasts, but law-enforcement officials say plastic guns could compromise security measures in countless schools, government buildings and other areas.
There is additional urgency around the issue because next month a 1988 law that bars production of firearms that don't contain enough metal to be read by metal detectors is set to expire. Congressional aides say the legislative calendar is so uncertain it's unclear how or if legislation to renew the law would come to a vote.
"It does create a public-safety concern…whether we appear in court, whether we get on an airplane, whether we go to a concert—any type of venue, it presents a challenge for law enforcement," said Richard Marianos, an official with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Plastic guns can defeat security procedures "that have been tried and true for the last 30 years," he said.
To date, there haven't been any known instances of a person being shot with a plastic gun in the U.S., nor are there currently any criminal investigations for possession of such a weapon, ATF officials said.
The weapons are still expensive to produce, and quality is uneven. A cheap 3-D printer can cost as little as $1,000, but to make a working gun requires more expensive printers, which can cost $100,000 or more.
Law-enforcement officials say the risk so far isn't that street criminals will find a new source for weapons. "This is more for someone who wants to get into an area and perhaps be an assassin," Mr. Marianos said. "Or they want to go to a courthouse and shoot a witness."
Late last year, a firearms dealer named Cody Wilson posted online instructions for how to make a gun called a "Liberator" with 3-D printing. Such weapons can use a roofing nail as a firing pin—an amount of metal so small that many metal detectors wouldn't sense it.
Mr. Wilson couldn't immediately be reached for comment.
Earl Griffith, chief of the ATF's firearms technology branch, on Wednesday showed reporters videos of plastic guns made according to the Liberator design. The gun holds a single bullet. Made out of a readily available type of plastic, the gun will fire a bullet but shatters into pieces. ATF officials said these weapons are also dangerous to people who try to use them.
But with a more high-tech type of plastic, the gun doesn't shatter and can be repeatedly reloaded and fired. Mr. Griffith said he expected evolving technology, such as the development of ceramic firing pins, would continue to make such weapons harder to detect—and potentially more dangerous. Mr. Griffith said he also believed it was possible to build a fully automatic plastic gun.
Under the soon-to-expire Undetectable Firearms Act, anyone making a gun has to include a certain amount of metal, even if it's unnecessary for operating the weapon. The Liberator is designed to hold such a piece of metal, but it can be easily removed.
At the time the law was passed, an all-plastic gun was still just a theory, but Congress was trying to make sure such weapons weren't produced in the future. Now that the technology exists, the law is due to expire in less than a month, and it is unclear if Congress will take action to extend it.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.) said the law's expiration, combined with 3-D printing advances, "make what was once a hypothetical threat into a terrifying reality. We are actively exploring all options to pass legislation that will eliminate the threat of completely undetectable weapons."
Mike1234567
member
As others alluded to, digital photography STILL cannot replicate truly BIG FILM - HUGE PRINT QUALITY (walk up and eyeball 5x10 FOOT prints to say WOW) unless you want to spend a huge pot-o-gold. It'll get there but it's still a long way off from "average Joe affordability" and it's been decades in the making.
My guess? Give it 30 years and we can all afford to "print" reliable firearms at home. That is unless (until) the damm commies prevent it.
My guess? Give it 30 years and we can all afford to "print" reliable firearms at home. That is unless (until) the damm commies prevent it.
celem
Member
Thirty Years Excessive
In 30 years technology has progressed from an IBM PC with 64k of memory and a floppy disk as mass storage to computers in your pocket that exceed the power of business computers of the 1960s and early 1970s. This technology will progress at an even more rapid pace because it is useful to commerce.
I say a not much over 10-to-15 years, if that long.
In 30 years technology has progressed from an IBM PC with 64k of memory and a floppy disk as mass storage to computers in your pocket that exceed the power of business computers of the 1960s and early 1970s. This technology will progress at an even more rapid pace because it is useful to commerce.
I say a not much over 10-to-15 years, if that long.
Cesiumsponge
Member
There would be no way to regulate what 3D printers can or cannot print any more than being able to prevent inkjets from printing child pornography or regulating CNC mills and lathes from cranking out gun parts. Pandora's box is open.
That doesn't mean technology-ignorant politicians won't try though.
A 3D printer isn't a computer that conforms to Moore's Law. Tell me, if I print a gun part on a 3D printer and hand it to you, how will you verify its a dimensionally and metallurgically good part? Or will you assume it's a perfect part, install it, and use it? That isn't how the manufacturing process works.
That doesn't mean technology-ignorant politicians won't try though.
A 3D printer isn't a computer that conforms to Moore's Law. Tell me, if I print a gun part on a 3D printer and hand it to you, how will you verify its a dimensionally and metallurgically good part? Or will you assume it's a perfect part, install it, and use it? That isn't how the manufacturing process works.
Last edited:
Mike1234567
member
You state this but... be careful what you print because invisible markings are made when you print anything. Regulations are what they are.
If they don't want you to print something legally then you can't print that thing legally.
Control is control... it is what it is... nothing more... nothing less.
Cesiumsponge
Member
Invisible print or markings?
I didn't refill my invisible ink cartridge when I ran out.
Come on now. Can we move away from Alex Jones territory? Regular printer paper can barely reproduce very small font print without bleeding due to capillary actions of the paper fibers in anything but fine fiber, coated photo paper treated for high density ink absorption. Good luck hiding microprint on standard crappy printer paper. Let me know what happens when you try to print 4, 2, or 1 font.
Tell me, cite this source? Regulations are public law, so cite the source and regulation. Let the burden of proof lay with the claimant.
I didn't refill my invisible ink cartridge when I ran out.
Come on now. Can we move away from Alex Jones territory? Regular printer paper can barely reproduce very small font print without bleeding due to capillary actions of the paper fibers in anything but fine fiber, coated photo paper treated for high density ink absorption. Good luck hiding microprint on standard crappy printer paper. Let me know what happens when you try to print 4, 2, or 1 font.
Tell me, cite this source? Regulations are public law, so cite the source and regulation. Let the burden of proof lay with the claimant.
Gee I don't remember anyone ever saying that. I started out using medium format cameras when I was learning true photography. I know what they can do. I know what high speed cameras can do. I know that an ink jet is not a 3D printer. Good grief. I think there is some silliness alright.
The point was and is that technology marches on and for the most part it gets better as time moves on as long as the research is being done and I can't for the life of me think why 3D printing research would just end with so much promise. My example of 2D printing was just an example. I also used photography as an example. Some noticed that and made comments about it. It is true that digital photography has done to 35mm photography what 35mm did to medium format. It is more compact and you get more quality for the money you spend. Also just as you can make film bigger you can make sensor arrays bigger too and you can capture huge images with those electronic devices.
The thing is both film and digital have their strengths but while film has pretty much matured and new advances are now rare digital is still in it's infancy and the rate of progress is staggering. The fact that you don't need a dark room is a huge advantage for digital. So is not having to buy film. Some will tell you digital cameras are obsolete after 2 years but that's just their lust for the newer technologies speaking. I have a 10 year old digital that works great and still takes great photos. I also have a great film camera from before SLR's too and I have a medium format camera somewhere if I could find it. I wouldn't be using it anyway because it's incredibly expensive to use now. Just finding medium format film is a real hassle.
You can get photos with every bit as much quality from a consumer to pro-sumer grade digital as you can the same level of film cameras. The price is cheaper and the advances keep coming every year. Some people still like analog audio too just as some still like film. But they are a big minority. At one time that made sense. It does not now. Any good photographer will tell you that you have to take a whole lot of shots to get a good one. With digital that's easy. You shoot hundreds to find one or two great shots. You didn't lose a dime doing it either. And then you can work with your images on a computer. Digital is replacing film and some day "maybe" 3D printers will replace a lot of the things we use today for making small parts and eventually big parts. We already design parts with a computer and use various equipment to make those parts getting the data straight from the computer.
3D cameras aren't really that much different. And if you use quality machines and quality materials (you can print perfectly good fonts on plain paper with a laser printer BTW) you get quality parts.
I don't know if the advances will be made or not. I just know better than to say they "never will" as some have said. That was my only point. Never say never.
And now meanwhile back to the gun board. If I wanted to discuss photography I'd go back to the photography boards where I spent countless hours over the years. Considering I did videography for a living I would assume you can see where I spent a good bit of time studying the technology of the camera. And just for the record I studied audio maybe even more than video since audio is a huge part of the video business not to mention I was the sound engineer for some very successful bands and I worked with audio in many other capacities. I could just as easy have used the example of how digital audio has progressed tremendously since it's early days and made the point that 3d printing would likely follow that pattern (starting out rough and getting gradually better then making huge jumps quickly = I have several recording devices that record CD quality sound or better that I bought for under $40 including the microphones. They fit in a pocket and are great for picking up audio from weddings etc.. They also work for recording speakers at events. That technology would have been impossible just 20 years ago but I've been using those devices for about 10 years now. We can't deny that technology has been advancing on many fronts.
I never read all of the posts here. I did skim over certain posts claiming I should know what I had already posted and ignoring the fact that laser printers most certainly do print at very high DPI levels and they don't blend ink to do it obviously. I said all this so clearly people aren't reading my posts either so why should I read theirs telling me to think what I've already said. Anyway after I got the "silliness" part I figured I wasn't interested in some grandstanding pontificator slamming me for stating the obvious. I really don't need this so goodbye and have a good day.
Any star Trek fans here? Just think back to the technology used in the original series and how mind blowing it was at the time. That was close to 50 years ago.
The doors on the ship automatically opened when you approached them! Pure sci-fi and impossible. Of course now every Piggly Wiggly in the country has this technology and it as been in common use for 30 years or more.
Communicators. Those tiny little flip devices that could be used to talk to someone 2,000 miles away with no cords at all. Balderdash! Never happen.
Those are just two examples of things that were science fiction 50 years ago and now are so commonplace that we don't even notice them any more. Still waiting on the phazer that can be set to stun but I'm sure someone is working on it. I don't know that the Tazer is quite to that level yet.
The doors on the ship automatically opened when you approached them! Pure sci-fi and impossible. Of course now every Piggly Wiggly in the country has this technology and it as been in common use for 30 years or more.
Communicators. Those tiny little flip devices that could be used to talk to someone 2,000 miles away with no cords at all. Balderdash! Never happen.
Those are just two examples of things that were science fiction 50 years ago and now are so commonplace that we don't even notice them any more. Still waiting on the phazer that can be set to stun but I'm sure someone is working on it. I don't know that the Tazer is quite to that level yet.
Cesiumsponge
Member
The key everyone keeps missing here is manufacturing isn't simply "making stuff". You have to verify what you're making is good. There's barely any limitations to 3D printing. I clearly outline that in my first post on how it has the potential to revolutionize manufacturing, why, and how stereolithography had put most traditional prototype shops out of business.
However, a general consumer don't have the tools to verify what you printed out is a good or bad part, even if you have a 3D printer from 30 years in the future. That's the problem. That is the bottleneck in seeing super precision 3D printers trickling down to the consumer level. I have no doubt general 3D printers will be a huge consumer hit, but precision is a whole 'nother ballgame. The reloading guys know how .001" or a fraction of a grain can result in big changes. You can't use a tape measure or ruler to verify dimensional tolerances if you're printing alloy wheels for your car, gun parts, or anything with critical dimensions.
That 0.0001" dimension that's being thrown around? Take a sheet of printer paper and split it into 40 sheets thickness-wise. That represents 0.0001" in thickness. That takes metrology/machinist tools and instruments to measure. Anyone can pick up those skills and tools but it takes time and money.
In order for super precision 3D printers to be utilized, we need parallel revolutions in cost reductions in 3D scanners (these are relatively affordable already) and coordinate measuring machines ($$$) so the end user have affortable tools to scan, make, and verify a part.
However physics is a mean mistress and you can't cheat it. CMMs are used to measure those 0.0001" or smaller tolerances and requires a temperature controlled environment and an incredibly stable and level platform or changes in temperature and ground flex make it inaccurate. If you have a small 3D printer, you could get away with a small CMM (say, a Tesa Micro-Hite 3D) but that still encompasses a large granite slab on air suspension and its a 550lb machine. There is no way to cheat the physics required for a thermally and structurally rigid, hard-wearing base for a CMM.
However, a general consumer don't have the tools to verify what you printed out is a good or bad part, even if you have a 3D printer from 30 years in the future. That's the problem. That is the bottleneck in seeing super precision 3D printers trickling down to the consumer level. I have no doubt general 3D printers will be a huge consumer hit, but precision is a whole 'nother ballgame. The reloading guys know how .001" or a fraction of a grain can result in big changes. You can't use a tape measure or ruler to verify dimensional tolerances if you're printing alloy wheels for your car, gun parts, or anything with critical dimensions.
That 0.0001" dimension that's being thrown around? Take a sheet of printer paper and split it into 40 sheets thickness-wise. That represents 0.0001" in thickness. That takes metrology/machinist tools and instruments to measure. Anyone can pick up those skills and tools but it takes time and money.
In order for super precision 3D printers to be utilized, we need parallel revolutions in cost reductions in 3D scanners (these are relatively affordable already) and coordinate measuring machines ($$$) so the end user have affortable tools to scan, make, and verify a part.
However physics is a mean mistress and you can't cheat it. CMMs are used to measure those 0.0001" or smaller tolerances and requires a temperature controlled environment and an incredibly stable and level platform or changes in temperature and ground flex make it inaccurate. If you have a small 3D printer, you could get away with a small CMM (say, a Tesa Micro-Hite 3D) but that still encompasses a large granite slab on air suspension and its a 550lb machine. There is no way to cheat the physics required for a thermally and structurally rigid, hard-wearing base for a CMM.
celem
Member
Printing Accuracy
While verifiable 0.0001" accuracy may be needed for commercial products I don't believe that hobby use of 3D printers necessitates such accuracy to accomplish meaningful things. I do not expect a hobbyist to produce anything on a 3D printer that was converted to metal using lost wax casting or left as plastic to rival the accuracy produced by the Solid Concepts company achieved in the 1911 that started this thread. However, that does not mean that a hobbyist cannot produce a certain type of firearm with adequate tolerances. If you have ever examined a British Sten gun or USA's M3 submachine gun the absolute lack of tolerance is amazing. The bolt face and barrel are the only thing with any precision and the rest is just sheet steel, fairly crudely made. While, for the near term, a hobbyist may have to purchase the barrel and maybe the bolt, or part thereof, building the rest is within today's 3D printer capability at precision that exceeds that of the Sten and M3 and 3D printer capabilities are dramatically improving every month with simultaneous dropping in cost.
While verifiable 0.0001" accuracy may be needed for commercial products I don't believe that hobby use of 3D printers necessitates such accuracy to accomplish meaningful things. I do not expect a hobbyist to produce anything on a 3D printer that was converted to metal using lost wax casting or left as plastic to rival the accuracy produced by the Solid Concepts company achieved in the 1911 that started this thread. However, that does not mean that a hobbyist cannot produce a certain type of firearm with adequate tolerances. If you have ever examined a British Sten gun or USA's M3 submachine gun the absolute lack of tolerance is amazing. The bolt face and barrel are the only thing with any precision and the rest is just sheet steel, fairly crudely made. While, for the near term, a hobbyist may have to purchase the barrel and maybe the bolt, or part thereof, building the rest is within today's 3D printer capability at precision that exceeds that of the Sten and M3 and 3D printer capabilities are dramatically improving every month with simultaneous dropping in cost.
Chemistry Guy
Member
Furthermore, firearms are not designed with 3D printing in mind. In the not so distant future I expect we will see functional firearms that have a different form factor than what we are used to but whose design is more conducive to this type of manufacture.
In particular, the means to integrate electronic components into the structure of the gun itself should prove interesting.
I would be willing to bet that in 15 years there will be firearms with integrated sensors and computers with targeting aids that correct for shaking hands, bad eyesight, and heavy trigger pulls.
Just like the film vs. digital analogy, film can still give better resolution, but the digital technology does so many other things effortlessly that it has been adopted by the mainstream markets.
In particular, the means to integrate electronic components into the structure of the gun itself should prove interesting.
I would be willing to bet that in 15 years there will be firearms with integrated sensors and computers with targeting aids that correct for shaking hands, bad eyesight, and heavy trigger pulls.
Just like the film vs. digital analogy, film can still give better resolution, but the digital technology does so many other things effortlessly that it has been adopted by the mainstream markets.
Cesiumsponge
Member
Chemistry Guy, you bring up a fascinating point.
Once we can print circuit traces that are basically monolithic and incorporated into the structure of an actual device, the failure points drastically drop versus using ribbon cables and wires and bus bars, etc with solder points, and solder points are stress risers sometimes prone to failure if they aren't tightly controlled in the manufacturing or assembly process. We could get rid of channels or holes or pockets to run our circuits, where they can rattle and fatigue and corrode themselves under recoil and adverse environmental conditions.
Currently we try to use epoxy potting to cement assemblies in high vibration or extreme conditions under a vacuum to pull the gunk into all the nooks and crannies so nothing rattles loose or short circuits. Being able to guarantee an air/water tight seal with no actual room to move around the components is an interesting idea.
I don't see us printing electrolytic capacitors or transistors any time in the near future, but if you can just embed these components by using the device itself is a breadboard to be populated, and use the printer to fill in any gaps and print traces, it'd be much better than any epoxy potting.
The only downside is repairs would require a new item, but failure rates should would drop.
EDIT:
I also just realized my CMM agument is invalid. If the consumer-level home manufacturing system is a three-part system that goes "3D scanner, 3D printer, 3D dimension verification", the CMM can be replaced with the initial 3D laser scanner which scans the object to be duplicated. One would simply need to update the software suite so that it can take a scan of the printed object and compare reference points to the original scan. Having a calibration object would be fairly cheap as well. In this manner, a more compact and consumer-friendly manufacturing package can be created. A product such as http://www.nextengine.com/ should give a fair idea (though I know someone that uses a Next Engine at work and the output mesh is not remotely as clean as the demo video claims)
Once we can print circuit traces that are basically monolithic and incorporated into the structure of an actual device, the failure points drastically drop versus using ribbon cables and wires and bus bars, etc with solder points, and solder points are stress risers sometimes prone to failure if they aren't tightly controlled in the manufacturing or assembly process. We could get rid of channels or holes or pockets to run our circuits, where they can rattle and fatigue and corrode themselves under recoil and adverse environmental conditions.
Currently we try to use epoxy potting to cement assemblies in high vibration or extreme conditions under a vacuum to pull the gunk into all the nooks and crannies so nothing rattles loose or short circuits. Being able to guarantee an air/water tight seal with no actual room to move around the components is an interesting idea.
I don't see us printing electrolytic capacitors or transistors any time in the near future, but if you can just embed these components by using the device itself is a breadboard to be populated, and use the printer to fill in any gaps and print traces, it'd be much better than any epoxy potting.
The only downside is repairs would require a new item, but failure rates should would drop.
EDIT:
I also just realized my CMM agument is invalid. If the consumer-level home manufacturing system is a three-part system that goes "3D scanner, 3D printer, 3D dimension verification", the CMM can be replaced with the initial 3D laser scanner which scans the object to be duplicated. One would simply need to update the software suite so that it can take a scan of the printed object and compare reference points to the original scan. Having a calibration object would be fairly cheap as well. In this manner, a more compact and consumer-friendly manufacturing package can be created. A product such as http://www.nextengine.com/ should give a fair idea (though I know someone that uses a Next Engine at work and the output mesh is not remotely as clean as the demo video claims)
Last edited:
celem
Member
Cheap Metal Printer For Desktop NOW available
A Cheap Metal Printer For Desktop is NOW available:
How about $500 for a desktop metal 3D printer! It will NOT be decades in coming.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/11/16/the-mini-metal-maker-an-exclusive-look-at-the-worl.aspx
A Cheap Metal Printer For Desktop is NOW available:
How about $500 for a desktop metal 3D printer! It will NOT be decades in coming.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/11/16/the-mini-metal-maker-an-exclusive-look-at-the-worl.aspx
Cesiumsponge
Member
That isn't an available product. It's a prototype and might stay vaporware if crowdfunding falls short of the goal. There's a bunch that pop up on kickstarter and indiegogo. and I've jumped onboard several dozen projects so far. People pledge money for a pitch and money is only collected if the pledges meet the funding goal. That serves as seed money to produce the product or further refining, which might or might not be a success. Investors have been screwed before when the product couldn't be made at the advertised price or manufacturing fell through. The inventor very clearly states he is still in the prototype stage.
FYI a good set of high resolution stepper motors or servo motors for three axis positioning, and precision ground ball screws or linear ways costs more than $500. The inventor says he is going to struggle to reach 200 microns, which is 0.008". Best of luck to him but the print head assembly is suspended a long ways from the column with four untriangulated structural tubes. Not very rigid. Some of the axis components look to be UHMWPE as well. There is a science (literally) to designing rigid structures. .008" is more than good enough for jewelry designers though, and it looks like he has that in mind with his clays. You want more precision and you start increasing costs exponentially for diminishing returns.
FYI a good set of high resolution stepper motors or servo motors for three axis positioning, and precision ground ball screws or linear ways costs more than $500. The inventor says he is going to struggle to reach 200 microns, which is 0.008". Best of luck to him but the print head assembly is suspended a long ways from the column with four untriangulated structural tubes. Not very rigid. Some of the axis components look to be UHMWPE as well. There is a science (literally) to designing rigid structures. .008" is more than good enough for jewelry designers though, and it looks like he has that in mind with his clays. You want more precision and you start increasing costs exponentially for diminishing returns.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Claiming a sale-price 500$ is stupid (especially in light of QE3), but the concept isn't. They are probably offering the printers at $500 for people who front them money at this early phase. Same thing the guys at Formlabs did when raising money to develop the Form 1 SLA printer. I think they started the price at around 1500$, and to buy one now is 3500$ (still a hell of a deal for a 10micron precision SLA device).
My skepticism of metal sintering lies in the fundamental thermodynamics of the undertaking; it takes a crap-ton of heat to melt metal in any quantity, even a little at a time, and both power and the equipment to direct it are expensive. I just don't see that aspect changing any time soon. It can probably still be cheaper than paying a person to make the thing, but not if it can be made by CNC.
As far as the metrology problems facing users; what accuracy do laser printers run at? And how frequently do they require manual calibration these days? Sorry, but gun parts don't need accuracy even to .01" if designed suitably. Barrels won't likely be made this way, simply because a round tube will always be more easily and precisely made by boring. Anything less than .001" is effectively a surface texture, which will be dealt with by wear-in or final fitting/polishing just like with any other manufacturing method. I'm also quite certain that the only group of handgun shooters pretending to be interested in anything that precise are 1911 guys, who we all know will buy a name-brand aftermarket part, anyway
TCB
My skepticism of metal sintering lies in the fundamental thermodynamics of the undertaking; it takes a crap-ton of heat to melt metal in any quantity, even a little at a time, and both power and the equipment to direct it are expensive. I just don't see that aspect changing any time soon. It can probably still be cheaper than paying a person to make the thing, but not if it can be made by CNC.
As far as the metrology problems facing users; what accuracy do laser printers run at? And how frequently do they require manual calibration these days? Sorry, but gun parts don't need accuracy even to .01" if designed suitably. Barrels won't likely be made this way, simply because a round tube will always be more easily and precisely made by boring. Anything less than .001" is effectively a surface texture, which will be dealt with by wear-in or final fitting/polishing just like with any other manufacturing method. I'm also quite certain that the only group of handgun shooters pretending to be interested in anything that precise are 1911 guys, who we all know will buy a name-brand aftermarket part, anyway
TCB
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
