3D Printed Guns
-
02-02-2024 2:22pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
And already there is a method called electro-chemical rifling using pretty simple over-the-counter bits to drill, chamber and ream steel into very serviceable barrels that you could do at home.
As said it's the new hype for anti-gun politicians and govts to terrify the unknowing with lurid stories of people printing off 3D guns at home to commit murders and mayhem. Or as people who kicked this off like Cody Banks of DEFCAD and J Stark[RIP] with his FGC-9 design[F*K Gun Control 9mm], point out gun bans and confiscation are virtually impossible anymore with the advent of the internet, file sharing and 3D printing and that people who need a gun can easily make one if they need to.
Hence the logo below.Based on the old Texas battle flag of the Alamo pic of a cannon under the Lone Star to that of a file and changing the logo from" Come and take it" the challenge of the Alamo defenders to Gen Santa Anas Mexican troops to "Cant stop the signal"
Yet there are designs and plans freely available on the net like the PA Luty SMG or Prof Parabellum that use nothing more complicated than hacksaws and files and at most a LIDL angle grinder and stick welder to make very functional firearms.All the 3D printer does is make the parts a bit quicker.
"If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."
Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
This can become an extremely long topic, and can go into a massive amount of sub-tangents. There are two major subsections: Current situation, and future developments. I'm going to start with the US position, as one of the largest sources of firearms and firearms technology, and then we can move to Europe. 3D printing below refers, unless otherwise specified, to plastic/polymer, not metal printing.
The single biggest reason that 3D printed firearms aren't a major issue to date is the cheap and easy availability of factory produced firearms. Only enthusiasts, the truly dedicated, or those who want a challenge have really gone into it. When you can buy a completed AR-15 for $800 or less, why go through the hassle of building your own, especially if you need to buy a printer or CNC machine or whatever to do it? A similar argument happens for criminal use: There are plenty enough pistols on the black market in the US that there isn't great need for 'home-built' firearms.
For those that do want to home-build anyway, CNC machines do a better job than 3D printers. Though the CNC forums often have sub-threads for those who wish to build their own firearms, that's usually for people who know what the heck they're doing. For people who don't know what they're doing, there are plug-and-play options like the Ghostgunner. $500 and it comes with everything you need, to include the software, to machine your own receivers. In the US, the pressure-bearing components are usually considered replaceable parts, the 'gun' itself is legally the receiver, so if you have your hands on a receiver, you can build everything else. It doesn't require a gun-smith. This is how I received my FAL… erm… sorry. Those were illegal when I bought it, so it's actually an SA-58. Only the big piece at the bottom left is the 'gun' in the US, purchased from a firearms dealer. I got the rest US mail and put it together without a manual.
The receivers themselves are sold as "80% finished". Basically, there is a point at which a lump of metal becomes a firearms component. Under current US regulation, that's about 80% of the way there. The purpose-made CNC machines do the other 20%. Should the law change to 60%, I'm sure it won't take much tweaking for the CNC machine to do 40%, but eventually you get to the point where you need to start considering if you need to consider a rectangular brick of steel as a firearms part. A couple years ago, a criminal 'factory' of such weapons was discovered in California. However, as mentioned, such things are rare enough as most criminals tend to just buy black market pistols if not lawfully purchased pistols.
The same situation applies to 3D printed firearms. In the US, there is little need to worry about 3D printing barrels or chambers because they are freely available. You only need to print the receiver. 3D printed receivers have been a reliable thing now for a few years, I'll get back to developments on the pressure-bearing side in a moment. What is different, however, about a 3D printer vs a CNC 'easy-use' system like Ghostgunner is that the CNC machine is pretty much a single-purpose component. You're not going to buy a Ghostgunner unless you have the specific intent of manufacturing a firearm. In jurisdictions with somewhat tighter rules, you can simply prohibit the sale of the thing. 3D printers, however, are becoming more common for all sorts of legitimate purposes and thus are much harder to regulate. (That said, some US politicians have started submitting legislation to require background checks to buy 3D printers).
OK, metal bits. For similar reasons to the firearms as a whole, metal bits in 3D printed weapons are often a matter of convenience. For example, magazine springs. It is theoretically possible to make a 3D printed plastic spring for a magazine. It's been done for the sake of the demonstration. However, it's not very space efficient. It's a lot easier to get a steel rod of the correct quality, available easily for all sorts of legitimate purposes, and simply bend that to shape. Better yet, just buy the magazine. There's a few hundred million of the things in the US, it's not a major blocker.
The other obvious fun one is the barrel. As you can imagine, there are small differences in the pressure and heat resistance requirements of a semi-auto .22 and a .50 cal Browning HMG. 3D printed barrels capable of taking a .22 are currently a thing. They are not the most accurate things in the world (after a few rounds), but they work. Current commonly available designs like the Tubee 22 are intended to use a barrel liner for the rifling and wear control, but the chamber pressure is all 3D print-contained. But for the sake of it, four years ago the life of a 100% 3d printed .22 rifle barrel was demonstrated as about 20 rounds before the rifling wore away, and 65 rounds before the barrel failed. I'm not sure where we stand now, but I suspect it's gotten better. You also wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of the first 20 or 30 rounds even four years ago, and I don't think there are exceptions in firearms laws in most places for "sure, the thing only lasts a couple of magazines". But, again, since you can buy a .22 semi-auto from the factory for $200, this remains purely a technical experiment for now and a bit of a novelty.
So, generally speaking, there is no large-scale motivation in the US to make home-made rifles a thing, and the laws which permit it are made a bit redundant in jurisdictions like Ireland which restricts firearms components other than the receiver. Current 3D printed firearms which may show up (like the FGC-9 which popped up in the North a year or two ago) are either going to be extremely short-service life (and thus be treated as partially disposable) or of dubious effectiveness because of non-quality barrels and liners. Still, how much are you going to risk standing in front of an FGC-9 and letting them shoot it at you?
That's the 'today' position. The problem is the 'tomorrow' position. The 1911 sintered metal pistol referenced above was built using a machine which, when I looked it up, cost something akin to $2.5 million dollars at the time (over a decade ago), and was installed at a specialty manufacturing facility. I looked up a similar machine a year ago, and the cost was still six figures. Not the sort of thing Joe Soap is going to have in his hobby room, but the trend is obvious. Remember when laser printers were so expensive only corporations could buy them? Or when computers were only found in universities and defense departments? Even polymer 3d printers have gone over a decade from being multi-thousand-dollar major investments to something a typical hobbyist who wants to do some modelling or whatever can get and not take much room in his man-cave, all whilst increasing in quality of product. If someone wants to lay bets that there will not be a consumer-grade 3d metal printer on the market ten years from now, I'll put a tenner down.
Thus realistically the point of restriction in a place like Ireland is going to be, I submit, the ammunition. You can't 3d print propellant. I've never looked into how easy it is to make with commercial materials, but that's another matter.
I also ran into a chap at a range event (at Demolition ranch) who had created an electrically fired (thus eliminating even the need to buy primer caps), fully 3D printed firearm. Even the ammunition was 3D printed. The powder is still required, though. He had the scars on his hand from a chain detonation that I sure as hell wasn't going to shoot the thing (even though others were willing), but it does go to show that amateur tinkering has interesting prospects.
3 -
-
