Quote Originally Posted by sheit View Post
Hello,

I've just started writing what you could call a dissertation (although much less extensive than a usual one) about 3D-printed Firearms and their implications on primarily but not only gun control.
When I chose this topic over a year ago, all that had really been developed (or that I had heard about anyway) was the Defense Distributed stuff (namely the Liberator and the AR-15 Lower Reciever).
Now, however, there seems to be quite a bit more. So far, I've seen some allegedly partially 3D-printed SKS firing test, an article about some Japanese guy who got arrested for owning 5 different 3D-printed Firearms,
at least two of which could fire lethal ammunition (aka work, if I understood it correctly) and I've seen some 3D-printed revolver that is named after the Japanese guy.

What are all these new weapons, where did they come from, where can I find some concrete information on them? I seemingly can't even find out who developed most of them.

So, can someone who has researched this more thoroughly than I have, or even someone who just happens to have stumbled upon some information (anyone who knows anything on this topic really) post as much information as possible?
It would help me out a great deal (no, seriously, my graduation is pretty much dependant on this). Thanks in advance.

Edit:
In case it wasn't clear enough from the post above: I have no interest in developing or printing any sort of weaponry, I don't even need the blueprints, I am just writing a dissertation!
It sounds like you dont know anything about firearms or additive manufacturing, yet you're going to try and write a dissertation about both? You might want to choose a different topic. I don’t say that to be a dick, but quality research typically doesn’t start out with multiple fields you are ignorant in. As an electrical engineer, my graduate thesis wasn’t about thermal load transfers during metallic alloy forging…

However, let me at least start you off, if you want to continue. Especially seeing as this topic is “the new hotness,” and that every article it I’ve ever read gets it wrong. When infact it is much todo about nothing.

First off, in almost every US state there is absolutely ZERO illegal about manufacturing a firearm for personal use. There might be local laws infringing upon this (aka DC), but basically everywhere else it has been legal since the founding of the nation. So, I will speak in generalities because I have no clue what your local laws are.

The biggest stipulations are complying with the Gun Control Act of ‘68 and the National Firearms Act of ‘34. In short, you cant manufacture a short barreled rifle/shotgun or sound suppressor without first getting an “NFA stamp” after an FBI background check and you cant manufacture a new machine gun. After 1986 new machine guns could not be submitted for approval by individuals. Provided your state allows for it, machine guns are perfectly legal to own provided you get all the paperwork and clear the FBI checks.

For example, I can go down to Ace hardware (or lowes or home depot, etc) and spend 10 bucks on a 2x4, steel piping and fittings and create a gun. Provided it complies with the above, that is perfectly legal and has always been legal to do. Or if you have a CNC you could have simply milled a firearms receiver (the part that houses the barrel, trigger group, etc) out of a chunk of aluminum, steel, or a hard polymer. CNCs have been doing this for literally decades…

So right off the bat; manufacturing, assuming compliance with the law, has been around since basically the invention of the gun. It’s also as simple as 10 bucks and 30 minutes at Home Depot. Hell, most people already have enough stuff laying around their house to make multiple legal firearms.

Now that you have a background on how simple it is to make a gun and that it’s ALWAYS been legal to do so, lets move onto additive manufacturing.

Quite simply, it’s the reverse of subtractive manufacturing. It does the opposite of that CNC mill. There is the misconception that you can download a file and the printer magically pops out a part. That’s as true as the CNC magically making a part from a chunk of aluminum. It’s really a trade, the amount of work that goes into making and being able to print quality parts. However with the plastic printers, even when printing with nylons, they are much more limited than CNCs. Even with 100% infill, printers are looking at about ~40-60% of the strength had that same material been injection molded.

This means that the only viable plastic firearms parts are low pressure/strength parts. If you’ve done any research at all yet, you would know that a lot of these “full” printed guns use metal barrel/chamber inserts or a printed super thick to withstand the chamber pressure. Elsewise they very quickly fatigue and fail.

The elephant in the room. The media likes to push the “big scary” aspect of this. Does anyone seriously think the rocket surgeon sticking up liquor stores is going to invest thousands in a 3d printer, spend the vast amount of time it takes to use it right, just to make a single shot firearm? Or will they spend 10 bucks at home depot and make a zipgun? It’s fear mongering and that’s all it is. A new technology, that will be super disruptive to manufacturing, that the government doesn’t have its claws in yet. Big business knows the “ban something that people could use at home to print replacement parts” wont fly. So the tactic is “let’s scare the shit out of them,” that way they can regulate and tax it. It’s about control, not safety. It's about taxation, not danger.