The Imura Revolver 3D Printed Gun

Remember back a few months when a Japanese man was arrested for owning several 3D printed guns? Well, his legacy lives on, because a group called FOSSCAD is developing a revolver which is somewhat similar to Imura's Zig-Zag 3D printed gun, but is double action. They are calling it the Imura Revolver. The designs are coming along well, and the first parts are being printed out. More details on this new gun can be found here: http://3dprint.com/15556/3d-printable-gun-revolver/

Here is the CAd model for a part of the Imura Revolver. Opinions?
http://3dprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/gun3.png

Why is it every design uses a .38 caliber shell? It would seem other random sizes would be used?

well the only ammo you can easily get in the uk is .22 - and you need a firearms licence for that.

I presume .38 is cheap and widely used - certainly in the states. And I guess it's easier to kill someone with a .38 than with a .22.
There's no other point to a 3d printed pistol than up close killing of people.

I think the main reason is technical challenge personally. I can't believe that so many people want to kill someone.

there's no real technical challenge. It's a simple mechanism and as long as you're sensible enough to use a metal barrel - no major risk either (it'll probably still break, but shouldn't kill you).

There are soooo many things that could do with a decent design, that really would be a challenge that making inaccurate and dangerous to the user hand guns is somewhat pointless.

I can see where it might be useful for criminals in the states where you can buy ammunition at your local corner shop (maybe not all states) and to make a gun where you can't trace the rifling marks on the barrel would be useful - again mainly to criminals.

But why are the japanese getting involved ?

3D printed guns are a moot point in the US partially because getting a gun legally is so easy in most states, and in the ones where it isn't it is very easy to get them illegally. I'm wondering also why they went with the .38 caliber rather than the more common .22, .44, or 9mm.

The point of the 3D printed pistol is to say it exists, people on both sides of the gun control debate are leveraging the possible existence of home-made guns to push their agendas in one way or another. Of course, once something gets this much buzz, there's an inevitable crowd of people who jump on it with a "me too" attitude to get some media attention by re-designing it to call it their own (this would be where the Japanese are getting in on things).

fully 3D printed plastic guns will never be practical unless ammunition is specially made for them, and that's just not going to happen.

Hopefully the person that designed and printed it is the first to experience it backfiring and exploding terribly in his hand, and not some kid that downloaded the design :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff

Hopefully the person that designed and printed it is the first to experience it backfiring and exploding terribly in his hand, and not some kid that downloaded the design :/

---

I hope neither happens.

Hello everyone. I'm the designer of the firearm seen here. Keep in mind that this firearm has not been tested yet as it is one of the most complex prints FOSSCAD has attempted to date.

--Why is it every design uses a .38 caliber shell? It would seem other random sizes would be used?

This actually uses .22 Long Rifle. It is the most common cartridge on the planet, and only requires a single diameter of pipe to be used as the chamber and barrel sleeve. The caliber was chosen for its low power, low price per round, and simplicity in design.

--There's no other point to a 3d printed pistol than up close killing of people.

The point of 3D printing different firearms is to see what is possible more than anything. We have proven that single shot firearms are at least partially feasible in nearly 100% printed form. We have made AR-15 lowers that function for an acceptable length of time to take to a range for some target shooting. The next step was to make a semi automatic pistol. Unfortunately, with the pressures involved, there is no way to make a repeating pistol able to extract spent casings from the chamber of a fully printed barrel. The effect is somewhere between plastic flow and vacuum lock between the expanded casing and the plastic chamber wall. The solution was to use a steel chamber sleeve, but without a steel extractor, the issue still remained as to how to cycle the firearm. With Imura's design (Which was based off the Webley-Fossbery), we found the solution. That was the point to this. We wanted to solve an engineering problem that included both machine design and material properties in the core issue. I believe we have done so, but testing will tell. I'll save the ethics question for the end of this post.

--I can see where it might be useful for criminals in the states where you can buy ammunition at your local corner shop (maybe not all states) and to make a gun where you can't trace the rifling marks on the barrel would be useful - again mainly to criminals.

Its really not. The amount of effort that goes into getting a printer calibrated to the level useful for firearms parts is not insignificant or quick. Getting printed parts to an acceptable surface finish isn't trivial, and finally, there are far, far more effective weapons available for cheaper than the cost of even the most basic 3D printer. Quite simply, a 3D printed firearm would be the most circuitous and difficult path to obtaining a firearm in the US, whether acquiring a firearm legally or illegally.

--fully 3D printed plastic guns will never be practical unless ammunition is specially made for them, and that's just not going to happen.

We're workin on it. Initial tests have been discouraging, but we'll see what happens.

--Hopefully the person that designed and printed it is the first to experience it backfiring and exploding terribly in his hand, and not some kid that downloaded the design

I truly hope that doesn't happen. I've done as much as I can to make this firearm as safe as a 3D printed pistol in .22 long rifle can be. There is a significant amount of material between the user and all common failure points on a revolver of this sort, and there have been several updates to the design with safety in mind. I have made sure that the guy that is printing and testing this is using every possible precaution, including testing the first several cylinders worth of ammunition from behind cover with a remote trigger. I have no intention of letting anyone be harmed by one of my designs, and if it does not work, I'll continue to modify the design or abandon the project.

Now, as promised, the ethics of all this. Its been said here and countless other places that these things have the single purpose of killing, and that's simply not true. None of us that design these firearms want to see anyone harmed with them. We do this to push the limit of the materials and machines we have access to so that we know afterwards what works and what doesn't. We're not monsters, we're hobbyists. Personally, I hope that no 3D printed firearm is ever used in a crime, or truly anywhere but a safe environment at a range with proper and full precautions taken. They're design exercises undertaken by people like me to create something new using concepts from all over the spectrum.

I hope this post at least helps understand where we're coming from and why we do what we do. If you have any questions, concerns, or even just want to call me names for a while, feel free to contact me at www.fosscad.org/fc/chat . We welcome all, and will answer any questions you have as well as we can. I hope to talk to some of you more extensively.

Well, being it such a polarizing issue, you have to expect that people will at some point not make the distinction between hobbyist and monster. To many people the weapon itself is the evil, rather than the wielder, and by extension, the knowledge of the weapon, or even the interest in the weapon are evil. It's a different mindset than you or I have, but civil discussion can still be had if the moral issues can be agreed to be disagreed upon. All our points of view have skies that are blue.

As for the question of "why" there's a good quote that I heard reciently that I'll paraphraise: "I hope I will never need a gun. But if I ever do need a gun, I'd better have one. Which is a good reason to have one."

EDIT: Oh yeah, I had a point I was going to make:
WarFairy, you and others have to know that the hobby of printed guns doesn't sway the gun control people. Fear is their number one tool, and the media around this makes more of it. The worst case scenario of the public attention to the hobby is the regulation of 3D printing as a method of making guns in places that regulate guns. Why draw attention to it? I mean, I have no real issue with gun hobbyists, but the more attention it has, the more fear the regulatory crowd has to throw around to harm the industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feign

Well, being it such a polarizing issue, you have to expect that people will at some point not make the distinction between hobbyist and monster. To many people the weapon itself is the evil, rather than the wielder, and by extension, the knowledge of the weapon, or even the interest in the weapon are evil. It's a different mindset than you or I have, but civil discussion can still be had if the moral issues can be agreed to be disagreed upon. All our points of view have skies that are blue.

As for the question of "why" there's a good quote that I heard reciently that I'll paraphraise: "I hope I will never need a gun. But if I ever do need a gun, I'd better have one. Which is a good reason to have one."

EDIT: Oh yeah, I had a point I was going to make:
WarFairy, you and others have to know that the hobby of printed guns doesn't sway the gun control people. Fear is their number one tool, and the media around this makes more of it. The worst case scenario of the public attention to the hobby is the regulation of 3D printing as a method of making guns in places that regulate guns. Why draw attention to it? I mean, I have no real issue with gun hobbyists, but the more attention it has, the more fear the regulatory crowd has to throw around to harm the industry.

---

It is a massively polarizing issue, and I know most people on one side or the other won't be swayed. All I can do is portray myself as I am and hope that the Monster I'm portrayed as by certain people comes to be seen as the smoke it really is. I just make things and teach other people how to make things. That's really all. I have no desire to ever harm another living creature in any way. Its just bad karma.

As far as politics go, I try to stay out of them. I don't try to draw attention in the slightest. People make of my designs what they may, and a few of them got posted around. It was never my intention to be on any politician's radar what so ever, or to have articles written regarding the designs. I just want to design and test things that I think need to exist. Whether people fear or like what I do is entirely out of my control. If a local, state, or federal government decides that my hobby is so heinous as to constitute a crime, then so be it.

The data isn't going anywhere. It is out there for the world to see, hosted in a thousand little places all over the net, and in even more hard drives. Information wants to be free and I have no intention on ceasing my efforts to to spread knowledge. Be it test data, CAD data, or blueprints scrawled on napkins, the data will flow.

WarFairy: When you test it, can you take some videos? And it would be very interesting to see you tear down the gun and examine everything for various failures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roxy

WarFairy: When you test it, can you take some videos? And it would be very interesting to see you tear down the gun and examine everything for various failures.

---

I won't be able to test it myself due to where I'm at in the world unfortunately, but I'm hoping the guys that are working on testing it will take proper video of the firing and teardown. At a minimum, there will be a fire test recorded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roxy

I hope neither happens.

---

I hope neither happens also, I am sorry for actually insinuating that it would actually occur - it's just a subject I am not a fan of.

I am not opposed to guns at all, it's not really something we have a massive problem with in Australia due to the tight legislation of firearms, but it's clear in other parts of the world, the last thing they need is more guns.

@ WarFairy
While I appreciate your design, and I understand the theory of designing it purely to see if "it is possible" but to me, it's as backwards as reverting from the wagon wheel to the stone cart.

I feel like giving 20 cents here, but I'll just give you my 2c :) I won't go into caliber and other nitpicky things, I have not had experience with many types of guns, but I know what a .22 is like and honestly, unless pointed a metre from my face, it wouldn't worry me all that much.

Humans have been designing, engineering and killing people with projectile weapons for centuries - this is nothing really new. Whether it's for self defense or more sinister circumstances, the fact still remains this is not a new thing.

3D printing is a relatively new thing in comparison - so what I wonder constantly is, why are people wasting their time making old things with it?

Sure make a replica of something, sure make a replacement for something old, or reproduce an old piece of Art or sculpture... but if I were to put myself in the position of someone who would be inclined to actually make firearms, would it not be cooler to actually invent something, oh.. I don't know... something that's actually new?

We always rave on about how things like Star Trek spawned waves of technological advances, touch screens, smart phones, ipads, mobiles... and of course Replicators.

If we are going to persue avenues like creating weapons, whether for recreation, harm or purely the "Can We?" factor, can't we focus on actually inventing something new? create bullets that don't need explosive charges? Rail gun tech?

Embedding metallic or magnetic properties into filament? etc... so many avenues no one is bothering to really go down, instead we are simply recreating the wheel (not even re-inventing it)

So while yes,I am opposed to people actually making guns with 3D printers, which to me gives them a bad reputation, and no, making futuristic guns wouldn't give it a much better reputation but at least it would be at the cost of being revolutionary.

Making a stock gun on a 3D printer isnt revolutionary, it's re-duplicating. :D

Is the import regulation so efficient down under so as to make them not available?

In the UK any type of hand gun is illegal unless you are armed forces or police. Even the Olympic team are not allowed to practise inside the UK and people that have hand guns that they wanted to keep have to keep them in designated places normally at airports and they are not allowed to take them out of there unless they are flying abroad. With all that in mind I know that I can leave here and be back within 45 minutes having located any number of illegal weapons.

It's a farce really, just another one of those laws that enables the police to not bother doing any work like ISPs blocking websites and speed cameras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff

I hope neither happens also, I am sorry for actually insinuating that it would actually occur - it's just a subject I am not a fan of.

I am not opposed to guns at all, it's not really something we have a massive problem with in Australia due to the tight legislation of firearms, but it's clear in other parts of the world, the last thing they need is more guns.

@ WarFairy
While I appreciate your design, and I understand the theory of designing it purely to see if "it is possible" but to me, it's as backwards as reverting from the wagon wheel to the stone cart.

I feel like giving 20 cents here, but I'll just give you my 2c :) I won't go into caliber and other nitpicky things, I have not had experience with many types of guns, but I know what a .22 is like and honestly, unless pointed a metre from my face, it wouldn't worry me all that much.

Humans have been designing, engineering and killing people with projectile weapons for centuries - this is nothing really new. Whether it's for self defense or more sinister circumstances, the fact still remains this is not a new thing.

3D printing is a relatively new thing in comparison - so what I wonder constantly is, why are people wasting their time making old things with it?

Sure make a replica of something, sure make a replacement for something old, or reproduce an old piece of Art or sculpture... but if I were to put myself in the position of someone who would be inclined to actually make firearms, would it not be cooler to actually invent something, oh.. I don't know... something that's actually new?

We always rave on about how things like Star Trek spawned waves of technological advances, touch screens, smart phones, ipads, mobiles... and of course Replicators.

If we are going to persue avenues like creating weapons, whether for recreation, harm or purely the "Can We?" factor, can't we focus on actually inventing something new? create bullets that don't need explosive charges? Rail gun tech?

Embedding metallic or magnetic properties into filament? etc... so many avenues no one is bothering to really go down, instead we are simply recreating the wheel (not even re-inventing it)

So while yes,I am opposed to people actually making guns with 3D printers, which to me gives them a bad reputation, and no, making futuristic guns wouldn't give it a much better reputation but at least it would be at the cost of being revolutionary.

Making a stock gun on a 3D printer isnt revolutionary, it's re-duplicating. :D

---

Hooey, this is gonna be a long one. Strap in boys and girls.

By all means, give the full 20 cents. I'm a big boy and we're having a discussion. It doesn't work if you hold back.

Make no mistake about the .22 Long Rifle cartridge. It is very much deadly. I've taken more than a few rabbits, squirrel and other small game with the .22 that has been passed down from my grandfather. It isn't the most potent thing on the planet, but it will cause harm, and I would very much rather never be struck with one.

Projectile weapons are effective. Its why they've been around so long, while the Gladius, Tower Shield and Pilum have gone the way of the dinosaur.

We make old things, yes, but we also create new things from novel interpretations of those things. They're stepping stones, not end points. Take my Charon design. http://i.imgur.com/HIWEBVi.jpg It began as the design exercise of seeing if a FN P90 stock could be adapted to the AR-15's operating system. The AR is a very good firearm. Reliable, easy to service, and parts are readily available in the US, but it isn't the most comfortable firearm on the planet. The FN P90 on the other hand is fantastically comfortable, but uses a stupid caliber, and parts kits are straight up not available, on top of the fact that the full firearm is expensive. I took two things I very much enjoy for different reasons and created a hybrid system, something that hasn't ever existed before and made it real by giving the files to people. I brought something into the world by using a computer, sending it half way round the planet to someone that plugged it into their machine, and watched it become real.

And if you want something even further from the base DNA of its predecessors, there's my Hanuman design. http://i.imgur.com/GJ1Bmll.jpg There is only one other guy doing anything like it, and he went an entirely different direction with his design. This uses a .22 Long Rifle conversion for a bone standard AR and puts it in a bullpup receiver. You can also use a bufferless upper like the Faxon Arms ARAK-21 to have a proper 5.56 upper without the length of a full AR-15. THAT is something that hasn't been done in open source. Ever.

Now we come to the Imura. While it isn't particularly impressive on its surface with being only .22 Long Rifle, it marks several milestones in development for the FOSSCAD project. It is our first serious attempt at using store-available metal tubing as chamber and barrel. It is our first self-indexing revolver. It is our first double action revolver. It is the first striker fired revolver (which is rare in the first place http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/i...p/t-74619.html With this link being the only references I can dig up). There are more, but I've gabbed about it long enough. It might not mean a lot to anyone outside of Printed Firearm Development, but it means the world to us. As I said before though, it is a stepping stone, not an end-point.

There's very little room for advancement in firearm technology. Rail guns are unfeasible for a laundry list of reasons, not least of which being expense. Can't 3D print a capacitor or rails true enough to allow the armature to slide with even contact. Coil guns are more feasible, but lower performance than gun powder without an increase in expense. Air guns might be an option, but even that would just be a shell around an existing valve and gas system. Much as I would love to build any of the three, we run into the fact that most open source projects are followed by people without a ton of expendable cash laying around. The cheaper the project, the better the chance it will be tested.

As far as advancing the tech of 3D printers, that's outside my control. I work with what other people can get their hands on, and that generally means ABS filament for consumer level printers ranging from 250 to 2500 USD. I COULD design things for laser sintering, but they'd never be tested because those that would be willing to test don't have access to that level of printer, and those with access to that level of printer are using them to run a business, not for fun.

All that being said, I'd love to design things for Metal Sintering. I could build fantastic machines the world has never even dreamed of. Miniature and full size motors. Multi output gearboxes. Fantastic time pieces. Aircraft. The list goes on, but the fact is that they'd be just that. Fantastic. Fantasy. No one is going to put forth the cost of the sintering powder. I mean, have you looked up the prices? 135 dollars a KILO for Aluminium, minimum purchase 20 kilos. That's bone shattering expensive, and the raw material cost isn't coming down. ABS filament came down in price because it is relatively easy to manufacture from cheap stock. That will not be happening with metal sintering powders. I can dream though.

Without access to more capable machines than what 99% of people who have printers actually have, I'm constrained in what I can do. I'm working in an inferior material to what I wish I could. Guns allow me to push the constraints of the material as far as I possibly can and still have a useful product at the end of it.

I love designing, no matter what the machine or item is. Firearms just happen to be more fun at the end of the day than just about anything else. Revolutionary breakthroughs are going to come when the printers are capable of delivering them. The printers we have now are barely model T's on the evolution of machinery. So much more will be possible when we get to the printer equivalent of the 50's.

Quote:

---

Quite simply, a 3D printed firearm would be the most circuitous and difficult path to obtaining a firearm in the US, whether acquiring a firearm legally or illegally.

---

On one hand - but on the other it would make anyone with a 3d printer capable of producing an untraceable and fully disposable firearm. For a few bucks.
And that's not a good thing.

Using the same argument that scientists have used down the years: ie: 'we designeda gun but we don;t want it to ever be used against people' - also does not work. have you met 'people' ?
Give them the means to make a cheap firearm - and they'll do it and people will definitely get shot by it.

You designed a GUN because it was a challenge.
Why not design any number of other things that are a challenge, that can't be used for hurting someone else.

Nope - that just doesn't wash. The reason for designing a gun is 3 fold.
1) huge publicity, I mean massive world wide publicity.
2) you like guns - that's not a crime, but it's rarely given as an honest answer.
3) you're some kind of fanatic who believes that the only way to make the world safe is to give everyone a loaded gun.

There is no moral high ground for you on this issue WarFairy.

I can see the attraction of desiging a cheap gun. But I'm also not blinkered or self delusional enough to refuse to see how it will be used and by who.

And yes, you can say if it's not you designing it - then it would be someone else. Alas this is also true.
That doesn't make it right.

And using .22 long ammunition is the right move for a gun designer but the wrong move from the point of view of an englishmen. As it's the most widely used ammo in my country and the one it would be easiest to get without a licence.
At the moment in the uk the criminal element doesn't often use firearms.
So thanks for trying your best to change that.
I'm sure all the future victims of plastic guns will also thank you.

A gun is NOT just an engineering and design challenge - never has been, never will be.
Own up to that or quit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curious aardvark

On one hand - but on the other it would make anyone with a 3d printer capable of producing an untraceable and fully disposable firearm. For a few bucks.
And that's not a good thing.

Using the same argument that scientists have used down the years: ie: 'we designeda gun but we don;t want it to ever be used against people' - also does not work. have you met 'people' ?
Give them the means to make a cheap firearm - and they'll do it and people will definitely get shot by it.

You designed a GUN because it was a challenge.
Why not design any number of other things that are a challenge, that can't be used for hurting someone else.

Nope - that just doesn't wash. The reason for designing a gun is 3 fold.
1) huge publicity, I mean massive world wide publicity.
2) you like guns - that's not a crime, but it's rarely given as an honest answer.
3) you're some kind of fanatic who believes that the only way to make the world safe is to give everyone a loaded gun.

There is no moral high ground for you on this issue WarFairy.

I can see the attraction of desiging a cheap gun. But I'm also not blinkered or self delusional enough to refuse to see how it will be used and by who.

And yes, you can say if it's not you designing it - then it would be someone else. Alas this is also true.
That doesn't make it right.

And using .22 long ammunition is the right move for a gun designer but the wrong move from the point of view of an englishmen. As it's the most widely used ammo in my country and the one it would be easiest to get without a licence.
At the moment in the uk the criminal element doesn't often use firearms.
So thanks for trying your best to change that.
I'm sure all the future victims of plastic guns will also thank you.

A gun is NOT just an engineering and design challenge - never has been, never will be.
Own up to that or quit.

---

The finished product may very well only contain the sum total of a few dollars worth of material, but factor in the cost of the printer, the failed items, calibration prints, and most importantly, the time it takes to not only set up the printer to a level that will produce a functional part, but to produce an acceptable version of that particular part, and it is bloody expensive. Eventually, a crime may be committed with a 3D printed firearm. That's just humanity for you in a nutshell. On a long enough time line, any item that exists will be used to kill someone. Whether it was a firearm, car, aircraft, or what have you, a 3D printer will eventually be party to someone's death. It may eventually turn out to be one of my designs that takes a life, but it could just as easily save one.

FOSSCAD designs things other than firearms, it just so happens no one writes articles or forum posts about them.

As to your three points:

1) I can't stand publicity. People online LOVE to crap on early efforts. Look at any gaming forum to see that. They'll do it even if they haven't the foggiest idea of what goes on behind the scenes of that screen shot they're ripping apart. CAD is no different. The number of posts and articles I've read screaming about issues, both existent and non-existent is brain numbing, and that's just on the technical side. Then there's people calling me a monster and telling me that I have no morals what so ever, but that's an entirely separate issue. The ONLY thing I want is to design and test my ideas. People watch the FOSSCAD twitter feed for renders, screenshots and release announcements. We don't send anything to media at all, they come to us.

2) I very much do enjoy firearms. They've been a part of my life since I was knee high to a butterfly. Their construction and operation, quite simply, fascinates me.

3) There is no way to make the world safe. Never has been, and never will be. My designs don't make the world any more or less safe. Firearms have existed for centuries, and will continue to exist for centuries hence, just as knives have, and just as sharpened sticks and stones have.

There were no considerations for the design outside of the functionality of the design itself. Politics and social impact aren't design considerations. People will do what they always have done regardless of if I am a hermit, write the STL files on the side of a building in big neon letters, or give the files away on the internet.

Whether someone is shot, stabbed, beaten, strangled or any of the other myriad and horrible ways mankind has devised to destroy one another doesn't make a difference to the victim. People will always kill people. There is no fixing that simple fact. A half pound of plastic, steel tubing, rubber bands, a steel pin, and a few weights isn't going to change that. If someone puts a gun to their own head and pulls the trigger, whose fault is it? Is it the manufacturer of the firearm? Is it the designer? Is it the guy who first figured out that adding cotton to nitric acid produced gun cotton? Is it the one that first ground together charcoal and salt peter? This design I've released isn't especially complex. It borrows concepts from a few places, but the further you go down the hole of blame, the more it looks like a fractal spiraling out. I am, of course, not absolved of any blood on my hands due to the design, should you decide to see it that way, but I place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the person that takes my files and creates them with the intent to do harm on his fellow man. Morality is a tricky thing, my friend. I don't see it as an inherently bad thing to create a firearm, knife, or any other weapon. It is just one of an infinite number of machines. I do see it as an inherently bad thing to use a firearm on another human being without due cause, I.E. they are about to deprive you of your health or life.

The whole problem I have with all of this is that the Liberator, one of the first, and certainly the most talked about Printed Firearm, has thus far not been used in any crime that harmed another human being, and if I'm doing the right searches, hasn't been used in any crimes at all. Its been online for quite some time and there hasn't been a single one.

I have no guilt for anything someone does with my designs that is against the law or harms another living thing. That blame rests squarely on them, and them alone.

As far as the design challenge goes, it was a challenge to satisfy all of my self-imposed limits on the design. It had to be legal under the USA's Undetectable firearms act, thus the four metal weights. It had to be automatically indexing without the use of a fragile pawl, thus the modified Webley-Fossbery grooves on the cylinder. It had to carry a comparable load of ammunition to commercially available semi automatic .22lr handguns, thus the 8 round fast swap cylinder. It had to stand up to repeated firings, thus the chamber and barrel liners in steel. It had to fit into a package such that it would not be unwieldy, thus the configuration of the striker with the weight parallel to the rear face of the cylinder. Finally, it had to be top-opening, because that's just bloody cool. Could it have been made more simply? Absolutely. The core operating system of a firearm is absolutely simple. Drive a pin into the primer, contain the expanding gas, expel projectile. Doing that more than once with ABS plastic as your primary material is not easy. It can be done through brute design, like the Liberator. It can be done through appropriation of other parts, like all of our AR-15 designs. Or it can be done with repurposing of parts, like the Imura using the precision tubing. Designing one of these is absolutely a challenge, and a damned interesting one at that, especially if you put the effort into making it as safe as it can be with the materials available.

Please abandon the project. You are clearly a very talented engineer. I know your intentions are engineering discovery, but the negative consequences in this case far outweigh the benefits. I would advise you to refocus your efforts elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bford903

Please abandon the project. You are clearly a very talented engineer. I know your intentions are engineering discovery, but the negative consequences in this case far outweigh the benefits. I would advise you to refocus your efforts elsewhere.

---

That's not going to happen. Consequences are the fault of people, not design and engineering.

Personally, as engineering challenges go, I consider the working 3D printed firearm to be just a stepping stone to the working 3D printed internal combustion engine.

Aside from that, if it's just for the sake of the engineering challenge, then there is no reason to publicly share the design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feign

Personally, as engineering challenges go, I consider the working 3D printed firearm to be just a stepping stone to the working 3D printed internal combustion engine.

Aside from that, if it's just for the sake of the engineering challenge, then there is no reason to publicly share the design.

---

Completely in agreement with that. If you want to give it a go then fine but there is no need to make waves all over the world which will lead to people that don't know diddly about 3d printers, making rules restricting them or the materials you need to use them.

There are also a lot more interesting challenges related to this area that may actually benefit people in general once they are solved.

It's Printed:
3D printed guns remain a major controversy, as authorities and makers disagree on the legalities involved. Last May, Yoshitomo Imura was arrested in Japan, and in October he was sentenced to two years of jail time, for designing and printing guns. His arrest has spurred some, including within the FOSSCAD community, to delve further into 3D printing of guns; FOSSCAD community member 'Wayfairy' has now designed two versions, and is working on a third, of what he has dubbed the 'Imura Pistol,' designing a new gun inspired by Imura's .38-calibur Zig-Zag revolver. Read more about the Imura Pistol in the full story: http://3dprint.com/63813/imura-pistol-version-2/


Below is a photo of Wayfairy's Imura Pistol v 2:
http://3dprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/i3.png

From a mechanical standpoint, your best bet is to start with a known-working model, then design parts to mimic those functions. Frequently, the only reason for things to be designed as they are is because we didn't have 3d printing until recently, and subtractive or molded/cast manufacturing can't produce things with the same detail. Start from a working model, redesign.

And to those implying that it's a matter of "wanting to kill people", allow some clarification: Most of us don't *want* to kill people. But when you live in a dangerous area or you have valuables, you need to be able to protect yourself. And when your only options are a half-brick in a sock or an extremely expensive gun, the problem comes down to money. Some of us are just broke. I'm fine with a .22. As a smaller person, a .38, a .357 mag, etc are just too unwieldy for me. I LIKE smaller weapons. I'd rather stick to my blades, personally, but if someone attacks me with a gun, even Ghandi agrees that it is right and just that I defend myself with my own gun.

I would rather have a half-brick in a sock any day of the week over a plastic gun.

I would also rather that whatever legitimate guns exist in any population of people belong mostly to the good and law-abiding people of that population. More guns, weather printed, smuggled or cobbled isn't going to change the ratio of law-abiding gun owners to law-defying gun owners. Consequentially, reducing the number of guns in a population won't change the ratio either.

If the gun laws of a place make it definitively impossible to be a law-abiding gun owner, then only changing the laws will help that, not changing the number of guns out there.

Well in the UK the ratio went from 99% legitimate -- 1% criminal to 1% legitimate 99% criminal overnight when they stopped people having them legitimately apart from a select few.

There are a whole lot more hobby lathes and mills in public hands. They make real guns, but you don't hear any of this nonsense about those.

Quote:

---

is whether or not it will actually fire a bullet without exploding in one’s hand.

---

given that they've used steel barrel and chambers - yeah no reason at all why it shouldn't fire.
Were you to fire afew shot in succession you would probably risk melting from the heat - but can't see any other serious issues.

Except the fact that outside of america, handguns have only one purpose: shooting people.
In america I suspect they're a sort of teddy bear substitute :-)
Hell they're even a lynnrd skynnrd song that states 'handguns ain't got no use but killing'.
And before we get into a slanging match - americans will NEVER understand the rest of the world's attitude to gun and we in the rest of the world will NEVER understand america's attitude to them.

So every 3d printed gun thread will naturally be in two completely seperate pieces.

The worrying thing about the new namura ais that it uses 22 long cartridges. Pretty much the only cartridge used for firearms in the uk and as such the one it would be potentially possible for a non-firearms certificate holder to get their hands on.

And for once and for all printing a plastic gun is an UNSKILLED job. making agun with a lathe isa SKILLED job. There is no comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlmccuan

There are a whole lot more hobby lathes and mills in public hands. They make real guns, but you don't hear any of this nonsense about those.

---

This.

People who want a gun, are going to get a gun. Is 3D printing another outlet? Sure, it may be.
However, you can build a much better, more reliable, more accurate gun that has the same traceability with some simple hobby mills.

Quote:

---

People who want a gun, are going to get a gun.

---

In AMERICA !
In the rest of the world, not so much.

Quote:

---

However, you can build a much better, more reliable, more accurate gun that has the same traceability with some simple hobby mills.

---

You might be able to.
the vast majority of the human race - not so much.
Plus a3d printer can cost as little as $300 - a full on metal work shop and a few years learning how to use it. Way more.

3d printed plastic parts can be made by ANYONE, well anyone who's prepared to learn how to use a gluestick and blue painters tape :-)
There is almost no skill required.
There is no comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarFairy

That's not going to happen. Consequences are the fault of people, not design and engineering.

---

If the design and engineering is geared towards creating and broadcasting (to call it something) a gun that intrinsically has "illicit use" all over it, without limiting who or what for is going to be used then you can't waive moral responsibility away so easily.
It's not much different as if some chemistry enthusiast set out to teach people how to make nerve gas in the privacy of their homes with readily available materials, to explore the limits of chemistry of course...

Seriously, if you can't appreciate the ethical implications of what you are doing you probably shouldn't be doing it.

What about this design "intrinsically has 'illicit use' all over it"? Are you looking at the simple fact that it is made in plastic? The fact that it can fire .22LR rounds? Maybe it is the coloring? Anything can be misused and there is nothing in it's intrinsic qualities that makes it only for one purpose. You see a scary, bad person, gun. Others see a well thought out mechanical design. It is neither good nor evil on it's own.

There are legitimate uses for firearms that are neither bad nor nefarious. Hopefully you never experience any of those circumstances first hand.

Keep up the good work WarFairy. You need to move to a more friendly location so you can actually do the testing as well.

Quote:

---

There are legitimate uses for firearms that are neither bad nor nefarious.

---

true - but not for an inaccurate easily concealed HANDGUN that fires 22 long rounds.

Guns are useful tools - handguns - not so much. Plastic untraceable hand guns - yeah, only two uses really.
1) plinking in your back yard.
2) criminal purposes.

Given that handguns - in general - are illegal in most countries anyway (america is JUST 1 COUNTRY - no matter how many times you slap the word 'world' in front of a purely american event, it doesn't make it so)
What it could be used for is a moot point. Just having the .stl files on a computer would be enough to be prosecuted in the uk.
And much as I'd like to make one, just for the sake of it. I'm not stupid enough to think the .stl downloads aren't being tracked by GCHQ.

As someone who enjoys shooting (targets not people), I hope I never, ever have to pull the trigger in defense of my family.

I see both side to the argument about 3d printed guns. Now, I see no issue with someone designing them and printing them, it is the person holding the gun that is responsible, not the maker, designer, seller, etc. (and I mean legal, not illegal). Argument that it can be used to kill people - sure it could but so can that printed knife - which by the way is actually easier to hide as you can print it with no metal parts.

People say that it is immoral or unethical to publish / design - whatever for the gun. Yes, it is illegal in some countries but then again so is pornography. A design / print of a naked woman, body part, etc. would be illegal in many countries (I've been to them) - Warfairy lives in one. How many would argue that posting a print file for a naked woman is immoral or unethical? Can't hurt anyone with it (I guess you could but would be harder) but there are still issues with having it in many areas. Sadly in the US, this would more likely cause legislation for 3d printers than guns (we are backwards in some ways).

In the end, if someone wants to get a gun, knife they are going to be able to get one. It doesn't matter how. If they want all they really need is a metal tube, nail, and a hammer (might not be accurate but it will work).

Posting the design doesn't matter. Someone that wants can now take pictures of parts, turn them into a model and print. Might take a little trial and error but I'm sure there are plenty that could make a working gun that way.

Enough rambling. People all over the world just need to get back to respecting each other, there is too much hate.

I know im bringing up a 2 year old thread but im wondering what happened to this gun? Are the plans downloadable somewhere?