3D-printed Firearms

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!

Careful on what you print. You do realiize that by publishing intent to create the government can start taking an interest in whether they can come seize your property because you want to violate federal laws. No I dont know what federal laws. Yet the last American that I heard of creating a fire arm lost his printers and computers. From what you have written you are expressing intent of making something that has been deemed illegal. The reason that you dont see it anywhere online is because of it being illegal. I suggest you avoid doing anything other than magazines or receiver stocks. Otherwise we will be reading about you as well in the news.

Just my 2 pennies.

He's writing ABOUT 3d printed firearms, not making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -willy-

Careful on what you print. You do realiize that by publishing intent to create the government can start taking an interest in whether they can come seize your property because you want to violate federal laws. No I dont know what federal laws. Yet the last American that I heard of creating a fire arm lost his printers and computers. From what you have written you are expressing intent of making something that has been deemed illegal. The reason that you dont see it anywhere online is because of it being illegal. I suggest you avoid doing anything other than magazines or receiver stocks. Otherwise we will be reading about you as well in the news.

Just my 2 pennies.

---

As should be made very clear by the edit I've just added to the original post, I have no intention of developing or printing firearms, I am just writing a dissertation about them.

Thankyou for clarifying that point. I too will print parts of a gun yet if some one is hiring me to make the firing end I will be calling the FBI to let them know what a customer wants me to do. I have no desire to bend the law, parts and pieces of hard to find items are great. Otherwise no.

As to what has become of the subect matter, from what I understand, when people got arrested. Some legislation was put in effect, what that legislation was I cant say (as I dont have that information either). There was a vid that PBS did that was on Netflix about the fellow whom turned a blind eye to the possibility of prosecution. It was near the end of the narration of the show that had the info as to why little info will be found online about printable fire arms.

Good luck on your dissertation.

-willy-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheit

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.

outofstep, not sure what's your issue is. The guy never claimed he's an expert on anything nor claiming any sides of the argument; he's just asking for resources for his paperwork.

Maybe to start up, you should gather and understand what's with all the hype and overrating about the 3D printing. Pretty sure most of us who has dealt with standard FDM, SLA know the big drawback and bottleneck what stuff we can print and what we can't. Let alone the SLS and polyjet technology which is still in the industrial and I doubt you will find as many information as SLA and FDM. (<- You'll see the typical acronym in 3D printing world). P

You can understand why typical gun just can't be printed, and needs to be design specifically for 3D printing technology in order to achieve the best result.

Further, many people have been talking about 3D printing and most of them still have no clue. Even in an engineering school (Polytechnic school of Montreal), students just had no freaking clue what 3D printing is and when to use it. Yet, when they aren't well informed about the technology, they just send unprintable or poor design model.

Last tip, don't think 3D printing as "printing", think about a "fabrication process". Because as a fabrication process, it can clearly tell you what is the limitation , unlike printing which is more mythical and doesn't explain much.


Anyways, it's 3:35AM here, I don't want to write too much absurdity. Happens when I write too much at night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicanor76

outofstep, not sure what's your issue is. The guy never claimed he's an expert on anything nor claiming any sides of the argument; he's just asking for resources for his paperwork.

---

I dont have an issue. If you read my reply, I just dropped alot of info for him to use.

Are you upset because I used the word ignorant? Look up it's actual meaning, its not a "bad word" or an insult. Hence my IMMEDIATE example of saying me writing about a mechanical engineering issue would be from a place of ignorance. OP said he's working on a dissertation, not some simple paper. Those are worlds apart. Dissertations are typically written for your PhD. If dude is actually writing a dissertation, but doesn't know the 1st thing about either of the topics... he's not on the right track.

If that got you upset, you need to re-calibrate your dander meter.

One of the major problems with creating something in plastic (talking hypotheticaly) to shoot a bullet is the strength of the material, friction and heat.
Strength: A gun normally uses steel. Steel has a interesting characteristic that the more pounding it gets (in this case an explosion from the round being fired) will increase its strength. Compared to cast iron the more you hit it, the more brittle. So with plastic you have to print some thing that is around 2 inches in diameter to resist a (approximate) .38 calibre from fracturing the barrel.
Friction: Each time the bullet is fired the barrel will deform from the friction of the bullet. Plastic when rubbed with a fast moving (bullet) will start to gaul. Gauling is the plastic that was in the barrel will start to stick to the bullet. A person would be lucky if the round doesnt jam on the third firing.
Heat: We use heat to melt the plastic. Yet firing the bullet has an explosion (hopefully contained). If the bullet did leave the barrrel getting the casing to be removed from the breech would be the next problem. That casing can melt into the breech rendering the print useless.

Granted this bit of theorizing is assuming the person printed in PLA or ABS. I wont speculate on what it would stake to make it better as I dont want to build a gun in plastic. I prefer a chunk of steel that I can fill with some black powder and wadding to make a bang as opposed to moving a projectile. The use of a printer to create a weapon to rob a bank is pointless, as a zip gun can be done at a local home depot for a couple of dollars in 5 minutes. Where as to print something it would take hours maybe even days (depending on complexity). A zip gun is basically a steel pipe, with a crude handle, and something that will impact the back of the casing to create ignition. Not very effective and range is very limited.

The next point is why bother? Yes some one has proved it could be done. Yet a criminal on the streets knows that there are usually a gang some where that will fence a firearm that will be far more effective than any thing printed. Private sales from some ones home is probably the easiest way for some one to get a weapon. Generally some one whom shows a polite interest in a weapon wont arouse suspicion at the time of sale. These weapons are far superior in quality and reliability than anything in plastic.

okay - now depending on what you want to write about. ie: the impact of 3d printed plastic guns in the usa - very little.
OR the impact of 3d printed guns in the wider world - potentially much greater.

Start with the fact that we're currently talking 99% of the manufacture of pistols. A pistol has no other purpose than to shoot other people.
It's of no use in hunting, it's 'usefullness' lies in the fact that it's easily concealable and instantly recognisable by anyone it's pointed at.

Once you disregard those who just want to make their own gun, and have no criminal purpose in mind, the main purpose for making your own gun is to avoid traceability.
Most guns can be traced either through serial numbers or the marks the barrel and firing pin leaves on both the bullet and cartridge.
It is pretty easy to make your own gun out of bits of everyday hardware, but most people don't think like that - fortunately.
So an untraceable gun made from plastic that can only really be fired a couple of times, is going to be mainly of interest to those who wish to shoot another person and get away with it.

Now in the states, this is a great idea. You can buy ammunition in most hardware stores and not require any kind of licence or identification.
Elsewhere in the world this is not necessarily the case.
In the uk you need to have a firearms licence and show it when buying rifle ammunition. Even shotgun shells can only be bought by someone with a shotgun licence.
Pistols are just banned. Only the people who target shot them cared when they were banned. Everybody else didn't need one or want one.

So making your own gun in the uk is pretty pointless. You can't buy ammunition for it legally and reliable ammunition is harder to make from scratch than the gun.
And if you already know where to buy illegal ammunition then you probably also know where to get an illegal firearm and won't need to print one anyway.
It is also illegal to print a firearm in the uk. If you are a criminal and have access to illegal ammunition then a cheap, untraceable and disposable gun becomes an attractive proposition. So again, while some of us might like to print the thing as an exercise in printing - nobody really cares that we can't, without risking prosecution.
I've thought about it - but why bother, I wouldn't be able to shoot it, and I could lose my printer and face criminal prosecution as a consequence.
I actually do have a current project to do the cad design for a pin fire cartridge for an old shotgun. But that's for someone who has all the licences you could wish for and is a serious historical gun collector.
Once I've got the design right, I'll print a couple sample palstic cartridges and we'll see about getting them made through a metal printing bureau.

Now back in the states where guns are treated as toys and fun for all the family. There are different considerations.
Psychologically the american views guns from an entirely different angle than the majority of the rest of the world.
You can legally buy and own a handgun in many states, so why not be able to make your own ?
And we're back to traceability. That and the simple fact that an all plastic gun is likely to literally blow up in your face.
Which is why any sensible design would include a metal barrel, even a simple tube from the hardware shop can be made suitable with the right modifications - which I'm not going to go into, for obvious reasons.

However if you leave home printers and instead enter the world of metal 3d printing. You've got a whole new set of considerations.
A metal powder deposition laser sintering printer, can not only make a fully metal gun, but one every bit as durable and practical as a conventional factory produce firearm.
And that's where you're going to have to see some new legislation.
The potential for someone to start making quality metal guns - untraceable by current methods - cheaply and with very little knowlege required other than how to use the printer, has numerous implications.

At the moment people are tightly focussed on plastic guns that are inaccurate and likely to break during use. But with metal printing getting cheaper and more widespread, that's where the future problems are going to occur.
Homemade ammunition - metal cartridge cases - can be printed to tight specification in a metal printer. And even in the uk you can still buy the materials to make both gunpowder and nitrocellulose (the original smokeless powder) without any problems.

So forget homemade plastic guns - they're a dangerous gimmick at best - but industrially printed metal guns - they will become a reality in the next few years and one that will be much harder to stop.
Gun running simply won't be necessary. Stick a couple of printers in a shed and start making the guns in the country you want to sell them in.

Want to be an arms dealer ?
spend $20,000 on a metal printer and start printing your own. The cheap plastic machine can be used for stocks and any non-metal parts.
The designs for kalashnikoff rifles are about as widespread and simplified as a gun's design can be and shouldn't pose any problems to even the cheapest metal printer.
Likewise all modern firearms currently exist as cad designs. So even that aspect is already covered.

Just bear in mind that the states is totally untypical on a global scale.
Pretty much the rest of the world treats guns as a tool, not as a toy or an indelible part of their national identity.
Americans often mistakenly believe that guns are rare in the uk. Not so, you just need a reason to own one, and then you need a licence. But if you want one, you can have one - you just need to want it for a reason, and be able to prove that reason.
The vast majority of the population don't need one and don't want one.
And that 'don't want one' approach is what generally confuses the average american.
Brits don't want a gun because they don't need a gun.
Very few americans can understand that. And very few brits can understand why americans want guns they don't need.
That and the english language are the two biggest differences between our two peoples.

Criminals can only really own illegal guns in the uk. And that's been the case for a fairly long time. And they're not easy to get hold of. While I could easily make my own gun, I have absolutely no idea how you go about obtaining one illegally.
Metal printed guns could change that, I don't see it happening in the uk. We're just not a gun oriented culture, even our criminals don't immediately gravitate towards them.
But once something has been proved doable - someone will always do it.

In the states the advent of quality and untraceable metal printed guns could have a definite impact. Particularly when you realise that you're not limited to simple pistols. But can print almost the whole gamut of man portable firearms.
And that's the scary future of cheap metal printers.

Anyway, I hope that's given you a couple of different angles to use in your dissertation.
It's interesting that until I started typing this I hadn't considered metal printers and guns. But now, well that's quite possibly the future of firearms manufacture anyway - legally and illegally.

What Curious Aardvark said, but for every UK, read Australia.

And the media hype about 3D printed guns is just that, hype. Actually it's ill-informed, grab-at-a-straw, unresearched bunkum. Just like every light airplane that is involved in a flying incident is a Cessna, not matter what the truth might be.

A dissertation, essay, or whatever about the 3D Printing of guns is best suited for submission as an English Literature work of fiction. You'll get better grades and your work will make more sense.

Old Man Emu

I agree with a majority of your post, but there's one part that you might be confused about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curious aardvark

Just bear in mind that the states is totally untypical on a global scale.
Pretty much the rest of the world treats guns as a tool, not as a toy or an indelible part of their national identity.
Americans often mistakenly believe that guns are rare in the uk. Not so, you just need a reason to own one, and then you need a licence. But if you want one, you can have one - you just need to want it for a reason, and be able to prove that reason.
The vast majority of the population don't need one and don't want one.
And that 'don't want one' approach is what generally confuses the average american.
Brits don't want a gun because they don't need a gun.
Very few americans can understand that. And very few brits can understand why americans want guns they don't need.
That and the english language are the two biggest differences between our two peoples.

---

Only the absolute bottom of the IQ scale in the US would ever consider an actual gun to be a toy, and the ones who do wouldn't likely be able to legally buy a handgun (or even carry one they already own) in over half the states. While several rural families do teach their children to hunt at a fairly young age, they teach responsibility along with it.
Second, there are only a few states where buying and carrying a pistol is a largely unregulated process, judging the entire country on them is like making an opinion on the entire EU based on Amsterdam's drug policies. For the rest of the country, buying a handgun requires a background check and licence almost as difficult to obtain as one in the UK with the important exception that America recognizes self defense as a reason for carrying a gun.
That's the big difference between the US and other places with regards to firearms, is that the use of a firearm (or in the UK even a knife) in self-defense is kind of an unfathomable concept to most non-Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feign

I agree with a majority of your post, but there's one part that you might be confused about.

Only the absolute bottom of the IQ scale in the US would ever consider an actual gun to be a toy, and the ones who do wouldn't likely be able to legally buy a handgun (or even carry one they already own) in over half the states. While several rural families do teach their children to hunt at a fairly young age, they teach responsibility along with it.
Second, there are only a few states where buying and carrying a pistol is a largely unregulated process, judging the entire country on them is like making an opinion on the entire EU based on Amsterdam's drug policies. For the rest of the country, buying a handgun requires a background check and licence almost as difficult to obtain as one in the UK with the important exception that America recognizes self defense as a reason for carrying a gun.
That's the big difference between the US and other places with regards to firearms, is that the use of a firearm (or in the UK even a knife) in self-defense is kind of an unfathomable concept to most non-Americans.

---

You can't buy a handgun in the UK. There are a few special exemptions but generally they are not allowed. Even the Olympic shooting team have to practise offshore as they are not legal in the UK at all. Anyone that actually owns one has to keep it at a special location, normally in lockup at UK airports and they can only be taken out of there with special license when they are going abroad. The main exceptions of owning one is if you are a licensed slaughter person.There are other exceptions like gamekeepers or dangerous animal breeders, all few and far between.

Maybe I should reword that, "a licence almost as difficult to obtain as a firearm's license in the UK" Getting a pistol in the majority of the states is about as difficult as getting a rifle in the UK.

It's all a bit stupid really. Prohibiting them only means that the only people with them are criminals and if anything they are now more easily obtained illegally than they were before the ban.

Feign - you're an american - so psychologically you're probably not psychologically capable of seeing this from anyone else's point of view. The simple fact that you believe carrying a hand gun for 'self defence' is a valid reason to own one - means you can never understand the point of view of someone who says: 'self defence against what ?, Oh yeah someone else carrying a gun.' Without seeing the absolute irony of the statement.

Like i said I'm not having a go at americans. It's just that most of you have a completely different relationship to firearms than brits and many other nationalities.
To US you treat guns like toys.

Quote:

---

While several rural families do teach their children to hunt at a fairly young age, they teach responsibility along with it.

---

You ever met kids ? forget what you teach them, kids and handguns should never mix.

Anyway this isn't a thread about the morality of firearms. The usa and most everyone else see them in vastly different ways. Accept that and move on.

I was just trying to give the guy writing the dissertation a couple of different approaches to the subject :-)

A) Dissertation is also for some bachelor and master degrees, not just PHD. Depending on the college, it's often called a thesis; but some do distinguish the two terminology as different. B) None of what you said are not sources of what he was originally asking, he cannot source what some guy "dropped alot of info" on a forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by outofstep

I dont have an issue. If you read my reply, I just dropped alot of info for him to use.

Are you upset because I used the word ignorant? Look up it's actual meaning, its not a "bad word" or an insult. Hence my IMMEDIATE example of saying me writing about a mechanical engineering issue would be from a place of ignorance. OP said he's working on a dissertation, not some simple paper. Those are worlds apart. Dissertations are typically written for your PhD. If dude is actually writing a dissertation, but doesn't know the 1st thing about either of the topics... he's not on the right track.

If that got you upset, you need to re-calibrate your dander meter.

---

Considering you can make a "zip gun" with a piece of metal pipe and something to smack the firing pin on the bullet, I don't think a plastic gun is really going to be all that attractive in the long run, especially with the fact that the bullets get quite hot when they fire and you risk melting your newly printed gun (or having the barrel explode in your face). Right now people are interested in it, just because it's a novel idea, not because it is at all practical.

Why does someone climb a mountain? To see if they can achieve their goal. Why do some people make their own furniture when you can just go out and buy it from a manufacturer? Just like building said furniture, shooting at a range is a hobby that a lot of people really enjoy taking part in.

I believe some in this forum have already submitted the fact that just buying a 3d printer and plugging it into an outlet, doesn't mean one can produce a firearm. 3D printers take a lot of effort to get right. I am part of many many 3D groups across many many forums, and I almost daily read someone stating, "I am about to throw this POS in the trash!" or, "Anyone want to buy this printer, I can't get it to work, I've had it!". These are highly technical devices that need to be constructed (in most instances). Lets then talk about self teaching CAD software...yeah, give it a shot if you've never touched any of the multitude of available program options on the market. Now, using almost as many options to find a slicing software which involves setting wall thickness, initial layer height, print speed, infill patterns, infill %, support options, and hundreds of more setting one must experiment with in order to make even some of the most basic files a full fledged "hold in your hand" item. Temperatures, filaments, etc. The list goes on and on.

In the event someone makes a fully plastic gun, they might have trouble making a firing pin out of plastic, and surely a tough time making ammunition from plastic. I wouldn't want to fire a plastic, .04mm walled casing full of explosive powder! If I had criminal intent (which I absolutely do not), I would not waste the time learning all that was necessary to create a weapon. I would go to the local sporting good store and buy a bat. I, for one find it fascinating and challenging. With this technology, someone may develop something that enables our troops, farmers, engineers, or doctors prevail in the future.

I agree with 3Dspider: Right now people are interested in it, just because it's a novel idea, not because it is at all practical.

Our forefathers carved out pieces of wood to house the metal components in the construction of firearms, yet people still have trees in their yard.

Thankyou for clarifying that point. I too will print parts of a gun yet if some one is hiring me to make the firing end I will be calling the FBI to let them know what a customer wants me to do. I have no desire to bend the law, parts and pieces of hard to find items are great. Otherwise no.