Quote Originally Posted by Geoff View Post
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.
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.