The Imura Revolver 3D Printed Gun

[WarFairy]

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.

[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.

[WarFairy]

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.

[Geoff]

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.

[Mjolinor]

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.

[WarFairy]

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.

[curious aardvark]

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.

[WarFairy]

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.

[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.

[WarFairy]

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.