Working Gun made with 3D Printer

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Grey Templar**

Just to clarify, I meant rifling and firing pin marks the gun makes on the bullet and cartridges. Obviously its not going to destroy serial numbers.

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:Just to clarify, I meant rifling and firing pin marks the gun makes on the bullet and cartridges. Obviously its not going to destroy serial numbers.

Oh, okay. In that case, see my previous answer still.

**whembly**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
While the tech is in it's infancy, let me ask, in ten years, when it has become more common and less expensive, do you think that people who print a gun to commit a crime are going to be worried about breaking one more law?

Not the argument that I was making. I've been pretty consistent in saying that criminals don't often care to follow laws. Its a career hazard

What I was trying to do though was share information with you that you may not have been aware of for you own, and your friend's sake, as you claimed your friend had made a firearm this way and you were counselling on replacing the metal with ceramic to frustrate efforts at detection.

Yeah, I had him melt it. Another nice thing about these: if you do use one for a crime, they're very easily disposed of.

If that's the concern... I really don't see it as a big deal.

I remember several years ago that a manufacturer testing a metallic material that would withstand the normal day-to-day rigors of shooting, but would dissolve in water (or maybe salt water?).

The same fears were brought up...

I need to find the info... brb.

**Melissia**

I'm not concerned with the disposable nature of them, but with the fact that they're much, much easier to sneak past security at the moment.

Of course, thankfully that doesn't have to have a new law because it's already illegal to make a firearm that can't be detected by a metal detector.

**azazel the cat**

Melissia wrote:I'm not concerned with the disposable nature of them, but with the fact that they're much, much easier to sneak past security at the moment.

Of course, thankfully that doesn't have to have a new law because it's already illegal to make a firearm that can't be detected by a metal detector.

Because someone who prints a gun for the purposes of sneaking past a metal detector is concerned about it being an existing law, right?

**Grey Templar**

Well, if an existing law isn't going to stop them, what makes you think any other law would?

Nothing needs to be done in reaction to this. Laws are already in place.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Grey Templar wrote:
Well, if an existing law isn't going to stop them, what makes you think any other law would?

Nothing needs to be done in reaction to this. Laws are already in place.

This. Criminals, by nature, don't obey laws.

The detectability issue is truly overblown. FIrst of all, current scanning technology in airports would detect a plastic firearm just as easily as a metal firearm. Second, crimes aren't typically committed in areas where security screening would prevent them.

**Grey Templar**

Well, if the gun is in the bags going through the scanner it will get caught. But the full body metal detectors won't if its in the guys pocket.

Bullets are of course going to be difficult to bring along. They'll set off the metal detector and get seen on the scanner.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Grey Templar wrote:
Well, if the gun is in the bags going through the scanner it will get caught. But the full body metal detectors won't if its in the guys pocket.

Bullets are of course going to be difficult to bring along. They'll set off the metal detector and get seen on the scanner.

These days TSA defaults to millimeter wave scanners. At least in every single major airport I've traveled through in the past year.

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:Well, if an existing law isn't going to stop them, what makes you think any other law would?

Nothing needs to be done in reaction to this. Laws are already in place.

Why would you assume I'm suggesting outlawing the possession? I had earlier suggested restricting access to the physical materials used for printing. It's not a perfect solution, it may not even be a good solution, but it is one that would be mostly effective.

@Nuggz: I'm curious about the use of body scanners. Those seem to be the most "highly-advanced" I've seen at airports in the last year, and my understanding is that those are pretty crappy.

**NuggzTheNinja**

azazel the cat wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:Well, if an existing law isn't going to stop them, what makes you think any other law would?

Nothing needs to be done in reaction to this. Laws are already in place.

Why would you assume I'm suggesting outlawing the possession? I had earlier suggested restricting access to the physical materials used for printing. It's not a perfect solution, it may not even be a good solution, but it is one that would be mostly effective.

@Nuggz: I'm curious about the use of body scanners. Those seem to be the most "highly-advanced" I've seen at airports in the last year, and my understanding is that those are pretty crappy.

They routinely detect discarded mint wrappers in my pocket, so I'd argue that they're pretty sensitive.

The majority of the studies indicating poor performance are from 2010 or before. For example, one of the earlier test showed a female agent who was able to pass without detection with a tiny handgun hidden "between the cheeks" so to speak. In this test, however, detection was attempted manually by agents reading the scans. Nowadays this is automated to increase privacy and probability of detection.

Judging by the size of the handgun (there are some VERY tiny handguns out there), and the size of the TSA agent's ass, it's entirely possible that traditional pat-downs would have missed it anyway.

**azazel the cat**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:Well, if an existing law isn't going to stop them, what makes you think any other law would?

Nothing needs to be done in reaction to this. Laws are already in place.

Why would you assume I'm suggesting outlawing the possession? I had earlier suggested restricting access to the physical materials used for printing. It's not a perfect solution, it may not even be a good solution, but it is one that would be mostly effective.

@Nuggz: I'm curious about the use of body scanners. Those seem to be the most "highly-advanced" I've seen at airports in the last year, and my understanding is that those are pretty crappy.

They routinely detect discarded mint wrappers in my pocket, so I'd argue that they're pretty sensitive.

The majority of the studies indicating poor performance are from 2010 or before. For example, one of the earlier test showed a female agent who was able to pass without detection with a tiny handgun hidden "between the cheeks" so to speak. In this test, however, detection was attempted manually by agents reading the scans. Nowadays this is automated to increase privacy and probability of detection.

it's less about the sensitivity, and more about the ability to read them. I recall reading about the glaring error that it is very difficult to read anything that is tucked beside the torso, such as a shoulder holster, just due to the nature of the scan readouts.

I personally do not know, as I never try to smuggle things onto airplanes, nor have I ever gone through a scanner (I'll take the pat-down, thank you)

**NuggzTheNinja**

azazel the cat wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:Well, if an existing law isn't going to stop them, what makes you think any other law would?

Nothing needs to be done in reaction to this. Laws are already in place.

Why would you assume I'm suggesting outlawing the possession? I had earlier suggested restricting access to the physical materials used for printing. It's not a perfect solution, it may not even be a good solution, but it is one that would be mostly effective.

@Nuggz: I'm curious about the use of body scanners. Those seem to be the most "highly-advanced" I've seen at airports in the last year, and my understanding is that those are pretty crappy.

They routinely detect discarded mint wrappers in my pocket, so I'd argue that they're pretty sensitive.

The majority of the studies indicating poor performance are from 2010 or before. For example, one of the earlier test showed a female agent who was able to pass without detection with a tiny handgun hidden "between the cheeks" so to speak. In this test, however, detection was attempted manually by agents reading the scans. Nowadays this is automated to increase privacy and probability of detection.

it's less about the sensitivity, and more about the ability to read them. I recall reading about the glaring error that it is very difficult to read anything that is tucked beside the torso, such as a shoulder holster, just due to the nature of the scan readouts.

I personally do not know, as I never try to smuggle things onto airplanes, nor have I ever gone through a scanner (I'll take the pat-down, thank you)

Nowadays the agent doesn't read anything directly from the scan. That part of the process is automated. It looks like this:

The scanners' resolution has significantly improved in past years. You can now see something as small as a 25mm knife blade in-line facing (inside of right shin).

Putting a firearm in a shoulder holster definitely will not prevent it from being seen using a modern millimeter wave scanner.

**Ketara**

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323158/How-Mail-On-Sunday-printed-plastic-gun-UK--took-board-Eurostar-stopped-security-scandal.html

How Mail On Sunday 'printed' first plastic gun in UK using a 3D printer- and then took it on board Eurostar without being stopped in security scandal

The Mail On Sunday today exposes the massive international security risk posed by a gun that can be easily made with new 3D printers.
We built the weapon, which is capable of firing a live round, from blueprints available on the internet – then smuggled it on to a packed Eurostar train.
Two reporters passed completely unchallenged through strict airport-style security to carry the gun on to a London to Paris service in the weekend rush-hour, alongside hundreds of unsuspecting travellers.

Reporter Simon Murphy carried the plastic gun on to a London to Paris service in the weekend rush-hour

Once on board the packed 5.31pm Eurostar train on Friday, the reporters were able to assemble the pieces to create a fully functional firearm, and pose for pictures close to unsuspecting passengers
The pistol, capable of firing a deadly 0.38-calibre bullet, was produced in under 36 hours using a revolutionary £1,700 machine to ‘print’ its components. And because all the parts are plastic, they did not trigger the metal detectors all Euro-star passengers must pass through.
Last night, the train operator began an urgent investigation into the security breach as experts called for airports and public buildings to review their procedures in light of our revelations.
The Mail on Sunday pieced together the 16-part pistol – called The Liberator by its creators – after downloading the designs. They were originally published by an American university student, who proved the design works by successfully firing a bullet on a shooting range.

More...
Blueprints for 3D-plastic gun remain freely available online despite State Department forcing the company behind the weapon to remove it from their site
Blueprints for 3D-plastic gun downloaded 100,000 times in 2 days before the State Department orders the site to take down the weapon designs
The blueprints have since been downloaded more than 100,000 times and are now widely available, despite attempts to remove them.
Made entirely of plastic except for a small firing pin and ammunition, the gun presents a huge problem for security services around the world, as it can be broken down into parts that do not set off metal detectors and may not show up on conventional body and bag scanning devices.
To test the procedures at St Pancras International Station, the gun produced by the MoS was split into three pieces and concealed in the clothing of two reporters who bought standard class tickets to Paris.

We then walked through the usual security procedures, manned by UK Border officials. We placed our luggage and metal objects, including loose change and watches, in plastic trays which were then passed through airport scanners. But although we were carrying parts of a potentially deadly weapon, we were able to walk through a metal detector without triggering the alarm.
While some passengers were patted down by security guards, we proceeded unchallenged to passport control, manned by French police.
Once on board the packed 5.31pm Eurostar train on Friday, we were able to assemble the pieces to create a fully functional firearm in just 30 seconds, and pose for pictures close to unsuspecting passengers.
We did not attempt to smuggle the firing pin or bullet for safety and legal reasons, but small metal items could be easily concealed.

Last night, security experts and politicians said they were horrified at the implications of our investigation. Lord West, the former Labour security Minister, called for a review to see how the ‘extremely dangerous’ weapons could be better detected.
But he said he was ‘not surprised’ that Eurostar checks had failed to spot the weapon because they were so hard to detect. He said: ‘What we need is a review of how we can look at these things and how we can discover them more easily. That will take work and it will cost money.
‘These weapons are extremely dangerous because they are very difficult to detect with the methods we normally use. This is going to be a real problem, no doubt about it. People are going to have to rethink whether we need more checks.’
A Eurostar spokeswoman said last night: ‘Eurostar has a high level of security, with a number of checks as specified by the authorities in order to protect the integrity of the Channel Tunnel. We take any issue relating to security very seriously. We will be investigating immediately to fully understand the nature of this issue with our security partner which carries out checks on our behalf at St Pancras. We will also investigate the matter with the Department for Transport, who oversee our security operation, and specify the checks that need to be undertaken.’

The Transport Department said the UK had ‘one of the strictest transport security regimes in the world’ and added: ‘This is kept under constant review in response to new or emerging threats, but we do not comment on specifics for obvious reasons.’
Cody Wilson, a 25-year-old law student at the University of Texas spent the last year designing the weapon. A self-styled libertarian, he argues that everyone should have access to guns, and said last week: ‘I recognise the tool might be used to harm other people . . . it’s a gun. But I don’t think that’s a reason not to do it.’
The US State Department last week rushed to ban the plastic firearm, but security sources fear the worst after the document was uploaded to file-sharing websites.
One user, DakotaSmith, wrote: ‘This is the first in what will be an avalanche of undetectable, untraceable, easy-to-manufacture weapons that will turn the tables on evil-doers the world over. Share and enjoy.’

Reporter Simon Murphy puts the 3D gun together in the Eurostar toilet
Firearms experts advised The Mail on Sunday not to test whether the weapon would fire due to safety and legal concerns. But the lapse in security will shock travellers.
Chris Yates, an aviation security analyst, said: ‘If Eurostar security can be breached in this way, then so can airport security processes.
‘Authorities should be extremely worried. The obvious danger is that if you have the ability to print out a gun on a 3D printer from a blueprint downloaded online, then the probability is that a terrorist has that capability as well . . . which could have devastating consequences. They could potentially cause a problem at 38,000ft that would cause the aircraft to crash or be hijacked.’
Lord West added: ‘If you actually have to search people’s baggage and go through it all, travel becomes a misery and the terrorists, in a sense, have won. There has to be a balance.’ However, he said that more sophisticated scanners might be able to detect the 3D weapons.
All of the major parts of the model were made using a program which reads files that tell the printer how to create each component from layer upon layer of plastic.
The only other part of the gun is a 25mm metal piece, which acts as the firing pin, and can be purchased from any hardware store.
The pistol can only be fired once using a .38 calibre round before the plastic barrel has to be replaced.
The body of the gun was made in just a day with smaller parts taking only a matter of hours.
In order to comply with gun manufacturing regulations in the US, Mr Wilson purposely designed his weapon with a steel component in the handle to make it detectable.
But it is not essential, and the gun can still be fired without it.
The Home Office said: ‘The UK has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. Anyone wanting to manufacture or own a firearm, including one produced through 3D printing, would need a licence. Anyone manufacturing guns without a licence is liable to prosecution.’
The MoS, which carried out its investigations in the public interest, has now dismantled the gun.

**Melissia**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Criminals, by nature, don't obey laws.

That's not a valid excuse for not having a law.

It never has been, and it never will be.

**Grey Templar**

No, but it is a valid excuse for not having a pointless law. One which does nothing except restrict law abiding citizens needlessly with no benefit for the public.

**Melissia**

Grey Templar wrote:
No, but it is a valid excuse for not having a pointless law

You have yet to prove that the ban on undetectable weapons is pointless.

**Grey Templar**

I didn't say it was.

I meant a ban on printable gun blueprints is pointless.

1) undetectable guns are already illegal

2) The information is going to get into the wrong hands no matter what you do

**Melissia**

Grey Templar wrote:
The information is going to get into the wrong hands no matter what you do

Irrelevant.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Melissia wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Criminals, by nature, don't obey laws.
That's not a valid excuse for not having a law.

It never has been, and it never will be.

It's a valid reason for not enacting additional legislation.

When considering a law, a reasonable human being will ask, "Does this make me more or less free?" Then he will ask, "Does this make my neighbor more free, or less free?" Finally he should ask, "Will this law actually have any tangible effect?"

Based on the answers to these questions, the reasonable human being will conduct a cost / benefits analysis to see whether the reward is worth the cost. When the reward is insignificant, and the cost significant, the reasonable human being will not endorse the law.

So basically, what you have said in every thread regarding gun control, is that you want laws without considering A) whether or not those laws will have any effect, and B) whether or not those laws infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. This is not reasonable.

**KalashnikovMarine**

So with what Nuggz has told us about the airport grade scanners here in the U.S. and given that the gentlemen at the Mail just informed us the barrel requires replacement every shot, I suppose I'm less and less thinking this is a threat. I'd be more worried if the lads at the Mail had smuggled it through complete with a small amount of metal to represent the firing pin and ammunition.

**Melissia**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
It's a valid reason for not enacting additional legislation.

People murder other people, despite the fact that murder is illegal. Should we get rid of laws that ban murder, as well? Obviously, since people are breaking the law, the law must be pointless and should be gotten rid of and ignored.

Oh wait, no, that's just your argument that is pointless and should be ignored.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Melissia wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
It's a valid reason for not enacting additional legislation.
People murder other people, despite the fact that murder is illegal. Should we get rid of laws that ban murder, as well? Obviously, since people are breaking the law, the law must be pointless and should be gotten rid of and ignored.

Oh wait, no, that's just your argument that is pointless and should be ignored.

That's a ridiculous straw man. Admit that your position is illogical and based purely in emotion.

**Melissia**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Melissia wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
It's a valid reason for not enacting additional legislation.
People murder other people, despite the fact that murder is illegal. Should we get rid of laws that ban murder, as well? Obviously, since people are breaking the law, the law must be pointless and should be gotten rid of and ignored.

Oh wait, no, that's just your argument that is pointless and should be ignored.
That's a ridiculous straw man.

It is a logical application of your argument. If you don't like it, blame your argument, because it sucks ass.

Hell, if you want to start talking about "emotions", you are the one that shouldn't let your emotions get in the way of your logic-- you don't even notice how hideously flawed and myopic your argument is. If you wish to claim a deadly weapon, a tool designed to efficiently kill a number of people, shouldn't have laws regulating it because people will break the law, then you should be prepared to explain exactly why other laws which are regularly broken should exist when your own pathetic reasoning says otherwise.

If you're not happy with your own argument being applied to other situation, then you had better be damned willing to explain why it shouldn't be applied elsewhere. If you can't even manage that, maybe you should rethink your argument.

So tell me, Mr. Genius Gun Rights Activist, why shouldn't we get rid of the law against murder? According to your argument-- as disgustingly stupid and utterly insane (and inane) as it is-- if a law is going to be broken, we shouldn't have it in the first place. Following that argument, a law against killing other people is going to be broken, therefor it hsouldn't exist in the first place. This is your argument, explain yourself.

**Grey Templar**

Because making Murder illegal does reduce the people committing it.

If it was legal we'd have like it was in the Wild West. People'd shoot each other for cheating at poker games so to speak, and it would be perfectly legal. "That slimy mechanic overcharged me for rotating my tires" "This jerk was lookin at my women" and so on.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Melissia wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Melissia wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
It's a valid reason for not enacting additional legislation.
People murder other people, despite the fact that murder is illegal. Should we get rid of laws that ban murder, as well? Obviously, since people are breaking the law, the law must be pointless and should be gotten rid of and ignored.

Oh wait, no, that's just your argument that is pointless and should be ignored.
That's a ridiculous straw man.
It is a logical application of your argument. If you don't like it, blame your argument, because it sucks ass.

Hell, if you want to start talking about "emotions", you are the one that shouldn't let your emotions get in the way of your logic-- you don't even notice how hideously flawed and myopic your argument is. If you wish to claim a deadly weapon, a tool designed to efficiently kill a number of people, shouldn't have laws regulating it because people will break the law, then you should be prepared to explain exactly why other laws which are regularly broken should exist when your own pathetic reasoning says otherwise.

If you're not happy with your own argument being applied to other situation, then you had better be damned willing to explain why it shouldn't be applied elsewhere. If you can't even manage that, maybe you should rethink your argument.

So tell me, Mr. Genius Gun Rights Activist, why shouldn't we get rid of the law against murder? According to your argument-- as disgustingly stupid and utterly insane (and inane) as it is-- if a law is going to be broken, we shouldn't have it in the first place. Following that argument, a law against killing other people is going to be broken, therefor it hsouldn't exist in the first place. This is your argument, explain yourself.

Have you really edited your post 10 times? Re-read what I wrote about the perils of emotional response.

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:Because making Murder illegal does reduce the people committing it.

If it was legal we'd have like it was in the Wild West. People'd shoot each other for cheating at poker games so to speak, and it would be perfectly legal. "That slimy mechanic overcharged me for rotating my tires" "This jerk was lookin at my women" and so on.

It actually wasn't like that, at least not much more than it is now. By and large that is just an oft-romanticized myth designed to sell dime store novels and (self-)promote the then-equivalent of rock stars.

EDIT: but that doesn't mean more people wouldn't commit murder if it were legal. Hell, I'd likely do it every time I see someone change lanes without signalling on the highway, or stand still at the bottom/top of an escalator.

**Grey Templar**

azazel the cat wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:Because making Murder illegal does reduce the people committing it.

If it was legal we'd have like it was in the Wild West. People'd shoot each other for cheating at poker games so to speak, and it would be perfectly legal. "That slimy mechanic overcharged me for rotating my tires" "This jerk was lookin at my women" and so on.

It actually wasn't like that, at least not much more than it is now. By and large that is just an oft-romanticized myth designed to sell dime store novels and (self-)promote the then-equivalent of rock stars.

EDIT: but that doesn't mean more people wouldn't commit murder if it were legal. Hell, I'd likely do it every time I see someone change lanes without signalling on the highway, or stand still at the bottom/top of an escalator.

I know I'd probably take advantage of it

**Melissia**

Grey Templar wrote:
Because making Murder illegal does reduce the people committing it.

The anarchist (his own words) who released the design in the original post was discouraged from making a plastic-only gun by the current existing laws-- an example of gun laws making people change their minds on how they act, preventing people from doing the proscribed act.

In Texas, you are not permitted to openly carry a handgun on your person, and you can only carry handguns if you have a concealed carry license-- and, as the license name suggests, the gun must be concealed. This law, shockingly enough (if you're an anarchist gun crazy like the nut in the original post), prevents people from openly carrying handguns in the state of Texas-- another example of gun control laws making people change their minds on how they act and limits the number of unlicensed handguns on the street.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Have you really edited your post 10 times? Re-read what I wrote about the perils of emotional response.

So instead of a rational, intelligently thought out response, you troll by suggesting an emotional response. I wish I was surprised.

Guns are deadly, dangerous killing machines. That's all they are. Nothing more than that. I believe, firmly, that anyone who shows as much disrespect for guns as many people in this thread have doesn't deserve the right to have have a gun in the first place. People stupidly not treating guns with due respect causes people-- and not always themselves-- to be maimed or killed. If this argument sounds "emotional" to you, I would suggest that you are not mentally mature enough to handle a gun-- or to participate in this debate.

**Grey Templar**

"unlicensed handguns" make it seem like you are referring to illegally owned weapons, which you would not be.

If someone owns a gun illegally, they're not going to give a damn about needing a license to carry a concealed weapon. So they'll carry it anyway.

That law only prohibits law abiding citizens from openly carrying a weapon and forces them to get a CCW permit if they wish to carry a pistol in public at all. While a criminal is going to conceal his gun anyway because he wishes to not be detected.