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.

**Jihadin**

No way that plastic will keep up in a sustain fire fight. Granted I even won't butt struck a insurgent with my collasiple butstock on my M4.....perfer the barrell...but trying to explain how I busted the butt to avoid a statement of charges would get interesting

inside joke

**Bullockist**

azazel the cat wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, a standard non-liability contract regarding the use of the machine should cover anyone renting these out.

Its no different than someone getting a rental car to use in a bank heist.

Except a rental car requires a valid license first.

And?

Cars are not a constitutional right.

Please stop making this statement in response to criticisms related not to the constitutionality of firearms, but to your faulty argument.

I want you to very carefully read through the point-counterpoint of our dialogue here, so that you can actually see where you have erred.

We are not discussing the constitutionality of firearms; you are making a comparison of firearms to vehicles, which is incorrect on its face.

Your claim about a non-liability contract in reference to a rental car offers a reasonable degree of certainty that the rental applicant possesses the knowledge and skill to use the rented device (a car) properly, by virtue of the licensing program. This cannot be said for a firearms-making-device, by virtue that firearms training is not mandatory, and thus that level of protection against negligence on the part of the rental agency is not present as it is for car rental services.

Stop making sense cat, it's not what OT is about.

**azazel the cat**

Bullockist wrote:Stop making sense cat, it's not what OT is about.

Sorry. I'll try to use some inflammatory hyperbole, strawmen, shotgun and kettle logic next time. Maybe even throw in some red herrings beause pineapples are delicious.

EDIT: I just noticed that in the Ignoratio Elenchi wikipedia link I posted, it actually references the Chewbacca Defense. And that's awesome.

**KalashnikovMarine**

I'm not saying composite barrels and the like can't happen, but the tech as is now? There's faster and less painful ways to fill yourself with shrapnel if that's your desire.

**CptJake**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'm not saying composite barrels and the like can't happen, but the tech as is now? There's faster and less painful ways to fill yourself with shrapnel if that's your desire.

Shouldn't filling yourself with shrapnel be painful though?

**djones520**

And the FEDGOV has dropped their hammer on it...

DEFCAD files are being removed from public access at the request of the US Department of Defense Trade Controls.
Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information.

http://defcad.org/liberator/

**KalashnikovMarine**

It's all over the net already, something like 100k downloads off defcad before the feds shut it down and it's got multiple files on pirate bay and other like websites.

Can't stop the signal.

**azazel the cat**

Yeah, way too late. This might've worked if they pounced before the file went live. But now? Not a chance. The box has been opened.

**Grey Templar**

I would say the box got opened when the internet was invented. We'll still be finding boxes that got opened by that simple invention hundreds of years from now.

**BaronIveagh**

For those poo pooing this device: while Jihadin is absolutely correct about it's functionality in a sustained firefight, it works great for target practice and as an easily concealed weapon if you use slightly different ingredients, meaning put in plastic and ceramic parts instead of steel. Without the steel in it, it does not set off mad detectors.

Great in a long fire fight: no. Good as a sudden surprise... well...

**Dreadclaw69**

BaronIveagh wrote:
For those poo pooing this device: while Jihadin is absolutely correct about it's functionality in a sustained firefight, it works great for target practice and as an easily concealed weapon if you use slightly different ingredients, meaning put in plastic and ceramic parts instead of steel. Without the steel in it, it does not set off mad detectors.

Have you shot with it? I'm curious as to its accuracy and whether there is any rifling on it as that isn't something that that report in the opening post covers.

I think that the topic of the detectability of the firearm, and the legal ramifications, was addressed earlier in the thread too.

**BaronIveagh**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Have you shot with it? I'm curious as to its accuracy and whether there is any rifling on it as that isn't something that that report in the opening post covers.

I think that the topic of the detectability of the firearm, and the legal ramifications, was addressed earlier in the thread too.

I have not, a friend of mine I trust has and we tested it against the Casino's metal detectors and passed right through (though security knew what we were about and OKed it. I think they wanted to know if it would work as well). He said it's comparable to a smooth bore derringer as far as accuracy goes.

**Dreadclaw69**

Thank you for the clarification, those were details that the article and video were both short on.

**BaronIveagh**

The instructions state you need to add metal. You don't, ceramics will work just as well.

**Dreadclaw69**

BaronIveagh wrote:
The instructions state you need to add metal. You don't, ceramics will work just as well.

Practically that may be the case. Legally however I'd refer you to Page 4,

Melissia wrote:
Ah, found it. This is why plastic 3d-printed guns are illegal, at the moment:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/139315094/Undetectable-Firearms-Act-of-1988

tl;dr: it's illegal for anybody to "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer or receive" a firearm that can't be detected once its grips, stocks and magazines are removed.

Now, if the manufacturing process used metal instead of plastic (which would be a much more expensive 3d printer to be sure), that'd be different. Or if you include enough metal in the gun to have it detectable by a metal detector despite having certain parts removed.

**BaronIveagh**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Practically that may be the case. Legally however I'd refer you to Page 4,

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?

**Alfndrate**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Practically that may be the case. Legally however I'd refer you to Page 4,

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?

Aren't your words right here the crux of the anti-gun ban people's argument?

**BaronIveagh**

Alfndrate wrote:

Aren't your words right here the crux of the anti-gun ban people's argument?

Pretty much. Technology just made the gun ban obsolete.

**Dreadclaw69**

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.

**BaronIveagh**

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

BaronIveagh wrote:
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.

That would depend entirely on your perspective

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, but a regular gun can be destroyed too. Or tossed somewhere you'd never find it.

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:Yeah, but a regular gun can be destroyed too.

This is remarkably hard to accomplish, relative to the goal of destroying evidence.

**BaronIveagh**

Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but a regular gun can be destroyed too. Or tossed somewhere you'd never find it.

You'd be amazed how many criminals think they managed to do just that.

**Grey Templar**

Yeah, but what % of tossed weapons get recovered?

I know guns get recovered sometimes, but not always.

**BaronIveagh**

Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but what % of tossed weapons get recovered?

I know guns get recovered sometimes, but not always.

Not entirely sure, can't find any numbers specifically for guns that got tossed in the US. Probably depends on how much forethought the criminal puts into it.

**Grey Templar**

I imagine.

As for plastic guns, you'd put them in a fire or something to destroy it. What effect would that have on a normal gun? Would it equally destroy its ability to be fired or distort/destroy the identifying marks allowing a bullet to be traced to it?

**BaronIveagh**

Grey Templar wrote:
I imagine.

As for plastic guns, you'd put them in a fire or something to destroy it. What effect would that have on a normal gun? Would it equally destroy its ability to be fired or distort/destroy the identifying marks allowing a bullet to be traced to it?

Not in a regular fire, no.

**Grey Templar**

Ok

**azazel the cat**

Grey Templar wrote:I imagine.

As for plastic guns, you'd put them in a fire or something to destroy it. What effect would that have on a normal gun? Would it equally destroy its ability to be fired or distort/destroy the identifying marks allowing a bullet to be traced to it?

Destroy identifying marks? Not even remotely close. It would have an effect on par with applying lip gloss in hopes of being unrecognizable in a photo.