Slashdot Mirror


The World's First 3D-Printed Gun

MrSeb writes "An American gunsmith has become the first person to construct and shoot a pistol partly made out of plastic, 3D-printed parts. The creator, who goes by the name HaveBlue and is an AR-15/M16 enthusiast, has reportedly fired 200 rounds with his part-plastic pistol without any sign of wear and tear. HaveBlue's custom creation is a .22-caliber pistol, formed from a 3D-printed AR-15 (M16) lower receiver, and a normal, commercial upper. In other words, the main body of the gun is plastic, while the chamber — where the bullets are actually struck — is solid metal. ... While this pistol obviously wasn't created from scratch using a 3D printer, the interesting thing is that the lower receiver — in a legal sense at least — is what actually constitutes a firearm. This means that people without gun licenses — or people who have had their licenses revoked — could print their own lower receiver and build a complete, off-the-books gun." Here come the illegal shapes. Note that the legal fiction of receiver-as-firearm is true in the U.S., but may not be in other jurisdictions, and that no gun license is required in most of the U.S. to purchase or possess a semi-automatic weapon.

21 of 846 comments (clear)

  1. But ... by oPless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who will they blame when some nut-job goes postal with one of these illegal shapes?

    Will they ban 3D Printers?

    1. Re:But ... by gman003 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Knowing our Congress, they'll try to ban teaching Geometry in schools.

      After all, you can't print illegal shapes if you don't know shapes!

    2. Re:But ... by doubleplusungodly · · Score: 5, Funny

      After all, you can't print illegal shapes if you don't know shapes!

      That would've made Apple v. Samsung a lot more interesting.

      --
      ---
    3. Re:But ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which constitutes only 1.37% of the population...

      Beware the tyranny of the minority.

    4. Re:But ... by pnutjam · · Score: 5, Informative

      The NRA has the same problem that Unions and our Government have. It has been co-opted by a vocal minority. Many people have left or refused to join. Which is why a simple google search on "NRA membership coupon" turns up a plethora of discounts and ways to get free memberships.

    5. Re:But ... by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could probably apply this "tyrrany of the minority" rhetoric to the ACLU and the EFF.

      So that's a pretty dangerous bit of propaganda to push there.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:But ... by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nothing short of a Soviet style police state would have stopped him either. That's kind of the whole point of this article. We live in a highly advanced technological society. We have been building our own weapons since before we were an independent nation.

      The idea that we can put the genie back in the bottle is a little absurd.

      If not bullets, then explosives. If not explosives, then chemicals.

      Some of this tech is ancient already. If you can build stuff, you can probably build bad stuff.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:But ... by BronsCon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Laws preventing the government from stepping on rights are not tyranical, nor are they alarming. What's alarming is that people who want these laws are the minority.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    8. Re:But ... by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Body armor does a great job of keeping you alive, and a shit job of keeping you comfortable. It's incredibly hard to continue whatever you're doing while you're being punched repetitively in the center of mass. If a "John Wayne wannabe" would have knocked the breath out of, or even just distracted, the shooter, then there would have been an opportunity for him to be attacked. Your assumption that there is nothing that can be done about an armored attacker with a gun is most likely the product of your unfamiliarity with guns and does not reflect reality.

      Furthermore, your ignorance of the subject is showing, the Colorado shooter had no automatic weapons. You were probably confused by the term "assault rifle" which is commonly assumed to mean an automatic weapon, but in fact (in the US) is legally defined as a weapon that has a detachable magazine and at least two of several cosmetic features such as a forward grip or a barrel shroud. This is why assault weapon bans are commonly ridiculed as bans on scary looking guns.

      Ultimately, of course, this is all just a bunch of people being brave in hindsight. We know that guns are effective at deterring normal crimes, however an insane shooter obviously offers a different problem. At some point a shooter is going to run up against an armed citizen, and then we'll find out for sure just how effective they will be. Hopefully that armed citizen is responsible and capable of using their weapon effectively and are not just carrying around a gun to feel safe.

      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    9. Re:But ... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, if the barrel shroud and forward grip are purely cosmetic, why are they so popular?

      Same reason 20" rims and body kits are popular on cars, even though they do nothing to help performance (and in some cases, diminish it).

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:But ... by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are you really that stupid? The NRA doesn't want to make it legal to shoot people.

      Just because you have a right to have the gun and use it safely, doesn't mean you have the right to shoot people willy-nilly. That's covered by other laws (assault, manslaughter, murder etc) that the NRA does NOT have any problem with.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    11. Re:But ... by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It'll just add to the political football match we've had for decades. Nutjobs will still kill people with weapons bought legally, with ammo bought leagally and nothing illegal done until they day they act.

      I'm waiting for the first 3D printed bomb

      That's entirely true, as long as there are human beings, people will go insane and kill people. But when certain classes of weapons become illegal or are made more difficult to obtain, the outcome of these events would be rather different. The most recent headlines would probably read something like "man goes on insane rampage, kills six with bolt-action hunting rifle", as opposed to a dozen. The NRA likes to say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Which is true. But guns are tools people use to do a job, and when you can't get the right tools for the job (in this case, murdering people), then you can't do your job as well. Canada, for instance, places restrictions on the size of the magazine (5 rounds for rifles, 10 for handguns) are requires that you take a test and get a license called a Possession and Acquisition License before you can buy a handgun. Their rate of firearms-related deaths (4.78 per 100,000 people) is about half that of the United States (10.27 per 100,000 people). The U.K. has effectively banned semiautomatic rifles and handguns and has an even lower rate of firearm related deaths (.46 per 10,000). All else being equal, the more restrictions are placed on handguns, the fewer deaths there are. Obviously, people can and will resort to other tools, but it's a lot less efficient to stab, poison, strangle or bludgeon people to death. Canada still has a lower murder rate (1.7 murders per 100,000 people) than the U.S. (4.7 per 100,000) and the U.K. is even lower (1.23 per 100,000). These stats are all off Wikipedia, incidentally.

      Think of it this way. We already have gun control; you can't buy a fully automatic assault rifle. What if there wasn't any restriction on what you could buy? If you could buy anything you wanted, you wouldn't conduct a massacre with a semiautomatic AR-15, you'd buy a fully automatic AK-47. For one thing, on automatic an AK can fire 600 rounds per minute. The other thing is that they're simple, rugged and reliable, designed for use by untrained peasants fighting in the hills. The AR-15/M-16 was notorious for being finicky and jamming at the wrong moment, particularly when the rifle was first fielded in Viet Nam. It's better these days, but the fact that the AR-15 used in the Colorado killing jammed is the only reason more people didn't die. The bottom line is here, gun control (as limited as it is) saved lives during this massacre, more gun control would save more lives.

    12. Re:But ... by chrb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Around 1/2 of the US population has at least one gun in their home. The NRA indirectly represents those people as well as the others that support the right to bear arms but don't happen to have any. Ultimately that means they represent over half the population.

      Who Does the NRA Represent?

      A new survey, by Republican pollster Frank Luntz and commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of over 400 mayors, even more dramatically contradicts the conventional political wisdom on the gun issue. Not only does the NRA not represent the views of gun owners on major issues of gun policy; it doesn't even represent the views of its own membership. For example, the Luntz survey found that 69% of self-described NRA members agree that all gun sellers at gun shows should be required to conduct criminal background checks on prospective buyers, a reform that would close the infamous "gun show loophole". Luntz found that 82% of NRA members support "prohibiting persons on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Seventy-eight percent of NRA members support "requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen." All of these measures are vehemently opposed by the NRA.

    13. Re:But ... by IceNinjaNine · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could probably apply this "tyrrany of the minority" rhetoric to the ACLU and the EFF. So that's a pretty dangerous bit of propaganda to push there.

      Indeed!

      What gets me is that I work with educated people who cannot understand how I can be a member of the ACLU, the EFF, and the NRA.

      It's called trying to keep the government in line!

    14. Re:But ... by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because taking away legal firearm ownership clearly reduces the chances of getting shot... (That was sarcasm for the slow among us)

      Here are the stats on gun deaths for the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., from Wikipedia:

      • United States: 10.27 per 100,000 people
        • Canada: 4.78 per 100,000 people
          • England: .46 per 10,0000 people.

          The United States, obviously, has the least gun control. Canada has more regulation. Rifles are limited to 5 round magazines, pistols to 10 rounds; licenses required for pistols. The U.K. has effectively outlawed semiautomatic weapons and pistols. Overall homicide rates follow these patterns, so it's not the case that people will just find other ways to commit murder. Making guns more available and making rapid-fire weapons more available makes murder easier, and therefore more common. I've shot assault rifles and .50 caliber sniper rifles, and yeah, they're pretty awesome. But personally, I'd be willing to have stricter licensing requirements, gun registration, background checks, and limits on clip size to save tens of thousands of lives a year.

  2. Don't freak out. by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 5, Informative

    While the lower receiver is legally considered to be the serialized firearm it is fairly simple part. Folks have been making them on CNC machines for years. The metal upper receiver is much more difficult to manufacture and required precision metal machining. You need both to have a functional weapon. Without the upper, the lower is completely and utterly useless.

    --

    Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  3. Re:Isn't that so American by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is a long, long way from being the very first thing an American has used a 3d printer for. As for whether or not this is the first thing this particular guy printed, it doesn't say. However, he is a gunsmith so it does make sense that he would try printing a gun.

    It'd be like saying "World's first 3d printed tea cup is made by housewares company in Britain... how British!" or "World's first 3d printed dildo with tentacles made by adult toy store in Japan... how Japanese"

  4. Overblown fears by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Exactly. Anyone with access to milling equipment could mill their own lower reciever, assuming they knew the plans. Then they would still have to purchase the upper, the trigger assembly, and other parts. It's not really any different, and with the ability to mill a real receiver, they could make a firearm that can actuall handle .223/.308 rounds.

    Or, you know, they could save themselves all of this time and trouble and just go to one of the myriad of websites that allow people to get in touch with others looking to buy or sell firearms. I visit one myself regularly that is part of the forums of an outdoor website dedicatedto my state, and I have even sold a firearm through it. All perfectly legal, with no documentation of transfer of ownership. And on this website alone there are often several AR- and AK- type rifles for sale, anywhere from $400-$1000. This development adds nothing to the equation.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  5. Durability by JakFrost · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a reason why firearm manufacturers create parts out of single bar stock aluminum or steel metal pieces and machine them out, that is to maintain durability during firing process of the gun so it doesn't explode in your hands and injure you or worse and that it will last over repeated uses.

    The most difficult part of creating the gun is the creation of the barrel with a chamber that can withstand pressures of 22,000 to 55,000 pounds-per-inch and not explode into shrapnel hurting you badly. Barrel creation is difficult and taken very seriously with many manufacturers using a magnetic particle inspection process to ensure that there are no metal weak points or fractures inside the walls of the barrels to prevent them from exploding.

    Until these low priced home 3D printing machines can print out of aluminum, steel, or other metals to maintain some kind of rigidity on the parts these printed firearm pieces will just be an exercise in computer aided design and prototyping. Many of the pistols now use plastic frames

    As far as legality of manufacturing your own firearm by people who are somehow restricted by law from owning one, well it's the possession and ownership that is restricted, not the creation so all possession restrictions still apply.

    You can create your own firearms according to the Gun Control Act of 1968 for personal usage just not sale or distribution. If you decide to make these 3D printed firearm receivers you would have to apply for a Federal Firearms License type 7 or 10 and register your business then put serial numbers on these parts.

    US BATFE (aka, ATF, BATF)
    Q: Is it legal to assemble a firearm from commercially available parts kits that can be purchased via internet or shotgun news?

      For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution."

  6. "Military Grade" is a political fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    By pushing their extremist view of the constitution, ...

    That is a very close minded and telling statement.

    ...they are forcing the rest of us to deal with all kinds of military-grade weaponry in civilian hands.

    Not really. "Military Grade" is a political fiction, the civilian AR-15 is functionally identical to popular hunting rifles. It's "military" only in a cosmetic sense, black plastic instead of wood, same sights and controls as the M-16/M-4. In operation it functions like many hunting rifles, semi-automatic only (one shot per trigger squeeze), it leaves the factory with a 5 round magazine just like the hunting rifles, it uses the same ammunition, etc. The NRA opposes (in part) an assault rifle ban because they understand the functional definition of a rifle like the AR-15 (detachable magazine, semi-automatic, ...) would apply to many hunting rifles as well.

    They think it's an infringement of their 'rights' to even be required to be trained to use the weapons they are buying.

    The NRA is the largest firearms safety training organization in the world. They got into the political debate only because well meaning but ill-informed politicians were going down the path to outlaw (sometimes unintentionally) traditional hunting and target shooting firearms.

    1. Re:"Military Grade" is a political fiction by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The NRA opposes (in part) an assault rifle ban because they understand the functional definition of a rifle like the AR-15 (detachable magazine, semi-automatic, ...) would apply to many hunting rifles as well."

      That is NOT the only reason, or even the main reason.

      The 2nd Amendment was put in place specifically to give people the right to own "military-grade" firearms, so they could protect themselves from a potentially tyrannical government. Hunting actually has little or nothing to do with that. It's just one more reason.