'Wiki Weapon Project' Wants Your 3D-Printable Guns

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Earlier this month, University of Texas law student Cody Wilson and a small group of friends who call themselves 'Defense Distributed' launched an initiative they've dubbed the 'Wiki Weapon Project.' Their goal: to raise $20,000 to design and release blueprints for the world's first entirely 3D-printable gun. If all goes according to plan, RepRap users will soon be able to turn the project's CAD designs into an operational firearm capable of shooting at least one standard .22 caliber bullet, all in the privacy of their own garage. Wilson and his handful of collaborators at Defense Distributed plan to use the money they raise to buy or rent a $10,000 Stratysys 3D printer and also to hold a 3D-printable gun design contest with a $1,000 or $2,000 prize for the winning entry — Wilson says they've already received gun design ideas from fans in Arkansas and North Carolina. Once the group has successfully built a reliable 3D-printed gun with the Stratysys printer, it plans to adapt the design for the cheaper and more widely distributed Reprap model. The group had already raised more than $2,000 through the fundraising platform Indiegogo, but the site took down their page and froze their funds on Tuesday. They're continuing to seek donations through their website via Paypal and Bitcoin."

Comments

Strong enough plastics?

[cfvgcfvg]

I would think the limiting factor would be the strength of the plastic and not the design itself.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Baloroth]

That was my thought as well, although someone claimed they were able to print out a receiver for an AR-15 and fire a few hundred rounds without noticeable wear. Since the receiver is the "gun" part according to US law, that is all you need to circumvent any regulations. The rest of the parts can, I believe, be acquired with no or very little licensing. I don't think making the entire thing of plastic is very practical, and might not even be possible for most gun designs (anything that requires a spring, for example, won't work).

OTOH if you could, it would give you a weapon undetectable by normal metal detectors. The bullet and casing would be metal still, but you could probably get around that.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Feyshtey]

The reciever is just the component that holds all the other components. The trick is to print the items that take direct impact or heat, like the barrel or the firing pin.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[davidc]

I forsee many shot-out eyes...

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[SuricouRaven]

Or you could design a multi-barrel zip-gun. Four barrels, four bullets. Four shots, and the gun is destroyed. Or you could design it to use something commonly available as a barrel, like a particular size of standardised plumbing pipe.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[retep]

Keep in mind that in some cases you can use the 3d printer to make the tools needed to make the parts, rather than directly making the parts themselves. For instance barrels need to be made out of metal, yet a 3d printer could still make a jig, essentially a purpose built machining tool, that would give you the ability to make the barrel without purchasing a lot of expensive equipment. Even simple stuff like cutting templates can be a huge time-saver compared to machining parts manually.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[tibit]

The plastic could be reinforced with an additive, like perhaps glass fibers. What's also important is that plastic mix may be designed to ablate instead of melting. Ablation takes more heat away per unit volume than melting. It'd wear out as it's heated up, instead of just melting away. Sure thermal management becomes very important on such a design, and you do need to do some finite element thermal and mechanical modeling before anything gets manufactured. To mechanically withstand the stresses, all it takes it to throw enough plastic at the problem, as long as said plastic doesn't deform "too much". It'll be probably necessary to have a statically underbored design, with smallest bore diameter closest to the shell. If you measure it, the bullet "won't" pass through the bore. But in presence of the hot gas, it'll stretch to correct geometry. The gas pressure will be highest at the rear of the barrel, thus you'll want it most underbored right there. This is a similar approach to modeling the machining stresses and passing a deformed shape to the CNC mill such that it will acquire correct shape when machined under presence of hold-down and cutter stresses.

You could probably do something funny with hot gas scavenging, perhaps trading off some of the bullet's kinetic energy to suck some cool air into the barrel to cool it off.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Nimey]

That's the lower receiver on an AR which is legally the gun. The lower doesn't have the chamber (the upper receiver does), so it doesn't have to be particularly strong.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

It's also a legal requirement for any sort of handgun. If it's not rifled, it's legally classed as a short-barreled shotgun, which is much more difficult (in some jurisdictions, outright impossible) to own legally. An SBS is any smoothbore device with a barrel length (measured from the face of the closed bolt to the muzzle) less than 18", or a total overall length less than 26."

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[argStyopa]

IIRC my understanding is that what was printed was the LOWER receiver.
The upper receiver - which is also "the gun" legally AFAIK - is the part that has the chamber, etc that's going to be the critical part to the function of a gun.

So no, at least with my understanding of the plastics available for 3d printing, nobody's actually going to making a "gun" with a 3d printer. The MINIMUM breach pressure (.22 rimfire handgun cartridge, barely more than a bb gun) is 21000 psi or about 1500 bar. Real guns start at 40-50,000 psi or 3000-3500 bar (most sporting handgun/rifle cartridges).

OK yes, it would be possible to build a "gun" with a thick enough barrel that it might withstand the pressures, but it would be more akin to a wooden cannon, and I wouldn't want to be near it for the 2nd or 3rd firings...

Anyone know more about the plastics in the printers?

But then "someone printed parts that could be attached to a gun" isn't a very exciting headline, I understand.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[camperdave]

A barrel can be rifled and still be of slightly larger diameter than the bullet. As far as the law is concerned, it's rifled. As far as the physics of the bullet, it's smooth bored.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[Feyshtey]

Correct. But also under law it is legal to build your own unregistered reciever as long as it is not for distribution or sale.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[cawpin]

Since the receiver is the "gun" part according to US law, that is all you need to circumvent any regulations. The rest of the parts can, I believe, be acquired with no or very little licensing.

First, you aren't circumventing any regulations; you are allowed to build a firearm for yourself with no licensing. Second, correct, no other part of a firearm is regulated.

Re:Strong enough plastics?

[cawpin]

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html#gca-manufacturing "Q: Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle? With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency. [18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]" Therefor, as long as you are building your own gun and it doesn't fit the definition of non-sporting semi-auto rifle or non-sporting shotgun (both of which are fairly narrow) and you aren't using restricted imported parts, you can build any firearm you want as long as it also doesn't fit the definition of an NFA firearm (machine guns, destructive devices, suppressors, etc.)

Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the Government is tired of this 3D printing business, so they got some yahoos to start printing guns.

Interestingly, this is EXACTLY how 3D printing was shut down in the Cory Doctorow book "Makers".

Life imitates art!

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, I would trust a stranger with a gun over anyone sanctioned by government (especially cops). Rationale? The stranger is merely an unknown, but government has proven over and over again that they are willing to use deadly force as a means to achieve their agenda (both inside and outside the border) -- regardless of whether that agenda is moral and just.

It amazes me that so many people want to forcefully remove firearms from those who handle them responsibly, yet at the same time, they NEVER question the fact that government wields deadly force as a matter of daily business.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Nimey]

You have successfully captured the paranoia of the stereotypical American gun nut. Nicely done.

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[Feyshtey]

And every person of color in the inner city. And everyone of color in the southern states. And every person of a little-understood religion. And every foreigner from heavily dictatorial nation. And members of anarchist groups. And members of biggoted groups. And hardcore political activtivists on the left and right....

But other than that, yeah, it's just the wacko gun nuts...

Re:Ah! How to Shut Down 3D Printing 101...

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Its only "paranoia" if the fear is irrational and unjustified.

Unfortunately recent history is full of examples of abuse of governmental power and the "civilized" ways for the governed (courts, elections) to obtain justice for which have been rendered largely useless for a large portion of the victims.

The court system is not only guaranteed to bankrupt one being persecuted (not to mention that when facing a group of thuggish government officials on a power trip the first step is usually freezing/confiscation of all assets of the victim) but the courts themsevles have proven to be easily manipulated by the government bureaucrats and officials and are consistently siding with various three letter agencies. Even if they are not, their rulings are ignored (such as the recent TSA rulings), until such time when a new, more favourable ruling can be managed or in more extreme cases where the "law" can be reworked post-facto to the power-holder's advantage (such as the "legality" of torture and indefinite detention without trial of Guantanamo detainees).

Similarly, elections are largely meaningless since the US (and increasingly all the other "Western democracies") feature gigantic 2-way, gaudy sporting matches where the spectacle of personality cults and insane exaggerations of minutia differences between two or three facets of the ruling elite are meant to hide the fact that no real (in practical terms) differences exist between the team "red" and team "blue" and they are all working with/for the same elite and its ideology. You are just supposed to paint your face one of these colours and go screeching - spittle flying - at the supporters of the other team, a model successfully borrowed from the Football (or Soccer) scene. Just make sure you do not actually pause to think what you are doing and who benefits from this madness.

Now top it with the obvious trend of the governments expanding their power by leaps and bounds (TSA, extra-judiciary powers of the President to drone-assassinate American citizens he deems "enemies", etc and so on) and instead of making the poster you are replying to look like a paranoiac, you are making yourself look to be - at best - an uncurious, inattentive, "it can't happen here", "I can't hear anything lalalalalala", individual so desperate to believe that everything is "all right" that he is willing to ignore every second news item for a decade or so, or - at worst - an autocratic shill who actually likes the idea of "putting the malcontents in their place" and who worships naked, raw power and believes those who wield it deserve it and therefore can do no wrong.

Incidentally, 3D printed guns are not even a factor in the equations of power and constitute a negligeable "threat", but never the less will be dealt with harshly using hugely overreaching, draconian powers because even a tiny "threat" to the power-holders has to be neutralized immediately or else in can blossom into a much larger one and an unthinkable situation of a significant untraceable group of citizenry capable of physically resisting their government (to however a small degree) would possibly result. And thus the rulers would have to start actually be wary of the ruled, instead of just the other way around. And so "at 3am came balaclava-clad ATF knocking, with battering rams and bags to put on our heads, one for me, one for my wife and two wee ones for our kids, for I was guilty of an Unlicensed Possession of a 3D Printing Device and Printing an Unapproved Object".

Donations

[girlintraining]

People need to stop using PayPal and other sites that allow them to freeze your funds because they are feeling contrary. Start using wire funds transfers to offshore accounts, or mailing in checks, etc. I know it may not be as convenient but these companies are happy to eat your money and give you nothing in return. And while that money is frozen, you're not getting interest on those funds either -- they are. It's in their best interests to search for reasons to freeze your funding, and people will keep throwing money at them because it's convenient to do so.

Stop supporting these companies, and for that matter, stop doing business with companies in the United States -- that includes Visa and Mastercard. Most organizations worldwide are moving off the dollar and away from US-based businesses for financial support and advice because they've become a militant government that commits acts of economic terrorism.

Re:Donations

[Tom]

Give me an alternative that works a) world-wide, b) takes credit cards and c) no setup-fees and I will move off PayPal.

Until then, my less-tinfoil-hat alternative is to never keep any substantial amounts of money in there. Whenever my account has accumulated a few hundred bucks, I transfer it to my bank account.

So far, works like charm. If they ever do freeze my account for whatever crazy reason of the day, I've lost an amount that sucks, but doesn't endanger me.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Overzeetop]

I understand that - if you have the right contacts - there is a group of loosely associated, mini-nation states in one part of the world where they have permanent bazaars/markets where the shelves are lined with all kinds of ammunition. They'll even sell you the gear to make your own. You just walk up, prove that any one of those mini-nations has authorized you to drive a car, and off you go with as much ammo as you can afford, or with up to 25 pounds of black powder. On occasion, several of these nations hold temporary bazaars in large warehouse-like buildings where you can go in and trade the local currency for all sorts of weapons - no questions asked.

Just be careful if you go there; there's a lot of crazy shit that goes on.

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[Broken scope]

Or you can just go to bass pro shop.

Re:Won't get far

[Feyshtey]

That wont happen until someone passes law governing the activity. And its an absolute certainty that the law would be taken to the supreme court.

There's nothing illegal about developing a firearm for your personal use.

From the ATF website here : http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html

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.

The GCA, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), defines the term “firearm” to include the following:

(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive: (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

Since it is generally the reciever of the weapon that has the serial number, and the law specifically states that you can legally assemble (build/create/construct) a reciever...

The limitations here would probably be applied in the case of weapons that would be illegal by their nature (sawed off shotguns, fully auto assault weapons, etc.) under these sections

Finally, the GCA, 18 U.S.C. 922(r), specifically states the following:

It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under the[GCA]Section 925(d)(3).as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes . Also, 27 C.F.R. 478.39 states:


(a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of this section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes .,

Re:Guns without Ammo?

[houstonbofh]

Just be careful if you go there; there's a lot of crazy shit that goes on.

Naa... Most of the crazy shit only goes on in that one court in east Texas. The gun shows are much more sane.

This is stupid.

[goodmanj]

Nerds need to take more shop classes. Everybody on Slashdot thinks that 3-d printing represents the dawn of a new paradigm, where we can actually *make physical objects ourselves* rather than buying them at a store. Guess what? Making your own things is not some brilliant new hack, people have been doing it for centuries.

Give me a block of steel, a drill press and a .22 caliber drill, and in 20 minutes I'll make you a gun that's a hell of a lot more accurate and reuseable than anything you can print out with your RepRap. Give me a few more hours and a milling machine, and I'll make you one you wouldn't be ashamed to rob a bank with.

Hacking the physical world isn't something computer nerds just invented. It just seems new to you because you chose to take web design as a high school elective rather than metal shop.

Re:This is stupid.

[chronosan]

The exciting part isn't just making something in meatspace, if it was we'd just bake cookies. It's the ability to effortlessly duplicate a design, which can be shared, improved upon, and manufactured with repeatable precision. Now, as far as building parts with the strength of metal, there are 3D printers that use metal, but they are expensive multi-stage processes. I can only imagine that they will get better/less expensive with time.

Re:Why give something like this the publicity ?

[girlintraining]

I guess I'm not entirely happy with the idea that any moron who would have been denied a gun permit (even in the "sure! go kill someone" gun-happy USA) could possibly get a reprap or ordbot for a few hundred dollars and go print themselves their own damn killing device.

That same "moron" can go to the supermarket and buy a dozen or so different ingredients needed to make a bomb too. Should we ban supermarkets? There's always going to be a small minority of people that, for whatever reason, become violent. Your discomfort and unhappiness with this fact notwithstanding, there is no way to prevent this. There are, however, ways to minimize the damage.

It does not bother me that someone can manufacture a plastic gun in their own home. They could own a home full of guns for all I care. They could, in fact, make their house out of nothing but guns, and carry a dozen handguns around while they do their local shopping. Guns by themselves are not the problem -- the problem comes when the guy carrying a dozen handguns is the only guy like that in a crowded place when he snaps and decides to go all murder-happy.

I have never felt safer anywhere on this earth than on a military base where people carried their weapons openly and were trained in how to use them. And I have never felt less safe than walking around on the streets after dark in poverty-striken neighborhoods, because I know there's a lot of people there who haven't had any training and think a gun is the answer to all their problems. And still, guns aren't the problem here -- it's poverty, systemic injustice, racism, etc., that all create a factory pumping out desperate people.

Nobody needs a gun, or a bomb, to kill you. With training, you could be killed by someone with their bare hands and there would be nothing you could do to stop that either. Rather than sit there like a limp dick and be helpless, why not take steps to defend yourself? Take some self defense classes. Buy a gun, or a knife, or a tazer... whatever you feel would help with this obvious insecurity you have. I am not afraid of a guy with a plastic gun, anymore than I'm afraid of a guy with a real gun -- I know the odds of dying due to violent assault, and in fact my personal risk is very much higher than yours because I'm a member of a minority group that experiences the highest rates of suicide, murder, and violent attack in this country. I do not carry a gun, a a knife, or a tazer. I have been trained enough to know what to do if anyone ever presents a weapon -- regardless of the material it is made of. I feel totally safe, not because I have a weapon, but because I am a weapon.

If everybody was trained, and was given a sidearm, like many countries where military service is compulsory, this wouldn't be a problem. Guy goes crazy in a public place, and a dozen other guys with military training fill him full of bullets. 3 people are killed or injured, and live goes on... not this "Guy goes crazy in a public place, dozens dead or injured, more killed when they storm the place to free the hostages" bullshit that happens now.

It's obvious you can't stop someone who really wants a gun from getting one: They're easy to design, make, and use. It's a very simple mechanical device. So rather than invest an inordinate amount of resources so that the general population can remain ignorant and defenseless, why not train them and give them ready access to firearms? Being trained and able to defend yourself is a far superior deterrent to crime, and as a bonus, it's also a better use of our tax dollars.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

By 'instantly censored' and 'frozen out' you mean "Indiegogo.com decided to drop them, they switched to using paypal, nobody else has done more than chatter"...

It might come, er, something of a surprise to people like http://www.cncguns.com/ (operational since 2004, if their site stats are accurate) that some ideas are "instantly censored"...

I realize that being a persecuted speaker of truth amidst the world's hypocritical sheep is ennobling and all; but please try to keep it empirically grounded.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[mickwd]

"Me, I want more of this. I want plans to 3D print a fully automatic weapon. Just to watch the heads explode at the realization that the genie is out of the bottle and ain't going back."

Yeah, won't it just be fucking fantastic when billions of people around the world can 3D-print gas centrifuges and the equipment necessary to extract uranium from seawater. Won't that be fun to watch.

Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[TiggertheMad]

That's entirely the point: designing ways to compensate for the weakness of plastic.

This story is huge. We all know that home 3d printers are just a matter of time, but this is probably the 'magic app' that causes the tech to go mainstream. Think about it, we are going from tech geeks and designers wanting these, to gun fans, which there are a lot of. Also, the venn diagram of the two groups isn't close to overlapping, so the tech is going to spread, and fast. Moreover, Corry Doctrow has written articles about the 'coming war on war on general purpose computing', describing how corporate entities want to control how you use your computers. This story could mark the beginning of the government wanting to try to control how you use them too. While contemporary printers cannot make plastic guns that fire thousands of rounds, mass adoption will lead to increases in quality, tolerances, and material strength of printed materials, while lowering costs. If you can print a one shot .22 pistol now, we are within a decade of being able to print a 10,000 round life Mac-10. If the ATF isn't flipping its shit over this, they should be. Ignoring the whole question of if it is constitutionally legal or not to bear arms, their current organizational goal is to regulate firearms, and that bus is pulling out of the station as we speak.

Obviously, you cannot control who gets their hands on files to print guns. They have been trying to stop digital child porn since the early days of the net, and that is a clearly winnable war. Unlike something like child porn, guns are not reviled by a good 99% of the population so good luck in regulating gun blueprints. Everybody will have access to them, for better or worse. I am not too concerned about criminals getting (more) guns, but I am worried about your average slob with poor judgement being empowered like this, since there are far more of them with plenty of good intentions. Get ready to see school shooting fatalities go up, as the kids in the trench coats upgrade from 9mm handguns to uzis.

I for better or worse, we are turning a corner.

Re:Strong enough plastics? You miss the point.

[Diss Champ]

This could also be the magic app that leads to the govt to start trying to control access to replicators.

FP-45 or Deer Gun

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I would think they would look to something like the FP-45 Liberator or Deer gun which were basically single use disposable handguns that the US made for resistance fighters in WWII and Vietnam. While they were intended to be reloaded their primary function was to be a one time use and to be dropped behind enemy lines to be picked up by resistance fighters. They were dirt cheap to make and in my mind this seems like it would fill a similar function as it would basically be 1 time use.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[Hatta]

As for this idea, it is a veritable certainty it will be denounced by exactly the same people who support all other information being free. Pirate Party Yea! But not this. Double standard.

As a supporter of information freedom and (from the average American perspective) a radical leftist, I would like to say that I support this project in the strongest terms possible. These people are exercising their freedom of speech and should be able to do so without interference from the government. I want you to have those plans to 3D print a fully automatic weapon, just to watch your head explode at the realization that I'm OK with that.

Go ahead, 3d print whatever you want. It's all just shapes until you shoot someone.

Re:Notice the intolerance?

[keith_nt4]

I've had quite enough conservative trolls spewing their vitriol against liberals, progressives and Democrats, that they then follow-up with a complaint that its the liberals censoring and rating them because they're called on their personal attacks and petty insults.

And other conservatives? Resounding silence.

I don't know which conservatives you've been referring to. If Rush Limbaugh is an example he was calling for Akin to drop out for like a week. Romney called for that as well. No idea where this "silence" is coming from. Maybe you just mute all conservatives?

Gyrojet

[AJWM]

Several posters have rightly pointed out the problems with 'printing' a whole gun, namely the need for hardened and high-pressure-resistant parts.

However, if you put that requirement in the ammo instead and make the gun essentially a rocket launcher, like the Gyrojet weapons developed in the 1960s, you probably could print the whole thing (except maybe for some springs).

Problem is that since nobody (AFAIK) makes Gyrojet ammo any more, the rounds -- which were never cheap compared to conventional ammo -- now cost in the range of $100 a piece.