Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Download This Gun' — 3-D Printed Gun Reliable Up To 600 Rounds

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-wouldn't-download-a-car dept.

An anonymous reader writes "We've talked previously about Texan gunsmith Cody Wilson's efforts to create 3-D-printable parts for firearms. He has a printed magazine that can withstand normal operation for quite a while. But he's also been working on building parts of the gun itself. An early version of a 3-D printed 'lower receiver' — the part of the gun holding the operating parts — failed after firing just 6 rounds. Now, a new video posted by Wilson's organization shows their design has improved enough to withstand over 600 rounds. Plus, their test only ended because they used up their ammunition; they say the receiver could have easily withstood a thousand rounds or more. Speaking to Ars, Wilson gave some insight into his reasoning behind this creation with regard to gun laws. 'I believe in evading and disintermediating the state. It seemed to be something we could build an organization around. Just like Bitcoin can circumvent financial mechanisms. ... The message is in what we're doing—the message is: download this gun.' A spokesperson for the ATF said that while operating a business as a firearm manufacturer requires a license, an individual manufacturing one for personal use is legal."

38 of 582 comments (clear)

  1. The way things have been going. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wouldn't be surprised if this guy met with an unfortunate accident.

    There has been a lot of that happening recently in the gun-rights subculture.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:The way things have been going. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >building your own gun using never-before-tested techniques is bound to result in some unfortunate mishaps before all the kinks are worked out.

      That's how gun technology got developed in the first place.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:The way things have been going. by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 3, Informative

      That reminds me of this episode of king of the hill where he said that the US government was putting too much pressure on the Russians because they didn't realize that the Russians were incompetent. I happened to read shortly afterwards about this:

      http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1994-25.html

      Nobody heard about it til way later.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    3. Re:The way things have been going. by hairyfeet · · Score: 3

      You mean like how nobody in the government was arrested for Fast & Furious, an op which even some of those tasked to carry it out deemed a false flag designed to give the government the justification for taking the right to bear arms away from its citizens? Frankly after Fast & Furious nothing would surprise me when it comes to the government trying to curtail individual rights.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:The way things have been going. by nabsltd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You still can't make the parts that actually carry the pressure of firing with 3D printing techniques. Barrels and bolts will still need to be machined from quality alloy steel, and rifling a barrel requires really specialized equipment as well.

      First, you can easily make something that requires great strength using 3D printing if all you are printing is the mold into which you pour molten metal.

      Second, barrels and bolts aren't controlled items, so as long as one person can make them, they can be sold to other people.

      Third, it's not nearly as hard as you think to make these items. Rifling a barrel has been done for 200 years. If you think that an individual today can't acquire the same quality of equipment that was use to do the job 200 years ago, you're just not thinking straight.

    5. Re:The way things have been going. by WillAdams · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A preferred source of material for rifle barrels is used truck axles, since it's stress relieved. http://books.google.com/books?id=_ykDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false

      Rifling tools are pretty straight-foward --- cutter style tools for this were developed in the 15th century.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    6. Re:The way things have been going. by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First, you can easily make something that requires great strength using 3D printing if all you are printing is the mold into which you pour molten metal.

      Generally, making a strong steel or steel alloy requires that it be tempered after hardening, but that needs to be done before you cut precision features like rifling into them. So, 3D printing is unlikely to work in that situation although you could certainly make some assault shotguns. People can and do make their own firearms now using machining tools that anyone can buy, but they are expensive and take skill and thus don't offer the untraceable proliferation problem that is the main issue posed by 3D printing.

  2. Just what we need right now... by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someone whose stated goal is "evading and disintermediating the state" being tied to gun ownership and production. Plays right into the gun-control crowd's narrative of how gun owners are all crazies and trying to subvert the government or think a civil war is about to happen. Wilson, please do all of us gun owners a favor and shut up. Feel free to keep working on 3D printed firearms-to me they are no different than purchasing an 80% receiver and milling the rest yourself- just don't talk.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Just what we need right now... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the point of view of most Europeans where guns are generally banned you all look crazy. We don't have guns and yet somehow aren't being robbed, raped and murdered nearly as much as you guys. At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.

      From our point of view you should be trying to figure out how to change your society so that you don't need guns, rather than trying to advocate more of them. You are treating the symptom, not the cause.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Just what we need right now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the point of view of most Europeans where guns are generally banned you all look crazy.

      That's alright; to us, you look crazy for allowing guns to be banned.

      At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.

      Oh ho ho. That's a good one. Are you really that ignorant of your own history, or do you seriously need a list of examples where it actually happened? I'll give you the first one for free - France, 1789.

    3. Re:Just what we need right now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We don't have guns and yet somehow aren't being robbed, raped and murdered nearly as much as you guys. At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.

      The you haven't been studying europe's history too well. Hell, even in the late 20th century what you said is untrue. There is so much blood in europe's soil it makes america's domestic problems look like a papercut.

    4. Re:Just what we need right now... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Plays right into the gun-control crowd's narrative of how gun owners are all crazies and trying to subvert the government or think a civil war is about to happen.

      "Plays into"? I would have said supports the idea 100%.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    5. Re:Just what we need right now... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the UK you can own guns like that. I can't remember the exact details but they either have to be modified so they can't be used or you have to obtain a license to hold them as antiques. You can actually own a gun here (many farmers have them), you just have to have a good reason for needing one and show that you will keep and use it responsibly.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Just what we need right now... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      I hear this argument a lot of but it doesn't make sense. You seem to be arguing that knives and swords would not be enough to protect you from enslavement, you need guns. Yet I expect you wouldn't want people owning hand grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, tactical nuclear shells etc. Are guns really the perfect balance of deadly enough but not too deadly to protect citizens, even when the government has much better ones and things like bullet-proof tanks to send at you? Do you really think you could take on the US government and win?

      BTW, every time a tyrannical government has come to power in western Europe it was voted in by the people, so we have never needed to defend ourselves from our government.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Just what we need right now... by funwithBSD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    8. Re:Just what we need right now... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Before I say anything else, I want to say that I do agree with your concluding point, and I'll come back around to that later.

      At no time in our history would guns have helped us rise up against the government either.

      There'a an argument to be made that the U.S. itself contradicts that statement, given that it was a collection of European colonies that broke away from European rule, largely through the use of firearms. Had it not broken away, wouldn't it still be a part of European history, at least in a broader, cultural sense, if not in reference to the literal continent?

      Ignoring that, however, your comparison is a rather useless one anyway, since European history is long. Throughout most of European history, people were capable of rising up against their governments with either homemade or repurposed items. I.e. The disparity between the government's equipment and the people's equipment was small enough that the people were always a concern, and we're hopefully all aware of at least some of the rebellions, revolutions, and coups that make up the fabric of the continent's past. Guns wouldn't have helped because the people always had a means of rising up, and frequently did just that!

      In contrast, at the time of that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written, that was no longer the case, so it's no surprise that their authors ensured that the people of the nation would always have a right to the same tool that the government could use to subjugate and oppress them. After all, that's exactly what they had done just a handful of years prior when they broke free from the people they viewed as oppressors.

      Of course, there's a question today of whether or not firearms are still relevant in a world where fighter jets, cluster bombs, and ICBMs exist. Firearms are becoming increasingly irrelevant, since the disparity is quickly reaching the point where citizens would need to be given far more advanced weaponry than any reasonable person would suggest if they would want to have a hope of overturning their government. Even so, given enough citizens and enough guns, I do think it's possible, so I still see value there.

      All of that said, I agree with your final idea about treating the symptom, rather than the cause. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to have some major societal changes take place, though I doubt that all of my ideas would be in line with those of a typical European. As you, however, I would love to see a reduced need for guns and a reduced perceived need for guns. Achieving both would likely lead to a reduced presence of guns, and, to me, that means that we need a government that protects our rights above all else and a lower violent crime rate. The latter has already been taking place, with rates dropping pretty consistently and quickly for most of the last two decades. Even so, the government's decision to engage in security theater and fear-mongering (terrorists everywhere!) have helped to spread a culture of fear that's encouraging people to arm themselves against threats that they believe are both internal and external. That needs to stop.

    9. Re:Just what we need right now... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting

      FWIW, American citizens in some states can and do own anti-tank rifles and even artillery. It's not really illegal under federal law, just very tightly regulated (and, of course, extremely expensive).

      If you haven't seen any of the "Big Sandy Shoot" videos on YouTube, go and watch some.

    10. Re:Just what we need right now... by fredgiblet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The guns are enough to GET the rest of those things (except the tactical nukes). Tanks are not particularly useful in fighting insurgencies, they are actually quite vulnerable to infantry in urban settings. The guns the government have are little better for the most part, burst fire capability is nice but of limited use. SAWs and GPMGs are useful for suppression and not having them would be an issue. On the other hand citizens aren't restricted by government contracts on what we buy, I can get an accurized AR platform rifle firing a VASTLY superior round with the result being a better gun than the infantry has and I can put whatever accessories I want except for underbarrel shotguns or grenade launchers (or suppressors in some jurisdictions). We also can get better body armor.

      As for the question of could we win, in a word yes, but it's a blanket question and a blanket answer when there's a LOT of nuance involved. We aren't LIKELY to win unless things have gotten VERY bad, but it's certainly a decent possibility.

  3. They are not evading any laws by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Informative

    They are simply doing what the law allows them to do. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:They are not evading any laws by ALeader71 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, this is well within the limits of the law. In fact, this guy is attempting to obtain a federal firearms license. He isn't subverting the government. He's wriggling through the holes in the legal system to do what he wants. One of these 'wants' is to show that the government isn't quite as high and mighty as many believe.

      For me, this is further proof that a new "assault weapons ban" will be as useless as the previous ban. Gun related hommicides didn't decrease, only those involving so-called assault weapons. This doesn't include the full-auto Uzis, AK-47s, and other military carbine rifles that the ban didn't cover because they were never available for public purchase in the first place. The last man portable fully automatic weapon sold to the public was the Thompson sub machine gun. The current debate has nothing to do with military rifes. Instead it's about semi-automatic rifles which look like miliary rifles. The ban wouldn't stop gun manufacturers from producing semi-automatic rifles. The Tech-Point Model 995 is an assault weapons ban legal semi-automatic rifle. Identical to an AR-15 in operation, but different in appearance. The TEC DC9? Same thing.

      The fact that you can "print this gun" proves that a ban doesn't mean the end of the semi-automatic rifle. Any gun is a machine constructed from a piece of machined steel with a few springs and pieces of plastic to make it into an operable weapon. 3D printing is neat, but you could "print this gun" using an auto-lathe for most of the machining and 3D printing for the non-working parts. You could set up shop in Mexico and "print" AR-15s all day long. Ditto full-auto M16s. Sneak them across the border and you're in business. This is something the Democrats aren't talking about. Instead they're focusing on magazine capacity and how the gun looks. Then again, DC politicians aren't the best and brightest people. They are merely popular, wealthy, and easily manipulated.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
  4. I TOTALLY WOULD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    YOU WOULDN'T DOWNLOAD A GUN

  5. Re:Oh good grief by muridae · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to the ATF, the lower of an AR is 'the gun'. Transfer of that part alone requires paper work; buying it requires a background check and can only be sold in a private transfer or by a licensed dealer. All the other parts of the AR platform are add ons, and require no paperwork before purchase. Yes, that includes the upper, the barrels, even the trigger assembly. So no, in the eyes of the government, this is a "3D printed gun".

    It's also not that big of a deal. 3D mills have existed for a while, and any machine shop with one could turn out a milled aluminium lower in about the same amount of time. The ATF has rules on who can do that, and what you can do with it after it's made. They seem not to be too worried about polymer lowers.

  6. The World is not entirely filled with idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >building your own gun using never-before-tested techniques is bound to result in some unfortunate mishaps before all the kinks are worked out.

    That's how gun technology got developed in the first place.

    When new models are being developed and tested at Colt, Ruger, Smith and Wesson, Winchester, Marlin, Glock, etc .... they put the gun in a "vice like" stand, behind a barrier, and fire it remotely - especially when testing high pressure rounds that you can't buy (some folks do load their own with higher than standard loads, but usually they do their research and have a pretty good idea on how far to push it. Usually.) in order to test the gun - if it survives the high pressure round then it will survive the standard one.

    So, the point is, folks aren't taking unnecessary risks in gun development and I would assume that someone with the knowledge and intelligence to create a gun from a 3D printer would have the sense not to take unnecessary risks.

    Now of course in this big World and with the Internet, we will see some asshat who will print a gun using sub standard material, load it up with high pressure rounds, turn the camera on, and create a Fark headline.

    He will be an outlier.

    1. Re:The World is not entirely filled with idiots by NameIsDavid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Failure doesn't stem only from bad design. What happens if there's a slight clog in the 3D printer's extruder that creates a bubble or weak spot hidden within a part? A larger company engineers the manufacturing, not only the part, to be reliable, and does quality-control checks along the way as well. The equipment for such checks isn't practical for a consumer doing a one-off.

    2. Re:The World is not entirely filled with idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You just keep believing that only big companies can do things, and that people are incapable of doing anything for themselves...

      And we wonder why we have such a nanny state.

    3. Re:The World is not entirely filled with idiots by xtal · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could implement a sophisticated qc scheme with a webcam and opencv. This technology is pretty new, but moving very, very fast.

      --
      ..don't panic
    4. Re:The World is not entirely filled with idiots by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I'm in a firefight, the last thing I want is my weapon "harmlessly" disabling it's function.

      When you're in a firefight? So this is something that happen to you regularly? Remind me never to be around you, if chance ever comes up.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
  7. Re:Reminds me of a quote from Chris Rock: by LiENUS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A single bullet can easily cost you the chair, or life in prison, or millions of dollars. Gun control is keeping your finger off the trigger until you are on target and are sure of your target and what is beyond it. Killing innocent bystanders already costs far more than five thousand dollars. Taking your advice on self defense and safety from a comedian is.... well comedic.

  8. Re:DIY Fuel Air explosive by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm just waiting to see this ad: "Level 10 city blocks. Costs very little with parts you can purchase at Home depot. Download the plans online."

    Kill people just because you can is not a healthy attitude. Neither is making it easy for others to do it on a whim.

    We should not have to make everything you should not do illegal.

    So the question is how, short of making it illegal, do we stop cretins like this who think they have the right to do this sort of unhealthy social engineering?

    If you don't like the "state" you live under then move or change it. It's okay to think subversive thoughts but there are lines.

    While I wouldn't do what he's doing, I'll fight for his right to do it. I have no idea what killing people because you can has to do with being able to print your own firearm. Wake me when you can print your own ammunition too.

    First off: plans for DIY fuel air explosives are already available online.

    Second off: none of this stuff can be done "on a whim". First, you need the right 3D printer, then you need the right plastics, then you need the plans. Finally, you need to know enough about firearms to be able to print and assemble and test the thing. You're also going to need to get some ammunition.

    We should never attempt to stop cretins from doing things we don't like -- we SHOULD make our society one in which doing things that are illegal is seen to be unappetizing.

    Personally, I have fewer issues with someone providing plans to print a gun than I do with the entertainment industry -- every day on my way to work, I have to pass an ad for a TV show that depicts an attractive young woman in front of a chart of mugshots with "killed" stamped over them -- and huge letters saying "Murder is only the beginning." Think about that for a moment. This poster is MUCH more likely to result in someone committing a violent act than someone being able to make their own gun. I guess gangs and crime syndicates might like these guns because they're untraceable, but they've already got untraceable guns - being able to print and toss will just allow them to stop robbing people for their firearms and will deflate the prices for unmarked guns on the black market -- both of which are good things.

    Of course, the first time a printed gun is proven to have been used in an actual crime, things will get nasty.

  9. Not proved reliable up to 600 rounds... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they just tested a single beta copy by firing 600 rounds and it did not fail. There's a difference.

    Which is not to say this isn't an impressive achievement from an engineering standpoint, or that it doesn't have important policy implications. It's just that I deal with that particular conflation of a successful test with statistically meaningful proof every day. My teenaged son will do something stupid, and when I say that he'll break his neck if he keeps doing it his response is always, "Yeah, but I *didn't*."

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  10. This Won't Work Well With FDM/FFF by LuxuryYacht · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The resolution and materials commonly available for FDM/FFF are too poor for application like these. The quality of the print is just too poor and they are only using p400 ABS for material. That is why their prints aren't very durable.

    SLA however offers the resolution and the materials to produce parts that are strong and reliable enough for these types of rugged applications. Some photopolymers for SLA are 100-1,000 x stronger than the ABS they are using.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
  11. Re:DIY Fuel Air explosive by demachina · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "If you don't like the "state" you live under then move or change it."

    There really aren't any places to flee to any more. Most governments are turning oppresive, corrupt and are trampling civil liberties. Computers and networking are making it extremely easy to make a police states these days. When East Germany and the U.S.S.R. did oppresive police state it was man power intensive, its much easier now. There is almost no effective defense of civil liberties being mounted any more. Once your government stacks the courts in their favor there is almost no peaceful path to oppose stripping your civil liberties. The U.S. can and frequently does use "state secrets" provision to shut down any challenge to its power. Y

    ou can pretend ballot boxes in the places that have them will make a difference but they seldom do.

    In particular, the reach of the U.S. government has extended to most of the nooks and crannies on the planet, with the possible exception of places like China, North Korea and Iran which are sufficiently oppresive without any help from the U.S. The U.S. has military bases and FBI offices in a staggering number of countries. They've used rendition all over the world to snatch people, sometimes innocent people, off the streets to torture . With drone bases in the middle of all of the hard to reach places the U.S. will soon have total global coverage and the ability to assassinate by drone anyone, anywhere, with no judiicial oversight.

    Its the down side of living on a small planet with no frontiers left and a civilization with accelerating technology development.

    There isn't any place to go if you want to escape.

    --
    @de_machina
  12. Re:DIY Fuel Air explosive by couchslug · · Score: 5, Informative

    "If you don't like the "state" you live under then move or change it."

    Unless the public have lethal force options there is zero reason for the State to respect their will. "Changing" the State was done by the American Revolution.

    Sometimes the only way to remove human obstacles is to take their lives, and under some onerous situations that is reasonable and good.

    If you will not kill to be free and free others, how dare you say you deserve freedom you won't fight for? Fighting for freedom includes embedding the practical capability for revolution in the hands of the public. The Second Amerndment codified that RIGHT. The People have Rights under the Constitution, hence the wording.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  13. Not a big deal by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Guns aren't hard to acquire now and even with decent gun control they probably won't be that hard to acquire in the future.

    The problem with the US (well a problem for me) is the gun culture where having a gun is considered cool and manly, as a result lots of people have guns and feel normal keeping them and using them. Change the culture so gun ownership is weird, so that when you tell someone you own a device designed to kill people they give you an odd look and get uncomfortable, once that happens you'll see a real drop in guns and violence. I don't see 3D printed guns as being a big factor either way.

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Not a big deal by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      when you tell someone you own a device designed to kill people they give you an odd look and get uncomfortable, once that happens you'll see a real drop in guns and violence.

      None of my guns were designed to kill people. My shotgun was designed to kill birds and small game. The rest of my firearms were designed to fire a small lead ball at a target of my choosing. That is what guns are designed to do: hit what the person is aiming at. If the person is aiming at another person, then the gun might kill them. But that is the fault of the person firing the gun, not the gun itself. It is the person killing the other person. I do not and would not ever own something designed solely to kill someone.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Not a big deal by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
      -- George Orwell

      "Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun'"
      -- Mao Tse-Tung

      "The gun control agenda is based on the view that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to use the physical power of arms responsibly. But a people that cannot be trusted with guns cannot be trusted with the much more dangerous powers of self-government. The gun control agenda is thus an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-government and is tyrannical in principle."
      -- Alan Keyes

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  14. There was this book. Some guy called Adam Smith. by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You just keep believing that only big companies can do things, and that people are incapable of doing anything for themselves...

    When it comes to anything involving large amounts of resources (such as building and testing significant numbers of prototypes) they pretty much are.

    I don't think that even in the good old days you're herp-derping about people made their own muskets. Of the minority that did some didn't make their own clothes and bread (because they were professional gunsmiths) and the rest blew themselves up.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  15. Re:There was this book. Some guy called Adam Smith by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Of course there were. Don't be silly. Most guns were made by a single guy in a shop. It's all about having the right tools. Personally, one of my hobbies is trying to build everything, at least once. Guns are not complicated, and one of the first things I did myself. I've blacksmithed my own kitchen knives (a lot harder than the gun) I've built a truck from parts out of a junkyard. I've replaced broken parts on that same truck by putting them in a sand mold to get their shape and then smelted them myself. You can do anything you want if you're clever, have access to the internet and are persistent.