In Canada, a 3D-Printed Rifle Breaks On First Firing

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In Canada, a 3D-Printed Rifle Breaks On First Firing

Posted by timothy on Saturday July 27, 2013 @09:14AM from the moose-and-wolves-unimpressed dept.

Not all 3-D printed guns can encounter the smooth, uneventful success of Cody Wilson's Liberator; Daniel_Stuckey writes with this excerpt: "A Canadian has just fired the first shot from his creation, 'The Grizzly,' an entirely 3D-printed rifle. In that single shot, CanadianGunNut (his name on the DefCad forum), or "Matthew," has advanced 3D-printed firearms to yet another level. Sort of: According to his video's description, the rifle's barrel and receiver were both damaged in that single shot."

204 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I still see a market .... by therealkevinkretz · 2013-07-27 09:18 · Score: 4, Funny

ACME firearms, supplying evil coyotes for decades
1. Re:I still see a market .... by Penguinisto · 2013-07-27 09:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Heh - what else did they expect? Rifles keep pressure for longer periods of time (as the bullet travels down the longer barrel), increasing the chance for materials failure. Cheap plastic is not an option here, campers.
  7,000+ psi for a .22LR is nothing to screw around with for the relatively sustained period of time the bullet travels down the barrel (let alone the 65,000+ psi you can generate in, oh, a .338 Win Mag.)
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
2. Re:I still see a market .... by CastrTroy · 2013-07-27 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  If nobody has managed to make a plastic (or any material other than heavy metals) gun using industrial processes, then I seriously doubt that you could ever get more than a few shots out of something you could print at home. Sure it's fun to do "just because you can" but I don't think that it's actually feasible to make a gun that's going to last hundreds of shots out of something like plastic.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
3. Re:I still see a market .... by Penguinisto · 2013-07-27 09:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That's the thing - I doubt there's a 3D-printable plastic out there now which could last for one rifle shot, at least outside of sheer luck.
  The length of the rifle barrel is what'll kill it. A pistol dumps its internal pressures quickly - the short muzzle doesn't have to hold the pressure for more than a millisecond or two at most. A rifle on the other hand? The longer the barrel, the longer that period of time which the barrel has to hold the higher pressures. Most rifle cartridges also contain a slower-burning powder (to keep pressures at least somewhat constant as the bullet travels down the barrel), which only exacerbates things from a design perspective.
  From an industrial perspective, any plastic barrel that doesn't hold up to insane tolerances (at least 3x max pressure) and do so for a very long time? Begging for a lawsuit that'll bankrupt your company, guaranteed. Also, there's no real economic incentive to make plastic barrels commercially - steel is way cheaper to acquire, machine, and temper. Now there are some specialized and niche applications (spies, special ops/forces, whatever), but they don't justify the costs.
  Hobbyists OTOH don't have that kind of pressure or limitation - they're just doing it because they can.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
4. Re:I still see a market .... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-27 09:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  If it were purely a matter of pressure, you could probably get away with expensive plastic. I wouldn't want to be the person in charge of 3d-printing such a beast; but fiber-reinforced polymers are pretty tough (even better results, and markedly higher fabrication costs, if the fiber structures are correctly oriented to ensure that pressures on the barrel are mostly applied as tensile stress on the reinforcing fibers). At that point, though, you are probably talking a production process more difficult, possibly even more expensive, than the one used to produce normal metal barrels.
  Even more vexingly, you still have heat and barrel erosion to deal with. If you don't mind a smoothbore with suitably low rate of fire, that's survivable; but 'rifle' more or less requires modestly complex barrel geometry tough enough to survive having a bullet rammed through it at alarming speeds. Plus, if you are using chemical propellants, the tendency of plastics to either start breaking down, or go into glass transition and send all their structural properties screaming through the floor, at fairly low temperatures combines beautifully with their relatively low thermal conductivity....
5. Re:I still see a market .... by Sique · 2013-07-27 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  You can also 3D print metal, it's a slightly different process, but nevertheless, there are metal 3D printers out there.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
6. Re:I still see a market .... by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-07-27 10:10 · Score: 2
  
  You can also 3D print metal, it's a slightly different process, but nevertheless, there are metal 3D printers out there.
  And if you look at the pains that the gun foundries go through to get _exactly_ the right metal properties for their gun barrels, you'd be leery of ever firing a 3D-printed gun (in 2013).
  But, as I understand it, nobody actually wants a 3D printed gun - they're just trying to bait the gun-grabbers into attempting to restrain free trade and stifle free speech for their agenda, to make the gun-grabbers look even worse.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
7. Re:I still see a market .... by AK+Marc · 2013-07-27 10:18 · Score: 2
  
  It survived the shot, wouldn't have harmed the shooter, and appears to have been accurate, though nobody has demonstrated the accuracy of the printed firearms.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
8. Re:I still see a market .... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  You can also 3D print metal, it's a slightly different process, but nevertheless, there are metal 3D printers out there.
  It's also pretty weak compared to cast metal, nigh-impossible to make homogenous and still requires enough machining to clean up that one might as well start with a piece of metal from the beginning.
9. Re:I still see a market .... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  though nobody has demonstrated the accuracy of the printed firearms.
  There may be a reason for that. After all if it hit the target, wouldn't you want to show that off?
10. Re:I still see a market .... by D1G1T · 2013-07-27 10:29 · Score: 2
  
  I suspect Matthew built a rifle because making a plastic pistol in Canada would get him into very serious trouble. The laws governing Hunting "long-guns" are significantly more relaxed.
11. Re:I still see a market .... by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-07-27 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  At that point, though, you are probably talking a production process more difficult, possibly even more expensive, than the one used to produce normal metal barrels.
  One could imagine a polymer mixture that would contain chemicals that would cross-link randomly (or even preferentially), and at certain ratios form long chains, which would act as reinforcing fibers.
  The orientation would be random unless possibly cured in a magnetic field with the right chemical components, but even randomly oriented reinforcement might be useful in many situations (we do it with concrete all the time).
  Oh, and prior art, future bitches.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
12. Re:I still see a market .... by EmperorArthur · 2013-07-27 11:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  But, as I understand it, nobody actually wants a 3D printed gun - they're just trying to bait the gun-grabbers into attempting to restrain free trade and stifle free speech for their agenda, to make the gun-grabbers look even worse.
  And it's working quite well. Here in the United States home made firearms are mostly legal as long as you don't sell them. Mainly because it's too hard to regulate, and most of them blow up anyways. The only restriction is an old law saying guns have to be detected by metal detectors.
  Now you have all these states and cities that are passing laws banning 3d printed weapons. Side note, I can't wait until someone is arrested because they used a 3d printed toy as a "weapon." Then the US said it might be an export violation and told Defense Distributed to pull all the files. Boom, instant free speech violation.
  What I'm curious about is the correlation between gun-grabbers and people who want to Censor the internet. Since they both use the same language about "protecting children" or for "public safety" I imagine it's the same people. Has anyone done a study on this?
  
  --
  So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
13. Re:I still see a market .... by Will.Woodhull · 2013-07-27 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  You make some valid points.
  For the purposes of demonstrating the possibilities, the same gun should be printed again, with the barrel cut down to 6 inches and the powder load reduced by firing .22 short ammunition. Such a gun would survive a couple of firings, probably. Probably literally burning out the bore would be its demise.
  I doubt if any printed gun could ever last for more than a few rounds before its barrel was shot out so bad that the bullet would fall out the end. The muzzle blast might be impressive though.
  
  --
  Will
14. Re:I still see a market .... by Will.Woodhull · 2013-07-27 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  There are several commercial .22 LR carbines with nylon or other non-metal barrels. Aside from being light weight, some have some interesting properties, like being either straight or broken but never bent.
  I doubt it would be hard to build a receiver massive enough to handle .22 LR pressures.
  But I doubt you could get a printed barrel that could handle the corrosive effects for more than a couple of rounds. The nylon barrels do it somehow, but I believe it took some fancy chemical research to come up with the formula.
  
  --
  Will
15. Re:I still see a market .... by Hadlock · 2013-07-27 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Most people only fire their gun about 100 times - ammo is expensive, and people have better things to do with their time. 30 shots per rifle, especially if you can print it at home, is an acceptable amount. You don't buy a $4 disposable camera and expect to win a photography contest.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
16. Re:I still see a market .... by interkin3tic · 2013-07-27 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the type of censors. There are probably some people who honestly think the entire world needs to be nerfed to protect kids against accidents. There are some censors who simply hate sex due to religious reasons aren't concerned about guns, they're clearly more concerned about preventing sex than violence. And the professionals are paid by the RIAA and MPAA. They do use that language, but only because it's an effective way to kill the internet that threatens their business.
17. Re:I still see a market .... by timeOday · 2013-07-27 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  as I understand it, nobody actually wants a 3D printed gun
  At the very, VERY least you would use a prefab metal pipe for the barrel, if you goal were really just to make a gun. (Even a prefab plastic pipe would make a better barrel than a printed plastic barrel.)
18. Re:I still see a market .... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  The point of a printed gun is to use it to kill an occupying soldier so you can take his weapon and continue the resistance. So it does not need to fire that many times.
19. Re:I still see a market .... by misexistentialist · 2013-07-27 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  The correlation is that people who don't believe in rights, don't believe in rights. They're dependent on the government to give them what they didn't earn, so freedom is dangerous. Of course it's also common to see "anti-government" types infringing on rights as well, but that's because beneath the bluster they also know they can't make it without the government helping them to keep what they didn't earn
20. Re:I still see a market .... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  A nylon barrel? I've heard of a Remington Nylon series of 22's, but I believe those were named for the stock and possibly internals. Both the barrel and receiver were steel. I've also seen some carbon fiber or aluminum wrapped barrels, but they all have a steel sleeve at the center. Are these maybe what you were thinking of, or is there something else I'm not aware of?
21. Re:I still see a market .... by Type44Q · 2013-07-27 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  Here in the United States home made firearms are mostly legal as long as you don't sell them. Mainly because it's too hard to regulate
  That is certainly not why they're legal.
22. Re:I still see a market .... by Paradise+Pete · 2013-07-27 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  There may be a reason for that. After all if it hit the target, wouldn't you want to show that off?
  The target in this case seems to have been "the water," so not exactly something to brag about. Maybe if they had somehow missed...
23. Re:I still see a market .... by Lord+Kano · 2013-07-27 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  I talk to some Canadian gun collectors and it's mind blowing how certain guns (Chinese SKSs) are significantly cheaper in Canada.
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
24. Re:I still see a market .... by chmod+a+x+mojo · 2013-07-27 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  You would have to find a way for the reinforcing fiber to follow the lands and grooves of the rifling. The jacket drag causes visible twisting ( with slow motion cameras ) of lighter steel barrels simply from the bullet having a proper fit while in travel.
  Unless they come up with a plastic that can be printed out easily and then work hardened ( through firing ) to a specific point I don't think they will have much luck with 3D printed rifles.
  
  --
  To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
25. Re:I still see a market .... by Dereck1701 · 2013-07-27 16:05 · Score: 1
  
  "Most people only fire their gun about 100 times"
  Maybe an absolute novice with only a passing interest in firearms. I consider myself a low level gun enthusiast and I just fired probably close to 100 rounds TODAY (a mixture of 7.62x51 and 22lr) "plinking", and watched another person go through dialing in a new scope fire at least 150 rounds. Now all of these guns were semi-auto clip fed, which tends to encourage a bit of excessive/unproductive firing. But even shooting a lever action Winchester I'll usually go through 20-60 rounds in a day, I know I've put over 400 rounds through that gun and I'm probably the third or fourth owner of it. Granted I don't get out to shoot much, but over my lifetime I've probably fired over 5,000 rounds through about a dozen guns (12ga, 410, 16ga, 223, 7.62x51, 30-30, 7.62x39, 50BMG, 9mm, 45acp, .500 S&W, 7.62x54r)
26. Re:I still see a market .... by Will.Woodhull · 2013-07-27 16:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I was wrong, parent post is right. I just learned that the .22 "survival" carbine I had been thinking of has a steel barrel; the receiver and stock are nylon.
  When I lived in more open country, I used to hunt with a .30-06 slide action and 2-7x scope. Now my hunting is in brushy country where shots over 100 yards are very rare, so I use a .30-30 lever action carbine with peep sights. I've never been in a situation where a .22 rifle would be of any use, so I never looked into that caliber.
  
  --
  Will
27. Re:I still see a market .... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-27 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be amazed to see somebody print such a beast; but (if one simply had to prove that a rifled polymer barrel could be constructed) getting the fiber reinforcements in a polymer structure to follow the rifling might actually be doable.
  For textile purposes (socks, shoelaces, ropes, pantihose, that sort of thing) circular weaving machines, capable of pumping out seamless woven tubes, of varying complexity, are ancient. More recently, with the enthusiasm for carbon fiber composites, there has been some work adapting such machinery to weave carbon fiber structures, with the necessary detail included, that are then resin-impregnated and used as structural elements. It would probably be possible, if nontrivial, to weave a tube that, rather than having an ornamental pattern, has the necessary helical rifled shape, which you could then fill with whatever resin seemed least likely to die horribly before you've emptied your first magazine.
  The finished product would still be lousy, even metal barrels aren't always what we want them to be, particularly for more demanding ammunition or rates of fire, and plastics don't compare favorably; but I suspect that it could be done. (It'd just be tricky enough that rifling your own barrels at home would be easy and efficient by comparison)
28. Re:I still see a market .... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 17:25 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, forgot the link: Lexus is irksomely self-satisfied about theirs, describing it in hyperbolic tones that would make you think nobody had ever woven a circular structure before; but it is a pretty neat looking example...
  It's a funny topic to try to google for pictures/video of: you've got your home knitting enthusiasts, with lovingly refurbed Legare 400s that appear to have been stolen from around 1880, ( a modern version is available, from New Zealand for some reason), your inscrutable Chinese industrial machinery suppliers, with even more inscrutable comments from would-be buyers in textile-producing parts of the world, and finally your "supercar" puff pieces, with industrial designers talking about aerospace technology in order to boost the perceived value of cars produced (with a very few, largely promotional, exceptions) by entirely different methods.
29. Re:I still see a market .... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 18:40 · Score: 0
  
  The correlation is that people who don't believe in rights, don't believe in rights.
  This, incidentally, is why the NRA and its members stood up to the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent, to McCarthy, to the war on drugs, to the Patriot Act, and are some of the most vocal defenders of Edward Snowden today.
30. Re:I still see a market .... by noh8rz10 · 2013-07-27 19:30 · Score: 0
  
  There are probably some people who honestly think the entire world needs to be narced to protect kids against accidents.
31. Re:I still see a market .... by philip.paradis · 2013-07-27 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  What are you hunting? I've always taken squirrel and rabbit with .22 LR.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
32. Re:I still see a market .... by Lennie · 2013-07-27 21:13 · Score: 2
  
  You are looking at what is going on now, not what will happen in a few maybe 5 or 10 years.
  3D printers currently exists for wood, carbon fiber, ceramic, bronze, steel, iron, cellulose and human tissue and prices of these devices will keep dropping like what we are used to from Moore's law.
  Forget these pee shooters, expect change.
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
33. Re:I still see a market .... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 21:34 · Score: 0
  
  There's no need to follow the same designs as have been made with metal. Maybe a plastic rifle needs a barrel as thick as the rest of the gun instead of a long tube. Then maybe some honeycomb structure will be developed that gets you most of the strength for less weight, etc.. The current model was just silly because it was just copying a metal design.
34. Re:I still see a market .... by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-07-27 21:50 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The cheapness of the plastic isn't really an issue - trying to pretend it has the same properties as steel is. You could make a fairly workable rifle with 3D printing but you'd have to adjust the design to match the materials used, in other words it would have to be bulky enough to make a WH40k Space Marine's double bolter look like a flimsy toy in comparison. Two to three inch thick walls on the barrel would make it a lot more durable, although melting becomes your problem then.
35. Re:I still see a market .... by felrom · 2013-07-27 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  Can you post a link to an NRA press release for their stance on any of those things?
  I have this feeling that you're trolling, but I can't figure out if it's pro-NRA trolling or anti-NRA trolling. The NRA is a single-issue civil rights group. They don't take hard stances on other issues because they don't want to alienate parts of their membership. Put another way, their strategy is that it's better to be as strong as possible on the second amendment, and silent on everything else, than to dilute their pro-2a power by getting dragged into non-2a debates.
36. Re:I still see a market .... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 23:36 · Score: 0
  
  Err, the Lulz Liberator IS a plastic gun that is 3d printed and continues to work. It's a 3d printed .38 single shot pistol. But yes, rifles are a bit more of a lofty goal.
37. Re:I still see a market .... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-28 00:09 · Score: 0
  
  My point is that the NRA is not a pro-civil rights organisation.
  (I do draw a distinction between gun owners and gun manufacturers. The NRA purports to represent gun owners, but it actually represents the interests of gun manufacturers, especially when those interests go against the interests of responsible gun owners.)
38. Re:I still see a market .... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-28 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  About $5 worth of fiberglass and resin would have guaranteed the barrel could survive multiple shots. It's also an off-the-shelf item that anyone could use(probably easier than getting the printer calibrated). Or if you're not concerned with getting it through a metal detector, just print out an undersized barrel and hammer it into a short length of pipe. Problem solved.
  (Also, It's not like this could really be called a 'rifle' though. If the barrel was actually rifled it would be stripped out after a couple shots...)
39. Re:I still see a market .... by swillden · 2013-07-28 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  The length of the rifle barrel is what'll kill it. A pistol dumps its internal pressures quickly - the short muzzle doesn't have to hold the pressure for more than a millisecond or two at most. A rifle on the other hand? The longer the barrel, the longer that period of time which the barrel has to hold the higher pressures. Most rifle cartridges also contain a slower-burning powder (to keep pressures at least somewhat constant as the bullet travels down the barrel), which only exacerbates things from a design perspective.
  I think the duration of the high pressures is a second-order issue, behind the fact that most rifle rounds generate much higher pressures, period. A few examples:
  Handgun rounds:
  .380 ACP: 21,500 PSI
  9mm: 34,800 PSI
  .357 magnum: 35,000 PSI
  .40: 35,000 PSI
  .45 ACP: 21,000 PSI
  Rifle rounds:
  5.56mm: 62,366 PSI
  .270: 65,000 PSI
  .308: 62,000 PSI
  .30-05: 60,200 PSI
  I'm not aware of a single handgun round that is designed for more than 40,000 PSI, while most modern rifle rounds are in the 60,000+ PSI range. The lowest-pressure rifle round I'm aware of is the old .45-70 government, which still peaks at close to 30,000 PSI.
  It's worth pointing out the Defense Distributed's Liberator fires the .380, a low-pressure round. The .45 would also be a good choice. Perhaps even better would be the .38 special and .44 special, which have max pressures around 14,000 PSI. Best of all would be some hybrid round which is loaded for low-pressure but is fired out of a casing designed for a high-pressure round. That would allow the casing to take more of the load and demand less of the plastic chamber.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
40. Re:I still see a market .... by drinkypoo · 2013-07-28 01:31 · Score: 2
  
  .22LR is a varmint caliber. It's actually illegal to hunt anything bigger than a rabbit with it most places
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
41. Re:I still see a market .... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-28 04:00 · Score: 0
  
  a .338 Win Mag.)
  Although there is a .338 Win Mag cartridge, could you have been meaning to refer to either of these other much more common and popular ones: .300 Win Mag, or .338 Lapua Mag?
42. Re:I still see a market .... by Will.Woodhull · 2013-07-28 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Blacktail deer.
  
  --
  Will
43. Re:I still see a market .... by philip.paradis · 2013-07-28 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's why I've always taken squirrel and rabbit with .22 LR, but anything larger with a larger caliber. For what it's worth, many .177 and .22 (or .25) air rifles do a fine job with squirrel as well.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
44. Re:I still see a market .... by Will.Woodhull · 2013-07-28 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why I never considered a .22LR rifle. I did own a .22Mag revolver when I lived back of beyond in the hill country. It was a good snake gun, although the snake shot rounds were spendy. Mostly I used it for mercy killings when a wounded deer got onto the place or a goat tore its leg open to the bone when it got tangled in a barbed wire fence. If I ever feel the need for a handgun again, I'd probably get another .22Mag revolver.
  
  --
  Will
45. Re:I still see a market .... by philip.paradis · 2013-07-28 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Nifty, I've never owned anything in .30-30, but your post raised my interest. Any recommendations? I see several reviews that speak favorably of the Marlin 336W.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
46. Re:I still see a market .... by Hadlock · 2013-07-28 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  As a gun owner of ten years with two no-name pistols, I've probably but $30 worth of ammo through one, and perhaps 200 rounds ($40?) through my .22 lr target pistol.
  
  There's a huge difference between hobbyists who buy name brand guns and those who own them as utility tools.
  
  My friend got her CCL, she owns a pink pistol but she's put perhaps 20 rounds through it so she wouldn't shoot herself in the foot with it if she ever had to use it. In my mind she's the average user. The people who put ammo and survival equipment as a line item in their monthly budget might buy the lion's share of weapons, but they're in the minority of users.
  
  If you could print a reusable receiver, and then swap out the barrel after you prove out the device, that would be acceptable for a very large market. Collectors will never touch them, obviously, but very few people need a super accurate, durable gun designed to last generations.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
47. Re:I still see a market .... by philip.paradis · 2013-07-28 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  It should be emphasized that .22 LR is well suited to small game, not larger animals, and I've never had any issues with terminal performance or accuracy. Some folks like to use .410 shot for squirrel, but I don't like picking pellets.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
48. Re:I still see a market .... by chuckugly · 2013-07-28 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  454 Casull operates at high pressures.
49. Re:I still see a market .... by drinkypoo · 2013-07-28 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  I've used my .22LR for ground squirrel on a ranch in the past. Now though I have both a tool sale airgun and a gamo whisper. Either one will kill a squirrel at any meaningful range. I got a fancy scope at a yard sale for ten bucks (no caps) and put it on my tool sale rifle and it'll do the same job, just noisier. The mounting rings to put a 1" scope on an air rifle rail came from DealExtreme for about three bucks.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
50. Re:I still see a market .... by swillden · 2013-07-28 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  454 Casull operates at high pressures.
  Yeah, probably not a good choice for a plastic gun.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
51. Re:I still see a market .... by felrom · 2013-07-28 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  I think if the NRA didn't represent its membership, its membership would not continue to increase, and those members would not continue to part with their money to support the organization.
  The NRA's income is over $200,000,000 a year. A very few companies, such as Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and MidwayUsa, can afford to give the NRA $1,000,000 each per year (these are well publicized donations, because they buy much good will with gun owners). There simply aren't enough players in the gun industry as big as those three, who are also willing to give the money regularly, to support an organization that spends over $200,000,000 a year, and there is simply no incentive for large secret donations by gun companies.
  As spelled out in the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/
  
  Between [2005] and 2011, the Violence Policy Center estimates that the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers.
  So even the most anti-gun-rights group in the country, only claims that the NRA got $38.9 million from the firearms industry in a 6-year period. That's 3.2% of their budget.
  Examine this from a game-theoretical perspective, and ask yourself, "does it make sense to say that the NRA does not represent gun owners?" "Who would be in a position to hurt the NRA the most if the NRA decided to represent manufacturers at the expense of owners?" "If the NRA does not represent gun owners, why does their membership continue to increase?"
  When your conclusions don't match the data, maybe it's time to reexamine your assumptions.
  I do understand the point you're trying to make about the NRA: you're arguing that because they only support one civil right, they are not a civil rights organization. Would you similarly say that because the American Civil Liberties Union does not speak out for stronger third amendment protections, they are not a civil rights organization? Or that because the Electronic Frontier Foundation does not support ninth and tenth amendment lawsuits, they are not a civil rights organization?
  The point I'm making is that you can't plug your ears and say, "they're not a civil rights group," simply because they either support a civil right you don't agree with, or fail to give support to one you do agree with.
52. Re:I still see a market .... by Meski · 2013-07-28 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Print something that requires firing (no, not that firing, the ceramic high temperature kiln type.) and it might work
53. Re:I still see a market .... by Will.Woodhull · 2013-07-28 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  I have the Marlin 336 in the synthetic wood stock. Its proving to be a good gun. A lot lighter and easier to maneuver than the .30-06 was.
  
  --
  Will
54. Re:I still see a market .... by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-07-28 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Chinese SKS are not cheaper in Canada so much so as they exist in the first place. You can buy a Norinco in US, but only some of the old ones, before the import ban. In Canada, you can get a brand new one for the same price.
  What really makes me jealous is the insanely cheap Chinese M14 knock-off. They say the quality is on par with Springfield, but the price is like 2.5-3x less.
55. Re:I still see a market .... by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-07-28 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  Can you post a link to an NRA press release for their stance on any of those things?
  Well, during the infamous NRA press conference after Newtown, they pretty much said "let's ban violent video games and movies instead of guns".
  Which, coincidentally, is why my money is now going to SAF instead.
56. Re:I still see a market .... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-28 16:30 · Score: 0
  
  I think the figure that you want is that only about half of the NRA's income comes from membership dues (source: Wikipedia). However, direct handing over of money isn't the only way that corporations maintain control over the NRA. Indeed, that would be inefficient when they can get members to do their dirty work for them.
  So gun manufacturers, sellers, sporting goods stores can arrange fundraising (e.g. the "round up" programme). The judicious use of outright lies, such as the "they're coming to get your guns" narrative, also helps.
57. Re:I still see a market .... by Lord+Kano · 2013-07-28 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  There are even recent import Chinese military SKSs but they're still more expensive than what the guys up in Canada are getting.
  I held one of those M14s once but I didn't have the $1,000 in my pocket to buy it. It was sold before the week was out.
  LK
  
  --
  "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
58. Re:I still see a market .... by felrom · 2013-07-28 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  Both of the numbers we listed are correct: about half from membership dues, and 3.2% from corporate donations. The NRA also gets money from advertisements in its publications, payouts from its endowments, donations from members, donations from state-level gun-rights groups, etc. The point I'm trying to make is that there simply isn't a logical case to be made that gun companies control the NRA when they don't provide even close to half of its funding, while gun-owning members provide more than half.
  
  Indeed, that would be inefficient when they can get members to do their dirty work for them.
  You're literally saying that people acting in what they've each determined to be their own best interest, is in fact a giant behavioral control conspiracy. If the NRA's policies really were so out of line with the membership's desires, we wouldn't see the membership continue to increase. Your whole argument relies on the pretentious fallacy that people don't know what is best for themselves, but you do.
  
  The judicious use of outright lies, such as the "they're coming to get your guns" narrative, also helps.
  All but the last one of these is from THIS YEAR.
  Hawaii legislature proposes gun confiscation
  http://www.hawaiireporter.com/its-hawaiis-proposed-guns-laws-that-are-criminal/123
  New York Assemblyman asks colleague not to mention that original proposed SAFE Act included confiscation
  http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/20/NY-Assemblyman-exposes-gun-confiscation-agenda-of-Democrats
  Missouri Democrats introduce legislation to confiscate guns
  http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/02/14/missouri-democrats-introduce-legislation-confiscate-firearms-gives-gun-owners-90-days-turn-weapons
  VA has veterans who cannot manage their own financial affairs declared prohibited persons unable to own firearms
  http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/15/va-targeting-veterans-for-gun-confiscation/
  NJ State Senator "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate confiscate confiscate."
  http://www.politickernj.com/back_room/confiscate-confiscate-confiscate#
  Oregon Legislator calls fears of gun confiscation a "paranoid delusion" and then states he is in favor of gun confiscation
  http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-grabber-has-meltdown-flees-public-affairs-forum-anger
  Governor Cuomo says, "confiscation could be an option."
  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336373/cuomo-confiscation-could-be-option-eliana-johnson
  Feinstein suggests "compulsory buyback."
  http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-feinstein-suggests-national-buyback-of-guns/article/2516648
  CA assembly proposes confiscating 166,000 legally registered guns.
  http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_22544460/californias-state-senate-democrats-roll-out-big-gun
  And the classic from 1995:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoWE8v9QTOY
59. Re:I still see a market .... by pnutjam · 2013-07-29 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  you misspelled, "keep their corporate donors happily by driving gun sales to nutters"
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
60. Re:I still see a market .... by pnutjam · 2013-07-29 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  There are plenty of members who don't pay dues. I myself constantly receive free membership offers. I once availed myself of it, before I realized that the NRA does not support responsible gun owners.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
61. Re:I still see a market .... by pnutjam · 2013-07-29 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Someone crazy enough to hold a grenade to their shoulder and set it off would probably scare off an attacker just as quickly as someone pointing a gun at them. The explosion might attract some attention also.
  
  --
  Cheap storage VM.
62. Re:I still see a market .... by vivian · 2013-07-29 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  If you are printing and firing guns made of plastic, you are more likely to encounter Darwin's law before you see any benefit from Moore's law...
63. Re:I still see a market .... by Xest · 2013-07-29 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  "What I'm curious about is the correlation between gun-grabbers and people who want to Censor the internet."
  What utter tosh.
  After Newtown it was the NRA that was first to suggest internet censorship and censorship of violent video games claiming they were the problem that led to the shooting to try and move the discussion away from gun ownership law changes.
  Gun toting tea partiers are also normally the first to suggest people like Assange and Snowden should be silenced via assassination.
64. Re:I still see a market .... by werewolf1031 · 2013-07-29 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  ^ Lennie gets it. What's happening now isn't the point, it's only a stepping stone. The important take-away is what will be possible in the near (~10-30 yrs) future.
  Technological development is the ultimate democratizing force in human society. It's what enables commoners to do things that were once the purview of rich governments and militaries. Just as the automobile gave the once-horse-dependent masses access to rapid, personally-controllable transportation, just as my cheap Android cell phone has more computing power than a B-2 Spirit, technological advancement is the enabler of the masses. Today's 3D printing of guns is just the tip of the iceberg.
  The home-brew fabrication process will, inevitably, get faster, cheaper, and utilize increasingly superior materials. Printing guns that are solid and reliable will become a trivial endeavor -- but that's not the point. Technology has a way of trickling down to the masses. What happens in the future when nanorobotics becomes not only ubiquitous, but dirt-cheap for individuals to create and customize? What happens when people can create devices that are nearly on par with nuclear weapons in destructive power?
  This isn't an 'if' but a 'when', and most important will be how we deal with it. Do we accept an increasingly locked-down world where concepts such as individual liberty are a relic of the past in order to ensure some vision of perfect security? Or do we finally accept that mutual respect, peace through a live-and-let-live ethic, is the only way for humanity to survive the coming age where any single person can, with minimal financial investment and time, create and deploy various manner of weapons of mass destruction?
  It's already been demonstrated time and again that legislative bodies are woefully behind the times when it comes to technological understanding, let alone forming appropriate reactions. How they're going to deal with what's coming in the next few decades is anybody's guess, but personally I'm not optimistic. We'll either live in a completely locked-down dystopia that would give even Orwell himself nightmares, or we'll have reconciled our differences to the point of non-aggression -- or we'll be extinct.
  The genie's out of the bottle, and the power it's giving us shows no sign of slowing. What we do with that power will determine whether we as a species have a future or an epitaph.
65. Re:I still see a market .... by Lennie · 2013-07-29 19:35 · Score: 1
  
  Forget about discussions about guns, that is just to easy. What do you think about printing body parts at home in maybe 50 years as well ? ;-)
  I don't know if it will happen, but if Moore's Law might eventually apply to many parts of 3D-printing (I think it will).
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Joe_Dragon · 2013-07-27 09:21 · Score: 1

For a spy all you need is 1 shot
1. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Penguinisto · 2013-07-27 09:35 · Score: 2
  
  With a .22 LR rimfilre, it had better be an extremely accurate shot if you intend to kill anything bigger than a rabbit with it.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
2. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by dead_user · 2013-07-27 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Not with a shotgun.
3. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  Plus, I would think that'd make ballistics tests worthless.
4. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Charliemopps · 2013-07-27 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not true at all. My father grew up on a subsistence farm. He'd hunt elk with a .22lr or sometimes a bow. He brought down many elk with that .22
5. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-27 10:08 · Score: 2
  
  Native Alaskans have been known to kill moose with a single shot from a .22.
  
  But it takes a very good shot, from a position most people would rather not be in.
6. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  If by 400 yards and still kill a human I agree.
  Wikipedia:
  "Numerous other shooting incidents have demonstrated that .22 LR bullets can easily kill or seriously injure humans.[7][8][9] Even after flying 400 yards (370 m), a .22 bullet is still traveling at approximately 500 ft/s (150 m/s)"
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle
  I shoot with guys that have no problem being on mark with .22 at ~250 yards.
7. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-27 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  For a spy all you need is 1 shot
  If you are planning to do something wildly illicit and clandestine, you might have better luck with (depending on whether you need Absolutely No Metal/searches at the entrance resistance or plausible deniability) either the cheapest, nastiest, most ridiculously common on the civilian grey market, gun in that jurisdiction, which is blatantly obvious; but indistinguishable from the background gun violence of the area or some much lower pressure pneumatic dart system with a chemical payload (Georgi Markov style). That strategy is extremely suspicious, unless you choose an agent very carefully; but 'blowgun' tech has materials engineering demands so low that people have been crafting the things out of practically any plant stem with a hollow core since before recorded history. If using chemical weapons doesn't make you squeamish, an all-polymer compressed gas dart/pellet weapon would not be a particularly demanding task.
  (If you want a particularly cute variation on the 'just use something cheap and ubiquitous, they'll know he got shot; but not who shot him.' strategy, an S4M or conceptual equivalent may be for you. A handgun, specially designed for silent, short-range, firing of a bullet that looks almost exactly like the bullet you'd expect to see in somebody shot from considerably further away with any of the absurdly-common AK-variants that use 7.62x39 rounds...)
8. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by interval1066 · 2013-07-27 10:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Quite wrong. the .22 Long Rifle with hollow point, frangible, high velocity AND subsonic loads are all favored by assassins. The subsonic is especially accurate and if you're not shooting through armor or a helmet is going to take your target out if placed right. The load used by the Jackal (in the origiinal 1964 film) was a .22 LR exploder.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
9. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  Guns are messy ways of taking someone out. Only amateurs use guns.
10. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2013-07-27 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  Native Alaskans have been known to kill moose with a single shot from a .22.
  Are you factoring in the added velocity from the helicopter?
11. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-27 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  I as am against helicopter hunting as anybody.
  
  But nobody hunts from a helicopter with a .22.
12. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-27 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  "Quite wrong. the .22 Long Rifle with hollow point, frangible, high velocity AND subsonic loads are all favored by assassins."
  More people in non-military situations are killed by .22 caliber rounds than any other.
13. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by iggymanz · 2013-07-27 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  No, false. And citing Hollywood movies doesn't bolster the case. Most successful assassinations are carried out by heavier and/or higher velocity rounds.
  22 LR *might* kill someone (sometimes a day later, as a relative of mine died), or not.
  For example, some Navy SEALS were issued sound suppressed 22LR pistols, for killing patrol DOGS. They have heavier ammo for people.
14. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by EdZ · 2013-07-27 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  This was the plot of a Golgo 13 episode. Walk into a stadium with a 'toy' pistol robust enough to fire a single shot, then attach it to a large balloon to get rid of the evidence.
15. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by iggymanz · 2013-07-27 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  and many animals have been maimed and suffered for a long time because of stupid hunters using inadequate round for the game they're hunting. Sure a 22 LR in head or other vital area *might* kill human or deer or larger animal, but it also might not.
  It is ILLEGAL in Alaska to hunt deer or any larger game with a 22 LR, for the reason I just gave. All rimfiire ammunition, which includes 22LR, is illegal for that. Illegal in my state of Illinois too and most (maybe all?) states.
16. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  For a spy all you need is 1 shot
  Have you ever fired a rifle before??
  A hypothetical non-metallic rifle is one thing, but a cruddy plastic 3D printed one, how would you trust the sights, can you zero it without breaking the thing? Can you zero it AT ALL without it warping or flexing between shots?
  A rifle without precision is really missing the point... of rifling.
17. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by iggymanz · 2013-07-27 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  bullshit. in USA, larger calibers are more frequently used, look it up.
18. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-27 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit yourself. That's a different number.
  
  I didn't say .22 was used "more than larger calibers". I stated that it was used more than any other caliber. Those are two different things. Look it up yourself.
19. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-27 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  I also did nott say just U.S., or any particular year.
20. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by iggymanz · 2013-07-27 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's not true either. either of the .355 (9mm ) and .357" diameter bullet (.38 special and .357 magnum) is used more often the .22 LR in the USA.
21. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by DigiShaman · 2013-07-27 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  Helicopter hog hunting is perfectly legal in Texas. Wild hog populations have gotten extremely out of control. Killing them is not just for sport, it's a form of pest control. Drone hog hunting would be quite interesting too, but I'm not sure if unmanned killing is legal or not.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
22. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by interval1066 · 2013-07-27 13:51 · Score: 1
  
  You're talking about a completely different scenario. A combat situation IS NOT an assassination. Turns out that .22 LRs are perfect for assassinations by gun.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
23. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by sjames · 2013-07-27 14:54 · Score: 1
  
  Not nearly as much as the pilot I imagine :-)
24. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by tftp · 2013-07-27 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's not true either. either of the .355 (9mm ) and .357" diameter bullet (.38 special and .357 magnum) is used more often the .22 LR in the USA.
  .22LR is (was) bought in 500-rd boxes for $25 and fired without concern for cost. 500 rounds of 9mm, let alone revolver calibers, will be far more expensive, and your hand will be sore.
25. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by sumdumass · 2013-07-27 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  It somewhat legal in Alaska. The Alaska hunting regs specifically say you can take caribou from a boat using a .22 rimfire in certain districts.
  Page 21 I think.
  http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/wildliferegulations/pdfs/general.pdf
  In Ohio, guns other then certain handguns and shotguns are illegal to hunt with during deer season except muzzle loaders of a certain type or larger. (actually, I think it's a period of months- after a certain date they aren't allowed unless that just happens to be how the seasons pan out).
26. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by sumdumass · 2013-07-27 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  All the riffles and barrels would be identical so all you would have to do is sight them in and change the barrel design slightly or even the sights a bit to compensate in future models.
  In manufacturing a regular metal barrel, the process allows near identical or similar results but not always the same. This minute diversion is eliminated with the precision of printing a barrel. Also, the point of sight attachments in regular firearms have some play as well. This is also eliminated with printing for the most part.
  You will be sure that barrel number 2 is exactly the same without any deviance's from barrel number 1 so adjusting the rear sight 1 millimeter to the left and 2 mils higher will be enough to ensure accuracy at a given range. You can practice and adjust manually for any other ranges needed.
27. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Culture20 · 2013-07-27 15:57 · Score: 1
  
  many animals have been maimed and suffered for a long time because of stupid hunters using inadequate round for the game they're hunting.
  That's how humans hunted for all of prehistory. Minor wound, then track the animal for miles until it bleeds out or exhausts itself.
28. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 16:28 · Score: 0
  
  Also aren't combat drones usually equipped with guided missiles? No matter how overpopulated those boars are you'll not get permission to launch a Hellfire missile at them.
29. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by iggymanz · 2013-07-27 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  but armed robber or assassin doesn't need 500 round box, does he? and how many shots fired during a crime? a $13 25-round box of cheapest 9mm or 38 special goes a long way. as for revolver, cheap ass CC Blazer can be had for $18 a box.
  I've been in plenty of "1800" matches (90 rounds rimfire, 90 rounds centerfire)....truthfully the weight of the guns more than anything is what makes my hand tired.
30. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Opportunist · 2013-07-27 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  I was pondering the same, though my logic was "I only need 1 shot. After that, I'll have a real rifle".
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
31. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Opportunist · 2013-07-27 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  But ... but ... 2nd amendment...
  That's what you get with the democrats in the white house!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
32. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-27 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  "No, that's not true either. either of the .355 (9mm ) and .357" diameter bullet (.38 special and .357 magnum) is used more often the .22 LR in the USA."
  Used for what? See, everybody here is getting their figures all jumbled up.
  
  First, I didn't say just U.S.
  
  Second, again, I was referring to particular calibers, not .22 vs. everything else.
  
  Third, I didn't say "used in crime" (which is what just about everybody is citing). I said "killed people".
  
  Fourth, even those U.S. figures are woefully inconclusive. Most sources will give you figures that came from a single survey of Philadelphia crime (not killings) in 1985. There is another report from Philly from around '90 that also shows up a lot. But Philadelphia is hardly representative of the whole U.S. much less the rest of the world; I was referring to killings not just crime; and I did not say specifically 1985.
  
  Fifth, I have some more recent figures too. Like "Firearms Report, Office of the Attorney General, California Department of Justice, 2009" for example. And the same kinds of problems hold. In most of the report, they reference crime, not killings. Where they do mention it, it turns out that only about 1/5 (21%) of the guns used in killings were factored into the report. Etc. It's a political document, not responsible statistics. As evidenced by its strong emphasis on "California-defined 'assault weapons'."
  
  I will say, however, from the statistics I have seen, IT APPEARS THAT in large cities of the U.S., in RECENT years, in the commission of CRIMES (not killings): the 9mm, .380, and .40 S&W appear to be the most popular handgun calibers. Followed closely by .22.
33. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-27 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  "Helicopter hog hunting is perfectly legal in Texas. Wild hog populations have gotten extremely out of control."
  Sure, I don't doubt there are legitimate exceptions. I just meant the sort of wolf and elk hunting and the like that we've seen in films.
  
  But if you're NOT talking about serious and harmful overpopulation and things of that nature, I put helicopter hunting right up there with clubbing baby seals.
34. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by gl4ss · 2013-07-27 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  many animals have been maimed and suffered for a long time because of stupid hunters using inadequate round for the game they're hunting.
  That's how humans hunted for all of prehistory. Minor wound, then track the animal for miles until it bleeds out or exhausts itself.
  you can just track without wounding too. some tribes in africa use that.. humans have surprisingly good tenacity compared to antelopes.
  but still, it's risky, the crazed animal might run into a freeway or whatever - of course you can take down a big thing with a 22lr if you happen to hit the right spot, it's more probable that you will not though.
  good luck doing that shot with something shot out of a thing with plastic rifling...
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
35. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by swalve · 2013-07-27 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  3D printing isn't magic. It's just an inkjet that prints plastic.
36. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-28 01:16 · Score: 0
  
  In manufacturing a regular metal barrel, the process allows near identical or similar results but not always the same. This minute diversion is eliminated with the precision of printing a barrel
  Reading this makes one aware that your user name is apt.
37. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2013-07-28 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  I started this whole helihunting thing making a joking Sarah Palin ref; didn't realize it was so popular that I'd be taken wholly seriously. Taking shots at game from a helicopter, that's a bit overkill innit?
38. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by MachineShedFred · 2013-07-28 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  a .22LR will go right through a frying pan at 200 yards. Sure, a .22LR doesn't have a lot of mass, but it makes up for it with energy. You put it in the right place, it will do a significant amount of damage. If it hits a bone, it's going to rattle around inside the body like a pinball.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
39. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Xest · 2013-07-29 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  In Alaska they also think they can see Russia from their bedroom windows.
40. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by sumdumass · 2013-07-31 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's more accurate in it's results then the metal smithing most riffles receive. The original reason sights were changed from a fixed implement to adjustable was because the barrels are not identical and they can bend slightly over time with harsh use.
  Nothing needs to be magic, just identical which is well within the scope of a good 3D printer
41. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by sumdumass · 2013-07-31 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  I find it completely humorous when chicken hearted idiots post replies as AC and instead of disputing what was said with some sort of brilliant insight or even correct information, instead post useless babel like you did. You mom would be so proud of you right now. Not because you had something profound and insightful to say, but because you amused me.
42. Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-06 13:45 · Score: 0
  
  No they aren't - they're too light. Take any other handgun ammo, reduce the powder and increase the lead and you have a better assassination weapon. The only requirement is that it be sub-sonic so that it can be properly silenced. So long as it is sub-sonic, the heavier the round the better. Can't get much lighter then a 22. Now if you're going to tip the round with cyanide, things would be a bit different.
A new slogan by sgt+scrub · 2013-07-27 09:22 · Score: 0

Keep America safe. Teach rednecks how to build guns out of plastic.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
1. Re:A new slogan by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-07-27 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  If this were a question, I would say yes.
2. Re:A new slogan by HornWumpus · 2013-07-27 10:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They would humor you. Rednecks already own a number of real guns and would assume you were some sort of city idiot. Once they figured out that you weren't going to blow off your hand they would go home.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
well that is why you need an engineer by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 09:25 · Score: 1

well d'ohhh -- geometry is not everything -- understanding the materials that make the object you wish to replicate and the various treatmnents post manufacturing make an engineered product what it is -- basically sounds like this weapon was designed by a non-engineer. well d'ohhh
Basic problem in many companies today -- they hire "engineers" from 3rd world companies that lack knowledge or abilities or worse offshore such knowledge to 3rd world countries like China & India and expect the same knowledgte base -- well d'ohh NO
It is why I suspect any new Boeing airliner past 767 to have safety built in -- problem is that the bottom line has over-ridden common sense
In Canada? by Black+Parrot · 2013-07-27 09:31 · Score: 4, Funny

What happens if you try it somewhere else?

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
1. Re:In Canada? by Penguinisto · 2013-07-27 09:36 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  What happens if you try it somewhere else?
  It won't apologize so much when it fails.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
2. Re:In Canada? by hobarrera · 2013-07-27 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  It's been proven to last up to three shots in europe, and about twenty is asia.
3. Re:In Canada? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-29 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  That's a great question. It's cold up here, so it might have made the material more brittle. Better not try it in Siberia either.
Not to worry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 09:35 · Score: 0

Only a matter of time before the composites and process improve to the point where it will withstand these stresses.
1. Re:Not to worry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  There are some people working on 3D printing jet turbine blades. I would not be surprised if the requirements for that were good enough. The thing is they are definitively not using plastic.
2. Re:Not to worry by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-27 10:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Only a matter of time before the composites and process improve to the point where it will withstand these stresses.
  Inconveniently, 3d printing techniques tend to make doing composites (properly) difficult. Extruder-based designs can use fiber reinforced feedstocks, if the usual parameter-fiddling is done properly; but doing that will mostly just serve to make the difference in strength between the continuous filament (relatively strong) and the bonds at the 'seams' where the newly extruded filament needs to fuse with the previous layer and any adjacent already-laid filament (absolute best case, these might be as strong as the continuous filament, almost always weaker, sometimes markedly so, depending on process control) even starker than it already is, since the reinforcement material won't extend throughout the part (as it does with injection-molded fiber reinforced parts).
  Selective laser sintering, while classier, is similarly limited by the fact that the reinforcement material can't extend beyond the boundaries of the powder being sintered (and you can't make the powder particles larger without sending your resolution to hell).
  (Now, in the hypothetical cyberpunk dystopian future, it might be possible to produce pre-woven carbon-nanotube/graphene/similar technobabble "sleeves" that would collapse down into easily concealable flat shapes (like a freshly ironed sock); but could be stretched over a simple form and impregnated with a polymer or epoxy to turn them into fiber-reinforced barrels quickly and with almost zero tools just before use, using the same basic techniques used for fiberglass or carbon fiber construction. Not obviously worth it vs. just smuggling normal guns; but it' be a cute trick.)
3. Re:Not to worry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  Considering modern turbine blades are single crystal, good luck with that.
4. Re:Not to worry by DigiShaman · 2013-07-27 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  Just curious, what's your personal/professional background in knowing all this?
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
5. Re:Not to worry by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-28 14:01 · Score: 2
  
  Just curious, what's your personal/professional background in knowing all this?
  Nothing professional, just some hobbyist fiddling with 3d printers, a bunch of background reading spurred by frustration over comparatively lousy results compared to injection molded parts, and a good, wholesome, upstanding, fondness for testing to destruction.
  I certainly shouldn't be treated as any sort of real authority; but it's something that interests me, and I've poked at it at the dilettante level.
Big surprise by cold+fjord · 2013-07-27 09:41 · Score: 5, Informative

Rifle cartridges tend to have quite a bit more power than pistol cartridges.
Chamber pressure:
Rifle: 7.62x51mm maximum pressure 415 MPa / 60,191 psi Rifle: 5.56x54mm maximum pressure 430 MPa / 62,366 psi Pistol: .45 ACP maximum pressure 140 MPa / 21,000 psi Pistol: 9x19mm maximum pressure 235 MPa / 34,084 psi Pistol: 9x17mm maximum pressure 148 MPa / 21,500 psi
IIRC, the 9x17mm (.380) was used in some earlier 3D printed pistol tests with limited success.
Most people receiving medical treatment after being shot by a pistol will live. Mortality is much higher for those shot by a rifle.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
1. Re:Big surprise by cheesybagel · 2013-07-27 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Pistols are usually designed to stop an assailant rather than outright kill someone.
2. Re:Big surprise by iggymanz · 2013-07-27 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  But note even those pistol pressure are too huge for any plastic, even a wimpy .380 ACP (9mm Kurtz) is 21,500 CPU (roughly same as PSI)
  if you value your life or use of your hand, don't use a 3D printed barrel/chamber unless there is some kind of materials breakthrough that give plastic the strength of iron.
  steel is used for a reason.....
3. Re:Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 13:42 · Score: 0
  
  "Pistols are usually designed to stop an assailant..."
  You are a moron.
4. Re:Big surprise by swalve · 2013-07-27 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  Playing Devil's Advocate, and just for the sake of argument, I would rather have a plastic gun that might explode in my face than none at all, if I am facing a life and death situation and my government won't allow me a proper gun. It raises my odds of survival from nothing to something.
5. Re:Big surprise by swillden · 2013-07-28 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC, the 9x17mm (.380) was used in some earlier 3D printed pistol tests with limited success.
  I'd say with good success, rather than "limited" success.
  Also, it occurs to me that if you'd like a more powerful plastic gun, you should perhaps consider the .45 ACP, which has max pressures slightly lower than the .380. Even better might be a .44 special, which has max pressures of around 14,000 PSI.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
6. Re:Big surprise by MachineShedFred · 2013-07-28 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  Not only are the pressures higher, but the design needs to retain the pressure for a longer period of time, as the barrel is at a minimum 2x as long.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm by cheesybagel · 2013-07-27 09:52 · Score: 1

Except this one is only able to fire one shot. Call me back when they can fire multiple shows using an actual "rifle" round like .308 Winchester.
1. Re:Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  Its progress, stuff like doesn't happen overnight. Its good enough that it managed to fire a single shot properly.
2. Re:Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm by realityimpaired · 2013-07-27 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize that the M16 and international variants are essentially .22, right?
  5.56mm = .223 gauge. It's quite effective in rifles produced for NATO and allies.
3. Re:Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm by NobleSavage · 2013-07-27 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but the 5.56mm has a hell of a lot more powder behind it than a 22lr.
4. Re:Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 10:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There is a HUGE difference between a 22LR and a 5.56 or 223. Even if they are the "same calibur".
  22LR, 36-40 grain, just over 1,000 ft/s
  223 56 grain, just over 3000 ft/s
5. Re:Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm by HornWumpus · 2013-07-27 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Please tell me you're not that stupid? 22LR is equal to a .223? Caliber is the _only_ thing they share.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
6. Re:Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm by dbIII · 2013-07-27 18:27 · Score: 1
  
  Call me back when they can fire multiple shows using an actual "rifle" round
  Multiple shows? Isn't one session at the movies enough?
  You have the right to shout "fire" in a crowed theatre.
  
  Too soon?
7. Re:Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm by MachineShedFred · 2013-07-28 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  So the diameter is about .003 different. So what.
  Just look at the rounds, and you'll know they are completely different from each other. Diameter is only one piece of information in the equation.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
8. Re:Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm by Quila · 2013-07-29 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Gauge? .223 gauge would be something around a 70mm bore diameter.
  That's aside from the fact that a .22LR and .223 Winchester have quite different masses and velocities.
So What? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 09:54 · Score: 0

That's what testing is for, duh. How many here have had every program they ever wrote work on the first try?
Looks goofy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 09:57 · Score: 0

It seems that most of the losers arrested in the mass shootings are firing Glocks and shiny pieces specifically crafted to make their owners look like film stars. Not hobbyist plastic creations.
why gun powder? by Charliemopps · 2013-07-27 09:59 · Score: 2

I keep wondering why all these guys keep trying to produce a gunpowder based gun. There are some incredible air rifles out there now... .50cal, 1000fps awesome guns. Why not try an air rifle and avoid all issues involved with powder?
1. Re:why gun powder? by HornWumpus · 2013-07-27 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  They are baiting the ATF.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. Re:why gun powder? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  They are baiting the ATF in canada?
3. Re:why gun powder? by DadLeopard · 2013-07-27 11:38 · Score: 2
  
  Did you ever look at the pressures the air reservoir reaches in those large caliber air rifles? Remember many of them are filled from a Scuba tank!!
4. Re:why gun powder? by Charliemopps · 2013-07-27 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  So make everything but the tank on the printer.
5. Re:why gun powder? by Lehk228 · 2013-07-27 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  no not everything, use COTS air system parts for valves etc.
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
6. Re:why gun powder? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 14:11 · Score: 0
  
  I think it has more to do with laying groundwork for making future movie plots believable enough to sell.
7. Re:why gun powder? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-28 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  valves and seals. Can't print either that will hold any significant pressure. And using off the shelf valves and seals kind of defeats the purpose of making a 100% printed gun.
Obvious conclusions by hort_wort · 2013-07-27 10:02 · Score: 1

My father once carved a longbow out of a large piece of cedar. It looked magnificent, exactly how a longbow should look. He carefully strung it, notched an arrow, and drew it back. It snapped in half. I thus concluded that a longbow will never work and it's pointless to ever use one. I'm assuming that's the same conclusion we should make from this article. I'm glad this random Canadian could save us all so much time.
1. Re:Obvious conclusions by HornWumpus · 2013-07-27 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Making a zip gun out of black pipe gets ignored or you get arrested.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
2. Re:Obvious conclusions by iggymanz · 2013-07-27 10:46 · Score: 2
  
  One difference, those with gunsmithing skills will tell you plastic is an inappropriate material to make firearm chambers and barrels.
  Cedar is an appropriate material; your father just lacked some very basic knowledge - which he can now get the internet if he still is alive and still is interested.
When will this sillieness end? by MpVpRb · 2013-07-27 10:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Anybody with the right knowledge and some basic tools has been able to make a gun for a long time
Convicts do it in prison
People in underdeveloped countries do it using the most crude equipment imaginable
3D printing a gun, in plastic, is nothing more than an attention grabbing headline
1. Re:When will this sillieness end? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  The real advantage of an AK-47 is that
  it can be produced with low tech facilities.
  a bit more expensive than a 3D printer but, a low tech level,
  still more likely to produce a weapon worth using.
2. Re:When will this sillieness end? by DMUTPeregrine · 2013-07-27 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Or a Sten. You can make one with not much more than sheet metal, a drill, and a hacksaw. The barrel is the only "hard" bit to make, and even that isn't terribly hard to get working at a basic level.
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
3. Re:When will this sillieness end? by clarkkent09 · 2013-07-27 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  There is a big difference. Almost nobody knows how to make a gun. Put all the professional gunsmiths and all the amateur gun-makers that you mention together and they make a tiny fraction of 1% of the population.
  With 3D printing, everybody knows how to make a gun. Download the plan, load it up in your 3D printer and press a button and you got a gun. Its a game changer, especially in areas where buying/selling guns is illegal or difficult.
  
  --
  Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
4. Re:When will this sillieness end? by lxs · 2013-07-27 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  There is a big difference. Almost nobody knows how to make a gun. Put all the professional gunsmiths and all the amateur gun-makers that you mention together and they make a tiny fraction of 1% of the population.
  Suddenly those "we are the 99%" protests are getting scary.
5. Re:When will this sillieness end? by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-07-28 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the easiest kind of weapon to manufacture in low tech shops is the classic straight blowback open bolt machine gun made out of stamped metal - the likes of Sten, M3 Grease Gun, PPS etc. One modern incarnation is Armenian/Chechen Borz. Very simple operating scheme (it's pretty much just a tube for a receiver), and no fancy bolt locking mechanisms, so no gas/piston tube, and the bolt is just a chunk of steel with a firing pin. There is a book on Amazon on how to make such a thing for yourself out of a bunch of pipes.
Poppycock by mcrbids · 2013-07-27 10:29 · Score: 2

OMG! Crazy conspiracy theorists can build bad guns with printers!
BOLLOCKS
Anybody can go to their local hardware store and build a zip gun for as little as $10.
Quote: Keep in mind this should only be used in extreme situations, survival situations, or simply having fun. This homemade 12 guage is simply awesome!

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Political Correctness by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 10:37 · Score: 0

Slashdot, where you can't make fun of rednecks or else you will offend people, and you get smug posts about how good rednecks are, and those posts get modded up by other smug types.
1. Re:Political Correctness by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Slashdot: Where no matter how reasonable a post, there's always some idiot thinking it is some kind of attack on his pet ideology.
2. Re:Political Correctness by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 13:45 · Score: 0
  
  Rednecks are deceptive! Intellectually, they have an IQ of room temperature. Psychologically, they're freaking geniuses. Even in a drunken stupor, they know how to fuck with your head; and they pride themselves on it. Be careful who you insult.
3. Re:Political Correctness by HornWumpus · 2013-07-28 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Just pointing out that the GP is some smug hipster who clearly knows much less about guns then the average redneck, but thinks they are just waiting for him to come along and clear things up for them.
  How dumb are you? Clearly dumber then a redneck.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
4. Re:Political Correctness by Culture20 · 2013-07-28 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Rednecks have the same bell curve distribution of IQ as city-folk, they just lack higher edumication. Don't let the smaller vocabulary fool you. There are genius rednecks.
Re:I want sex with a nubile girl! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 10:43 · Score: 0

Go home, CmdrTaco, you're drunk.
Any by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 10:57 · Score: 0

reasonably intelligent person with a little knowlege can figure out how to make a crude gun, or a fairly effective bomb. No 3d printer needed.
Really? by XenithOrb · 2013-07-27 11:32 · Score: 1

They really need to stop wasting their time with plastics and look into 3D printing _around_ a metal chamber.
Regardless, the bore will wear out quickly and the rest of the barrel will get too hot and melt the fucker.
It's really quite a futile endeavor, and the people doing this have got to know it, which means it's all for show.
Dregging by Stumbles · 2013-07-27 11:54 · Score: 1

Really? This is news? Given the newness of 3d printing and the materials used getting something like a firearm right on the first go and failing is not news at all.

--
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Attn: ATF - See? Nothing to worry about. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 13:39 · Score: 0

3D printed guns are bogus. You have nothing to worry about. Please go back to sleep.
Printed Rifle? Nah. by JimCanuck · 2013-07-27 14:34 · Score: 1

The Liberator "pistol" fired a .380 ACP round which has been shown to be a decent self defense round.

The Grizzly "rifle" fires a 22LR round which is useless in self defense situations.

Regardless of it's external shape, this is probably a regression in development of 3D printed firearms. Especially considering the load pressures, both the 380 ACP and the 22 LR are around 20,000 PSI to 25,000 PSI.

A real rifle round? Well your looking at anywhere from 50,000 PSI (such as the 7.62x51mm NATO aka M14/M24/SR-25 etc) to 62,000 PSI (such as the 5.56x45mm NATO, aka AR-15's/M-16's etc)..

Till they develop a plastic that can handle those stresses and be 3D printable, the most anyone will be able to do rifle wise, is to make a carbine using a pistol caliber. Although some pistol rounds such as the 9mm Parabellum (most common 9mm Pistol ammunition) is 39,000 PSI which will probably push any 3D printed material well beyond it's maximum.
1. Re:Printed Rifle? Nah. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-28 01:21 · Score: 0
  
  The Grizzly "rifle" fires a 22LR round which is useless in self defense situations.
  Keep telling yourself that if they hit you in the brain, heart, spine or throat with that "useless" .22 LR round.
Some help from composistes? by froggymana · 2013-07-27 14:42 · Score: 1

I wonder how the Grizzly would work if the barrel had vacuum formed kevlar composite added to it. I would imagine that it would definitely help hold it together from cracking in the first place along with protecting the person holding the thing if it were to break.

--
"To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
Prototypes by nurb432 · 2013-07-27 14:42 · Score: 1

Prototype designs don't always go well, regardless of what they are made of or their intended use...
Success is often built on top of many failures.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Wrong 3D printer technology by Animats · 2013-07-27 15:38 · Score: 1

If making a gun out of ABS plastic worked, someone would be punching them out by the millions on injection-molding machines. Any material you can run through a hot-nozzle 3D printer will make a lousy gun barrel. If you want a cheap gun, buy a cheap mass-produced gun. There are plenty of them around.
Selective laser sintering, though... With that, you can make parts out of steel and titanium.
1. Re:Wrong 3D printer technology by dbIII · 2013-07-27 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  Selective laser sintering, though
  There's still porosity problems with that and as cannon casters over the centuries have found you don't want a gun barrel made of metal that is full of little holes. The stuff made of metal powder that ends up in places like jet engines in also lightly forged to get rid of those holes - so if you heat it up a bit and squash it after laser sintering that will do the job.
  Cutting it out of something already forged with a lathe, mill (or for extra geek points electrochemical machining) gets around the problem.
  For some reason 3D printers are seen as valid geek toys but cheaper hobby lathes are not. I don't know why since it only takes a couple of weekends to get to be reasonably good as using a lathe, and after that it's the difference between usually good enough and excellent.
  
  Laser sintering is potentially excellent for a lot of applications but the limit of having little holes in the material makes it a bad choice for others.
2. Re:Wrong 3D printer technology by Osgeld · 2013-07-27 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  yea cause a 100 watt laser is totally going to weld titanium directly off the bed
  there is a reason its called sintering and not welding
3. Re:Wrong 3D printer technology by gl4ss · 2013-07-27 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  using a lathe is more noisier and messy. otherwise I'd have one at home.
  cnc lathe is more expensive in the electronics parts as well than a 3d printer and takes way more effort in learning the cutting bits etc.
  titanium might work with sls. but those machines cost way, way way more than decent home cnc mills.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
4. Re:Wrong 3D printer technology by dbIII · 2013-07-28 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  People always suggest CNC which is why I put in the line "it only takes a couple of weekends to get to be reasonably good" with an ordinary lathe or hobby lathe. It took me a hell of a lot longer than that to learn how to program with G codes, you really need to know what the machine does so really need to be able to drive it manually a bit anyway before you do the coding and you only need CNC when you are doing repetitive work.
Re:Stop it by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 15:49 · Score: 0

But a redneck printer is how we got Honey Boo Boo Child.
perplexing by markhahn · 2013-07-27 15:56 · Score: 1

the remarkable thing about all this 3d-printed-gun excitement is that it's such a non-story. anyone with minimal motivation and dexterity could always have made their own, better guns. the only news is that a complete clutz can push "print".
so, why don't we control ammo? (actually, we do here in .ca - at least on Ontario, you need a firearms license to buy it.)
1. Re:perplexing by Osgeld · 2013-07-27 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  in america if some dumbass wants to blow their face off we let them for the greater good
Wednesday Night Special by dexotaku · 2013-07-27 16:32 · Score: 1

^-- enough said.
1. Re:Wednesday Night Special by LordWabbit2 · 2013-07-28 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  Erm, is it not usually called a Saturday Night Special?
  
  --
  There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
2. Re:Wednesday Night Special by dexotaku · 2013-07-28 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  It's a William Gibson reference from the Bridge trilogy - a ceramic single-use firearm [using it destroys it] for committing suicide.
One way to think about it by Sycraft-fu · 2013-07-27 17:49 · Score: 1

A 5.56mm, rifle round is much smaller than a 9mm pistol round, as the number would imply. About 3.5mm less diameter. It is also lighter, of course. However the case for a 5.56 round is as big around as a 9mm case, it is just necked down at the very end to hold the bullet. It is also much longer, as the second number implies (that is cartridge length). It is over twice as long, 45mm (5.56x45mm is the spec). So what fills that extra space? More propellant. The reason for the large case, small bullet, is to have more powder to get more velocity.
You can see it when you look at barrels too. Rifle barrels are much thicker. A 5.56mm rifle barrel might have an outer diameter around the same as a 9mm pistol barrel, simply because it has that much extra steel to deal with the stresses (pressure and heat) that it faces from the rounds.
Considering that it's not as strong as wood by dbIII · 2013-07-27 18:03 · Score: 1

Considering that it's not as strong as wood the outcome is not unexpected.
Come on guys, just get a cheap hobby lathe to go with your expensive 3D printer, spend a couple of weekends learning how to use the thing, and then you can use materials that make a bit more sense for your hobby guns. Making gun shaped plastic hand grenades without a timer is a bit silly.
Proir art deco by dbIII · 2013-07-27 19:06 · Score: 1

Oh, and prior art, future bitches.
Bakelite and other thermosetting phenolic resins called from the 1920s and before called and would like their prior art back.
1. Re:Proir art deco by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-07-28 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Bakelite and other thermosetting phenolic resins called from the 1920s and before called and would like their prior art back.
  Doesn't Bakelite specifically use wood flour as the structural component because its chains are only a handful of monomers long?
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
2. Re:Proir art deco by dbIII · 2013-07-28 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Fair enough, missed that.
3. Re:Proir art deco by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-30 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks for the citation, now there really is a prior art reference.
laser sintering by Ranger · 2013-07-27 20:19 · Score: 1

Oh, just wait for 3D laser sintering printers and then there'll be people printing metal gun parts. I do NOT look forward to that day.

--
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
1. Re:laser sintering by couchslug · 2013-07-28 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  There are already plenty of people machining parts for modern weapons. It's legal. You can make them for yourself in your home workshop, and it doesn't cause problems.
  http://www.cncguns.com/
  The problem isn't weapon availablilty, which is universal.
  The first problem is unwillingness to punish or kill the people who commit CRIMES with weapons. The second is unwillingness to lock up mental defectives and remove them as a social problem.
  Criminals stop being a threat if they never get out of prison or if they are dead. The whole concept of "reforming" such folk has been accepted due to repetition, but it's absurd and they know it.
  When the US was serious about dealing with mental defectives, it locked them up and left them there. It being MUCH cheaper to throw a few drugs at the crazies, pretend they will take them, then dump them on the streets, that replaced loony bins. When they act out, they go to prison, which is the other industry that replaced loony bins.
  Don't want problems from mental defectives? They can't be helped, only stoned, and they won't stay stoned unless they are controlled. Don't want problems from violent criminals? Lock them up for life and work them so the system turns a profit.
  I won't miss either lot. The majority of people are decent folks and won't miss them either.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
2. Re:laser sintering by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-28 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  When the US was serious about dealing with mental defectives, it locked them up and left them there.
  Don't forget about the public executions.
3. Re:laser sintering by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-07-28 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  I do NOT look forward to that day.
  Because there will be Wild West on the streets, blood shall flow, and we shall all massacre each other within a week?
Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-27 20:30 · Score: 0

They break only in Canada. They miss the "Made in USA" sticker.
Use genuine HP Cartridges next time by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-28 01:50 · Score: 0

This is what happens when you dont use genuine HP cartridges in your 3d printer
In other news, homade knife... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-28 02:00 · Score: 0

breaks during first stabbing.
What about graphene? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-28 02:12 · Score: 0

Graphene is supposed to be tougher than steel. Could one dip the barrel in some graphene goo?
Polishing by skyraker · 2013-07-28 02:14 · Score: 1

After reading a story how NASA is testing 3D printed rocket injector parts and seeing success, it becomes apparent why this failed (and why the Liberator doesn't hold up too well). NASA spends a couple weeks having the parts polished, ensuring that tolerances are all met. You can see how this can affect a gun also. If the tolerances are even a smidgen off, problems can occur. The common person probably doesn't have easy access to equipment that can accomplish this and may never even think about it.
Watch the episode on Vice on HBO by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-01 10:17 · Score: 0

People must have missed the episode of Vice on HBO showing the guys in the Phillipines hand making almost perfect clones of Colt .45's and Ruger & S&W 9mm and .40 cals with nothing more than files and hand tools and maybe a lathe. It's on Youtube... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fna9WEO6BjE