Version 2.0 of 3D-Printed Rifle Successfully Fires 14 Rounds

coolnumbr12 writes "The world's first 3D-printed rifle, named 'The Grizzly' after Canadian-built tanks used in World War II, was fired in June, but the first shot fractured the barrel receiver. The creator, a Canadian man who simply goes by 'Matthew,' refined his design and posted a video Friday on YouTube of Grizzly 2.0 successfully firing 3 rounds of Winchester bullets. The video description says the Grizzly 2.0 fired 14 rounds before it cracked. The new rifle was also safe enough for Matthew to fire it by hand rather than the string system used in the first test."

Comments

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

Nothing like wishing harm on people to show how you're morally superior and non-violent. Amirite?

Oh No! Assault Rifle!!

[SuperKendall]

What's this? A weapon too large to conceal that is also really bulky? Only one thing to do, call it an "Assault Rifle" (yes sir those are scare quotes!) and ban the thing lest some law abiding citizen manage to protect themselves with it!

Just because criminals only actually use unregistered handguns that they can get for cheap, doesn't mean we should not fear this monstrous beast of technology!

I don't get it.

[Joining Yet Again]

As someone who was brought up in a school with a cadet force which taught marksmanship and such, but in a country which doesn't have much of a gun culture, I really don't get this obsession with 3D-printer-manufacturing of parts of guns. In particular, I don't get why it's such a thing on /. What's the big deal, really? I assume some US states have always allowed the home building of guns, perhaps with licences, while others haven't? And that lots of people have fucked up, while others do a competent job? What's *new* here?

Re:I don't get it.

[avandesande]

My guess is it is really a statement about gun rights- if they become trivially easy to manufacture than banning the sale and ownership of guns will be pointless.

Re:I don't get it.

[tsotha]

I assume some US states have always allowed the home building of guns, perhaps with licences, while others haven't?

At the US federal level there's no law against manufacturing your own firearms as long as you don't sell them. You don't need a license. There are various restrictions at lower levels.

The hysteria is really a mass expression of ignorance from people who don't know anything about guns. Zip guns are pretty easy to make with plumbing supplies and basic tools, and people who aren't clever enough to come up with their own design can always jump on the web for instructions. Also, CNC machines, which can be used to manufacture guns that won't fail for thousands of rounds, are already pretty ubiquitous and can be had for a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. With a CNC machine you could manufacture a heavy machine gun if you really wanted to.

What keeps people from manufacturing firearms in their garages isn't the lack of means. It's that they don't have any reason to do so and/or they don't want to be arrested. Printed firearms won't change that equation.

Re:I don't get it.

[cusco]

There are a couple of things going on here. The first is that it's an easy and obvious device to stress test materials, construction, and designs. No need for expensive test equipment, you know exactly the stresses generated by a round. Ammunition production has pretty stringent quality control and all the hard work of figuring out the forces involved has been done already by the manufacturer.

The other is just the normal tweaking of the government, where if there isn't a rule in place people will push the issue until a rule is made.

Re:I don't get it.

[Required Snark]

It changes the barrier to entry. At the current moment it's not a big deal, but as 3D printers become ubiquitous it will become much easier to get access to a lethal weapon.

These guns will be cheap to make and not easily detectable by metal detectors. They are effectively one use disposable weapons.

So you and your gang want to do a drive-by or robbery. Just print up some guns, get some bullets, and while leaving the scene of the crime throw the guns out the window.

Courthouses in the US already have metal detectors, because gang members have engaged in gun battles on court premises. Plastic printable guns make this possible again. They also enable guns getting onto aircraft. Or in schools. Careless people will print them up for "self defense", and we will see even more children die by accidental gun violence.

I expect that these weapons will be attractive to alienated people who would have trouble accessing guns either legally or illegally. Say loner teens who feel bullied, or bullies in school who want to be able to flash some heat for intimidation.

Consider the prospect of flash mobs with guns.

So there is going to be more gun violence, and there is not much we can do to stop it.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Not really. Few animals (humans included) want things to get more violent than they need to be, for obvious reasons, and a criminal has no particular desire to carry a gun unless he thinks he'll otherwise be confronted by someone with a larger weapon."

While this might be all good philosophically, one thing we *know* is that it doesn't work in the U.S.

While no cause-effect relationship has been firmly established, correlations are clear: the areas of the U.S. with the strictest control of firearms are consistently the areas with the highest gun crime (including murder). And this is not just over 1 or 2 years, but over the many decades that the government (not some hack on one side or the other) has been keeping statistics on it.

And that also holds for changes: in areas where the firearms laws were made stricter, firearms crime went up. In areas where the restrictions were relaxed, firearm crime went down. There have been a few minor exceptions here and there over the decades, but that is all they have been: rare exceptions.

But I should also throw in: this is not unique to the US. After the last "big" firearms ban in the UK (and this is according to UK government published statistics), firearm crime went WAY UP and stayed way up for something like 8 years, before it began to settle back down again. And that later downturn in crime cannot be responsibly attributed to the gun laws, because crime in most of the other "modern, western" nations was going down also... including in the U.S., where gun ownership went up over that period.

So don't misunderstand me: what you say may have some merit. But the hard numbers don't lie. Firearms restrictions in the US do not deter crime.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

Live by the sword implies the use of the tool, not merely the existence of the tool. This man didn't murder anyone, it wouldn't be divine comeuppance for him to die. It would make as much sense (i.e. none at all) to look at a demolition engineer and say, "He worked with explosives, a bomb-maker, it's fitting that it exploded in his face." This man has not "lived by the sword" by any sane definition.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

You're saying that you want to be killed by a torrent of really bad troll posts? That's what I'm getting from this.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

If your political system is corrupt - go and change it.

Using...

Re:Again?

[oodaloop]

No, there's going to be a story every time a 3D printer prints something.

Re:How long before

[jbeaupre]

When first graders can print the ammo too, then we'll have a problem.

Re:How long before

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the UK?

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[bdwebb]

What if you make comments wishing for others' death and you are subsequently killed by those people? That seems to follow your childish line of reasoning appropriately enough. It is probably a good thing that you haven't been an integral part of the evolution of man or the weight of the old testament would have crushed us by this point.

The fact that you wish such a violent death on this man outlines the vast difference between people like you and the rest of us free-thinking individuals. We don't correlate only possible negative consequence with new technologies, studies, or avenues of thought...we try to explore ALL possibilities and think of ways to benefit others and build societies instead of assuming the worst of any advancement in technology or thought. If one were to apply your logic to any critical invention or advancement in human history we would still think the world was flat, we would be bloodletting to cure disease and infection alike, and we would take 10 years to travel across the US with half our family dying of dysentery.

The man is building a gun in his home using new technological advancements and not using it on people. Until he does, he deserves to be treated as though he would never do anything of the sort. Maybe he is a gun enthusiast and just likes them? I like computers and I build those...does that mean I steal from people using them? I like working on cars and I build those also...does that mean that I run people down in the street with them? Maybe he just feels, as Alexander Hamilton did (even though he is Canadian), that "it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."

If you believe that simply getting rid of all guns is the answer, you have a simple mind. Try putting a little more thought into it for once...explore all avenues and ask yourself these things constantly: Does your government have any interest in you being anything other than an automaton? What happens when the pretense fails and those with power want to keep their power? There are plenty of examples in human history of fallen empires and societies. The United States was created with a system of checks and balances to prevent this but what happens when the people themselves, who are supposed to act as a check to their elected officials, fail to live up to their end of the bargain? (I'm assuming you're from the US, but this is a fairly universal concept.)

Call me a nut...I'll keep my guns and continue not killing anyone, just like I've done for 20 years. I'm sure you are thinking, "what good are guns against tanks and a modern military anyway?" I tell you that I would rather die with them in my hands than become a slave.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[Opportunist]

He's not putting the gun in anyone's hands and sending him off to go on a killing spree. By your logic, pretty much everyone from Heckler, Koch, Smith and Wesson should go to hell for making people kill each other.

Let's be sensible for a moment. If at any moment in the future such guns surface where they could even REMOTELY be linked to any kind of terrorism, you'll soon see how police starts peering around for people with "suspicious" cargo. Even WANTING a gun that cannot be detected is illegal and punishable, and unless you spent the last 2 months or so under a rock, you should know that it is trivial for certain three letter goons to find out who downloaded what blueprint for a 3D model.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him

[Psion]

It's odd that I'm saying this again, but have you ever heard of the Battle of Athens?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him

[ArcadeMan]

No, all these assholes are doing is pushing toward crazy laws such as "owning a 3D printer makes you a terrorist".

Remember we're talking about politicians and law makers, they don't care if a lathe can make a better gun, they will still outlaw 3D printers anyway.