Slashdot Mirror
Solid Concepts Manufactures First 3D-Printed Metal Pistol
Zothecula writes "In a prime example of past meets future, a Texas-based company has used a century-old classic firearm as the blueprint for the world's first 3D-printed metal gun. Solid Concepts' use of a laser sintering method to create a fully functional Model 1911 automatic pistol is the latest demonstration of the potential of 3D printing techniques in industrial processing. The company's 'The gun proves laser sintering can meet tight tolerances. 3D Metal Printing has less porosity issues than an investment cast part and better complexities than a machined part. The barrel sees chamber pressure above 20,000 psi every time the gun is fired.'"
An interesting capability of this type of additive manufacturing is the ability to change the metal alloy content in different parts of a single solid piece, adding another way to adjust the overall properties of the final product.
As for making guns, well, its a good way to get attention.
This is excellent news! I know I wouldn't use some questionable hunk of plastic. I'd much rather have metal arms and high capacity magazines for ensuring the cessation of threats to myself, my family, and my property.
This is why we can't have nice things....
Couldn't 3D printers make the news the first few years of going mainstream by producing hospital equipment or something?
better complexities than a machined part.
But weaker parts.
When making metal parts the the metallurgical properties are more important than the shape. The direction of the molecules in the metal make the difference between something that's hard and brittle vs. something that's soft and elastic.
GizMag is retarded.
The 1911 is semi-automatic.
Automatic pistols are idiotic.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Is that you, Tipper Gore?
Wouldn't milling a gun on CNC machine from a solid block of metal make much more sense?
From a reliability standpoint I'd say yes; however, if your purpose was proving that 3D laser sintering is a high enough quality process that you can make a working firearm, going CNC kind of defeats the purpose.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
For the same reason that they refer to intermediate cartridges as "high power": journalists are morons.
Some geometries are impossible to make with CNC and machined parts always weigh more... if a part meets it's specification who cares how it was done?
love is just extroverted narcissism
Why is anyone surprised laser sintering is more than capable of this? This is nothing more than tech demo clickbait; anyone following the capabilities of SLS already knew this was well within the realm of possibility. Just nowhere close to the realm of practicality from a fiscal perspective.
Also, it's a waste of weight and money to do it this way. SLS should be used for key parts, but the rest should be normal 3D printed plastic (like a Glock).
And as we all know, 100% of Slashdot readers are well versed in laser sintering techniques and capabilities.
The article explains why - as a demonstration of some of the ways this process is superior to machining. I'm a nerd, it's news to me, and it matters in the context of the potential for 3d printing to change significant aspects of society, and yes, firearm availability is significant.
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
You know, repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
FWIW, the NRA is mainly funded by member dues and donations, not gun manufacturers.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Parts machined from steel stock are fairly well known characteristics, re: machined steel characteristics, tolerances, and variability of a foundries output, are very well known in manufacturing. but then steel manufacturing has been around a long time. i dont know as much about the proprties of sintereed metal, and therefore the parts made of it. so I'd want to see some extensive testng done of the sintered metal, or the results anyway, so that I could have the same confidence and knowledge of the material.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Why are semi-automatic weapons so often referred to as automatic? It seems to be a common misnomer in the US but I'm curious why.
Sensationalism; the same reason putting a synthetic stock with a Weaver rail on it magically turns an ordinary deer rifle into a "military grade assault weapon."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
TFA isn't exactly clear, but they seem to be saying that parts made this way are stronger then castings.
I wonder if this would have applications in any of the new launch vehicle engines. For simple parts, SLS might be cost prohibitive, but for complex parts, it may provide superior strength and more complex, one piece parts.
If material strength isn't an issue, then he sky's the limit.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"Guns don't kill people, physics kills people." -- Dick Solomon
Ban physics!
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
In the video, they show a part being tapped after forming. If the barrel of the gun can be rifled internally during manufacture, why can't a part be cast with a tapped hole?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
"journalists are morons."
And they have agendas.
... Cops kill people
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Percentage of people eventually dying:
With guns: 100%
Without guns: 100%
7% of all people who have ever lived are alive today, meaning human mortality is currently somewhere around 93%.
http://what-if.xkcd.com/27/
When seconds matter, the police are minutes away.
Example: most NRA members (75%) support sensible gun control
And how many people agree on a single definition of sensible?
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Do you have any IDEA how many people would just shit themselves at your suggestion that a Sacred and Precious, Immaculately Concieved 1911 (insert heavenly choir ahhh-ahhhhhh) contain <bleeech> plastic parts?????
I want you to go to your room and THINK about what you have done.
I've been trying to sort out the "guns" issue from a scientific point of view. After some extended searching, I believe the answer is "more guns is better".
This is made enormously difficult by the vast ocean of misinformation put forth by advocates on both sides of the issue. It's an interesting exercise in clear thinking just to sort through the claims to come up with an opinion unfettered by bad logic. I've included some examples below.
In summary, the best measurable statistic appears to be "chance of death from all causes" at the national level. This statistic avoids most of the bad math and bad thinking, and it's easy to measure and verify. The US does not have good health care, and this [national] attribute has a large effect on the mortality rate unrelated to gun-related deaths, so you can't use the US for comparison purposes at the national level. A better comparison is made between two countries with similar national health care and different gun policies. England and Switzerland, for example.
Comparing England and Switzerland indicates that "more guns" is associated with "less mortality". This echoes comparisons made within the US at the local level, where areas with public access to guns have less crime and mortality.
It's pointless to debate the issues in this forum due to the enormous and convoluted "poor statistics" cited by people on both sides of the issue, and virtually everyone is cognitively dissonant and emotionally invested in the answer.
A good analysis of the issues can be found here.
Below are just a few examples of popular claims, and how they mislead the reader into one side or the other. There are misleading claims on both sides, so don't read too much into the choice of examples.
Example 1: "Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare." (source) (False comparison: when gun ownership goes down, deaths due to other causes rises.)
Example 2: England has fewer gun-related murders, but a much higher rate of beating murders. (Undecidable: In the US, a non-suicide gunshot victim is automatically a murder, in England it's not a murder unless there's a trial and conviction.)
Example 3: If you have a gun in the house, you're more likely to accidentally shoot a family member than a burglar. (Wrong statistic: Having a gun depresses the chance of crime for your neighbors, the overall gain in safety for the community may be more than the loss of safety for the individual. See Polio vaccine.)
Define "sensible."
Where I come from, you see a lot of posters and bumper stickers that say something to the effect of, "gun control is using both hands/knowing your target." Something tells me our idea of 'sensible' is going to be a bit different than, say, someone living in NYC.
Side note: I see from your link that they're basing this claim on a poll, but do not actually have a link anywhere on the page for readers to review the poll for themselves (at least, not that I found).
This being Slashdot, with a crowd more perceptive than most, I don't think I need to explain the problem with bias in opinion polls. For example, see this article in which the NRA claims that the one in your article is bunk, and did their own survey achieving a completely different result.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
What would you recommend someone use to protect their family from guns?
Stand very still. Most guns have very limited sensory capability and cannot accurately locate something that isn't moving. If you don't startle them, or try to corner them, they are usually quite passive. Some will even allow you to pet them if you make soothing vocal noises as you slowly approach.
But don't ever get between a gun and its cub. A mother gun is very very aggressive.
And don't open the car window to feed them. That just encourages them to break into cars.
I almost had my first real auto accident the other day. I was driving while listening to NPR. They had a story about the increase in bears breaking into cars at national parks. The bears knew there was food inside, and they had learned how to open the doors by watching people do it. Very smart. They'd go in, the door would close behind them, and they'd be trapped. (They don't see how people open them from inside, I guess.) They tear the inside up trying to get out. The warning was, if you approach your car and it is rocking back and forth, it may have a bear trapped inside. They interviewed the expert -- how do you get the bear out of your car? Well, she said, you walk over to the car and ... open the door.
Thank god we have experts in these things to tell us what to do.
So cryo treat the metal before it is printed..just like you cryo treat tool steel (REAL tool steel..for punch/dies) before it's put into a mill..
Or how you cryo treat spot welder tips before they are put into a lathe...
Ditto with the heat treat oven..
That's just it. When the politicians are forbidden from having armed guards, then their law proposals can be debated. Until then, they deserve to be shot by their own guard every time they try to make guns illegal.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
The thing is, people make their own guns all the time in gun fans' equivalent to makers meets. They use a combination of tecniques. You really want the barrel and receiver to be forged, not cast. But you can take roughed-out forged parts and them CnC mill them to perfection, and get the strength easily enough.
There's little point in trying to CnC mill the entire gun, but a combination of forged blanks, a rolled tube for a barrel, some milling, and simply buying all the other pieces mail order (they sell kits for this), and you have a perfectly serviceable AR15 with no serial number. In most places that's perfectly legal, as long as you've avoided any legal landmines along the way and especially that you never sell it.
That's the thing, legally. In most places in the US you can legally make your own gun, but making a gun for someone else makes you a firearms dealer. People are arguing over where selling the code to allow someone to make a gun automatically lands, legally (if you follow kit cars at all, you'll find this all familiar).
Outside the US, in places where you can't legally make your own gun, this is a much bugger deal.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Well, the majority of Firearm related fatalities are suicides. More than 60% in fact, but that isnt what is being debunked.
First of all your assumption that the outcome of those suicides would be different if there were not firearms is spurious at best. But the the report that is typically referenced is the Kellermann report. In the report kellermann only accepted cases of self defense where there was more than 1 aggressor. That means only a few percent of reports were considered matters of self defense. He also included those where the situation was an aggressor knew the firearms owner and attacked him as a "family member, friend or acquaintance" being shot unjustly. And if all of those were note bad enough, it was included that when a Police officer is forced to shoot a criminal in the criminals own house, that they were counted as a "family member, friend or acquaintance" being shot unjustly. It is all around bad statistics that are highly misleading. The biggest take away from his data set is that criminals get shot but sometimes those criminals are "family member, friend or acquaintance".
I'm happy (indeed - eager!) to examine a better analysis. If I can't find flaws, it'll inform my opinions and I'll include it in future postings on the issue.
Please include references of statistics so that I can fully analyze the arguments of both sides. There is just so much disinformation out there that the first step can only be tossing out all anecdotes and un-cited facts.
Here's an example (posted above) of what doesn't serve to inform the debate (it's ad-hominem, anecdotal, and un-falsifiable):
The American Thinker article is worthless. It just gives more of the false comparisons that you're complaining about. (Yeah, if you remove a whole bunch of poor people from the crime stats for any nation, their murder rate will look way better.) The author also attempts to profit from the audience's ignorance by comparing with nations like Jamaica and Brazil and hoping the reader doesn't know that those are some of the most crime-ridden, gang-infested countries on earth, where gangs rule neighborhoods and police fight pitched battles with criminals.
Well, if the brown shirts come for your family, exactly 1 gun is worlds better than exactly 0 guns. But, hey, maybe that sort of thing could never happen where you are, and that's really the only scenario where I see an illegal firearm being a good idea.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.