Slashdot Mirror
UK Ballistics Scientists: 3D-Printed Guns Are 'of No Use To Anyone'
New submitter graveyardjohn writes: "The BBC has a short video about why the U.K.'s National Ballistics Intelligence Service thinks 3D-printed guns are 'of no use to anyone.' They show a 3D-printed gun being fired in a test chamber. The barrel explodes and the bullet flops forward a few feet. They say, 'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'"
I'm fucking sick of seeing 3D printers associated with guns.
But we're always being told the criminals will grab the guns and use them against us.
So this is a win.
3D printed guns are in their infancy and already quite capable according to these tests in Wired.
It's a good thing technology never moves forward. This issue can now be put to bed.
Yet others have been fired multiple times, successfully.
Either the UK-NBIS sucks at 3D printing, or this is disinformation.
Thanks a lot U.K.'s National Ballistics Intelligence Service, way to throw down the gauntlet and challenge folks...
If they ever get reliable enough to be a problem I wonder how much of a high powered laser would be needed to damage the barrel enough to render it useless.
Though I guess a flamethrower could be used in a pinch.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
There are several commercially successful makes of polymer AR lowers.
In AR-land, the serial is on the lower.
A 3d printed lower gives you the ability to print a non serial numberd AR. Which is legal (US federal. YMMV) because home-made guns don't have to be serialized.
THL phish sticks
"Have been successfully fired" does not contradict the conclusion: 'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'
This technology will improve, it will become widely available, 3D printed guns will become very usable, the knowledge to build them will become widely available and when that happens they will (depending on your political leaning) either become a big problem or they will solve all of mankind's problems because everybody and their dog will be packing a 3D printed Uzi.
Hint: you're using the wrong materials for your chosen design.
The BBC has a short video about why the U.K.'s National Ballistics Intelligence Service thinks 3D-printed guns are 'of no use to anyone.' They show a 3D-printed gun being fired in a test chamber. The barrel explodes and the bullet flops forward a few feet. They say, 'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'
In a related story, the U.K. Horse and Buggy Registration Service thinks the automobile will be 'of no use to anyone.' They show a vehicle being driven on a test track. It travels a short distance at 10 mph, then the engine blows a rod and one wheel falls off. They say, 'without additional expertise and the right type of petrol, anyone attempting to drive one would probably main or even kill themselves."
If you watch the video you will notice they printed the barrel with a rectangular fill density of about .2.
In other words the barrel was mostly air! Anyone printing for strength would use a density of 1 (solid)
and a contour following fill pattern. In other words a continuous series of strong rings.
Of course they may be trying to fool bad guys into not trying this. However it does understate the
performance capability of 3D printed weapons.
Yes, I do, in fact expect the plastic ones to disintegrate under the typical chamber pressures that come from firing a round. The plastic 3D printers are the ones everyone is gushing about in the sensationalist news sites everywhere and that are practical to be widely available to the everyman. The metal deposition, selective laser sintering types that make metal parts are much more costly and not nearly as widely available, but those can, depending on the material and method) make viable gun parts that will withstand the loads for several rounds before succumbing.
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
It's sad that 3D printing had become synonymous with FDM or glorified glue guns (GGG). There are lots of different technologies that fall under the umbrella of 3D printing.
Here's a gun that was 3D printed using DMLS (Direct Metal Laser Sintering) for the metal parts and SLS for the grips. It's both durable and viable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://www.engineering.com/3DP...
Here's a few other 3D printing processes that are not FDM glorified glue guns:
SLS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
DMLS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
LOM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
SLA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Since they have found these guns are completely useless, then hopefully they won't enact legislation to require all 3d printers have crippling DRM that makes it impossible to print guns.
Or maybe they might, but given that they now have a government study that say these guns are useless, it's gonna be a lot harder(I hope) for scare-mongering politicians to cripple or ban 3d printing
You in fact SHOULD be concerned about this technology now, even if it's currently ineffective...because it won't be ineffective or useless forever.
In slow motion you can see that the bullet barely travels any distance at all. - Quote from the video
What we in fact see is that the object that "barely travels any distance at all" is the spent shell casing. This is completely fine as the aim is not to magically embed the spent shell casing into the target. That is what the projectile part is for. The projectile is likely to have whizzed off as expected, albeit not with great accuracy.
As for the general usefulness of plastic firearms, even if they can only fire a few shots, there are clear advantages.
1. You can obtain a firearm without it being registered to you or exposing yourself to criminal firearms dealers/police sting operations.
2. They are less detectable.
3. You can melt and/or burn the murder weapon with ease.
The tone of the video is a bit odd. It's comes across like a video trying to convince kids not to play with fireworks. It's not as if we all have loads of ammunition laying about here in the UK just waiting for a 3D Printed gun to come along so we can finally have some fun. Making something that can fire a bullet (at least here in the UK) is not the main obstacle to a working firearm. The main obstacle here is obtaining the ammunition.
Well, that itself could be pretty useful.
I suspect the test was setup to fail, to prove a predetermined agenda, but even if it was 100% true, we are just starting out with this use for printed materials, and it takes time to perfect new technologies. Even if it *never* becomes viable, it still helped push the limits of the technology and will benefit other uses.
Pretty sad when if people were to operate that way " well, it doesn't work so no point in trying"... If that was always the case, we would still be living in caves hoping we dont get eaten.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Sex Toys! Yes, Sex Toys are the real 3D Printing market!
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
As the company Solid Concepts discovered, 3D printing metal guns demonstrates the ability to create fined machine parts that are also durable.
Worse than that.
You could 3d print several other 3d printers, each could then be used to construct one part of a giant robot. The giant robot could then learn how to 3d print some plastic yoda heads until the materials were exhausted.
Good luck lugging a giant robot, 7 3d printers, and 4000 plastic yoda heads to the airport parking structure, sucker!
THL phish sticks
"Have been successfully fired" does not contradict the conclusion: 'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'
Technically this is true for a non-3D printed gun. Using the wrong ammunition and without training, any gun is going to be more dangerous to the shooter than anyone else.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Please. Don't be dense. The manufacture of munitions(unlike guns, which at their simplest are literally just metal tubes) isn't something that can be done at home by 3d printing. Modern chemical charges can't be made through home processes, and trying to make black powder or other simpler chemical propellents isn't within the grasp of most of the people declaring "revolution" against gun laws, and would be extremely dangerous.
If they sell standardized .22 munitions to go with your 3d printed .22 handgun, there's a good chance you can also acquire the firearm itself(in a designer cheaper and more reliable than the 3d printed version).
This is about as much as an argument as saying "anyone can do backyard rocketry, thus anyone can launch nuclear ICBMs"
'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'
The same could be said about metallurgy, cnc mills, caustic chemicals, drugs (legal or illegal), a 1 year old and eating utensils. The list goes on and on and on. Just because something requires knowledge to be done safely doesn't mean people shouldn't have the freedom to explore such things at their own risk.
You'll shoot your eye out!
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
You can print a perfectly functioning copy of a Colt 1911 pistol in steel with a 3d-Printer with the same price as a 2d Postscript Printer did cost in 1984.
Since it was 3d-printer related, I'm sure the article has been posted here at least a dozen times.
It might not work for poor teens, but for criminals with a working "business model" and funds, it's a piece of cake.
Why can't the UK just download those plans and do it right?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Thus you have your choice: bad guys armed and good guys disarmed, or everybody armed. I'll take the latter, thank you. Statistics show that ordinary citizens are not likely to misuse firearms, and do in fact use them to stop crime (often without anyone being hurt; bad guys would rather surrender and have the police take them away, than be shot).
How would you propose to decide who is responsible enough to own a firearm? Can crazy people own them? What about clinically depressed people? What about people under psychological treatment generally? At what age should someone be able to carry a firearm? Should they be allowed in all buildings? Should businesses be allowed to deny entrance to people carrying weapons? What about on a plane/train/bus/etc.?
If someone is considering offing themselves, it might be simpler to take their gun and blow their head off instead of trying to hang themselves, jump off a building/bridge, slice their wrists, etc.
To the person doing the act, shooting themselves in the head is probably going to seem less painful and more convenient then most other options.
If that's the case, then removing the gun might reduce the chances of actually carrying through on a suicide attempt.
You only need the plans for the first decently made gun, then you can make as many as you want.
I wouldn't be surprised if the g-code (for CNC machining) for parts of an AR-15 are out there on line somewhere. And the cost of additive manufacturing equipment capable of building a functional gun is in the same neigborhood as that of CNC mills and lathes. So people can make as many as they want.
Yeah, right.
Have gnu, will travel.
Hm. Anyone think of bringing back the Gyrojet concept? One of the features was very low pressure in the chamber and barrel, which it seems would favor 3d printed firearms. The disadvantage was that the slug took 30 feet or so to build up to a reasonable velocity. But with advances in propellants since the 1960's, I wonder what could be achieved now?
Heck, you might even be able to 3d print the ammunition.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
"'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves"
Maybe it's time start handing out free 3D printers to criminals.
Using the wrong ammunition and without training, any gun is going to be more dangerous to the shooter than anyone else.
By "right type of ammunition" they mean using a weak load. Even +P ammo won't blow up even most weak guns, except perhaps after extended use.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I wouldn't be surprised if the g-code (for CNC machining) for parts of an AR-15 are out there on line somewhere. And the cost of additive manufacturing equipment capable of building a functional gun is in the same neigborhood as that of CNC mills and lathes. So people can make as many as they want.
Yeah, right.
That in fact is the difference between 3d printing and CNC machining. You can't just follow a quick test process and then print out a complete gun with machining. But you can just calibrate your 3d printer and then print anything you can download. And that's what is so transformative about it. Not today, but eventually, it spells the end of dedicated manufacturing lines.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Considering ABS is not as strong as wood why bother? What they have done makes the point that the material sucks utterly for this purpose.
Personally I think the printed gun people are just attention seekers that don't give a shit if their games cause governments to regulate 3D printing and fuck us all around when there are printers available that can produce more suitable materials for that purpose.
Also why so much fuss about printed guns? A few weeks ago a group of researchers printed a working chunk of human kidney - that's a vast amount more interesting than trying to get a very crappy zip gun to work.
If you are suggesting casting it from an aluminium alloy then your "I can do it" is an empty and overconfident boast based on ignorance. An aluminium-silicon barrel would be a brittle thing that would give you a fragmentation grenade with no delay in the shape of a gun. The alloys used in aircraft/bikes/etc get their strength from rolling, age hardening etc and are soft weak things when initially cast. Even cast bronze barrels had serious problems (which meant a lot remelted immediately after casting) and were given up on hundreds of years ago. ...
Making it from wrought steel scrap on the other hand
Consider that ABS plastic made from powder is not as strong as most types of wood.
These things are going to fail without anyone trying to make them fail so long as the designs are completely and utterly stupid. The designs are stupid because the goal is stupid - the goal is not a gun that can be made at home but a gun that uses one single fabrication method and one material. A few parts made a different way is the difference between a low end Glock workalike and a handheld plastic fragmentation grenade with no delay.
It's like making an entirely wooden knife instead of a wooden handle and a steel blade.
In the states and around the world guns are pretty easy to trace. A lot of crimes are solved on ballistic evidence. 3D Printed guns do away with that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The sintered metal power material has a lot of voids (holes) which make it a very bad choice of material for gun barrels, just like any cast cannons with internal air bubbles tended to explode when fired.
There are sintered powder metal parts used in such situations where voids would be a disaster and those are dealt with by forging after making the sintered blank (like a blacksmith does making horseshoes in movies you may have seen). That's not something an additive 3D printing device is going to do on it's own.
where do you plug it in or does it run on AAA batteries?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The war on guns is going just like the war on drugs: after dire warnings about threats to the suburban middle class ("reefer madness"), we have now reached the "this is your brain on drugs" stage. I expect for the further stages of the "war on..." to follow as usual.
The guns and gunpowder people made in the 18th and 19th century still work today. All you need to make them is some basic metal working tools (for the gun and cartridge), and urine, wood, and sulfur (for the gunpowder). They aren't going to be quite as powerful as modern guns, but that hardly matters. Trying to control access to guns through controlling the tools to create them is futile.
"anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves." If so, then they are serving a useful function.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Wait until I 3D print my clone army. Bwa etc.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I personally prefer printing the gun from a metallic substance instead of a plastic one. Increases the cost, but decreases the difficulty. You might want to mill the weapon's bore to ensure reliability, but that's trivial once you've cast the parts.
"Don't play with matches, children. You're going to set yourselves on fire ..."
Love without logic is insanity. And vice versa.
To put things simply, brittle stuff that cracks easily is unsuitable for some gun parts.
As for shifting the goalposts to the receiver alone - go jump on somebody else's comment where that actually is the topic instead of trying to change the subject and pretend you are not.
3D printed guns?? Nothing to see here, move along
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
Wood is far more suitable in that situation because it flexes. Commercial cast aluminium alloys crack easily due to the silicon flakes that give them some strength and it's unsuitable for anything likely to get dropped or bumped. Even when you cut down the flake size with additives it's still a bit brittle. The aluminium stuff you are used to seeing is wrought - cast in great big billets too soft to use as is and then rolled into shape to give it strength without being brittle. Buying something like that from your local hardware, already strengthened for you, and easily filing or machining it into shape makes a vast amount more sense than the suggestion of the poster above that was trying to present their silly idea as evidence that they didn't have less of a clue than the person they were being critical of.
So if you want something you don't want to have to treat like glass and never drop then you'd choose something other than casting an aluminium alloy.