Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Ballistics Scientists: 3D-Printed Guns Are 'of No Use To Anyone'

Posted by Soulskill on from the might-hurt-if-you-throw-them-at-somebody dept.

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.'"

30 of 490 comments (clear)

  1. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm fucking sick of seeing 3D printers associated with guns.

    1. Re:Good by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

      At this point it's still cheaper to buy a gun than a 3-D printer

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Good by Algae_94 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd really rather not wrestle a moose.

    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apparently, Phillipean barrios are full of people with substantial engineering expertise.

      http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/04/08/backyard-gun-shops-in-the-philippines/

    4. Re:Good by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And I'm sick of gun people thinking of guns as a great equalizer that anyone can make without substantial engineering expertise. But somehow I suspect neither group is going to respect the results of this research.

      Do you have access to a steel pipe with a reducing coupling, a spring, and a nail? Then yes, you can make something capable of more-or-less safely firing most lower pressure rounds. By "more or less", I mean I wouldn't touch one with a 10 foot firing pin, but it would work just fine 99 times out of 100.

      For the 3d printed guns we hear the most about, keep in mind that they have the goal of a "pure" implementation, using just 3d printed parts. Your local street punks probably don't care about the "purity" of their finished product... So, remove that constraint and add a trivial metal part or two (a chamber and at least the throat of the barrel - just a plain ol' dumb metal tube, in essence - would single-handedly solve the "blows up on firing" problem), and even your local wannabe-thugs could manage to print and assemble a fairly effective DIY gun.

    5. Re:Good by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not necessarily. Volume 1 of Knuth is over fifty bucks. You can get a cheap inkspray printer for less than that and it's considered a normal printer.

    6. Re:Good by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Oh look what a cogent statement about the viability of firearms as a mechanism of social equality" --Me, in an alternate universe where gun-nuts actually back up their stupid beliefs.

      Only those who wish to force their beliefs on others have an obligation to back them up.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    7. Re:Good by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Informative

      If, at the beginning, the first general use of the Internet had been porn sites featuring beastiality, rape, etc. then you can be sure it would not be around today.

      You've never ever heard of alt.binaries.*, have you?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    8. Re:Good by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought he was referring to the ancient people of the city of Phillipi, but was confused because the Epistle to the Philippians never mentioned 3D printers.

  2. But... by Richy_T · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But we're always being told the criminals will grab the guns and use them against us.

    So this is a win.

    1. Re:But... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Violent crime is violent crime.

      Baloney. Every nation defines it differently, just as your link states, which is what makes it convenient for spinning fanciful narratives like yours.

      Try comparing something more clear-cut: murder rates: it is 4x higher in the US. So you tell me, if you believe your fictional statistic about 8x the violent crime in the UK, but only 1/4 as many people die, that means "violent" crime is 1/32 as lethal in the UK vs the US. I.e., their "violent crime" is 97% less lethal than ours. And then you use that to argue the type of weapon doesn't matter, or that guns reduce suffering. Please.

    2. Re:But... by Hategrin · · Score: 3, Funny

      I used to think this was flamebait, but they don't. Even when the doctor tells them "it's a girl/boy" they think "oh well maybe, she/he's not old enough to decide."

    3. Re:But... by DamnOregonian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You didn't actually read that politifact link, did you?

      You missed the big blaring "false" thingy on the meter.

    4. Re:But... by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you start comparing crime rates, violent crime rates, gun deaths, or any other socially important data, you really need to pay careful attention to terminology. It matters little that the UK may experience only 1% of our gun deaths, if they also experience 800% of our violent crime rate.

      That's not true. The homicide rate in the United Kingdom is 1.2 per 100,000. The homicide rate in Canada is 1.6. The homicide rate in Australia is 1.0 And the homicide rate for the US is 4.8 per 100,000. You can look it up on Wikipedia if you're so inclined ("List of Countries By Intentional Homicide Rate") but it's clear you've already made up your mind and are simply going to ignore any facts that don't support your preconceptions. Yes, the human tendency to murder other humans is a powerful force, and so a certain percentage of people who would otherwise be murdered by guns in the UK are murdered with knives, poison, or cricket bats, because those guns aren't available. But the end result of strict gun control is a per-capita homicide rate that is around 25% of the U.S. rate in the UK and 33% in Canada and 20% in Australia. The statistics don't lie, gun control saves lives.

      I think it's time to start talking about real gun control in the United States. I'm not talking about banning a few models of assault rifles; I think the end goal of gun-control should be keeping rapid-fire weapons out of the public hands, which means requiring licensing for or simply banning all revolvers, semiautomatic pistols and semiautomatic rifles, creating something similar to the gun control laws seen in the UK. We've tried letting things run wild and all it's gotten us is thousands of deaths a year and an endless series of mass shootings. The next logical step is implementing the kinds of firearms controls seen in Canada and the United Kingdom, and I think the left needs to start pushing this seriously. No, Obama isn't out to get your guns... and it's a shame, because dammit, he SHOULD be. And if that takes a constitutional amendment, then we should pass a constitutional amendment- I'll line up to vote for that. Yes, it's in the constitution, but so was slavery, and we outgrew that. Times change, and a law written for muzzle-loaders is no longer useful in an age of machine guns. I'm tired of seeing thousands of people senselessly slaughtered every year because the political debate is held hostage by a handful of extremists. For too long we've played it the NRA's way and refused to talk about gun control. We need to start talking about gun control again, and nothing should be off the table.

    5. Re:But... by locust · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your guns are going to mean precious little in a few years. Ask any Afghan. Almost everyone has an AK-47. Predator drones don't care. It will be the same here in the good old US of A. Drones will be used in police actions internally in the US because they are cheaper to replace & train than en-vivo police officers.

      Today, arming the population, means teaching them math, science, technical skills, and the civics to know when to put them to use against the government of the day.

    6. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude - both of your links state that the 200% claim is bogus and that the violent crime rates in UK/US are closer than thought.

      I understand why you've failed to grasp this - you only skimmed the headline - but both articles aim to discuss that claim, and both end up refuting it.

      Thanks for arguing our case for us though.

  3. Good thing technology never moves forward by BoberFett · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a good thing technology never moves forward. This issue can now be put to bed.

    1. Re:Good thing technology never moves forward by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or maybe they intentionally did a bad job so others wouldn't even try?

  4. Others exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet others have been fired multiple times, successfully.

    Either the UK-NBIS sucks at 3D printing, or this is disinformation.

  5. polymer AR lower recievers... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:polymer AR lower recievers... by PseudoCoder · · Score: 5, Informative

      what's the difference between a lower and an upper? which part has the barrel? or the trigger and "chamber"?

      Barrel, chamber and bolt assembly go on the upper receiver. The trigger, magazine, stock and serial number on the lower receiver.

      --
      "Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
  6. Re:Sounds like police propaganda. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.'

  7. Also, cars are of no use to anyone by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

  8. Re:Not a very thorough evaluation by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why even bother printing guns when you can just buy a legally unregulated upper, a trigger assembly, and an 80% lower reciever blank then just mill the blank and assemble a fully working, untraceable and unserialed AR-15?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  9. 3D Printing is Not Just Glorified Glue Guns by LuxuryYacht · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:3D Printing is Not Just Glorified Glue Guns by Plazmid · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well technically 3D printing refers to the process of using an inkjet, the very same inkjet from a regular printer, to deposit a binder on a layer of powder. 3D printing is just one Additive Manufacturing process.

      Now DMLS and Laser Sintering(SLS is a trademark of a particular company) aren't quite yet ready for consumers yet.

      Laser sintering of plastic requires inert gas, messy plastic powder, and messes up if temperature varies even a tiny bit(sintering scales with T^4). Messy doesn't even begin to describe how dirty these machines are. You can almost taste the powder in the air near these machines.

      DMLS uses explosive metal powder, requires inert gas, and a pretty dangerous laser. But the real kicker to DMLS that makes it ill suited for the consumer market is the support removal. In order to prevent the printed parts from deforming and to dissipate heat, one has to print supports in. In other words, after printing you have to go in and do a bunch of sanding and dremeling to remove METAL supports from the part!

      LOM is pretty much just for making stuff out of paper, so one probably wouldn't be able to make a very good gun with it.

      SLA can really only do plastics and ceramics. And doing ceramics requires a special kiln.

      However, SLA might be coming to the consumer market due to it's simplicity, speed(there's indications these machines could print very fast), and resolution.

  10. Clueless BBC Video by MrSteveSD · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  11. Even if true by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 ----
  12. Can't the Brits get it right? by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    There has already been videos out showing how in the US there are viable 3D printed guns, that fire just fine.

    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.........
    1. Re:Can't the Brits get it right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cause they want to show them exploding.