Working Handgun Printed On a Sub-$2,000 3D Printer 521
Just a few weeks after Cody Wilson and friends successfully fired an instance of their own 3-D printed handgun design, Sparrowvsrevolution writes, "a couple of Wisconsin hobbyist gunsmiths have already managed to adapt Defense Distributed's so-called Liberator firearm and print it on a $1,725 Lulzbot 3D printer, a consumer grade machine that's far cheaper than the industrial quality Stratasys machine Defense Distributed used. They then proceeded to record their cheaper gun (dubbed the 'Lulz Liberator') firing nine .380 rounds without any signs of cracking or melting. Eight of the rounds were fired from a single plastic barrel. (Defense Distributed only fired one through its prototype.) In total, the Lulz Liberator's materials cost around $25 and were printed over just 48 hours."
Requires more metal (Score:5, Informative)
The Lulz Liberator uses more metal parts than the original Liberator...so at least this would be harder to sneak past a metal detector.
Re:3D-Printed Revolver? (Score:2, Informative)
You can't 3d print a spring with a plastics printer. You can't 3d print most of the mechanical components that make (semi)automatics work. It would essentially up the number of machined components up to a point that it would no longer really be a "3d printed gun" and more be a gun kit where you can provide the frame.
Re:and because of this. (Score:3, Informative)
Zip guns are nothing new. You can with a bit of know how make one from stuff you buy at a hardware store (and far cheaper and easier).
This 3d printed gun thing is just a variation on zip guns. I would go as far to say it is a novelty more than anything.
Right now the cost of the plastic to put into these things is worth more than the object they are making.
It's not a gun (Score:5, Informative)
It may be a fun proof of concept, but about the only things it is good for are generating political hype and drawing attention to the inventors.
People fail to realize that it's much easier and cheaper to make a home made gun using existing tools and materials. Just because someone now made a [not very good] one using a 3D printer, everybody seems to be freaking out.
Further well-grounded and thoughtful discussion on the matter can be found here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/10/oh_no_its_the_plastic_3d_gun/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re:3D-Printed Revolver? (Score:5, Informative)
You can't 3d print a spring with a plastics printer.
Printing a Compression Spring on a RepRap / RepStrap 3D Printer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHrlasCSa3U
Re:Define "working" (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Requires more metal (Score:3, Informative)
Metal detectors contain metal parts!
Metal detectors are really conductivity detectors. Most people think they can only detect iron, but they can detect anything that conducts electricity. Even a human body causes a small signal. A loop of carbon fiber would cause a very large signal. Poor anthropomorphized metal detector.
Re:Requires more metal (Score:2, Informative)
the Lulz version also uses some screws for structural strength that would be much harder to replace with something non-metallic.
Don't be so certain of that. [lowes.com]
Re:Requires more metal (Score:4, Informative)
Those are for attaching composite decking, the screws are metal. They are simply coated with a polymer to avoid rusting and staining the composite decking.
Re:3D-Printed Revolver? (Score:5, Informative)
The gap between cylinder and barrel might be problematic. An imperfectly aligned cylinder will increase wear and stress on any revolver, and a polymer frame revolvers have issues with frame ablation/cutting from the gasses coming out of the gap. The pepperbox concept would be a logical first step to avoid those issues which could prove catastrophic on an ABS barrel/frame revolver.
Re:Requires more metal (Score:4, Informative)
You don't understand how they work. They work more like radar than a magnetic sensor, non-ferrous metals don't stand out as much but they're still very much detectable.
Re:Paranoid? IRS? Fast & Furious? Seized Recor (Score:5, Informative)
Let's see.... Nothing you posted was actually what your article said. None of it. It varies between misrepresentation to outright lie. Why can't you just use the truth in your arguments? Really? I know there's problems. Everyone knows there's problems. Making stuff up just makes you look legitimately paranoid.
1. Misrepresentation(A crime was committed, but it wasn't that, paranoid confirmation bias at work)
2. Outright fabrication
3. Was with a warrant, so no.
4. Being sued with a claim doesn't make it true. The complaint includes accusations that representatives were "rude". Really?
5. That's not what happened and that's pretty clearly intentionally a misrepresentation of the investigation's purpose, and only reflects your paranoia. I cannot understand how you'd possibly misconstrue the purpose that far, other than paranoia.
6. Oh no, someone has an opinion that's different than yours. And she's a politician. That's tyranny.
Christ this post is just doubling down on intentionally misreading everything. I used to be sympathetic about the damned IRS thing until everyone started pretending it meant something besides what happened.
Read or look foolish...fool. (Score:5, Informative)
did you even read it? as all? can you read? are you just blindly linking cause some else who didn't read it told you it was bad?
Are you stupid?
His fine has to do with the 3 unregistered weapons he had. Normally he would go to jail, but since he saved the child he is just getting the fine.
This is reasonable.
From the article you didn't bother to read:
"
As part of the agreement, Benjamin Srigley, 39, was required to pay a $1,000 fine but will not have criminal charges filed against him for the three unregistered firearms and the ammunition that investigators found in his possession, said Ted Gest, a spokesman for the office of the attorney general.
“We took it into account that he saved this boy’s life,” Mr. Gest said.
Possession of an unregistered firearm or ammunition in the District is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine, and prosecutors said Mr. Srigley could have faced up to seven criminal charges in the case.
"