Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

In Canada, a 3D-Printed Rifle Breaks On First Firing

timothy posted about a year ago | from the moose-and-wolves-unimpressed dept.

Canada 204

Not all 3-D printed guns can encounter the smooth, uneventful success of Cody Wilson's Liberator; Daniel_Stuckey writes with this excerpt: "A Canadian has just fired the first shot from his creation, 'The Grizzly,' an entirely 3D-printed rifle. In that single shot, CanadianGunNut (his name on the DefCad forum), or "Matthew," has advanced 3D-printed firearms to yet another level. Sort of: According to his video's description, the rifle's barrel and receiver were both damaged in that single shot."

cancel ×

204 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I still see a market .... (4, Funny)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | about a year ago | (#44402025)

ACME firearms, supplying evil coyotes for decades

Re:I still see a market .... (4, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year ago | (#44402113)

Heh - what else did they expect? Rifles keep pressure for longer periods of time (as the bullet travels down the longer barrel), increasing the chance for materials failure. Cheap plastic is not an option here, campers.

7,000+ psi for a .22LR is nothing to screw around with for the relatively sustained period of time the bullet travels down the barrel (let alone the 65,000+ psi you can generate in, oh, a .338 Win Mag.)

Re:I still see a market .... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#44402147)

If nobody has managed to make a plastic (or any material other than heavy metals) gun using industrial processes, then I seriously doubt that you could ever get more than a few shots out of something you could print at home. Sure it's fun to do "just because you can" but I don't think that it's actually feasible to make a gun that's going to last hundreds of shots out of something like plastic.

Re:I still see a market .... (5, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year ago | (#44402197)

That's the thing - I doubt there's a 3D-printable plastic out there now which could last for one rifle shot, at least outside of sheer luck.

The length of the rifle barrel is what'll kill it. A pistol dumps its internal pressures quickly - the short muzzle doesn't have to hold the pressure for more than a millisecond or two at most. A rifle on the other hand? The longer the barrel, the longer that period of time which the barrel has to hold the higher pressures. Most rifle cartridges also contain a slower-burning powder (to keep pressures at least somewhat constant as the bullet travels down the barrel), which only exacerbates things from a design perspective.

From an industrial perspective, any plastic barrel that doesn't hold up to insane tolerances (at least 3x max pressure) and do so for a very long time? Begging for a lawsuit that'll bankrupt your company, guaranteed. Also, there's no real economic incentive to make plastic barrels commercially - steel is way cheaper to acquire, machine, and temper. Now there are some specialized and niche applications (spies, special ops/forces, whatever), but they don't justify the costs.

Hobbyists OTOH don't have that kind of pressure or limitation - they're just doing it because they can.

Re:I still see a market .... (2)

D1G1T (1136467) | about a year ago | (#44402445)

I suspect Matthew built a rifle because making a plastic pistol in Canada would get him into very serious trouble. The laws governing Hunting "long-guns" are significantly more relaxed.

Re:I still see a market .... (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a year ago | (#44403489)

I talk to some Canadian gun collectors and it's mind blowing how certain guns (Chinese SKSs) are significantly cheaper in Canada.

LK

Re:I still see a market .... (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year ago | (#44402263)

You can also 3D print metal, it's a slightly different process, but nevertheless, there are metal 3D printers out there.

Re:I still see a market .... (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44402319)

You can also 3D print metal, it's a slightly different process, but nevertheless, there are metal 3D printers out there.

And if you look at the pains that the gun foundries go through to get _exactly_ the right metal properties for their gun barrels, you'd be leery of ever firing a 3D-printed gun (in 2013).

But, as I understand it, nobody actually wants a 3D printed gun - they're just trying to bait the gun-grabbers into attempting to restrain free trade and stifle free speech for their agenda, to make the gun-grabbers look even worse.

Re:I still see a market .... (3, Interesting)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about a year ago | (#44402645)

But, as I understand it, nobody actually wants a 3D printed gun - they're just trying to bait the gun-grabbers into attempting to restrain free trade and stifle free speech for their agenda, to make the gun-grabbers look even worse.

And it's working quite well. Here in the United States home made firearms are mostly legal as long as you don't sell them. Mainly because it's too hard to regulate, and most of them blow up anyways. The only restriction is an old law saying guns have to be detected by metal detectors.

Now you have all these states and cities that are passing laws banning 3d printed weapons. Side note, I can't wait until someone is arrested because they used a 3d printed toy as a "weapon." Then the US said it might be an export violation and told Defense Distributed to pull all the files. Boom, instant free speech violation.

What I'm curious about is the correlation between gun-grabbers and people who want to Censor the internet. Since they both use the same language about "protecting children" or for "public safety" I imagine it's the same people. Has anyone done a study on this?

Re:I still see a market .... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44403009)

Depends on the type of censors. There are probably some people who honestly think the entire world needs to be nerfed to protect kids against accidents. There are some censors who simply hate sex due to religious reasons aren't concerned about guns, they're clearly more concerned about preventing sex than violence. And the professionals are paid by the RIAA and MPAA. They do use that language, but only because it's an effective way to kill the internet that threatens their business.

Re:I still see a market .... (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about a year ago | (#44403103)

The correlation is that people who don't believe in rights, don't believe in rights. They're dependent on the government to give them what they didn't earn, so freedom is dangerous. Of course it's also common to see "anti-government" types infringing on rights as well, but that's because beneath the bluster they also know they can't make it without the government helping them to keep what they didn't earn

Re:I still see a market .... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#44403391)

Here in the United States home made firearms are mostly legal as long as you don't sell them. Mainly because it's too hard to regulate

That is certainly not why they're legal.

Re:I still see a market .... (1)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#44403021)

as I understand it, nobody actually wants a 3D printed gun

At the very, VERY least you would use a prefab metal pipe for the barrel, if you goal were really just to make a gun. (Even a prefab plastic pipe would make a better barrel than a printed plastic barrel.)

Re:I still see a market .... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402397)

You can also 3D print metal, it's a slightly different process, but nevertheless, there are metal 3D printers out there.

It's also pretty weak compared to cast metal, nigh-impossible to make homogenous and still requires enough machining to clean up that one might as well start with a piece of metal from the beginning.

Re:I still see a market .... (1)

Hadlock (143607) | about a year ago | (#44403003)

Most people only fire their gun about 100 times - ammo is expensive, and people have better things to do with their time. 30 shots per rifle, especially if you can print it at home, is an acceptable amount. You don't buy a $4 disposable camera and expect to win a photography contest.

Re:I still see a market .... (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44402241)

If it were purely a matter of pressure, you could probably get away with expensive plastic. I wouldn't want to be the person in charge of 3d-printing such a beast; but fiber-reinforced polymers are pretty tough (even better results, and markedly higher fabrication costs, if the fiber structures are correctly oriented to ensure that pressures on the barrel are mostly applied as tensile stress on the reinforcing fibers). At that point, though, you are probably talking a production process more difficult, possibly even more expensive, than the one used to produce normal metal barrels.

Even more vexingly, you still have heat and barrel erosion to deal with. If you don't mind a smoothbore with suitably low rate of fire, that's survivable; but 'rifle' more or less requires modestly complex barrel geometry tough enough to survive having a bullet rammed through it at alarming speeds. Plus, if you are using chemical propellants, the tendency of plastics to either start breaking down, or go into glass transition and send all their structural properties screaming through the floor, at fairly low temperatures combines beautifully with their relatively low thermal conductivity....

Re:I still see a market .... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44402467)

At that point, though, you are probably talking a production process more difficult, possibly even more expensive, than the one used to produce normal metal barrels.

One could imagine a polymer mixture that would contain chemicals that would cross-link randomly (or even preferentially), and at certain ratios form long chains, which would act as reinforcing fibers.

The orientation would be random unless possibly cured in a magnetic field with the right chemical components, but even randomly oriented reinforcement might be useful in many situations (we do it with concrete all the time).

Oh, and prior art, future bitches.

Re:I still see a market .... (1)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about a year ago | (#44402781)

There are several commercial .22 LR carbines with nylon or other non-metal barrels. Aside from being light weight, some have some interesting properties, like being either straight or broken but never bent.

I doubt it would be hard to build a receiver massive enough to handle .22 LR pressures.

But I doubt you could get a printed barrel that could handle the corrosive effects for more than a couple of rounds. The nylon barrels do it somehow, but I believe it took some fancy chemical research to come up with the formula.

Re:I still see a market .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44403153)

A nylon barrel? I've heard of a Remington Nylon series of 22's, but I believe those were named for the stock and possibly internals. Both the barrel and receiver were steel. I've also seen some carbon fiber or aluminum wrapped barrels, but they all have a steel sleeve at the center. Are these maybe what you were thinking of, or is there something else I'm not aware of?

Re:I still see a market .... (1)

chmod a+x mojo (965286) | about a year ago | (#44403559)

You would have to find a way for the reinforcing fiber to follow the lands and grooves of the rifling. The jacket drag causes visible twisting ( with slow motion cameras ) of lighter steel barrels simply from the bullet having a proper fit while in travel.

Unless they come up with a plastic that can be printed out easily and then work hardened ( through firing ) to a specific point I don't think they will have much luck with 3D printed rifles.

Re:I still see a market .... (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#44402365)

It survived the shot, wouldn't have harmed the shooter, and appears to have been accurate, though nobody has demonstrated the accuracy of the printed firearms.

Re:I still see a market .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402421)

though nobody has demonstrated the accuracy of the printed firearms.

There may be a reason for that. After all if it hit the target, wouldn't you want to show that off?

Re:I still see a market .... (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about a year ago | (#44403471)

There may be a reason for that. After all if it hit the target, wouldn't you want to show that off?

The target in this case seems to have been "the water," so not exactly something to brag about. Maybe if they had somehow missed...

Re:I still see a market .... (1)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about a year ago | (#44402699)

You make some valid points.

For the purposes of demonstrating the possibilities, the same gun should be printed again, with the barrel cut down to 6 inches and the powder load reduced by firing .22 short ammunition. Such a gun would survive a couple of firings, probably. Probably literally burning out the bore would be its demise.

I doubt if any printed gun could ever last for more than a few rounds before its barrel was shot out so bad that the bullet would fall out the end. The muzzle blast might be impressive though.

Re:I still see a market .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44403025)

The point of a printed gun is to use it to kill an occupying soldier so you can take his weapon and continue the resistance. So it does not need to fire that many times.

Stop it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402035)

Outlaw redneck printers now.

For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#44402051)

For a spy all you need is 1 shot

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year ago | (#44402125)

With a .22 LR rimfilre, it had better be an extremely accurate shot if you intend to kill anything bigger than a rabbit with it.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#44402233)

Not true at all. My father grew up on a subsistence farm. He'd hunt elk with a .22lr or sometimes a bow. He brought down many elk with that .22

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44402303)

Native Alaskans have been known to kill moose with a single shot from a .22.

But it takes a very good shot, from a position most people would rather not be in.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (0)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year ago | (#44402657)

Native Alaskans have been known to kill moose with a single shot from a .22.

Are you factoring in the added velocity from the helicopter?

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44402719)

I as am against helicopter hunting as anybody.

But nobody hunts from a helicopter with a .22.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#44403373)

Helicopter hog hunting is perfectly legal in Texas. Wild hog populations have gotten extremely out of control. Killing them is not just for sport, it's a form of pest control. Drone hog hunting would be quite interesting too, but I'm not sure if unmanned killing is legal or not.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year ago | (#44403695)

Not nearly as much as the pilot I imagine :-)

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44402895)

and many animals have been maimed and suffered for a long time because of stupid hunters using inadequate round for the game they're hunting. Sure a 22 LR in head or other vital area *might* kill human or deer or larger animal, but it also might not.

It is ILLEGAL in Alaska to hunt deer or any larger game with a 22 LR, for the reason I just gave. All rimfiire ammunition, which includes 22LR, is illegal for that. Illegal in my state of Illinois too and most (maybe all?) states.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402337)

If by 400 yards and still kill a human I agree.

Wikipedia:

"Numerous other shooting incidents have demonstrated that .22 LR bullets can easily kill or seriously injure humans.[7][8][9] Even after flying 400 yards (370 m), a .22 bullet is still traveling at approximately 500 ft/s (150 m/s)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle

I shoot with guys that have no problem being on mark with .22 at ~250 yards.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (3, Informative)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44402379)

Quite wrong. the .22 Long Rifle with hollow point, frangible, high velocity AND subsonic loads are all favored by assassins. The subsonic is especially accurate and if you're not shooting through armor or a helmet is going to take your target out if placed right. The load used by the Jackal (in the origiinal 1964 film) was a .22 LR exploder.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44402725)

"Quite wrong. the .22 Long Rifle with hollow point, frangible, high velocity AND subsonic loads are all favored by assassins."

More people in non-military situations are killed by .22 caliber rounds than any other.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44402935)

bullshit. in USA, larger calibers are more frequently used, look it up.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44403173)

Bullshit yourself. That's a different number.

I didn't say .22 was used "more than larger calibers". I stated that it was used more than any other caliber. Those are two different things. Look it up yourself.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44403211)

I also did nott say just U.S., or any particular year.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44403329)

No, that's not true either. either of the .355 (9mm ) and .357" diameter bullet (.38 special and .357 magnum) is used more often the .22 LR in the USA.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44402839)

No, false. And citing Hollywood movies doesn't bolster the case. Most successful assassinations are carried out by heavier and/or higher velocity rounds.

22 LR *might* kill someone (sometimes a day later, as a relative of mine died), or not.

For example, some Navy SEALS were issued sound suppressed 22LR pistols, for killing patrol DOGS. They have heavier ammo for people.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44403441)

You're talking about a completely different scenario. A combat situation IS NOT an assassination. Turns out that .22 LRs are perfect for assassinations by gun.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

dead_user (1989356) | about a year ago | (#44402129)

Not with a shotgun.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402139)

Plus, I would think that'd make ballistics tests worthless.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44402341)

For a spy all you need is 1 shot

If you are planning to do something wildly illicit and clandestine, you might have better luck with (depending on whether you need Absolutely No Metal/searches at the entrance resistance or plausible deniability) either the cheapest, nastiest, most ridiculously common on the civilian grey market, gun in that jurisdiction, which is blatantly obvious; but indistinguishable from the background gun violence of the area or some much lower pressure pneumatic dart system with a chemical payload (Georgi Markov style). That strategy is extremely suspicious, unless you choose an agent very carefully; but 'blowgun' tech has materials engineering demands so low that people have been crafting the things out of practically any plant stem with a hollow core since before recorded history. If using chemical weapons doesn't make you squeamish, an all-polymer compressed gas dart/pellet weapon would not be a particularly demanding task.

(If you want a particularly cute variation on the 'just use something cheap and ubiquitous, they'll know he got shot; but not who shot him.' strategy, an S4M [wikipedia.org] or conceptual equivalent may be for you. A handgun, specially designed for silent, short-range, firing of a bullet that looks almost exactly like the bullet you'd expect to see in somebody shot from considerably further away with any of the absurdly-common AK-variants that use 7.62x39 rounds...)

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402557)

Guns are messy ways of taking someone out. Only amateurs use guns.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (1)

EdZ (755139) | about a year ago | (#44402863)

This was the plot of a Golgo 13 episode. Walk into a stadium with a 'toy' pistol robust enough to fire a single shot, then attach it to a large balloon to get rid of the evidence.

Re:For a spy all you need is 1 shot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402897)

For a spy all you need is 1 shot

Have you ever fired a rifle before??

A hypothetical non-metallic rifle is one thing, but a cruddy plastic 3D printed one, how would you trust the sights, can you zero it without breaking the thing? Can you zero it AT ALL without it warping or flexing between shots?

A rifle without precision is really missing the point... of rifling.

A new slogan (0)

sgt scrub (869860) | about a year ago | (#44402057)

Keep America safe. Teach rednecks how to build guns out of plastic.

Re:A new slogan (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#44402315)

If this were a question, I would say yes.

Re:A new slogan (4, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#44402395)

They would humor you. Rednecks already own a number of real guns and would assume you were some sort of city idiot. Once they figured out that you weren't going to blow off your hand they would go home.

Political Correctness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402489)

Slashdot, where you can't make fun of rednecks or else you will offend people, and you get smug posts about how good rednecks are, and those posts get modded up by other smug types.

Re:Political Correctness (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402613)

Slashdot: Where no matter how reasonable a post, there's always some idiot thinking it is some kind of attack on his pet ideology.

Re:Political Correctness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44403419)

Rednecks are deceptive! Intellectually, they have an IQ of room temperature. Psychologically, they're freaking geniuses. Even in a drunken stupor, they know how to fuck with your head; and they pride themselves on it. Be careful who you insult.

well that is why you need an engineer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402073)

well d'ohhh -- geometry is not everything -- understanding the materials that make the object you wish to replicate and the various treatmnents post manufacturing make an engineered product what it is -- basically sounds like this weapon was designed by a non-engineer. well d'ohhh

Basic problem in many companies today -- they hire "engineers" from 3rd world companies that lack knowledge or abilities or worse offshore such knowledge to 3rd world countries like China & India and expect the same knowledgte base -- well d'ohh NO

It is why I suspect any new Boeing airliner past 767 to have safety built in -- problem is that the bottom line has over-ridden common sense

In Canada? (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year ago | (#44402101)

What happens if you try it somewhere else?

Re:In Canada? (3, Funny)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year ago | (#44402133)

What happens if you try it somewhere else?

It won't apologize so much when it fails.

Not to worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402119)

Only a matter of time before the composites and process improve to the point where it will withstand these stresses.

Re:Not to worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402327)

There are some people working on 3D printing jet turbine blades. I would not be surprised if the requirements for that were good enough. The thing is they are definitively not using plastic.

Re:Not to worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402967)

Considering modern turbine blades are single crystal, good luck with that.

Re:Not to worry (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44402417)

Only a matter of time before the composites and process improve to the point where it will withstand these stresses.

Inconveniently, 3d printing techniques tend to make doing composites (properly) difficult. Extruder-based designs can use fiber reinforced feedstocks, if the usual parameter-fiddling is done properly; but doing that will mostly just serve to make the difference in strength between the continuous filament (relatively strong) and the bonds at the 'seams' where the newly extruded filament needs to fuse with the previous layer and any adjacent already-laid filament (absolute best case, these might be as strong as the continuous filament, almost always weaker, sometimes markedly so, depending on process control) even starker than it already is, since the reinforcement material won't extend throughout the part (as it does with injection-molded fiber reinforced parts).

Selective laser sintering, while classier, is similarly limited by the fact that the reinforcement material can't extend beyond the boundaries of the powder being sintered (and you can't make the powder particles larger without sending your resolution to hell).

(Now, in the hypothetical cyberpunk dystopian future, it might be possible to produce pre-woven carbon-nanotube/graphene/similar technobabble "sleeves" that would collapse down into easily concealable flat shapes (like a freshly ironed sock); but could be stretched over a simple form and impregnated with a polymer or epoxy to turn them into fiber-reinforced barrels quickly and with almost zero tools just before use, using the same basic techniques used for fiberglass or carbon fiber construction. Not obviously worth it vs. just smuggling normal guns; but it' be a cute trick.)

Re:Not to worry (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#44403435)

Just curious, what's your personal/professional background in knowing all this?

Big surprise (5, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year ago | (#44402171)

Rifle cartridges tend to have quite a bit more power than pistol cartridges.

Chamber pressure:

Rifle: 7.62x51mm maximum pressure 415 MPa / 60,191 psi
Rifle: 5.56x54mm maximum pressure 430 MPa / 62,366 psi
Pistol: .45 ACP maximum pressure 140 MPa / 21,000 psi
Pistol: 9x19mm maximum pressure 235 MPa / 34,084 psi
Pistol: 9x17mm maximum pressure 148 MPa / 21,500 psi

IIRC, the 9x17mm (.380) was used in some earlier 3D printed pistol tests with limited success.

Most people receiving medical treatment after being shot by a pistol will live. Mortality is much higher for those shot by a rifle.

Re:Big surprise (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#44402231)

Pistols are usually designed to stop an assailant rather than outright kill someone.

Re:Big surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44403401)

"Pistols are usually designed to stop an assailant..."
You are a moron.

Re:Big surprise (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44402959)

But note even those pistol pressure are too huge for any plastic, even a wimpy .380 ACP (9mm Kurtz) is 21,500 CPU (roughly same as PSI)

if you value your life or use of your hand, don't use a 3D printed barrel/chamber unless there is some kind of materials breakthrough that give plastic the strength of iron.

steel is used for a reason.....

Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a year ago | (#44402217)

Except this one is only able to fire one shot. Call me back when they can fire multiple shows using an actual "rifle" round like .308 Winchester.

Re:Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402243)

Its progress, stuff like doesn't happen overnight. Its good enough that it managed to fire a single shot properly.

Re:Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm (0)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year ago | (#44402317)

You do realize that the M16 and international variants are essentially .22, right?

5.56mm = .223 gauge. It's quite effective in rifles produced for NATO and allies.

Re:Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm (1)

NobleSavage (582615) | about a year ago | (#44402389)

Yeah, but the 5.56mm has a hell of a lot more powder behind it than a 22lr.

Re:Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402409)

There is a HUGE difference between a 22LR and a 5.56 or 223. Even if they are the "same calibur".
22LR, 36-40 grain, just over 1,000 ft/s
223 56 grain, just over 3000 ft/s

Re:Yet another low caliber 3D printed firearm (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#44402423)

Please tell me you're not that stupid? 22LR is equal to a .223? Caliber is the _only_ thing they share.

So What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402229)

That's what testing is for, duh. How many here have had every program they ever wrote work on the first try?

Looks goofy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402249)

It seems that most of the losers arrested in the mass shootings are firing Glocks and shiny pieces specifically crafted to make their owners look like film stars. Not hobbyist plastic creations.

why gun powder? (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#44402259)

I keep wondering why all these guys keep trying to produce a gunpowder based gun. There are some incredible air rifles out there now... .50cal, 1000fps awesome guns. Why not try an air rifle and avoid all issues involved with powder?

Re:why gun powder? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#44402431)

They are baiting the ATF.

Re:why gun powder? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402573)

They are baiting the ATF in canada?

Re:why gun powder? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44403517)

I think it has more to do with laying groundwork for making future movie plots believable enough to sell.

Re:why gun powder? (2)

DadLeopard (1290796) | about a year ago | (#44402829)

Did you ever look at the pressures the air reservoir reaches in those large caliber air rifles? Remember many of them are filled from a Scuba tank!!

Re:why gun powder? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#44403359)

So make everything but the tank on the printer.

Re:why gun powder? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about a year ago | (#44403473)

no not everything, use COTS air system parts for valves etc.

Obvious conclusions (1)

hort_wort (1401963) | about a year ago | (#44402265)

My father once carved a longbow out of a large piece of cedar. It looked magnificent, exactly how a longbow should look. He carefully strung it, notched an arrow, and drew it back. It snapped in half. I thus concluded that a longbow will never work and it's pointless to ever use one. I'm assuming that's the same conclusion we should make from this article. I'm glad this random Canadian could save us all so much time.

Re:Obvious conclusions (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#44402441)

Making a zip gun out of black pipe gets ignored or you get arrested.

Re:Obvious conclusions (2)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44402555)

One difference, those with gunsmithing skills will tell you plastic is an inappropriate material to make firearm chambers and barrels.

Cedar is an appropriate material; your father just lacked some very basic knowledge - which he can now get the internet if he still is alive and still is interested.

When will this sillieness end? (3, Insightful)

MpVpRb (1423381) | about a year ago | (#44402283)

Anybody with the right knowledge and some basic tools has been able to make a gun for a long time

Convicts do it in prison

People in underdeveloped countries do it using the most crude equipment imaginable

3D printing a gun, in plastic, is nothing more than an attention grabbing headline

Re:When will this sillieness end? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402515)

The real advantage of an AK-47 is that
it can be produced with low tech facilities.
a bit more expensive than a 3D printer but, a low tech level,
still more likely to produce a weapon worth using.

Re:When will this sillieness end? (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about a year ago | (#44403205)

Or a Sten. You can make one with not much more than sheet metal, a drill, and a hacksaw. The barrel is the only "hard" bit to make, and even that isn't terribly hard to get working at a basic level.

I want sex with a nubile girl! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402357)

I want sex! Please, where can I get a nubile girl who's willing to suck my cock, swallow my cum and let me plug her all day long? Please, I'm desperate! Please help me find a nubile girl!

Re:I want sex with a nubile girl! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402533)

Go home, CmdrTaco, you're drunk.

Poppycock (2)

mcrbids (148650) | about a year ago | (#44402443)

OMG! Crazy conspiracy theorists can build bad guns with printers!

BOLLOCKS

Anybody can go to their local hardware store and build a zip gun [wikipedia.org] for as little as $10.

Quote: Keep in mind this should only be used in extreme situations, survival situations, or simply having fun. This homemade 12 guage is simply awesome! [youtube.com]

Any (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402623)

reasonably intelligent person with a little knowlege can figure out how to make a crude gun, or a fairly effective bomb. No 3d printer needed.

Really? (1)

XenithOrb (649843) | about a year ago | (#44402803)

They really need to stop wasting their time with plastics and look into 3D printing _around_ a metal chamber.

Regardless, the bore will wear out quickly and the rest of the barrel will get too hot and melt the fucker.

It's really quite a futile endeavor, and the people doing this have got to know it, which means it's all for show.

Dregging (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about a year ago | (#44402909)

Really? This is news? Given the newness of 3d printing and the materials used getting something like a firearm right on the first go and failing is not news at all.

Burn in hell (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44402941)

Either they don't think of the consequences, or they don't care, either way they recklessly endangering the rest of us.

Attn: ATF - See? Nothing to worry about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44403371)

3D printed guns are bogus. You have nothing to worry about. Please go back to sleep.

Printed Rifle? Nah. (1)

JimCanuck (2474366) | about a year ago | (#44403605)

The Liberator "pistol" fired a .380 ACP round which has been shown to be a decent self defense round.

The Grizzly "rifle" fires a 22LR round which is useless in self defense situations.

Regardless of it's external shape, this is probably a regression in development of 3D printed firearms. Especially considering the load pressures, both the 380 ACP and the 22 LR are around 20,000 PSI to 25,000 PSI.

A real rifle round? Well your looking at anywhere from 50,000 PSI (such as the 7.62x51mm NATO aka M14/M24/SR-25 etc) to 62,000 PSI (such as the 5.56x45mm NATO, aka AR-15's/M-16's etc)..

Till they develop a plastic that can handle those stresses and be 3D printable, the most anyone will be able to do rifle wise, is to make a carbine using a pistol caliber. Although some pistol rounds such as the 9mm Parabellum (most common 9mm Pistol ammunition) is 39,000 PSI which will probably push any 3D printed material well beyond it's maximum.

Some help from composistes? (1)

froggymana (1896008) | about a year ago | (#44403633)

I wonder how the Grizzly would work if the barrel had vacuum formed kevlar composite added to it. I would imagine that it would definitely help hold it together from cracking in the first place along with protecting the person holding the thing if it were to break.

Prototypes (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#44403635)

Prototype designs don't always go well, regardless of what they are made of or their intended use...

Success is often built on top of many failures.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?