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!

Version 2.0 of 3D-Printed Rifle Successfully Fires 14 Rounds

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the version-three-will-support-all-your-favorite-fonts dept.

Canada 336

coolnumbr12 writes "The world's first 3D-printed rifle, named 'The Grizzly' after Canadian-built tanks used in World War II, was fired in June, but the first shot fractured the barrel receiver. The creator, a Canadian man who simply goes by 'Matthew,' refined his design and posted a video Friday on YouTube of Grizzly 2.0 successfully firing 3 rounds of Winchester bullets. The video description says the Grizzly 2.0 fired 14 rounds before it cracked. The new rifle was also safe enough for Matthew to fire it by hand rather than the string system used in the first test."

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

first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44491589)

apk does not know the truth about host files

How long before (-1, Troll)

mozumder (178398) | about a year ago | (#44491615)

these things are ready to kill a classroom full of first-graders?

Not too familiar with firearms terminology, since i'm not dumb enough to own a gun and have no desire to shoot up my family, but is that the standard measure of gun reliability? "First-graders-killed-per-minute"?

Re:How long before (0)

Noughmad (1044096) | about a year ago | (#44491671)

It's still easier for first-graders to steal their parents' guns than printing their own. That might not be true for long, though.

Re:How long before (3, Interesting)

jbeaupre (752124) | about a year ago | (#44492263)

When first graders can print the ammo too, then we'll have a problem.

Re:How long before (2)

harvestsun (2948641) | about a year ago | (#44491701)

Oh mozumder, I never tire of your batshit crazy posts

Re:How long before (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44491783)

"First-graders-killed-per-minute"?
that would be a measure of performance
You're looking for the MTBF typically measured in "Second-graders-killed-per-receiver".

Re:How long before (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44491829)

Is that anything like the "child body count from creating gun-free zones in which only criminals have guns"?

Re:How long before (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492367)

You mean the UK?

I hope it explodes and kills him (-1, Troll)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#44491649)

I hope this rifle explodes and kills him. I understand the motivation to go and explore the limits of 3D printing. But rifles and handguns? They are useless for hunting or self defense. About the only thing they're useful is terrorism and/or dodging regulations.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (4, Insightful)

Guinness Beaumont (2901413) | about a year ago | (#44491711)

Nothing like wishing harm on people to show how you're morally superior and non-violent. Amirite?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44491809)

It's a "live by the sword, die by the sword" kind of thing. He doesn't want to inflict harm or even kill him, he just wants "divine justice": For someone who makes things that will be used to kill other people to die by his own invention.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (5, Insightful)

Guinness Beaumont (2901413) | about a year ago | (#44491853)

Live by the sword implies the use of the tool, not merely the existence of the tool. This man didn't murder anyone, it wouldn't be divine comeuppance for him to die. It would make as much sense (i.e. none at all) to look at a demolition engineer and say, "He worked with explosives, a bomb-maker, it's fitting that it exploded in his face." This man has not "lived by the sword" by any sane definition.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492223)

You can shut your mind to the obvious, but he's working on a method to make a gun that bypasses regulation and makes creating and disposing of any number of murder weapons very easy, with hardly any other application (because we already have guns that are better, except they're not as easy to get and to get rid of). Someone who just gives orders and never fires a gun or makes the weapon and never fires it is still to blame and to hope that it backfires on them is not immoral.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (-1, Redundant)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | about a year ago | (#44492595)

> Someone who just gives orders and never fires a gun or makes the weapon and never fires it is still to blame and to hope that it backfires on them is not immoral. Yes, wishing people would die IS immoral. You're a sicko, and you know it, or you wouldn't post as a coward.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him (-1, Troll)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#44491833)

Nope. I'd really like if every decision had consequences. I.e. if you refuse to be an organ donor then you should be disqualified from receiving them. If you invent a terror weapon - it'd be only fitting if you die by it.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him (4, Funny)

Guinness Beaumont (2901413) | about a year ago | (#44491883)

You're saying that you want to be killed by a torrent of really bad troll posts? That's what I'm getting from this.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him (0)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#44492085)

Getting trolled in return? I don't mind.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him (4, Interesting)

bdwebb (985489) | about a year ago | (#44492747)

What if you make comments wishing for others' death and you are subsequently killed by those people? That seems to follow your childish line of reasoning appropriately enough. It is probably a good thing that you haven't been an integral part of the evolution of man or the weight of the old testament would have crushed us by this point.

The fact that you wish such a violent death on this man outlines the vast difference between people like you and the rest of us free-thinking individuals. We don't correlate only possible negative consequence with new technologies, studies, or avenues of thought...we try to explore ALL possibilities and think of ways to benefit others and build societies instead of assuming the worst of any advancement in technology or thought. If one were to apply your logic to any critical invention or advancement in human history we would still think the world was flat, we would be bloodletting to cure disease and infection alike, and we would take 10 years to travel across the US with half our family dying of dysentery.

The man is building a gun in his home using new technological advancements and not using it on people. Until he does, he deserves to be treated as though he would never do anything of the sort. Maybe he is a gun enthusiast and just likes them? I like computers and I build those...does that mean I steal from people using them? I like working on cars and I build those also...does that mean that I run people down in the street with them? Maybe he just feels, as Alexander Hamilton did (even though he is Canadian), that "it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of insuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."

If you believe that simply getting rid of all guns is the answer, you have a simple mind. Try putting a little more thought into it for once...explore all avenues and ask yourself these things constantly: Does your government have any interest in you being anything other than an automaton? What happens when the pretense fails and those with power want to keep their power? There are plenty of examples in human history of fallen empires and societies. The United States was created with a system of checks and balances to prevent this but what happens when the people themselves, who are supposed to act as a check to their elected officials, fail to live up to their end of the bargain? (I'm assuming you're from the US, but this is a fairly universal concept.)

Call me a nut...I'll keep my guns and continue not killing anyone, just like I've done for 20 years. I'm sure you are thinking, "what good are guns against tanks and a modern military anyway?" I tell you that I would rather die with them in my hands than become a slave.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492379)

Nothing like wishing harm on people to show how you're morally superior and non-violent. Amirite?

Go fuck yourself.

(yes, this post is a joke, but I doubt you'll get it).

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44491719)

In other words, "somebody did something I disagree with, so I think he should be seriously injured and/or killed."

So.. when exactly did you sign up for Slashdot, Kim Jong? Or am I addressing a different batshit insane despot?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (2)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#44491773)

TBH that's exactly how democracy works, except your opinion just has to be popular enough for whatever you "disagree with" to be outlawed. And instead of just hitting someone, we lock them away, which comes down to the same thing.

And no, libertarianism's no different, because that's just based on popular support for property law. And no, communism's no different, because that's just based on popular support for sharing anything you happen to cherish.

So, your alternatives are tyranny of the majority, or tyranny of the minority. Welcome to civilisation. Regardless, we don't do too badly, you know?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (1)

Guinness Beaumont (2901413) | about a year ago | (#44491813)

Hi, you either don't understand the premise of non-aggression, or intentionally ignore it. Don't do that. It cheapens your argument.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#44491877)

You're not saying enough to be clear about what you're referring to, but I can guess already that I might disagree with your definition of "non-aggression".

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (1)

Guinness Beaumont (2901413) | about a year ago | (#44491923)

I'm referring to one of the core tenants of Libertarianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle [wikipedia.org] -- Your disagreement is somewhat irrelevant.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492157)

Tennent 1: coo koo!
Tennent 2: bat takes a poop a crazy poop
Tennent 3: coo koo!

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#44492251)

So, "non-aggression" here seems to mean "don't violate people's rights" (among other possible definitions); "rights" means "not having stuff done to your person or property without your consent" (among other possible definitions); and "property" itself has all sorts of contentious definitions. That's a fairly specific and non-universal definition of non-aggression, isn't it?

Anyway, you're not referring to a "tenant" of anything, unless punning in the context of property rights... in which case well played, I guess, although I would say that the Koch brothers are the core "tenants" of libertarianism in the US.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44491729)

I hope this rifle explodes and kills him.

Then you're a worse person than you imagine him to be.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492415)

Live by the sword, die by the sword. This weapon has no applications except for mischief; the only people really benefiting from this are criminals and those who need a untraceable gun (hard to find any legal reasons for that).

All us whom have legal weapons will instead be having hard time with new regulations concerning bullets, storage, producing and buying. If they can't stop creation of the weapons they sure will do all they can to stop "illegal bullets".

For sure bullets will become very expensive for those who have legal use of them and a new reason to get searched.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492651)

Those regulations are already in the pipe, 3D printable weapon or not. Their agenda is to disarm you, to weaken you, and to control you. The question is, what are you going to do about it?

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492719)

If there isn't a legal way to get weapon, we'd do like criminals get them illegally. If there is a need there is a market. This market on the other hand where we have 3d printed guns only benefits criminals and those who'd want to be untraceable after using a gun.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (2)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about a year ago | (#44491745)

Well, they certainly look cheap enough that they could be useful for guerrillas/resitances. Besides, remember that the same knowledge that led to the nuclear bomb also led to advances in other fields (I believe it led to nuclear energy) and advances in physics itself. I don't see how knowledge how to make a firearm that doesn't break couldn't be adapted to some other item that handles explosions/very strong forces. Of course, then one could wonder why the motivational factor to gaining such knowledge is a firearm, but then ask yourself why is the US investing in military research (that will undoubtedly produce technology useful for civilians).

I think wishing that it kills him is a bit too much. Besides, wouldn't terrorists have an R&D group that could do the same this man is doing or more? Unless you mean limited-resources terrorists, but those aren't really the ones we probably need to care about (imo).

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him (2, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#44491915)

Nuclear bomb was morally ambiguous. It was developed to actually stop an aggression of a terrible enemy. These guns are made specifically to make dodging regulations easier.

This shows a disdain for the will of people. If you don't like the gun control laws then go and change them. If your political system is corrupt - go and change it.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him (4, Insightful)

Guinness Beaumont (2901413) | about a year ago | (#44491979)

If your political system is corrupt - go and change it.

Using...

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him (-1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#44492109)

Using your brains, not guns. Especially not printed guns. I've said multiple times that gun nuts who think that their guns would be in any way important in changing government are below contempt.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him (1)

Wootery (1087023) | about a year ago | (#44492493)

Say it all you want, that doesn't give it weight. Care to justify your claim?

I'm no 'gun nut', but you seem to think it's self-evident that millions of armed citizens would pose no obstacle to a determined military force. This is false. Look at the US involvement in the middle East, or what happened in Northern Ireland.

Especially not printed guns.

We already know [wikipedia.org] that improvised weapons can be effective against modern militaries.

Re: I hope it explodes and kills him (2)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#44492589)

What are you going to do against a modern army? Poke Abrams tanks with a sharp 3D-printed stick? Perhaps, shoot bombers from your handgun? You can not win against a modern army using only light weapons. There's no question about it. Can you remind me which military has given something beyond token resistance to the US army lately?

Sure, if you want to use terrorist tactics (hiding between civilians, striking off-duty soldiers - that sort of thing) then you can make the life of an occupying army a living hell. But if you're thinking about using terrorist weapons with impunity, then have you ever thought about an army that doesn't have modern rules of engagement?

Oh, I get it. You'd prefer to kill toddlers, perhaps even primary school children. That'll surely help your cause.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (1)

gutnor (872759) | about a year ago | (#44492563)

Guns and current combustion engine share the same principle. If you can print a gun that fires reliably, you are much closer to be able to print an engine. The design of a printed engine could be radically different compared to one that need to be assembled and maintained.

Just illustrating your point. But to add one of my own. Today, you can machine a gun using a lathe and a few other low tech tools, yet it seems that everybody is nevertheless finding real factory made gun: drug lord, petty thief, terrorist, 13 year old kid in Africa, ...

How is this useless for self-defense? (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#44491785)

With even just a single shot, it would be really useful as an emergency backup gun to have around the house somewhere, in the same way people sometimes keep uber-cheap crappy cell-phones in cars for emergency use only.

It doesn't replace a real gun but it's not in way useless as a tool for defense.

If you really want to dodge regulations there are lots cheaper and easier ways to do that with real guns.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense? (0, Troll)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#44491931)

Backup for what, exactly? If you can buy a gun then you certainly can buy another one for backup.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense? (2)

Guinness Beaumont (2901413) | about a year ago | (#44492015)

If you can afford x, you can afford x*2 is a pretty obviously false for a huge range of x.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense? (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#44492615)

Guns are cheap. Pretty much everyone who can afford one gun can afford two guns. Especially since they often require gun safes.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#44492173)

Backup for what, exactly?

For your main gun, which is usually locked up in the house somewhere.

This gun is something you could easily keep in secondary locations, like a barn or a car. You wouldn't really care if it got stolen, unlike a real gun, because it would be nearly useless in committing a crime but could be the factor in stopping a crime or protecting yourself. It also would be nearly rust-proof unlike a real gun.

Even if you could afford a better gun for other areas sometimes a cheaper low-maintenience replacement makes sense.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense? (-1, Troll)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#44492221)

Storing a gun in an usecured barn is illegal. So as I've said - it's only useful to break law. Not for anything else.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#44492359)

Storing a gun in an usecured barn is illegal.

Even if the law where you are requires the guns be secured, that just means you would need a locked case in the barn (or keep in the locked trunk of a vehicle in the barn). It's still far more useful than having to go all the way back to the house for a gun.

So as I've said - it's only useful to break law.

And as I've demonstrated handily, you are totally wrong (you couldn't even say anything about my car example, which is perfectly legal as long as the gun is stored unloaded in a locked trunk.).

Give it up, your arguments are getting more an more pathetic. You obviously know nothing about guns except to fear them, because it's what you have been told to do... you certainly have no clue about gun laws.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense? (0)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year ago | (#44492431)

What's so magical about cars that you can't buy and store a normal weapon there? This printed shit,is likely to cost more than a simple rifle or a gun. So yes, this gun is useful only for terrorists.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492629)

Its actually terifyingly cheaper.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492653)

If guns are only useful for evil purposes, why aren't you so adamant about disarming governments? I mean, which entity do you think has killed more people? Average Citizens? Criminals? Or governments? You only seem to only be bothered by one of the three aforementioned entities having access to them...if guns are as bad as you insist, they should be the last thing governments should have access to.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492077)

People keep a back up cell phone? Terrible example.

Re: How is this useless for self-defense? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#44492227)

Why? A back-up cell phone is useful in case yours is damaged in a crash, or simply runs out of battery at the wrong time. It doesn't require a contract as any cell phone can dial 911.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with being careful.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492573)

People developing these weapons have hands as bloody as the people who skirted automatic-fire regulations with easily modified guns like the mak 10.

They deserve as much sympathy as a terrorist bomb-maker.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#44492675)

You really are a pretty bad person.

Re:I hope it explodes and kills him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492711)

dodging regulations.

Regulations like "Juden kann nicht besitzen Schusswaffen." Stop being a racist Nazi.

Oh No! Assault Rifle!! (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#44491717)

What's this? A weapon too large to conceal that is also really bulky? Only one thing to do, call it an "Assault Rifle" (yes sir those are scare quotes!) and ban the thing lest some law abiding citizen manage to protect themselves with it!

Just because criminals only actually use unregistered handguns that they can get for cheap, doesn't mean we should not fear this monstrous beast of technology!

Re:Oh No! Assault Rifle!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44491823)

What's this? Someone having too much fun with something they found growing in their back yard? Only one thing to do, call it "reefer madness" (yes sir those are scare quotes!) and ban the thing lest some law abiding citizen manage to enjoy themselves with it!

Never fear, the same Interstate Clause that says growing pot for your own use is interstate trade will be used to ensure that guns printed for your own use are very well regulated.

Re: Oh No! Assault Rifle!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44491865)

And only fires 14 rounds before breaking. Aren't those that want to ban guns always arguing for smaller clips? (I know they're called magazines but when you get your gun knowledge from pop culture...)

Re: Oh No! Assault Rifle!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492061)

And if you watch the video you will see that the reload time and method for this weapon is both lengthy and somewhat conspicuous. Not to mention having to hide behind something to fire it with a piece of string...

It's definitely got to go!

Just on a technical level... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44491723)

...I think what's needed here is a way to infuse the printing medium (ABS?) with strands of Kevlar, or something similar.

That, and then printing the contact parts of a slide-action with a Teflon/Kevlar composite, and you might have something.

Re:Just on a technical level... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44492065)

It wouldn't really be 3D printed then would it? It would be a composite hand-formed with robotic assistance.

Re:Just on a technical level... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492395)

You misunderstand, I think. There are already many different kinds of composite micro-fibers that are being used today by adding them to the epoxy in epoxy/fiber composites - they add tremendous strength and reduce the weight of a finished piece. I'm suggesting adding these microfibers to the plastic in the 3D printing cartridges - that is, adding them to the plastic before it's extruded and spooled into a cartridge.

No hand-forming required - just a different 'ink' formulation.

In other news... (1)

djupedal (584558) | about a year ago | (#44491735)

Syrian rebels have requested more resin to help in their recent push...

Re:In other news... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44491779)

Huh? Why would they need 3D printed guns, when the US government is already supplying them with mass manufactured ones? [reuters.com]

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492297)

Whoosh.

Thatsthejoke.jpg

I don't get it. (4, Insightful)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#44491807)

As someone who was brought up in a school with a cadet force which taught marksmanship and such, but in a country which doesn't have much of a gun culture, I really don't get this obsession with 3D-printer-manufacturing of parts of guns. In particular, I don't get why it's such a thing on /. What's the big deal, really? I assume some US states have always allowed the home building of guns, perhaps with licences, while others haven't? And that lots of people have fucked up, while others do a competent job? What's *new* here?

Re:I don't get it. (4, Insightful)

avandesande (143899) | about a year ago | (#44491917)

My guess is it is really a statement about gun rights- if they become trivially easy to manufacture than banning the sale and ownership of guns will be pointless.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

dbc (135354) | about a year ago | (#44492021)

This.

Re:I don't get it. (1, Insightful)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#44492083)

I don't think so? It's already trivially easy to build a deadly weapon. Gun control exists to stop an arms race by discouraging people in general from thinking they need to carry guns (both criminals and law-abiding), not to make it impossible to get a gun. In some areas this works, as you end up with very little gun crime - e.g. urban UK - maybe in others (remote?) this doesn't apply, as law enforcement is so far away? I am not sure there's a hard and fast rule...

Re:I don't get it. (2)

Grant_Watson (312705) | about a year ago | (#44492435)

I don't know about Britain (where carrying pistols was hardly unheard of in the nineteenth century), but I don't know that I've ever heard this as an argument for gun control in the U.S. It seems an odd argument: It would definitely work to make carrying a weapon more difficult for the law-abiding, but the only way to make it less desirable would be if it indeed made it nearly impossible for criminals to get access to weapons.

And British gun control has led to knife crime and to forms of knife control [imgur.com] that look downright silly from this side of the pond.

Re:I don't get it. (2, Interesting)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#44492605)

Not really. Few animals (humans included) want things to get more violent than they need to be, for obvious reasons, and a criminal has no particular desire to carry a gun unless he thinks he'll otherwise be confronted by someone with a larger weapon.

Knife crime in certain parts of the UK is a problem, but is less likely to cause serious injury or death than gun crime. 1. The knives tend to be carried to threaten, in the case of mugging, rather than as a response to the likelihood that the victim is also carrying a knife; 2. A gunshot is more likely to cause a fatal injury than a knife wound.

It doesn't matter much whether guns are easy to obtain. What matters is whether your opponent is likely to have a gun.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

thomasw_lrd (1203850) | about a year ago | (#44492689)

Comparing gun control in Britain with gun control in the US is like comparing British and US comedy. If Honey Boo Boo is funny for the US, it must be good enough for the British.

(If you don't know who Honey Boo Boo is, count your blessings. I've seen one commercial, and it saddened me that I was an American).

Re:I don't get it. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about a year ago | (#44492093)

if they become trivially easy to manufacture then 3D printing gets controlled tighter than guns ever were.

FTFY.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about a year ago | (#44491927)

1 - "Because you can" is a good enough reason.
2 - Just because you can make one here out of steel legally doesn't mean you will be able to tomorrow. It also takes more skill and effort to do it the 'right' way.. Anyone can download a file, press "print" and yank a finished object out of a printer.
3 - If you can manage to print things that can take the wear and tear of being a weapon, it advances the technology for use in other fields too.

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492479)

1 - "Because you can" is a good enough reason.

Or, if you are mostly just looking for attention, like most people these days, "Because it will cause an outcry", is the best and only reason required to do anything.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

Jaime2 (824950) | about a year ago | (#44491939)

Gun control is a big issue in the US. As soon as people can print their own reliable firearms, the very concept of gun control will become either laughable or Orwellian. Either outcome would be big news.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

EvanED (569694) | about a year ago | (#44492377)

Why does it have to be Orwellian?

Current law bans marijuana which is easily grown yourself, and while I pretty strongly disagree with said law I wouldn't go nearly so far as to decry it as Orwellian.

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44491941)

It makes the people involved feel important, who otherwise don't make much of a difference in the world.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492001)

Why on /.? Article contains one or more of the following key words: 3d-printed arduino raspberry pi bitcoin

Re:I don't get it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492003)

It will get much less confusing for you, I think, once you stop mistaking interest for obsession.

Re:I don't get it. (5, Informative)

tsotha (720379) | about a year ago | (#44492033)

I assume some US states have always allowed the home building of guns, perhaps with licences, while others haven't?

At the US federal level there's no law against manufacturing your own firearms as long as you don't sell them. You don't need a license. There are various restrictions at lower levels.

The hysteria is really a mass expression of ignorance from people who don't know anything about guns. Zip guns are pretty easy to make with plumbing supplies and basic tools, and people who aren't clever enough to come up with their own design can always jump on the web for instructions. Also, CNC machines, which can be used to manufacture guns that won't fail for thousands of rounds, are already pretty ubiquitous and can be had for a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. With a CNC machine you could manufacture a heavy machine gun if you really wanted to.

What keeps people from manufacturing firearms in their garages isn't the lack of means. It's that they don't have any reason to do so and/or they don't want to be arrested. Printed firearms won't change that equation.

Re:I don't get it. (4, Insightful)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#44492037)

There are a couple of things going on here. The first is that it's an easy and obvious device to stress test materials, construction, and designs. No need for expensive test equipment, you know exactly the stresses generated by a round. Ammunition production has pretty stringent quality control and all the hard work of figuring out the forces involved has been done already by the manufacturer.

The other is just the normal tweaking of the government, where if there isn't a rule in place people will push the issue until a rule is made.

Re:I don't get it. (5, Interesting)

Required Snark (1702878) | about a year ago | (#44492101)

It changes the barrier to entry. At the current moment it's not a big deal, but as 3D printers become ubiquitous it will become much easier to get access to a lethal weapon.

These guns will be cheap to make and not easily detectable by metal detectors. They are effectively one use disposable weapons.

So you and your gang want to do a drive-by or robbery. Just print up some guns, get some bullets, and while leaving the scene of the crime throw the guns out the window.

Courthouses in the US already have metal detectors, because gang members have engaged in gun battles on court premises. Plastic printable guns make this possible again. They also enable guns getting onto aircraft. Or in schools. Careless people will print them up for "self defense", and we will see even more children die by accidental gun violence.

I expect that these weapons will be attractive to alienated people who would have trouble accessing guns either legally or illegally. Say loner teens who feel bullied, or bullies in school who want to be able to flash some heat for intimidation.

Consider the prospect of flash mobs with guns.

So there is going to be more gun violence, and there is not much we can do to stop it.

Re:I don't get it. (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about a year ago | (#44492183)

Isn't it fairly easy to build a deadly zip gun? And I assume today already a gang could buy a CNC machine for less than the cost of a decent 3D printer if they wanted to roll their own guns, as they would have been able to for years? (Do they? If not, why not?)

The thing about metal detection is interesting, though. I suppose this is certainly increasing accessibility to metal-free guns. But that's not game-changing - it just means more intrusive methods required to detect guns.

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492551)

CNC machines- even old ones, but if you're looking for good quality, four axis devices suitable for really fine machining- cost generally between fifty grand new and five grand used (if you're lucky). A NEW 3D printer is a lot easier to get (you don't have to haul several tons of delicate metal tools to your gang hideout, for one) and will cost you far less.
That said, lower end CNC machines are a lot cheaper, but still run you thousands upon thousands of dollars. A weapons-quality 3D printer will run you about three grand new, if my pitiful research into the topic is any indication (I haven't done enough, and I've got a really nice CNC machine, so I've no inclination to get a printer)

Chicken Little (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492333)

All of that sounds like a bunch of fear mongering to me. Ermahgerd! A flash mob with GUNS!

Re:I don't get it. (1)

couchslug (175151) | about a year ago | (#44492115)

"What's *new* here?"

Page Hits driven by delicious Fear and craving for tasty Drama.

Nothing else.

Again? (2)

egr (932620) | about a year ago | (#44491825)

Is there gonna be a story each time a 3D-printed gun fires?

Re:Again? (3, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year ago | (#44491983)

No, there's going to be a story every time a 3D printer prints something.

Re:Again? (1)

couchslug (175151) | about a year ago | (#44492151)

Yes, because that will groom the public to want DRM implemented on these Printers of Evil.

Think of the children, the potential for terrorism, and the potential for terrorist children.

(Don't think of democratization of the means of production. That's subversive!)

Re:Again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492357)

Are you gonna bitch every time an article is on /. you don't like? You guys drive me crazy with that shit. You scream about too many slashvertisements, you bitch about too many bitcoin articles. Now you're bitching about too many 3D printer articles. Well genius, why don't you tell us exactly what kind of articles on /. would make you shut the fuck up? The correct answer is ZERO btw.

Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44491827)

I don't know what these people are trying to achieve, you're clearly never going to be able to build a reliable firearm entirely out of ABS plastic. The people at Glock figured this out quite a while ago.

Re:Why? (1)

couchslug (175151) | about a year ago | (#44492225)

They are trying to nullify totalitarian weapons control measures by democratization of production.

These are baby steps, not the House of Krupp in a fucking box.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492301)

Glock? Learn something about material engineering... Heckler and Koch was doing this kind of work well before those Johnny Come Latelys over at Glock.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492347)

What makes you think 3d printers are limited to using ABS plastic???

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492715)

What makes you think 3d printers are limited to using ABS plastic???

3D Printed chocolate firearms would bring new meaning to death by chocolate.

We'll Call Him Lefty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44491839)

Cannot imagine taking the risk to fire one of these by hand.

"I was completely confident to hand fire"... (1)

AmazingRuss (555076) | about a year ago | (#44492017)

said the newly nose-less man.

Have 3D Printer Will Travel (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year ago | (#44492397)

Your Truly,
- Johnny Bitcoin

Why do gun nuts ruin technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492501)

I really wish gun nuts would stop taking technology and perverting it for their meaningless displays of power and aggression.

I've never understood why gun nuts are so fearful and have to constantly prove to the world that they have the capability to kill. Let's use 3D printing for good purposes that benefit people, instead of enabling the fearful and violent.

Personally I can't imagine living like that, being afraid of everything all the time and finding more solace in a gun than the friendship or love of another human being.

Something useful (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year ago | (#44492581)

I wait for the day when a 3-d printer creates an honest, service to others, politician who is happy to have a job with modest income.

Silly question (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44492593)

1. Use a 3D printer to print an inkjet cartridge
2. Fill generic ink
3. ...
4. Profit!

I honestly think this might be more economically viable than buying generic ink cartridges new from the manufacturer.

Changes (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year ago | (#44492645)

Matthew said he improved upon his first design of the Grizzly by making the barrel 50 percent larger, increasing the size of the receiver (the main portion that holds the firing mechanism),

Good things to do.

and adding groves to the inside of the barrel.

Maybe not so good. Depending on the depth of the grooves they may allow gases past the bullet and decrease the muzzle velocity. If they are helical groves they may increase accuracy.

By the way, without helical grooves the weapon is a musket and not a rifle.

I wonder what the muzzle velocity and accuracy of the weapon is.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?