×

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!

Solid Concepts Manufactures First 3D-Printed Metal Pistol

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the guns-don't-kill-people,-3D-printing-does dept.

News 333

Zothecula writes "In a prime example of past meets future, a Texas-based company has used a century-old classic firearm as the blueprint for the world's first 3D-printed metal gun. Solid Concepts' use of a laser sintering method to create a fully functional Model 1911 automatic pistol is the latest demonstration of the potential of 3D printing techniques in industrial processing. The company's 'The gun proves laser sintering can meet tight tolerances. 3D Metal Printing has less porosity issues than an investment cast part and better complexities than a machined part. The barrel sees chamber pressure above 20,000 psi every time the gun is fired.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

333 comments

CNC machines can do that already (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368617)

CNC machines can do the same thing

Re:CNC machines can do that already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368643)

They addressed that:

better complexities than a machined part.

But hey, just because the fad of the week failed to die out and just keeps getting better and better doesn't mean you still can't be all "I hated it before it was cool" hipster about it.

Re:CNC machines can do that already (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368827)

better complexities than a machined part.

But weaker parts.

When making metal parts the the metallurgical properties are more important than the shape. The direction of the molecules in the metal make the difference between something that's hard and brittle vs. something that's soft and elastic.

Re:CNC machines can do that already (2)

avandesande (143899) | about 6 months ago | (#45368903)

Some geometries are impossible to make with CNC and machined parts always weigh more... if a part meets it's specification who cares how it was done?

Re:CNC machines can do that already (1)

next_ghost (1868792) | about 6 months ago | (#45369005)

But weaker parts.

When making metal parts the the metallurgical properties are more important than the shape. The direction of the molecules in the metal make the difference between something that's hard and brittle vs. something that's soft and elastic.

You can harden and temper the printed metal part just like any other.

Space/Propulsion applications (2)

sycodon (149926) | about 6 months ago | (#45368953)

TFA isn't exactly clear, but they seem to be saying that parts made this way are stronger then castings.

I wonder if this would have applications in any of the new launch vehicle engines. For simple parts, SLS might be cost prohibitive, but for complex parts, it may provide superior strength and more complex, one piece parts.

If material strength isn't an issue, then he sky's the limit.

Re:Space/Propulsion applications (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369067)

TFA isn't exactly clear, but they seem to be saying that parts made this way are stronger then castings.

I wonder if this would have applications in any of the new launch vehicle engines.

Other people are way ahead of you [slashdot.org] .

The advantages of 3D laser printing is that it’s much cheaper and faster with jobs normally taking weeks being completed in hours. Also, printing allows for more intricate designs for each piece and, therefore, fewer parts for the finished product. In addition, printed alloys have greater tensile strength than castings.

According to UCSD, the the tests at Mojave went without a hitch and the engine exhaust achieved supersonic velocity. "It was a resounding success and could be the next step in the development of cheaper propulsion systems and a commercializing of space," says SEDS President Deepak Atyam.

Re:Space/Propulsion applications (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369077)

AFAIK, laser sintering has been used in aerospace applications for a long time.

more guns = more dead people (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368621)

Sadly religious people are likely to never face reality

Re:more guns = more dead people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368715)

I suggest you come out from under your bridge and read some actual statistics before spouting off such nonsense.

Re:more guns = more dead people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369011)

Percentage of people eventually dying:
With guns: 100%
Without guns: 100%

OK, but maybe there are indirect effects? Well, let's see:

If you get killed before you procreate, the number of people born, and therefore the number of people dying, is reduced.
If you get killed after you procreate, the number of people born, and therefore the number of people dying, is not directly affected.

But then, maybe there's an even more indirect effect which causes people to have more children if there are more guns?

Re:more guns = more dead people (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#45369101)

Percentage of people eventually dying:
With guns: 100%
Without guns: 100%

7% of all people who have ever lived are alive today, meaning human mortality is currently somewhere around 93%.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/27/ [xkcd.com]

Arrrrgh! We're all going to die! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368645)

Ban Metal!!!

Re:Arrrrgh! We're all going to die! (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 6 months ago | (#45368925)

And be forced to listen to the garbage that passes for 'pop' music these days? No thanks :)

Good enough for rocket engines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368657)

Why is anyone surprised laser sintering is more than capable of this? This is nothing more than tech demo clickbait; anyone following the capabilities of SLS already knew this was well within the realm of possibility. Just nowhere close to the realm of practicality from a fiscal perspective.

Also, it's a waste of weight and money to do it this way. SLS should be used for key parts, but the rest should be normal 3D printed plastic (like a Glock).

Re:Good enough for rocket engines (4, Insightful)

almitydave (2452422) | about 6 months ago | (#45368915)

Why is anyone surprised laser sintering is more than capable of this? This is nothing more than tech demo clickbait; anyone following the capabilities of SLS already knew this was well within the realm of possibility. Just nowhere close to the realm of practicality from a fiscal perspective.

Also, it's a waste of weight and money to do it this way. SLS should be used for key parts, but the rest should be normal 3D printed plastic (like a Glock).

And as we all know, 100% of Slashdot readers are well versed in laser sintering techniques and capabilities.

The article explains why - as a demonstration of some of the ways this process is superior to machining. I'm a nerd, it's news to me, and it matters in the context of the potential for 3d printing to change significant aspects of society, and yes, firearm availability is significant.

Re:Good enough for rocket engines (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 6 months ago | (#45368917)

This is nothing more than tech demo clickbait; anyone following the capabilities of SLS already knew this was well within the realm of possibility.

Believe it or not, even on Slashdot not everyone has been following the progress of SLS. As for clickbait, sure it's for PR. Nothing wrong with that to get some publicity for a company's capabilities.

Also, it's a waste of weight and money to do it this way. SLS should be used for key parts, but the rest should be normal 3D printed plastic (like a Glock).

FTA: "Solid Concept says that the point of the exercise wasn't to create a cheaper pistol". In real production the metal parts could probably be made less expensively by traditional metal fab techniques. Plastic can be injection molded.

Re:Good enough for rocket engines (4, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 6 months ago | (#45369283)

Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Do you have any IDEA how many people would just shit themselves at your suggestion that a Sacred and Precious, Immaculately Concieved 1911 (insert heavenly choir ahhh-ahhhhhh) contain <bleeech> plastic parts?????

I want you to go to your room and THINK about what you have done.

"Tight tolerances" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368669)

in the 1911 sense.

Not to put a fine point to it, and risking being branded a heretic spouting blashphemy, it wasn't that exceptionally precise back when, and that was the bloody point of the thing. So it certainly cannot be that tight by today's standards.

Still, it's a start.

Re:"Tight tolerances" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369241)

there's a good bit of leeway in the machining and fit for a 1911, the original model was fairly loose. intentionally to improve reliability. Modern versions are more precisely fit. The article doesn't indicate what type tolerances this example follows. But, if they 3d printed the barrel / chamber / bolt and they stand up to the repeated stress of firing that's interesting.

New possibilities (4, Interesting)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 6 months ago | (#45368681)

An interesting capability of this type of additive manufacturing is the ability to change the metal alloy content in different parts of a single solid piece, adding another way to adjust the overall properties of the final product.

As for making guns, well, its a good way to get attention.

Re:New possibilities (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 6 months ago | (#45368795)

Well, I'd say modularity is fantastic for maintainability, and an absolute necessity for anything with moving parts. One solid piece isn't always what you want.

Re:New possibilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368979)

Well, I'd say modularity is fantastic for maintainability, and an absolute necessity for anything with moving parts. One solid piece isn't always what you want.

Well, since car parts have been manufactured for decades now to break down, one can only assume that you're not referring to those parts. Maintainability went out the fucking window when they realized consumers were stupid enough to pay someone else hundreds or thousands of dollars to "I don't care, just fix it.", and fix became replace real quick.

Re:New possibilities (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 6 months ago | (#45369137)

I'm not sure how that criticism could possibly apply in a conversation about open source designs and 3d printing.

Re:New possibilities (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 6 months ago | (#45368831)

As for making guns, well, its a good way to get attention.

It is, but not just for the sensationalism aspects. It's a good, dramatic demonstration of manufacturing tolerances and material strength. Personally, if I were Solid Concepts, I would have waited to make the announcement until I could show video of the CEO hitting print, all pieces being printed in a single run, open the machine, clean the result, slap it together, and fire off a few rounds at the range all in one continuous shot to demonstrate the speed, reliability, and confidence in the process. As it is... well, you can say all you want that the metal product is faster, but you haven't actually demonstrated much more than they guys using plastic did.

Re:New possibilities (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 6 months ago | (#45369215)

Given how the process works I would say it took hours if not days to print out, and many more hours of finishing, removing supporting bits, polishing etc.. However it would be interesting to see a time lapse of the main frame being printed or something.

Re:New possibilities (1)

LeadSongDog (1120683) | about 6 months ago | (#45368843)

Mod parent up. This approach could make some amazing blades.

Re:New possibilities (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369161)

If it can hold up to what's needed to make a firearm work and maintain tolerances, it'd also be interesting for making small engines or custom engine parts. This could be a way to get a custom turbo made for a small displacement engine that would be too expensive to one-off otherwise (a way to get some nice power out of a scooter that would be cheaper to license) or have more possibilities in regards to what kind of engine can be put into RC models.

I wonder what the cost is per unit volume?

Re:New possibilities (5, Informative)

necro81 (917438) | about 6 months ago | (#45368899)

I work with a lot of different rapid prototyping processes - including DLMS - on a weekly basis. In their current form you cannot change materials mid-part on a DLMS machine. Even if the machine itself could handle it (i.e., had multiple material-handling streams), you would have a tough time getting the dissimilar metals to properly fuse. As a welder how good the results of welding aluminum and steel are, or titanium and steel. Mixing these metals tends to result in brittle intermetallic phases, which are perfect places for fracture. Even worse is that, because the machine works layer-by-layer, the boundary between the two metals would be planar, making fracture all that more likely.

What is more, because the process is akin to SLS, what you end up with is a box - the build envelope - completely filled with powder, inside of which is the part you've made. You can ordinarily reclaim most of the powder and use it again. If you were to change materials mid-stream, you would have to junk most if not all of the leftover powder, because you wouldn't have a good way to separate the powders.

Re:New possibilities (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 6 months ago | (#45368997)

Good points. I realized powder retention/re-use would be an issue, but I thought fusing would be less of one if the materials were chosen properly. Guess there is more work to be done.

Re:New possibilities (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 6 months ago | (#45369029)

I wouldn't try it with dissimilar metals, but it might work with different alloys. The addition of an annealing step might allow some off the sharp boundaries to diffuse away. I can't speak to the waste aspect.

Re:New possibilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368913)

As for making guns, well, its a good way to get attention.

That's pretty much it.

One can argue that it is a good thing for anyone to be able to create a gun in his basement since the government can't prevent it that way.
OTOH any act against the government that have widespread public support will have enough people and combined know-how to manufacture assault-rifles in a more traditional manner. (There is a reason why all assault rifles are based on the Kalashnikov, it is a very simple construction.)

This manufacturing process is more suitable for hobbyists that wants to toy around with novelty designs, and for random nutjobs.

Because plastic is for pansies (3, Funny)

jimmifett (2434568) | about 6 months ago | (#45368705)

This is excellent news! I know I wouldn't use some questionable hunk of plastic. I'd much rather have metal arms and high capacity magazines for ensuring the cessation of threats to myself, my family, and my property.

Re:Because plastic is for pansies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368825)

yeah, because you need a gun to protect your family from guns

you're a lot more likely to kill them accidentally with a gun than to protect them with one

What would you recommend? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368951)

What would you recommend someone use to protect their family from guns? Tell the attacker to stand still for 15 minutes while you call 911 and wait for the cops to arrive?

Re:Because plastic is for pansies (5, Informative)

x6060 (672364) | about 6 months ago | (#45369133)

Well, not exactly. It protects against many more threats than just criminals with firearms. It protects against anyone that seeks to do substantial physical harm to you or your family regardless of their means (aka baseball bats, lead pipe, brass knuckles, etc.)

As for the last assumption, you are most likely referring to the Kellermann report which stated that a firearm in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance. That report has been debunked many times as it specifically excluded most accounts of self defense and included suicides and even police actions against criminals in the statistics. And of course these are all statistics 30 years out of date, where the murder rate of US citizens has steadily declined to less than half of what it was in 1986. (despite what the media portrays)

Re:Because plastic is for pansies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369021)

I'd much rather have metal arms and high capacity magazines for ensuring the cessation of threats to myself, my family, and my property.

Statistically, the biggest threat to yourself and your family is yourself. The more heavily armed you are, the bigger the threat.

Re:Because plastic is for pansies (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 6 months ago | (#45369069)

High-capacity magazines? Maybe you should learn better marksmanship. ;-)

Re:Because plastic is for pansies (1)

jimmifett (2434568) | about 6 months ago | (#45369131)

Need to make sure threats stay ended ;)

If it moves, shoot it; if it doesn't move, shoot it anyway to make sure it continues not moving

Re:Because plastic is for pansies (1)

x6060 (672364) | about 6 months ago | (#45369275)

Yeah, surprisingly to most people, people that are shot and it isnt a direct CNS shot, means they are usually still an effective threat. Now add in stress from the situation, moving targets, moving while shooting, and the possibility of multiple threats, a standard capacity magazine (depending on firearm, that could mean anywhere between 6-40 rounds) doesn't last as long as you may think or may need. Many times the police have shot criminals 10+ times and still not incapacitated them.

Re:Because plastic is for pansies (2)

Trepidity (597) | about 6 months ago | (#45369289)

Many times the police have shot criminals 10+ times and still not incapacitated them.

That's because the average cop is completely incompetent to carry a gun.

This is why we can't have nice things... (4, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#45368747)

This is why we can't have nice things....

Couldn't 3D printers make the news the first few years of going mainstream by producing hospital equipment or something?

Re:This is why we can't have nice things... (3, Interesting)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 6 months ago | (#45368815)

Some are producing hospital equipment, however, that's not news.

Although if memory serves the South African kid who's father 3D printed his prosthetic hand did actually make the FP in here.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things... (1)

cogeek (2425448) | about 6 months ago | (#45368879)

Most hospital equipment doesn't undergo the type of stress a handgun does when fired. This type of test shows that the metal produced is just as strong and even stronger than machined metal. 20,000 psi is pretty intense.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things... (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 6 months ago | (#45369009)

I'm not suggesting for a second that it's not an awesome demonstration...

...it's just unfortunate that ZOMG! 3D PRINTERS MAKE GUNS gets to dominate the news cycle. The guy who got a prosthetic hand from a 3D printer gets two inches under the fold. :/

Re:This is why we can't have nice things... (1)

cogeek (2425448) | about 6 months ago | (#45369279)

I read about the 3d printed prosthetic hand weeks before on here. I think that's great news, too. One thing about internet forums like this, there's room for all of it. -- No trees were harmed in the posting of this message, though a few electrons were greatly inconvenienced.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369311)

You mean the hand that could have been bought for 11$ on eBay and all the added non 3D-printed parts no one talks about?

Re:This is why we can't have nice things... (1)

freeze128 (544774) | about 6 months ago | (#45368887)

Because nothing screams "FREEDOM" in America like brandishing your own home-made weapon.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things... (0)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 6 months ago | (#45369207)

Because nothing screams "FREEDOM" in America like brandishing your own home-made weapon.

Except brandishing a whole ARSENAL of home-made weapons. Automatic weapons with self-reloading hi-capacity magazine.

Screw that. I want to print a drone fleet. Hand-held weapons are SO 1776.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368933)

Not on Slashdot. The list of 3D printable objects goes like:

(1) Sex toys (for use while watching pr0n)
(2) Guns
(3) Custom 144-monitor stand for true 30720 by 9720 pixel screen (see 1)

.
.
.

(11,532,952) Hospital equipment

Re:This is why we can't have nice things... (1)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | about 6 months ago | (#45368973)

Yes, the world would be a wonderful place if only everyone were a magically generous, unselfish and morally pure non-human. Unfortunately that is simply not the case. You really need to permanently revise your silly expectations.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things... (3, Insightful)

nharmon (97591) | about 6 months ago | (#45368985)

The FDA is a lot more strict about the manufacturing of hospital equipment than the BATFE is about guns.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#45369033)

Oh please! The first people the Wright Brothers tries to sell the airplane to was the war department. Weaponry is a prime motivator for most of the inventions we use today. A scalpel is just a small machete.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things... (1)

confused one (671304) | about 6 months ago | (#45369183)

They already do. These machines have been around in commercial use for nearly a decade (that I am aware of) -- perhaps a bit longer. The machines are wicked expensive to purchase (think price of a nice house) and expensive to operate. They typically only use them with materials that are hard to machine, on projects that have unusual geometries, or for one off custom design parts (like human jaw replacement).

Re:This is why we can't have nice things... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369285)

On the contrary, gun manufacture, and the technologies that facilitated gun manufacture, are largely responsible for all of the nice things you enjoy. Gun manufacturing was the industry that fostered interchangeable parts, and interchangeable parts was the innovation that fostered the industrial revolution.

Military already does this (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 6 months ago | (#45368767)

I remember seeing about 10 years ago a demo of a laser sinter 3D printer used to build parts at remote or deployed locations. If they didn't have a design it is done by HQ or other engineering assists and emailed to the printer. Interestingly enough they said the sintered part was often more robust and better than the OEM. It required machining but it can be easily done.

Re:Military already does this (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 6 months ago | (#45368803)

Wouldn't milling a gun on CNC machine from a solid block of metal make much more sense? Sorry if I don't have the terminology correct here, but this just seems like it would produce an inferior product, while also not making the process cheaper, simpler, or faster.

Re:Military already does this (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#45368893)

Wouldn't milling a gun on CNC machine from a solid block of metal make much more sense?

From a reliability standpoint I'd say yes; however, if your purpose was proving that 3D laser sintering is a high enough quality process that you can make a working firearm, going CNC kind of defeats the purpose.

Re:Military already does this (1)

swb (14022) | about 6 months ago | (#45368983)

I think it requires your design to be something that can be milled externally and there's nothing simple about multi-axis CNC machine or the tooling required to mill the parts which is why a number of gun manufacturers make parts via metal injection molding versus machining.

Plus, a 3D printer can make a range of objects from a variety of alloys, including objects that would be impossible or difficult to make via milling or require mechanical assembly of pieces machined individually to get a part that could be 3D printed in a single piece.

Re:Military already does this (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 6 months ago | (#45369097)

I've always thought they should have combination printers which can both add and take away material. Imagine this, something similar to those old multi-pen plotters [trs-80.com] , but with an arm that has a very large range of motion. And instead of just picking up pens, it could pick up various tools. There could be tools which extrude plastic, metal, and other materials, as well as cutting and sanding tools. You could build completely finished products using robots.

Re:Military already does this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369213)

If you read the article, and watched the video, you would know that the whole point of printing the M1911 handgun was to show that printed parts can be very accurate and strong. The printed parts are actually more accurate and stronger than those made from investment cast parts. Unlike with investment cast parts, no post printing machining was required to assemble this working gun.

The choice of a handgun for demonstrating this new technology is actually quite appropriate, as gun manufacture was the first industry to capitalize on the advent of precision standardized measurement tools, and the machine manufacture of interchangeable parts. These innovations were the basis of the industrial revolution in the US. Were it not for the military need of interchangeable parts in guns, the industrial revolution would have been much delayed.

Prediction: There will be heavier restrictions... (0)

evilRhino (638506) | about 6 months ago | (#45368785)

...on 3D printers than guns. The 3D printing industry is still new, and this will compete with the gun manufacturing industry (NRA). In the end, it's all about the money.

Re:Prediction: There will be heavier restrictions. (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#45368921)

You know, repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

FWIW, the NRA is mainly funded by member dues and donations, not gun manufacturers.

Re:Prediction: There will be heavier restrictions. (1)

evilRhino (638506) | about 6 months ago | (#45369023)

They may get their funding from members and donations, but their policy and leadership is set by the minority that side with gun manufacturers. Example: most NRA members (75%) support sensible gun control whereas the lobbying arm will score against legislators that propose and vote for them (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/28/strong-majority-of-americans-nra-members-back-gun-control [usnews.com] )

Re:Prediction: There will be heavier restrictions. (3, Insightful)

bryanp (160522) | about 6 months ago | (#45369199)

Example: most NRA members (75%) support sensible gun control

And how many people agree on a single definition of sensible?

Re:Prediction: There will be heavier restrictions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369247)

When the truth of that "Sensible Gun Control" comes to light - universal registration and a ban on private sales - that 75% drops to zero.

Congress could have many times in recent years passed a law specifying that only dealers can sell at shows and closed the "loophole". But that's never enough for them. It always extends to private transfers, and thus by definition, enacts federal universal registration.

Fortunately the NRA does what I pay them for and fights this.

Re:Prediction: There will be heavier restrictions. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369117)

The NRA isn't the "gun manufacturing industry".

The NRA is a group of about 5 million US individuals that are interested in guns, gun sports, self-defense, gun history and gun ownership. The bulk of the NRA's activities involve gun education, training and safety. The NRA is involved heavily in police and military gun training.

Industry contributions to the NRA are but a small part of the funding of the organization. The bulk of the NRA's funding comes from individual memberships and contributions.

Stop being an uneducated troll, get your facts straight.

Automatic pistol? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368817)

Why are semi-automatic weapons so often referred to as automatic? It seems to be a common misnomer in the US but I'm curious why.

Re:Automatic pistol? (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 6 months ago | (#45368945)

Why are semi-automatic weapons so often referred to as automatic? It seems to be a common misnomer in the US but I'm curious why.

Sensationalism; the same reason putting a synthetic stock with a Weaver rail on it magically turns an ordinary deer rifle into a "military grade assault weapon."

Re:Automatic pistol? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368989)

It's the liberal media exploiting ignorance to gain ratings.

Don't forget, it's always an ASSAULT RIFLE until proven otherwise.

Then it's just an AUTOMATIC.

At the end of the list, your grandpa's hunting rifle is a SNIPER RIFLE.

And there are no crazy people or murderers. Only GUNMEN.

Re:Automatic pistol? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369057)

Yeah, I have no idea why the .45 Automatic Colt Pistol might be referred to as "automatic".

Re:Automatic pistol? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369237)

Because way back in the day, they didn't have the term "semi-automatic", they had "automatic loading", and "auto loading". "Machine gun, machine pistol, etc" were understood to mean things which go BRRRRT, and automatic meant it shot once per pull of the trigger.

Automatic? (2)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 6 months ago | (#45368835)

GizMag is retarded.

The 1911 is semi-automatic.

Automatic pistols are idiotic.

Re:Automatic? (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 6 months ago | (#45368881)

Some people don't know the difference between "automatic" and "semiautomatic". It was probably written by one of those people.

Re:Automatic? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369191)

No, automatic is correct terminology that is frequently used in the firearms industry. It is very common to refer to semi-automatic handguns as "automatic", and there's not much confusion because fully automatic pistols are very rare.

Re:Automatic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369263)

Encyclopaedia Britannica agrees: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/44886/automatic-pistol

"Although there are a few automatic pistols that are fully automatic, the term ordinarily refers to a semiautomatic or autoloading pistol, which fires only one shot at each pull of the trigger."

The poor Jews... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368869)

.... how will they disarm their cattle (goyim) now? Their 'cattle' might get all uppity and start fighting back, we can't have that... only the Jews' footsoldiers are allowed to be armed...

Materials science/testing (2)

dywolf (2673597) | about 6 months ago | (#45368927)

Parts machined from steel stock are fairly well known characteristics, re: machined steel characteristics, tolerances, and variability of a foundries output, are very well known in manufacturing. but then steel manufacturing has been around a long time. i dont know as much about the proprties of sintereed metal, and therefore the parts made of it. so I'd want to see some extensive testng done of the sintered metal, or the results anyway, so that I could have the same confidence and knowledge of the material.

Rifled and tapped? (2)

paiute (550198) | about 6 months ago | (#45368975)

In the video, they show a part being tapped after forming. If the barrel of the gun can be rifled internally during manufacture, why can't a part be cast with a tapped hole?

Re:Rifled and tapped? (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 6 months ago | (#45369187)

You can cast a tapped hole, it's just much harder to do with the appropriate tolerances. Drilling a hole and running a tap through it is pretty bolt simple. Casting a hole with fine threads is anything but simple. Simple usually wins.

Re:Rifled and tapped? (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 6 months ago | (#45369317)

Based on my experience with SLS and DLMS technologies, I can think of two reasons:

1) Scale: the resolution of the printer isn't that much finer than the pitch of the threads. So, yes, you could model the threads in, but they would come out terribly, and you would have to chase it with a tap anyway. Much better to just model/print a smooth hole/cylinder and then cut the threads from solid material.

2) Helix Angle: unlike plastic SLS, which is light enough to be self-supporting, the metal powders need grown supports to handle overhangs. Depending on the density of the metal and the make of the DLMS machine, anything that overhangs by more steeply than 45 degrees needs to have support structure grown with it. For the rifling, which is a very shallow helix, no support would be needed if the axis of the barrel was oriented in the z-direction (i.e., normal to the build platform). (you would probably still want to chase it with a reamer to get the inside diameter to the right dimension, form, and finish.) For screw threads, which practically sit on top of each other, you would either need to grow supports that you would have to clean away afterwards, or build with no support and end up with shitty threads. Either way, you'd still need to chase the threads afterwards.

If the threads are coarse enough (greater than, say, an M10x1.5), you have a chance at directly growing the threads. But, really, you'll get better results by cutting the threads afterwards.

shooting printed guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45368999)

yeah, i wonder how many libertarian retards are going to blow their hands off trying to fire some home made piece of printed shit.

TSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369025)

So what happens when the 3d printer is brought through airport security, then used to print a gun after it's through the checkpoint?

(yes, i know, gunpowder won't likely make it past the checkpoint, but I still feel the question is valid... besides, gunpowder is a mix of metals, perhaps the raw metals would be allowed through in solid block form, then just shave away and mix)

I should stop asking these questions (publicly) before I find myself on the do-not-fly list.

3 rounds and it seems stucked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369055)

After three shots the spring hasn't push forward the upper part (sorry I don't know much about guns).
So the gun is no longer ready to shot right away.

Do you know why ?

You're not helping. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#45369121)

Stop drawing attention to 3d printing with all this gun crap.

Wait until 3d printing is cheap and in the hands of EVERYONE. Before you start doing things that will piss people off.

If you keep this up it's going to end up banned or regulated before it becomes commonplace.

Guns are good (5, Interesting)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about 6 months ago | (#45369313)

I've been trying to sort out the "guns" issue from a scientific point of view. After some extended searching, I believe the answer is "more guns is better".

This is made enormously difficult by the vast ocean of misinformation put forth by advocates on both sides of the issue. It's an interesting exercise in clear thinking just to sort through the claims to come up with an opinion unfettered by bad logic. I've included some examples below.

In summary, the best measurable statistic appears to be "chance of death from all causes" at the national level. This statistic avoids most of the bad math and bad thinking, and it's easy to measure and verify. The US does not have good health care, and this [national] attribute has a large effect on the mortality rate unrelated to gun-related deaths, so you can't use the US for comparison purposes at the national level. A better comparison is made between two countries with similar national health care and different gun policies. England and Switzerland, for example.

Comparing England and Switzerland indicates that "more guns" is associated with "less mortality". This echoes comparisons made within the US at the local level, where areas with public access to guns have less crime and mortality.

It's pointless to debate the issues in this forum due to the enormous and convoluted "poor statistics" cited by people on both sides of the issue, and virtually everyone is cognitively dissonant and emotionally invested in the answer.

A good analysis of the issues can be found here [americanthinker.com] .

Below are just a few examples of popular claims, and how they mislead the reader into one side or the other. There are misleading claims on both sides, so don't read too much into the choice of examples.

Example 1: "Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare." (source [theguardian.com] ) (False comparison: when gun ownership goes down, deaths due to other causes rises.)

Example 2: England has fewer gun-related murders, but a much higher rate of beating murders. (Undecidable: In the US, a non-suicide gunshot victim is automatically a murder, in England it's not a murder unless there's a trial and conviction.)

Example 3: If you have a gun in the house, you're more likely to accidentally shoot a family member than a burglar. (Wrong statistic: Having a gun depresses the chance of crime for your neighbors, the overall gain in safety for the community may be more than the loss of safety for the individual. See Polio vaccine [wikipedia.org] .)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...