3D Printed Gun

[Tyyr]

Welp, welcome to the future folks.

Defense Distributed has managed to create the worlds first 3D printed gun.

Eight months ago, Cody Wilson set out to create the world’s first entirely 3D-printable handgun.

Now he has.

Early next week, Wilson, a 25-year University of Texas law student and founder of the non-profit group Defense Distributed, plans to release the 3D-printable CAD files for a gun he calls “the Liberator,” pictured in its initial form above. He’s agreed to let me document the process of the gun’s creation, so long as I don’t publish details of its mechanics or its testing until it’s been proven to work reliably and the file has been uploaded to Defense Distributed’s online collection of printable gun blueprints at Defcad.org.
3D-Printing Firm Makerbot Cracks Down On Printable Gun Designs Andy Greenberg Andy Greenberg Forbes Staff
Meet Steve Israel, The Congressman Who Wants To Ban 3D-Printed Guns (Q&A) Andy Greenberg Andy Greenberg Forbes Staff
3D-Printable Gun Project Announces Plans For A For-Profit Search Engine Startup Andy Greenberg Andy Greenberg Forbes Staff

All sixteen pieces of the Liberator prototype were printed in ABS plastic with a Dimension SST printer from 3D printing company Stratasys, with the exception of a single nail that’s used as a firing pin. The gun is designed to fire standard handgun rounds, using interchangeable barrels for different calibers of ammunition.

Technically, Defense Distributed’s gun has one other non-printed component: the group added a six ounce chunk of steel into the body to make it detectable by metal detectors in order to comply with the Undetectable Firearms Act. In March, the group also obtained a federal firearms license, making it a legal gun manufacturer.

Of course, Defcad’s users may not adhere to so many rules. Once the file is online, anyone will be able to download and print the gun in the privacy of their garage, legally or not, with no serial number, background check, or other regulatory hurdles. “You can print a lethal device,” Wilson told me last summer. “It’s kind of scary, but that’s what we’re aiming to show.”

Since it was founded last August, Wilson’s group has sought to make as many components of a gun as possible into printable blueprints and to host those controversial files online, thwarting gun laws and blurring the lines between the regulation of firearms and information censorship. So far those pieces have included high capacity ammunition magazines for AR-15s and AK-47s, as well as an AR lower receiver, the body of that semi-automatic rifle to which off-the-shelf components like a stock and barrel can be attached.

Those early experiments have made Cody Wilson into one of the most controversial figures in the 3D printing community. In October of last year, Stratasys seized a printer it had rented to Defense Distributed after the company learned how its machine was being used. New York congressman Steve Israel has responded to Defense Distributed’s work by introducing a bill that would renew the Undetectable Firearms Act with new provisions aimed specifically at 3D printed components. In January, personal 3D printing firm Makerbot removed all gun components from Thingiverse, its popular site for hosting users’ printable designs.

All of that opposition has only made Wilson more eager to prove the possibility of a 3D printed firearm. “Everyone talks about the 3D printing revolution. Well, what did you think would happen when everyone has the means of production?” Wilson asked when we spoke earlier in the week. “I’m interested to see what the potential for this tool really is. Can it print a gun?”

It seems that it can.

Update: Defense Distributed’s political opponents aren’t waiting around for its printable gun to be finished and uploaded before calling for it to be banned. Congressman Steve Israel issued a press release Friday responding to this story: “Security checkpoints, background checks, and gun regulations will do little good if criminals can print plastic firearms at home and bring those firearms through metal detectors with no one the wiser,” his statement reads. “When I started talking about the issue of plastic firearms months ago, I was told the idea of a plastic gun is science-fiction. Now that this technology is proven, we need to act now to extend the ban [on] plastic firearms.”

At the moment this is little more than a stunt. With a plastic barrel it's service life is limited and like the Liberator it's named after it's single shot only. Frankly I wouldn't trust the thing much beyond the first round. I think DefDis did this mostly as a publicity stunt.

They are not just doing stunts though. They've got printable 30r magazines for AR-15 and AK-74 pattern rifles that have worked for several hundred rounds and a lower reciever for AR-15's lasted 600 rounds. That's no where near the life span of a metal weapon, but it is a functioning lower reciever able to put a lot of lead through before failure. A true "plastic" gun is going to be largely a pipe dream when dealing with plastic 3D printers with metal barrels, bolts, carriers, and springs still being needed.

[Vic]

Just another law weenie screaming ban this or ban that. Because we all know that criminals won't do something because it's illegal.

On the other hand what is the most durable plastic available? Ooooh, what about 3D metal printing when that becomes easy enough for the home operator?

[Tholian_Avenger]

It's not so much ease as cost. If someone can figure out how to bring the cost down on 3D Printing and CNC milling then we are headed in a pretty neat direction.

[Deepcrush]

Just another law weenie screaming ban this or ban that. Because we all know that criminals won't do something because it's illegal.

Just like every other gun ban law, simply leads to increased crime. But according to the Left, victims are a good thing.

[stitch626]

Just another law weenie screaming ban this or ban that. Because we all know that criminals won't do something because it's illegal.

Just like every other gun ban law, simply leads to increased crime. But according to the Left, victims are a good thing.

I can understand the dislike of any gun ban laws (for the most part, folks should have what they think they need for protection...).

What I don't get is the super aggressive campaign against background being extended to gun shows and online purchases. What harm can come from knowing where the guns are going? And the campaign against gun registration confuses me as well.

[Tsukiyumi]

The registration issue is simple: many of us think the government should not know what people own. AKA, "who to target first in case a gun confiscation program becomes law".

I've got no problems requiring more stringent background checks, but they tacked all sorts of other crap onto that bill that was unreasonable to many. Why can't we just vote on one issue at a time? They always tack on extra crap.

[Sonic Glitch]

The registration issue is simple: many of us think the government should not know what people own. AKA, "who to target first in case a gun confiscation program becomes law".

I've got no problems requiring more stringent background checks, but they tacked all sorts of other crap onto that bill that was unreasonable to many. Why can't we just vote on one issue at a time? They always tack on extra crap.

Because their pet projects have better odds of going through as a package.

And ah, right, I forgot. Government is evil.

[Tsukiyumi]

Government is evil.

Well, the concept is great. The execution, on the other hand...

[Sonic Glitch]

Government is evil.

Well, the concept is great. The execution, on the other hand...

To borrow a phrase, "Most of them are decent enough, just trying to make a living."

[Captain Seafort]

The registration issue is simple: many of us think the government should not know what people own.

Not even when the items in question are weapons? Question for you: does the US require vehicle ownership to be registered?

[Tyyr]

Vehicle registration is not about public safety or tracking where things are going. It's about the government finding one more way to wring a tax out of you. You also don't see a whole lot of anti-car campaigns or people debating about how to take all our cars away.

[Captain Seafort]

Vehicle registration is not about public safety...It's about the government finding one more way to wring a tax out of you.

Its both.

You also don't see a whole lot of anti-car campaigns or people debating about how to take all our cars away.

That's because banning cars would have a significant economic out of proportion to the lives that would be saved. Banning firearms has no such impact.

[Deepcrush]

Vehicle registration is not about public safety or tracking where things are going. It's about the government finding one more way to wring a tax out of you. You also don't see a whole lot of anti-car campaigns or people debating about how to take all our cars away.

An important thing to remember is that while guns out number cars. Cars still kill more people per year then guns. Registration on them is vital to keeping the death toll from skyrocketing by monitoring the activities of those items. Guns are weapons so its not an issue that they can be used as weapons. Vehicles for civilians however aren't meant as weapons yet still cost tens of thousands of lives a year. If people didn't like the use and control of Vehicles, they can always go back to horse or bike.

Its also statistics. The tighter vehicle control is the lower the death rate. Police enforcement and check points have shown impressive drops in drunk driving and speeding which are the most common causes of casualties.

[Captain Seafort]

Guns are weapons so its not an issue that they can be used as weapons.

Bollocks. The fact that they're weapons is a reason to keep far tighter controls on them than cars. Cars kill people when they malfunction or are misused. Guns kill people when they're used and maintained properly as well.

[Deepcrush]

Guns are weapons so its not an issue that they can be used as weapons.

Bollocks. The fact that they're weapons is a reason to keep far tighter controls on them than cars. Cars kill people when they malfunction or are misused. Guns kill people when they're used and maintained properly as well.

Guns, more specifically those not under criminal use, are not an everyday risk. They have to be directed to do harm where as cars spend everyday in the very place in which they cost lives.

That's because banning cars would have a significant economic out of proportion to the lives that would be saved. Banning firearms has no such impact.

The problem is that banning cars saves lives where banning firearms costs lives. The issue is one of luxury and moral ignorance, the idea that we should ban everything we don't understand but leave things alone if they make our lives easier. Everyone likes cars so no one wants to have to ban them. Regardless that you are more likely to be killed by a car then by any other non-natural form.

On the plus side, even a national firearm ban wouldn't effect me anyways. My work allows for firearm usage so sad as it is, the whole topic benefits me. Anti-defense laws always mean more crime and more crime mean more people dying from crime which means job security for me.