But they are much more likely to build themselves their own loose cannon.
5 Likes
The problem is the word “receiver” has different meaning in different contexts. In the operational and parts context, yes, it is usually the thing that all the there components attach to - the bolt, the barrel, the trigger, and the stock all connect to the receiver. When everything looked like a bolt action or a musket, it was pretty universal. Now with the various designs, what is the “receiver” can vary. And yes, there are other names for the same/similar part depending on design - body, chassis, grip frame, etc
This is complicated because of the legal context of what is the “receiver”. In the legal context the receiver is the part that must have a serial number and what is tracked and controlled as a firearm. One can buy all the other parts OTHER than the receiver and it isn’t considered a firearm. But the receiver is what everything attaches to (generally) and even if at the time it is disassembled and not more dangerous than a a paper weight, it is considered a fire arm.
In the AR 15 the receiver is the lower part of the gun that holds the magazine, stock, and grip. Many would assume the UPPER part of the gun that houses the bolt and barrel would be considered the receiver. In hand guns it is usually the grip frame that is considered the receiver.
As for the article - it is a materials issue. When we can print our own replacement car parts or parts around the house out of more durable materials, then we will see more actual functional 3D printed guns. Though the AK design is pretty damn simple, and uses stamped metal traditionally.
I imagine when the materials make it more practical, we will see people engineering models that take the limitations of the material into consideration. They won’t be clones of existing guns, they will be guns made to deal with the unique problems of 3D printing.
It will most likely continue to be a niche hobby, as current gun making is (which is fully legal to do.)
It is something to be done with care. The body parts of the gun aren’t under the extreme stress and pressure that is in the chamber of the barrel. So those lower stress parts may eventually work (see above.) I do know gun smiths than can make stuff from scratch, but no 3D printer enthusiasts.
Well, welcome. Good luck with your project. Stay safe (safety squints on.)
Interesting how a minor could acquire a working receiver, though. First off, they don’t say what kind it is, but since “.45” and “assembled by parts”, it is fairly safe to say it is a 1911. But while you can order parts, including just the frame/receiver - that frame/receiver is supposed to have a serial number on it and require a NICS check and you have to be 21 Unless it was possibly so old that it didn’t have one (While most major manufactures used them, it wasn’t required until 1968).
Second option is removal of the serial number, which is a possible detail that the story lacks.
The only other likely avenue was someone who took an 80% finished slug and milled it to completion and then sold it to a minor. Which is multiple levels of illegal.
TL;DR - multiple laws had to be broken to acquire this weapon.
You still can’t sell 3D printed guns with out running afoul of the ATF.
That would be stupid, because there are other non-gun uses for higher strength materials. That would be like asking steel makers to make only soft steel so you can’t make gun barrels.
For clarification, you can legally make your own firearms for personal use under current law, but you can not sell them. These still have to adhere to the NFA and other gun laws (e.g. no machine guns, no short barreled rifles, etc).
Not speaking for him, but it is like most anything - people like making stuff. When you factor in your time, it is rarely cheaper to make something vs buying something off the shelf - with anything. I suppose with this hobby you can also factor in ideas of “fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me” and other acts of pushing the envelope of freedom, but it isn’t necessary. You might just like the challenged of tinkering with it. You may be surprised to learn that’s how many famous firearms investors got their start.
Right now you can buy - with no background checks - your own black powder revolvers - kits or ready to go. Granted you can’t reload those quickly, but these used to be the most advanced military weapons out there and you could kill 12 people with a couple of them. But no one is worried that will happen (because, like you said, there are safer, more durable firearms out there - even for criminals).
5 Likes
Well, that’s kind of what I mean. If they build a gun and lose track of it and it’s used in a crime, they have legal liability which they have no motivation to incur. The cost of carelessness is rather high for them, although not as high as it is for the victims of any such crimes.
Whatever the proliferation dangers of homemade guns, they pale in comparison to the dangers of being able to print usable guns on demand as easily and casually as printing pencil holder off Thingiverse. Untraceable firearms would be even more available than factory-produced firearms.
7 Likes
For now. Laser-sintering 3D printers and other metal additive and precision automated manufacturing will become more common though, and then an untraceable firearm becomes as easy to procure as downloading a file and having access to the machines. It’s a ways away, but a logical outcome of the technologies.
7 Likes
Sure - with the Star Trek synthesizer being the ultimate goal (or something similar but more realistic.).
But if one is able to make a $1000 firearm at the press of a button for a fraction of the cost in raw materials - then, uh, what exactly are we worried about here? That a guy is using it for crime? If he can print out $1000 guns with ease, then we have reached a level of technology where goods are no longer scarce and income inequality is going to be less.
Availability is not the reason for gun crime. Is it a factor? Sure, I have to concede it is a factor. But if we are living in a time where complex machines can be quickly and easily produced at home - its going to to be a whole new world and paradigm shift. If you can get the goods you need to lead a good life, why would you turn to crime, etc?
It is extremely frustrating that we are living in some of the safest times in history - both world wide and in the US - but because bad things still happen and we have 24/7 access to that news, we are constantly lead to think things are getting worse. They aren’t really. And like Cory has begrudgingly admitted, if we locked things down so tight you can’t possibly 3D print firearm, then they will kill 3D printing and freedom of information for civilians.
5 Likes
Printed receivers are subject to the exact same regulation as any receiver made via any method.
“We” don’t regulate who can own a mill, who can buy sheet metal and pipes at Home Depot, nor who can read books about gunsmithing. All of those are just as, if not more viable ways of making guns than a 3D printer alone.
I believe in making it cheaper and easier for several reasons - both political and non-political. I’d be happy to get into that if you want.
4 Likes
No. I’m designing the AK around one of the weakest printer filaments out there. You can make receivers out of 2x4s, you’ll have as much luck trying to regulate the strength of plastics as regulating the strength of wood.
PS it isn’t our right because constitution, it’s our PROTECTED right because constitution. Remember to pay attention in Am. Gov. class!
1 Like
My motivations can best be summarized this way:
Hobby/Engineering interest: It’s fun to design a functional part. It’s cool to see how cheap, or how sub-par materials you can get away with using. It’s cool to see how cheap of tooling you can use to create something that normally takes quite a bit of tooling to do.
Historical Interest: I’m interested in guns for historical purposes (they are, without a doubt, important to history). Being able to revive gun parts that were a part of that history is an interesting way to connect with the past.
Political Interest: I believe that greater access to hard power is the only way to prevent the worst forms of mass tragedy (genocide, mass oppression, tyranny). This means I support people worldwide having the opportunity to arm themselves as a means of resistance should they choose to do so - at the very least, the option should be there. I realize that bad people can use guns to do awful things - but if you look at the scoreboard, governments preying on targeted groups and individuals are the worst villains to face mankind, and when mankind is prepared to defend itself, villains have a much harder time carrying out their goals.
4 Likes
So, in other words, still not nearly as good as a milled receiver, which you have been able to make on a CNC mill, almost as automated as a 3d printer, for decades?
Eh, 3D printers make something like the Luty SMG a whole lot easier to make. The lower receiver on Lutys are somewhat time-intensive to carve out with a hacksaw. A printer can make quick, accurate work of it. Additionally, the magazines for Luty SMGs are god-awful hazard-fraught nightmares. Being able to 3D print Glock pattern mags that work flawlessly is a massive advantage 3D printers offer - as Ian says, magazines are the hardest part of a gun design to get right. Having good magazines is imperative, and having a cheap 3D printer means you have a cheap magazine factory.
2 Likes
A milled receiver requires you have:
A 4 axis CNC (or a 3 axis and 3 workholding setups, or three 2 axis machines and 6 workholding setups) - you’re looking at ~$75,000 there.
A furnace - albeit a small one will work for a receiver, you’re still looking at $20,000 there.
Proper CAM written - free if you do it yourself, but will take several tries to really nail down - costing a considerable amount in wasted steel.
A forging setup (unless you plan on hogging out billets) - easily $50,000 if you only hammer the front and rear ends of the receiver, more if you hammer the whole thing.
So yeah, if you’re looking to spend a couple hundred thousand dollars, you can make milled receivers. But I’m going to make the assumption that most hobbyists would rather spend $200 in tooling to 3D print a receiver that works than $200,000 in tooling for a receiver that works well.
There’s a good reason that there aren’t many milled AK receivers aren’t made in the US - production of AK parts is extremely tooling-heavy. The Russians were able to do it cheap because they scaled their factory up to the size of a city (Tula), and spread out milling operations to multiple 2-axis machines in warehouse-sized shop floors (no CNC).
That’s also the reason the few places in the US that sell milled receivers ask so much money for them and do them in small batches - they are really hard to do well unless you scale production up, and the demand just isn’t there for them in the US.
5 Likes
The Saturday Night Special of Theseus.
8 Likes
When I hear this argument in real life, I literally cannot prevent an eyeroll.
You seriously think that if the Gubmint decided shit is about to go down, your peashooters would be any use whatsoever against what, jets, tanks, helicopters, smart-bombs, missile launchers, full body armor, masses of soldiers, and probably police too, and on and on?
I mean come on, dude. It’s not like, 1833 anymore!
14 Likes
Seeing as we’ve dumped over a trillion into Afghanistan and can’t beat a couple of goat farmers with peashooters? Yeah.
5 Likes
Oh come on, this isn’t a G-rated forum. Is that really the f-word you wanted to use there?
6 Likes
While you can make a receiver using a 3D printer, it’s the wrong tool for the job. If you really want to make an unregistered gun (please don’t), you should use a CNC machine. Start with a proper hunk of quality metal and go from there.
1 Like
Fixed that for you.
Someone explain to me why boing boing is giving a platform to someone who makes guns, and also please tell me why hardly anyone is criticising that fact.
6 Likes
Replace “your scientists” with “Libertarian engineers” and this quote holds true:
I can see a wannabe freedom fighter who believes that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to be the Constitution’s suicide clause also being the sort to get caught up in the romance of the heroic engineer using a dangerously inappropriate material in his projects. It’s a staple of gun-fondler SF going back at least to Heinlein.
Cory didn’t give him a platform in the original article. And as long as he doesn’t break the rules of the BBS, he can keep posting here (if it’s any consolation, I can already hear the clock ticking down to a permaban).
10 Likes
Yeah, so is cocaine. Still, best not to make a habit of it.
(And yes, I realize you are being facetious. 
@anon61221983)
4 Likes
