New AR family printable lowers

[NMRMN]

Whose got a 3d printer?

http://www.guns.com/2013/06/03/meet-the ... ers-photos

[PhilaBOR]

You know of course, that 3D printers tolerances suck and the materials are far weaker than even a typical polymer component.

The standard resin for 3D printers is ABS with a tensile of 6000 psi, but lower between the printed layers. You can get stronger materials in a high end printer, maybe going up to 12,000 psi within layers. The standard resin for gun parts is glass-filled nylon, molded so it doesn't have the layer problem. One common glass filled resin, Zytel 70g33 has a tensile strength of 20,000 psi. Aluminum 6061 is about 30-40,000 psi and 7075 is 70-80,000 psi. Oh, did I mention the tolerances suck and you will have to hand fit any mating parts?

But if you print your own AR, you will have an un-traceable receiver and the feds won't know to come after you. Unless you have bought any other guns. Or ordered any ammo or gun stuff online. Or paid for anything in a gun store with a credit card. Or bought a hunting license. Or have a login on a gun discussion board. Remember, stay off the grid.

Sorry to be a downer, but I'm sick of tired of the whole OMG 3D GUNS! thing. If somehow the government ever banned guns, the underground guns would be made in underground machine shops from real materials, not the prototype plastic in a printer.

[LarryP]

The plastic bullets will work well with those guns.

[codilly]

Stupid as dumb gets!

[NMRMN]

I really think you guys are missing the bigger picture. Its not about creating a zip gun. It is a political statement about the bounds of state control, monopoly's of technology and commerce. It is about another industrial revolution and empowering the individual. Its about reexamining questions of intellectual property.

3d printing technologies will likely catch up quicker than you think. Will you be laughing and pshawing as inexpensive aluminum or other hi tech material 3d printers become available and common? Do you hate Glocks or the FN SCAR because they have polymer receivers? What gives?

[LumberZach]

I don't care what is being said about the 3D thing, but those stocks look really neat to me. I almost think someone should make lowers like that... unless someone already does. Still, those look very cool!

[jshuberg]

The whole 3D printed gun thing isn't going to get much love here. This is a gun forum, and most people here are firearms enthusiasts. Someone being able to manufacture at home what is undoubtedly the very worst gun in the country isn't going to produce much enthusiasm.

Yes, the printing technology will evolve, but so will other manufacturing technologies used in industry. A commercially made firearm is always going to be a better quality and likely cheaper than anything you'll ever be able to manufacture at home. If a person wants to manufacture a firearm "off grid" they could simply go to a place like jakl machining that recently hosted a build party. Problem solved.

The people who are going to be all excited about this are slashdot tech junkie types that have no idea how to shoot a gun, and political delinquents or anarchists who view this as some way to thumb their noses at the government.

People who are actually interested in firearms see this as a ridiculous little experiment in technology that's not likely to go anywhere. At least not until someone invests one of those Star Trek devices that can build you anything you want out of atoms within seconds by the mere push of a button. My guess is, thats not likely to happen in our lifetime.

[NMRMN]

I almost think someone should make lowers like that... unless someone already does. Still, those look very cool!

That too. The limitations of the material is driving the design, to compensate for weak areas. See the FN p90

http://www.fnherstal.com/primary-menu/p ... ndard.html

[NMRMN]

The whole 3D printed gun thing isn't going to get much love here. This is a gun forum, and most people here are firearms enthusiasts. Someone being able to manufacture at home what is undoubtedly the very worst gun in the country isn't going to produce much enthusiasm.

I'm sorry, I am a gun enthusiast as well, and it is an interesting and notable concept to me. Am I disobeying mnguntalk orthodoxy in matters of gun manufacturing technology and developments?

Yes, the printing technology will evolve, but so will other manufacturing technologies used in industry. A commercially made firearm is always going to be a better quality and likely cheaper than anything you'll ever be able to manufacture at home. If a person wants to manufacture a firearm "off grid" they could simply go to a place like jakl machining that recently hosted a build party. Problem solved.

Still missing the point. The processes could very well align themselves in terms of utility. JAKL is a commercial machine shop, this is an individual solution.

The people who are going to be all excited about this are slashdot tech junkie types that have no idea how to shoot a gun, and political delinquents or anarchists who view this as some way to thumb their noses at the government.

Maybe. Can't say I am too excited to print a crappy plastic gun, but if I had a printer, I would certainly print a few. The ideas and implications behind it are far more compelling to me, perhaps not you.

People who are actually interested in firearms see this as a ridiculous little experiment in technology that's not likely to go anywhere.

We'll see!

In the meantime, consider your potential biases. Are you defending monopolies of political process, manufacturing, expertise, etc.? You know darn well the NRA isn't going to back 3d printing, and the legislature could very well start to regulate the printers themselves.

Where lies your TRUE allegiance? Liberty, Freedom for ALL? or Institution, political power, ideologies that promote 'hierarchies' of freedom and 'privileged' class...

[jshuberg]

I don't equate freedom and liberty as being able to do everything I want to. It's just not a reasonable thing to expect. Have you ever seen the quality of product by do-it-yourself types? Do you want to see that quality introduced into firearms? I certainly don't!

A long time ago I realized that if there's a job that someone makes a living at professionally, chances are if you try to do that job without training or experience, you're very likely to screw it up. You're better off paying to have it done right in the first place. Hell, these days it's hard to find a competent professional in some areas, let alone competent novices!

Some people raise cattle, some chickens. Some sell insurance, some manufacture firearms. We never attempt to be truly self sufficient, and haven't since before we first stood upright. We participate in a community, where each of us does what we're good at for the benefit of those who aren't. We created currency so that disparate goods and services can be valued relative to a standard for exchange. I don't see any of this as resulting in loss of freedom or liberty, or restrictive in any way. It's how we have evolved as a species, and this is entirely within our nature.

The converse is also true - when someone invents a technology that allows me to do some work myself that I would have otherwise paid someone else to do for me, I don't see it as an advance in freedom or liberty at all. More often than not, rather than being a benefit overall to civilization, technology intending to enable the novice to do something he otherwise wouldn't be able to has the effect of dumbing down and lowering the quality overall. One of the primary roles of technology is to make the professional more efficient at his job, it shouldn't be to try and make the novice competent at something he has little to no experience in doing. Novices screwing things up is one of the biggest problems we currently have in our society. I suggest we don't encourage people to make this problem any worse than it already is

If we were to actually invent a technology like the Star Trek materialization device (or whatever it's called), which allowed the novice to manufacture products with the same quality as the professional, it would be the end of our civilization. If everyone were truly completely self sufficient, or even mostly self sufficient, there would no longer be a need for community, other than for procreation. There would no longer be a need for money. It would be as significant an event as man discovering fire, and it would change everything about humanity forever. Perhaps this is possible at some point in the future, but it's not going to be in my lifetime.

This 3D printing technology isn't any more liberating than the TV dinner is, except for its intended purpose - the rapid prototyping of parts by manufacturing professionals.

Perhaps I'm wrong here. It wouldn't be the first time, but I see all the hype about this as significantly overblown, and likely to cause more injuries than any amount of good it could possibly result in.

[Holland&Holland]

When it can print a fine English walnut let me know.

[NMRMN]

Jshuberg -- likewise, I do not equate liberty with being able to do everything I want to do. Within the framework of the Constitution, we DO (and should) have a right to bear arms. These are understood to mean small arms. And even these are subject to increasing and evermore scrutiny and regulation. The first steps of a technology that puts the ability to actually manufacture a usable lower in the hands of the lawful individual, without the overbearing intrusion (or knowledge) of the state is a good thing, in my view. I don't argue that there are not higher 'quality' options available -- that goes without saying.

And I don't disagree or argue against the benefits or naturalness of communal living. I am grateful for the variety of talented people and business, goods or services, that a free market provides. The interesting aspect of this technology, is that (I believe) you are going to see a quick alignment in the ability to personally produce 3d objects of similar practical utility as their commercial counterparts, and not limited to firearms. The quality may be sketchy now, depending on the application and due to the availability of materials, but that could change quickly.

Consider downloading and utilizing a software program on the computer. Its true that it could be buggy, but if you trust the developer, and it has good reviews, you will be soon be working with the same quality product as they are. The same will hold true for 3D technology, as it matures. Also, you are not completely protected from issues of safety or reliability, just because it is a commercially developed product. But either way, let people take personal responsibility and precautions in utilizing tools and technology, right? And let the courts decide if a designer or manufacturer is negligent.

I view each person (and all people) as equally important and endowed with inalienable rights, not by the state, but by their creator. The collectivist views the 'whole' as more important than the individual, and is willing to overlook individual rights, if it benefits the greater good (in their view at least). What is at stake, as I see it, is not the collective, or industry, or trade of goods and services (training, etc), but the rights of the individual. I am not excited by 3d printing as a method of promoting anti-sociality, selfishness or chaos, but as a means of protecting and promoting individual rights.

We live under a government initially instituted to protect the individual's rights. How far we have strayed! Government colludes continually with industry, political party, wealth -- and actually institutes monopoly, instead of defending against it. As intended by the founders, the government itself was created as a republic, divided with checks and balances so as not to become an unrighteous monopoly of force and law, as was King George III. The 2A was incorporated into the bill of rights for the same reason. I view this technological development positively in light of an increasingly overbearing, powerful and corrupt government, and am equally interested in what it means for manufacturing in general.

Just as desktop publishing and the internet dismantled effective monopolies of news, media and information, so too will 3D printing in the physical realm. And I see that as a good and healthy development in a free market. These are my reasons for an interest in this technology, both political and practical, and certainly with pretty big implications for gun-rights and firearm owning community.

http://www.thingiverse.com/
http://defcad.com/

[jshuberg]

I believe what you're saying is that government is currently infringing on individual liberties. I don't disagree with this, as liberty is the absence of government intrusion. Anytime the government presumes to regulate an item or activity, it by definition strips the individual of his liberty.

I guess my difference is I don't believe that technology will ever be the solution to a loss of liberty. Yes, new technologies will pop up from time to time that don't fall under existing laws and regulations. As the example of the internet demonstrates, that is a very temporary state. The government that believes it not only has the power to, but that it needs to regulate all aspects of our lives isn't going to let a new technology exist for very long before they squeeze the life out of it.

The only solution is to roll back government regulations. It's to change government. It's not to embrace "free" technologies as a symbol of liberty, because that's only temporary. The underlying and permanent problem is much harder to solve.

[DaZhi]

While I see many dangers of this type of technology, i believe opening up the manufacturing and engineering industry to amateur enthusiasts with these printers will only lead to many innovations and outside the box thinkers. Look at the boom of mobile applications now because of open source mobile operating systems. How many of these new millionaires started out by coming up with an app as a programming final?

Got a great new design for an AR stock? Design it with your 3D printer, patent it (very important), then sell it to a professional manufacturer. I remember seeing a AR pistol forearm brace that someone on ar15.com designed. Next time I saw it come up, Sig was marketing them.

Kalashnikov wasn't a professional gunmaker either...

[NMRMN]

Yes, new technologies will pop up from time to time that don't fall under existing laws and regulations. As the example of the internet demonstrates, that is a very temporary state. The government that believes it not only has the power to, but that it needs to regulate all aspects of our lives isn't going to let a new technology exist for very long before they squeeze the life out of it.

The only solution is to roll back government regulations. It's to change government. It's not to embrace "free" technologies as a symbol of liberty, because that's only temporary. The underlying and permanent problem is much harder to solve.

I agree, the underlying problem is much more difficult. And you're correct -- look at how the internet and associated faculties are falling prey to all manner of questionable intrusion by government agency. But I would also argue that people are now more empowered and knowledgable, in terms of information and communication (or at least have the means to be if they choose to), and this is an undeniable, irreversible benefit.

As you point out, there is also a question of methodology. Of course, varying schools of thought hold one method of change in higher esteem than the other. There are strong elements of anarchist thought at the conceptual level in this project and method of stimulating change -- that is, active resistance, apart from the formal political process. I am guessing you pick up on that scent and are not too thrilled . In as much as it is peaceful and lawful, I personally don't find it objectionable, and quite possibly more effective than you suppose.