Core77

Bad News: 3D Printed Guns May Become a Reality

By Rain Noe - October 2, 2012

in Digital Fabrication

In the 1993 movie In the Line of Fire John Malkovich played Mitch Leary, an ex-CIA assassin hiding out as, get this, a design professor at Art Center in Pasadena. In the film Leary's said to be quite the modelmaker, and the plot has him cobbling together the plastic gun you see above (presumably in Art Center's ID shop?), in order to attack the President.

The movie's prop master, Frank Rousseau, designed the dummy gun so that it could actually fire blanks. According to an auction site selling the prop off, "It required 96 hours of machine work and 72 hours of construction to manufacture."

That was in 1993; today, with a good 3D printer, that 96 plus 72 hours of work would be greatly reduced. Which is frightening. And here's the bad news: Cody Wilson, a law student at UT Austin, is on a mission "to disseminate a printable gun design online."

Wilson spearheads the Wiki Weapon movement, which raised $20,000 and used it to lease a Stratasys 3D printer last month. He made no secret of the project's aims, which are to create a 3D-printed pistol capable of getting off a single shot (the plastic ABS used in 3D printing would melt after that). Stratasys was not amused, and after some contentious correspondence, they sent repo men to strip Wilson of their printer, citing U.S. firearms laws.

While Wilson has been questioned by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the legality of 3D-printing a firearm is currently a legal grey area. But lawmakers had better figure this thing out soon; Wilson is determined to move forward with his project, and the prospect of anyone with a 3D printer being able to secretly manufacture their own deadly weapons, with no practical way for authorities to apply oversight, is a potential powderkeg of trouble.

via danger room

o

Favorite This
Q
18

Comment

Comments

David

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

The thing about the gun in the movie was that it was able to get through metal detectors... and the bullets were held in a lucky rabbit foot keychain if I remember correctly.
This is definitely a concern with respect to airline safety, especially since there are very weak controls on animal feet at security.

As far as regular non-terroristic criminals doing this...
YEAH RIGHT!!!
In the US, just go buy a gun...or get one from a guy you know...
Or, you could go to you local street corner SLA machine to print the parts of a gun out of shitty plastic, assemble it and then use it to fire one shot before it melts!!! uh... yeah, that sounds like something that Snoop and Mike would get involved in... really worrisome... not!
!Report as spam
Spiv

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Anyone with a mill and some basic knowledge could create a working firearm, and they could do it out of more capable materials than ABS plastic. In fact I don't think you'd need even that to create a basic bolt action receiver.

The reality is that yes, in the US this isn't even grey area. That may scare some (the author of this article being one), but it's something that is done and has been for as long as firearms have existed here. Soldiers were casting their own ammunition for their one-off rifles at camp during the revolutionary war.

Stopping criminals from possessing such things is a tricky thing, for sure. But that's nothing new either. A firearm is a relatively simple device. If you had some impression that it was possible to keep people from manufacturing their own then I guess this is your wake-up.
!Report as spam
Ken J

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

It would be nice to see less political bias. Most liberal designers would be surprised to find that design does in-fact cross political boundaries.
!Report as spam
Splodge

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

@dave

I don't think it'll really change anything here in the UK. Homemade firearms are already within easy reach of the determined criminal.

As to the "Stealth" aspect, though, you'd be wrong... at least, until someone figures out how to make plastic ammunition with a density high enough to be worth the use as a projectile, with a plastic casing strong enough to make a difference, and some form of propellant that has no scent or other traceable signature.
!Report as spam
Evan

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

FIrstly, bravo, you've succeeded in publishing a political post on a design website/blog.

I'm not going to argue about wether this thing is right or wrong, merely that it is happening and that it is an interesting and unexpected development in the use of 3d printers and might, be used to liberate people where they have no defence such as north korea or many other nations, or might give a woman a method of self defence incase someone tries to rape or kill her, or any person that is threatened with serious bodily injury, kidnapping or death.

Now, I expect this will be removed because I did not get a single scrap of information from this, not a website link to the wiki weapon site, not info on their cause or idea, just some anti gun slander and how this is a bad idea. Fix this, as I don't need politics to sully my design, present your things factually, or go write a political post elsewhere, but don't ruin design blogs like this.

I would myself love to write an actual article on this gun as I can defiantly see how beneficial it can be but also what concerns could be raised.

!Report as spam
Joe Larson

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

It warms my heart to see so many people in the comments stepping up to point out how wrong this is. Make no mistake the author of this post was wrong. Wrong in tone. Wrong in understanding of the law.

This was a nation that believed in power to the people. Guns are power hence guns are a right to the people. Making your own gun is not illegal. Whether you agree with this sentiment or not what he did was perfectly legal. Don't try to sell this like it's a bad thing.

Idiot.
!Report as spam
Keno

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

This reminds me of the Sten Gun ( as featured in BBC The Genius of Design) a simple mass produced machine gun designed by a guy in his kitchen seemingly out of hardware shop materials in the 40's to help the allies in WWII.

If we applied the same reasoning we would need a a special permit to visit the hardware shop and buy a piece of pipe.

I am with Chris Rock, we don't need gun control, we need bullets control ( aka bullets that cost $ 5,000/ea ).

K

!Report as spam
Gil

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

the 3D printer gun will be the equivalent of the FP-45 Liberator of the digital age no despot can disarm his people without also violating freedom of press and information This is a great thing

!Report as spam
Scott

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Fabricating a firearm is not a legal grey area: it's pretty clearly defined in black and white; the ATF is very specific on that.

At any rate, it is absolutely 100% inevitable that weapons, firearms, and otherwise, will be made easier, faster, and simpler to manufacture for the average homebuilder. But so will everything else. There may be regulations put in place regarding 3D printed guns, but it will A: be almost infinitely impossible to enforce, and B: ineffective as a means of gun-control even if the latter were not the case.

I could easily go to a university and discretely fabricate a weapon using a lathe and a 3D printer, but I could also do so through ordering parts online, buying a drill press and finishing an 80% lower AR, or any other slew of projects. The only thing about an entirely 3D printed gun vs the alternatives, is the absolute hands-off fabrication potential, but at the cost of practicality and functionality of the finished piece.

There will be a day when a criminal uses a 3D printed weapon to commit their crime. But it will likely be a very unusual case.
!Report as spam
Explainorator

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Cnet had a report last month about this. You can go to Home Depot and spend $20 to construct a pistol that will likely work as well or better than the 3D printed version

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2012/08/30/A_Crude_Indian_Homemade_%2522Gun%2522_.jpg

Lawmakers don't have to figure out anything as this weapon will already be regulated under current statutes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons#Any_Other_Weapon

!Report as spam
dave

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

this reminds of the liberator pistol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator
this post raises interesting questions about the possibility of controlling behaviour by controlling access to information. At one time governments were disseminating the early 20th century equivalent of this- plans for manufacturing an ultra-basic one-shot firearm. One pro-gun argument is that if you ban guns you restrict their ownership to people who are prepared to break the law thus comparatively disempowering the law-abiding citizen. The same could be said of information about how to make a gun, unless the enforcement of the restriction is 100% efficient, it curtails the rights of everyone except those who are most determined to break the law.
Incidentally, I expect there is a huge difference between making a film prop that can fire a blank, and making something that can actually fire a projectile- the liberator was a mass produced wartime weapon, with a range of 8 meters. eight. and that had a metal gun barrel.
!Report as spam
Tom Mc

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I don't see how this is anything but good news. CNC technology has been around for quite a while, and that enables the average CAD jockey to build durable weapons out of just about any material imaginable.

I hope he makes millions of them. I'd buy the plans now if they were up for sale, but making a zip gun is so easy anyway it's almost not worth the money.

Stop being so paranoid about inanimate objects. You listen to the media too much.
!Report as spam
Jack

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

The shrill rabidly anti-gun author does not impress me at all.
!Report as spam
dave

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I am surprised that this is worthy of mention in the US, but in the UK this could be a very significant development- consider that here there is a blanket ban on handguns, rifles are for clubs only, to get a licence you have to make an application in writing to the police giving reasons that satisfy htem that you have a legitimate purpose for ownership, shotguns are similarly controlled. airguns have limited muzzle velocity and must be purchased in person with photographic ID.
The extent of controls seems to keep real guns out of circulation quite effeectively- when news stories expose weapon seizures it seems that even organised criminals have to be content with homemade firearms.
the prospect of a plastic 'stealth' handgun that could be concealed from metal detectors and x-rays and made with materials and tools whose sale is un-monitored is a significant one for countries with strict gun laws, less so for the states probably.

!Report as spam
Andrew

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I hope he orients the parts in the most ideal fashion for build strength. It would be a shame if he injured or killed himself because the gun exploded. Might win a Darwin award though.
!Report as spam
bobthegunslinger

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

i hope he is successful at making leaps and bounds hurdles in this area,as there is nothing illegal with someone who is not barred from having a firearm from producing as many as they may want to!we(the people) give the batfe power,not the other way around!i can`t stand when people like this editor blow everything out of proportion just to get a read.
!Report as spam
John Farrier

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

Bad news? It's awesome news. People will be able to make their own guns!
!Report as spam
James Patrick

12 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I have been reading this blog for almost two years now and this post is disappointing. First of all, Stratasys is in the wrong, (see their letter here: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mazu1pNt361rfbrr0o1_500.png ) as the manufacture of firearms for personal use is not illegal in the United States. It would only be illegal if Wilson were to try to sell the prints, which he clearly isn't doing(that would defeat the purpose of the project). This is not a grey area of law. It is the same as someone machining a firearm from WWII-era blueprints, which are already freely available on the internet. Second, the cheapest, crappiest 3D printer costs over $300. Actual guns can cost much less, so the project isn't exactly making it "easier" to acquire a weapon. What Wilson is doing is exercising his right to free speech and free press. How is his team's work different than writing a gunsmithing book(available at my local college library) and releasing it to the public for free?

"with a good 3D printer, that 96 plus 72 hours of work would be greatly reduced. Which is frightening." Here you've made it clear that fear is your key motivation for disliking this project. But you're missing the point. It's not about printing a gun to frighten people. It's about allowing everyone to defend themselves so that nobody has to be afraid.
!Report as spam