I would really likes to see...
How the microstructure of the gun barrel changes as it is being used and whether it cracks at some point in time. Or whether it is better than the tube that is made by forging. Inquiring minds etc..
World's first 3D-printed metal gun 'more accurate' than factory-built cousin
The world's first 3D-printed metal gun has been produced – and we're told it's more accurate than its factory-made counterpart, but also much more expensive to manufacture. 3D metal gun We come in piece(s) ... the world's first 3D-printed gun The printed gun – a .45 caliber M1911 designed by legendary gunsmith John …
-
-
-
-
Sunday 10th November 2013 22:03 GMT Don Jefe
Re: @Zmodem
If you have access to a CNC machine you just send a drawing to and it outputs a finished product then I have wasted over a decade and several 10's of millions of dollars buying equipment that is obviously inferior.
Now, I'm willing to admit the salesman may have slightly exaggerated the capabilities of his machines, OK, that's what they do. But I really would have thought he would have told me about the technology that would eliminate all the preprocessing, programming and actual operation of the machines. Maybe they were just overstocked with non-magic, non-AI machines and neglected to mention the more advanced machines.
-
Monday 11th November 2013 07:30 GMT jake
Re: @Zmodem
My early 1980s Bridgeport can be either manually operated, or can take computer instructions. The computer involved started as an MS-DOS machine (ver. 2.1? 2.11?), the programming language was a bad port of K&R C (possibly via XENIX) and/or a nice variation of x86 assembler (the Intel/IBM fingerprints were all over it). Today, the computer is Slackware-current. The programming languages? Guess ;-)
-
-
-
-
-
Saturday 9th November 2013 01:32 GMT Anonymous Coward
I'm all for advances in technology
I wouldn't be reading these kind of articles if I wasn't.
I know they are proving an interesting concept. Unfortunately, there is a big part of me which, when I read something like this, does tend to worry about the potential negative applications of the technology.
If fabricating guns etc. eventually became substantially cheaper through printing, what would your Mugabes and Husseins do, where would they stop?
To quote Bill Hicks
"Everyone got boners off the technology, and it was pretty incredible watching missiles fly down air vents... But couldn't we feasibly use the same technology to shoot food at hungry people?"
I suppose time will tell.
-
Monday 11th November 2013 12:09 GMT I ain't Spartacus
Re: I'm all for advances in technology
Anonymous,
Guns cost bugger all, in the grand scheme of things. Certainly if you're a loony dictator, with murder in mind. And you can always pay your own population to make them the old fashioned way. So I don't think this tech is going to make a great deal of difference.
Remember, 'guns don't kill people - rappers do.'
-
-
Monday 11th November 2013 20:38 GMT John Smith 19
Re: How precise is the initially made article?
"Does this 'polishing' involve precision machinery that removes significant amounts of metal? I'm a cynic, I know."
Depends what you mean.
"Flow honing" (abrasive embedded in very small polystyrene beads) is used to reduce the surface finish of gas turbine blades from 64 to 16 micro inches (1.22 micrometres) using essentially a spray system while electrochemical polishing give an optically reflective surface IE surface finish of a 1/2 micrometre removal.
That's about 1/50 to 1/25 of 1 thousandth of an inch. I'd call it minor (although that blade polishing is expected to save something like 2% of the engines fuel over the life of the engine).
-
-
Saturday 9th November 2013 08:27 GMT Paul J Turner
You reporting isn't very even-handed
Quick to deride the mark 1 Liberator that could be made on a home printer, not so quick to report on the 8-shot successor http://www.slashgear.com/second-3d-printed-gun-fires-off-first-round-successfully-21282938/ then happy to trumpet the success of a handgun that is beyond the average home printer to manufacture. Agenda much? or is your arm being twisted? Please advise if I missed a story along the way leading to this view.
-
Saturday 9th November 2013 10:44 GMT SuccessCase
Re: You reporting isn't very even-handed
No you're not missing a thing. I pointed out a couple of times The Register had been short sighted going with a headline "Liberator: Proof you can't make a working gun from a 3D Printer." Weird how they now seem to be trying to spin that (always bound to failure) absolute claim into some kind of assertion they had wisely foreseen how much 3D printed guns had to improve.
At the time I pointed out 1) There are have been multiple fire tests that have proven even a plastic gun can be made to work (and can easily serve the role of a kind of knife+) but more importantly 2) that 3D printing is not limited to plastic. I was widely rounded on for pointing these things out. It's funny how there are several commenting on here, today, who thought it was ok to be downright insulting in response to my comments at the time but now seem to be quite happily agreeing with this new evidence and commenting without an ounce of contrition (you know who you are).
-
Sunday 10th November 2013 17:56 GMT Destroy All Monsters
Re: You reporting isn't very even-handed
That's because there are several types of 3D printers.
In this case, it is easier to just set up a normal, non-lasering machine shop in your garage. Your door might be forcefully opened by boots because "FREEDOM LOL" but if you succeed in turning out a gun it will definitely be cheaper.
-
Tuesday 12th November 2013 10:02 GMT SuccessCase
Re: You reporting isn't very even-handed
@Destroy All Monsters
Way to accept you were wrong. Repeat a version of my original point e.g. there is more than one type of 3D printer and they will be improving and costs are going to be coming down rapidly, as though that is a valid criticism of my position. As for the cost, do you know how much the first large format ink-jet printer a business I worked for cost? 80k. Now you can get the same capability for 4k. So your point is?
-
-
-
-
Saturday 9th November 2013 08:50 GMT Scroticus Canis
Gun cotton and bollocks
As previously noted gun cotton was used mainly in old big gun battleships. Nitrocellulose is the propellant used for hand held weapons. Different burn rates are used for different cartridges: fast for shotguns, slightly slower for pistols and slower still for magnum and rifle cartridges. All to do with the pressure curves vis barrel width, length and volume. Modifying the grain size and shape (surface area) is main way burn rate is controlled.
Quite impressed with the accuracy of the piece demonstrated, most out of the box 1911s aren't that tight on grouping.
Now just waiting for the Daily Wail / Waily Mail to get hold of this story to have a chortle at the shock horror headlines.
-
Saturday 9th November 2013 10:59 GMT MaxHertz
Reality check
Just to remove any confusion, this process is not and never will be useful for producing firearms.
The equipment and expertise required is far more demanding than that required to make one by conventional means.
If you want highly accurate parts, you would not use this process. True, it is more accurate than SOME conventional manufacturing techniques e.g. forging, but there are other run-of-the-mill technique considerably more accurate.
It will always be expensive and slow. It is useless for mass production, where you need to produce parts in seconds, not hours.
You will always be able to produce higher-performance metal parts using conventional techniques like forging.
Where it IS useful is for the production of prototypes or very low volume parts.
-
Saturday 9th November 2013 14:22 GMT Nuke
@Maxhertz - Re: Reality check
Don't know why this guy has been modded down, but he seems to know a thing or two about engineering, more than most commenters here. Perhaps it is by people who just want to believe.
There is no explanation given of why this printed gun should be any more accurate than a "conventionally" produced one, although I'm prepared to listen. Maybe more so than a run-of-the-mill conventional gun, but "conventional" methods can be done to extremely high accuracy with more cost, time, and individual attention. Like this printed gun got.
-
Sunday 10th November 2013 22:14 GMT Don Jefe
Re: @Maxhertz - Reality check
Manufacturing technology aside, 'More accurate' was a really stupid comparison for them to make. Accuracy comparisons between firearms aren't done by a 'gun expert' holding the gun. There are standardized tests for firearm accuracy and they all involve stationary, firearm specific mounts in highly controlled conditions. It really is science.
Handing a guy two guns and asking which is most accurate isn't the basis for a test. It might be mildly entertaining but aren't we all glad actual engineers and specialists design car tires and not Jeremy Clarkson... That's the equivalent of what's going on here.
-
-
Saturday 9th November 2013 17:37 GMT btrower
Re: Reality check
@MaxHertz:
Let me just file that under my own 'reality check' folder, including
There is only a market for about 5 computers in the world
Nobody will ever need more than 640K
Computers will never be able to beat a human Grand-master at chess.
Nobody else will ever see this sex tape.
Never say never.
-
Monday 11th November 2013 13:44 GMT TopOnePercent
Re: Reality check
"The equipment and expertise required is far more demanding than that required to make one by conventional means."
That may be so, but most of the planet can't pop down to Walmart and buy a 9mm.
"Where it IS useful is for the production of prototypes or very low volume parts."
True, but its also extremely useful for producing a working hand gun in a legal jurisdiction where they may be difficult to obtain. The gun produced may or may not have the service life of a conventionally made piece, but its considerably more difficult for your average nerd to obtain a proper gun than it looks like its going to be to print one out from the computer.
It'll also be easier, if you know you're planning to murder someone, in a jurisdiction where hand guns are registered, to replace the barrel & rifling with a printed version while you commit the crime, and swap back to your registered setup ahead of any law enforcement.
-
-
-
Monday 11th November 2013 09:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re. homemade nukes
I recall reading that the explosive lenses for a Manhattan Project style "physics package" can indeed be 3D printed in slurry form and then dried out in a controlled vacuum chamber.
In fact the original ones were made by milling blocks of cast explosives into the special shapes and then press fitting them together with milled beryllium and other elements to make the finished block.
The tricky part isn't the making of the lenses, its making them go off at the same time or close enough to get a linear implosion of the core which requires very very very precise timing.
This is where NK messed up, the basic package was fine but their detonators were not even high school CDT levels of quality and one fired late causing a fizzle.
I did post a workaround though :-)
Probably going to get my door bashed down now..
-
Monday 11th November 2013 09:28 GMT Faye B
Calm Down everyone
I don't know what the hoo ha is all about. It is reasonably easy to make firearms using just a lathe and a milling machine, both of which are much cheaper and more readily available than sintered 3D printers. Not to mention that purchasing bars of metal is going to be much simpler and more anonymous than purchasing powdered stainless steel. This has been possible for many years but there hasn't been a mass outbreak of people making their own guns (AFAIK). It's the amunition that's the tricky part but unfortunately in the States obtaining that is as simple as going down to the K-Mart.
The reason the plastic 3D printed gun caused alarm was that it meant the firearm could be produced in a home very easily and cheaply and that being plastic it would be virtually undetectable. All this article shows it that 3D sintered laser printing can produce production ready prototypes.
-
Monday 11th November 2013 14:36 GMT TopOnePercent
Re: Calm Down everyone
"I don't know what the hoo ha is all about. It is reasonably easy to make firearms using just a lathe and a milling machine, both of which are much cheaper and more readily available than sintered 3D printers"
Agreed, but that takes rather more skill and effort than clicking "Print".
"It's the amunition that's the tricky part "
I'm not convinced its actually that hard to find ammunition in the UK. Assuming you were happy with say, .22 calibre, you could presumably buy this (for a rifle) at a gun club. Then 3D print your .22 pistol at home?
I think 3D printing has signficant possibilities for the future - certainly for the next generation - but like all other technologies, its only a matter of time until someone is killed with its output. Nobody has banned kitchen knives, despite their being used in more killings than all firearms combined. I doubt a few printed handgun crimes will result in an outright ban of 3D printing either.
-
-
Tuesday 12th November 2013 01:56 GMT phil dude
plenty of room down there....
In my AFM (atomic force microscopy) experiments, samples need to be mounted on an atomically flat surface. We use cleaved mica for this.
Perhaps what 3D printing really needs is self-assembling parts that do the bulk bits, and then a laser just to polish the rest. Geometrically, this could probably even be done in an additive layer, a bit like biology does...
Just saying...;-)
@Don Jefe great post ;-)
P.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
