'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test The New South Wales Police Force, guardians of Australia's most-populous state, have gotten themselves into a panic over the Liberator, the 3D-printable pistol. The Force's Commissioner Andrew Schipione today appeared at a press conference to denounce the Liberator and urge residents of the State not to download plans for the …
It is designed for a .380.
That is easier to design for than a .22 rimfire (bigger, therefore less tolerance issues.
A .380 also carries a lot more clout than a .22 and develops about the same chamber pressure. This is an important consideration because chamber pressure is a major constraint of anything build in 3D plastic.
While it's true that 3D printing is in its infancy and materials science may improve to the point where it is possible to print a gun that doesn't blow up in your hand, I think this is all just so much hot air.
As has been shown time and again, you don't need guns to kill. And if you do need a gun for some reason, there are so many already available - even in the UK where we have very restrictive gun control - that there's no real reason to make your own.
The tragic events in both Boston and Woolich show that a determined maniac can and will cause harm even without the use of a gun.
This is the point though. A determined nutter can do anything, but their actions will often be detected due to their Internet searches, purchases and their communications generally.
Buying a 3D printer isn't really going to immediately cause the intelligence people to start a file on you and if a friend hands you the plans to the gun or it is somehow disguised as something else then it makes you less detectable.
A lot of people appear to be saying that although this doesn't actually work and is too expensive to produce. It become an unstoppable threat in the future.
Don't worry, by the time the technology matures* we will probably have been wiped out by one of the million other things that are actual threats rather than perceived ones. Flood, fire plague, famine etc.
* next week?
Perhaps the governmental worry has more to do with the guns being made of plastic (and so not as obvious on airport X-rays, metal detectors, etc) than with the technology to make them being available to the unskilled public.
That being said, if I wanted to kill or maim someone in an area "protected" by technology that makes it hard for me to get a metal weapon in, I could do a more reliable job of it (and more safely for myself) with my bare hands (and some of the "last resort" krav maga combat actions) than with an amateur-produced firearm.
And if you're not trained in hand-to-hand fighting of any kind, and really want to use a plastic weapon, there's a much simpler device widely available from hardware stores, costing about 30p. (I won't name it here, as I'd feel guilty if I gave someone the idea of using it that way.)
But not one comment on here mentions the availability of ammunition for said weapons. If you have access to black market ammo, then you have access to weaponry as well. As long as ammo is as controlled as weaponry then I cannot see why anyone making of these is any more dangerous than they were before, because if they can get ammo, then they could purchase guns.
The plans for nuclear weapons are available on the internet, the materials are generally easily sourced and you can manufacture a crude but functional nuke for next to nothing.
... provided you have access to some uranium.
Sit and think about it for a moment and you'll realise that freedom of information doesn't automatically translate into threat.
The major difference, though, is the second you go out and try and buy some uranium you're going to pop up on someone's radar.
The security services would be incredibly busy if the same were true of ammo. You could also manufacture your own ammo (likely making the liberator even more dangerous - to the shooter)
that the liberator designer is too stuck in the rut of gun design. Why make a gun look like a gun, why not make something that still uses a bullet* and firing pin, but that is designed to be made, much more solidly, in a 3D printer.
Whichever, as the tech and the designs improves (and they both will, that's the way of the world), this probably will become a problem, even if it isn't at the moment.
*Yes, you still need a bullet. But for how long?
> Why make a gun look like a gun
Because the greatest power that a gun has is that people recognise it as dangerous and the owners hope that they will get respect as a consequence. [ Though it's worth noting that gun owners never get respect, they only ever get fear - which they like to kid themselves is the same thing. ]
If you made a bullet firing device that was accurate, deadly, but looked like something else: a teapot for example, it wouldn't have the same effect, as your intended victims would only laugh at you. To demonstrate what a "man" you were, you'd actually have to shoot someone, which although is the only purpose of a gun, mostly defeats the purpose of carrying - which is to intimidate.
"which they like to kid themselves is the same thing."
Upvoted for truth, and not just people who like to wave guns about. Violent arseholes in general.
There's a few people that used to terrorise me and others as kids growing up. These days? Hah. I think the first time I flew at one of them, he shat a fucking brick. He's strangely friendly with me these days. Arsehole.
AC because I'm not an Internet Hard Man.
Guns look like guns because it is the simplest form that meets all the criteria to be safely and effectively used by a Human. There really isn't anything left to strip away or change in a firearm to improve the overall form. There aren't many things that have been studied with an eye towards improvement more than firearms.
Essentially a firearm is a barrel with a handle on it. If it was just a tube it would be forced from your hands upon firing, assuming it didn't become too hot to hold. If you look at canon on aircraft it is 'just' a tube but is bolted to the airframe for the same reasons small arms have handles. Firearms are an excellent study in functional minimalism.
I would use the sort of shit plastic that consumer items are made of to put off people trying it.
If I was a lunatic I would use something better - like cascamite or one of those glues that used to work but no longer seem to.
I might even modify the design so the barrel is thicker - no need for it to be so thin is there?
You *do* know that for home printing there is a grand total of two types of plastic that can be piped through a printers print head, don't you? You don't have infinite choice of what your weedwhacker wire is made from, you must choose from the two (PLA and ABS if I remember correctly and you must use a different print head for each type).
Neither of these is ideal for anything that will undergo sudden excursions of pressure and temperature in a small printed space.
Indeed, neither is particularly suitable for anything arduous, which is why people in industry (where they have a much wider range of printing materials) refer to the field of 3d printing as a rapid prototyping technology, good for making models for people to look at and fondle, good for making patterns for other processes, but not typically useful for production items (unless you are making little plastic robots and even then Injection Moulding is faster, cheaper, better).
This particular gun was *supposed* to work when printed from one of those two materials. It doesn't, as anyone with half a brain could have predicted, and is probably the slowest, most expensive way of improvising a dangerous-to-the-user weapon ever invented. One might use the phrase "F*cktard Design" if one hadn't already done so days before.
In the same way that the media companies salt the piracy networks with bad files, the government firearm agencies need only to salt the on-line repositories of the 3D files with versions of the so-called gun where the bullet is aimed backwards.
The typical individual that would think that the 3D printing of a so-called firearm in crappy plastic is a good idea is obviously too stupid to notice which way the bullet is aimed.
The only flaw in this idea is the very low odds of actually hitting their pea-sized brain inside their thick skulls.
So once again we focus on this stupidly idiotic zip gun (as in: making a zip gun out of black pipe the traditional way is faster and results in a sturdier yet no-less useless weapon) instead of the real threat looming on the horizon: The GPS guided, googletech cruise missile self-steering car.
My god what a blindsiding bum steer this f*cking 3d printagun issue is becoming.
If any indicator as to the absolute uselessness of the so-called weapon and the emasculated nature of the so-called threat it poses were to be taken as definitive, the fact that the politicians are all over the issue should sound earsplitting bullshit sirens loud and clear in everyone's ears.
I saw comments somewhere about one day being able to 'download the design and print your own gun at home'.
I then had a funny image of one of those really dumb criminals (the type that colours their face in with a marker pen as a disguise), running into a grocery store holding an A4 sheet of paper with the outline of a gun printed on it, attempting to rob the place.
Printable GUN :
perspective 1:
Anyone can print a gun and go out and shoot people!
perspective 2:
Millions will DIE!
perspective 3:
Most of them will be the ones firing the damn gun.
perspective 4:
Criminals will be able to shoot MORE people.
Although any or all of these could be correct, given either more life cycle on the 3d printer development front or better materials on the 3d printer front, what catches my eye is that all of them lean to the point that a 3d printable gun is going to CHANGE the statistics on violence in some way.
Humans are humans. Those that are going to engage in violence are going to engage in violence. I'm not seeing that this is going to change the overall statistics of violence or violently inclined individuals. Equally, stupid people are stupid people. Those that will download and assemble this and blow off their fingers are just as likely to blow off their fingers standing around a car park after a pub crawl firing off a 2" diameter firework whilst holding it in a hand.
Where it has SOME engagement on the curve of statistics is solely in the scope of detection -- it *could* be conceivable to get a weapon so made past a metal detector. The simple fact of the matter is that the same can be said of an equally 3d printed plastic knife. Or even certain objects I have in my shed in the back garden.
The only **real** risk is in taking this **currently** nonviable projectile weapon on an aircraft. I would posit that it might not be 100% catastrophically dangerous on an aircraft, but it certainly stands a chance of puncturing some critical surface, either with the projectile or the shattered bits of plastic as it self destructs. In most other applications realistic level of usefulness is so low as to not be a critical issue, and there are far more effective and reliable alternatives easily available already.
I suppose that those that are so vocally against this object firmly believe that the presence of such a thing will change the nature of the humans that are exposed to its existence. The only other reasons for the vociferous responses would be that the thing is reasonably dangerous to the operator, and the somewhat questionable possibility of getting this pattern into a 3d printer that does either metal or some form of alloy printing.
Now, getting this into a (a quick glance at a reseller listing for one) $300,000 industrial metal 3d printer might make it *close* to usable, but it voids the metal detector avoidance. And considering the cost of a manufactured gun, the act is effectively pointless. *(basing the "close" to useful on the metallic types that 3d printer can work with)*
Now. Can we put the lid on the teapot? Perhaps the tempest can die down for the weekend. It is Friday after all.
I'm amazed at the absolute shortsightedness in most of these comments. Yes, the Liberator is a piece of crap. Yes, using one is probably as likely to maim or kill the user as the target. The point is not the general utility of this particular design but, rather, that it has any utility at all. It seems most everyone looks at this thing, focuses on the fact that it barely works and comes to the conclusion that there is no danger.
The danger is not in this design, it's in the proof of concept.
Let's look for a moment at the parallel in 2D printing. When I first got into the "microcomputer" revolution, we had two choices for printing: dot matrix or daisy wheel. One could type out a letter that looked like a typist had done it but couldn't do any graphics, the other could do primative graphics, but the overall quality was so poor that it was really only good for utilitarian reports. Thirty years on, all our currency has to have multiple security features, because you can print a passable facsimile on a printer that you can buy for less than $100.
You can look at this and say "what a piece of crap," but you're ignoring the potential in doing so. The fact that it can be done means that it will be done and done better as time goes by.
People can make far more effective weapons using a few $ of DIY supplies or even a slingshot. The maker of this thing knew that. It had to be something that looked a bit like a gun to get the media's collective panties knotted.
The whole purpose of this printed gun was not to make an effective firearm - or even take steps along that road. It was to create some hysteria and promote a second amendment issue to a first amendment issue (ie from right to carry arms to the right of free speech).
That seriously fucks with the heads of most of the anti-gun crowd who tend to be very pro freedom of speech.
To use your printing cash analogy, this is like arguing about the threat of printed money when the ability to make gold from lead (eg. zip guns and other far more effective weapons) is already well known.
The real danger is that people see this as a step-change in the dangers to society. Regulate 3D printers etc and the streets are fine. Sorry, it just isn't so.
Politicians love shit like this because non-critical thinkers get wound up and the politicians can heat the air about bollocks like this instead of attend to *real* issues which are just a lot harder to deal with.
"To use your printing cash analogy, this is like arguing about the threat of printed money when the ability to make gold from lead (eg. zip guns and other far more effective weapons) is already well known."
That's an interesting point, but I'd have to say that I don't know how to turn lead into gold, but I sure know how to use a scanner to scan a dollar bill and a printer to print the scan. To make a better parallel to the point at hand, I can sure download a nicely formatted scan of a dollar bill and print it out.
You say these things are well-known. I'll give you well-documented but I think well-known is pushing things a bit.
Is there a bit of hysteria in the media hype? Most certainly. That doesn't diminish the fact that this is a new issue that needs to be examined rather than being ignored because the technology is not mature yet.
Thermo-softening Plastic is fine for some items, but silly for use with hot gasses and pressure shock. The problem maybe solved if low cost 3D printers can be retrofitted with extra head(s), so that heat hardened material like thermo-hardening plastics, ceramic slurry or metal slurry could also be printed inside, at the same time, with the Thermo-softening Plastic possibly acting as a sacrificial mold, so that the core material can be heat finished to produce much tougher items (so no shattering); it may even be possible to use a Laser to finish the material in-place, as you go; possible hot laser sources include laser diode write heads from Blu-ray burners and laser assemblies from 2D laser cutters. Probably the printer assembly bed would need to be some kind of ceramic sheet to not be burned by any extra heat from heat finishing.
I know how very strong ceramics can be, because I researched Zirconia before I decided to get Zirconia crowns (harder than metal core ones!); this is normally milled in a softer form, then heated at a higher temperature; however I wonder if it could be precision 3D sacrificial molded to skip the milling stage, it's then just a matter of finding a hot enough oven.
Plastic guns are all very well, better if they fragment on shooting, but where is the actual threat?
They can't be used on aeroplanes etc as it would be hard/impossible to smuggle ammunition, and without ammunition they are just lumps of plastic with a nail in.
And you can buy a proper, multi-round gun on the black market for £50-100 rather than spending £2000 in polymer (or whatever) so why bother at all?
" Plastic guns are all very well, better if they fragment on shooting, but where is the actual threat?"
Well, for a start, how about all those mentally unstable folks who can't get access to a regular firearm?
This is not just about getting guns on to airplanes (although I think smuggling ammo on to a plane might be easier than we assume).
Well, for a start, how about all those mentally unstable folks who can't get access to a regular firearm?
So, you're saying 3D-printed guns are a problem because they enable the set of attackers who are:
- "mentally unstable"
- wish to obtain a firearm
- inclined to use said firearm
- not inclined to use any of the large number of equally- or more-effective alternative weapons and instruments of general mayhem at their disposal
- legally prohibited from obtaining a firearm
- effectively prevented by said prohibitions from legally obtaining a firearm
- for some reason incapable of obtaining a firearm through any of several illegal means, such as borrowing one, stealing one, purchasing one on the black market, etc
- have access to a sufficiently-capable 3D printer
- able to find and use instructions for printing gun parts
- able to assemble resulting parts into gun
- capable of obtaining, through legal means or otherwise, ammunition
Yes, that's a group I'll be on the lookout for, as soon as I complete my werewolf defense measures.
This is not just about getting guns on to airplanes
It's not "about getting guns on to [sic] airplanes" at all, for anyone capable of critical thought. There are many more-effective weapons you can legally carry onto airplanes in every country I know of, to say nothing of the illegal ones that are easier to sneak on board. Worrying about how plastic guns affect air safety is approximately as reasonable as worrying about how they affect jousting.
Here's the thought: use the 3D printer to make a MOLD, then CAST the gun parts from it, harden as appropriate (bake ceramic, use chemical hardener for plastics, etc.). Nice part is that you can probably make more than one set of parts from one set of molds.
As for a nonmetallic bullet, use stone or ceramic (and yes, you can make them hard enough to withstand firing—once upon a time we used stones for cannonballs). And what about carbon fiber for the casing? They use that in place of aluminum in aircraft, so it must be flexible.
A bullet is soft because it is larger in diameter than the inside of the barrel. The pressure generated in the case & chamber forces the bullet through the barrel where the rifling in the barrel cuts grooves into the bullet, allowing a seal to be maintained until the bullet exits the chamber. If a bullet is made from a very hard material (like ceramic) you have two options (three really but the third is just stupid):
Make the internal diameter of the barrel larger than the projectile and use a soft wadding to maintain the pressure seal (this is how old guns work).
Or use lots of very small projectiles through an oversized barrel followed by a soft wadding to maintain a pressure seal (this is how shotguns work).
Both options lead to poor projectile speed, due to pressure loss, and in the shotgun example you have to overpower the load to achieve reasonable speed for the multiple small projectiles so the firearm itself has to be overbuilt to withstand the pressure generated by the round. A printed gun would have to be enoumous in order not to explode.
The third option is to have a soft barrel. This will work for maybe a few rounds but you'll experience rapidly reduced pressure and accuracy as the barrel changes shape from exposure to simultaneous heat and mechanical friction; The terminal cancer of plastics... Before enough rounds can be fired to (statistically) hit anyone the barrel will likely deform to the point the bullet becomes lodged within & the gun explodes.
'Option 3' is what the Liberator is fundamentally doing with the exception that it fires a standard bullet which is nice and soft compared to say a ceramic bullet from the example. The soft (and short) barrel is what's responsible for the terrible accuracy & velocity of rounds fired from the Liberator.
A bullet without a barrel is still dangerous but its potential is severely limited without a place to build speed under pressure. Within reason, the longer a barrel is the higher the velocity obtained by the projectile. In effect, the Liberator is about as close to firing a bullet without a gun as you can get.
Mind you, back then, when they made archery - with specified military grade arrows and bows - compulsory, they banned football.
Too dangerous, apparently..... Seriously, football was then a two sided riot for possession of the ball. Deaths were common. No, wait....
Wonder what happens when the first time someone uses a coil gun for Bad Things?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
