Posted on 11/14/2013 9:33:44 PM PST by rktman
Depends on how you calculate the cost. The materials cost is the same per gun for 100 as it is for one. It depends on how you amortize the capital cost of the printer.
make an M-16, or MP5.
I wasn't referring to small arms. I was referring specifically to anti-armor armament. If the forces that are planning on enforcing tyranny are running around in armored vehicles, then some significant countermeasures are needed. Currently these are not available to the civilian population despite the 2md amendment. Making the RPG tube is not a problem for a machinist. Making the ammunition is a complex task requiring a number of things that are not readily available (like octol). Not to mention that there is a degree of risk incurred whenever dealing with explosive ordinance. A better solution might be to replicate the Steyr amr
Exxxxcellent! (steeples fingers)
You can make forearms with these too? Awesome - a pistol AND an arm to shoot it with!
Yes, we can. “We have the technology. We can rebuild hi,.” — Richard Dean Anderson from the Six Million Dollar Man.
Now begins the rise of the machines when humans become obsolete. Welcome to the Matrix.
Anything of real value can be purchased cheaper in larger quantities. Also assembly line procedures will decrease unit cost significantly.
Accounting and amortization tables define money not save it.
A green-with-envy BTT... ;-)
So what? If you use 100x the material you incur 100x the cost. Bulk buying is not a factor in that calculation.
Also assembly line procedures will decrease unit cost significantly.
3-D printing is not reliant on traditional assembly line techniques except for the final bit. Parts don't go from station to station having to optimize machine and operator time allocation. So much time on the milling machine for that part, so much time on the lathe for this one. This operator know how to run the milling machine, that opertor knwos how to run the lathe is no longer a factor. Each part comes fully finished; all that is required is screwing together the final product which can be done by one person.
So you don't understand the concept at all.
Do you really think GM buys screws at the same per unit cost as when you buy a single one at Home Depot?
Clearly you think they do and since this is the case explaining anything further to you is a waste of time.
I can’t decide if you’re really as dim as your posts indicate or it’s some sort of ego thing where you refuse to acknowledge someone else’s point of view. I’m talking about the BULK COST and if you use 100x of something it costs you 100x as much for the base material as 1x. I’m NOT TALKING ABOUT HOW YOU BUY IT BUT THE ACTUAL MATERIAL COST, GET IT? (Apparently not) I’m ignoring your silly and stupid analogy of buying one screw at a time because it’s deliberately misleading.
Reducing the scale of a CLGG to hand functional would alleviate concerns about being cut off with a roll your own solution. Per the developer functionality was achieved for self loading, field generation of propellant, barrel longevity, and operating systems. De-rating from the 15 mm prototype to a usable scale of practicality would be the challenge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion_light_gas_gun
http://www.amazon.com/Ballistics-2011-26th-International-Symposium/dp/1605950521
Water, horse, drink................. Nope?
I give up.
(BTW, posting stupid things in all caps don’t make you look smarter.)
Bare arms with which to bear arms. All bases covered.
At least you answered my question. Dim it is.
At least you quit using all caps so you may not be a complete retard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.