Posted on 07/23/2019 3:33:42 AM PDT by marktwain
In August of 2018, facebook was accused of banning the distribution of computer files associated with the printing of 3D firearms. From 3dprintingindustry.com:
According to numerous sources, Facebook released a statement saying: “Sharing instructions on how to print firearms using 3D printers is not allowed under our Community Standards,”
This was always an overreach by Facebook. Information on how to make guns has been freely available, offline in printed form, for centuries. The idea that files on how to make 3D printed plastic guns are somehow verboten are a direct assault on the distribution of legal information. From another, pragmatic viewpoint, those files have been available on the internet for years.
In July of 2019, that policy was partly reversed. According to The Telegraph in the United Kingdom, Facebook is relaxing the ban, in part, because such information is legal in many countries. From thetelegraph.co.uk:
Facebook will allow some users to spread and promote blueprints for 3D printed firearms on its services, potentially opening the door to sales of untraceable “ghost guns”.
The social network said it would let “legitimate” gun shops and online vendors offer instructions for printing so-called “downloadable guns” in places where it is legal to do so.
Facebook has a policy that allows legal commerce. The blanket ban on the distribution of computer files on how to use 3D printers to print out guns or gun parts was
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
I would think that using a platform like FacePuke to distribute such information is not really the smartest thing one could do.
It could be a trap.
I wonder how effective a 3D printed gun can be. How well does it withstand the explosion that propels the bullet?
That is their major purpose.
For whatever reason, the idea of 3D printed guns, no matter how innocuous and ineffective, is effective at making leftists realize to control guns, they have to control the flow of information.
ANTIFA must want this.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
Precisely.
Printed firearms might work with .22 LR, but I would be inclined to watch from a distance. I hope they plan to use metal barrels to shoot larger rounds, because 3D printed plastic just will not take the chamber pressure.
“... how effective a 3D printed gun can be. How well does it withstand the explosion that propels the bullet?” [exDemMom, post 3]
“...might work with .22 LR,...I hope they plan to use metal barrels to shoot larger rounds, because 3D printed plastic just will not take the chamber pressure.” [GingisK, post 7]
The plastics will take moderate chamber pressures for small numbers of shots. Probable reason for the giant barrel diameter in the included illustration.
Most reported factual information in the trade claims that as yet only non-magnum pistol rounds have met with much success. Modern centerfire rifle rounds generate pressures of 52,000 psi and up; magnum rounds flirt with 70,000.
Including metal in the recipe won’t help much. Defeats the purpose of additive manufacturing if one must insert other parts after the fact.
And gun barrels cannot be 3D printed at the strength required for serious chamberings. The steel for modern barrels is of alloy composition that must be shaped in some other way. And it simply must be tempered (heat treated) to attain the strength required. Can’t be done before it’s shaped, only after.
Similar constraints apply to springs: wind them first, then temper them. Some very imaginative design work has brought us springs of plastic, but they differ in shape from the steel (or bronze) sort. One-for-one swaps for parts already designed may never be possible.
And some parts have to be put together after manufacture, by skilled personnel. Headspace is one such dimension: tolerances must be held to a few thousandths of an inch. If it isn’t, the gun is useless, even dangerous.
Very unlikely that a 3D-printed gun will be made, that replicates a modern repeater or self-loading arm in size, weight, reliability, or service life.
> Very unlikely that a 3D-printed gun will be made, that replicates a modern repeater or self-loading arm in size, weight, reliability, or service life.
Yet. They’re coming up with better materials all the time.
Right now I think this is proof of concept and a test case.
I have a nice 3D printer AND a well equipped machine shop.
“I have a nice 3D printer AND a well equipped machine shop.” GingisK, post 8]
Excellent.
How are your design skills?
So far, the fabrication of items like rifle receivers from polymers has been plagued by problems.
Typically, an attempt to substitute a plastic receiver of identical size & shape for an alloy one in something like an AR-15-type rifle fails. No plastic is stiff enough, nor wear-resistant enough. To get one to work at all, designers must boost thicknesses and alter pin hole sizes to a degree that the parts from the original simply won’t work.
How are your metal-tempering skills? Can you provide triple repeat heatings, in different atmospheric environments? Surface embeddings? These are the sorts of things major gunmakers have been providing - and improving - in some cases for over a century.
Pure aluminum has almost no utility as raw material for gun parts. It must be alloyed with other metals, heat-treated in ways more complex than steel alloys, and coated with corrosion-resistant materials (without coatings, aluminum corrodes quicker than steel). Few outfits even among major gunmakers bother with all this - they order raw materials from specialized metal production companies. Additive manufacturing cannot overcome these limitations.
More guns in citizen hands can only improve things.
“...They’re coming up with better materials all the time. Right now I think this is proof of concept and a test case.” [Do_Tar, post 9]
It’s very American - the faith that all problems will be solved by technology. Doesn’t always pan out that way.
Progress in gun design has not come to us through the use of different materials exclusively. Most has come through better manufacturing techniques and better understanding of materials already in use. Most gun parts derive their utility from treatments applied to them after the basic shape has been created (cast, forged, cut from stock, whatever). Ofttimes, multiple treatments must be applied.
No brilliance in reshaping through additive manufacturing will overcome all those limitations.
And there are additional limitations: all officialdom is ferociously anti-gun, and those tech titans who have arrogated to themselves the right to tell the rest of us what to do are all of identical political persuasion. Indeed, we are now at greater risk than ever, because entities like Facebook and Google aren’t waiting for legal maneuvers to reduce gun ownership, they have begun taking action against gun businesses and individual owners.
I would NEVER make a receiver out of plastic, no matter the state of the art in 3D printing.
I use my shop primarily for pleasure, so time consumed making the assorted crap is just part of the fun. I doubt that anything beautiful will come of this; however, it will be safe.
I seriously doubt that 3D printed guns are going to add much to the nefarious use of arms, and more than cheap firearms. Most citizens of this Nation are already law-abiding and committed to the proper upkeep of our Nation. Those who must use armed robbery to survive will probably invest their $25 for a black market gun rather than a far more expensive 3D printer plus the patience to learn to use one.
People oppose 3D printed weapons because they are of the mistaken opinion that this is an excellent channel for criminals to obtain free or inexpensive guns. I agree with your Second Amendment stance entirely. In the future 3D printed guns may become viable, yet they will probably be out of range for the casual criminal. Opposing those who interfere with 3D printed guns would, in my opinion, more likely accomplished by pointing out that criminals get their weapons on the black market. Home fabricated weapons will typically be in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Not if they blow their hands off.
“...I am preparing to make a rifle barrel from scratch including end-to-end boring of bar stock, reaming, and rifling...I would NEVER make a receiver out of plastic, no matter the state of the art in 3D printing...” [GingisK post 15]
Barrels from scratch? Beautiful. What’s it for (assuming that can be divulged in this forum)?
This is the first time (to my notice) any other forum member has expressed reservations about receivers made of plastic. Prudence is a pretty good idea when one is dealing with the chamber pressures generated by modern rifle cartridges. Even those drably common non-magnum ones: 30-06, 7.62x54R vintovka o1891g, and the like.
There are receivers and there are receivers: the word covers a pretty wide range of shapes & functions. A receiver for something like, oh, the US M1903 rifle would be subject to much greater forces than either the upper or lower receiver for Colt’s AR-15. So it was judged acceptable to fabricate the latter from aluminum alloys.
I recall high hopes being pinned onto items like the Carbon 15. Initial designs had to be reworked, to the point where almost no MIL STD parts common to alloy-frame AR-15-type rifles would work. Many customers were rudely surprised.
I’m not about to sell your finishing skills short. I’ve seen some excellent results achieved by workers with little formal training, and moderate experience - verging on beautiful. I never came near their level of excellence myself, but with thin talent, sketchy training, and spotty practice I obtained some workmanlike results myself.
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.