'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 …
Just improvise a slingshot,
They're bloody hard to use. I have a few of various lengths and materials at home, and whilst I'm pretty certain I could hit the broad side of a barn or a crowd of people, I'd be pretty pleased if I managed to hit a human-sized target standing still 10 metres away.
Little crossbows and catapults are vastly simpler to use without huge amounts of practise, or atlatls if you'd prefer to keep it neolithic style. Slings? not so much.
--What you're not taking into account is sneaking bullets. The x-ray machines are designed to point out ammunition. The people watching are also trained to see it, finally, they sniff for gunpowder.--
Somebody even slightly clever will add a bit of metal so ammunition looks like something else. I don't believe that any TSA person in the USA is trained for anything and the training wouldn't take anyway. It's not difficult to get around the sniffer.
A single shot weapon that is also likely to be a one shot weapon is not the best tool for hijacking a plane.
The so-called terrorists are not our biggest problem these days, it's government. Most of them are out of control and looking for any means to implement laws and policies to curtail all of this freedom that has been infecting the world for some years now.
I suspect some fudgery here. The "gun" that the police fired only managed to penentrate that far because it developed enough pressure to explode the barrel.
If they had printed a gun that was loose enough to not explode then the penentration would have been pathetic.
The .380 only gets to 1000fps in a proper steel barrel of approx 4 inches. In a POS plastic unpressureised barrel it can surely not get much over 150-200 fps. A good slingshot could do better.
The Register, armchair commentary:
"'Liberator': Proof that you CAN'T make a working gun in a 3D printer"
Forbes:
"When high tech gunsmith group Defense Distributed test-fired the world’s first fully 3D-printed firearm earlier this month, some critics dismissed the demonstration as expensive and impractical, arguing it could only be done with a high-end industrial 3D printer and that the plastic weapon wouldn’t last more than a single shot. Now a couple of hobbyists have proven them wrong on both counts."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/20/25-gun-created-with-cheap-3d-printer-fires-nine-shots-video/
I read this recently....
'You will soon be able to download and print your own gun from the Internet.'
If you have to consider for even a second if that statement makes any sense at all you have failed as a human being, please kill yourself before you end up killing others.
Hmm, they MUST find a way to detect it, otherwise there will be no point in installing a 3D printer in duty free (let's call it the principle of the water bottle). Duty free is a good source for weaponry anyway - combustable stuff and hand weapons (the shards of a broken thick glass whiskey bottle are IMHO going to be more lethal than a gun that needs a hammer to eject a spent cartridge).
Not worried - you don't find problems by detecting weapons, you find it by watching people.
I can purchase one on the black market, along with ammo to match, in every nation I've been in for the last forty years. Including "Great" Britain & former commonwealth countries.
For FAR less than the cost of the 3D printer & supplies, I might add.
Swatting at shadows is counterproductive ... IMO, of course.
In post-apartheid South Africa, it is really easy to guy an AK47.
When you buy one (for around $20 - probably a bit more now). It came with 10 rounds of ammo. When the ammo's finished you buy another AK47.
Or, to put it another way, 10 rounds of AK47 ammo cost $20. The gun is thrown in for free.
This post has been deleted by its author
I can do that with a length of PVC & an end-cap, a potato, and propellant that I won't mention here but is probably available in yer mum's powder-room.
Being afraid of things you don't understand is counter-productive.
@Jake
FYI, I resubmitted below, having edited to remove references to publishing the pieces as irresponsible because the way I worded it was bad and would have meant my meaning was misinterpreted.
But in relation to your remark. Ad-hominem arguments are are a sign if weakness. You evidently don't know my background or expertise. It's also easy to make a tube bomb. I can make a lethal ballistic weapon with precision machine drilled tube, a plug and a vacuum cleaner put in reverse. So what? Would you like to take a bet on how quickly these, or guns like them, start to be used? That's the point. And yes much of it does come down to image and ease of production but I'm hardly responsible for the fact criminals have always tended to be pretty dumb lazy and lack the conviction to back up the ease with which it has always been possible to improvise a ballistic weapon. They can now get one by pressing a button. And guess what. They will.
"Ad-hominem arguments are are a sign if weakness."
Agree (if you meant "of"). Where, exactly, did I go ad-hom?
"They can now get one by pressing a button."
Really? Without going into technical details, such as setting up such a "plastic gun" printing facility? How do you figure? Personally, I only know of a couple places where this is an option ... and nobody connected to the hardware is daft enough to even try building a device that will probably destroy fingers when used "as intended".
Faster & cheaper to purchase a "saturday night special" & 5/6 rounds. Might not even lose a finger or two, it you're lucky.
This post has been deleted by its author
Er, there is this thing see, called the 3D printing revolution, and while they aren't cheap now, the Apple II wasn't cheap either. So IMO it only requires a small rational step to see that these guns will become to your average Gangsta like a knife+. As I have posted below, knives kill 130,000 a year in the UK as compared with about 51 for guns.
How long before we hear "I was standing arguing with this guy. There were these other guys in his gang who turn up, next thing I hear a shot and it takes me a while to register I've been hit. I don't even know who fired."
Few gun incidents involve running firefights in the street where you need an accurate piece. Must are cowardly acts of gang thuggery.
Personally I think the threat is obvious and that The Register are WAY off the mark with this one. Time will tell who is right, though this is one bet I would be glad to lose.
"knives kill 130,000 a year in the UK"
not even close.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.uk%2Fbriefing-papers%2Fsn04304.pdf&ei=Dh6fUZfjAeOl0AXbqoHYCA&usg=AFQjCNEqiKnJejeqKANW3sNyaGPXSTX7Jw&sig2=Xg2P4UMYyMkMLw1x0HUaTA
The official figures realeasd for 2011 / 2012 show that over 12 months there were 29,513 offences involving knives, 4,490 people admitted to hospital due to assault by a "sharp object" and 200 homicides using a "sharp instrument".
You are still far more at risk of being killed in a motor vehicle accident; no matter what age, gender or ethnic origin.
Interestingly, (if you're into that sort of thing) the number of alcohol-related deaths in the UK in 2011 was 8,748, over 4 times the vehicle accident level for that year. (This could of course include a number of things, just as some of the stats for road deaths might also overlap.)
It's possible to make lots of arguments based upon statistics; people generally underestimate the probability of the more common events and over estimate the probability of the less likely events. That's why so many people spend money on the lottery and are not so keen on investing in their pensions.
" and 200 homicides using a "sharp instrument"." that's a little lower than what I seen previously.
in the old days (90's) police work on murder cases was easy.
arrest the surviving spouse, and collect the kitchen knife for evidence, and you had just solved 2/3rd of all murder cases.
"Personally I think the threat is obvious"
What, exactly, is the threat? And to whom? For extra points, please explain why the exact same threat doesn't exist today, and hasn't existed since (roughly) 1750.
@Jake.
"What, exactly, is the threat?"
So Jake, engage the visualisation part of your brain for me here. Visualise two identical worlds save for one factor. In these both these world's you are a resident on or near a high crime estate. On this estate there is one of those Internet cafe's you go to to get either drugs, check out kiddie porn or make international Skype calls. In one of these almost identical world's, the 3D printing revolution has matured and the Internet Cafe has a pay cash per use 3D printer. In the other the 3D printing revolution hasn't happened at all. Put that together with the fact crime statistics show most criminals can't even be arsed to even get on a bus to rob rich houses instead of the houses of their poor neighbours and then what the police have know for years is crystal clear. Crime is related not to what is possible now, but to what is possible and within a few yards of the sofa.
Consider also a translation of your logic to another context, someone 30 years ago saying "meth isn't a problem, tell me why the exact same threat from other drugs doesn't exist today, and hasn't existed since (roughly) 1750."
Is there a chance you would get stabbed on the other parallel universe estate? Of course. Did ready availability of low cost model T make a difference to the amount of travel conducted by ordinary people. Of course. Will readily available one shot throw away guns make a difference to gun crime by ordinary gang members?
For me the answer to that question is "of course."
So do I really have to spell this out? The threat is there is a greater likelihood of getting shot by some lazy arsed crim on the estate with the 3D printer service.
@SuccessCase:
Do you honestly fear being shot with a 'gun' that is likely to blow itself up, is very inaccurate, is very expensive and single shot (probably damaged too much to fire another)? It really is easier and cheaper to get a real one.
Comparing the useless lump of plastic you fear vs a much more accurate, cheaper and better potential weapon- the knife. I would even go so far to say a rock would be more use than this thing and certainly less likely to harm the user.
"So do I really have to spell this out? The threat is there is a greater likelihood of getting shot by some lazy arsed crim on the estate with the 3D printer service."
The funny part of this comment is the ignorance. What is worse about maybe being shot if the gun worked and the many variables actually work in the favour of the shooter? Compared with shot by a real gun, stabbed, beaten or any number of actual and effective threats?
People kill each other. Its one of the few things we are really good at. Using whatever is to hand, including said hands.
"The funny part of this comment is the ignorance."
Your knowledge is based on what? I've actually produced goods on 3D printers (an skateboard project, seeking to prototype a skateboard which could move sideways like a snowboard - I approached the engineering dept at Southampton University who allowed use of their 3D printing equipment, but I digress).
The tests in Australia were conducted by the cheapest 3D printers. There is a HUGE difference in quality between the cheapest and the more expensive. Plus everyone is overlooking the fact there are also titanium/stainless steel 3D printers. Cost is greater, but these are also on the way. So the funny part of your comment is the ignorance.
@SuccessCase:
"So the funny part of your comment is the ignorance."
Your ignorance is somehow thinking this is some great weapon. Or that its capable. Even if it is well made. It is a paperweight, that might explode if used.
As I said compare it against other potential weapons. Look around the room you are in and tell me how many items in there are more effective than this gun to harm someone (I say harm to give this 'liberator' a chance). How many items can you be beaten with? We could compare range. What is the effective range of this gun accounting for accuracy and penetration? How far can you throw the pointy things around you? Even the non-pointy projectiles.
So your ignorance is thinking that this gun makes a difference. Even if it was cheap. There are still pens on your desk that are more accurate!
@AC 10:03
"Your ignorance is somehow thinking this is some great weapon."
It isn't. It's a set of 3D plans that can be printed on any 3D printer to produce a weapon with any material supported by the 3D printer. It is the demonstration of the concept a gun can be printed in 3D and can be effective when fired. My original post was against a Register article with the headline "Liberator': Proof that you CAN'T make a working gun in a 3D printer"
That is pretty damned conclusive, considering many people on this forum have no idea of the range versatility and materials that can be printed in 3D or the huge differences between the current crop of 3D printers. I bet you've made the statements you have without even being able to tell me the varieties and strength of the plastics and metals that can be printed in 3D, or what is predicted from the industry over the next 5 years? You probably aren't even aware there are 3D printers which will produce a version of the gun that is reliable for at least the first shot, yet you think it is justified to call me ignorant...
Here is one that lasted for nine shots from one of the cheapest printers but using better plastic (thus proving my point).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/20/25-gun-created-with-cheap-3d-printer-fires-nine-shots-video/
Quote from above link, where real testing (as distinct from The Register style armchair speculation) has been done.
"People think this takes an $8,000 machine and that it blows up on the first shot. I want to dispel that,” says Joe. “This does work, and I want that to be known.”
I can buy a real gun for less than the cost of a RepRap. It will fire thousands of shots and never explode in my hand.
In point of fact, having tried to source a RepRap recently I can also state that I can get the real gun at a fraction of the time and effort it will take me to get the RepRap too, and I live in a state with rather heavy gun control laws.
The printagun is stupid again.
The same sort of test was done in Finland - a journalist downloaded the Liberator blueprint, took it to a university which had a *high quality* 3D printer (much better than the ones the Australians used), then took the resulting parts to a professional gunsmith who assembled them and organised a safe test.
The results were much the same as well - the gun disintegrated while firing the very first shot. There is a video linked here, with subtitles:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/liberator_3d-printed_handgun_fails_after_single_shot_in_finnish_test/6643536
Dude, if you have access to a metal printer, then you probably also can get access to a CNC machine and/or lathe. The latter two have been used to produce QUALITY gun parts for decades, and do it via subtractive means that leaves the material in a more solid condition than additive printing - no cracks, no leaks. In short, they will ALWAYS produce a better gun.
I mean I can assemble a gun from parts at B&Q or Homebase that will cost me under £20 and be a lot more solid and reliable than any printed plastic gun. Only desperate crims USE zip guns, because of the inherent risk of firing a weapon that has not been proof tested and is held together by duct tape or worse. Until you can hydraulically proof test your homebuilt gun, they will be as risky to fire as a first-timer's homemade aeroplane is to fly..
"Do you honestly fear being shot with a 'gun' that is likely to blow itself up, is very inaccurate, is very expensive and single shot (probably damaged too much to fire another)? It really is easier and cheaper to get a real one."
When people are waving short-barrelled weapons around the safest place to be is usually directly in front of them. It's hard to hit the broad side of a barn with even a modern pistol unless you're at near point blank range - in which case a knife is much quieter.
> The threat is there is a greater likelihood of getting shot by some lazy arsed crim on the estate with the 3D printer service.
I doubt it. Odds are the printer service will be well known to the law enforcement agencies who will just love to have an easy central pont to perform surveillance. The chances are that the raw materials for this service will be black market sourced, and just like drugs the quality will be dubious. After a few of the local crims have ended up in A&E getting their fingers stitched back on before their trial the novelty will wear off.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
