The Liberal Gun Club Forum

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10 ... p+Stories)

So a guy trying to make a pistol from 3D printed parts gets his printer seized. I understand the law about making a completely concealable weapon but this is a bit ridiculous.

I'm still game to get an ABS printer and make a lower.

Almost cheaper to get an 80%, a jig and an end mill (especially since my brother happens to have access to an end mill that he'd supervise my activities on)

Just have to wait for him to move closer once a malpractice suit finishes up...

A local gunshop around here had a completely plastic lower for sale. All the parts including the hammer and trigger were plastic. I think it was made by a company called Plumb Crazy.

But the guy was building a pistol not an AOW so he was doing nothing illegal

M4Builder wrote:A local gunshop around here had a completely plastic lower for sale. All the parts including the hammer and trigger were plastic. I think it was made by a company called Plumb Crazy.

Bushmaster was/is makeing an ar called the Carbon-15 and part of the upper and the entire lower are made from carbon fiber

The guy is an idiot. He planned on building and firing a plastic gun with a plastic barrel and a plastic chamber.
Nothing could go wrong there!

3D printer plastic lowers have been built before. You can get a decent AR-15 polymer lower for $50. So it isn't even innovative.

The 3D printer leasing company, which probably knows very well what the physical characteristics of the plastics used actually are, probably just heard of his plans and for their own legal protection removed the tool from this "Darwin Awards" contestants hands before he blew his hand off.

New Frontier Armory took over for Plumb Crazy. The lowers get decent review on the gun boards.

http://newfrontierarmory.com/catalog/in ... th=245_285

He's lucky the leasing company snagged it. The ATF was scheduled to give him a visit from the sound of it, telling him he was in a grey area legally. The leasing company probably figured it was cheaper to pull the printer than recover it following an ATF investigation.

TheGhostWhoRides wrote:

M4Builder wrote:A local gunshop around here had a completely plastic lower for sale. All the parts including the hammer and trigger were plastic. I think it was made by a company called Plumb Crazy.

Bushmaster was/is makeing an ar called the Carbon-15 and part of the upper and the entire lower are made from carbon fiber

I've seen them. Not too impressed with the carbon fiber. The lower I can see but I would be worried about the upper heating up during long strings of firing. From what I learned from the Composites (carbon fiber) guys at Gulfstream Aero when I worked there, it doesn't hold up too well under a lot of heat.

commandZee wrote:New Frontier Armory took over for Plumb Crazy. The lowers get decent review on the gun boards.

http://newfrontierarmory.com/catalog/in ... th=245_285

That would be it! Except for the New Frontier on it.

M4Builder wrote:http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10 ... p+Stories)

So a guy trying to make a pistol from 3D printed parts gets his printer seized. I understand the law about making a completely concealable weapon but this is a bit ridiculous.

Well, it's not his printer. It's theirs, so they can't "seize" it (as in "search and seizure"). They can and did repossess it.

That's a pricey piece of equipment, and they wouldn't recover a dime of their investment while it sat in a BATF evidence room pending investigation, trial, and appeals. I don't blame 'em one damn bit.

The boy's pretty naive if he didn't something like this coming, and I don't think he's naive. Posturing, but not naive.

A single use all polymer pistol in .22 is not at all unreasonable from a mechanical standpoint, assuming the printer achieves complete bond between layers.

I don't have the time to do hoop stress calcs, but .22lr max pressure is 24,000psi and tensile strength of ABS is about 8000psi. The question isn't IF it can be done. The question is how thick does the chamber wall have to be.

All good points. When I first read the headline I though he was making 3D models not to be used on actual guns. Looking at it now, if he really wanted to do that, he should have had the proper licenses and facilities to test a plastic weapon and bought the printer instead of leased it.

M4Builder wrote:All good points. When I first read the headline I though he was making 3D models not to be used on actual guns. Looking at it now, if he really wanted to do that, he should have had the proper licenses and facilities to test a plastic weapon and bought the printer instead of leased it.

He really is treading new ground, so there's no "Way he outta have done it." The BATF agent quoted said as much when he called it a gray area. Once again, technology is out ahead of the law, and I don't think BATF has it's collective head in the sand (the way all but a small fragment of the law enforcement community did when the public gained access to the Internet). If he's wise, he can have considerable input as to how the law looks when it catches up.

SwampGrouch wrote:

M4Builder wrote:All good points. When I first read the headline I though he was making 3D models not to be used on actual guns. Looking at it now, if he really wanted to do that, he should have had the proper licenses and facilities to test a plastic weapon and bought the printer instead of leased it.

He really is treading new ground, so there's no "Way he outta have done it." The BATF agent quoted said as much when he called it a gray area. Once again, technology is out ahead of the law, and I don't think BATF has it's collective head in the sand (the way all but a small fragment of the law enforcement community did when the public gained access to the Internet). If he's wise, he can have considerable input as to how the law looks when it catches up.

Fair enough. The article lost me when it Quoted the guy saying "they were going to take it anyways". It struck me as they were construing it as if the printer company was anti-gun. Needless to say I didn't make it to the ATF visit.

There are many cheaper and easier ways to make a functional plastic gun, you won't even need a computer either. Although it ain't gonna look like any gun most people have seen.

A home type 3d print wouldn't be my choice for making parts for this kind of thing. Main reason is it takes too damn long for an inferior part. Now if my goal was to make a mechanically functional non-fireable model or replica it might be a good idea, but only if the machine was already available or that I can somehow recoup the rental cost.

Legally this is absolutely NOT new ground.

Federal laws state that anyone may build their own gun as long as:

1) It is not an NFA (automatic, AOW, SBS, SBR, suppressed, etc.)
2) It is not for sale
3) If it is a "non-sporting" rifle or shotgun that it is assembled from enough US parts to meet regulation 922.
4) You are legally permitted to possess firearms

So let's go down that checklist:

1) Pistol. Check
2) Not for sale. Check
3) Not a "non-sporting" rifle or shotgun and even if it were, it is made from US parts anyway. Check
4) Legally permitted to own guns. Check

Check, check, check, and check. 100% legal. No grey area whatsoever.

Wurble wrote:Legally this is absolutely NOT new ground.

Federal laws state that anyone may build their own gun as long as:

1) It is not an NFA (automatic, AOW, SBS, SBR, suppressed, etc.)
2) It is not for sale
3) If it is a "non-sporting" rifle or shotgun that it is assembled from enough US parts to meet regulation 922.
4) You are legally permitted to possess firearms

So let's go down that checklist:

1) Pistol. Check
2) Not for sale. Check
3) Not a "non-sporting" rifle or shotgun and even if it were, it is made from US parts anyway. Check
4) Legally permitted to own guns. Check

Check, check, check, and check. 100% legal. No grey area whatsoever.

Fits what I remember.

Wurble wrote:Legally this is absolutely NOT new ground.

Federal laws state that anyone may build their own gun as long as:

1) It is not an NFA (automatic, AOW, SBS, SBR, suppressed, etc.)
2) It is not for sale
3) If it is a "non-sporting" rifle or shotgun that it is assembled from enough US parts to meet regulation 922.
4) You are legally permitted to possess firearms

So let's go down that checklist:

1) Pistol. Check
2) Not for sale. Check
3) Not a "non-sporting" rifle or shotgun and even if it were, it is made from US parts anyway. Check
4) Legally permitted to own guns. Check

Check, check, check, and check. 100% legal. No grey area whatsoever.

You forgot Cannot be easily manufatured into a machinegun so no open bolt designs

I'd be happy turning out ABS AR lowers. No little hole over the selector switch, no issues with the ATF. Construct them into pistols or rifles, take one shot with each of them and sell them as used guns.

100% legal, no SOT or manufacturer's FFL needed. Doesn't hurt that I am in MO so no paperwork even needs to change hands besides a bill of sale.

This is very tempting.

ErikO wrote:I'd be happy turning out ABS AR lowers. No little hole over the selector switch, no issues with the ATF. Construct them into pistols or rifles, take one shot with each of them and sell them as used guns.

100% legal, no SOT or manufacturer's FFL needed. Doesn't hurt that I am in MO so no paperwork even needs to change hands besides a bill of sale.

This is very tempting.

I think to even sell a used homemade firearm you have to serial it

Turns out the 3D printing company has Remington and Knights as paying customers.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10 ... -followup/

So, I cannot help but wonder if one or the other(or another arms manufacturer that we don't know that buys/leases from them) called the company up and said they would go with a competitor if they didn't pull the lease. They probably don't like the idea of wiki weapon.

MountainSquid wrote:Turns out the 3D printing company has Remington and Knights as paying customers.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10 ... -followup/

So, I cannot help but wonder if one or the other(or another arms manufacturer that we don't know that buys/leases from them) called the company up and said they would go with a competitor if they didn't pull the lease. They probably don't like the idea of wiki weapon.

Thats what happend to the Medusa 47, Colt got tired of them makeing a gun that could fire so many types of ammo and so they bought the company and put them out of business