Media Falsely Reports Man Used 3-D Printer to ‘Print’ His own ‘Assault Rifle’?

A few days ago the Interwebs went all a twitter over a guy that reporters claimed “printed” his own “fully functional assault rifle” using a 3-D printer that “prints” in plastic. But few of these reports came anywhere near getting the facts straight on this story. The fact is he “printed” only a small part of the gun. He did not “print” a “fully functional rifle” as many reports suggested.

There was “printing” going on, certainly. But the only part of the gun — an AR-15 — that was fabricated using the 3-D printer was a part that did not have to withstand the explosions of the cartridge going off, nor was it a part that hasn’t been made of plastic in other guns already. The chamber was not fabricated, the barrel was not fabricated, the bolt wasn’t, and the firing pin wasn’t. In fact, none of the most important working parts were created using the 3-D printer.

So, what was “printed” by the machine? Only the lower receiver. If you don’t know what that is, think of it as the seat or skeleton upon which all the working parts of the gun sit. It is also the part to which the stock and handle are attached. So the only part this guy created was the lower receiver to which he affixed the rest of a real AR-15′s parts.

Now, the science of the matter is that no “assault weapon” could be made entirely of the plastic from a 3D printer. The barrel such an all-plastic rifle could never withstand the firing of the cartridge and neither would the chamber. Also no “printed” plastic could be hard enough to create the firing pin that fires the cartridge. It’s just impossible at this time to create a “fully functional assault weapon” using a plastic printing machine. And if such a weapon were to be created it would be lucky to fire a cartridge or two before cracking apart from the stress of the exploding cartridges — very dangerous for the shooter, I’d say.

Unfortunately, many of the so-called “news” reports of this story claimed that the hobbyist created an entire gun. Some noted it was only the lower receiver, of course, but none of them put this all in context to give the fabrication of the part any meaning. Readers were left imagining that some guy used a plastic fabricating printer to make an entire gun raising fears that anyone could do this and societal danger would ensue.

The most shrill was the piece at Forbes.

For Forbes Writer Mark Gibbs absurdly imagined that being able to “print” your own gun would spawn any number of copies of the Colorado theater shooting. Gibbs admitted he’s in favor of ending our Second Amendment rights, so I suppose it isn’t surprising that he went over the edge imagining that anyone can “print” a gun quite despite the technological impossibility and science of it all. His entire article was a sky-is-falling laugher.

But Forbes wasn’t the only one.

While Forbes at least noted only the lower receiver was made, Australia’s Courier Mail mistakenly reported that a “A FULLY operational pistol and assault rifle have been ‘printed’ from plans posted on the Internet.” (Yes, they put “fully” in all caps)

PopScience.com also had a piece, theirs misleadingly headlined, “A Working Assault Rifle Made With a 3-D Printer.” The site went on to claim that the hobbyist had “successfully printed a serviceable .22 caliber pistol.” (Sadly, National Review fell for this hogwash, too)

Another one of the more absurd treatments was from LiveScience.com where we see a fabulist sort of piece falsely claiming that “ordinary U.S. citizens” could now make “military-grade pistols or assault rifles” by “printing” them.

Of course, Huffington Post had a story on this “gun printing” business, too.

All these outlets were alarmist especially considering that quite a few guns are using lightweight and plastic parts already. Cavalry Arms, for instance, manufactures its own AR-15-styled weapon with a plastic lower stock and receiver right now.

But the truth is a “fully functional assault rifle” cannot be fabricated using a 3-D printer. It just can’t. Sadly, every one of these “news” pieces misled its readers into thinking just such a creation was possible.

Shortlink:

Posted by on August 1, 2012.
Filed under 2nd Amendment, Constitutional Issues, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Gun control, Liberals, Media.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • jim_m

    It should not be surprising that a scientifically illiterate left that believes in AGW hysteria would be duped into thinking that you could use a 3D printer to print a complete gun. They are entirely uncritical and incapable of comprehending science.

  • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

    Live Science leaves much to be desired.

  • GarandFan

    Once again the ‘elite intelligentsia’ prove how stupid they really are.

  • 914

    Ha ha.. And these idiots can vote. The stupidity knows no bounds.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Clearly, the first thing we must do is to register all 3-D printers! Think of the children!

  • GarandFan

    Let me guess. Next they’ll “print” ammunition.

    • LiberalNightmare

      I can wait to print it from the internet.

    • jim_m

      Excuse me, I have to go get some more “Printer Cartridges”.

      Maybe I’ll be using that old Speer Gold Dot-matrix printer.

  • 914

    The printer did not print that. Someone else did that.

    • jim_m

      Guns don’t kill people. Printers do.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    There’s quite a bit of plastic in one of these—

    http://www.hi-pointfirearms.com/carbines/carbines_9mm.html

    But, as has been pointed out, the workin’ bits are metal. They’ve got to be, to take the pressure.

    I really don’t know what it is about some people – they see anything to do with firearms and just freak out. All reason is abandoned, and they’ll take anything as fact as long as it fits their ‘mean! scary! horrible!’ mantra, regardless of how true or applicable it might be.

  • Commander_Chico

    If you could print a lower receiver of an AR-15, you could print one that is full-auto. That seems like a business opportunity.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Not really. You’d still need a full-auto trigger group and sear. Like I said – the metal bits is the tricky part.

      Besides – it’s one of those situations where the idea is more fun than the reality.

      You get muzzle climb from the recoil – so your accuracy sucks, you burn through ammo like crazy, and for what? A full-auto ‘killing machine’ that’s not only illegal as hell, but you can’t reliably hit anything with?

      Most studies and tests I’ve seen show that on full auto you might get the first and maybe the second shot on target, the third will be significantly higher and possibly completely missing, and from then on you’re in ‘spray and pray’ mode because the accuracy is laughable.

      (That’s one of the reasons why the current ‘auto’ setting on military rifles usually fires a three round burst. Conserves ammo, and easier to control.)

      But that won’t stop the ignorant from hyperventilating about it.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yeah, I was assuming that the trigger group would be printed too.

        People do like machine guns, though.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          That they do. Me? I’d like a .22 minigun… ammo’s cheap, recoil wouldn’t be bad, and it’d be perfect for the Zombie Apocalypse… until you run out of ammo or it jams because the .22′s a filthy round and your mechanism gets totally gunked up.

  • Vagabond661

    Why wouldn’t they print Scarlett Johansson?

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Because, as you can see from “The Avengers” she’d pop out of the printer, interrogate you, then leave you hanging as she walks off to deal with something else.

      Better to print Mary Ann, instead. At least she’d bake you a pie.

  • Rance Frayger

    It’s only a matter of time before technology catches up with this fantasy. I see two possible scenarios.

    In the first, the cost of computer controlled machine tool technology continues to drop to where it is affordable to anyone who wants to buy one. Buy some steel, and machine your own weapon.

    In the second, better plastics are developed that will make the plastic gun possible.

    Ten years ago my company paid 5 figures for a stereo lithography machine to create 3D engineering prototypes. Today you buy a kit and build the same thing for a couple of hundred dollars.

    The report may have be bogus, but it is just bogus for now.

    • jim_m

      That’s true. But how much time? Given 100 monkeys and 100 typewriters and infinite time I can produce the complete works of Shakespeare.

      You are showing that you really know little about how guns are made or what sorts of pressures and stresses they are put under. There’s a reason they are made out of steel. Even polymer pistol frames are only vehicles for holding the critical metal parts, of which there are no practical alternative materials to make them from. Send us a note when people find a way to “print” a forged steel slide.

      And that doesn’t even get us close to manufacturing ammunition.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        He does have a point on the CAD-CAM improvement/lower cost over time. A table-top CAM rig that could carve out a steel blank and mill a barrel would likely have no problem with making the smaller parts – though you’d likely have to buy or make springs for the mechanism. Put it all together like a Testor’s model kit, and there ya go.

        I’ve seen CAM plasma torch tables advertised in Popular Science – you could cut out a bunch of stacked shapes from thin steel stock and end up with something like an early flintlock or percussion cap-type pistol. Wrap the handle in duct-tape, the barrel in a number of layers of high-tensile strength steel wire, and then do a powder & ball charge. It’d be inaccurate as all hell and not particularly safe, but that would likely work. Once, at least… lol.

        • jim_m

          Yeah, but now you are changing the rules here. Of course you could mill the parts of a gun from a block of steel using a CAM tool. But that isn’t 3D printing. Rance will print a barrel using the 3D printer resin and blow himself up with it. Heck, let every potential mass murderer print their guns that way. Suits me fine that they should blow themselves up and not get a single shot off.

          • Rance Frayger

            Today’s printer resin may blowup in your face. Can you predict what will be available down the road?

          • jim_m

            Exactly my point. There is no point in hysterically carrying on that 3D printers will allow people to print out fully functioning fully automatic guns. At that point why not stir the pot about 3D printers being able to print fully functional nuclear weapons? After all, anything is possible in the future.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Just trying to point out ways to do things NOW – even if they aren’t efficient. And he did point out that it was ‘computer controlled machine tool technology’ that was coming down in price, not just 3-d stereo lithography – to me, that means something like…

            Apparently the company can do engine blocks that way, which is (IMHO) more complex machining than a simple pistol or rifle out of a hunk of steel.

            Plus, with the advances on graphene nanotubes and sheets – I’m not laying any bets on never being able to 3-d print a working firearm within 10 years.

          • jim_m

            There is a difference between machining a block of material and making multiple parts that require assembly. There is also a big difference between cutting a block of metal and creating a spring. It’s not hard to make a spring, but you don’t do it by machining a block of metal.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I know – but other small items like the trigger group, hammer, firing pin and the like could be carved out. (You’ll note I said that they’d have to buy or make the springs, my implication being they couldn’t make them by cutting them from a block of metal.)

    • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ Scribe of Slog (McGehee)

      When that happens the whole paradigm of trying to control the manufacture, distribution and ownership of items TPTB don’t like, will be irretrievably dead. It’s past time those genuinely concerned about civil society, as opposed to government power, rethought the whole business.

  • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

    THIS has the potential to do real damage via 3D printing…

    Oh, I’d like one….

  • lasveraneras

    This is part of a T Rowe Price article on the future (which is enormous) for 3D printing as an investment target. Here are the money paragraphs related to “printing a gun”:

    “They came up with nanocomposites, different blends of plastics, and
    different blends of powdered metals. They were then able to create a
    part that, if you held it in your hand, you’d think it was steel. You
    can throw it down on the ground against cement, and it looks and acts
    just like steel.

    It’s impressive how the industry has graduated from flimsy, waxy
    plastics to very, very robust materials that can literally be used as a
    machine part, rather than just a prototype of a part.

    The industry graduated from just being about rapid prototyping—i.e.,
    this is going to be something that’s only an R & D function—to
    becoming a manufacturing strategy. We can make parts through this
    method, and the parts can go on the car, and the parts can go on the
    plane. They can also go in the human body, in the case of dental or
    medical applications.”

    While this guy may not have made a gun this way… yet, the technology seems not to be too far away from this capability. This mistaken report is not a question of fantasy thinking by “scientific illiterates.” A subset of SkyNet just around the corner?

    Oh, and btw, what happens to manufacturing employment (already falling on a global basis as robotics and associated technology make “labor” redundant) when 3D printing starts making, for example, parts for DIY housing construction?

    • jim_m

      That is the real point. This is the death knell for centralized manufacturing. Distributed, customizable, just in time manufacturing is the future.

    • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ Scribe of Slog (McGehee)

      People who own such printers will still need the raw material.

      I really don’t want to be the one who changes those cartridges.