baptizo Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 The second guy in this video is active on another forum I frequent quite often and what they're trying to develop here is really neat - check it out."Test firing a printed (ABS-like Objet photopolymer) AR receiver in 5.7x28FN. Lower max PSI than .223, but broke the buffer tube ring within six rounds".http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/weaponeers/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSB67 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 That was kinda dumb. Those printers aren't meant to produce functional parts. Anyone can make a CAD model of an AR lower to plug into one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vf1000ride Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 1911, steel has been doing it just fine for the last 101 years. Sorry but it's just more proof that plastic doesn't belong in a firearm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beegreenstrings Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 What would you really expect... Did people think that there was going to mass quantities of death machines roll out of these printers? Its still plastic... Crap... Whatever that stuff is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 1911, steel has been doing it just fine for the last 101 years. Sorry but it's just more proof that plastic doesn't belong in a firearm. Must be why the Military and Special ops still use the old heavy fossils huh? Oh wait a minute....they don't "minus the 92FS". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gump Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 These printers are the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imprez55 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 I don't even know where to begin with the errors. I am 99% sure this is the group that had their printer revoked once the supplier found it what it was going to be used for. I will say this though: the failure was more user error than anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSB67 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 These printers are the future.Had an SLA in college 17 years ago. Here's a more functional twist on the same old concept:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkwd2YXNy9I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Should be printing a .22 cal rimfire. Something that will hold up. That would be impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 I question thier ultimate success given their need to try an inferior material to perform without significant redesign. They may get something to work but they have picked an obvious failure for a starting point.http://newfrontierarmory.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=245_285http://www.cavalrymanufacturing.com/CAV15/CAV15MKIIinstructions.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadTrainDriver Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Must be why the Military and Special ops still use the old heavy fossils huh? Oh wait a minute....they don't "minus the 92FS". Actually:http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/07/20/usmc-orders-4036-m45-cqbp-pistols/Make sure you read the whole article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baptizo Posted December 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Dumb?Make your own informed decision before calling it dumb.....below is a link to the designer's website:http://defensedistributed.com/Here is a detailed write-up of the weapon pre & post-failure (they admit the buffer ring was a weak point):http://defdist.tumblr.com/post/37023487585/printed-reinforced-ar-lower-review Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRMN8TR Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Not so sure I'd want a gun printed out by one, but those 3D printers are pretty sweet. I've seen a few prototypes that have come off of one we have at work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bitani Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 I don't think some of you guys quite appreciate the awesomeness of what this means...DOWNLOADABLE GUNS.When the technology's improved, you'll literally be able to DOWNLOAD a model of whatever gun you want. Ammunition could be made. Anything.Yeah, the guns suck now. But, what about in 5 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imprez55 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Dumb?Make your own informed decision before calling it dumb.....below is a link to the designer's website:http://defensedistributed.com/Here is a detailed write-up of the weapon pre & post-failure (they admit the buffer ring was a weak point):http:/ist.tumblr.com/post/37023487585/printed-reinforced-ar-lower-reviewYup, dumb. They have Solidworks models showing weak points but they didn't want to do the test with ABS to see it fail? I don't know what the purpose of the test was. They had to have known the printer works and the model is good, they could have referenced the spare lower if they had doubts. I think they are trying to drum up business because ABS models have already been done and shown to fail, thats probably why they went with the 5.6vround (to make it appear that its fully functioning). If they wanted to do something cutting edge, print a metal lower and watch it work. Maybe I'm just being a pessimist, but I really don't see anything interesting or revolutionary here. It smells of a business move and trying to get investors. I can't knock them for it, I just think they should have done something more show-y to grab people's attention 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imprez55 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) Edit: Double post Edited December 5, 2012 by imprez55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Actually:http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/07/20/usmc-orders-4036-m45-cqbp-pistols/Make sure you read the whole article.Glad that some nice changes are being made to the original combat pistol, should make it much better for dependability in harsh conditions. But such a small capacity seems a bit odd for a combat pistol "in this era", especially when I imagine they are used more for last resort and close combat. If Army Special Forces, Seals, Air Force Special Operations and Delta starts carrying these over Sigs and H&K's, then I would be very impressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 I don't think some of you guys quite appreciate the awesomeness of what this means...DOWNLOADABLE GUNS.When the technology's improved, you'll literally be able to DOWNLOAD a model of whatever gun you want. Ammunition could be made. Anything.Yeah, the guns suck now. But, what about in 5 years?ATF, FBI and CIA are gonna be all over this when the technology and materials is perfected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imprez55 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 ATF, FBI and CIA are gonna be all over this when the technology and materials is perfected.That is what I am afraid of personally. We have a lot of freedom right now in terms of personal manufacture and development. I would hate to see that get regulated away to prevent people from going to their nearest buddy with a $30,000 machine and getting a quality, untraceable gun on the cheap. Bitani: I don't understand what you mean about the ammunition. I'm not sure it would be any more cost effective than simply reloading like people do now. You would still have to purchase primers and power and press it together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Yup, dumb. They have Solidworks models showing weak points but they didn't want to do the test with ABS to see it fail? I don't know what the purpose of the test was. They had to have known the printer works and the model is good, they could have referenced the spare lower if they had doubts. I think they are trying to drum up business because ABS models have already been done and shown to fail, thats probably why they went with the 5.6vround (to make it appear that its fully functioning). If they wanted to do something cutting edge, print a metal lower and watch it work. Maybe I'm just being a pessimist, but I really don't see anything interesting or revolutionary here. It smells of a business move and trying to get investors. I can't knock them for it, I just think they should have done something more show-y to grab people's attentionYeah, what he said, smells of a scam to get investment dollars. I would be embarrassed to put out such shitty results when failure was the only option. If you want to end up with something different you have to do things differently. Expecting an existing design to behave the same with inferior materials is something that I would expect to see out of an eighth grade science class. What they are trying to achieve is doable but I doubt these guys are the ones that will be successful especially witnessing what they believe to be a reasonable starting point. I'm not all that sure I find much value in what they are trying to do and I would have at least started four steps ahead of where they are now without giving it a whole lot of thought or design time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSB67 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Dumb?Make your own informed decision before calling it dumb.....below is a link to the designer's website:http://defensedistributed.com/I don't think some of you guys quite appreciate the awesomeness of what this means...DOWNLOADABLE GUNS.When the technology's improved, you'll literally be able to DOWNLOAD a model of whatever gun you want. Ammunition could be made. Anything.Yeah, the guns suck now. But, what about in 5 years?If there isn't one on the internet already, next time I have a job I'll make you a model of an AR lower and you can download the fuck out of it. You can get software to turn a vinyl cutter into a 3D printer, maybe you'd like to try a vinyl lower. Or you can CNC it out of billet and make something that costs more and sucks more than a readily available $70 forged aluminum lower. Doesn't take much to impress you guys.BTW, solenoid fired weapons are illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSB67 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 ATF, FBI and CIA are gonna be all over this when the technology and materials is perfected.You're allowed to make your own guns for personal use. Look up "80%" lowers or AK kits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imprez55 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 If there isn't one on the internet already, next time I have a job I'll make you a model of an AR lower and you can download the fuck out of it. You can get software to turn a vinyl cutter into a 3D printer, maybe you'd like to try a vinyl lower. Or you can CNC it out of billet and make something that costs more and sucks more than a readily available $70 forged aluminum lower. Doesn't take much to impress you guys.BTW, solenoid fired weapons are illegal.I feel like you have animosity towards building a billet lower from scratch. Either that or I misread and its towards the positive press this is garnering. If its against the DIY creation, why? Its not too much more expensive (barring your time is worth $0) than any other billet lower, registration is unnecessary, significant customization and improvements can be made without paying extra and its really more of a hobby than anything else. I think the same argument can be made against billet lowers with even more validity, at least DIY ones have more positives.You're allowed to make your own guns for personal use. Look up "80%" lowers or AK kits.The issue it raises is the ease of which that can be produced. Currently you need to have some skill or determination (even laminate firearms take a significant amount of time investment to create). With these, all you would have to do is push a button and walk away; no set-up block, micrometers, knowledge or dedication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSB67 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 I'm drunk and angry and got called out for calling the Wikigun guys dumb. If you want to make guns from scratch as a hobby, great. I looked at 80% lowers and they cost more than finished lowers. I doubt I could get a blank forging for what I paid for my last several lowers. "Downloadable guns" are only worth as much as the technolgy you have to "print" them. I got a kick out of the video quote "Anyone who has a computer..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imprez55 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Haha, I thought he was calling me out. You can get 80% lowers from DSA for like $25 (at least that was the price years ago) but I see what you are saying. Time, effort, and a $20 tap make the price difference not worth it (especially without anno). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.