Can't wait to see how 3D printing revolutionizes industry on a broad economic level. The firearm industry, not so much.
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/first-3-d-printed-gun-fired-its-digital-blueprints-make-6C9790795
QuoteHelen A.S. Popkin – 6 hrs.
First 3-D-printed gun fired, but its digital blueprints make bigger bang
With a shot heard round the Internet, the first known 3-D printed gun is a reality. But the bigger ruckus comes from the gun's digital blueprints, now available for free download by any shooters who want to build their own.
Cody Wilson, the polemic face of the not-for-profit 3-D gunsmith Defense Distributed, fired the organization's latest prototype at the opening of a 28-second video posted on YouTube Friday. "The Liberator," as the weapon is provocatively titled, is a 16-piece firearm made almost entirely of ABS plastic, with a metal firing pin and an embedded metal shank meant to provide enough metal mass to comply with the 1988 U.S. Undetectable Firearms Act.
Blue and white, and bearing more than a passing resemblance to a Star Trek phaser, the .380-caliber pistol fires with a single "pop" in Wilson's hands. Apparently, the design works, though this version was rendered unusable after firing six rounds.
Eight months into its mission to create and distribute the computer-assisted design (CAD) for a 100-percent 3-D printed gun, Defense Distributed is about as close to this goal as it can legally get. That is, provided laws don't change to make what the group is doing illegal.
Even now, Defense Distributed's latest success — though it may be a rather costly and cumbersome way to obtain a firearm, especially one that tends to self destruct — has gun-control advocates on the move. This was predicted by Wilson, who has long said that his group's ultimate goal is not to build arms, but to test constitutional rights.
"I think this isn't a project about firearms, it's a project about political equality," Wilson recently told NBC's Nightly News.
Wilson, a law student at the University of Texas in Austin, is federally licensed to manufacture and sell guns and gun parts, as long as they're not fully automatic. Not only is it legal for Wilson to make "The Liberator," but distributing its plans for others to make it is also legal, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
"An individual who wishes to manufacturer a firearm for his or her personal use does not need a license, as long as it isn't for an automatic firearm," an ATF spokesperson told NBC News.
But the fact that the gun can be homemade and is largely plastic — and therefore harder to spot via metal detectors — has made it the center of a new debate in Washington.
On Sunday, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., endorsed a bill, entitled the Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act, that would bring the 1988 law up to date by banning 3-D-printed guns that "have no metal and could therefore slip through a metal detector." Under the law, it would be a crime to build such a weapon.
"We're facing a situation where anyone — a felon, a terrorist — can open a gun factory in their garage, and the weapons they make will be undetectable," Schumer said at a conference. "It's stomach churning." Schumer said his bill would not restrict the use of 3-D printers for other purposes.
Schumer was speaking in support of legislation, proposed in the House of Representatives Friday by Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., that bans "homemade, 3-D printed, plastic high-capacity magazines."
"When I started talking about the issue of plastic firearms months ago, I was told the idea of a plastic gun is science fiction. Now that this technology appears to be upon us, we need to act now to extend the ban on plastic firearms," read Israel's statement.
On a technical level, enforcing the ban could be challenging. Firmware locks for 3-D printers and takedown protocols for CAD files for firearms have been proposed by some, and scoffed at by others.
"Every one of those measures is a nonsense and worse: unworkable combinations of authoritarianism, censorship and wishful thinking," author Cory Doctorow wrote in criticism of Israel's initial proposal. "Importantly, none of these would prevent people from manufacturing plastic guns. And all of these measures would grossly interfere with the lawful operation of 3-D printers."
It's legal for most Americans to buy guns, and it's also easy for many people to acquire guns illegally, too. Industrial-level 3-D printers currently capable of producing "The Liberator" can cost upwards of $10,000, and require some training to operate. They may never put guns into the hands of people who otherwise wouldn't be able to obtain them, but they still may become tools for nefarious acts.
"This technology is emerging so quickly that few law enforcement officials know what a 3-D printer is or understand how it can be used," Jim Bueermann, former Redlands, Calif., police chief who is now president of the non-profit Police Foundation, told NBC News.
"I think we are going to see some very creative, technologically astute examples of criminal acts that are enabled by this technology," he added. "This is one of the unintended consequences of the democratizing of the Internet."
— With additional reporting by Suzanne Choney
How could it possibly have any effect on the economy, other than to give copyright lawyer a new avenue to attack mankind?
The thing about this sotry that I find interesting is that it illuminates this rather bizarre attitude of gun nuts: That guns, by their very nature, hold some kind of special status such that they have a value in and of themselves that is special and unique - almost religious. I take that back - there is nothing "almost" about it - it is taken as a matter of faith that guns are some kind of mystical object to be valued in and of themselves.
What is the utility in creating a plastic gun just because you can? On the one hand - so what? It is inevitable that someone would do it given the technology. On the other hand, congratulations - you get to be the douchebag who actually did it and is now so very proud of himself?
Why not be the first to make a 3D dildo or a 3D garden hoe? There is nothing magical about a gun - being able to make one in a 3D printer does not make you special. It just means you get to be the first person to publish something that we will all regret as one of the unfortunate consequences of the rise in sophisticated production processes that makes what used to be difficult easy.
Hell, one of these days some other set of assholes will be the first to create a homemade nuke. I am sure they will think themselves exceedingly clever as well.
This is almost a non-story, other than the amusing aspect of it making certain people shit their pants. These all-plastic guns would probably be more dangerous to the guy firing them than to anyone downrange.
With a cheap drill press you can buy an 80% complete AR-15 receiver and manufacture your own firearm, completing it with parts ordered through the mail. All legal and without serial numbers. Surprised that's not making the news these days.
Printable guns? Bah.
Wake me up when they start printing women.
Quote from: derspiess on May 06, 2013, 08:20:41 PM
This is almost a non-story, other than the amusing aspect of it making certain people shit their pants. These all-plastic guns would probably be more dangerous to the guy firing them than to anyone downrange.
With a cheap drill press you can buy an 80% complete AR-15 receiver and manufacture your own firearm, completing it with parts ordered through the mail. All legal and without serial numbers. Surprised that's not making the news these days.
That has made the news in the past - at least to the extent that I was aware it was possible (although I don't recall where I learned that).
I think this is more problematic from the plastic part of it than anything else. Like the article pointed out, it's not like this is actually useful from a practical standpoint - if you want a cheap, disposable gun, buying a $10,000 3D printer is probably not the best way to go about getting one.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 06, 2013, 08:23:22 PM
Printable guns? Bah.
Wake me up when they start printing women.
Mmmmmmm, Lucy Liu.
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2013, 08:24:37 PM
if you want a cheap, disposable gun, buying a $10,000 3D printer is probably not the best way to go about getting one.
More like 1300$:
http://www.zdnet.com/cube-3d-printer-goes-retail-at-staples-for-1299-7000014876/ (http://www.zdnet.com/cube-3d-printer-goes-retail-at-staples-for-1299-7000014876/)
It's a cheap model, but it shows that this technology is evolving rapidly. Within 5 years, everyone with a computer will have a 3D printer.
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2013, 08:24:37 PM
I think this is more problematic from the plastic part of it than anything else. Like the article pointed out, it's not like this is actually useful from a practical standpoint - if you want a cheap, disposable gun, buying a $10,000 3D printer is probably not the best way to go about getting one.
It is very useful from a practical standpoint at that price if you want to accomplish what you want to accomplish with a cheap, disposable gun made of untraceable, undetectable plastic.
Quote from: viper37 on May 06, 2013, 09:03:10 PM
It's a cheap model, but it shows that this technology is evolving rapidly. Within 5 years, everyone with a computer will have a 3D printer.
Because everyone knows we need more plastic crap.
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2013, 08:24:37 PM
That has made the news in the past - at least to the extent that I was aware it was possible (although I don't recall where I learned that).
I think this is more problematic from the plastic part of it than anything else. Like the article pointed out, it's not like this is actually useful from a practical standpoint - if you want a cheap, disposable gun, buying a $10,000 3D printer is probably not the best way to go about getting one.
One, no. It's a hell of a cheap investment into brokering untraceable firearms, though.
This is problematic, though- the trouble is that there's no meaningful way to recreate the technological barrier to 3D printing weaponry. This is going to have to be tackled from the information side, which is going to raise all kinds of free speech arguments when these blueprints are censored for public safety reasons.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 06, 2013, 09:16:28 PM
This is going to have to be tackled from the information side, which is going to raise all kinds of free speech arguments when these blueprints are censored for public safety reasons.
Particularly with fruitcakes like this Cody Wilson guy involved. They will be way ahead of the curve.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 06, 2013, 09:16:28 PM
This is problematic, though- the trouble is that there's no meaningful way to recreate the technological barrier to 3D printing weaponry. This is going to have to be tackled from the information side, which is going to raise all kinds of free speech arguments when these blueprints are censored for public safety reasons.
Censorship sounds like a terrible idea. What would be the precedent, when blueprints, recipes, and instructions are and have been legal for all sorts of dangerous illegal devices.
:lol:
Now gun control is 'censorship'?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2013, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2013, 08:24:37 PM
I think this is more problematic from the plastic part of it than anything else. Like the article pointed out, it's not like this is actually useful from a practical standpoint - if you want a cheap, disposable gun, buying a $10,000 3D printer is probably not the best way to go about getting one.
It is very useful from a practical standpoint at that price if you want to accomplish what you want to accomplish with a cheap, disposable gun made of untraceable, undetectable plastic.
Yes
QuoteWhat is the utility in creating a plastic gun just because you can? On the one hand - so what?
Really it boils down to......1. because he can and 2. Just because.
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2013, 09:33:26 PM
:lol:
Now gun control is 'censorship'?
For what DSB proposed, yes. He even said so himself.
This is pretty disturbing stuff, these people are fucking morons.
But it was pretty inevitable, can't blame them too much.
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2013, 08:17:36 PM
Why not be the first to make a 3D dildo or a 3D garden hoe?
Surely you see the difference between using this technology to create a stone-age tool and a modern age tool, right? :huh:
Dildos have been around since the Stone Ages? Imagine that!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2013, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2013, 08:24:37 PM
I think this is more problematic from the plastic part of it than anything else. Like the article pointed out, it's not like this is actually useful from a practical standpoint - if you want a cheap, disposable gun, buying a $10,000 3D printer is probably not the best way to go about getting one.
It is very useful from a practical standpoint at that price if you want to accomplish what you want to accomplish with a cheap, disposable gun made of untraceable, undetectable plastic.
I'm wondering to what extent this is going to throw the airport security checks people out of the loop. Considering that one failed "shoe bomber" attempt made them force us to take our shoes off, I predict the answer is "to a huge extent".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2013, 02:09:18 AM
Dildos have been around since the Stone Ages? Imagine that!
Pretty much. Archeologists are finding them in ancient Egyptian digs.
Quote from: Martinus on May 07, 2013, 02:09:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2013, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2013, 08:24:37 PM
I think this is more problematic from the plastic part of it than anything else. Like the article pointed out, it's not like this is actually useful from a practical standpoint - if you want a cheap, disposable gun, buying a $10,000 3D printer is probably not the best way to go about getting one.
It is very useful from a practical standpoint at that price if you want to accomplish what you want to accomplish with a cheap, disposable gun made of untraceable, undetectable plastic.
I'm wondering to what extent this is going to throw the airport security checks people out of the loop. Considering that one failed "shoe bomber" attempt made them force us to take our shoes off, I predict the answer is "to a huge extent".
Rather than airports, think about metal detectors in public buildings. Instantly outdated.
Quote from: garbon on May 06, 2013, 09:12:29 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 06, 2013, 09:03:10 PM
It's a cheap model, but it shows that this technology is evolving rapidly. Within 5 years, everyone with a computer will have a 3D printer.
Because everyone knows we need more plastic crap.
Yes we do. Needs are unlimited, remember? That includes frivolous and unuseful things too.
Quote from: The Larch on May 07, 2013, 05:41:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 07, 2013, 02:09:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2013, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2013, 08:24:37 PM
I think this is more problematic from the plastic part of it than anything else. Like the article pointed out, it's not like this is actually useful from a practical standpoint - if you want a cheap, disposable gun, buying a $10,000 3D printer is probably not the best way to go about getting one.
It is very useful from a practical standpoint at that price if you want to accomplish what you want to accomplish with a cheap, disposable gun made of untraceable, undetectable plastic.
I'm wondering to what extent this is going to throw the airport security checks people out of the loop. Considering that one failed "shoe bomber" attempt made them force us to take our shoes off, I predict the answer is "to a huge extent".
Rather than airports, think about metal detectors in public buildings. Instantly outdated.
Ammunition is still made out of metal.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 10:57:40 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 07, 2013, 05:41:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 07, 2013, 02:09:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2013, 09:08:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2013, 08:24:37 PM
I think this is more problematic from the plastic part of it than anything else. Like the article pointed out, it's not like this is actually useful from a practical standpoint - if you want a cheap, disposable gun, buying a $10,000 3D printer is probably not the best way to go about getting one.
It is very useful from a practical standpoint at that price if you want to accomplish what you want to accomplish with a cheap, disposable gun made of untraceable, undetectable plastic.
I'm wondering to what extent this is going to throw the airport security checks people out of the loop. Considering that one failed "shoe bomber" attempt made them force us to take our shoes off, I predict the answer is "to a huge extent".
Rather than airports, think about metal detectors in public buildings. Instantly outdated.
Ammunition is still made out of metal.
Does it have to be? Could one make a hard plastic bullet in a plastic tube filled with propellent?
If one is going through all the trouble of making a plastic gun, why not make plastic ammo to go with it?
That's not a requirement.
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 11:04:58 AM
Does it have to be? Could one make a hard plastic bullet in a plastic tube filled with propellent?
If one is going through all the trouble of making a plastic gun, why not make plastic ammo to go with it?
I'm sure you could. But I'd imagine you'd have to use so little powder that the round might not be lethal-- especially with a plastic projectile.
:lol: Derspeiss is now worried that the government is going to start take away a new type of gun that only one person in the country has!
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 11:14:28 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 11:04:58 AM
Does it have to be? Could one make a hard plastic bullet in a plastic tube filled with propellent?
If one is going through all the trouble of making a plastic gun, why not make plastic ammo to go with it?
I'm sure you could. But I'd imagine you'd have to use so little powder that the round might not be lethal-- especially with a plastic projectile.
Not sure I understand. Why would you have to use only a small amount of powder (or whatever it is they put in cartridges these days?)
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 11:19:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 11:14:28 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 11:04:58 AM
Does it have to be? Could one make a hard plastic bullet in a plastic tube filled with propellent?
If one is going through all the trouble of making a plastic gun, why not make plastic ammo to go with it?
I'm sure you could. But I'd imagine you'd have to use so little powder that the round might not be lethal-- especially with a plastic projectile.
Not sure I understand. Why would you have to use only a small amount of powder (or whatever it is they put in cartridges these days?)
Because a plastic case, chamber, and barrel are not going to be able to handle the pressure of a full load. It would probably just explode in your hand.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2013, 11:17:22 AM
:lol: Derspeiss is now worried that the government is going to start take away a new type of gun that only one person in the country has!
:huh:
Well, you are. Also, there's no reason a plastic barrel, case and bullet need too weak to contain a blast.
Its sad that the gun nuts have appropriated this technology for their own twisted ends.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2013, 11:41:32 AM
Its sad that the gun nuts have appropriated this technology for their own twisted ends.
Aww, would you like a tissue?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 07, 2013, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2013, 11:41:32 AM
Its sad that the gun nuts have appropriated this technology for their own twisted ends.
Aww, would you like a tissue?
No, you can save that for the family of the first person that gets killed by one of these guns. Or would having sympathy for such a victim run contrary to your gun nut oath of allegiance?
If you can print a gun, you can print vest!
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 07, 2013, 12:02:59 PM
If you can print a gun, you can print vest!
But can you print a tissue out of plastic? :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2013, 12:00:03 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 07, 2013, 11:58:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2013, 11:41:32 AM
Its sad that the gun nuts have appropriated this technology for their own twisted ends.
Aww, would you like a tissue?
No, you can save that for the family of the first person that gets killed by one of these guns.
Require a background check to own 3d printers then. :lmfao:
QuoteOr would having sympathy for such a victim run contrary to your gun nut oath of allegiance?
Unaware of that. No secret handshake either. Despite what you "Anti-nutters" try to dream up. Maybe if you put your tin foil hat on it will become clearer.
Yeah, they are the crazy ones.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2013, 11:35:48 AM
Well, you are.
No, but feel free to support your case.
QuoteAlso, there's no reason a plastic barrel, case and bullet need too weak to contain a blast.
:huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2013, 12:08:33 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 07, 2013, 12:02:59 PM
If you can print a gun, you can print vest!
But can you print a tissue out of plastic? :hmm:
Maybe. Everything is in the realm of possibility with 3d printing.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 07, 2013, 12:20:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2013, 12:08:33 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 07, 2013, 12:02:59 PM
If you can print a gun, you can print vest!
But can you print a tissue out of plastic? :hmm:
Maybe. Everything is in the realm of possibility with 3d printing.
Though probably won't out of plastic given that they are already printing organic veins and meat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh0SXBtT_lA
Kid has skills.
That's one way to describe that.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:19:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2013, 11:35:48 AM
Well, you are.
No, but feel free to support your case.
QuoteAlso, there's no reason a plastic barrel, case and bullet need too weak to contain a blast.
:huh:
Oh, Good. Since Schumer is bringing up a law to outlaw such a weapon I'll be glad to see your support for such a ban. I'll be nice to argue on the same side for once.
I mean to say, There's no reason a plastic barrel, case and bullet need to be too weak to contain a blast. HDPE has some pretty high tensile strengths.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 07, 2013, 12:10:05 PM
Require a background check to own 3d printers then. :lmfao:
How exactly is that funny? They will probably be very tighly controlled indeed.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 11:23:24 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 11:19:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 11:14:28 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 11:04:58 AM
Does it have to be? Could one make a hard plastic bullet in a plastic tube filled with propellent?
If one is going through all the trouble of making a plastic gun, why not make plastic ammo to go with it?
I'm sure you could. But I'd imagine you'd have to use so little powder that the round might not be lethal-- especially with a plastic projectile.
Not sure I understand. Why would you have to use only a small amount of powder (or whatever it is they put in cartridges these days?)
Because a plastic case, chamber, and barrel are not going to be able to handle the pressure of a full load. It would probably just explode in your hand.
Would that not be a problem with using
conventional ammo in a plastic gun? It's the barrel that takes the pressure, not the cartridge; the explosion simply fits the walls of the cartridge more snugly to the inside of the chamber.
Early "integrated cartridges" were made out of ... paper.
They worked okay, though for various reasons, metal was better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_(firearms)
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2013, 12:37:31 PM
Oh, Good. Since Schumer is bringing up a law to outlaw such a weapon I'll be glad to see your support for such a ban. I'll be nice to argue on the same side for once.
I would oppose that law, as well as most everything else Chuckie cooks up. Not sure how that makes me worried, though.
QuoteI mean to say, There's no reason a plastic barrel, case and bullet need to be too weak to contain a blast. HDPE has some pretty high tensile strengths.
I'm sure it can contain *a* blast-- just with less powder than what you'd use in a normal gun. Even with that I wouldn't dare fire it. And like I said, a plastic bullet isn't going to be a particularly deadly projectile.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2013, 12:38:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 07, 2013, 12:10:05 PM
Require a background check to own 3d printers then. :lmfao:
How exactly is that funny? They will probably very tighly controlled indeed.
The Diamond Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Age)
QuoteMatter compilers receive their raw materials from the Feed, a system analogous to the electrical grid of modern society. The Feed carries streams of both energy and basic molecules, which are rapidly assembled into usable goods by matter compilers. The Source, where the Feed's stream of matter originates, is controlled by the Victorian phyle (though smaller, independent Feeds are possible). The hierarchic nature of the Feed and an alternative, anarchic developing technology, known as the Seed, mirror the cultural conflict between East and West that is depicted in the book. This conflict has an economic element as well, with the Feed representing a centrally-controlled distribution mechanism, while the Seed represents a more flexible, open-ended, decentralised method of creation and organization.
Implicit in the Feed technology were limitations on what could be created.
That makes you worried. One doesn't oppose laws you aren't concerned with. And people have died on bullets made from weaker stuff then HDPE and fired with weaker loads then modern cartridges for centuries.
Quote from: frunk on May 07, 2013, 12:50:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2013, 12:38:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 07, 2013, 12:10:05 PM
Require a background check to own 3d printers then. :lmfao:
How exactly is that funny? They will probably very tighly controlled indeed.
The Diamond Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Age)
QuoteMatter compilers receive their raw materials from the Feed, a system analogous to the electrical grid of modern society. The Feed carries streams of both energy and basic molecules, which are rapidly assembled into usable goods by matter compilers. The Source, where the Feed's stream of matter originates, is controlled by the Victorian phyle (though smaller, independent Feeds are possible). The hierarchic nature of the Feed and an alternative, anarchic developing technology, known as the Seed, mirror the cultural conflict between East and West that is depicted in the book. This conflict has an economic element as well, with the Feed representing a centrally-controlled distribution mechanism, while the Seed represents a more flexible, open-ended, decentralised method of creation and organization.
Implicit in the Feed technology were limitations on what could be created.
Transmetropolitan teaches us that "makers" would probably be hacked into creating illegal substances. Actually, a decentralized "each home with its own independent machine" somehow seems more realistic to me in America. You don't want THE MAN suppressing you and tell you what you can make and what not, or cut you off from important supplies because HE feels like it.
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 12:41:33 PM
Would that not be a problem with using conventional ammo in a plastic gun? It's the barrel that takes the pressure, not the cartridge; the explosion simply fits the walls of the cartridge more snugly to the inside of the chamber.
The cartridge case, chamber, and barrel all take on pressure. Anyway, I'd like to know what kind of .380 ammo the dude used in his gun. It's a fairly weak cartridge to begin with, but I'd bet he downloaded the powder charge.
QuoteEarly "integrated cartridges" were made out of ... paper.
They worked okay, though for various reasons, metal was better.
They worked okay because the chamber and barrel were metal. Not to say that you couldn't do something similar in a plastic gun, but like I keep saying, you're not gonna go full power. I kinda doubt the lethality of a plastic gun. With range, accuracy, and caliber being so limited you might as well just walk up & stab someone with something.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2013, 12:51:04 PM
That makes you worried. One doesn't oppose laws you aren't concerned with.
Still not worried, Raz. Your logic is flimsy.
Quotend people have died on bullets made from weaker stuff then HDPE and fired with weaker loads then modern cartridges for centuries.
You *can* die from a lot of things. Doesn't make them as lethal as a conventional firearm.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:45:33 PM
I'm sure it can contain *a* blast-- just with less powder than what you'd use in a normal gun. Even with that I wouldn't dare fire it. And like I said, a plastic bullet isn't going to be a particularly deadly projectile.
The issue, though, at least my issue, was why it would not be possible to have non-metalic ammo.
No doubt an all-plastic gun will not have the same lethality as an all-metal gun, or have bullets that travel as far - but it doesn't have to. The only reason to have an all-plastic gun in the first place is to avoid detection. All it has to do is to be able to intimidate or kill people, presumably at short range, like a hostage-taker sticking the thing in a person's face.
I don't see why a very hard plastic bullet would not be deadly, albeit not as deadly as a metal one. Again, it doesn't have to be.
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 12:59:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:45:33 PM
I'm sure it can contain *a* blast-- just with less powder than what you'd use in a normal gun. Even with that I wouldn't dare fire it. And like I said, a plastic bullet isn't going to be a particularly deadly projectile.
The issue, though, at least my issue, was why it would not be possible to have non-metalic ammo.
No doubt an all-plastic gun will not have the same lethality as an all-metal gun, or have bullets that travel as far - but it doesn't have to. The only reason to have an all-plastic gun in the first place is to avoid detection. All it has to do is to be able to intimidate or kill people, presumably at short range, like a hostage-taker sticking the thing in a person's face.
I don't see why a very hard plastic bullet would not be deadly, albeit not as deadly as a metal one. Again, it doesn't have to be.
It could be just as deadly as a lead bullet.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:54:33 PM
The cartridge case, chamber, and barrel all take on pressure.
That's not my understanding, and it is kinda contradicted by the existence of integrated paper cartridges. Paper is not a material generally associated with channeling explosive force. :hmm:
In any event, a plastic cartridge would handle the explosion just as well as a paper one, right?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2013, 01:00:35 PM
It could be just as deadly as a lead bullet.
It would probably not be as "good". Lead is perfect for bullets made to kill people, being both very heavy and with the ability to deform when it hits flesh and bone.
That noted, a hard plastic bullet doesn't have to be as "good" as a lead one - it could still kill people just fine.
I do not attribute moral qualities to bullets or metals. Only Noble gases are capable of morality. That's what makes them so noble.
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 01:02:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:54:33 PM
The cartridge case, chamber, and barrel all take on pressure.
That's not my understanding, and it is kinda contradicted by the existence of integrated paper cartridges. Paper is not a material generally associated with channeling explosive force. :hmm:
In any event, a plastic cartridge would handle the explosion just as well as a paper one, right?
I think paper rounds were used in muzzle loaders. The powder in the paper gave the right power charge needed. It was poured into the barrel, not loaded like a bullet. A paper casing would foul a gun as it would leave debris in the chamber and barrel.
Quote from: KRonn on May 07, 2013, 01:22:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 01:02:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:54:33 PM
The cartridge case, chamber, and barrel all take on pressure.
That's not my understanding, and it is kinda contradicted by the existence of integrated paper cartridges. Paper is not a material generally associated with channeling explosive force. :hmm:
In any event, a plastic cartridge would handle the explosion just as well as a paper one, right?
I think paper rounds were used in muzzle loaders. The powder in the paper gave the right power charge needed. It was poured into the barrel, not loaded like a bullet. A paper casing would foul a gun as it would leave debris in the chamber and barrel.
If someone wanted to create a weapon to get off one (or a few) shots would this be an issue?
Quote from: KRonn on May 07, 2013, 01:22:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 01:02:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:54:33 PM
The cartridge case, chamber, and barrel all take on pressure.
That's not my understanding, and it is kinda contradicted by the existence of integrated paper cartridges. Paper is not a material generally associated with channeling explosive force. :hmm:
In any event, a plastic cartridge would handle the explosion just as well as a paper one, right?
I think paper rounds were used in muzzle loaders. The powder in the paper gave the right power charge needed. It was poured into the barrel, not loaded like a bullet. A paper casing would foul a gun as it would leave debris in the chamber and barrel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvc86ggLUY4
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:54:33 PM
The cartridge case, chamber, and barrel all take on pressure. Anyway, I'd like to know what kind of .380 ammo the dude used in his gun. It's a fairly weak cartridge to begin with, but I'd bet he downloaded the powder charge.
The article claims not: "[t]he Liberator fired a standard .380 handgun round without visible damage."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/05/meet-the-liberator-test-firing-the-worlds-first-fully-3d-printed-gun/
By contrast, a rifle round apparently blew it up:
QuoteThe printed gun seems limited, for now, to certain calibers of ammunition. After the handgun round, Wilson switched out the Liberator's barrel for a higher-charge 5.7×28 rifle cartridge. He and John retreated to a safe distance, and John pulled his yellow string again. This time the gun exploded, sending shards of white ABS plastic flying into the weeds and bringing the Liberator's first field trial to an abrupt end.
QuoteWilson showed me a video of an ABS plastic barrel the group printed attached to a non-printed gun body firing ten rounds of .380 ammunition before breaking on the eleventh.
Quote from: KRonn on May 07, 2013, 01:22:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 01:02:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:54:33 PM
The cartridge case, chamber, and barrel all take on pressure.
That's not my understanding, and it is kinda contradicted by the existence of integrated paper cartridges. Paper is not a material generally associated with channeling explosive force. :hmm:
In any event, a plastic cartridge would handle the explosion just as well as a paper one, right?
I think paper rounds were used in muzzle loaders. The powder in the paper gave the right power charge needed. It was poured into the barrel, not loaded like a bullet. A paper casing would foul a gun as it would leave debris in the chamber and barrel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyse_needle_gun
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 12:59:17 PM
I don't see why a very hard plastic bullet would not be deadly, albeit not as deadly as a metal one. Again, it doesn't have to be.
I'm not saying it couldn't kill, just that it wouldn't be nearly as lethal as a metal bullet. And that it may not be lethal enough to use over other alternatives.
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 01:05:22 PM
That noted, a hard plastic bullet doesn't have to be as "good" as a lead one - it could still kill people just fine.
I'd imagine it would have to travel at a very high velocity and be aimed pretty precisely to be reliably lethal.
But at this point I think we're talking past each other.
Quote from: KRonn on May 07, 2013, 01:22:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 01:02:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:54:33 PM
The cartridge case, chamber, and barrel all take on pressure.
That's not my understanding, and it is kinda contradicted by the existence of integrated paper cartridges. Paper is not a material generally associated with channeling explosive force. :hmm:
In any event, a plastic cartridge would handle the explosion just as well as a paper one, right?
I think paper rounds were used in muzzle loaders. The powder in the paper gave the right power charge needed. It was poured into the barrel, not loaded like a bullet. A paper casing would foul a gun as it would leave debris in the chamber and barrel.
No, that's a different type. I'm thinking of
integrated paper cartridges, not the sort where you bite the bullet off and poured the powder down the barrel.
Meh. Some things just can't be "controlled". The farther we get into the future the more of those things there will be.
Imagine in Star Trek when everyone with access to a replicator can make whatever they want. Want some crack with your Earl Grey? No problem. Just download the formula on the replicator torrent site.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 01:35:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 12:59:17 PM
I don't see why a very hard plastic bullet would not be deadly, albeit not as deadly as a metal one. Again, it doesn't have to be.
I'm not saying it couldn't kill, just that it wouldn't be nearly as lethal as a metal bullet. And that it may not be lethal enough to use over other alternatives.
If plastic doesn't work well (and in spite of your repeated statements I don't really see why not - many plastics are extremely hard), why not stone bullets in a smoothbore?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2013, 01:30:28 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyse_needle_gun
Interesting, so there were paper cartridges used in some breech loading guns, and apparently pretty effective. Thanks for that link Raz. I had never heard of that before. And the paper burned entirely when the gun was fired. Should be useable in a plastic gun, though still the plastic barrel may not be able to handle a heavy load for extended time, but something like a .22 caliber may work.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2013, 02:09:18 AM
Dildos have been around since the Stone Ages? Imagine that!
Well, actually..... :whistle:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4713323.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4713323.stm)
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 01:38:04 PM
Quote from: KRonn on May 07, 2013, 01:22:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 01:02:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:54:33 PM
The cartridge case, chamber, and barrel all take on pressure.
That's not my understanding, and it is kinda contradicted by the existence of integrated paper cartridges. Paper is not a material generally associated with channeling explosive force. :hmm:
In any event, a plastic cartridge would handle the explosion just as well as a paper one, right?
I think paper rounds were used in muzzle loaders. The powder in the paper gave the right power charge needed. It was poured into the barrel, not loaded like a bullet. A paper casing would foul a gun as it would leave debris in the chamber and barrel.
No, that's a different type. I'm thinking of integrated paper cartridges, not the sort where you bite the bullet off and poured the powder down the barrel.
Yep, that's what I was thinking of, circa US Civil War type ammo.
Quote from: merithyn on May 07, 2013, 01:48:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2013, 02:09:18 AM
Dildos have been around since the Stone Ages? Imagine that!
Well, actually..... :whistle:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4713323.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4713323.stm)
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - or in this case a flint knapper.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2013, 01:52:37 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 07, 2013, 01:48:24 PM
Well, actually..... :whistle:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4713323.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4713323.stm)
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - or in this case a flint knapper.
Did you find that at debunkphallussymbols.com (http://debunkphallussymbols.com)?
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:45:33 PM
I'm sure it can contain *a* blast-- just with less powder than what you'd use in a normal gun. Even with that I wouldn't dare fire it. And like I said, a plastic bullet isn't going to be a particularly deadly projectile.
:huh: A high density plastic bullet is more than capable enough of killing someone.
And while nobody sane would dare fire it, that's not the ones that we worry about. A perturbed person would be perfectly willing to do so. Or someone toying with suicide. Or even just a kid. That's an interesting angle actually, how are you going to keep children and teens from downloading and printing weapons?
And then there's another angle: what about those countries where guns are rare?
I have a very hostile attitude against censorship but this tech creates quite a dilemma.
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 01:43:35 PM
If plastic doesn't work well (and in spite of your repeated statements I don't really see why not - many plastics are extremely hard),
Plastic bullets are specifically used as non-lethal rounds for crowd control* (and training in some cases). If some new, dense, space-age plastic would make a good lethal bullet projectile there would probably be something like that on the market. Ammo manufacturers love gimmicks. About the closest I see to that in the "lethal" category is a polymer tip that just helps the copper-jacketed lead round expand.
*Before some goofball tries to use it as a gotcha, yes there have been isolated instances of people dying from plastic or rubber bullet wounds, but I'm talking about relative lethality.
Quotewhy not stone bullets in a smoothbore?
Accuracy, maybe?
Quote from: merithyn on May 07, 2013, 02:09:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2013, 01:52:37 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 07, 2013, 01:48:24 PM
Well, actually..... :whistle:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4713323.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4713323.stm)
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar - or in this case a flint knapper.
Did you find that at debunkphallussymbols.com (http://debunkphallussymbols.com)?
No, I found it in the article you posted.
QuoteIn addition to being a symbolic representation of male genitalia, it was also at times used for knapping flints
Obviously, the point here being to make a functional weapon, not an ideal one.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 07, 2013, 02:24:17 PM
Obviously, the point here being to make a functional weapon, not an ideal one.
:hmm:
I like to have both form and function.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 02:17:18 PM
Plastic bullets are specifically used as non-lethal rounds for crowd control* (and training in some cases). If some new, dense, space-age plastic would make a good lethal bullet projectile there would probably be something like that on the market. Ammo manufacturers love gimmicks. About the closest I see to that in the "lethal" category is a polymer tip that just helps the copper-jacketed lead round expand.
*Before some goofball tries to use it as a gotcha, yes there have been isolated instances of people dying from plastic or rubber bullet wounds, but I'm talking about relative lethality.
:huh: Those are plastic bullets
especially made to be non-lethal as a design feature.
Not all plastic is the same. Some is very hard and some is softer. That's why manufacturers like plastic, it can have
different consistencies, depending on the formula.
Just because non-lethal bullets = plastic, it does not of necessity follow that plastic bullets = non-lethal.
I doubt though that you could make a plastic with all the desireable qualities of lead, like heaviness. Lead bullets will probably always be somewhat better for killing than plastic ones ... but a terrorist or robber would no doubt be happy to exchange the more desireable lead for plastic, if they wanted to hijack an airplane or something.
QuoteAccuracy, maybe?
I imagine it would be as accurate as a shotgun firing slugs.
Good enough for a bank robber or a terrorist, anyway. ;)
Quote from: garbon on May 07, 2013, 02:27:55 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 07, 2013, 02:24:17 PM
Obviously, the point here being to make a functional weapon, not an ideal one.
:hmm:
I like to have both form and function.
So would the gun nuts but in compensation they carry guns instead.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 07, 2013, 02:24:17 PM
Obviously, the point here being to make a functional weapon, not an ideal one.
The whole point of this thing is as a symbol. Obviously nobody should be seriously threatened today that thugs armed with this plastic gun are going to run amok.
But 3-D printers are progressing. The types of plastic they use are improving. Remember there are already firearms out there that are mostly plastic.
It's not impossible to imagine that in 5-10 years someone would be able to reproduce a fully functional AR-15 in a 3D printer, either out of advanced polymers, or out of metal (they're working on that as well).
Quote from: Barrister on May 07, 2013, 02:30:06 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 07, 2013, 02:24:17 PM
Obviously, the point here being to make a functional weapon, not an ideal one.
The whole point of this thing is as a symbol. Obviously nobody should be seriously threatened today that thugs armed with this plastic gun are going to run amok.
But 3-D printers are progressing. The types of plastic they use are improving. Remember there are already firearms out there that are mostly plastic.
It's not impossible to imagine that in 5-10 years someone would be able to reproduce a fully functional AR-15 in a 3D printer, either out of advanced polymers, or out of metal (they're working on that as well).
The real concern to my mind isn't just that anyone can make one, but that an all-plastic gun is difficult to detect. If you require an actual manufacturing facility to make one, it is easier to control.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 01:35:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 12:59:17 PM
I don't see why a very hard plastic bullet would not be deadly, albeit not as deadly as a metal one. Again, it doesn't have to be.
I'm not saying it couldn't kill, just that it wouldn't be nearly as lethal as a metal bullet. And that it may not be lethal enough to use over other alternatives.
This is sorta saying that it's not a lethal as a 120mm cannon. True, but lethal enough.
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 02:33:33 PM
The real concern to my mind isn't just that anyone can make one, but that an all-plastic gun is difficult to detect. If you require an actual manufacturing facility to make one, it is easier to control.
The idea is that it can't be controlled. The box is open and Pandora ripped the top off and burned it.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 07, 2013, 02:16:24 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:45:33 PM
I'm sure it can contain *a* blast-- just with less powder than what you'd use in a normal gun. Even with that I wouldn't dare fire it. And like I said, a plastic bullet isn't going to be a particularly deadly projectile.
:huh: A high density plastic bullet is more than capable enough of killing someone.
And while nobody sane would dare fire it, that's not the ones that we worry about. A perturbed person would be perfectly willing to do so. Or someone toying with suicide. Or even just a kid. That's an interesting angle actually, how are you going to keep children and teens from downloading and printing weapons?
And then there's another angle: what about those countries where guns are rare?
I have a very hostile attitude against censorship but this tech creates quite a dilemma.
I have full faith that our American friends will be as successful at keeping plastic guns out of the hands of kids, deranged maniacs or criminals as they are when it comes to ordinary guns. :)
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 02:29:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 02:17:18 PM
Plastic bullets are specifically used as non-lethal rounds for crowd control* (and training in some cases). If some new, dense, space-age plastic would make a good lethal bullet projectile there would probably be something like that on the market. Ammo manufacturers love gimmicks. About the closest I see to that in the "lethal" category is a polymer tip that just helps the copper-jacketed lead round expand.
*Before some goofball tries to use it as a gotcha, yes there have been isolated instances of people dying from plastic or rubber bullet wounds, but I'm talking about relative lethality.
:huh: Those are plastic bullets especially made to be non-lethal as a design feature.
Not all plastic is the same. Some is very hard and some is softer. That's why manufacturers like plastic, it can have different consistencies, depending on the formula.
Just because non-lethal bullets = plastic, it does not of necessity follow that plastic bullets = non-lethal.
I doubt though that you could make a plastic with all the desireable qualities of lead, like heaviness. Lead bullets will probably always be somewhat better for killing than plastic ones ... but a terrorist or robber would no doubt be happy to exchange the more desireable lead for plastic, if they wanted to hijack an airplane or something.
Well, if plastic guns with plastic bullets become a big problem, you get to tell me you told me so. I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2013, 02:37:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 01:35:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 12:59:17 PM
I don't see why a very hard plastic bullet would not be deadly, albeit not as deadly as a metal one. Again, it doesn't have to be.
I'm not saying it couldn't kill, just that it wouldn't be nearly as lethal as a metal bullet. And that it may not be lethal enough to use over other alternatives.
This is sorta saying that it's not a lethal as a 120mm cannon. True, but lethal enough.
Not at all. Another swing & a miss for Raz.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 03:02:48 PM
Well, if plastic guns with plastic bullets become a big problem, you get to tell me you told me so. I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Lame.
You know, there is an interesting analogy here - porn.
Today, how do you police and manage access to pornography by your kids?
When I was a kid, of course we were not allowed to have porn, and my parents would certainly punish us if they ever found any (not that it stopped us, but there was risk involved, etc., etc.)
Today, I feel kind of silly telling my son he is not allowed to look at porn - he isn't, but we cannot really control it *at all* via any kind of attempt to control their access to it. It is too easy to get if they want to get at it, with the internet just a click away.
So we don't even bother trying to control it's impacy by simply trying to control the physical object of pornography any more. Rather you have to try to
1) Teach them some self control and appropriate/responsible behavior, and more importantly
2) Teach what porn actually means, what it doesn't mean, and how to keep it from negatively shaping their views towards sex and sexuality.
You simply cannot, in any meaningful way, hope to deal with the issue via restricting exposure anymore, so you are forced to deal with the consequences of the exposure instead.
If guns become so easy to make, then bitching about it won't change anything - rather it will simply become more imperative that as a society we deal with what that means, the dangers they present, and how to handle them.
If nothing else, maybe it would cause the gun nuts to stop masturbating all the time over their penis symbols?
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2013, 03:11:12 PM
You know, there is an interesting analogy here - porn.
Today, how do you police and manage access to pornography by your kids?
When I was a kid, of course we were not allowed to have porn, and my parents would certainly punish us if they ever found any (not that it stopped us, but there was risk involved, etc., etc.)
Today, I feel kind of silly telling my son he is not allowed to look at porn - he isn't, but we cannot really control it *at all* via any kind of attempt to control their access to it. It is too easy to get if they want to get at it, with the internet just a click away.
So we don't even bother trying to control it's impacy by simply trying to control the physical object of pornography any more. Rather you have to try to
1) Teach them some self control and appropriate/responsible behavior, and more importantly
2) Teach what porn actually means, what it doesn't mean, and how to keep it from negatively shaping their views towards sex and sexuality.
You simply cannot, in any meaningful way, hope to deal with the issue via restricting exposure anymore, so you are forced to deal with the consequences of the exposure instead.
If guns become so easy to make, then bitching about it won't change anything - rather it will simply become more imperative that as a society we deal with what that means, the dangers they present, and how to handle them.
If nothing else, maybe it would cause the gun nuts to stop masturbating all the time over their penis symbols?
But we do in fact have a variety of restrictions on possessing certain types of porn. Child porn.
Despite the fact it is ridiculously easy to find, possess and distribute child porn if you are so inclined, we make it a criminal offence to do so.
If you could print replica children whenever you want it would be different. :P
Quote from: Iormlund on May 07, 2013, 02:16:24 PM
And then there's another angle: what about those countries where guns are rare?
In fact the guy himself said today that the country from where he's getting more downloads by far is Spain. The next anti eviction protest can get messy...
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 03:05:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2013, 02:37:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 01:35:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 12:59:17 PM
I don't see why a very hard plastic bullet would not be deadly, albeit not as deadly as a metal one. Again, it doesn't have to be.
I'm not saying it couldn't kill, just that it wouldn't be nearly as lethal as a metal bullet. And that it may not be lethal enough to use over other alternatives.
This is sorta saying that it's not a lethal as a 120mm cannon. True, but lethal enough.
Not at all. Another swing & a miss for Raz.
You are talking like these are BBs. They aren't. A high grade plastic bullet would likely go through a person as well as as a steel one. I mean, they have a pretty good tensile strength. They don't deform as well, but would still cut through someone. Or if you don't like plastic, why not ceramics?
Quote from: The Larch on May 07, 2013, 03:46:09 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 07, 2013, 02:16:24 PM
And then there's another angle: what about those countries where guns are rare?
In fact the guy himself said today that the country from where he's getting more downloads by far is Spain. The next anti eviction protest can get messy...
Lovely, yet another gift of American gun culture to the world
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2013, 03:58:48 PM
You are talking like these are BBs. They aren't. A high grade plastic bullet would likely go through a person as well as as a steel one.
No it wouldn't. There is no plastic that will penetrate as well as steel. Also, keep in mind we're talking severely limited velocities here, at least with this dude's current design/materials. He's using a .380 round which isn't the best self-defense round to begin with. Replace the projectile with a "high grade" plastic one, and you're going to get even less lethality (bound to be lighter, meaning less kinetic energy) than the lead/copper bullet.
And that's not to even mention the lack of accuracy, coming out of a short plastic smoothbore barrel. You'd probably need to be within a couple yards to even score a hit, and if you're that close anyway you might as well use a knife or something that you can attack with repeatedly.
Maybe someday there will be a proof of concept for an all-plastic weapon that can rapidly fire multiple accurate shots with predictable lethality, but we're not there yet.
But if you guys want to panic, go ahead.
QuoteI mean, they have a pretty good tensile strength. They don't deform as well, but would still cut through someone. Or if you don't like plastic, why not ceramics?
I think ceramic would be more effective than plastic. You still have the accuracy and single shot issues to deal with.
I'm in agreement with Berkut's reaction.
What 3D printer guy is doing is like picking up a bull horn in the middle of a street and shouting out all sort of horribly offensive things. There is absolutely no point in doing such a thing other than to make some kind of point about one's abstract right to do that.
There is a word for people who do things like that.
Asshole.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 07, 2013, 04:33:35 PM
There is a word for people who do things like that.
Asshole.
You are being too kind
Quote from: Barrister on May 07, 2013, 02:30:06 PM
It's not impossible to imagine that in 5-10 years someone would be able to reproduce a fully functional AR-15 in a 3D printer, either out of advanced polymers, or out of metal (they're working on that as well).
You're gonna need some high grade steel, for the barrel & bolt carrier group, but those are (mostly) unregulated parts here in the US. The only thing restricted is the lower receiver, and they're already making those out of polymer. So you could theoretically print a polymer lower and finish it with parts you order through the mail.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 04:31:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2013, 03:58:48 PM
You are talking like these are BBs. They aren't. A high grade plastic bullet would likely go through a person as well as as a steel one.
No it wouldn't. There is no plastic that will penetrate as well as steel. Also, keep in mind we're talking severely limited velocities here, at least with this dude's current design/materials. He's using a .380 round which isn't the best self-defense round to begin with. Replace the projectile with a "high grade" plastic one, and you're going to get even less lethality (bound to be lighter, meaning less kinetic energy) than the lead/copper bullet.
And that's not to even mention the lack of accuracy, coming out of a short plastic smoothbore barrel. You'd probably need to be within a couple yards to even score a hit, and if you're that close anyway you might as well use a knife or something that you can attack with repeatedly.
Maybe someday there will be a proof of concept for an all-plastic weapon that can rapidly fire multiple accurate shots with predictable lethality, but we're not there yet.
But if you guys want to panic, go ahead.
QuoteI mean, they have a pretty good tensile strength. They don't deform as well, but would still cut through someone. Or if you don't like plastic, why not ceramics?
I think ceramic would be more effective than plastic. You still have the accuracy and single shot issues to deal with.
You are unnecessarily cincerned about the
performance of this weapon.
Think of it this way: who, exactly, would want an all-plastic gun, and for what purpose?
They aren't likely to want it for Olympic target shooting. More like to shove in someone's face after sneaking it through a metal detector. Accuracy and other performance characteristics are strictly secondary, as long as it could actually, you know, kill someone.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 04:37:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 07, 2013, 02:30:06 PM
It's not impossible to imagine that in 5-10 years someone would be able to reproduce a fully functional AR-15 in a 3D printer, either out of advanced polymers, or out of metal (they're working on that as well).
You're gonna need some high grade steel, for the barrel & bolt carrier group, but those are (mostly) unregulated parts here in the US. The only thing restricted is the lower receiver, and they're already making those out of polymer. So you could theoretically print a polymer lower and finish it with parts you order through the mail.
I think someone already did that, but it got far less attention than an all plastic gun.
Quote from: Barrister on May 07, 2013, 04:40:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 04:37:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 07, 2013, 02:30:06 PM
It's not impossible to imagine that in 5-10 years someone would be able to reproduce a fully functional AR-15 in a 3D printer, either out of advanced polymers, or out of metal (they're working on that as well).
You're gonna need some high grade steel, for the barrel & bolt carrier group, but those are (mostly) unregulated parts here in the US. The only thing restricted is the lower receiver, and they're already making those out of polymer. So you could theoretically print a polymer lower and finish it with parts you order through the mail.
I think someone already did that, but it got far less attention than an all plastic gun.
IIRC it was made from whatever the current material is was only strong enough to shoot a few .22 rounds and then it broke. A high quality polymer would be a lot stronger, though probably not as strong as the ones that are simply molded.
Quote from: Malthus on May 07, 2013, 12:59:17 PM
No doubt an all-plastic gun will not have the same lethality as an all-metal gun, or have bullets that travel as far - but it doesn't have to. The only reason to have an all-plastic gun in the first place is to avoid detection. All it has to do is to be able to intimidate or kill people, presumably at short range, like a hostage-taker sticking the thing in a person's face.
It can have the same lethality; and so what if it breaks after the 1st shot. That may be all that is needed.
http://youtu.be/tff_EEQt79s
:P
When the first President gets whacked with one of these things, maybe derfetus will change his tune. Unless it's the present one, of course.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F1122178%2Fthumbs%2Fo-NRA-OBAMA-MANNEQUIN-570.jpg%3F6&hash=5db27cea1a2bf0d9465c32656966b0ac88482587)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2013, 06:43:07 PM
When the first President gets whacked with one of these things, maybe derfetus will change his tune. Unless it's the present one, of course.
Stay classy.
Save it, Cooter.
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2013, 12:38:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 07, 2013, 12:10:05 PM
Require a background check to own 3d printers then. :lmfao:
How exactly is that funny? They will probably be very tighly controlled indeed.
Naturally
Quote from: 11B4V on May 07, 2013, 07:06:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 07, 2013, 12:38:49 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 07, 2013, 12:10:05 PM
Require a background check to own 3d printers then. :lmfao:
How exactly is that funny? They will probably be very tighly controlled indeed.
Naturally
Some dude will release 3D printer plans for 3D printers.
Quote from: ulmont on May 07, 2013, 01:28:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:54:33 PM
The cartridge case, chamber, and barrel all take on pressure. Anyway, I'd like to know what kind of .380 ammo the dude used in his gun. It's a fairly weak cartridge to begin with, but I'd bet he downloaded the powder charge.
The article claims not: "[t]he Liberator fired a standard .380 handgun round without visible damage."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/05/meet-the-liberator-test-firing-the-worlds-first-fully-3d-printed-gun/
By contrast, a rifle round apparently blew it up:
QuoteThe printed gun seems limited, for now, to certain calibers of ammunition. After the handgun round, Wilson switched out the Liberator's barrel for a higher-charge 5.7×28 rifle cartridge. He and John retreated to a safe distance, and John pulled his yellow string again. This time the gun exploded, sending shards of white ABS plastic flying into the weeds and bringing the Liberator's first field trial to an abrupt end.
QuoteWilson showed me a video of an ABS plastic barrel the group printed attached to a non-printed gun body firing ten rounds of .380 ammunition before breaking on the eleventh.
A .380 cartridge is loaded to an av pressure of 21,500 psi
A FN 5.7x28 is loaded to 50k psiWell da it's going to blow it up. :rolleyes:
Edit posts more, 11BIde. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 07, 2013, 04:13:09 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 07, 2013, 03:46:09 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 07, 2013, 02:16:24 PM
And then there's another angle: what about those countries where guns are rare?
In fact the guy himself said today that the country from where he's getting more downloads by far is Spain. The next anti eviction protest can get messy...
Lovely, yet another gift of American gun culture to the world
We aim to please
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fboringpittsburgh.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2Fmr-rodgers-middle-finger-mister-rogers-flips-bird.jpg&hash=f92423a44df7c59567fbf7b447ada4ffe1820509)
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 07, 2013, 07:41:47 PM
Edit posts more, 11BIde. :P
Yea, but I edit them down 90% of the time. Also to correct spelling. :D
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 04:31:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2013, 03:58:48 PM
You are talking like these are BBs. They aren't. A high grade plastic bullet would likely go through a person as well as as a steel one.
No it wouldn't. There is no plastic that will penetrate as well as steel. Also, keep in mind we're talking severely limited velocities here, at least with this dude's current design/materials. He's using a .380 round which isn't the best self-defense round to begin with. Replace the projectile with a "high grade" plastic one, and you're going to get even less lethality (bound to be lighter, meaning less kinetic energy) than the lead/copper bullet.
And that's not to even mention the lack of accuracy, coming out of a short plastic smoothbore barrel. You'd probably need to be within a couple yards to even score a hit, and if you're that close anyway you might as well use a knife or something that you can attack with repeatedly.
Maybe someday there will be a proof of concept for an all-plastic weapon that can rapidly fire multiple accurate shots with predictable lethality, but we're not there yet.
But if you guys want to panic, go ahead.
QuoteI mean, they have a pretty good tensile strength. They don't deform as well, but would still cut through someone. Or if you don't like plastic, why not ceramics?
I think ceramic would be more effective than plastic. You still have the accuracy and single shot issues to deal with.
You only need one shot to kill a person. What was the type of bullet that used in the Reagan assassination attempt? It crippled one man, and almost killed the President. Was it a more powerful or less powerful round then a .38?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2013, 09:08:49 PM
You only need one shot to kill a person.
While technically true, that's an overly simplistic way of looking at it.
QuoteWhat was the type of bullet that used in the Reagan assassination attempt? It crippled one man, and almost killed the President. Was it a more powerful or less powerful round then a .38?
Than a .380. .380 ACP is a lot punier than .38 Special (which itself is considered relatively weak compared to other calibers)
Anyway, the weapon used in the Reagan assassination attempt was a .22 revolver. And with conventional ammo, .22 is weaker than .380. But Hinckley used these weird bullets that were designed to explode on impact, so that muddies the waters a little bit. Only one round actually did explode-- the one that hit Brady. All six shots actually missed Reagan, though the last one freakishly ricocheted and then hit him in the side after he was in the limo.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 04:31:48 PM
Maybe someday there will be a proof of concept for an all-plastic weapon that can rapidly fire multiple accurate shots with predictable lethality, but we're not there yet.
Well a Derringer cannot do any of those things either but it was perfectly sufficient for assassinating the President of the United States.
Besides until we have 3-D printers as common household accessories this is not a serious point of concerned and that gives whomever is working on this project plenty of time to improve their plastic gun design.
Speaking of guns that killed Presidents this reminds me of one of my favorite cutsey gun ads:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F7%2F7c%2FIver_Johnson_revolvers.jpg&hash=7f3e8db30722eddb5a77b135a200f2ce13f00215)
Awwwwww :wub:
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2013, 02:41:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 07, 2013, 09:08:49 PM
You only need one shot to kill a person.
While technically true, that's an overly simplistic way of looking at it.
QuoteWhat was the type of bullet that used in the Reagan assassination attempt? It crippled one man, and almost killed the President. Was it a more powerful or less powerful round then a .38?
Than a .380. .380 ACP is a lot punier than .38 Special (which itself is considered relatively weak compared to other calibers)
Anyway, the weapon used in the Reagan assassination attempt was a .22 revolver. And with conventional ammo, .22 is weaker than .380. But Hinckley used these weird bullets that were designed to explode on impact, so that muddies the waters a little bit. Only one round actually did explode-- the one that hit Brady. All six shots actually missed Reagan, though the last one freakishly ricocheted and then hit him in the side after he was in the limo.
Okay, if I shot a person with a .380 at point blank range what would it likely do that person? Say I shot them in the Chest or head. Would they be wounded? Would they laugh it off. Would they die without medical attention?
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2013, 02:53:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 04:31:48 PM
Maybe someday there will be a proof of concept for an all-plastic weapon that can rapidly fire multiple accurate shots with predictable lethality, but we're not there yet.
Well a Derringer cannot do any of those things either but it was perfectly sufficient for assassinating the President of the United States.
Besides until we have 3-D printers as common household accessories this is not a serious point of concerned and that gives whomever is working on this project plenty of time to improve their plastic gun design.
Anti-gun nut! :angry:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2013, 03:39:46 PM
Okay, if I shot a person with a .380 at point blank range what would it likely do that person? Say I shot them in the Chest or head. Would they be wounded? Would they laugh it off. Would they die without medical attention?
Depends on a lot of variables, but yet it could kill them. But if you're stuck with a single shot .380 pistol and have the ability to get that close there are (non-firearm) weapons that would probably be more effective. Getting kinda tired of having to repeat that.
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2013, 03:49:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2013, 03:39:46 PM
Okay, if I shot a person with a .380 at point blank range what would it likely do that person? Say I shot them in the Chest or head. Would they be wounded? Would they laugh it off. Would they die without medical attention?
Depends on a lot of variables, but yet it could kill them. But if you're stuck with a single shot .380 pistol and have the ability to get that close there are (non-firearm) weapons that would probably be more effective. Getting kinda tired of having to repeat that.
How many of them are made of plastic?
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2013, 03:49:24 PM
But if you're stuck with a single shot .380 pistol and have the ability to get that close there are (non-firearm) weapons that would probably be more effective.
Which again raises the question of why someone would go through all the trouble to do this.
Other than to be an asshole, of course.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 08, 2013, 05:17:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2013, 03:49:24 PM
But if you're stuck with a single shot .380 pistol and have the ability to get that close there are (non-firearm) weapons that would probably be more effective.
Which again raises the question of why someone would go through all the trouble to do this.
Other than to be an asshole, of course.
Somebody, somewhere, is gonna be that asshole, though. Might as be the one who yells "FIRST" if you're so inclined.
Quote from: sbr on May 08, 2013, 03:58:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2013, 03:49:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2013, 03:39:46 PM
Okay, if I shot a person with a .380 at point blank range what would it likely do that person? Say I shot them in the Chest or head. Would they be wounded? Would they laugh it off. Would they die without medical attention?
Depends on a lot of variables, but yet it could kill them. But if you're stuck with a single shot .380 pistol and have the ability to get that close there are (non-firearm) weapons that would probably be more effective. Getting kinda tired of having to repeat that.
How many of them are made of plastic?
Dunno. I've been told that there is some awesome plastic that's just as good as steel. But do they have to be plastic?
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2013, 06:24:45 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 08, 2013, 05:17:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2013, 03:49:24 PM
But if you're stuck with a single shot .380 pistol and have the ability to get that close there are (non-firearm) weapons that would probably be more effective.
Which again raises the question of why someone would go through all the trouble to do this.
Other than to be an asshole, of course.
Somebody, somewhere, is gonna be that asshole, though. Might as be the one who yells "FIRST" if you're so inclined.
:hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2013, 03:49:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 08, 2013, 03:39:46 PM
Okay, if I shot a person with a .380 at point blank range what would it likely do that person? Say I shot them in the Chest or head. Would they be wounded? Would they laugh it off. Would they die without medical attention?
Depends on a lot of variables, but yet it could kill them. But if you're stuck with a single shot .380 pistol and have the ability to get that close there are (non-firearm) weapons that would probably be more effective. Getting kinda tired of having to repeat that.
You keep trying to minimize the danger of .380 pistol. What would you say are the chances of being shot in the head or chest with such a weapon and you being able to laugh it off?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 08, 2013, 05:17:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2013, 03:49:24 PM
But if you're stuck with a single shot .380 pistol and have the ability to get that close there are (non-firearm) weapons that would probably be more effective.
Which again raises the question of why someone would go through all the trouble to do this.
Other than to be an asshole, of course.
The guy describes himself as an anarchist. I wonder what a person like that would use such a weapon for. :hmm:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2013, 03:03:31 AM
You keep trying to minimize the danger of .380 pistol. What would you say are the chances of being shot in the head or chest with such a weapon and you being able to laugh it off?
I don't know. I probably wouldn't laugh off being stabbed repeatedly with a ceramic knife, either :mellow:
This line of argument just isn't convincing.
There is a reason why people have been making small, easily concealed firearms since there have BEEN firearms, despite the fact that such weapons are pretty well by definition fairly low-powered and inaccurate - and that reason is that it is a lot easier to kill someone with even a tiny gun, then to hack them to death with an equally-concealable knife.
No-one thinks that a plastic pistol is going to replace an assault rifle in deadliness any time soon; its natural forebearers are things like derringers - guns made specifically to be inconspicuous and so concealable. Only in this case, it is concealable because of what it is made of, rather than because of its size. It's the natural tool of the assassin, the terrorist and the criminal.
Oh yeah, well *you* failed to convince me. How ya like them apples? :D
I'm just getting the vibe from you guys that a 3-D printed gun is worthy of panic simply due to your overblown fear of guns in general.
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2013, 08:55:39 AM
Oh yeah, well *you* failed to convince me. How ya like them apples? :D
I'm just getting the vibe from you guys that a 3-D printed gun is worthy of panic simply due to your overblown fear of guns in general.
Saying that the thing is the equivalent of a derringer is "panic"?
Oookay. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2013, 08:59:12 AM
Saying that the thing is the equivalent of a derringer is "panic"?
Pretty much. Guns are scary & all.
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2013, 09:03:31 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2013, 08:59:12 AM
Saying that the thing is the equivalent of a derringer is "panic"?
Pretty much. Guns are scary & all.
You are barking up the wrong tree. I've been shooting guns recreationally since I was 12. Mind you, that amounts to plinking tin cans with a .22 every coupla years, but still, the notion I'm some kind of gun-hater is just silly.
Cmon spiess you can't be that dumb.
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2013, 09:06:43 AM
You are barking up the wrong tree. I've been shooting guns recreationally since I was 12. Mind you, that amounts to plinking tin cans with a .22 every coupla years, but still, the notion I'm some kind of gun-hater is just silly.
I knew you'd mention your .22 :D
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2013, 09:06:43 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2013, 09:03:31 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2013, 08:59:12 AM
Saying that the thing is the equivalent of a derringer is "panic"?
Pretty much. Guns are scary & all.
You are barking up the wrong tree. I've been shooting guns recreationally since I was 12. Mind you, that amounts to plinking tin cans with a .22 every coupla years, but still, the notion I'm some kind of gun-hater is just silly.
It's the standard gun nut response to ANY concern over guns of any kind.
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2013, 07:55:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2013, 03:03:31 AM
You keep trying to minimize the danger of .380 pistol. What would you say are the chances of being shot in the head or chest with such a weapon and you being able to laugh it off?
I don't know. I probably wouldn't laugh off being stabbed repeatedly with a ceramic knife, either :mellow:
I wasn't thinking of a percent chance. Just sort of "very likely", or "not likely at all". Knife wounds tend to be much less damaging then gunshot wounds, if for not other reason then you have to be fairly skilled with a knife to kill with only one stab. Knife attacks tend have multiple wounds and have a much higher rate of recovery. Doing a little bit of research, William McKinley was killed by a .32 S&W bullet which is a smaller bullet with less power then a .380. So it would be my understanding that a while not as effective as say a shotgun, a flamethower, or .50 caliber bullet a .380 is quite deadly and being shot with one would be a very serious and life threatening event. Do you disagree with this?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2013, 10:16:32 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2013, 07:55:59 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2013, 03:03:31 AM
You keep trying to minimize the danger of .380 pistol. What would you say are the chances of being shot in the head or chest with such a weapon and you being able to laugh it off?
I don't know. I probably wouldn't laugh off being stabbed repeatedly with a ceramic knife, either :mellow:
I wasn't thinking of a percent chance. Just sort of "very likely", or "not likely at all". Knife wounds tend to be much less damaging then gunshot wounds, if for not other reason then you have to be fairly skilled with a knife to kill with only one stab. Knife attacks tend have multiple wounds and have a much higher rate of recovery. Doing a little bit of research, William McKinley was killed by a .32 S&W bullet which is a smaller bullet with less power then a .380. So it would be my understanding that a while not as effective as say a shotgun, a flamethower, or .50 caliber bullet a .380 is quite deadly and being shot with one would be a very serious and life threatening event. Do you disagree with this?
I didn't bring up shotguns, flamethrowers, nor .50 caliber. Rephrase without your childish hyperbole & maybe I'll answer, you petulant little shit.
So a potentially lethal, undetectable, AND untraceable weapon doesn't concern you as a security risk, Spicy? Actually, you've argued our point successfully for us- since this couldn't be made into a precision or high-power weapon with the current technology, its ONLY values are its difficulty in being detected and its difficulty in being traced.
I'm actually quite the gun nut offline, but this is a Pandora's Box, dude.
You said kept mentioning that other weapons are more effective, which is a strangely evasive way to dismiss the bullet's killing power. Since you never mentioned what other weapons were so I had to extrapolate. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that a flame thower is more damaging then a .380 pistol. I'm not petulant, in fact I'm quite amused by you attempts play down the killing power of a certain round.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2013, 10:56:02 AM
So a potentially lethal, undetectable, AND untraceable weapon doesn't concern you as a security risk, Spicy? Actually, you've argued our point successfully for us- since this couldn't be made into a precision or high-power weapon with the current technology, its ONLY values are its difficulty in being detected and its difficulty in being traced.
It's not undetectable. The weapon that has been demonstrated has a metal nail for a firing pin and a metallic .380 round. Untraceable doesn't concern me so much, as it's already legal to manufacture untraceable weapons. I will grant that it's potentially lethal. But I'm not losing much sleep over it yet.
QuoteI'm actually quite the gun nut offline, but this is a Pandora's Box, dude.
On that I agree. There's really nothing that can be done to put the lid back on.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever taken an airsoft round from a gas gun? That's enough to wound, and that's just a little hollow plastic sphere. If we loaded a hard plastic equivalent of a slug, it might not have the stopping power of metal ammo, but for its intended purpose, it'd only need to work once.
Without the ammo, it'd be difficult to recognize just a firing pin for what it is. It'd make metal detectors a hellacious experience, since one tiny metal shank could lead to a full search, when it could just as easily be a piece of a pen that's fallen out, even a metal bobby pin.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2013, 11:26:01 AM
Just out of curiosity, have you ever taken an airsoft round from a gas gun? That's enough to wound, and that's just a little hollow plastic sphere.
No. Got shot with a BB in the hand, and more than a few paintballs.
[/quote]If we loaded a hard plastic equivalent of a slug, it might not have the stopping power of metal ammo, but for its intended purpose, it'd only need to work once. [/quote]
You guys keep talking about the worst possible scenario. Yes, lots of things *could* be lethal. But shooting a plastic slug at someone doesn't seem like a well-thought out assassination attempt.
QuoteWithout the ammo, it'd be difficult to recognize just a firing pin for what it is. It'd make metal detectors a hellacious experience, since one tiny metal shank could lead to a full search, when it could just as easily be a piece of a pen that's fallen out, even a metal bobby pin.
Full search, or a pat-down? Hell, I have to go through a pat-down just to get into Paul Brown Stadium on game day.
Actually it sounds like a well thought out and effective attack. There seems to be a little gun snobbery here. Sure a dense plastic bullet or ceramic bullet may not be as effective as conventional one, but I strongly suspect it would penetrate tissue. If someone were to smuggle one into a campaign rally and got up to the line where they shake the President's hand they could easily kill or at least seriously wound the President.
It could pierce the skin, cause a serious infection. #clark grizwald
Most people don't give a shit what's detectable. Only what they can personally control.
A lot of this is also mental masturbation. We know what round was put in there, but what we don't know is the muzzle energy of this gun.
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2013, 12:09:15 PM
You guys keep talking about the worst possible scenario. Yes, lots of things *could* be lethal. But shooting a plastic slug at someone doesn't seem like a well-thought out assassination attempt.
Is that where we're setting the bar?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2013, 02:27:21 PM
A lot of this is also mental masturbation. We know what round was put in there, but what we don't know is the muzzle energy of this gun.
Nor accuracy. A smoothbore plastic barrel isn't going to be too accurate (nor will it help in the muzzle energy department).
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2013, 11:09:16 AM
On that I agree. There's really nothing that can be done to put the lid back on.
Didn't you just spend pages saying this is nothing to lose sleep over and not a big deal? Now it is suddenly Pandora's Box being opened? :hmm:
We'll see. My main concern here is things like this will essentially invite more and more government powers and control in their attempts to do their basic job: protect people and property.
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2013, 02:39:03 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2013, 02:27:21 PM
A lot of this is also mental masturbation. We know what round was put in there, but what we don't know is the muzzle energy of this gun.
Nor accuracy. A smoothbore plastic barrel isn't going to be too accurate (nor will it help in the muzzle energy department).
Well if you are smuggling a plastic gun around the idea is to get it inside of a secured area. In that case you will probably be firing at point blank range since they will not be expecting you to have a weapon. I also think the idea a knife would be more effective is rather absurd, it takes a bit more skill and physical strength to take somebody down with a blade than it does to point a gun and pull the trigger.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2013, 02:27:21 PM
A lot of this is also mental masturbation. We know what round was put in there, but what we don't know is the muzzle energy of this gun.
Muzzle energy of the gun??? Depends on what
cartridge the "gun" is shooting :huh:
Velocity of Bullet
Weight of bullet.
Was said it was a .380 right? Standard factory loaded round right? With a 90-95gr bullet at about 950-1000 fps thats in the neighborhoood of 190-200 foot pounds at the muzzle.
Is a plastic nuke dangerous enough for Mr. Nut?
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2013, 03:03:23 PM
Is a plastic nuke dangerous enough for Mr. Nut?
Dont know.
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2013, 02:49:27 PM
Well if you are smuggling a plastic gun around the idea is to get it inside of a secured area. In that case you will probably be firing at point blank range since they will not be expecting you to have a weapon.
It's just going to be the zip gun of the 21st century. Doesn't need range or firepower or any of the other characteristics that gets derspiess to roll over and annoy the wife when it's not even his birthday.
QuoteI also think the idea a knife would be more effective is rather absurd, it takes a bit more skill and physical strength to take somebody down with a blade than it does to point a gun and pull the trigger.
I dunno about that. I always heard the refrain "run from a knife, close on a gun" in training. A knife'll kill you quicker than dogshit, and it doesn't need to be expertly wielded, either. You can bleed out before you even realize you were stuck.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2013, 03:11:01 PM
I dunno about that. I always heard the refrain "run from a knife, close on a gun" in training. A knife'll kill you quicker than dogshit, and it doesn't need to be expertly wielded, either. You can bleed out before you even realize you were stuck.
That a fact? Their lethality is pretty evident in stats (they are always a strong second behind handguns) but as somebody who has never killed anybody I know what I would rather have, even at close range.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2013, 03:02:04 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2013, 02:27:21 PM
A lot of this is also mental masturbation. We know what round was put in there, but what we don't know is the muzzle energy of this gun.
Muzzle energy of the gun??? Depends on what cartridge the "gun" is shooting :huh:
Velocity of Bullet
Weight of bullet.
Was said it was a .380 right? Standard factory loaded round right? With a 90-95gr bullet at about 950-1000 fps thats in the neighborhoood of 190-200 foot pounds at the muzzle.
But I'd have to think it's going to be less than that coming from a short plastic smoothbore barrel.
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2013, 03:22:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2013, 03:11:01 PM
I dunno about that. I always heard the refrain "run from a knife, close on a gun" in training. A knife'll kill you quicker than dogshit, and it doesn't need to be expertly wielded, either. You can bleed out before you even realize you were stuck.
That a fact? Their lethality is pretty evident in stats (they are always a strong second behind handguns) but as somebody who has never killed anybody I know what I would rather have, even at close range.
Guns can miss, jam, scare the shit out of whoever's shooting it and get dropped and in close enough proximity, you can even disable one if you're a Green Beanie ninja. But fuck that blade shit. I've known guys that didn't even feel it go in and out until it was all over. Hey, who's blood is this? *drop*
Dudes doing pretty good with a knife against multiple cops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqMgG_FI2gI
The original clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RTkGbiJpk
Remember that thread a seven or eight years back about some retard in Winnipeg who brought a knife to a fight with the cops, and then people were outraged when the cops put three in his chest? All the bleeding hearts were like 'couldn't they have just shot the knife out of his hand?'
Quote from: derspiess on May 09, 2013, 03:30:16 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2013, 03:02:04 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2013, 02:27:21 PM
A lot of this is also mental masturbation. We know what round was put in there, but what we don't know is the muzzle energy of this gun.
Muzzle energy of the gun??? Depends on what cartridge the "gun" is shooting :huh:
Velocity of Bullet
Weight of bullet.
Was said it was a .380 right? Standard factory loaded round right? With a 90-95gr bullet at about 950-1000 fps thats in the neighborhoood of 190-200 foot pounds at the muzzle.
But I'd have to think it's going to be less than that coming from a short plastic smoothbore barrel.
That's from a 3" barrel. Smooth or rifled is really irrelevant at PB range. Besides, all things being equal, a smoothbore would be faster in terms of velocity. Less accurate, however.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2013, 03:43:08 PM
Dudes doing pretty good with a knife against multiple cops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqMgG_FI2gI
The original clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RTkGbiJpk
Damn, that is fucked up.
Besides, I think the a study came up with 65-80 foot pounds to kill a man. I would have to look around to find a link when I got time. Might have been a military study.
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2013, 04:01:02 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2013, 03:43:08 PM
Dudes doing pretty good with a knife against multiple cops.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqMgG_FI2gI
The original clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RTkGbiJpk
Damn, that is fucked up.
A suspect with a ready knife is a scary thing.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2013, 03:31:12 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 09, 2013, 03:22:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2013, 03:11:01 PM
I dunno about that. I always heard the refrain "run from a knife, close on a gun" in training. A knife'll kill you quicker than dogshit, and it doesn't need to be expertly wielded, either. You can bleed out before you even realize you were stuck.
That a fact? Their lethality is pretty evident in stats (they are always a strong second behind handguns) but as somebody who has never killed anybody I know what I would rather have, even at close range.
Guns can miss, jam, scare the shit out of whoever's shooting it and get dropped and in close enough proximity, you can even disable one if you're a Green Beanie ninja. But fuck that blade shit. I've known guys that didn't even feel it go in and out until it was all over. Hey, who's blood is this? *drop*
I'm not quite sure what's being debated here.
Blades can absolutely be dangerous. And totally agree you might not even feel it. One of my favourite war stories was the guy who was having a birthday party, and wound up inviting a bunch of people he didn't know over to his house after the bar closed. One of these guys was playing with his replica samurai sword. So homeowner takes the sword and gently pokes the guy with the tip saying "don't touch my stuff". No one thought anything of it at the time until 5 minutes later when the guy collapsed - his heart had been nicked.
Agree with the "run from a knife, but close to a gun", but I'd still rather deal with a knife weilding maniac than a gun weilding one, since I'd put more trust in my ability to run away than my ability to wrestle the gun out of the guys hand.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2013, 04:08:47 PM
I'm not quite sure what's being debated here.
That's because we're not really debating anything, counselor. We're having a conversation. We can do that without debate. :smarty:
I have enough trouble with those 3D puzzles.
Files removed at the request of the DoD.
The Department of State's Office of Defence Trade Controls Compliance, but close enough :console:
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2013, 03:58:39 PM
That's from a 3" barrel. Smooth or rifled is really irrelevant at PB range. Besides, all things being equal, a smoothbore would be faster in terms of velocity. Less accurate, however.
The barrels don't look even 3" to me (assuming the chamber is integrated into the barrel). And you're assuming there is a tight fit between the bullet and smoothbore barrel-- I would wager that there is some space there to prevent excessive pressure. Finally, with the the barrel being plastic there's bound to be some "give" or slight expansion that you wouldn't have with a hardened steel barrel. That's going to let some gases leak out.
Fucker should have been considerate enough to at least put it through a chrony so we'd see the velocity to confirm :angry:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Faudio%2Fvideo%2F2013%2F5%2F9%2F1368137811988%2F3D-gun-010.jpg&hash=3f8d3578191d2f8d3133a2b308f84c5af3204315)
FWIW, this dude kinda backs up what I said about the gun being dangerous to the user. Yeah, in the demonstration it didn't explode and he says in the other shots it didn't, but it's not something I would want to take a chance on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/09/3d-printed-guns-user
QuoteFWIW, this dude kinda backs up what I said about the gun being dangerous to the user.
This be a true statement.
Quote from: derspiess on May 10, 2013, 09:59:40 AM
The barrels don't look even 3" to me (assuming the chamber is integrated into the barrel). And you're assuming there is a tight fit between the bullet and smoothbore barrel-- I would wager that there is some space there to prevent excessive pressure. Finally, with the the barrel being plastic there's bound to be some "give" or slight expansion that you wouldn't have with a hardened steel barrel. That's going to let some gases leak out.
Fucker should have been considerate enough to at least put it through a chrony so we'd see the velocity to confirm :angry:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Faudio%2Fvideo%2F2013%2F5%2F9%2F1368137811988%2F3D-gun-010.jpg&hash=3f8d3578191d2f8d3133a2b308f84c5af3204315)
FWIW, this dude kinda backs up what I said about the gun being dangerous to the user. Yeah, in the demonstration it didn't explode and he says in the other shots it didn't, but it's not something I would want to take a chance on: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/09/3d-printed-guns-user
Me either, given that ABS' tensile strength is only in the ballpark of 4,300 psi.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2013, 10:04:27 AM
QuoteFWIW, this dude kinda backs up what I said about the gun being dangerous to the user.
This be a true statement.
No shit. Look at Caliga.
Basically, knowing the tensile strength of ABS, what likely happened was that the chamber and barrel were cracked by the first shot and exacerbated by the subsequent shots until failure. Still, knowing that cartridges can be loaded for rimfire pressures up to 40,000 psi, I wouldn't want to take the chance that the gun won't blow up- especially given the 3d printing process is granular in nature, so even designing this as a throwaway weapon is problematic, since you can't necessarily plot where the stress points in the chamber and barrel are and how they'll deform.