2 
3D printing failed at making an actual gun. In fact, the test gun pretty much blew up in the poor test guy’s face. Since then, the guys behind that megaflop have lowered their sights (pardon the pun) to try and take on the humble magazine — something they might be able to achieve, if they weren’t a bunch of raving blockheads. Check out the video if you like wallowing in other people’s failure.
The group of psychos, called Defence Distributed (whose ultimate aim is to create a complete ‘downloadable gun’, because that sounds like a great idea), tried building a bog-standard 30-round magazine for an AR-15 assault rifle. In theory, this shouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility — in Afghanistan, the magazines used by British and American troops are now made from a polymer.
Of course, these mags weren’t the carefully-though-out-design of experienced engineers, but rather something bodged together by gum-chewing wannabe-Jack-Wills models (if the YouTube video is anything to go by); unsurprisingly, the mag jams after just 5 rounds, and apparently the whole thing fell to pieces pretty damn quick. Even while it was still in one sorry piece, it didn’t work at all:
“The mag catch slot seemed a little larger than a pmag’s, and there was some noticeable play in the well.”
“Successive rounds would jam in the feed ramp”
“Smooth feeding was not to be in the cards”
I’m now looking forward to the next instalment, where a bunch of rednecks make 3-D printed bullets and fire them at each other. We can live in hope. [ExtremeTech]
The World's First Entirely 3D Printed Gun
Why Screw Around with Paint Brushes When There's a Gun for That?
Did Path Screw Up and Steal Your Data Again?
Maybe they should start with 3D printing a musket, and work forward from there?
Not sure if the constant insults in this article were meant to be funny, but they weren’t. I think somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
What’s wrong with these guys trying this? I’m sure obtaining the machinery and materials needed to print a 3D gun is a lot harder for would-be criminals than just buying one on the black market in America, if that’s what you were getting at.
Horrible style of writing, you took the bashing too far.
I mostly take issue with their aim of creating a gun that absolutely anyone can download and build. And yeah, I think they’re morons for firing completely untested weapons with zero regard for safety.
I have to say, I wouldn’t bloody fire something totally untested like that so close to my person. Mounted to something and fired with a string on the trigger would be more my bag. You know, until I can be sure it’s not going to BLOW UP IN MY FACE.
Absolutely anybody can’t create it though. I don’t have the equipment necessary in order to print it. I do however have the money to buy an illegal fire arm if I needed to. So what’s the difference?
They’re firing printed weapons, not printed ammunition. Were the ammo printed in some way, I imagine more safety precautions would be taken. However, it’s their own safety, not ours, so if they feel fine with shooting a printed gun with only wearing sun glasses, then let them.
Anyone with a 3-D printer can, however; maybe not such an issue right at this moment, but give it a few years, I, for one, don’t really like the idea of arms proliferation through 3-D printing.
Buying an illegal firearm is shady, dangerous and probably more expensive than you think. Printing one requires buying a 3-D printer and supplies.
And an unsafe gun is just as, if not more, dangerous than unsafe ammo. I’m not trying to stop them from testing them, just saying that’s they’re stupid for doing so.
It is naive to think that it is difficult to buy illegally imported weapons. Especially in places such as America and Africa. Hell, in America it’d be easier to buy one legally than to print one yourself.
Doubt it. So a printed gun firing proper ammo is more dangerous than a proper gun firing printed ammo? What happens if the ammo malfunctions? The gun would go poof, in your face.
Oh and the personal insult on the guy testing it, saying he was a “gum-chewing wannabe-Jack-Wills model” – that is not ok. So because you disagree with them, you attack them personally? I disagree with you, how about I take a shot at your appearance?
Not professional in the slightest, you better smarten up, you’re bringing the professionalism of this site down with remarks like that. Were it included in a funny article, it could be taken in jest. Your article was clearly just malicious and over the top.
America, I agree; in the UK, genuine firearms are hard to come by, and often adapted blank-firing weapons, which are just as unreliable and prone to catastrophic failure as the 3-D printed weapons.
Well it really depends *how* the ammo malfunctions. If there’s an improper seal around the bullet from the casing, you’ll get bad accuracy; truth be told, apart from a woefully over-powered round, most ammo malfunctions would do bad things to the barrell but be generally safe.
A malfunctioning weapon, however, can easily harm you — there are bolts to fly into your face, stovepipe mis-feeds to explode, not to mention bad chamber seals to literally back-fire. So honestly, I’d rather fire 3-D printed ammo from a real weapons than the other way round.
You can make a gun in a machine shop in under 3 hours so whats the difference? In fact all they are testing is the lower receiver, I have seen people make lower receivers very quickly.
Also a 3D printers still costs a lot more then a pistol or a rifle, a working Lee Enfield costs around £200-350 and the ammo isn’t that hard to get, I know some of the old people in my village still have boxes of it.
The difference is that making a gun in a 3D printer is something I reckon I could do; making one in a workshop, no way in hell.
Computers can control machinery so al you need is a data file and the computer can make you a receiver out of metal.
Mr Mills, do you have any experience with rifles or guns?
Lots, thanks. You still wouldn’t catch me behind a printed AR-15 anytime soon.
That was an M-16 not the AR-15. If you weren’t so disingenuous and would have actually posted part2 to of the video where the magazine works flawlessly you would have seen it is a select fire weapon. You can already get the download for the magazines and lower receivers.
While I am not sure I would have shoulder fired the first one, he did it himself, that’s his business, not mine. He was however firing the lower pressure .223cal as opposed to 5.56mm
As for your thing about “anyone being able to have a gun”. Anyone can already have a gun. I can build a gun out of the crap I have in my garage. I really don’t see your point there. Granted, I can not produce a semi-automatic in my garage. I could put together a single shot or single action revolve without much effort. Anyone with a little machinist experience and a little equipment could. If I decided to, it would be something larger than a .223cal. Kids have been making zip guns for generations. I am not sure where you were trying to go with this article unless you were just trying to spew some liberal garbage. If so the Huffington Post may be looking someone.
I’ve learnt loads about guns in the last few days from Piers Morgan. So I now know that all guns are dangerous killing machines and all gun owners are loud mouth, mass murders in waiting.
Lets ban 3D printers now before this gets too far down the road to stop.
Mr Mills clearly has issues…
If you check out this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q10Jz2qIog8
A video that was posted 3 days ago shows the next prototype working correctly.
I like that they are posting videos of both their successes and failures as it shows that they are developing ideas.
How did Mr Mills even get to ‘write’ for Gizmodo?
There are a couple of pre-requisites for writing on Gizmodo, primarily talent. On which Mr. Mills scores highly. Thanks.
For Gizmodo UK, he is ok, but that isn’t saying a whole lot.
- These people are trying to make a gun that can be made in a 3D printer.
- A 3D printer can be bought anywhere in the world (regardless of availability of guns or legalities) relatively cheaply and discreetly.
- You can download what these guys are doing (probably for some kind of profit) if they succeed, and make, with resources, many guns where there may not of been guns before.
- Guns are made to kill.
What’s the argument here?
Guns are made to shoot, whether that is to kill an animal, or hit a target on the range.
A 3D printer costs more than a gun off of the black market, so why would someone bother? Not to mention the fact that you need ammo, which you will have difficulty printing due to the components needed.
Guns are everywhere, and I mean everywhere. Anyways some guys trying out parts with a 3D printer are not going to achieve anything that the Arms Industry hasn’t already. If it was a profitable idea, at least one of the many manufacturers would have already adopted it.
Perhaps its because once you’ve bought the 3D printer all you need are the materials to build not 1, but lots of guns, making the initial outlay for the machine worth it.
I think when all has been said and done there a whole load of 3D ideas and creations that would be far more productive to work on than printed guns.
Nice to see that one requirement is the ability to write malicious articles, on a subject the writer clearly has no clue about.
Given how fast technology advances doesn’t Gizmodo printing these kind of articles seem a little wrong.
It could be written in a more journalistic way where printing a gun or magazine which only lasts a few rounds is still quite an achievement and as such in 1 year, 2 or maybe more, as tech advances it seems that this could be possible.
Only need…
1. Decent 3D plans for weapon, with engineering done so the thing has inherent strength.
2. Better resolution printers
3. Better / Harder materials to print with
4. Rewriting of the laws of physics.
As someone who has served his fair share of military service, I can not even begin to describe how fucked up this is. Anyway, I personally don’t give a toss about the safety of these morons or anyone else who attempts to test (!) a firearm in their back garden; the last thing the world needs is mini garage arms manufacturers.
Having said that, I’m pretty certain the NRA will step in to protect their interests, forcing the US government will legislate against Joe Bloggs manufacturing their own weapons.
Edit! Edit! Pretty please?
I for one agree, bunch of idiots. If youre testing any new type of weaponry, you dont dress up like you have just walked out of Jack and Jones with a pair of 80′s shades.
The first aeroplanes were pretty pathetic but look at them now. I’ve no doubt 3D printing techniques will improve, and it’s only fair that we share the ability to kill maim and destroy equally to everybody with an internet connection and a 3D printer.
Rememberer, it’s not 3D printers that kill people; it people that kill people, and if you want my 3D printer you can take it from my cold dead hands.
http://youtu.be/0vX4ETlCr4A
When did gizmodo made the change from techblog to cyber bullying media?
Not do bothered by the concept itself, computer assisted milling is well established and widely available and does the same thing better. 3D printing rather than milling is honestly a bit backward but doesn’t produce something we don’t already have freely available with existing CAM on the market.
More annoyed by the poor safety these guys demonstrate, you do not point a loaded weapon in the air EVER. Just poor training and if you are going to put something on youtube you should at least look like you know what you are doing, and his PPE wasn’t exactly the best. Safety glasses and real ear defenders are the minimum and for a test fire armour and a helmet or an unmanned platform is best.
“morons” “blockheads” “psychos” “rednecks”
Do you even bother to be impartial? or is this site just a place to put out your political bile?
I don’t care if they are building dildo’s I care about the technology, if you don’t maybe you should apply to write for the Huffington Post.
Well, this is certainly another author who’s articles I will be avoiding in the future.
Gizmodo, I think perhaps you need to get someone that actually knows what he’s talking about and isn’t just an ignorant moron to write your firearm articles in the future.
Please, if you are insane enough to think 3D printing of firearms for the general public is a good idea, don’t read Gizmodo UK. Try Gizmodo US.
3D printers are great. Everyone with a gun isn’t.
So you solution is….? Should we ban technology or outlaw printers? When will people understand you can’t legislate morality? Look, I will agree there is a certain amount of every population that probably shouldn’t be armed. Thing is we are chasing after this should be banned, that should be banned, it solves nothing. There will always be evil in the world. I am fairly certain there were cavemen with criminal minds that were clubbing each other to death.
If we want to do something we need to look at the lack of morals, mental issues and mind set. We can differ on our opinion on guns. I welcome a different point of view but what we can’t do is keep blaming inanimate objects for peoples actions.
As the old saying goes, God created all men, Samuel Colt made them equal. There is a lot of truth to that. There is nothing equal about some big thug that would beat an old lady for her purse. While, I would rather that thug not have a gun, I would much rather they both had one than neither have one.
And my reply wasn’t intended for you – it was supposed to be a general post. Damn lack of edit button……