An American bunch of pro-gun techies has spent the past couple months sinking time and money into a project to create a ‘Wiki-weapon’, a 3D printed gun that anyone can download and build for themselves. Up until now, they’ve been a bit of a joke, but their latest efforts seem to be bearing some fruit. And that scares me witless.
The group, called Defence Distributed, has been concentrating on designs for a high-capacity magazine for AR-series assault rifles, one of the more common weapons in America. Focussing on designing magazines rather than actual guns makes sense for Defence Distributed: not only are magazines more viable to be made from plastic than say, real guns, high-capacity magazines have also been banned in New York in the wake of the recent spate of shootings. Making and distributing plans for a 3D magazine, then, is an easy way for anti-gun-control activists to make a statement, ‘keep their liberty’, and stick it to the man.
They’re being successful, too. Their latest magazine design — the ‘Cuomo Mag‘ — seems to function perfectly correctly, as an AR magazine should.
While I admire the level of technical dedication and innovation Defence Distributed have put into the project, from a more practical standpoint, their actions are difficult to condone. Yes, today it’s just magazines — not a serious cause for concern here in the UK, since the weapons to use aforementioned magazines with are still extremely hard to come by. The worry lies a few years down the road, when 3D printing has advanced and 3D-printed weapons are feasible. Once that happens, projects like Defence Distributed will be making it exponentially easier for anyone who wants a firearm to get one.
This doesn’t seem to be something that Defence Distributed has clearly thought through. In fact, in the interview above, Defence Distributed’s founder says “I’m just resisting. What am I resisting? I don’t know.” The fact is, this is clearly a project born out of America’s ongoing gun control debate; the problem is that Defence Distributed aren’t just affecting everyone in the United States, but the rest of the world as well. Even Israel’s felt the need to weigh in on the issue, with a typically Israeli statement: “Law enforcement officials should have the power to stop high-capacity magazines from proliferating with a Google search.”
Imagine, for a second, a United Kingdom where getting your hands on a firearm requires as much technical know-how and materials as a DIY project on a Saturday afternoon. A country where gun proliferation is even higher than it is in the United States. It would fundamentally change our culture; whether you think for better or for worse is a matter of opinion, but I don’t think it’s a question that we should let a bunch of American gun nuts answer for us. I don’t know what the solution is — and I doubt that there’ll be an easy one — but the issue of Wiki weapons is a serious one, and one that needs proper, reasoned and global debate, away from the fever-pitch hysterics of the American pro-gun lobby.













Graphene Circuits Printed With Old Inkjet Technology
The World's First Entirely 3D Printed Gun
Would You Test-Fire a 3D-Printed Gun?
Worringly?
I’m not sure but I think he meant worryingly pedant.
Thank-you for the clarification…I would have been lost without it.
Any time.
You can already CNC mill a gun with a bit of skill. You can get a decent chinese CNC mill for less than £1000 on ebay and make a REAL gun.
Wanna tell the kids how to make nuclear warheads too?
Please!
There was a project years ago to see how long it would take a group of university graduates to design a working nuke using only the information available to the public.
The military gave them three years, after the three years they presented there design. Military engineers said that the design was feasible and that given a few more years they WOULD have a working design.
Of course. The technology behind nuclear weapons is well understood, and really old.
Making nukes is incredibly difficult though, and requires billions and billions of dollah.
David Hahn
Won’t somebody please think of the children!
It’s the ‘bit of skill’ that makes all the difference. You have to *really* want to make a gun to outlay a grand on a CNC mill and materials. After that you have to figure out how to use the thing properly and iterate over your designs until you get something that might not blow your hands off. If my 15 year old self had had access to a 3D printer in the house and had sunk a few suspect ciders I suspect I’d be pretty tempted to run off a quick fully auto just to see what it was like.
Accept that that is not possible. You could never print a working gun completely from a plastic based 3d printer.
I think you have to be careful with your definition of gun there. Surely not difficult to make a tube with a spring loaded hammer at one end to detonate a cartridge.
The gun would explode into a million pieces, inbedding molten plastic into your face and eyes. I wouldn’t exactly class that as a gun.
You don’t have to use plastic.
Metal based 3d printers cost millions. I don’t think we have to worry about the public getting their hands on them just yet.
Although, saying that, people are working on bringing down the cost of metal based 3d printers into the thousands rather than millions. They are having to design an electron gun and vacuum chamber for the machine that can be printed BY the machine.
Hmm. Did New York ban private ownership of large capacity magazines, or just the selling and distribution of them? If it’s the former, then surely owning a 3D printed magazine would be illegal in that state?
In the US you can make anything gun related, its distributing it that is the crime, you don’t need a gun licence to make and use a gun you made in the US.
I call that a giant, gaping loophole.
Thankfully, 3D guns quite possibly won’t fall into this loophole. Depending on what the US ATF decides, they’ll either be legal (because of the law Spazturtle quoted) or fall under Title II weapons, putting them in the same catergory as machineguns etc — i.e. you’d need a license to manufacture them.
Welcome to modern law. There’s a reason there’s tonnes of rich ‘go-to’ lawyers who’s jobs it is to exploit this…
Guess what? You can’t kill people with just a 3D printed guns (unless if you use it as a club). You also need bullets, and you can’t 3D print those. You need cordite, which contains nitroglycerin(or other equally explosive chemicals). If someone can get hold of nitroglycerin in an appreciable quantity, guns and bullets are the least of your worries.
Its fully legal to make bullets in the UK, as long as you have a FAC you can buy the materials required.
Did you even read the article?
I am saying that they should just stop selling assault weapon ammunitions. I am aware that machine pistol exists, but their accuracy and penetrative power is significantly less.
Oh christ you’re dumb. So what you mean to say is “They should stop selling bullets full stop”. Any ammunition can be ‘assault’, whether the ‘accuracy’ and ‘penetrative power’ is less or not. Many assault rifles, sub-machine guns and fully automatic weapons in general fire pistol ammunition (.45, 9mm, .22, .30), and even more of them share the same amunition as standard, small calibre, single shot rifles (which you would probably not consider ‘assault’. If both the .45 and the 9mm rounds stopped being sold in the US there would little to no weapons left at all. An ‘assault weapon’ isn’t made so just by different ammunition, or a larger calibre. Your point is invalid.
Okay fine. I didn’t know about that.
Time to ban 3D printers? We need to do it for the children.
Guns don’t kill people, bullets do. Unless you use the gun as a club. On a slightly related note I do have 3x AR15 compatible 30rd magazines in the loft, just sitting there minding their own business. I’ve got no use for them, maybe I should post them to someone in New York State?
Does anyone else find the hi-cap magazine bans a bit strange? You can own any weapon you wish, but you will just have to carry out a magazine change a bit more often.
The bans are a reaction to high-school shootings; short of any real gun control, it’s supposedly the next best thing.
The best thing would be to require people to keep there guns in a gun safe/cabinet. The guns used in the sandy hook shooting were stolen, this is also the case for a lot of school shootings.
That would be the second, or possibly 50th best thing. The *best* thing would be to not have any guns.
I understand that it’s a reaction to the school shootings, but it’s a stupid reaction. I hope the next spree shooter goes in with a bolt action rifle just to see how they’ll react to that.
Dude. ‘I hope the next spree shooter…’? Really?
Yes, really. It’s going to happen again since the US seems to have lost all rational thought when it comes to gun control and the 2nd amendment.
Surely a bolt-action rifle would be significantly less deadly in a spree shooting, simply because its overall rate of fire would be so much lower than a semi-automatic assault rifle with a 30 round magazine?
Perhaps this is the first measure to be enacted because it’s the most effective one that doesn’t involve taking guns out of owners’ hands. We all know how many Americans would react to that.
Not really, bolt action rifles can have similar rates of fire to semi-automatic rifles. Its all about the skill of the person using the gun.
Yeah, not really. I’m not referring to the guy that holds the record as the world’s fastest bolt-action rifleman. I’m referring to how the average (or even above-average) gunman would operate in a shooting spree.
Sorry I didn’t mean un-aimed fire rates, I meant you aim and the person and fire, If you take your time to aim at somebody the difference between semi-automatic and bolt action rifles can be very small. If you just run into a room and start shooting then a semi-auto will be faster.
Depends on the shooter. Slower fire rate could encourage them to take better aim at what they’re firing at, where as semi-auto or fully automatic encourages people to take multiple shots with the hope of hitting their target with at least one of them.
Secondly it doesn’t take long to change a magazine on a rifle if you’re not to fussed about retaining the empty magazine.
Slower rate of fire absolutely does encourage the user to take better aim. That’s the rationale behind why the US military removed the full auto mode from the original M4 and replaced it with a burst fire mode.
However, if you’re shooting at close range (as many shooting sprees are), then accuracy may be less crucial to survivability than rate of fire.
I agree that it doesn’t take long to change the magazine, but we’re talking about replacing 30 round magazines with 7 round magazines here. You’d have to change magazines more than three times as often, and you’d have to carry a lot of magazines.
Overall though, I agree that it’s pretty ineffectual. I just can’t see how more restrictive laws could ever be passed in the US.
The biggest stumbling block they’ll face is how the 2nd Amendment seems to be more important than all the others, and can never be changed.
So true. Gun control opponents like to frame the Bill of Rights as some revered piece of heritage that cannot be altered, and those that say otherwise are unpatriotic. The irony that the Bill itself is a list of amendments to the constitution seems to pass them by.
Yep, I noticed that on call of duty as well, M16 gets mroe than M4.
If the lower bullet count makes the shooter take more care over their shots, and they carry two or three easily accessible magazines, they could easily get their kills into double figures.
And then they’d be able to call in an airstrike, cos that’s what someone really good at shooting other people needs, more help.
True.
The Important thing for politicians is not actually doing something to help, but it’s to be seen doing something.
That’s how we lost pistols in this country.
The Dunblane massacre was committed using shotguns. I own four shotguns. Banning pistols made no sense as a reaction.
The bad thing about politicians simply reacting to these things and wanting to be seen to be doing something is that they won’t do it properly.
I hear what you’re saying. It infuriates me when authorities take road speed limits down to 30 because some idiot crashed while doing 70.
However, the dubious oracle that is Wikipedia says that handguns were used at Dunblane.
For some reason I can’t reply to your other reply. I like to point out the 18th Amendment which was nullified by the 21st Amendment, but apparently that doesn’t matter to them.
And yes, it was pistols at Dunblane. I wonder if golf would be banned if he used a 4 iron?
Hmm. Pretty tough to kill seventeen people in short order with a golf club, no?
Also, the primary purpose of a golf club is hitting a golf ball. By contrast, a handgun is primarily designed as a weapon (with a few sporting exceptions).
They were children, it’d be feasible. Maybe a cricket bat instead? That tends to have more heft to it and works well against zombies according to Shaun of the Dead. Either way, golf and cricket are dull, and knee jerk reactions to tragedies are never a good thing.
Wow, this got grim quickly…
Unfortunately it sometimes takes a tragedy to spur people into taking action that should have been taken in the first place. The aviation industry calls it the ‘tombstone mentality’.
When special interest groups are as intransigent as they are in the States, perhaps kneejerks are all we’ll ever get.
It’s only a few seconds difference, but in the context of a disillusioned kid walking around a school, I think it gives others at least a chance to rush and overcome them.
There’s a fairly substantial commentary on this running on Makezine already (http://blog.makezine.com/2013/02/07/the-face-of-printable-firearms-a-conversation-with-cody-wilson). Interesting bunch over there. All very civilised, but the US take on guns is *bizarre*.
Easier and cheaper to buy a gun in the US than it is to buy a 3D printer lol.
lol true, even in here GB, a pistol cost only 120 quids.
The holocaust would still have happened. What the fuck are these people talking about?!
People with instant access to firearms would have been able to resist their fascist oppressors, I think is the point he’s trying to get across.
I’ve seen that argument in many online discussions. Unfortunately the fascist oppressors were part of a well oiled military machine that had tanks, artillery, bombers and would have had no problem with eradicating an entire town to prove a point. If arming the population was the solution to Nazi occupation then we could have saved a lot of time and effort by air dropping rifles across occupied territories instead of doing all that D-Day stuff.
Maybe it wouldn’t have solved it entirely. The interviewers point is perhaps a little sensationalist (read: a lot). But I’d imagine a strong resistance would definitely have made things harder for the military/govt. Just look at Syria, Libya, Afghanistan….
That interviewer is Glenn Beck, epitome of the American right wing media. Sensationalism is what he sells. Fox News took him off air because his heavy political slant was damaging their image as an ‘impartial’ news network.
So he started his own TV channel and millions of Americans paid to watch it. That’s where this YouTube clip comes from.
Totally off topic, but I love the camera work in this clip. So much better than the standard locked off cameras they use in most interviews.
I noticed that too! Makes a 10-minute interview like this a lot more engaging.
Chris, I’ve noticed that you seem to read quite a few of the comments on your articles, however it seems that you don’t actually take any notice of the ones that are against your views. As has been said many times:
-3D printers are expensive, more so than getting a gun on the black market
-It’s not possible to make an entire gun using a 3D printer, or at least a functioning one
-Before all of this it was still possible to make a complete gun with things like lathes and mills
-All these guys are supplying are plans to make a lower receiver and magazines, two items that can be purchased or made in America by pretty much anyone with no licensing, but the parts that need to be bought to complete the gun do have restrictions
-If I really want to kill someone in a way that required a gun I could make one in my shed in under a week for less than £100 and slip someone a few notes to “lose” a couple rounds of .22 LR
-3D printers are expensive, yes, but getting one is easier than getting a gun on the black market, not illegal, and in a few years, 3D printers may well become cheaper. Not to mention, once you have the printer the unit cost of the gun becomes far lower.
-Not yet. But, there’s two points here. Firstly, the ambition of Defence Distributed is to do exactly that — make an entire functioning gun using a 3D printer. And, years down the road, I can see that happening. Second, as I’ve said below, once you’ve got a receiver in the US, you’ve got a firearm.
-Yes, but as endless people have pointed out, it’s a lot harder.
-The lower receiver is, in fact, the only thing serial-numbered in the US. In the eyes of the law, the lower receiver *is* the firearm. Barrels, bolts etc can be purchased without a firearms license. Ditto with the mags — hi-cap mags are illegal in NY.
-Whoopee for you
My mistake, I was confusing uppers and lowers as to which part is licensed. I know you can legally make your own lowers, there are kits that make it pretty easy to do on a mill (I watched a Youtube video a while back showing a guy using all the jigs successfully), I guess you’d have to register it the same as making your own suppressor. Due to my confusion I was thinking it was like making an upper actually is, requiring no registration.
Really Defense Distributed can’t be to blame here, they’re simply supplying plans intended to be used legally, instead the ATF should take responsibility and require registration for the barrel which is much harder to produce yourself.
It’s their proud, resolute little faces that get me. Guns are just the epitome of cool, aren’t they? Little boys thinking they’re playing COD. #twats
This is so dangerous! What if some crazy middle east extremists start printing weapons for the evil purpose of fighting back a USA “oil thirsty” invasion? This would mean the end of the world!
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
Toast toast toast.
Hi,
I’ll preface this with the fact that I’m an American ex-pat living in the UK and I have owned a gun in the past. Once the technology to 3-D print a gun is available it will happen. Security thru obscurity (i.e. the idea no one should create a 3-D blue print for a gun) doesn’t work, its a fundamental tenant of IT Security that I think holds true in general. Whether or not a group of people or a single determined person decide to do it, it will happen. Humans want to push boundaries, they want to know if it can be done, if THEY can do it, and therefore if its possible, someone will eventually do it. However, I don’t see that this will result in loads of people in the UK printing guns because posession of a pistol would still be a serious crime and if you are the type of person willing to break a serious law like that then why not buy it from the black market? Statistics that the Home Office publish indicates that a significant number of illegal guns are smuggled into the UK each year so there is certainly supply.