Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada News

Version 2.0 of 3D-Printed Rifle Successfully Fires 14 Rounds 336

Posted by Soulskill
from the version-three-will-support-all-your-favorite-fonts dept.
coolnumbr12 writes "The world's first 3D-printed rifle, named 'The Grizzly' after Canadian-built tanks used in World War II, was fired in June, but the first shot fractured the barrel receiver. The creator, a Canadian man who simply goes by 'Matthew,' refined his design and posted a video Friday on YouTube of Grizzly 2.0 successfully firing 3 rounds of Winchester bullets. The video description says the Grizzly 2.0 fired 14 rounds before it cracked. The new rifle was also safe enough for Matthew to fire it by hand rather than the string system used in the first test."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Version 2.0 of 3D-Printed Rifle Successfully Fires 14 Rounds

Comments Filter:
  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @05:12PM (#44491717)

    What's this? A weapon too large to conceal that is also really bulky? Only one thing to do, call it an "Assault Rifle" (yes sir those are scare quotes!) and ban the thing lest some law abiding citizen manage to protect themselves with it!

    Just because criminals only actually use unregistered handguns that they can get for cheap, doesn't mean we should not fear this monstrous beast of technology!

  • Syrian rebels have requested more resin to help in their recent push...
  • I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joining Yet Again (2992179) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @05:18PM (#44491807)

    As someone who was brought up in a school with a cadet force which taught marksmanship and such, but in a country which doesn't have much of a gun culture, I really don't get this obsession with 3D-printer-manufacturing of parts of guns. In particular, I don't get why it's such a thing on /. What's the big deal, really? I assume some US states have always allowed the home building of guns, perhaps with licences, while others haven't? And that lots of people have fucked up, while others do a competent job? What's *new* here?

    • Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by avandesande (143899) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @05:29PM (#44491917) Journal

      My guess is it is really a statement about gun rights- if they become trivially easy to manufacture than banning the sale and ownership of guns will be pointless.

      • by dbc (135354)

        This.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        I don't think so? It's already trivially easy to build a deadly weapon. Gun control exists to stop an arms race by discouraging people in general from thinking they need to carry guns (both criminals and law-abiding), not to make it impossible to get a gun. In some areas this works, as you end up with very little gun crime - e.g. urban UK - maybe in others (remote?) this doesn't apply, as law enforcement is so far away? I am not sure there's a hard and fast rule...

        • I don't know about Britain (where carrying pistols was hardly unheard of in the nineteenth century), but I don't know that I've ever heard this as an argument for gun control in the U.S. It seems an odd argument: It would definitely work to make carrying a weapon more difficult for the law-abiding, but the only way to make it less desirable would be if it indeed made it nearly impossible for criminals to get access to weapons.

          And British gun control has led to knife crime and to forms of knife control [imgur.com] tha

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Not really. Few animals (humans included) want things to get more violent than they need to be, for obvious reasons, and a criminal has no particular desire to carry a gun unless he thinks he'll otherwise be confronted by someone with a larger weapon.

            Knife crime in certain parts of the UK is a problem, but is less likely to cause serious injury or death than gun crime. 1. The knives tend to be carried to threaten, in the case of mugging, rather than as a response to the likelihood that the victim is also ca

            • by dbc (135354)

              What you have pointed out is that a knife is terrible as a defensive weapon. A knife the the hands of a 240 lb rapist is a nasty offensive weapon, a knife in the hands of a 95 lb assault victim isn't much defense, because it is only good close in. Give the victim a handgun, however, and she has a stand-off weapon than can equalize the situation.

              As you say, no one wants the situation to get more violent than necessary, so the rapist will very likely make a quick exit as soon as the gun is shown.

            • Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @10:01PM (#44493753)

              "Not really. Few animals (humans included) want things to get more violent than they need to be, for obvious reasons, and a criminal has no particular desire to carry a gun unless he thinks he'll otherwise be confronted by someone with a larger weapon."

              While this might be all good philosophically, one thing we *know* is that it doesn't work in the U.S.

              While no cause-effect relationship has been firmly established, correlations are clear: the areas of the U.S. with the strictest control of firearms are consistently the areas with the highest gun crime (including murder). And this is not just over 1 or 2 years, but over the many decades that the government (not some hack on one side or the other) has been keeping statistics on it.

              And that also holds for changes: in areas where the firearms laws were made stricter, firearms crime went up. In areas where the restrictions were relaxed, firearm crime went down. There have been a few minor exceptions here and there over the decades, but that is all they have been: rare exceptions.

              But I should also throw in: this is not unique to the US. After the last "big" firearms ban in the UK (and this is according to UK government published statistics), firearm crime went WAY UP and stayed way up for something like 8 years, before it began to settle back down again. And that later downturn in crime cannot be responsibly attributed to the gun laws, because crime in most of the other "modern, western" nations was going down also... including in the U.S., where gun ownership went up over that period.

              So don't misunderstand me: what you say may have some merit. But the hard numbers don't lie. Firearms restrictions in the US do not deter crime.

              • by dave420 (699308)
                The US has porous borders between areas of different gun control - of course that doesn't work. Gun control only works when the porous borders are within areas of similar gun control. As for the UK, the amount of crime is relatively pointless - the interesting thing is the downturn in the number of murders. Most people would be far happier having a knife pulled on them and live to tell the tale, than simply being shot.
        • Comparing gun control in Britain with gun control in the US is like comparing British and US comedy. If Honey Boo Boo is funny for the US, it must be good enough for the British.

          (If you don't know who Honey Boo Boo is, count your blessings. I've seen one commercial, and it saddened me that I was an American).

      • if they become trivially easy to manufacture then 3D printing gets controlled tighter than guns ever were.

        FTFY.

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      1 - "Because you can" is a good enough reason.
      2 - Just because you can make one here out of steel legally doesn't mean you will be able to tomorrow. It also takes more skill and effort to do it the 'right' way.. Anyone can download a file, press "print" and yank a finished object out of a printer.
      3 - If you can manage to print things that can take the wear and tear of being a weapon, it advances the technology for use in other fields too.

    • by Jaime2 (824950)
      Gun control is a big issue in the US. As soon as people can print their own reliable firearms, the very concept of gun control will become either laughable or Orwellian. Either outcome would be big news.
    • Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Informative)

      by tsotha (720379) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @05:41PM (#44492033)

      I assume some US states have always allowed the home building of guns, perhaps with licences, while others haven't?

      At the US federal level there's no law against manufacturing your own firearms as long as you don't sell them. You don't need a license. There are various restrictions at lower levels.

      The hysteria is really a mass expression of ignorance from people who don't know anything about guns. Zip guns are pretty easy to make with plumbing supplies and basic tools, and people who aren't clever enough to come up with their own design can always jump on the web for instructions. Also, CNC machines, which can be used to manufacture guns that won't fail for thousands of rounds, are already pretty ubiquitous and can be had for a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. With a CNC machine you could manufacture a heavy machine gun if you really wanted to.

      What keeps people from manufacturing firearms in their garages isn't the lack of means. It's that they don't have any reason to do so and/or they don't want to be arrested. Printed firearms won't change that equation.

      • What keeps people from manufacturing firearms in their garages isn't the lack of means. It's that they don't have any reason to do so and/or they don't want to be arrested. Printed firearms won't change that equation.

        What will change that equation is tighter gun control laws. Most people don't have reason to do it now is because gun access is easy, even a felon can buy a gun at a gun-show or on the street even if he's not legally permitted to own it.

        If gun control gets effective then gun printing will become a lot more popular, especially if it gets to the point where 3D printers are as ubiquitous as laser printers have been for the last 10 years.

        • Like I've said. The printing press was a revolution. 3D printers will cause one!

        • by tsotha (720379)

          I don't think so, because you can make a better gun more easily using a few tools and plumbing supplies. Suppose the design improves and you can print a gun that lasts for a hundred rounds. Why wouldn't you make one out of metal that's more reliable? Guns are really easy to make.

          Explosives are easy to make as well. Easier than guns, in fact. You can find recipes all over the internet to create high explosives using household items. Hell, you can even find recipes in US government publications. By y

    • Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cusco (717999) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <ybxib.nairb>> on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @05:41PM (#44492037)
      There are a couple of things going on here. The first is that it's an easy and obvious device to stress test materials, construction, and designs. No need for expensive test equipment, you know exactly the stresses generated by a round. Ammunition production has pretty stringent quality control and all the hard work of figuring out the forces involved has been done already by the manufacturer.

      The other is just the normal tweaking of the government, where if there isn't a rule in place people will push the issue until a rule is made.
      • The first is that it's an easy and obvious device to stress test materials, construction, and designs. No need for expensive test equipment, you know exactly the stresses generated by a round.

        No you don't know exactly what stresses a round will generate. While you *do* know how much powder is in a round, the way the stresses manifest themselves are heavily dependent on the design details of the weapon and the nature of the material it's made from. Nor is it particularly useful test, because a material th

    • Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Required Snark (1702878) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @05:46PM (#44492101)
      It changes the barrier to entry. At the current moment it's not a big deal, but as 3D printers become ubiquitous it will become much easier to get access to a lethal weapon.

      These guns will be cheap to make and not easily detectable by metal detectors. They are effectively one use disposable weapons.

      So you and your gang want to do a drive-by or robbery. Just print up some guns, get some bullets, and while leaving the scene of the crime throw the guns out the window.

      Courthouses in the US already have metal detectors, because gang members have engaged in gun battles on court premises. Plastic printable guns make this possible again. They also enable guns getting onto aircraft. Or in schools. Careless people will print them up for "self defense", and we will see even more children die by accidental gun violence.

      I expect that these weapons will be attractive to alienated people who would have trouble accessing guns either legally or illegally. Say loner teens who feel bullied, or bullies in school who want to be able to flash some heat for intimidation.

      Consider the prospect of flash mobs with guns.

      So there is going to be more gun violence, and there is not much we can do to stop it.

      • Isn't it fairly easy to build a deadly zip gun? And I assume today already a gang could buy a CNC machine for less than the cost of a decent 3D printer if they wanted to roll their own guns, as they would have been able to for years? (Do they? If not, why not?)

        The thing about metal detection is interesting, though. I suppose this is certainly increasing accessibility to metal-free guns. But that's not game-changing - it just means more intrusive methods required to detect guns.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      "What's *new* here?"

      Page Hits driven by delicious Fear and craving for tasty Drama.

      Nothing else.

  • by egr (932620) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @05:21PM (#44491825) Journal
    Is there gonna be a story each time a 3D-printed gun fires?
    • Re:Again? (Score:4, Funny)

      by oodaloop (1229816) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @05:36PM (#44491983)
      No, there's going to be a story every time a 3D printer prints something.
    • by couchslug (175151)

      Yes, because that will groom the public to want DRM implemented on these Printers of Evil.

      Think of the children, the potential for terrorism, and the potential for terrorist children.

      (Don't think of democratization of the means of production. That's subversive!)

      • I think we have to fight those terrorist children!

        Or ... protect... protect the fight... fight the protection ...

        Can you get back to me?

    • by Virtucon (127420)

      He was taking a risk that all firearms manufacturers take. First bench firing, building confidence that the design works and then observing how the firearm held up after a few rounds, eventually he felt comfortable shooting it himself. It's been that way in armaments since time began. I can imagine the inventor of the slingshot getting hit in the head or hitting bystanders by accident but eventually it was a workable weapon.

  • Your Truly,
    - Johnny Bitcoin

  • I wait for the day when a 3-d printer creates an honest, service to others, politician who is happy to have a job with modest income.
    • by funkboy (71672)

      I wait for the day when a 3-d printer creates an honest, service to others, politician who is happy to have a job with modest income.

      There are plenty of them out there. Trouble is, they don't get most peoples' votes...

  • by jklovanc (1603149) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @06:49PM (#44492645)

    Matthew said he improved upon his first design of the Grizzly by making the barrel 50 percent larger, increasing the size of the receiver (the main portion that holds the firing mechanism),

    Good things to do.

    and adding groves to the inside of the barrel.

    Maybe not so good. Depending on the depth of the grooves they may allow gases past the bullet and decrease the muzzle velocity. If they are helical groves they may increase accuracy.

    By the way, without helical grooves the weapon is a musket and not a rifle.

    I wonder what the muzzle velocity and accuracy of the weapon is.

  • I'm not surprised...

    Any country that can make a solid-fuel nuclear [CanDo] reactor work -without- needing costly -reprocessed- fuel-rods (and, who's already got some of its nuclear experts focussing on Energy from Thorium, as I write)...

    should -surely- be capable of producing folks who can 1-up the competition in making a 3D-printed rifle fire.

    PS As we watched the post-firing shell-removal step,
    we couldn't help thinking of the pre-firing step required
    to make a "flint-lock" rifle fire. :-)

  • Well, like 3D printing it seems the designs are evolving. This is a fairly novel approach in his design. I do like how the cartridge brass had to be tapped out of the end after each shot. The twist lock of the barrel into the receiver also helps hold any damage caused by cracking at the end of the barrel. It also became easier for the brass to fall out after each round indicating that the bore was increasing or becoming imprinted with the brass signature. While some people may disagree on gun control g

  • by funkboy (71672) on Tuesday August 06, 2013 @08:32PM (#44493233) Homepage

    If this dude knew what he was doing WRT firearm prototyping, he would have "worked up a load" instead of starting out his "testing" with high-velocity varmint ammo.

    Just like a handloader, prototyping any firearm (not just 3D printed ones) requires starting with light loads & working up until you start to see signs of excess pressure (deformed cases, sticky bolt, etc), then backing off.

    Granted this thing is a rimfire so hand-reloading is not really a practical proposition, but part of the awesomeness of 22LR is that there are a zillion different kinds of ammo out there.

    He should have started out with CB caps, then regular 22 shorts, then subsonic 22LR match ammo, then standard velocity, then HV varmint ammo (which is what he started with...), then blow the thing to bits with a max-pressure round like the CCI Velocitor.

    Also sense the barrel is made of polymer, hard copper-jacketed bullets are probably a no-no. It would be a good idea to moly lube the thing & keep a chronograph on hand so you know when the effectiveness of the lube is starting to wear off & re-lube it. The better match bullets come pre-lubed so this is another good reason to test with them.

    For all we know the thing may work just fine all day long with subsonic match ammo & proper lubrication.

    Big kudos for making a 3D printed rifle that actually works, but use good methodology & it might continue to work instead of eventually blowing up every time you take it out...

    I still think that in the rifle's present condition he should still blow it to bits with a Velocitor for good measure :-).

    Be sure to get a group on paper with the next try...

If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer

Working...