Image: Defense Distributed
A "Wiki Weapon" project took its first steps toward making a fully 3D printable gun by test-firing an assault rifle made with just one 3D-printed part. On the sixth shot, disaster struck for the gun.
The AR-15 assault rifle snapped in two when a Wiki Weapon project member tried to check it on the sixth shot, according to a blog post spotted by Wired's Danger Room. That failure during the Dec. 1 test reflects the challenges of making working gun parts from the materials currently available for 3D printing — a technology capable of turning computer designs into real objects by building them up layer-by-layer using plastics, metals or other materials.
3D printing technology could theoretically allow 3D printer owners to make practically any gun parts on demand in their own homes. The idea of guns based on easily sharable digital designs and printable almost anywhere excites gun enthusiasts, even if it could also present a nightmare for officials trying to enforce gun regulations.
Some gun experts have also questioned whether the 3D printer plastics could stand the stresses of a gun firing, including the force of the gunpowder explosion that propels each bullet. [Video: A 3D Printer Of Your Own: When Will You Have One At Home?]
The Wiki Weapon founders, organized under the name Defense Distributed, want to make history by building a working gun made entirely of 3D printed parts. They must wait for government approval of their U.S. federal firearms license before they can begin manufacturing fully 3D printable guns based on the work of independent designers.
But their latest test with the AR-15 rifle has already provided lessons for strengthening the design.
The AR-15 rifle fired one shot cleanly without any problems. After an examination, members of Defense Distributed loaded the gun with 10 more rounds. The 3D-printed part ended up fracturing in three places and ultimately broke on the fifth round following the reload.
The part tested by Defense Distributed came from a digital design posted online by Michael Guslick, an engineer in Wisconsin. Guslick previously tested his 3D printable gun receiver — a component holding the critical bolt, trigger and magazine parts of a gun — by firing off 200 rounds from a .22 pistol without any problems.
Guslick also ran into problems when he tried test-firing a fully assembled AR-15 rifle, but not for any reasons related to the 3D-printed part.
The Wiki Weapon project has managed to raise $20,000 online, even after the crowd-funding website Indiegogo shut down the first fund-raising project. Wiki Weapon has also attracted enough controversy to scare Stratasys, a 3D printing company, into withdrawing the use of its 3D printer equipment.
Still, the project has plenty of backers after two Texas companies stepped up to volunteer 3D printing equipment and space for testing the guns.
- 10 Incredible 3-D Printed Products
- Dinosaur Diggers Share 3D Printed Fossils Worldwide | Video
- 10 Sci-Fi Predictions That Came True
Copyright 2012 TechNewsDaily, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentIf I were a terrorist, I'd be saving up for a 3D printer and making sure to renew my NRA membership...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProbably best not to quit your day job then. What exactly would you perceive as the benefit provided by this technology to a terrorist?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFailure after 5? Edison reportedly failed 1,000+ times.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBooth took only 1.
stampsc,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe benefits for terriorists for this technology is rather obvious. Terrorist could very easily print the guns in any location after making there way into the country. I think the larger concern is from domestic terriorists in this case since a person who can't legally own a gun would very quickly be able to obtain a full automatic weapon by using this technology.
In my opinion I don't think we should touch gun ownership, regardless of the Constitution which was written 200 years ago without today's problems in mind. I think the biggest solution to our gun problem in the US is to greatly raise the price of ammunition. It allows those who have the desire to hunt, which in my opinion is the only reason to own a gun, to be able to still have that hobby. It also allows people to own all the guns they want, it'll just cost them significantly to fire a weapon at anything that isn't important. We could also subsidize rounds for farmers who need it to kill animals killing livestock. Perhaps giving discounts of the first twelve or so rounds to people who hunt would be another thing.
Sorry just my two cents, but I'm getting off topic since this is a science magazine website. I honestly hope they develop this technology fully but in my opinion there are much better ways it can be used, such as printing car parts. I don't think guns are the way to really go with these printers.
-Josh B
Ohio
Don't worry about this being a "science magazine" website. That term doesn't mean much here any longer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think I'd "print up" a test stand next, so no one gets hurt when the bolt/receiver fails the next time on a 50,000+ psi 5.56mm round.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour idea for increasing the cost of ammunition does not take into account people who participate in shooting sports, many of whom fire thousands of rounds a year, or the fact that shooting is a skill that takes practice to truly be proficient at. Nor does it take into account that people need to sight in their weapons before hunting season to ensure they are accurate and the sights haven't moved. You seem to assume that a firearm is perfectly accurate straight out of the box and that shooting is a simple thing done without any skill. I must therefore conclude you have no true experience with guns and wonder how you consider yourself competent to offer this "solution" to terrorists printing out unregistered fully automatic weapons. I also question the whole supposition that these supposed "terrorists" would even go to the trouble. You could kill more people with a large car in a crowded area a lot easier than all the work and technical knowledge it would take to "print out" a gun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJosh, you'd be wrong about 'just for hunting', I don't hunt but I do shoot. Though, I do load a good portion of my ammunition myself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine you were a person of evil intent. You could go out and purchase any type of weapon you wanted on the black market, and one that would be highly reliable for $1,000 or less. Why would you mess with this thing? All the hoopla here is not about "protecting us from terrorists". It is, as usual, only about extending governmental control over its citizens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Z,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love assumptions. I have been around guns and I know how to handle them. I also know you need to practice your shooting skills, this also doesn't require lethal rounds. Sure the trajectory would be different due to the weight of the rounds or size of the charge. This would require adjustments for long range targets. I also understand sport shooting.
Let me put it this way. I'm a smoker. I didn't complain when they banned my smoking from restaurants. I don't complain if they raise the taxes on a pack of smokes. What increasing the cost does for me, is I reevaluate if it's really needed and the frequency of use. I'd smoke all the way to the filter if I was paying 10 dollars a pack, but I'm not. I'm just saying a tax on ammunition would make people think a little more wisely about their use.
I'm honestly more worried about handguns than full automatics. If people walked around with rifles instead of handguns, you'd have a hard time firing it from a car, and you wouldn't catch a glimpse of it in the backseat of a car full of teenagers.
Why is everyone so against compromise in this country?
outsidethebox,
That is a very valid point. I've thought about that many years concerning airplane safety. It could be said that regardless of capabilities of any type of law enforcement, determined criminals will always be one step ahead. Maybe we should stop raising the bar.
-Josh B, Ohio
You said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Why is everyone so against compromise in this country?"
Why should we ever compromise our rights? Those rights were designed for one thing: To protect us from our government and keep it from gaining absolute power. That is all the reason we need, not to give an inch.