Posted on 07/31/2018 4:31:35 PM PDT by PROCON
In 1988 - a lump of metal might have been the standard for being “detectable.” But that was 30 years ago - seems a new standard might be in order?
Still need gunpowder to make it all work - how detectable is that these days?
Of course - using gunpowder - most of you guys will set of alarms everywhere you go!
Of course. Anyone can buy a used CNC mill or a new Tormach or similar for under $10K. If you know how to use it (meaning both design and fabrication skills) you can machine a gun out of conventional materials and when you fire it you won’t be relying on sintered metal or plastic.
The whole issue is about lowering the skill level (supposedly) so any idiot who can run a browser can make his own gun. That’s ridiculous. There’s another key point about detectability and evading laws which. The NRA position is correct in every regard.
I prefer the S&W MP shield compact.
Its not designed to last and operate as a regular normal weapon, they require metal for barrels and firing pins and reinforcing stress points.
This is what i am talking about.
I have a 111 year old gun that works like a charm.
It aint concealable.
Its beat up real good, but works like a charm..
Big crappo POS plastic thingy? I don’t think the world will end soon that wears out in 5 shots?
This is just BS, to get the 111 year old gun
Muuahhahhaa!
This issue is a Trojan Horse for anyone who thinks it’s just about “printed” guns.
It’s about government giving itself the power to make a machine specification file illegal to share because it could be used to make a gun or gun part. If this is allowed to stand, all the technical information on paper or in digital form which could be useful for fabricating or repairing a firearm can be embargoed. Everything from gunsmithing books to CAD files used by gun manufacturers, the gun grabbers will go after it all.
The line has to be drawn before bad precedents are set.
Man more power to ya .
If you live in a free state, you can buy a complete 80% frame Glock 17 parts kit in one single box, which contains all genuine Glock pieces with the exception of the non-serialized 80% frame and the jig. It even comes with a Glock case. (Reason magazine has an article that shows how their reporters/writers build this.) It costs about $100 more than a genuine Glock 17 -- but that isn't the point, is it? The beauty of the Glock 17 kit is that it takes less expensive and less sophisticated tools to complete it because it's made from polymer, not steel or aluminum. I'm a John Moses Browning fan but if I lived in a free state and wanted to build one, that's what I'd look for.
I think this battle was lost by the gun grabbers quite a few years ago. The only reasons I can think that the gun grabbers are focusing on "undetectable" guns (dangerous to the user and outlawed eons ago) now is that they don't understand how firearms work or maybe they do but they are deliberately lying.
Wait till China figures out gerber files!
Agreed. The purpose isn’t to create a long lasting weapon. It’s really to demonstrate proof of concept and to take the power away from government tyrants.
As 3D printing technology improves, one will eventually be able to print metal versions that are actually functional. Probably 5-10 years away from something like that being practical however.
I work machines that are 3d, flying probers, its interesting stuff and SpaceX uses it but this stuff is goofy.
Yer criminal on the street can not afford it and it’s cheaper to buy a good unregistered gun.
Ghost guns is blowing smoke to intrigue people, they have the Govs ear
Ahh, Proof of concept scares them?
Yes, yes it does.
Someone said here they have titanium 3d printers. Imagine popping out some designs on that one.
I must admit I stole this, and please forgive me, but what about 3D plastic straws?
While it wasn’t a 3d printed gun, anyone remember the plastic gun made the character in Clint Eastwood’s “Line of Fire”, now that was clever and lethal.
“maybe they do but they are deliberately lying.“
They’re lying.
L
My guess is Browning would be intrigued with the Glocks etc.
I have the book “J.M.Browning, American Gunmaker”. He gave FN the rights to make his first little .32 auto. It was a runaway success selling literally in the millions.
One of the FN Engineers figured out a way to simplify the manufacture without hurting the gun. The superiors at FN told him not to change a thing from the way Browning had designed it.
When Browning found out, he thought it was amusing. The change really would have made it easier to machine and really would not have hurt the gun.
Browning was willing to learn.
If anything is **cked up it BS
And you generally have to go back the the drawing board
This guy may not be an electronics Enginner, he is a process enginner.
The old timer just kinda does it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.