Fabricating 3-D weapons has come a long way

[Ray Keller]

http://money.msn.com:80/investing/post--company-uses-3-d-printing-to-make-steel-handgun

By Geoffrey Ingersoll, Business Insider


Aside from the Duke's classic Colt six-shooter, no pistol has such a place in
American history as the 1911 .45-caliber handgun.


Now the folks at Solid Concepts have successfully produced one of these
handguns (pictured), all steel and all 3-D-printed.




Fabricating 3-D weapons has come a long way in a short period.




Just within the past year, a Texas company called Defense Distributed made
headlines for creating 3-D-printed weapons. But it had problems producing
pieces that could stand the heat and pressure.




From the Solid Concepts press release:

It is composed of 33 17-4 Stainless Steel and Inconel 625 components, and
decked with a Selective Laser Sintered (SLS) carbon-fiber filled nylon hand
grip. The successful production and functionality of the 1911 3D Printed
metal gun proves the viability of 3D Printing for commercial applications.
Already, special operations teams out in the middle of who-knows-where have
support from "expeditionary labs" that draw and print custom pieces of gear,
based entirely on the military operator's specifications.





President Barack Obama has also promised $200 million for a 3-D printing
initiative in the Defense Department.




Certainly, the fabrication of stainless-steel pieces is a revolution of
sorts, and planners in the military are probably watching closely for what
happens next.




As for .45-caliber pistols, Solid Concepts maintains that the pieces are not
machined but entirely "grown" in 3-D printers.



From the press release:

Laser sintering is one of the most accurate manufacturing processes
available, and more than accurate enough to build the 3-D Metal Printed
interchangeable and interfacing parts within our 1911 series gun. The gun
proves laser sintering can meet tight tolerances.
3-D Metal Printing has less porosity issues than an investment cast part and
better complexities than a machined part. The barrel sees chamber pressure
above 20,000 psi every time the gun is fired.



"We're proving this is possible. The technology is at a place now where we
can manufacture a gun with 3-D printing," said Kent Firestone, Solid
Concepts' vice president of additive manufacturing. "As far as we know, we're
the only 3-D printing service provider with a federal firearms license. Now
if a qualifying customer needs a unique gun part in five days, we can
deliver."




Mentioning the license is no mistake. Certainly the idea of 3-D printing of
small arms has caused a bit of a stir in the weapons-control community. Cody
Wilson, the owner of Defense Distributed, ran into this problem, but at the
time of his troubles -- last summer and late last year -- he did not yet hold
a federal firearms license.




Certainly the implications of this new technology -- both for domestic and
federal use, as well as for military and humanitarian use -- are nothing
short of staggering.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:29:19 -0700, "Ray Keller"
<Left...@desperate.com> wrote:

>Certainly the implications of this new technology -- both for domestic and
>federal use

Domestic?

Utter nonsense.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/robotics/industrial-robots/first-3dprinted-metal-gun-shows-tech-maturity

But the 3-D–printed weapon that Solid Concepts built can't be
replicated by any DIY gunsmith attempting to do so with a cheaper
variety of 3-D printer costing less than $10,000—industry-grade DMLS
machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's an important
point that Solid Concepts emphasized at the very beginning of its blog
post about its achievement.

"The industrial printer we used costs more than my college tuition
(and I went to a private university) and the engineers who run our
machines are top of the line; they are experts who know what they’re
doing and understand 3-D Printing better than anyone in this business,

[Winston_Smith]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:44:47 -0800, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:29:19 -0700, "Ray Keller" wrote:
>
>>Certainly the implications of this new technology -- both for domestic and
>>federal use
>
>Domestic?
>Utter nonsense.
>http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/robotics/industrial-robots/first-3dprinted-metal-gun-shows-tech-maturity
> But the 3-D printed weapon that Solid Concepts built can't be
>replicated by any DIY gunsmith attempting to do so with a cheaper
>variety of 3-D printer costing less than $10,000 industry-grade DMLS
>machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Now.
It will be a buck, three eighty at Walmart or your local hobby store
in a few years.

http://makerlove.com/ - Free sex toy designs for your 3D printer.

Even now, what's $10K to a terrorist or dissident group?? Pocket
change. I'll bet a dozen people on this group could at least stretch
for it if they wanted it badly. And a very large number of them would
know how to use it.

Do you think metal fabricating shops are not buying the good stuff for
their business and do you not think they will turn up on the used
market.

Or make you own.
http://www.reprap.org/wiki/RepRap_Options
https://www.lulzbot.com/?q=catalog
Self replicating to give to friends.
http://www.reprap.org/wiki/Prusa_Mendel_Assembly

>That's an important
>point that Solid Concepts emphasized at the very beginning of its blog
>post about its achievement.
>
>"The industrial printer we used costs more than my college tuition
>(and I went to a private university) and the engineers who run our
>machines are top of the line; they are experts who know what they’re
>doing and understand 3-D Printing better than anyone in this business,

And 15 years ago some of them were just mastering CNC and didn't have
a concept of a 3D printer in their heads. It's called progress.

HP has been working on printing functional ICs on paper or plastic
substrates with what amounts to a conventional office printer for
quite a while now.

It's being seriously developed for food preparation in space.

It's being seriously discussed to "build" live, replicating, custom
viruses. For medical or terrorism. Invent a DNA sequence in place 1,
email it to your friend as text, who prints it in place 2. Viola
terrorist material sent electronically over the internet. Not possible
yet but it's on the horizon.

Do not be a nay-sayer out of political conviction or you will wind up
on the wrong side of history.

[Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:29:19 -0700, "Ray Keller"

And the cost of doing this is ????? per weapon?

Much less expensive to buy your pistol ready-made at a local gun shop.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:44:47 -0800, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
<D...@null.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:29:19 -0700, "Ray Keller"
><Left...@desperate.com> wrote:
>
>>Certainly the implications of this new technology -- both for domestic and
>>federal use
>
>Domestic?
>
>Utter nonsense.

It's cute how you think you can dismiss anything with a haughty "utter
nonsense."

[chuckle]

[Stormin Mormon]

On 11/12/2013 5:37 AM, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
>
> And the cost of doing this is ????? per weapon?
>
> Much less expensive to buy your pistol ready-made at a local gun shop.
>

Sometimes, it's worth a bit more, to have
undocumented item, whatever that might be.

--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Uncle Steve]

Stupidity is not your friend.




Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
Innumerate poets
Expressing ideas poorly
They cry, it is art

[Uncle Steve]

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 07:59:22AM -0500, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> On 11/12/2013 5:37 AM, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
> >
> >And the cost of doing this is ????? per weapon?
> >
> >Much less expensive to buy your pistol ready-made at a local gun shop.
> >
>
> Sometimes, it's worth a bit more, to have
> undocumented item, whatever that might be.

What, like looted and laundered wealth taken from the elderly by
force?

[Scout]

"Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l51489hlrefjg5vqt...@6ax.com...

Perhaps, if they offer what you want, but maybe you're looking for something
like a Glock with a grip safety.

[mike]

On 11/12/2013 2:28 PM, Scout wrote:
>

>>>
>>>
>>> From the press release:
>>>
>>> Laser sintering is one of the most accurate manufacturing processes
>>> available, and more than accurate enough to build the 3-D Metal Printed
>>> interchangeable and interfacing parts within our 1911 series gun. The
>>> gun
>>> proves laser sintering can meet tight tolerances.
>>> 3-D Metal Printing has less porosity issues than an investment cast
>>> part and
>>> better complexities than a machined part. The barrel sees chamber
>>> pressure
>>> above 20,000 psi every time the gun is fired.
>>>

Can they really print a reliable/accurate gun that works right off the
printer?
OR do they need a bunch of additional precision steps like cleaning up
the inside
of the barrel?

[Guy Fawkes]

GOP_Decline_and_Fall <D...@null.net> wrote in
news:gdc389t64tbhblaf3...@4ax.com:

Guess you've never heard of the March of Progress.

Or being a socialist piece of dirt you don't understand how markets work
making those things cheaper as time goes on.

--
Republicans really aren't human beings, so there is no harm, no foul.

Kirby Grant - Nov 3, 2013

Telling us his views of the world.

[Guy Fawkes]

Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names <PopUl...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:l51489hlrefjg5vqt...@6ax.com:

Since being a socialist scumbag, clearly you don't grasp how this sort of
things. Everything is more expensive at first then gets cheaper.

My first 20 MB drive was like $200. In 1989. The 80 MB vioce coil ran close
to $500. At a fairly steep discount.

Recently I bought a 500 GB drive for $50.

What are you going to do legislate against technical progress?

[Guy Fawkes]

mike <ham...@netzero.net> wrote in news:l5ud5a$i0j$1...@dont-email.me:

I would think that technically it is quite possible. It is similar to a CNC
controlled milling machine. The blueprints, the tecnical drawings already
exist. the means to translate them to physical reality exists. It's merely
a matter of refinement now.

And technology keeps improving at faster and faster rates. Of course one
would have to have some grasp of history to understand that.

Not taking a shot at you, but our illiterate socialist friends.

[jon_banquer]

On Tuesday, November 12, 2013 3:22:06 PM UTC-8, mike wrote:

> Can they really print a reliable/accurate gun that works right off the
>
> printer?

Who is "they"?

It will not work "right off the printer"

"OR do they need a bunch of additional precision steps like cleaning up the inside of the barrel?"

This should answer your and others questions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgQvqVq-SQU

[jon_banquer]

Sorry but 3D printing hasn't come a "long way" in terms of radical new technology being developed.

3D printing is the most over-hyped technology on the planet right now.

3D printing is being talked about a lot more because it's getting major funding but lots of major breakthroughs still need to happen to make it economically viable for printing something like a gun. With the kind of money being thrown at 3D printing it will happen but not next week, next month or next year.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

They are never going to be a domestic item except perhaps in the
household of eccentric rich folk.

You have a better....more folksy way to describe such an absurd idea?

But the 3-D朴rinted weapon that Solid Concepts built can't be

replicated by any DIY gunsmith attempting to do so with a cheaper

variety of 3-D printer costing less than $10,000擁ndustry-grade DMLS

[rbowman]

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> Since being a socialist scumbag, clearly you don't grasp how this sort of
> things. Everything is more expensive at first then gets cheaper.

The biggest drawback to 3-D printers so far is time. They chug along for
hours to produce a reasonably complex part. No problem for one offs but not
feasible for production.

[rbowman]

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> I would think that technically it is quite possible. It is similar to a
> CNC controlled milling machine. The blueprints, the tecnical drawings
> already exist. the means to translate them to physical reality exists.
> It's merely a matter of refinement now.

A CNC mill is a subtractive process. For complex shapes, an additive process
can be tricky. There are techniques like printing an armature of expendable
material to support the actual finished part, sort of like a ass backwards
lost wax process.

[deep]

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:33:17 -0700, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

Plus, contrary to what some people seem to think, you don't click on
print and end up with a working gun in your printer. You build each
and every part individually then after a couple of days or so you have
a pile of parts then you need gunsmithing skills to put it all
together. Additionally you need a source for the springs. You're
not going to print a functioning spring out on any kind of 3D printer.
So unless you can get the proper springs somewhere you will never be
able to build a functioning firearm. That makes it somewhat more
problematic than downloading the diagrams and clicking on print.

[GOP_Decline_and_Fall]

We aren't talking about smartphones here, or anything that could
remotely be considered a mass market.

Few ordinary folk are likely to ever want such things in their home.

You can't make a 3D-printed gun with your run-of-the-mill 3D printer.
You need a DMLS machine, which costs around $850,000.

http://tinyurl.com/nyzcwzs

Electron Beam Melting [EBM] vs.
Direct Metal Laser Sintering [DMLS]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:15:38 -0800, GOP_Decline_and_Fall

<D...@null.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 04:42:53 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:44:47 -0800, GOP_Decline_and_Fall
>><D...@null.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:29:19 -0700, "Ray Keller"
>>><Left...@desperate.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Certainly the implications of this new technology -- both for domestic and
>>>>federal use
>>>
>>>Domestic?
>>>
>>>Utter nonsense.
>>
>>It's cute how you think you can dismiss anything with a haughty "utter
>>nonsense."
>>
>>[chuckle]
>
>They are never going to be a domestic item

ROFLMAO

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas
Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.

"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered
as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to
us." -- Western Union internal memo, 1876.

"With over 50 foreign cars already on sale here, the Japanese auto
industry isn't likely to carve out a big slice of the U.S. market." --
Business Week, August 2, 1968.

[Scout]

"rbowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:beg6na...@mid.individual.net...

Sure, and in the old days, machinists would work for hours to produce a
single reasonably complex part.

Give it a few decades, bet the changes will surprise you.

Combine laser printing with laser etching and I bet you could print just
about anything you can imagine.

[F. George McDuffee]

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:33:17 -0700, rbowman
<bow...@montana.com> wrote:

================
At this stage not for mass produced consumer items, but see

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-12/ge-printing-engine-fuel-nozzles-propels-6-billion-market.html
<snip>
General Electric Co. (GE) is on the hunt for ways to build
more than 85,000 fuel nozzles for its newest jet engine.
Instead of assembling them from 20 different parts, it plans
to create the units in one piece -- with 3-D printers.

Constructing the components with lasers one layer at a time
will producer stronger, lighter nozzles than with
conventional machining, according to GE. That means ensuring
the printers evolve into equipment sturdy enough for
assembly-line production, not just tools to fashion plastic
prototypes.
<snip>

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 20:51:26 -0700, deep wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:33:17 -0700, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Guy Fawkes wrote:
>>
>>> Since being a socialist scumbag, clearly you don't grasp how this sort of
>>> things. Everything is more expensive at first then gets cheaper.
>>
>>The biggest drawback to 3-D printers so far is time. They chug along for
>>hours to produce a reasonably complex part. No problem for one offs but not
>>feasible for production.
>
>Plus, contrary to what some people seem to think, you don't click on
>print and end up with a working gun in your printer. You build each
>and every part individually then after a couple of days or so you have
>a pile of parts then you need gunsmithing skills to put it all
>together. Additionally you need a source for the springs. You're
>not going to print a functioning spring out on any kind of 3D printer.

wrong again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AypvcGYJb-c

and again....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHrlasCSa3U

Fuck, don't you know how to use Google?

>So unless you can get the proper springs somewhere you will never be
>able to build a functioning firearm.

And wrong a third time!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/08/tech/innovation/3d-printed-metal-gun/

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:11:19 -0500, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>Sure, and in the old days, machinists would work for hours to produce a
>single reasonably complex part.
>
>Give it a few decades, bet the changes will surprise you.

Dudu is already surprised. Stunned, in fact.

Let's see if he has the balls to admit it.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Interesting twist on why ObamaCare is wAnted by ALL Washington D.C.
parasite types.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Yeh6K7vPCOU#t=1851




--
*This e-mail was scanned by the NSA*
And was found to be infected with language used by the TEA PARTY,
bullies, racists and groups on Obama's specified enemies list for the
IRS - this language does not meet the Community Organizer Standards of
acceptable communications within the Socialist States Of America...
Please report to the RE-EDUCATION CENTER CLOSEST TO YOUR ASSIGNED LIVING
SPACE.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Interesting twist on why ObamaCare [..]

How in the fuck did you manage THAT segue?

[David R. Birch]

On 11/12/2013 9:51 PM, deep wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:33:17 -0700, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Guy Fawkes wrote:
>>
>>> Since being a socialist scumbag, clearly you don't grasp how this sort of
>>> things. Everything is more expensive at first then gets cheaper.
>>
>> The biggest drawback to 3-D printers so far is time. They chug along for
>> hours to produce a reasonably complex part. No problem for one offs but not
>> feasible for production.
>
> Plus, contrary to what some people seem to think, you don't click on
> print and end up with a working gun in your printer. You build each
> and every part individually then after a couple of days or so you have
> a pile of parts then you need gunsmithing skills to put it all
> together.

Really? Any GI issued an M1911A1 like that printed pistol could
completely strip and reassembly the pistol in minutes.

> Additionally you need a source for the springs. You're
> not going to print a functioning spring out on any kind of 3D printer.

The springs can be easily made from flat spring steel, or printed, then
formed and heat treated.

> So unless you can get the proper springs somewhere you will never be
> able to build a functioning firearm.

Of course, all the springs for an M1911A1 could be bought for less than $30.

> That makes it somewhat more
> problematic than downloading the diagrams and clicking on print.

The parts not easily printable are easily fabricated or bought by the
adept, but not by the technologically inept like you.

David

[David R. Birch]

On 11/12/2013 10:39 PM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 01:02:44 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
> <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> GOP_Decline_and_Fall <D...@null.net> wrote in
>> news:gdc389t64tbhblaf3...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:29:19 -0700, "Ray Keller"
>>> <Left...@desperate.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Certainly the implications of this new technology -- both for domestic
>>>> and federal use
>>>
>>> Domestic?
>>>
>>> Utter nonsense.
>>>
>>> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/robotics/industrial-robots/first-3dpri
>>> nted-metal-gun-shows-tech-maturity
>>>

>>> But the 3-D�printed weapon that Solid Concepts built can't be

>>> replicated by any DIY gunsmith attempting to do so with a cheaper

>>> variety of 3-D printer costing less than $10,000�industry-grade DMLS

>>> machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's an important
>>> point that Solid Concepts emphasized at the very beginning of its blog
>>> post about its achievement.
>>>
>>> "The industrial printer we used costs more than my college tuition
>>> (and I went to a private university) and the engineers who run our

>>> machines are top of the line; they are experts who know what they�re

>>> doing and understand 3-D Printing better than anyone in this business,
>>>
>>
>> Guess you've never heard of the March of Progress.
>>
>> Or being a socialist piece of dirt you don't understand how markets work
>> making those things cheaper as time goes on.
>
> We aren't talking about smartphones here, or anything that could
> remotely be considered a mass market.
>
> Few ordinary folk are likely to ever want such things in their home.

They used to say that about computers.

>
> You can't make a 3D-printed gun with your run-of-the-mill 3D printer.
> You need a DMLS machine, which costs around $850,000.

Just like main frame computers used to be expensive.

>
> http://tinyurl.com/nyzcwzs
>
> Electron Beam Melting [EBM] vs.
> Direct Metal Laser Sintering [DMLS]

Ordinary 3-D plastic printers used to be exotic and expensive, now
hobbyists build their own. DMLS in the home is just around the corner.

David

[deep]

You completely miss the point of course so maybe you should STFU.

>David

[jon_banquer]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 4:59:38 PM UTC-8, David R. Birch wrote:
> On 11/12/2013 10:39 PM, GOP_Decline_and_Fall wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 01:02:44 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
>
> > <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> GOP_Decline_and_Fall <D...@null.net> wrote in
>
> >> news:gdc389t64tbhblaf3...@4ax.com:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:29:19 -0700, "Ray Keller"
>
> >>> <Left...@desperate.com> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> Certainly the implications of this new technology -- both for domestic
>
> >>>> and federal use
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Domestic?
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Utter nonsense.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/robotics/industrial-robots/first-3dpri
>
> >>> nted-metal-gun-shows-tech-maturity
>
> >>>
>

> >>> But the 3-D–printed weapon that Solid Concepts built can't be

>
> >>> replicated by any DIY gunsmith attempting to do so with a cheaper
>

> >>> variety of 3-D printer costing less than $10,000—industry-grade DMLS

>
> >>> machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's an important
>
> >>> point that Solid Concepts emphasized at the very beginning of its blog
>
> >>> post about its achievement.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> "The industrial printer we used costs more than my college tuition
>
> >>> (and I went to a private university) and the engineers who run our
>

> >>> machines are top of the line; they are experts who know what they’re

>
> >>> doing and understand 3-D Printing better than anyone in this business,
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >> Guess you've never heard of the March of Progress.
>
> >>
>
> >> Or being a socialist piece of dirt you don't understand how markets work
>
> >> making those things cheaper as time goes on.
>
> >
>
> > We aren't talking about smartphones here, or anything that could
>
> > remotely be considered a mass market.
>
> >
>
> > Few ordinary folk are likely to ever want such things in their home.
>
>
>
> They used to say that about computers.
>
> >
>
> > You can't make a 3D-printed gun with your run-of-the-mill 3D printer.
>
> > You need a DMLS machine, which costs around $850,000.
>
>
>
> Just like main frame computers used to be expensive.
>
> >
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/nyzcwzs
>
> >
>
> > Electron Beam Melting [EBM] vs.
>
> > Direct Metal Laser Sintering [DMLS]
>
>
>
> Ordinary 3-D plastic printers used to be exotic and expensive, now
>
> hobbyists build their own. DMLS in the home is just around the corner.
>
>
>
> David

Saying "DMLS in the home is just around the corner" is a misleading statement and is far too broad to mean anything.

It's going to take major breakthroughs to reduce the cost of DMSL printing for home use that will produce quality parts at a reasonable cost. Most of the plastic 3D printers that are in the price range hobbyists can afford produce little more than junk. Here is a much more likely scenario that will happen in the short term:

http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/06/there-is-no-reason-for-any-individual-to-have-a-3d-printer-in-their-home/

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

No, he didn't. You're wrong, as I've proven.

[Scout]

"David R. Birch" <dbi...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:l6177...@news4.newsguy.com...

Heck, I see a day in the future where you print out most of what you want in
your home. You simply pay for a limited run instruction file if you want the
latest and greatest and the older stuff can be had at discount or even
free....

[Guy Fawkes]

deep wrote in news:f9t589tsjaotk6r3l...@4ax.com:

Wow and the art of spring making has been gone for years!

Were you dropped on your head as a infant or more recently.

[Guy Fawkes]

Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:g48789tpdmqptvk9t...@4ax.com:

In any case, you clearly don't understand how resistance works. I don't
need the best gun to get a better gun.

The Liberator was a cheap, single shot .45 that resistance fighters used to
get a Mauser, Schmeisser or Luger.

[jon_banquer]

On Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:45:22 PM UTC-8, Scout wrote:

> Heck, I see a day in the future where you print out most of what you want in
>
> your home. You simply pay for a limited run instruction file if you want the
>
> latest and greatest and the older stuff can be had at discount or even
>
> free....

Will you be printing out a new brain then? The one you currently have doesn't work to well.

[David R. Birch]

The point is that what you see as major obstacles are easily solved
minor problems. Since you don't have a clue about these issues, why are
you discussing them?

David

[deep]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:10:48 -0600, "David R. Birch"

The point being, asshat, besides being beyond your ability to grasp,
is that not "just anybody" can print out their own guns like is being
implied. It takes either a source of the correct springs or a
professional machinists skill to be able to fabricate them. And
assembing a complete working firearm from scratch is NOT the same as
field stripping an M1.

[jon_banquer]

If someone is serious about 3D printing they need a good deal of CAD knowledge and experience with fixing, modifying and repairing .stl files, scanning experience, etc.

There is quite a bit to know when it comes to reverse engineering and the software to do it properly is very expensive.

http://www.geomagic.com/en/

I'm greatly enjoying those who pretend to know about 3D printing post to this thread. :>)

[rbowman]

Scout wrote:

> Sure, and in the old days, machinists would work for hours to produce a
> single reasonably complex part.

There still is a difference. This is a simplification but 3D printers
basically depend on laying down a bead of molten something. There are some
things you can't do faster. Most of the time for the older machining
processes was taken up in tool changes, repositioning the work, and checking
dimensions. A CNC machine can't feed a drill appreciably faster.

For a 3D printer, the servo motors may be able to transit faster when they
are not laying down material, but I think they may limit out when they're
actually depositing it.

It will be interesting to watch the technology develop.

> Give it a few decades, bet the changes will surprise you.

I don't know if I've got a few decades, but I will be surprised if it gets
past very limited production or prototypes.

[rbowman]

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> The Liberator was a cheap, single shot .45 that resistance fighters used
> to get a Mauser, Schmeisser or Luger.

I agree with the principle of trading up but the Liberator was more
somebody's idea of what a resistance fighter might do.

[Guy Fawkes]

rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote in news:beivd7...@mid.individual.net:

It had the benefit of working.

[rbowman]

Guy Fawkes wrote:

> It had the benefit of working.

Maybe. Or possibly Wikipedia is right:

Resistance fighters in both theatres were supplied with more effective
weapons whenever possible, and French use of the FP-45 remains undocumented;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

Apparently it was more popular in China. It doesn't take much of a sense of
self-preservation to think inflicting a possibly non-incapacitating wound at
very close range with a device that can be reloaded in a manner of minutes
on an enemy armed with a real firearm might not be a good idea. In any case,
it wouldn't be a very stealthy idea.

[David R. Birch]

Not yet, but soon.

> It takes either a source of the correct springs or a
> professional machinists skill to be able to fabricate them.

Easy to find and easy to make with only a little skill, more than you
have apparently.

> And assembing a complete working firearm from scratch is NOT the same as
> field stripping an M1.

I didn't say anything about field stripping an M1, but the M1911A1 is
easily detail stripped with a little practice and only slightly more
ability than you have.

David

[Stormin Mormon]

On 11/14/2013 12:34 AM, Guy Fawkes wrote:
> rbowman <bow...@montana.com> wrote in news:beivd7...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Guy Fawkes wrote:
>>
>>> The Liberator was a cheap, single shot .45 that resistance fighters used
>>> to get a Mauser, Schmeisser or Luger.
>>
>> I agree with the principle of trading up but the Liberator was more
>> somebody's idea of what a resistance fighter might do.
>>
>>
>
> It had the benefit of working.
>

If you like your Liberator Pistol,
you can keep your Liberator Pistol.

--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:aj888950h82ot5pnb...@4ax.com:

What's your point? A person could print out the parts for a 1911 but not
be smart enough to put them together? Why should that bother you?
According to what you've said the 1911 is old obsolete technology and no
one uses them anymore.

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

One bullet in the possession of a criminal is too many.....
Ten bullets in the possession of a mother trying to protect
her children....may not be enough.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[RD Sandman]

deep wrote in news:7uc889p80m6jp6gtp...@4ax.com:

Try Wolff Springs, for one...less than $30 a set.

or a
> professional machinists skill to be able to fabricate them. And
> assembing a complete working firearm from scratch is NOT the same as
> field stripping an M1.

The stripping appplied to a 1911, not an M-1.

[Scout]

"rbowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:beiusp...@mid.individual.net...

> Scout wrote:
>
>> Sure, and in the old days, machinists would work for hours to produce a
>> single reasonably complex part.
>
> There still is a difference. This is a simplification but 3D printers
> basically depend on laying down a bead of molten something. There are some
> things you can't do faster. Most of the time for the older machining
> processes was taken up in tool changes, repositioning the work, and
> checking
> dimensions. A CNC machine can't feed a drill appreciably faster.

Yep, and in the old days you might measure printer speed in minutes per
page.....Today they do the same thing in a fraction of the time and yet they
basically depend on laying down a spot of something on a piece of paper.

Do you really think they can't figure out how to do this whole process
quicker?

Hey, maybe they can come up with a head for a 3D printer that has multiple
orifices and they can simply print an entire band of material in a single
pass?

bet that would speed things up dramatically.

So how long until someone incorporates that idea into a 3D printer?

Heck, then you could have multiple multi-orifice heads tracking in sequence
making a whole series of passes in short order.

Bet that would speed things up even more.

Heck, maybe put the heads on a track system and have a continual stream of
multi-orifice heads making passes over the work area.

Bet that would speed things up even more.

Yea, it's utterly impossible for anyone to improve the speed of the 3D
printing process just as it was impossible to make a Xerox in less than a
couple of minutes per copy. Since a person had to manually perform each step
of the process. A revolution for the time, but dreadfully slow by today's
standards.

> For a 3D printer, the servo motors may be able to transit faster when they
> are not laying down material, but I think they may limit out when they're
> actually depositing it.

Yep, which is why an inkjet printer head moves so much faster today even
though it's the same methods being used.

> It will be interesting to watch the technology develop.

It certainly will.

>> Give it a few decades, bet the changes will surprise you.
>
> I don't know if I've got a few decades, but I will be surprised if it gets
> past very limited production or prototypes.

Sure, just like computers would never end up in the home....

[rbowman]

Scout wrote:

> Yep, and in the old days you might measure printer speed in minutes per
> page.....Today they do the same thing in a fraction of the time and yet
> they basically depend on laying down a spot of something on a piece of
> paper.

Never ran into an old line printer, did you? They were doing 10 pages per
minute in the '50s. That was about 600 lines perminute on 66 line green bar.
By the late '60s, some were getting up to 2000 lpm. A bit noisy, but what
the hell. Some laser printer can do better but they aren't the ones you see
at Best Buy for the consumer market.

> Do you really think they can't figure out how to do this whole process
> quicker?

I'm sure they will make it quicker.

> Hey, maybe they can come up with a head for a 3D printer that has multiple
> orifices and they can simply print an entire band of material in a single
> pass?

They already have multiple extruder heads. If you limit the discussion to
plastic parts, virtually all 3D printers are using thermoplastics. There are
some people playing with thermosets, but that has its technical challenges.

So, look around at some small, thermoplastic part, the caps on your keyboard
for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVTgGKGjWDs

I don't know exactly what they're making, but they're making 96 of them in
7.3 seconds.

If you just wanted a few parts, a 3D printer would be a lot less expensive,
but as soon as you start talking about high volume consumer products it will
be a very expensive way to go. So, what you need is a consumer product that
doesn't require enough volume to make it efficiently.

It's sort of like MIM. People bitch about it but many small internal firearm
parts are MIM today. The process fills an economic niche. Particularly with
the more expensive alloys a subtractive process leave a lot of the alloy for
the sweeper. MIM can also do complex or delicate shapes.

I see 3D printing, as it matures, filling a similar niche. What I don't see
is a 3D printer sitting on the kitchen counter churning out coffee cups on
demand.

Years ago before styrofoam became a dirty word, the company I worked for
manufactured the clamshell containers for McDonalds. Shipping costs added a
lot because the things were basically air (or Freon which was what killed
the product). Crystal styrene and freon is compact, and an individual McD's
isn't going to use that much. A little molding machine out by the trash cans
could whip out clamshells for the daily demand. It was an interesting idea
but it didn't survive econoic analysis.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:l63lj4$pu$2...@dont-email.me...

>
>> It will be interesting to watch the technology develop.
>

I was part of the development team for the ink jet printer that
inspired 3D printing:
http://www.ballisticfluid.com/aboutUS.html
The most unique aspect of the Pixel Master printer was its use of
phase change materials as inks. The printed product from the
Pixelmaster had a 3D embossed tactile feel about it. It wasn't long
before someone had the idea to build three dimensional (3D) models
using the same idea.

The only real challenge was forming and controlling the flying droplet
of molten plastic ink. Linear and rotating circular arrays of jets
worked fine.

Howtek's piezoelectric ink jet was too large to put in a replaceable
ink cartridge, otherwise it might have been a big success, a
photo-quality full color office printer in 1985. The team was mainly
the Centronics dot-matrix printer designers.
jsw

[Scout]

"rbowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message

news:belhlv...@mid.individual.net...

> Scout wrote:
>
>> Yep, and in the old days you might measure printer speed in minutes per
>> page.....Today they do the same thing in a fraction of the time and yet
>> they basically depend on laying down a spot of something on a piece of
>> paper.
>
> Never ran into an old line printer, did you? They were doing 10 pages per
> minute in the '50s. That was about 600 lines perminute on 66 line green
> bar.
> By the late '60s, some were getting up to 2000 lpm. A bit noisy, but what
> the hell. Some laser printer can do better but they aren't the ones you
> see
> at Best Buy for the consumer market.

Sure, and those are more like using a steel stencil and thus not really like
what we're talking about which would be more like consumer grade ink jet
printers.

>> Do you really think they can't figure out how to do this whole process
>> quicker?
>
> I'm sure they will make it quicker.

And yet, there are assertions that they can't be made 'fast enough'.

>> Hey, maybe they can come up with a head for a 3D printer that has
>> multiple
>> orifices and they can simply print an entire band of material in a single
>> pass?
>
> They already have multiple extruder heads. If you limit the discussion to
> plastic parts, virtually all 3D printers are using thermoplastics. There
> are
> some people playing with thermosets, but that has its technical
> challenges.

True, but those challenges will be eventually met and the range of materials
you can print with will expand and grow. Perhaps even having multiple
materials so that you can build the supports out of one material that is
easily removed from the finished part while making the finished part out of
something far more durable, like steel.

> So, look around at some small, thermoplastic part, the caps on your
> keyboard
> for example.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVTgGKGjWDs
>
> I don't know exactly what they're making, but they're making 96 of them in
> 7.3 seconds.
>
> If you just wanted a few parts, a 3D printer would be a lot less
> expensive,
> but as soon as you start talking about high volume consumer products it
> will
> be a very expensive way to go. So, what you need is a consumer product
> that
> doesn't require enough volume to make it efficiently.

True, right now that is the case, but eventually that might well change, and
given the flexibility that these would offer to a manufacturer, it could
potentially far more lucrative since they can alter product specs and even
products on the fly without a need for any extensive alterations in plant
facilities or layout. It could even be used in a combination of additive and
subtractive modes to produce parts impossible to make by other means. Look
at the example of the jet engine nozzles. 1 printed part replacing ?20?
individually manufactured. Such I'm sure that 1 printed part was more
expensive than any one of those individual items and probably took longer to
produce than any one of those individual parts. However, combined, it may
not only be quicker overall, it could also be more economical.
Na, I suspect that over time we will see the evolution of 3D printing from
individual parts, to complete assemblies, but what is clear is that 3D
printing as a manufacturing method will continue to improve, and be used to
produce more and more parts as speed, cost and efficiency increase as
technology improves. Like I said, it wouldn't surprise me that in the future
you might simply print out that new blender, silverware set, TV, etc right
in your home, or for larger items printed at a local facility.

[jon_banquer]

On Monday, November 11, 2013 7:29:19 PM UTC-8, Ray Keller wrote:

<snip>

Print These 20 Things You Don't Really Need And Your 3-D Printer Pays For Itself:

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682798/print-these-20-things-you-dont-really-need-and-your-3-d-printer-pays-for-itself#2

[Gunner Asch]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 01:45:54 +0000 (UTC), Guy Fawkes
<No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:

>deep wrote in news:f9t589tsjaotk6r3l...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:33:17 -0700, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Guy Fawkes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since being a socialist scumbag, clearly you don't grasp how this sort
>>>> of things. Everything is more expensive at first then gets cheaper.
>>>
>>>The biggest drawback to 3-D printers so far is time. They chug along for
>>>hours to produce a reasonably complex part. No problem for one offs but
>>>not feasible for production.
>>
>> Plus, contrary to what some people seem to think, you don't click on
>> print and end up with a working gun in your printer. You build each
>> and every part individually then after a couple of days or so you have
>> a pile of parts then you need gunsmithing skills to put it all
>> together. Additionally you need a source for the springs. You're
>> not going to print a functioning spring out on any kind of 3D printer.
>> So unless you can get the proper springs somewhere you will never be
>> able to build a functioning firearm. That makes it somewhat more
>> problematic than downloading the diagrams and clicking on print.
>>
>
>Wow and the art of spring making has been gone for years!

My buddy picked up (3) spring winders 3 weeks ago for zero cost. Sold
them today on Ebay for $1000.000

>
>Were you dropped on your head as a infant or more recently.

--

Liberals want everyone to think like them.
Conservatives want everyone to think.

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:55:06 -0700, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

It was suppled widely in the Phillipines, Burma, and other countries
in the region and did yoemans duty getting modern arms from the
occupiers.

The dozen or so actual Liberators Ive handled all came from that
region and several had a number of body count scratches on the barrel.

One had 11 IRRC. One for each Jap shot with it by its owner, before
he handed it off to the guy behind him and scooped up his newly
aquired Arisaka, Nambu and ammo (and the odd sword or three)

Gunner

[David R. Birch]

On 11/15/2013 10:11 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

> The dozen or so actual Liberators Ive handled all came from that
> region and several had a number of body count scratches on the barrel.
>
> One had 11 IRRC. One for each Jap shot with it by its owner, before
> he handed it off to the guy behind him and scooped up his newly
> aquired Arisaka, Nambu and ammo (and the odd sword or three)
>
> Gunner

IIRC, service life of that pistol was only expected to be about 150
rounds. I read a test of the modern version made a few years ago and it
didn't get nearly that far.

David