Hacker News Reader

Comment by dkoubsky | Hacker News Reader

I don't see why a CAD file would be any different than normal instructions for building firearms. For example, building a 12 gauge shotgun from 1" and 3/4" steel pipe is cheaper, easier, and probably safer/more effective than the plastic gun from the article. It seems to me the 3D printing part of this made the article popular for clickbait and thus it garnered more attention than the traditional approaches to homemade weapons. I guess my point is that making a CAD file illegal when a PDF instruction file is legal isn't very consistent or logical.

View on HN

You can even legally buy copies of the U.S. Army Improvised Munitions Handbook [1], which includes instructions on creating improvised firearms and other weaponry.

The moral panic about 3d printed weapons is complete nonsense. It's been trivial to make firearms out of hardware store and few practical skills. Back in high school we even made little black powder cannons in the metal shop, raiding fireworks for their powder and fuse and using ball bearings as the shot.

You don't even need steel pipe to make a shotgun, they're low enough pressure that for some types of shot you can even use copper pipe.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Field-Manual-Survival-Evasion-Recover...

But I think should admit that open-source 3D-printing/CNC does makes it even easier and harder to stop.

Scalable, too

I know what you meant, but my mind jumped straight to tiny guns.

No it doesn't. Have you ever used a hobby level 3d printer or cnc? Easy isn't the word I would use to describe the process.

What does harder to stop even mean?

I can just imagine crooks struggling to use a 3d printer lmao

P.S. I think this is the link you were talking about

https://gunfreezone.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/improvise...

One concern is that it's now cheaper, easier, and faster to mass produce weapons which will evade metal detectors. I don't think any of this should be illegal, but the concerns should be considered.

It’s still illegal to do it, and if you’re making a run of them you’d use a mill, not a 3D printer.

The saving grace, such as it is, is that these firearms are single-shot, and the rounds themselves are still metal and explosive-residue-detectable. While 3D printing has changed manufacturing methods, it's not like the method of deposition changes the strength of the material that much, so it's improbable that these plastic firearms will ever be able to withstand more than one or two shots.

It strikes me as likely that a 3D-printed gun will not be the most effective way to accomplish almost any kind of harm for almost any kind of perpetrator, no matter how situated. And that gives me a little comfort, even if I wish my countrymen were less fascinated with weapons.

The 3-D printed guns are single shot, but the new ghost gunner machine is a CNC mill and I believe uses an aluminum alloy which can handle multiple shots.

The ghost gunner is used to finish metal parts that are fully functional, they will last for thousands of shots.

But they also won't pass metal detectors.

it should be illegal.

> For example, building a 12 gauge shotgun from 1" and 3/4" steel pipe is cheaper, easier, and probably safer/more effective than the plastic gun from the article.

Guns made from metal stock will probably always be more reliable and cheaper than plastic ones.

The issue is that a disposable plastic handgun is less detectable and will leave no useful evidence behind as it can simply be discarded at the crime scene.

(Of course, that's probably hogwash as a plastic feedstock capable of being a gun is probably going to be equally as traceable.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com