3D printers have ‘fingerprints,’ which could help trace guns, counterfeit goods
buffalo.edu
buffalo.edu
Agree.
>They're mostly dangerous to the user.
Kinda disagree.
Several reasons why:
1) On the AR-15, the lower receiver is the "gun" portion that is serialized. It actually doesn't take too much abuse - you can 3D print one without much difficulty and have a firearm that is not traceable.
2) FDM materials that are basically just enough plastic to bind metal powder in place exist and can be fired in a kiln after being printed on your 3D printer, and you get a metal component.
3) DMLS printers will someday become cheap enough for home use. Patents are starting to expire here, so this will likely happen soon - over the next 10-15 years.
But guns also aren't particularly difficult to build at home with more traditional means either, so I don't think it makes much sense to worry about the 3D printing aspect.
I thought it was the barrel that added traceable marks to the bullet, through the rifling?
How does changing the receiver, which does not change the rifling, make it not traceable?
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/scien...
Source: https://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-ma...
In the US the lower receiver is the component that is legally considered a firearm. They're required to have serial numbers and are subject to the same laws as a fully functional gun. The other components are just hunks of metal in a legal sense and may be sold and manufactured without restriction. If you are able to fabricate a lower receiver by yourself you can buy the rest of the components you need to assemble a fully functional rifle without any records of its existence or creation.
According to the BATF a block of metal doesn't become a lower receiver until it is more than 80% complete. This led to the creation of a market "80% lowers" that can be legally sold without restriction and completed by the buyer. The hardest milling is done by the manufacturer and they are designed to be completed by inexperienced users with common tools. There's even a company that will sell you a CNC mill preprogrammed to finish milling the receiver.
The lower isn't universally the serialized part. In some places, it's the barrel.
Even completing an 80% lower with a dremel tool is harder than loading a file and hitting print.
Making one with a router and a cutting board is tedious, but I've done it and the result was functional. Making one with Lego and epoxy I have not done, but I know someone that has. It isn't like it takes days.
With a production or industrial prototyping printer you don’t need to do anything than drop your parts in.
Heck it wouldn’t surprise me if in a few years with multi material printing you’ll be able to print a fully functional lower even with the FCG I’ve already seen metal parinting demos that can print both rigid and spring metal materials in the same print.
AFAIK this a problem only under American legislation where the firearm is legally defined by one part, which in AR-15's case happens to be that lower receiver. Here a permit is required for the receiver, barrel, bolt, carrier and all other "substantial" parts, and our gun legislation is relatively lax in comparison to other EU countries.
...unless you make your own (or finish a partial one) then you aren't required to stamp it with a serial number or tell any (federal) agency about it, a so called "ghost gun".
I know a few hardcore 3D printer enthusiasts that can identify with a fairly decent accuracy the printer a print came from even pretty wrk estimate the settings and even the software used for slicing based on how the layers are set.
Ammo control is the only gun control 3D guns need. Now if we’ll get to a point where will have a printer that can print on a molecular level and print the ammo with the gun we can discuss the dangers of 3D printed guns until then a shotgun shell 2 pipes from the plumbing store and an end cap would make a more useable weapon than a fully printed gun.
Heck some high end air soft guns are made from the exactly the same material as an AR15 some even use real receivers with modification to prevent the drop in of parts converting those to a real gun would produce a more reliable weapon than most current 3D prints.
The “danger” of 3D printed guns isn’t about people with the will and skill but about trivializing it to the point where your idiot parking lot weed dealer can break into a maker space hit print and come out with a SAW and ammo to boot and were probably 50 years off from that point.
The rest isn't that far out of reach, either.
IE, here's an image sequence of an amateur creating a 37mm slug launcher, ammunition and _most_ of the components; some is 3d-printed, some isn't:
https://i.imgur.com/kXsM5Ax.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/bpAZr5B.jpg
And have you seen the Shovel AK?
https://www.northeastshooters.com/xen/threads/diy-shovel-ak-...
People with the will and skill can make one this isn’t trivial even with all the videos in the world it will take weeks of practice and will require a good understanding of chemistry and basic engineering.
Most common criminals wouldn’t know how to measure correctly, use a caliper, heck most of them won’t be able to multiply add or subtract correctly.
Yet alone hammer forge an AK receiver out of a shovel.
Even if you discount career criminals as the only risk group most people can’t wire a power socket, switch a lock or fix a leak you want them to forge recievers and cut grooves in barrel blanks?
Not to mention that any substantial delay would reduce the likelihood of these guns being used there is a huge difference between a kid that would have to spend 2 weeks banging a gun out in his garage and a kid that can go into the school workshop and 3D print a gun on the spot.
None of what has been posted or mentioned thus far is beyond the skill and scope of the hardware hacks that I've witnessed from relatively uneducated neighbors.
Frankly, you're woefully underestimating the ability of the blue collar masses.
For now, the most effective tracing would be localized nozzle temp effects, inferring equipment and software by toolpath, and basic composition analysis. However, just particulate dust embedded in the plastic may be enough to determine something useful about mfg location.
Somehow, I doubt it will be anything basic police work can't uncover. Treating 3d guns as easier to produce than with hardware store parts does not reflect the current state of affairs. A trip to home depot will produce a superior slam fire shotgun with no welding, or machines beyond a drill and file. Its alarmism and fear mongering.
Presumably if you don't want the gun traced to the printer, you destroy the printer. Or disassemble it and rebuild it which probably adjusts the various imprecisions that create that unique "fingerprint".
I assume you mean "you can make a gun" cheaply. [Edit: actually, I probably misunderstood - seem further comments below and feel free to ignore this comment].
Which is not really true today? I mean, you can't get anything near a real-gun equivalent, and 3d printing really isn't that cheap compared to mass-produced goods (nor is it likely to be - things are mass-produced for a reason).
Compare this to a gun that's been scrubbed of it's serial numbers and any other identifying marks that would make it traceable, which is going to cost more since it'll require a decent amount of expertise to do properly too.
> I assume you mean "you can make a gun" cheaply.
No, he means you can make a 3D printer easily. So you can make one that doesn't have whatever restrictions or fingerprints the article is talking about.
It's not like a Star Trek replicator where you push the "gun" button, you have to find the model and tweak your settings, and there won't be any single set of settings consistently used on any printer unless the user is only printing a single model repeatedly.