He 3d printed the frame, but you need dozens of parts, milled or stamped from steel to complete it and have a working gun. Even the 3d printed frame needs steel inserts. It is like 3d printing a case, then buying a motherboard, CPU and RAM at Best Buy, and claiming your built a 3d printed computer.

There is some appeal to criminals, because the frame is the part that gets the serial number and is regulated. But if you want to attack this problem, the 3d printer is a backwards way to do it.

▲

giancarlostoro 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Especially with "80%" gun frames out there, which aren't too hard to get, and don't require any sort of background check in many jurisdictions, since its technically not a firearm, just a block of polymer you dremel down to spec.

▲

remarkEon 3 days ago | parent [-]

While this is technically possible, it is not that easy. In other words, someone who is technical and experienced enough to manually create a lower like that is very likely to have extensive experience with firearms anyway (and likely owns many).

▲

AnthonyMouse 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> While this is technically possible, it is not that easy.

Isn't the same thing true for 3D printers? The first time someone tries to print something they frequently end up with spaghetti and less technically competent people wouldn't even be able to get the thing to attempt printing anything.

	▲	stavros 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That used to be true, but no, nowadays they print perfectly out of the box.

▲

giancarlostoro 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You'd be surprised how motivated someone in a gang could get watching a ton of videos on youtube just to get access to a gun police cannot "trace" in a meaningful way.

▲

remarkEon 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I would not be surprised at how motivated a gang member is to acquire a firearm, no. So, I guess point taken, however a) I was responding to a claim that's slightly different from 3D printing lower receivers, and b) I thought YouTube banned/got rid of content that actually taught you how to do this? I have not looked in a long time. In any case, milling out a block of material on your own to function as a lower is going to take a lot of time and skill, so my original point still stands.

Separately, I am always a little confused by the idea that you cannot "trace" these firearms. Maybe people do not widely understand what's going on here, but the serial number being traced is on this lower receiver, which can be swapped out (in most but not all cases). If a firearm with a 3D printed lower is used in a crime, I have to assume - though I am not an expert - that you could still connect spent casings to that weapon in the same manner. In other words, it does not matter that the lower doesn't have a factory-installed serial number plate or a stamped serial number. My guess is that this confusion is being injected intentionally in the debate by the people who support/push these badly constructed laws.

▲

AnthonyMouse 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Separately, I am always a little confused by the idea that you cannot "trace" these firearms.

It's presumably a misunderstanding of how investigations work. They're paperwork people so the assumption is that the serial number is of vital importance because it's what's on the paperwork, and if something could exist with no serial number then the entire system is in danger.

Meanwhile the serial number is overall not even that helpful. If you catch the suspect with the weapon in their possession then it doesn't matter that much what the serial number is, what matters is if the weapon they had matches the forensics. By contrast, if you don't recover the weapon then you don't have the serial number anyway.

The only case where a serial number would really do anything is if you recover the weapon after the perpetrator already tried to dispose of it and want to try to use the serial number to identify the original owner. But in that case the perpetrator can leave you without a serial number regardless by just filing it off. It doesn't really buy them anything for it to have never had one to begin with.

	▲	draygonia 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Serial numbers are security theater on the same level as TSA checkpoints at the airport.

▲

herewulf 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That is definitely not how gang members are occupying their thoughts and activities. Real firearms are super easy to get in the US, legally or illegally, and it takes much more than "untraceable" firearms to get away with shootings.

▲

remarkEon 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes. For those unfamiliar with firearms, the above analogy is correct. One addition: in this hypothetical your “computer” is heavily regulated, but for the agency that does the regulating the only thing they consider the “computer” is the frame/case.

▲

Aurornis 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m not in favor of 3D printer controls but I feel like most of this comment section is out of touch with how far the 3D printed gun nuts have come along.

It was 13 years ago that the first major fully 3D printed firearm was released and even the ATF admitted that most of their reproduction attempts were capable of firing bullets at lethal velocities https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/feds-get-in-on-3...

I’m not an expert but even back then they could supposedly get 8-10 shots out of them.

So the claim that dozens of milled metal parts are necessary doesn’t appear to be factual

▲

kube-system 2 days ago | parent [-]

The liberator is the “hello world” of 3d printed guns. It is just barely functional enough to technically exist but practically isn’t of much use.

The barrel is so short and non existent that it basically does nothing except hold the (metal) cartridge in place. A liberator isn’t much different than simply holding a cartridge in a fixture and hitting it with a hammer.

In a conventional gun, the barrel serves to allow the projectile to build velocity and stabilize the trajectory by putting a spin on it. The liberator does neither, so the projectile will be moving quite slow and will be inaccurate.

And also, they do commonly explode, even on the first shot. It’s a gamble.

“Lethal velocities” doesn’t really mean much. A slingshot can propel a bullet at lethal velocities. And that would probably be a more suitable option for criminals as it would be more reliable and have more rapid fire capability.

Now it might be a viable one-shot gamble for a criminal in a place where guns are entire forbidden. But in those places, it is typically not easy to get a real .380 cartridge, so it doesn’t really change much. And in the US, there are much easier ways for criminals to get much better guns.

▲

throwthrowuknow 2 days ago | parent [-]

Isn’t the Liberator like 10 years out of date? The last 3D printed gun I saw was a submachinegun capable of full auto. It had a metal barrel but that was described as easy to acquire or make.

	▲	kube-system 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes but all of the better designs use metal components that aren’t 3d printed. The liberator was to “prove” it could all be 3d printed. Technically true but practically not worth it

▲

sleepybrett 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

you can buy all those parts on ebay. The companies that support gun buybacks for police or buy evidence guns from police destroy the legal 'gun portion' and then clean up and sell the rest of the parts on ebay. Search for glock parts kit.