The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 17, 2013, 08:36 PM   #26
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
Glenn noted:
Quote:
Interesting point - some of the gun blew up on the first shot in ATF tests.
It wouldn't surprise me if the ATF tweaked the build / design file / materials to make them fail intentionally.
__________________

Cave illos in guns et backhoes
TXAZ is offline  
Old November 17, 2013, 08:39 PM   #27
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
It wouldn't surprise me if the ATF tweaked the build / design file / materials to make them fail intentionally.
I would have thought the opposite. Make it work so we have more reason to make more laws.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old November 17, 2013, 08:42 PM   #28
GunGod84
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 9, 2013
Posts: 11
The debate is concerning plastic lower recievers on AR15 style weaponry. The lower reciever is the only part that is regulated so if you can build your own (which has already been done succesfully), then you can get around the regulation.

A plastic upper reciever would be much more difficult and is not currently possible (to my knowledge) because of heat.
GunGod84 is offline  
Old November 17, 2013, 08:55 PM   #29
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
Quote:
TXAZ Quote: It wouldn't surprise me if the ATF tweaked the build / design file / materials to make them fail intentionally.

Chaz88 noted:
Quote:
I would have thought the opposite. Make it work so we have more reason to make more laws.
If they show it's a safety hazard, I expect it's a much easier sell to ban, maybe the CPSC gets involved.
__________________

Cave illos in guns et backhoes
TXAZ is offline  
Old November 17, 2013, 09:14 PM   #30
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
The debate is concerning plastic lower recievers on AR15 style weaponry. The lower reciever is the only part that is regulated so if you can build your own (which has already been done succesfully), then you can get around the regulation.
That is part of what is making the debate confusing and basically pointless, except to stir up people that do not know or care about the reality of it all.

News plays clips of an AR type gun with the printed lower. Then talks about how the gun can go right through detectors. Maybe the lower can but it needs the upper to work.

News shows a mostly plastic gun that can shoot once or twice and portrays it as an end of the world bad guy dream weapon. I can accomplish the same thing with some drill bits and a piece of plastic or even better some carbon fiber cloth and resin.

You can already build an unregulated lower as long as it is for your own use and not be breaking the law. Now because of a 3D printer it might all change.

Maybe it is a change nobody cares about. If so then maybe it is the test case for the "compromise" people are always talking about. Give them the invisible gun renewal, I think that is a non issue anyway, and give up manufacture for your own use and get some other regulation repealed. But remember it is not compromise if you do not get anything in return.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old November 17, 2013, 10:44 PM   #31
Andy Blozinski
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Posts: 525
Anything the 3-D printers can currently make, can currently be done with better materials using a lathe and mill. This may one day change such that the 3-D printers can compete. It doesn't matter. This only changes the method for something which can already be done. Any panic mongering connection to firearms production is just that and part of a wider attempt to create fear.
This is also probably more a pre-cursor to general control of 3-D printers and scanning. The printers are getting all the press, but 3-D scanning is getting cheaper too. It'll be a joke to reverse engineer some things with a 3-D scanner and then print them out. Some products will no longer make sense to market because folks will be able to make it themselves.
Andy Blozinski is offline  
Old November 17, 2013, 10:59 PM   #32
WyMark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
Things like this aren't going to silence the debate at all:

http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-P...inister-318733

Quote:
Uri Even, a reporter on Tzinor Layla, the channel’s nightly Internet culture program, revealed on Wednesday night that he created a plastic gun using a 3D printer, was able to get it past Knesset security twice, and brought it within 10 meters of Netanyahu.
Video shows him holding the gun in his lap with a clear view of Netanyahu. You only have to get lucky once, and even a .380 at 10 yards can be plenty lethal.
WyMark is offline  
Old November 17, 2013, 11:17 PM   #33
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
I guess that makes the invisible gun law more relevant but I still do not think it makes the 3D printer an issue.

From what I read it was not loaded. Could he have gotten ammunition through security? If not then it was a fancy piece of plastic.

I think the bottom line is if bad guys want to do bad things and are willing to die doing it they can find a way.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old November 18, 2013, 12:54 PM   #34
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
I think it's a fallacy that a plastic gun won't show up on a x-ray scanner. I've seen the scanned images on the airport security scanners and am pretty sure it will show. People are concerned about body bits showing up on the scanner so the plastic gun is going to show.

Now, if it had a profile that was significantly different from a common handgun, it may slip through unrecognized.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old November 18, 2013, 03:38 PM   #35
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
Airport scanners are pretty sophisticated. But, most other scanners (federal building, courts, etc.) are simply metal detectors.
Skans is offline  
Old November 18, 2013, 06:13 PM   #36
Erno86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2012
Location: Marriottsville, Maryland
Posts: 1,738
Reliable authorities consider it questionable whether a metal detector can detect metallic ammo in a plastic polymer made gun. I've heard --- from the inventor --- that the plastic pistol experiences many misfires; so it's "not reliable." I believe he BATFE complained and shut down the inventor's web site about the makings of the plastic pistol, after about 100,000 downloads.
__________________
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

--- George Orwell
Erno86 is offline  
Old November 18, 2013, 07:46 PM   #37
WyMark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
I would think getting .380 ammo in would be pretty simple, hidden inside a pen, or an electronic device, or even a belt buckle. You only need one or two to accomplish what you're there to do.

2ndsojourn - I've never seen one other than airports, but you're right it would pick up the shape no problem. Last time a flew I had to pull a small wad of bills out of my pocket cause the agent could see them on the monitor.

But if the solution is to install the new gen scanners at court houses, federal buildings, etc. then I need to invest in the companies with those contracts. Who's going to pay for all those, I wonder?
WyMark is offline  
Old November 18, 2013, 08:27 PM   #38
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
All this talk about concealable weapons for an assasin brings to mind the 1971 novel The Day of the Jackal where an assasin hid a custom built sniper rifle inside a crutch. It's the sort of thing that could still be done today since most crutches are metal which would presumably mask a rifle barrel, etc.
KyJim is offline  
Old November 18, 2013, 09:26 PM   #39
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
I might need to reconsider my stance on the subject. The last several posters have made a good case for more laws and restrictions.

That darn reasonable inch leads to trouble every time.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old November 18, 2013, 10:10 PM   #40
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
The last several posters have made a good case for more laws and restrictions.
Not really. There are always ways to get around security measures. Always have been.

Banning a new technology because of how it might be used? That leads to a rather lubricious incline.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 18, 2013, 10:18 PM   #41
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
Not really. There are always ways to get around security measures. Always have been.

Banning a new technology because of how it might be used? That leads to a rather lubricious incline.
I was not serious about changing my mind. That is why I added the reasonable inch comment. But those are the kind of comments that could sway some.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old November 18, 2013, 10:35 PM   #42
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
"A dedicated attacker will succeed."

The question becomes how much of a hole do you want to live in. I may be getting older but still not willing to live scared in a basement.
__________________

Cave illos in guns et backhoes
TXAZ is offline  
Old November 26, 2013, 01:11 AM   #43
dustind
Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: Saint Michael, MN
Posts: 47

This pdf has some pictures of thermo-conductive imaging. 3D printing of firearms pdf

Several sources, examiner.com Is NRA throwing printed guns under the bus?, a National Shooting Sports Foundation email that I received, and a few others have stated that the undetectable firearms act renewal bills will start moving again after Thanksgiving. The current law will sunset on Dec 9th.

A new bill, S1774 was introduced Nov 21st. Its text is not yet available, but it is likely a strait renewal with a one year sunset.

Gabrielle Giffords'/Mark Kelly's "American's for Responsible Solutions." reports that the NRA has agreed not to oppose the bill. They are not a trustworthy source, and it is not clear which bills they are referring to.

Everyone please contact your reps and the NRA, as well as every other gun organisation and forum to get the word out to oppose this renewal effort.

The NSSF email indicated that a strait renewal was going to pass. Even lowering the metal requirement per the standards in the law asking the AG to do that as technology advances does not seem to be in the cards.

Edit: Note that HR1474 and S1149 would ban manufacture of plastic bodied magazines and firearm receivers from non FFL 07 holders.

Last edited by dustind; November 26, 2013 at 01:18 AM.
dustind is offline  
Old November 26, 2013, 03:18 AM   #44
dustind
Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: Saint Michael, MN
Posts: 47
S1774 A bill to reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 for 1 year was just introduced on Nov 21st. Its text is not yet available, but it is likely a strait renewal.

Several sources, examiner.com Is NRA throwing printed guns under the bus?, a National Shooting Sports Foundation email that I received, and a few others have stated that the undetectable firearms act renewal bills will start moving again after Thanksgiving. The current law will sunset on Dec 9th.

Everyone please contact your reps and the NRA, as well as every other gun organisation and forum to get the word out to oppose this renewal effort. This issue has been in the news heavily for the last two weeks. I was hoping it would expire quietly, but that clearly will not happen.
dustind is offline  
Old November 26, 2013, 09:15 AM   #45
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
FYI Philadelphia has banned making 3D guns.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is offline  
Old November 26, 2013, 09:49 AM   #46
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
I really could care less about 3-D printed guns. Clunky, dangerous, expensive, and what not render them out of my sphere of interest.

However, the thought of being able to print my own 30 round standard capacity magazines makes me as giddy as a school boy in a candy store the day before Christmas.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Read my blog!
"The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old November 26, 2013, 11:13 AM   #47
RX-79G
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
Where does the GCA ban making unimportable guns? Most of the small pistols and military style rifles are US made to avoid import bans.
RX-79G is offline  
Old November 26, 2013, 01:37 PM   #48
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
We had an older thread on this matter, and folks are still commenting there, so I'm going to merge them.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 26, 2013, 03:47 PM   #49
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,863
Wow, I didn't realize the original Undetectable Firearms Act dated to 1988. I always though it came about in 1990 with Die Hard 2.

Yeah, kinda glad I was just getting around to being born when that passed.

However, something I've noticed in my experience with gun rights activities, and this is tangentally related to the new bill, is that guys and girls who are my age, and who came about in the firearms world during the AWB seem to get more invovled via social media with proposed legislation.

That's a good thing, a gun culture 2.0 if you will.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Read my blog!
"The answer to any caliber debate is going to be .38 Super, 10mm, .357 Sig or .41 Magnum!"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old December 2, 2013, 05:55 PM   #50
dustind
Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: Saint Michael, MN
Posts: 47
From TTAG (The Truth About Guns):House of Representatives Could Vote on “Undetectable Firearms Act” As Soon As This Afternoon
They clearly didn't today but it is likely to happen this week. Spread the word near and far. Contact your reps, the pro gun groups that haven't come out against this, and everyone else you know.
dustind is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11712 seconds with 8 queries