What kind of handgun did the gunman used to kill the United Healthcare CEO?

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by Skans

As for marrying steel pieces with 3D printed Glock frames, I could be wrong, but I don't think it would work. There's a reason no gun manufacturer 3D prints its plastic frames.

We don’t have to wonder, people have done it.

For a large company that is willing and able to make an investment in injection molding there are several advantages to going that route, as Jim mentioned. But for a private person doing this at home I can understand it. My question remains why would he do that when he doesn’t have to? As 44amp responded, we won’t know the answer to that (if it is true) until later.

[44caliberkid]

Several years ago I watched a video about 3D printing an AR lower. The first one was just the printed material and broke very easily. As he did subsequent versions he was incorporating fiberglass fibers into the process to add strength, then tried carbon fiber also. While he was able to reinforce (improve) the strength of the lower, it was still not even close the durability of a Polymer 80 lower. Plus, a lot of work, because you had to be there through the whole process, dropping the fibers in the right place as the printer printed over them. Printer materials may have changed over two or three years and maybe they are stronger now.
I think it will turn out to be some companies polymer lower, although the 3D printed narrative will probably be stuck with, because it advances the gun control agenda.

[Sharkbite]

I think it will turn out to be some companies polymer lower, although the 3D printed narrative will probably be stuck with, because it advances the gun control agenda.

I agree with this. IMHO the gun (if homemade) will turn out to be a unfinished receiver that somebody finished and ordered the other parts online. NONE of which is illegal if done for your own use. Never has been. Folks in this country have been building personal guns since before the founding.

The suppressor will probably turn out to be one of the fuel filter “kits” that where so popular a cpl years ago.

If we want to go into tinfoil hat area…isnt it somehing that both those items, homebuilt firearms AND homebuilt suppressors have been under the microscope lately. Unfinished frames and receivers are in the courts currently and BATFE arbitrarily stopped approving form 1’s on home built suppressors. Much like when there is a big push for AWB legislation, there is a mass shooting….Hmmm

[JohnKSa]

Pictures of the gun are available online. Here are some links.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...ing-rcna183512

There's a pretty good closeup of the gun at the beginning of this video that can be paused for examination.

https://www.wmar2news.com/local/a-cl...n-ceo-shooting

For whatever reason, I have not been able to find any post-shooting pictures of the silencer although it was reported that he had it with him when he was arrested.

[44caliberkid]

I found this about 3D printing Glock frames. Interesting read.

https://3dgunbuilder.com/guides/best-3d-printed-glocks/

[FrankenMauser]

The plastics generally available for 3D printing are generally not the kind of thing that someone who put this much time and effort into murdering someone would rely on. As for marrying steel pieces with 3D printed Glock frames, I could be wrong, but I don't think it would work. There's a reason no gun manufacturer 3D prints its plastic frames.

It works just fine.
Life expectancy of the frame is severely diminished, compared to an injection-molded frame. But it works just fine.
We have filaments than can handle it. But the biggest problem in the "3DP" gun world is that most of the designers are not engineers or gun people. They don't understand the stresses involved and inadvertently build unnecessary failure points into the design.

Several years ago I watched a video about 3D printing an AR lower. The first one was just the printed material and broke very easily. As he did subsequent versions he was incorporating fiberglass fibers into the process to add strength, then tried carbon fiber also. While he was able to reinforce (improve) the strength of the lower, it was still not even close the durability of a Polymer 80 lower. Plus, a lot of work, because you had to be there through the whole process, dropping the fibers in the right place as the printer printed over them. Printer materials may have changed over two or three years and maybe they are stronger now.

That is no longer necessary. Not even remotely.
Filaments available to the public have changed dramatically in the last few years.
Gone are the days of everyone using corn-based plastics that broken if you looked at them the wrong way or left the part (or filament) in a humid environment. (Moisture uptake causes PLA embrittlement.)

Today, we can print with carbon fiber reinforced filament, glass fiber reinforced filament, and some extremely strong and durable nylon varieties.
With a little modification to the machine's extruder and G-code, printing can be done with continuous glass fiber. (A single, continuous strand of glass fiber is laid down as the plastic is extruded.) Parts printed as such, with a good filament choice, are incredibly strong - often stronger than PA6 and PA66.

My 3D printer is used primarily for jigs, fixtures, tools, and small repair parts. But it could easily spit out a usable Glock, Walther P99, Sig P320, or other frame in a couple hours. I even have quite a bit of "Ultra PA" filament on hand, which would be stronger than the PLA+ that most people are using, and for which most of the files were designed to use.
It wouldn't be the first frame that I've printed. A Hi-Point C9 came into my possession with a broken frame. I 3D printed a new frame for it, and it is still running like the brick that it is.

[44 AMP]

Personally, I would feel more comfortable with the information in the link if it wasn't NBC reporting it. Pardon my skepticism, but I still remember when NBC rigged pickup trucks to explode, and passed video of that to the public saying it was a design flaw.

They show a picture of a gun, and state that was the gun the shooter had on him when arrested. Ok. He was arrested 4 days after the NYC shooting, in the middle of Pennsylvania.

Is it the gun used in the murder? Looks like the gun used, but, we won't know, (absent a confession claiming it was) until the gun is tested by a competent lab AND they find it matches the on scene evidence. Might not be the best idea to send it to the FBI, they might break it...

The NYC Chief of Detectives told NBC that it "may have been made on a 3d printer"... does that make it a fact, without any other supporting evidence??

Right now, without the results of lab testing all we know is supposition and assumption.

And, when you come down to it, how important is it where, and how the killer got the gun he used??? Personally, I would put that rather far down on the list of charges that should be brought in this case.

Lets look at some of what we know, so far,
The killer used false ID
Crime (though minor compared to the rest)

He had a firearm with no serial number
FEDERAL CRIME (unless it is one of the grandfathered pre-1968 guns, and the gun in this case, isn't)

He had a silencer, not registered with the Fed govt.
FEDERAL CRIME

He had these items in NYC, without NY required permits.
STATE /City CRIMES

He shot and killed a man
CRIME

And, he left the scene and was caught later in another state. Does that mean that charges of unlawful flight to avoid prosecution could be added, as well??

Sure, how/where he got the gun is important information, but its NOT any kind of deciding factor in the crimes I just listed.

[P Flados]

My son got into 3D printing a while back.

We have assembled quite a few guns with 3D printed frames and with 80% frames for pistols.

Our AR15 stuff has been failure free so far. The version used for these was very much "more refined" and durable than the early stuff that was pretty fragile.

I tried to build a HiPoint 9mm clone, but the 3D printed frame for this application was not "refined". It was not designed with extra plastic at a high stress areas and I gave up after two failures. (FM, if your C9 frame is based on the "lo point" design, watch the area around the pin that secures the barrel in place.)

The Glock 3D print frames seem to be either very "refined" and/or the application is just less demanding. He has had one 3D printed G17 pattern frame fail. I think there was less than perfect print setup that led to inadequate fusion between layers.

I actually like the fit-up and function of the 3D printed frames better than the 80% Glock stuff we tried. The "games" played to keep the 80% stuff both cheap and legal, do not help with getting an optimal result.

Between the two of us, we have pushed quite a bit of ammo through some of these guns. My G23 clone (40 S&W) is probably the most severe service for this group. It has run great so far and my confidence in it is pretty high. However, if it does fail at the range, I will not be shocked and the cost of the repair will be very low.

We understand that this stuff has limitations. Thin sections under stress can be a problem. Also, you typically do not want to leave something like this in a hot car in the summer. The filaments he uses do get softer at these kinds of temperatures and press fit pins will loosen up and areas under stress will deform (i.e. "creep").

[P Flados]

FYI, Having a 3D printed frame with no serial number is not a crime. Removing a serial number and being in possession of a gun with a removed serial number are.

At this point I really do not think he was a "gun guy". The poor function from the suppressor / gun combination was not something a "gun guy" would be likely to tolerate.

And as far a reason for going with a 3D my guess it that it was most likely it was a desire to be less traceable and/or not wanting the background check. The guy was apparently smart and made some efforts at hiding his identity (although not nearly enough).

[Sharkbite]

He had a firearm with no serial number
FEDERAL CRIME (unless it is one of the grandfathered pre-1968 guns, and the gun in this case, isn't)

Not true. A firearm manufactured by you for your personal use does not require a S/N until you want to sell/transfer it to someone else.

[FrankenMauser]

Originally Posted by P Flados

I tried to build a HiPoint 9mm clone, but the 3D printed frame for this application was not "refined". It was not designed with extra plastic at a high stress areas and I gave up after two failures. (FM, if your C9 frame is based on the "lo point" design, watch the area around the pin that secures the barrel in place.)

I believe it was LoPoint2. But it is a very weak frame. I know the designer and talked to him about the deficiencies. His response was roughly, "I just needed a frame for a parts kit, and now I have a dozen. I'm not fixing it, but you can if you want."
(I would have, but his source files are locked and he wouldn't give me the password.)

Keep your earballs peeled and on the 3DP spaces. There's a really fun-looking 50% scale AR design in .22 LR that seems to be about 90% through development. Successful test firing occurred over the weekend.

[44 AMP]

OK yes, in this post I did leave out information, I thought it had already been covered, and I know its been covered other places/threads.

You do not need to put a serial number on a firearm you build yourself, for your own use. But if YOU didn't build it, for yourself, buying a gun with no serial number is illegal. Selling the gun you made for your self without adding a serial number (and manufacturer's information) isn't legal. Nor is gifting it.

Essentially once the non serial numbered firearm leaves the maker's possession, it requires all the same information the govt requires on factory built firearms. And that is, a serial number and the maker's/importer's name and address (city, and country)

SO, in the case of the United Health Care CEO's murder, if the gun the shooter used has no serial number, and the shooter did not build it himself, then he's committing ANOTHER crime.

Again, I feel that LEOs concentrating on the gun and its history is somewhat akin to focusing on the murderer illegally double parking his car which had no license plats and was not registered. Crimes and legal voilations, to be sure but nothing compared to shooing an unsuspecting victim in the back 3 times...

[JohnKSa]

Personally, I would feel more comfortable with the information in the link if it wasn't NBC reporting it.

If you are unhappy with NBC as a source, then do an image search of the internet using the terms “Mangione” and “firearm” and you can pick your source.

That’s what I did—I just copied a link from the first source that came up. Did you really think that only one news organization has access to the pictures that the Altoona police released?

Personally, I would put that rather far down on the list of charges that should be brought in this case.

It’s standard practice to bring as many charges as are reasonable. If you’re worried that maybe they’re going to charge him with a firearms charge and forget about the fact that he shot someone—don’t be. They will start at the top and work their way down. Then, if appropriate, they will pass him on to the next jurisdiction for them to work through their laundry list too.

Is it the gun used in the murder? Looks like the gun used, but, we won't know, (absent a confession claiming it was) until the gun is tested by a competent lab AND they find it matches the on scene evidence.

Already done.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/11/us/un...day/index.html

Please note that CNN is NOT the only source for this information.

…does that make it a fact, without any other supporting evidence??

No, and he’s not being charged with anything related to the 3D printing of the firearm as far as I can tell.

Right now, without the results of lab testing all we know is supposition and assumption.

He had 4 false IDs, one of which was used to check into the hostel where he was seen on video. In many states (NY included), each of those IDs would be a separate felony. He resembles the pictures of the shooter. He was caught with a gun similar to what is seen in the shooting video chambered in the caliber used in the shooting. He was caught with an unregistered silencer similar to what is seen in the shooting video. (Which is a serious crime, in and of itself.) He was caught with handwritten material that essentially admits to the crime.

He's very obviously guilty of several serious crimes, even before there was confirmation that the gun actually was the one used in the shooting.

Essentially once the non serial numbered firearm leaves the maker's possession, it requires all the same information the govt requires on factory built firearms. And that is, a serial number and the maker's/importer's name and address (city, and country)

Personally built firearms (non-NFA) do not require a serial number under federal law. That remains true even if the maker eventually decides to sell them. State laws may vary.

The BATF does not like to answer this question straightforwardly and that can confuse the issue. Here’s a good source on the topic including some letters from the BATF.

https://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/...emade-firearm/

[Skans]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

Several. It's not as strong, it's not as sightly, mostly it's slow.



I don't see why it shouldn't be printed.
I agree, I doubt he printed it. Will we be told if they backtrack his residences and find - or not find - a printer? Probably old news by then.

After seeing a close up photo of the gun used, I changed my mine - it could be a 3D printed frame.

[44 AMP]

Just out of curiosity, is there any information about his past?? Meaning, is there anything to indicate he is a prohibited person, and so would be denied legally purchasing a pistol??

Point here is, if he could legally buy a pistol, why bother with a "ghost gun"?? Unless, for him, it was significantly cheaper??

Clearly he wasn't concerned about the gun being traced back to him, as he still had the gun on him four days later when he was caught. He also didn't ditch the (homemade?) silencer, either. He also had his fake IDs, including the one that he used in NYC which is on record there, and puts him there at the time of the crime.

I suppose, like most criminals, he never expected to be caught, and kept incriminating evidence because of that.

Good for us, not so much for him!

[mehavey]

There's nothing at all in his background that would have triggered PP status.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e/76926924007/

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Just out of curiosity, is there any information about his past?? Meaning, is there anything to indicate he is a prohibited person, and so would be denied legally purchasing a pistol??

Point here is, if he could legally buy a pistol, why bother with a "ghost gun"?? Unless, for him, it was significantly cheaper??

I brought up this same point earlier.

[Jim Watson]

A cold gun, a silencer, pseudonyms; because that is what Expert Assassins DO, that is why.

[wild cat mccane]

I can, within 1 hour, acquire a used handgun of any current production without a background check using my local online gun seller website.

The fascination on the what kinda seems irrelevant.

To me, it kinda makes we wonder...do we think 9mm wouldn't kill someone? or do we think they can't fit a silencer?

The why evades me.

[44 AMP]

I can, within 1 hour, acquire a used handgun of any current production without a background check using my local online gun seller website.

I assume you live in a state where private face to face sales are still legal. There are many states where this is not legal.

[JohnKSa]

Point here is, if he could legally buy a pistol, why bother with a "ghost gun"?? Unless, for him, it was significantly cheaper??

Does everything have to be a conspiracy?

Maybe we could just look at the facts and see if they take us somewhere.

As far as I can tell, this guy has lived in MD, Hawaii, CA, and PA. All four of those states have significant extra-federal firearm regulation. All four of those states for example, require that ANY handgun transfers (including private party sales) be done via FFL. All of them except for PA require some form of licensing or registration just to own a handgun.

It appears that he was living in CA when he planned all this out. That's where his mother filed the missing person's report. Private purchases in CA have to go through an FFL with a 10 day waiting period. A firearm certificate/registration is required for any handgun purchase.

I don't see why it's hard to understand that a guy planning a high-profile "hit" wants to keep off the radar if he can. I see lots of law-abiding firearm owners who are still unhappy about having to fill out a 4473 even though that's far less intrusive than an actual registration scheme.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Does everything have to be a conspiracy?

Speaking for myself, while I have also posed this question I have never said I thought this was a conspiracy. I can still be curious. Perhaps we’ll find out in time. Or not.

[JohnKSa]

Look at the angst in some of the posts on TFL where people are sure they're getting on a government list by filling out a 4473 buying a gun to go hunting with. This guy would have had to do more than that to get a handgun in CA and he was planning to use his new gun to assassinate someone, probably on video.

Why do we think that avoiding registration and an FFL transfer with a 10 day wait isn't sufficient motivation for trying to acquire an untraceable gun to be used for murder?

[TunnelRat]

I don’t personally feel that level of angst. If he did and that was his sole motivation, so be it. That is a theory of yours, but we don’t know the exact reason and may never know the exact reason. Maybe he just wanted to try out making a firearm this way and he chose to use that firearm to commit this crime.

This thread is in many ways people wondering why the shooter made certain choices. I don’t see the question of why he may have purchased that firearm in such a way as really any different than a number of other questions, and to me it does not have to imply the belief in a conspiracy.

[JohnKSa]

I don’t personally feel that level of angst.

I didn't say you did. I don't either, but this isn't about how you or I feel, it's about how someone else does. Clearly there are people who feel uncomfortable filling out a 4473--even when buying a gun for law abiding purposes because we see them express that concern. It is no stretch at all that someone acquiring a gun for murder might be highly interested in doing so in a manner that didn't allow the gun to be traced.

That is a theory of yours, but we don’t know the exact reason and may never know the exact reason.

You're right. There are any number of possible theories one could come up with.

Maybe the guy thought that the plastic in commercial firearms is known to cause cancer by the state of CA and wanted to print one using only plastics used in 3D printers.

Maybe the guy thought that commercial firearms had tracking devices installed and so he wanted to print his own for that reason.

Let's look at the question I was answering.

Point here is, if he could legally buy a pistol, why bother with a "ghost gun"?? Unless, for him, it was significantly cheaper??

The implication is that there are only two reasons he could have gone the non-traceable route. 1) It's significantly cheaper, or 2) he was driven to it by the inability to buy a firearm legally.

I provided a really good third reason why a person might buy a ghost gun that fits with the actual circumstances of the case, common sense, and concerns expressed by actual people in the real world, buying actual guns, even when there's much less at stake than in this case.

And yes, there are probably more. Maybe even one that makes even more sense than the one I stated, although I can't think of one.

But there are certainly more than just, it was cheaper, or, he was a prohibited person.