Tech hobbyist makes shoulder-mounted guided missile prototype with $96 in parts and a 3D printer — DIY MANPADS includes assisted targeting, ballistics calculations, optional camera for tracking
www.tomshardware.com
Quite the feat...

Despite the tech-cool factor of the project, Tom’s Hardware does not condone making your own weapons system at home.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zipEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        While I am fully opposed to a 3d printer ban (and abhor the efforts of Bambu et al to sneak that in), it is very important to understand why that is not a fair comparison and, if anything, sets a threshold that can be used to argue FOR a ban.

        I’ve ranted in detail before so I’ll do the short version this time:

        You are not going to make a barrel or springs yourself. And the good news is that you don’t need to. None of that is a controlled/registered part (for the vast majority of guns) and you can literally buy those at a walmart equivalent. And there at least used to be pre-packaged bundles available online for your ghost gun needs.

        So that mostly leaves the receiver and fire control unit. I will bet you money that giving a rando off the street 24 hours to figure out how to go to the local communal machine shop and make even a frigging sten and they will fail miserably. Whereas there are videos (fuck vice for how they abused their workers but old-vice has a really good video where they literally made the gun Luigi allegedly used) of people going from 0 to glock in 12 hours of print time and 4-5 hours of filing. I forget if they actually made a silencer or not (since that is a really dark grey area legally) but that is also very printable.

        And that is the big difference. How much that matters when you are considering a country where you can buy the same gear that Tier 1 Special Forces use to abduct (admittedly really shitty) world leaders for under a thousand bucks is a HUGE question. But from the “ghost gun” perspective? There is VERY much a big difference between having a CNC and machining a receiver+FCU versus doing the same with an Ender 3.

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zipEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            There actually are some really cool proof of concepts where people have 100% 3d printed a gun. And “potato cannons” are generally a PVC firing chamber and barrel.

            For legal purposes: Preface everything after this with a dozen "allegedly"s. A couple years back I went to a really cool event where people had built machine guns out of wood and plastic (FDM). No metal. Everyone went old school with leaf springs and the like. None had any issue with doing well over 100 rounds (5.56 or 5.45) each. That said, anyone with half a brain cell was literally hiding in a bunker nearby out of terror when the firing was going on. But… yeah. Also for legal purposes: I am sure every weapon was registered with the ATF prior to the event and completely destroyed on day two.

            Like anything, it is about pressure, strength, and geometry. And, as The Troubles in Ireland can attest… you don’t need THAT much skill to make something that will fire… once. Which is why there are so many shed machine guns and rifles with split barrels and completely exploded receivers in The Royal Armouries.

            But if you want to make a barrel that can hold up to even a few dozen rounds? You need to understand what metal to use (hint: it isn’t mild steel) and some pretty decent lathe skills.

      • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.caEnglish
        0·
        2 months ago

        Reminds me of a time when I went to a maker space open house, and they were showing all kinds of cool stuff, including fairly advanced 3D printers for time. They mentioned there was programming to halt prints of things like gun parts, so it would be very hard to make guns using them. I commented, “Besides, you can make better ones in the metal shop in the other room.” He replied, “Yeah! <brief pause> No!”

    • FatherPeanut@pawb.socialEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      Washington state already started making moves against it, as an attempt to prevent 3D printed firearm components. Specifically, it requires 3D printers sold within the state to have firmware-based scanning to cancel prints it suspects are used for firearms, alongside criminalizing the possession of files ruled as ‘firearm compoments’.

      One bill is in the House, the other passed into law. Gonna make it a real rough ride ahead for tinkerers into 3D printing, especially if we’ve gotta design around “Oh boy, I sure hope my pencil holder doesnt get flagged as an illegal item.”

      Edit: One of two bills passed: HB2320 and HB2321. HB2320 is currently law, and HB2321 is awaiting presentation to the House.

        • FatherPeanut@pawb.socialEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          One passed, the other has yet to be presented. These legislators have no clue how they’d even do it, but circumventing the scan is also made illegal.

          So yeah, flashing Open-Source firmware is something they dont like either, but fingers crossed they just choose to not allocate resources to enforcement. Wouldn’t be surprised if this 3D printed missile mentioned in the article above comes up ad a taking point during the legislative hearings.

          • Nasan@sopuli.xyzEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            Sounds like something that wouldn’t be worth going out of the way to enforce. But rather used to tack on extra charges when someone commits another crime where the extra level of investigation would uncover the flashed firmware. Not that it would do much to deter or prevent what they’re afraid of from happening.