Not sure how significant this is really. The ability to cobble together a shitty gun that will fire a single shot doesn't really require a 3D printer.

I dunno man, proper guns needs loads of metal bits really. Even this one needs a metal barrel and firing pin. I don't think that anytime soon it will be just as easy as printing a picture of a gun.

Only the firing pin is metal in this one, isn't it?

Ah right, I think I'd read somewhere that the barrels were interchangeable and for some reason assumed they were metal.

I'm assuming the barrels are interchangeable because they get shredded after a few rounds. I wonder what the accuracy on a short-barrelled, smooth-bore, relatively low tolerance home made gun is.

I'm assuming the barrels are interchangeable because they get shredded after a few rounds. I wonder what the accuracy on a short-barrelled, smooth-bore, relatively low tolerance home made gun is.

I'm assuming the barrels are interchangeable because they get shredded after a few rounds.

Paging kern. I'd say 30 feet, based on the paintball guns I have used.

As for legalities, given the nature of the laws over here, does anyone know when some piping and a sparking device would become a 'shotgun' and thus covered by the various Firearms Acts?

The more pertinent question is how much you value your hands? I wouldn't want to fire a gun I'd printed.

Pretty much instantly, I think. The definitions are loose enough to cover nearly everything - it basically needs to shoot things and not be rifled.

That's why we have a proof house!

Sounds about right.
So anyone 'printing' a gun just for the hell of it would be instantly breaking the law over here.

Pretty sure they'd be breaking the law over in the US as well, although maybe the laws regarding manufacturing firearms over there are more concerned with fully automatic firearms. I can never remember.

The guy in the article apparently got a licence from the ATF though, so I imagine it would have been illegal otherwise.

Let's cut through the media guff and read something sensible on the matter:

http://hackaday.com/2013/05/06/the-firs ... dont-care/

US government orders removal of Defcad 3D-gun designs

The US government has demanded designs for a 3D-printed gun be taken offline.

The order to remove the blueprints for the plastic gun comes after they were downloaded more than 100,000 times.

The US State Department wrote to the gun's designer, Defense Distributed, suggesting publishing them online may breach arms-control regulations.

Although the files have been removed from the company's Defcad site, it is not clear whether this will stop people accessing the blueprints.

They were being hosted by the Mega online service and may still reside on its servers.

Also, many links to copies of the blueprints have been uploaded to file-sharing site the Pirate Bay, making them widely available. The Pirate Bay has also publicised its links to the files via social news site Reddit suggesting many more people will get hold of the blueprints.

The Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance wrote to Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson demanding the designs be "removed from public access" until he could prove he had not broken laws governing shipping weapons overseas by putting the files online and letting people outside the US download them.
Explosive force

"We have to comply," Mr Wilson told news magazine Forbes in an interview.

But he added the State Department's fears were ungrounded, as Defense Distributed had been set up specifically to meet requirements that exempted it from the arms-control regulations.

He welcomed the US government's intervention, saying it would highlight the issue of whether it was possible to stop the spread of 3D-printed weapons.

Unlike conventional weapons, the printed gun - called the Liberator by its creators - is made out of plastic on a printer. Many engineering firms and manufacturers use these machines to test prototypes before starting large-scale production.

While desktop 3D printers are becoming more popular, Defense Distributed used an industrial 3D printer that cost more than £5,000 to produce its gun. This was able to use high-density plastic that could withstand and channel the explosive force involved in firing a bullet.

To make the Liberator, Mr Wilson had to get a licence to make and sell the weapon from the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The Bureau told the BBC that any American could make a gun for their own use, even on a 3D printer, but selling it required a licence.

Mr Wilson, who describes himself as a crypto-anarchist, said the project to create a printed gun and make it widely available was all "about liberty".

US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance wrote to Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson demanding the designs be "removed from public access" until he could prove he had not broken laws

Isn't it supposed to work the other way round?

Isn't it supposed to work the other way round?

From a US perspective that is. His argument basically "if you want a hand gun it is cheaper and easier to go and buy one rather than print it", which is true for the US, but not for other countries.