Songbird, A Mostly 3D Printed Pistol That Appears To Actually Work

[Guy in a garage] has made a 3D printed gun that not only appears to fire in the direction pointed, it can also do it multiple times. Which, by the standard of 3D printed guns, is an astounding feat. He started with .22 rifle cartridges but has since upgraded and tested the gun with .357 rounds. The link above is a playlist which starts of with an in-depth explanation of the .22 version and moves through design iterations

This gun prints on a standard FDM printer. Other 3D printable guns such as the infamous Liberator or the 3D printed metal gun need more exotic or precise 3D printing to work effectively. The secret to this gun’s ability is the barrel, which can be printed in nylon for .22 cartridges, or in ABS plus a barrel liner for .22 and .357 caliber.

A barrel liner is one way to repair a gun that has aged and is no longer shooting properly. Simply put, it is a long hardened metal tube with rifling on the inside. Some guns come out of the factory with one, and a gunsmith simply has to remove the old one and replace it. Other guns need to be bored out before a liner can be installed.

The metal liner surrounded by plastic offers enough mechanical strength for repeat firings without anyone losing a hand or an eye; though we’re not sure if we recommend firing any 3D printed gun as it’s still risky business. It’s basically like old stories of wrapping a cracked cannon in twine. The metal tries to expand out under the force of firing, but the twine, which would seem like a terrible material for cannon making, is good in tension and when wrapped tightly offers more than enough strength to hold it all together.

This is also how he got the .357 version to work. The barrel slots into the gun frame and locates itself with a rounded end. However, with the higher energy from a .357 round, this rounded end would act as a wedge and split the 3D printed frame. The fix for this was simple. Glue it back together with ABS glue, and then wrap the end of the assembly with a cable tie.

This is the first 3D printed gun we’ve seen that doesn’t look like a fantastic way to instantly lose your hand. It’s a clever trick that took some knowledge of guns and gunsmithing to put together. Despite the inevitable ethical, moral, and political debate that will ensue as this sort of thing becomes more prevalent, it is a pretty solid hack and a sign that 3D printing is starting to work with more formidable engineering challenges.

131 thoughts on “Songbird, A Mostly 3D Printed Pistol That Appears To Actually Work

        1. I’m not afraid of people with assault rifles, they are almost always the “Da gubbmints gonna take mah guns” idiots that would probably just crap themselves and curl up into the fetal position if they ever faced someone with a gun.

          What is more frightening is someone with a small, easily concealable weapon. A rifle is going to get noticed and everyone nearby is going to be at high-alert someone walks in with one of them. Besides, the vast majority of victims of gun violence were shot by the very common semi-automatic pistol than any form of ‘assault weapon’ like the AR-15 or the AK-47 or any of their derivatives.

          Even then, terrorism by mass-shooting doesn’t scare me. IN the past 20 years, less than 200 people have died in the US due to terrorists (domestic or otherwise) with guns. More people have died in that same time period from motorcyclists swallowing a bee and wiping out into a crowd. Even general terrorism has killed fewer people than slipping in the bath tub… And nothing even remotely holds a candle to cancer and heart disease when it comes to lives cut short.

        2. Perfect example of someone who knows little about guns, a “100 round clip magazine” doesn’t exist as a clip and a magazine are two separate systems for feeding bullet into two completely different types of guns. If you want to know what gun control looks like check out France and England.

          1. just a little correction, all clip-fed guns (except some turn of the century experimental designs, I’m sure) have magazines, a fixed internal mag is still a mag.

  1. wtf is a “barrel liner”????

    I get that not many of our fellow readers know dick about firearms, but seriously, the idea that a worn or washed out barrel can be “saved” or “refurbished” with a “barrel liner” is just stupid.

    how would you bore or mill out a barrel?
    how would you manufacture a “barrel liner”?
    how would you fit a “barrel liner”????
    how would you fit a “barrel liner” and get the free bore right?
    what about the crown end of the barrel?

    When I worked in a gun shop I had idiots that had loaded their .220 Swift (notorious for barrel wash out), .25-06, 22-250 and other calibers, up to the gills, then tried to sell me a rifle that “shoots really good”.

    I deal with gunsmiths all the time, some of the shit people ask is surreal.

    Before anyone says anything, one gunsmith is the originator of .222BK, .22-.357.

    I’ve sold a LOT of AR-7 rifles, that had a steel barrel liner in an aluminium shell, occasionally I’d get a customer with a barrel that had a bulge, if there was a “resleaving” service, I’d know about it.

    this looks like a cool build, but I still wouldn’t fire one on a bet and I’ve done some pretty stupid (read painful) shit on a bet….

    1. Maybe you need to face reality. Maybe you don’t know as much as you think you know.
      If you had a Sharps Borchard officers model, with an original barrel with Freund Brothers modifications and stampings, but the bore was shot out, you’d enlist a fine gunsmith to reline the barrel. Otherwise your replica barrel just lowers the value.

      Sometimes you can’t just crank a new barrel on something.

      It’s not uncommon, and requires proper tooling.
      Most of your questions can be answered if you know how a lathe works

        1. “Sounds to me like if you drove your Ford into the dealer and asked for a rebore…. they won’t do it, they’ll sell you a new engine though.” Because its the right answer. Clearly the “owner” has no idea how to care for an engine and deserves to pay full price for being dumb.

          1. This “deserves to pay” can never be the right answer. If it’s technically and economically feasible then somebody will and should do it. If the risk is to high, that it works or the cost of equipment and labor then probably it will not be done. A car or engine repair shop has no educational mandate.

      1. You don’t need a gun drill and can do it with a regular hand drill and the proper counterbore. You already have a nice straight bore to follow with the counterbore.
        I have seen the new liner glued in.

        I don’t see why you couldn’t cast a gun frame from concrete with a proper liner in place.
        I’ve seen gun barrels made from tightly wrapped paper. If it only needs to fire once, who cares?

    2. Barrel liners are typically thin tubes that are button rifled and either soldered or epoxied into a barrel that has been drilled with a gun drill on a lathe. The gun drill has a pilot section which rides in the bore ahead of the drill keeping everything mostly concentric. After you install the liner recrown the barrel. For the most part I’d say for the machining costs and possibilities of problems it would be cheaper to just have a new blank turned.

    3. Thanks for demonstrating once again that the folks who work in gun shops are among the victims hardest hit by the Dunning-Kruger effect.

      “how would you bore or mill out a barrel?”
      With a piloted drill and/or reamer. Just a reamer will do if converting a .32 rimfire to .17 or .22 rimfire, as these liners are commonly 5/16″ diameter. Relining to the same caliber will require a piloted drill; some people drill to size, some prefer to ream afterwards — this depends in part on the desired gap, which depends on the solder or adhesive you plan to use.

      “how would you manufacture a “barrel liner”?”
      Normally, you’d buy one off the shelf. The most popular ones are hammer-forged over a rifled mandrel or button rifled. If you wanted a caliber and twist rate not available off the shelf, you can also turn down a rifled barrel blank.
      I’ve personally done the latter when converting a 7-shot .32 rimfire revolver to 9-shot .22 WMR — I wanted a 1 in 9″ twist barrel, so once I finish the interchangeable .22LR cylinder, I’ll be able to use the same 60-grain SSS loads I use in my rifle. Turned down a 2.5″ length of a barrel blank to a push fit in the reamed barrel, and cut it off.
      Examples of mass-produced barrel liners:

      “how would you fit a “barrel liner”????”
      You can use solder or a variety of adhesives. On that revolver project, I used loctite 609. Apply the adhesive as you slide the two parts together, so it’s drawn into the joint.

      “how would you fit a “barrel liner” and get the free bore right?”
      Liners are usually used for straight or nearly straight cartridges, so you’d drill and ream clear through the barrel, and install the liner extending all the way to the breech. Then, once it’s installed, you’d chamber it with a reamer, and file or mill whatever extractor grooves are needed. Severe bottle-neck cartridges (like .220 Swift) would need a little more care, as the liner/barrel joint is likely to be exposed in the chamber, but again, you’d set the liner deep (either into the neck, or just past the shoulder), and clean up the chamber, freebore, and leade with a chambering reamer, being careful to just kiss the existing chamber — obviously removing metal here risks creating excessive headspace. But I don’t know anyone who’d line a .220 Swift anyhow — it’s generally reserved for relatively low-pressure cartridges. (Also, most guns in .220 Swift are easily rebarreled bolt guns with minimal collector value, so why would you pay for an expensive reline job when you can have it rebarrelled for about the same cost, or shortened and rechambered for less.)
      On my revolver project, of course, there’s a forcing cone and leade in the barrel, but no chamber or freebore as such — those are in the cylinder. Departing from normal practice, I cut the forcing cone and leade in the liner with a boring bar before installation; then I used a piece of paper on the cylinder when installing it, setting a .002″ to .003″ cylinder gap.

      “what about the crown end of the barrel?”
      Usually, cylinder liners are installed long at the muzzle, then you set the whole barrel up in the lathe to cut off the excess and recrown after installation. Some people instead drill from the breech and stop the drill just as it breaks into the existing crown, and put a crown and chamfer to match the drill point on the liner before installation — done right, you leave a false crown on the outside that looks original to all but the closest inspection, but just enough is removed (from the center out) to not interfere with the bullet as it exits the true crown on the liner.
      On my revolver project, I finished the liner about 1/16″ short of the barrel, and crowned it before installation. This leaves a step inside the muzzle, but looks less bad than recrowning a nickel-plated barrel.

      1. It is nice to read somebody who obviously knows about what he talks. Although I also had no difficulty before to imagine a barrel liner.
        I just thought: Isn’t that to be considered “cheating” in terms of a 3D printed gun? :-) At least nobody has to fear, that it is not detectable by a metal detector.

      2. Amen! Refreshing after so much BS, especially by the pretend gunsmith.

        BTW the practice was to wrap cannon barrels with music wire, not twine.

        FWIW if the workpiece is rotating and the drill bit is stationary, the forces make the bit follow the axis of rotation. You can easily drill a 1/16″ hole in a 1/8″ screw. I once did that to repair an expensive car part that had a hose fitting broken off. I cut a groove in the outside so it was self tapping, screwed it in place to cut the threads, backed it out, applied epoxy and reassembled. Worked just fine and didn’t cost $80+.

    4. There is a place called “Brownell’s” online. They sell barrel liners, the drill bits to bore out your worn barrel, and probably instructions on how to fit them. Check out their site, they are kind of popular in the US. They might even ship to your country.

    5. Instead of insulting people that don’t know why don’t you educate. I know bugger all about guns and to me a barrel liner seems sensible, it is essentially the same as a car engine and certainly liners work on those perfectly well.

      Lack of knowledge is just that, it is no indication of intelligence or ability, it is solved with education if it is a problem, not by insults.

  2. Didn’t I just see an article where those dipshits in Texas lost their case when it comes to 3D printed guns as they violate arms export laws?

    3D printed guns, in my own opinion, which yes, I know, means jack shit, is like making pipe bombs and should be treated as such…

    I used to carry a gun for a living.

    Now I don’t even own one.


    9.99 times out of 10, by the time you realize you need one, its too late to draw, aim and fire. And that’s for those who carry them professionally and have a bit of an expectation of need at any given moment… Now you’re dead asleep, only to be woken by someone stabbing you, good luck getting to your firearm… Or you’re in a crowded space and someone in that crowd opens fire… good luck spotting the shooter and returning fire and hitting them without hitting an innocent bystander…

    We are all going to die some day, and there are many, many ways that will happen. Needing a gun to prevent that is statistically a non-starter. Once you embrace that fact, the fear ends and your life begins…

    Now if you like to hunt or target shoot, fine. That makes perfect sense.

    But most people carry out of fear. And that is just fucking silly.

    Most of America has laws that say carrying a gun is perfectly legal, yet people still get raped, mugged and SHOT, so guns are not really a deterrent at all… In fact, you have a better chance of dying to your own gun….

    Fear, don’t let it own you.

        1. Things that are “scary” are already illegal i.e. crime….

          “protecting” yourself with a firearm will not make you any less of a victim. It will make you a dead victim in most cases, either way.

          Pretending you are John Wayne may make you believe you are not afraid , but really you are VERY afraid.

          I am farrrrr more afraid of John Wayne types than criminals or cops….

          You cannot control every situation, especially being a hero in a shootout with some perceived bad guy and that you will likely die, so what’s the fucking point again? MAYBE killing or hurting the person that killed you? Are you going to know the difference seeing how you are dead? So what the fuck does it matter again?

          I walk around a free man (as free as I can be with the rest of you idiots) WITHOUT a gun and without fear.

          I don’t fear criminals hurting me or my family, because in all likelihood, there is shit that can be done about it in the first place, realistically, here in reality, not in your John Wayne movie mindset, AND it likely will never happen anyway.

          SO, why bother carrying a useless penis extension and living in fear that I might have to use said extension?

          Cops are better armed and better trained than at any time in history, and they die all the time to idiotic, cowardly, morons, not because John Wayne was better armed or trained, but by simple timing…. I’ve had the training….

          Again, if you are not going around in a tactical stance with your gun drawn with the expectation that at any instance, a bad guy is going to pop out behind the shutters of the saloon, you are already dead….

          Bad guys don’t follow movie rules, if they want to harm you, you are already toast. And they already did something you are not, and you are proving it by carrying in “defense”. They are prepared to die… offense has the jump… And that is the key.

          Back here in reality, you have your weapon in some place, even on your body that is going to cost you time and your life….

          They are already ready for you, probably before you have a chance to even realize what’s happening…

          So why bother?

          It isn’t worth it. You are not John Wayne, you are not a hero, you are a coward who believes everyone is out to get you.

          I have no fear.

          1. Easy there, Hondo. I don’t carry or even own a gun, your waste of energy filling paragraph after paragraph with hyperbole is amusing. None of what you said detracts from my point.

          2. Whats the point? It’s my right, I want to, I feel safe with or without it. I also can probably shoot better that 95% of cops. Fun fact over 70% of all cops bullets miss their target. I wonder where those stray bullets are going? I remember when officers opened fire at the empire stat building and killed 1 or more civilians that were not involved in the crime.

            Keep trusting cops, their response time is way too high .

      1. Maintaining your own car should probably be banned too, since any errors might harm others. Only businesses approved by the manufacturer should be even allowed to lift the hood.

        On the electronic front, we should definitely lock down all computers and smartphones to stop people doing bad things like installing an unapproved OS or even running a program that isn’t permitted by the manufacturer or government.

    1. The relevant article:
      IMO it’s a dangerous precedent. A poorly constructed pistol isn’t a threat to national security. These aren’t details to ICBMs, the only people printing these guns are hobbyists & preppers, no foreign actor is going to print one when it will take less time & resources to buy a gun off the street or steal one.

      If you think DIY firearms are anything like indiscriminate killers like pipe bombs, I question your grasp on firearms function.
      “Fear, don’t let it own you”
      Ironic since most of your post is scary statistics. Saying ‘you’re more likely to be killed by your own gun’ in the same breathe as bringing up mugging and assault statistics shows either a complete lack of understanding or deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.
      You are more likely to be killed by your own gun….in a suicide.
      Suicide is a completely different problem than assault, home invasion, and homicide.
      “…so guns are not really a deterrent at all”
      You could replace ‘guns’ with laws, prison sentences, or half a dozen other things and make the same argument.

      1. Even when you strip out suicides from the stats, you are approximately 10 times more likely to be killed by a gun than to kill someone with one in self defence. They do not make you safer, no-mater what you may think.

        1. 10 times more likely to be killed than to be killed by a gun?

          Without a gun I’m 100% less likely to be able to defend myself effectively in the event someone wants to kill me or otherwise do me harm. This assumes that in both cases (me armed vs. not armed) everything else is equal (I’ve already attempted to de-escalate and/ore vacate the area).

          I’ll take the risk that I’m more likely to die by gun if it also means I’m more likely to take out the person who is trying to kill me.

          Its not about making me safer, its about making it less safe for someone who wants to do me or mine harm.

          Its in our nature to avoid danger. If a criminal knows it is dangerous to attack, maybe they won’t do it. However, if they choose to do it anyway do you really want to be unarmed?

          I don’t know why pro-gun and anti-gun people even bother – you’re not going to change my mind, and I’m not going to change yours.

          I’d love to live in a world where no-one needed guns. But until you can prove that by following the law I won’t put myself at a disadvantage compared to someone who ignores it (or makes it, for that matter), I can not morally accept a reduction in gun rights.

          1. I’m not actually against people owning guns. I used to target shoot myself. The idea that you’re safer if you own one is however a fairy story. You stand more chance of either killing a bystander or being shot by your own weapon than you do of defending yourself. Your safety is reduced by owning one.

          2. I believe the question of gun control will be moot in our lifetime in the same way copyright law has been largely mooted by digital media.

            We came very close in Bernstein v. US to a declaration that code is “speech” in the first amendment sense. If it is, then prior restraint of CNC or 3D printer control files for firearm parts is unconstitutional. And that’s the ballgame.

          3. “Without a gun I’m 100% less likely to be able to defend myself effectively in the event someone wants to kill me or otherwise do me harm. ”

            What are you, triple amputee?

          4. Sweeney –

            First, lets see some data to back up that claim about the 10x more likely even after removing suicides.

            Then, I want you to think about this: I carry a gun not for myself, but for my family. If it is just me in a confrontation, I’m inclined to walk away. Short of actually trying to kill me, there are very few things people could do to get me to not just walk away, and call the police if the situation calls for it. With my family present, things are very different. Walking away is not always an option for a group. Sometimes the only option to ensure the safety of my family is escalation of force. Would I ever choose not to just avoid the problem, or walk away if we all could? No, the important thing is the safety of my family. If that means we have to run, then we run. But if that means we have to fight, we will fight. Drawing a gun is not the only option. that decision is based on the situation at hand, but in all situations, a firearm is the great equalizer, and that means it must remain a option for all people who want to protect their families. Now I won’t disagree that the simply having a firearm makes you safer – I train with mine regularly – and the ability to put a gun to effective use is definitely required, but that skill can not be gained without free access to them. Everyone starts somewhere in skill.

          5. @Myrddin

            At the risk of putting words in someones mouth, I’m assuming Sweeney is referring to the roughly 1000 justifiable homicides committed in the US, vs the 10-11k homicides.
            If there were proof that the other 10k homicides were armed, or killed by their own firearms he’d have a point, but that information (to my knowledge) is not tabulated, so this is just more abuse of statistics.
            Many homicides (and most mass shootings for that matter) are criminals killing other criminals, so again, I’m not sure why their deaths are included in a discussion on self defense.

          6. The stats are public and perfectly clear. See
            In the year to date 10,751 people were killed and 22,356 were injured by guns in the US (not including suicides BTW).
            1,301 incidents (deaths and injuries) were listed as self defence. 1,558 incidents were accidental shootings. There’s more chance you will be involved in an accidental shooting than self defence.
            People who keep guns for self defence are unlikely to secure them fully, so there’s more chance of their kids or their kids friends being hurt by them (2,771 children killed or injured).
            There’s a big difference between target shooting and a live shooting. Even the best target shooter is unlikely to get anywhere near the target with large amounts of adrenaline coursing through their system. This is something reported repeatedly by police and soldiers.

        2. I just have to mention this, but simply saying that because you’re more likely to be killed by a gun than to kill with a gun, absolutely does not mean that owning a gun does not make you safer. Because it sounds like you’re interpreting that statistic to mean that you have to kill 10 people with a gun (flip the stats, ie. 10 times more likely to kill someone with a gun than to be killed with a gun) in order for that to mean guns would make you “safe.” This of course is such a nonsensical reading of the statistics that… well, “mind blown.”

          I don’t care which side of the debate people stand, but this is just such a craptastic analysis of incredibly basic data it’s mind boggling.

      2. I have a feeling actually, that silly as it may sound, export restrictions may apply because the material is novel. … I am thinking that recent developments in smallarms world like aramid fiber reinforced frames, and other parts are probably under the same restriction, and there’s probably plans afoot to have a light, strong, 95% plastic battle rifle. Ergo, guns plus high strength plastic tech and how to use plastics to contain forces in a gun are recent tech outside of 3D printing. So deally is probably that, murrica doesn’t want murrica’s enemies to have same advantages in strong light (fatigue reduced) plastic weapons… not particularly 3D printed ones…..

        Same kind of stupidity as happened with 64bit vs 128bit browser encryption back in the day, where 128bit was classified as “weapons grade” encryption, when you could already pgp at 1024 bit or something.

    2. Most of what you say doesn’t make sense, and I doubt the veracity of much of your story. FBI statitistics about people injured and killed during violent crime show that, of the three possible actions a victim can take – resist with a weapon, resist without a weapon, and cooperate, the likelihood of injury is in that order – that is, resisting with a weapon statistically comes out better than resisting witthout, and not resisting is the most dangerous tactic of all. Hundreds of thousands of crimes (possibly millions, since many go unreporeted) are repvented by citizens aremed with firearms.

          1. Normally, when one presents an argument as fact (as opposed to opinion or belief) it should be possible to find a reference. Especially when citing specifics as was done here (FBI study). I looked online and could find no reference to proof aside from a website that used similar wording but also provided no concrete source. This website also offers gun reviews and articles on ‘tactical strategies’. My not believing that this study is real does not require proof, as it is my opinion and was stated as such. Unlike some, I am not trying to push an age da but rather to actually learn something.

          2. I will leave this as a bit of information. Mass shootings tend to overwhelmingly happen in “gun free” zones — schools and theaters being the leading among them.

            Right about two miles from my house, there was an attempted mass shooting a few years ago. The bad guy what stopped by a good guy (OK, girl) with a gun. I don’t know how many lives this woman saved, but it was probably at least in the double digits.

          3. Non-events don’t get reported on for sure. Say for instance, shooter pulls out gun, wounds an initial victim, then a licensed owner incapacitates him, shatters a shoulder or something non-fatal. Doesn’t get two column inches in a regional daily when it happens, nobody died, trial of perp doesn’t get 2 inches later, 6 months for wounding and committed to psychiatric care. Perp might have left his house that morning with same intent and capability of those who murdered 30, which would have been all over every media outlet for 2 weeks plus mentioned frequently for months thereafter.

    3. The case in Texas only restricts posting plans publicly online. You can still construct and operate the firearms for personal use, however.
      And no they shouldn’t be treated like pipe bombs. They are firearms (crappy ones, but firearms none the less.) Punish the idiot, not the hobby (or the means of production, at this rate)
      I get a good chuckle from anyone that says “I carried a firearm every day! That means I’m obviously capable of making an informed opinion on a semi-related subject matter!”
      It doesnt.
      Lastly: Firearms for a lot of people, myself included, are a hobby. We don’t carry daily. Some of us don’t even hunt.
      We build them, we refurbish them, we take them to the range and have a grand ol’ time.
      Saying 3d printed firearms should be banned is like saying that DIY ‘drones’ should be banned. They arent reliable, they are likely to fail, and can injure someone. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t plenty of people making and using them without incident.
      Again, punish the idiot, not the hobby.

    4. Newsflash….. owning and carrying guns is perfectly legal in the US. Whether you agree with it or not does not matter. It’s a natural right that this nation’s founding fathers had the foresight to enumerate in our constitution. And don’t even start with the “well-regulated militia” bullshit. Well regulated meant well equipped or “in proper working order” in those days. The 2nd amendment DOES NOT say “the right of organized state-run militia to keep and bear arms”, it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. The militia bit was just the opener.

      And another newsflash….. manufacturing your own firearms for your own personal use is perfectly legal as well as long as you scratch a serial number into it and don’t start selling them. The bit about arms export laws only applies if you give those plans to people overseas. And even that is a shady ruling because you aren’t really giving them weapons, just info that describes a weapon but even so, a ruling is a ruling.

      What does this mean? It means if you post gun plans online, you should block people coming from addresses outside of the United States and post a notice saying the documents are under export control restrictions. If they circumvent by using a proxy, they illegally bypassed your security measures while violating your ToS and the onus is on them.

      It’s pretty irrelevant anyway as there are plenty of gun plans available from foreign sites describing how to make a reliable 9mm submachine gun out of supplies from Lowe’s or Home Depot with basic hand tools that will make this thing look like an absolute toy. In fact, there’s a couple written by a Brit named Philip Luty in a country where most guns are banned.

      Don’t like guns? Too bad, they’re here to stay. Don’t like gun plans being available? Information is not a crime, even explosives formulas/manufacturing info is legal. And making your own single-shot or semi-auto weapon is perfectly legal unlike making C4 in your kitchen which is illegal and even more likely to kill you in the process.

      1. I’ll leave these here because they are of use to you for people who try to bring up that “Well regulated militia” crap:

        District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) – The Court ruled the Second Amendment to reference an individual right, holding:
        “The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”[1]

        McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) – The Court ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2]
        In the decision, the Court said:
        In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.[3]

        Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) – The Court ruled that the Second Amendment extends to all forms of bearable arms:
        The Court has held that the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and that this Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.[4]

        Source: Wikipedia (Because they have a nicely curated list of all this kind of stuff)

      2. Thanks. The 2nd amendment is about defense by the people against a tyrannical government and part of the balance the people should have. The 1st amendment for freedom of speech is another balance. Of course statists don’t want this balance, and they don’t like funding they don’t control for political speech. Thank God for the bill of rights.

        1. If the government is by the people, for the people, then you’re simply defending yourself from yourself and effectively pointing the gun at your own head.

          In this situation, the second amendment argument gets subverted into an argument for tyranny by gun, because people can always claim democratic decisions through a representative government is “tyranny” when they’ve lost the vote and don’t agree with the results. The outcome is not people vs. tyranny but civil war, and the winner is the actual tyrant. That is the flipside of the coin, for which there exists no balance in the constitution when the second amendment is understood as an absolute private right.

          If the government is not by the people, for the people, then it’s already high time for a revolution, and it is the responsibility of every citizen to act until the government is again returned to its proper function. When the government is in its right place, it’s time to put down the guns and disperse the mob. That is the real point of the second amendment and the militia – not that everyone should have the absolute right to walk around pointing guns at everything and everyone to feel “safe”.

          1. To say that the result is “the absolute right to walk around pointing guns at everuthing and everyone to feel ‘safe’ ” is shameless demagoguery. It is assault to point a gun at someone. Unless it was done in response to a threat, you will go to jail. You’te a troll.

    5. Man, you are crafty. Such a reasonably worded presentation of the “I’d rather be a defenseless victim, maybe that will work out” argument. Which is fine for you, all your experience doesn’t necessarily make you competent. I know lots of people, civilians and current and former LEOs who carry. All the terrible possibilities you theorize have in reality never happened to any of them. And a number (not all) of them have used their weapon to help stop an attack. To their risk and credit.

      It’s not your place to decide for all the extremely responsible CCW holders that your unreasoning irrational fear should cause them, who are as a group exceptionally law abiding, far more so than LEOs, should have their ability to defend themselves taken away. And, by the way, the majority of LEOs are wholly in favor of responsible licensed concealed carry. They know that those people aren’t the problem. Criminals, thugs, gangsters – they’re the problem surprisingly. Who would have thought?

      In fact you’re the one who’s afraid. You’re afraid of the extremely unlikely “the downside to potentially being able to defend your self” scenarios. All possible, and all not likely to happen to a responsible regular citizen.

      Since the laws don’t work, let’s just repeal them and save a lot of money form the cost of the courts. And empty out the prisons too. Of course, then you might really wish you could defend yourself.

      In terms of your last comment about being in more danger from your own gun – that is, simply, another of the liberal “big lies” of which Josef Goebbels would be proud. It always makes it easier to make a point when you just make up your own oh so reasonable sounding stuff and act like it’s legit. And many people who don’t question things believe it, sadly.

      And saddest of all, I don’;t doubt that you really believe all this in your heart of hearts, you’re not just virtue signaling or trolling. I implore you to remember that your reality isn’t everyone’s reality, and you don’t have the right to impose your values on them, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

  3. I am unable to watch the video right now, so I don’t know if he mentioned it, but this was originally designed by JamesRPatrick. He also designed a 3d printed revolver called the WashBear that has had amazing performance over in the fosscad irc. It such a shame he up and wiped all his on line accounts, he was one of the best at designing these.

  4. I feel like using barrel liners is cheating a bit.
    With carbon fiber, para-aramid, & other reinforced filaments on the market it we should be closer to a fully printed functional design.
    I get that holding back 40kPSI means short lifespans for plastic in contact with it, I guess I’m just being elitist. If you’re going to just slap a metal barrel in it anyways, 3D printing has no advantage over conventional polymer or even metal frames. Unless you’re sitting in the jungle filing away at poorly welded sheet metal & bar stock, 3D printing a gun and slapping a barrel liner in it is going to take so much longer than traditional subtractive or casting methods.
    For all the faults the ‘Liberator’ * and it’s designer had, at least it was wholly 3D printed giving the owner the singular advantage of not needing to buy a barrel

    * I hate the designation since it’s stolen from a WWII firearm, admittedly the original is a terrible firearm but it’s impressive in its manufacture. The single shot & all sheet metal design earned it the (supposed) distinction of being ‘the only gun that takes more time to reload than to manufacture’.

    1. “3D printing a gun and slapping a barrel liner in it is going to take so much longer than traditional subtraction or casting methods.”

      Maybe as an assembly line but not as a one off for the average home machinist. The curves on this would be near impossible to create without a CNC costing tens of thousand of dollars, otherwise you are breaking out the file. Not to mention the craftsmanship required to mill properly fitting parts is a lot more difficult then download and hit “GO” for a 3D print.

      1. It doesn’t need to look good to function, and it still takes 10-20 hours to print all the parts while the amateur machinist will hacksaw and weld and file multiple guns in an afternoon.

      2. “The curves on this would be near impossible to create without a CNC costing tens of thousand of dollars”
        A) Why would one make this gun then? There are countless designs out there made from sheet metal, from the AK to the Sten, to the M3, and every hack design by criminals & anarchists. Why follow a complex design that is intended for a different material?
        B) I doubt that very much. I bet most vocational students and many hobbyists machinists could mimic these curves. Maybe for someone whose machining skills begin and end with “convert *dxf to *.g -> load *.g -> run” but not someone w/ a bit of experience.

    1. Or the way the majority of firearms used in crime are acquired: Theft and straw purchase.
      There’s so much concern for the edge case because it’s novel, but it’s insignificant in its effect.

  5. The part I don’t understand is why this is even a thing. It is simply poor engineering. The stresses involved in in a functioning firearm would make plastic, nylon, and other such materials a very poor choice (aside from the stock) compared to metal. Want to make a homemade firearm? Go for it, but think about the function or said device and the properties that it thus would have to be made out of. You don’t see 100s of articles about people making glass tires or wooden combustion engines do you? Someone please try to (politely) explain it to me.

    1. People don’t usually have local lawmakers trying to outlaw tires or engines. Some people just don’t like having the government tell them what they are do.

      Personally, I am like that. I do actually rip my DVDs and put them on my phone, and on a wireless server in the van for the kids to watch. Yes, I am breaking the DMCA. However, I still legally own the original media, and there is no victim in this “crime.”

      1. Try getting caught driving a car without DOT tires on, or having say an older nice condition Acura and trying to swap a more efficient smaller and cleaner Civic motor in it and actually get it smog certified in CA or several other states.

        1. My state doesn’t do emissions tests. They quit doing safety inspections quite some time ago as well yet the highways aren’t littered with bodies, people get new brake pads regularly and the air quality is no worse here than most other states. While you see an occasional really scary POS on the road, for the most part people keep their cars in pretty good shape. People are capable of doing the right thing without nanny state intervention and force believe it or not.

          1. They are capable, but the problem is the few who don’t, who then jeopardize the rest.

            Most road accidents are caused by few bad drivers and lousy cars, and you can’t target them without targetting everyone because you can’t know who they are until you take a look.

            As for the accident rates, that’s another one of those “out of sight, out of mind” cases. You wouldn’t notice the doubling of death rates on the streets because it is already low enough that most people won’t percieve it. The average risk of death by car in the US is about 1/50 over a lifetime, and rising to 2/50 wouldn’t make a noticeable difference to you directly, but in the numbers it would be millions and millions more dead people, and billions of wasted dollars which you eventually end up paying – but because the cost is dispersed you won’t notice it.

            It has to get really bad before the public goes “something has to be done”, but then it’s already been bad for a long time.

      2. ” However, I still legally own the original media, and there is no victim in this “crime.””

        You own the media, as in the physical plastic disc, but not the configuration of dots and bumps on it. That’s the copyright law right there. You can wipe your ass with it if you want, but if in the process you leave an imprint of the data on your dookie, you’re breaking the law.

      3. I just want to make sure I understand this correctly. You are saying that the reason people are trying to make a gun with a 3D printer is because the government is trying to stop them from doing it?

        1. You said “You are saying that the reason people are trying to make a gun with a 3D printer is because the government is trying to stop them from doing it?”

          Well, why not? That is just as valid a reason as any. That, and perhaps saving money (real metal guns are expensive). That, and doing it just for the challenge — seeing what you can do with cheap, weak plastic. Like I said, if there is no victim, then were is the harm?

          1. “That is just as valid a reason as any.”
            If the government passes a law saying something is illegal you see that as a valid reason to conduct such actions? I’m really surprised you or anyone would agree to that. So rape, murder, speeding, tax evasion, child neglect and stealing are all OK in your eyes because the government is trying to stop you from doing those things? Most likely not, huh? We all have lawmakers and elected officials that pass laws and regulations that we find to be ‘unfair’ or unjust and sometimes even immoral. I get that. The point is that we elect those people. Could it be that the majority of society even WANTS those laws and rules that I disagree with? If you answer honestly, it COULD be. What does one do then? It is an interesting discussion, but not what I am asking here on this post.
            What I am asking here is why is it so important and such an emotional topic for so many to make a firearm using a tool (3d printer using plastic/abs/similar) when it is such a poor choice for the job. Money certainly isn’t a good answer, as there are lots of sources that show how to make zip guns for much less than the cost of one roll of filament.
            Also, IMHO the challenge of creating anything of real quality is about identifying the underlining purpose of the thing you want to make and the mechanisms it uses to perform its jjob. You then couple this with the most appropriate materials while considering cost, time and effort. 3d printing a firearm on an FDM printer is just so disproportionately worse than the alternatives that can only wonder what area of analysis do these people who pursue this see it as having an advantage over a ‘traditional’ zip gun?

    2. I guess what I want to know is why a 3D printed gun seems to be akin to putting a man on the moon for some people. If the project was to make the most easily constructible/affordable weapon, then 3D printing is really not the best way IMHO. And if the pursuit were to be to push the limits of what a 3D printer can do (i.e., demonstrating material strength), then this is also a very strange and narrowly focused project to reach that end. Really, I don’t understand it and I really want to.

      1. Why climb a mountain? I guess that “because it is there” is not enough of an explanation to some people. It is actually a very interesting engineering challenge. Firearms are difficult and involve very high pressures, and a sense of danger if you get it wrong — all tempting challenges to some people.

        1. Well yeah. I *get* the railgun crowd… it is an engineering challenge. I would *get it* if someone were trying to build a bazooka or some rocket that would fly higher than ever before. I don’t get the “it has to be plastic” thing. The types of plastic AND the methods of forming those plastics are uniquely unqualified for producing the containment vessels required in a firearm period. Why on earth is it so important to be made of plastic when other, better alternatives exist?

    3. 3D printers are novel (well… sort of) and lathes/mills aren’t. Theoretically an idiot without skills could buy a 3D printer , download a gun model and print it. Hopefully only that idiot is hurt when the “gun” explodes. With a little more effort a rudimentary zip-type gun can be build without any advanced tools and are much less likely to fail catastrophically (at least if the barrel isn’t thin as an antenna tube). It would be cheaper too if the printer was purchased for gun manufacturing…

    4. There was a commercially produced .22LR semi-auto pistol with a barrel made of plastic molded over a steel liner. Later versions had aluminum over the steel liner. Aftermarket suppliers made all steel barrels for it.

        1. “Probably happens on a daily basis” – depends on your definition of “kids”.
          On average, around 7 children/teenagers are fatally shot in the USA every day, around 35 more non-fatally shot. That’s one death every 3 hours, one shooting every 30-45 minutes.

          A child under the age of twelve is fatally shot on average every 48 hours.

          1. God damn. I’d definitely consider teenagers kids as well… neuroscience has shown that the brain is not really “complete” developing until around mid-20s, and worse it’s the prefrontal cortex (impulse control…) that may take the longest to finish.

      1. No one was shot in the eye during that incident and kids are regularly taught how to shoot at a young age for sport and in preparation for owning firearms later in life. You should probably lock it up or keep it on you if you have a teenager around though. They aren’t really known for making rational decisions when they are pissed off.

  6. Why is the government so much more scared about 3D printed guns and their plans than they are about the many other methods by which you can produce a gun (methods which have exited for far longer than 3D printers have been a thing)?

    What makes a 3D printed gun any more dangerous (to other people, not to the guy firing the gun) than any of the other ways you can home-build a gun?

    Personally I hope the Defense Distributed guys take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court and argue that the government’s action is an unconstitutional violation of their first amendment right to free speech.

    1. What psuedo-numbnuts, apparently does not realize, a plastic gun will not trigger metal detectors or magnetic ferrous and non ferrous detection. If the rest of the world did not depend on the U.S.A. for policig the rest of the world or that we feed and doctor the rest of the world, without repayment, and by the way, we also don’t demand you become a Methodist or Baptist (or we cut off your head). We do it because no one else was willing to go into a few extra trillion in debt to help. Oh, and by the way, the come asking for our military tosave their countries, again without any expectation of renumeration. We just don not want plastic guns to be usedina school campus or on board a jet at 700 feet in the air….Nuff Said

      1. You think NATO membership is free to the countries? The US demands them to spend a certain percentage of national budget on defense and buy weapons from the US, basically paying to act as an extension of American military politics.

        And the US does not police the world – only the bits that interest US, and there you install despots and dictators who end up abusing and tyrannizing the people. Shock therapies, “free market” reforms, sham democracy, all just playing into US corporate and geopolitical interest.

        And the first thing that happens when there’s a disaster somewhere in the world, the US Baptists and Mormons and whatnot flock over to evagelize and convert people. You had paratrooper priests down in Haiti before the actual red cross got there after the earthquake. You support Israel who is literally killing people for not being Jews, whenever you’re not supporting the Catholics who are doing untold damage in Africa by spreading anti-contraception, pro-circumcision, anti-vaccine, anti-gay etc. superstition which is inciting religious hatred between peoples.

    1. You can’t hide the brass cartridge and bullet or the firing pin. The ammunition is also detectable by chemical sniffers, dogs or mechanical, that detect the trace gasses that come out of the slowly decomposing gunpowder.

      It’s only good against naive metal detectors that are tuned to ignore things like buttons on clothing, and even then you won’t be able to carry multiple rounds on your person without setting off the alarms.

        1. Paper/plastic cartridges are possible IF the chamber around is built to hold the pressure. The cartridge normally does hold pressure and its purpose is to seal the expanding gasses into the barrel rather than shooting back out of the breech.

          Ceramic ammunition is a bit iffy because then you can’t have rifling – it would break either the projectile or jam in the barrel, and again the gun would be near-useless. You can get around that with a sabot-dart configuration which is aerodynamically less efficient so you lose penetration at range.

          And you still have a problem with the chemical detection of the explosives used in the cartridge and the primer.

  7. I tried googling for historical reports of wrapping cannon barrels in twine, and came up empty. It sounds like a very interesting anecdote, and I’m very curious to find the source. Since you mentioned it Gerritt, you obviously know more than me, so do you know of any sources I can read up on this dangerous practice?

  8. The gun is a FOSSCAD design called the PM422 Songbird Single Shot Pistol designed by James Patrick. Guy in a Garage has modified it to accept .357 ammo and has included a metal barrel insert. The cad for the .357 barrel has yet to be released but the .22lr CAD files are in the current FOSSCAD megapack v4.8 (Ishikawa).

Leave a Reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.