Solid Concepts has manufactured the world’s first ‘3D printed’ metal gun using direct metal laser sintering of powdered metals. Since the story went live just over a week ago there has been a frenzy across the global press! And, since the origins of the first 3D printed plastic gun earlier in the year, sensationalist media headlines and stories about 3D printing and guns have never been more than a page or a click away! As it happens, despite the hyteria, to date, the only occasions on which laws have been broken with plastic 3D printed guns have been by journalists. On the metal front, here at 3DPI, we let the dust settle some and spoke to Solid Concepts directly about the ethics behind their gun.
Is it ethically correct for Solid Concepts to have tapped into this trend for marketing attention? Especially when home metal 3D printers are just around the corner? Over the past week I have been chatting to the marketing team at Solid Concepts probing their motivation for creating this gun. I’ll present the information on the technology, then move on to the ethics and the unique insight into the reaction to the gun by 3D printing insiders and my own ethical debate with the marketing team at Solid Concepts.
First, the gun: it is fully functional and has fired approximately 500 rounds in an endurance test at the end of last week. It is composed of 33 17-4 Stainless Steel and Inconel components and decked with a laser sintered carbon-fibre-filled nylon hand-grip.
Every part of the gun except for the springs is made by utilizing the direct metal laser sintering process — an additive metal fabrication technology developed by EOS of Munich, Germany — which makes metal parts from a three-dimensional design by blasting powdered metal with a high power laser.
Solid Concepts initially stated that its motivation here was that it wished to prove that 3D printing is a viable solution that can be used in modern manufacturing and is here to stay. As the 3D printed gun barrel sees chamber pressures above 20,000 psi upon firing, the stress and duress upon the creation is indeed viable proof of that which Solid Concepts suggests: that, at least in part, they developed the weapon to prove the reliability, accuracy and usability of metal 3D printing.
‘It’s a common misconception that 3D Printing isn’t accurate or strong enough, and we’re working to change people’s perspective,’ said Kent Firestone, Vice President of Additive Manufacturing at Solid Concepts: ‘The whole concept of using the laser sintering process to 3D print a metal gun revolves around proving the reliability, accuracy and usability of metal 3D Printing as functional prototypes and end use products.’
The company aims to apply this novelty to customers seeking custom 3D printed weapons: ‘…as far as we know, we’re the only 3D Printing Service Provider with a Federal Firearms License (FFL),’ Mr Firestone said ‘Now if a qualifying customer needs a unique gun part in five days, we can deliver.’
However, I was immediately cynical regarding the motives behind their choice of the 1911 gun model, which, as they state, is a design in the public domain, in theory meaning people with access to metal 3D printing technology at home could do the same. Did Solid Concepts consider this as part of their marketing strategy?
Many will be quick to point out that there are no commercial home metal 3D printers in existence, and that the technology required to produce the gun costs around a cool half a million pounds. Surely, then, my concern that this development may lead to that which I posited to Solid Concepts, that a home 3D printed gun, a consequential crack down on home 3D printers, and a corresponding loss to the economy by 2020 in the order of billions, is surely me grossly over-reacting?
But I am not sure I am, although I am open to the possibility. As I mentioned to Solid Concepts, there are already home 3D printers in devolvement, as seen in one of our most consistently popular articles regarding The Vader.
Much speculation has circulated the tech media since @Mims of Quartz, (someone I have spoken to every few weeks for months now) organised a get together of 3D printing insiders which revealed that a patent for Laser Sintering, a prime technology for metal 3D printing, expired in 2014.
The speculation — which I agree with in part — orientates around the potential for an organic explosion of home metal 3D printing akin to that which the expiration of Stratasys’ Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) patent caused in home plastic 3D printing, which was then made opensource by 3D printing legend Adrian Bowyer of RepRap Pro, former professor at Bath university, and generally monikered as the catchy Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) process.
The Solid Concepts marketeer I conversed with defaulted to the experience with the technology that they have, and inferred that I was not comprehending the engineering aspects involved — I do, actually. The crux here is around whether home metal 3D printers will be able to produce a sufficiently strong barrel for a gun. The forces involved are huge.
The argument around whether people should or shouldn’t be able to freely make their own firearms (it has been widely documented that it is easier, cheaper and generally safer to do it by methods other than 3D printing) aside, it is the engineering and therefore the safety-of-use aspects that I am considering here. And the fact that there are already a range of approaches to home metal 3D printing in action, albeit early days, is something that Solid Concepts has, from my conversations with their marketing department, seemingly overlooked.
I
t is more likely than not that it is only a short matter of time before the capacity to 3D print a gun at home in metal is available.
The mass hysteria surrounding a one shot plastic 3D printed gun that has yet to be fired in aggression has mainly made news headlines when journalists themselves pull sensationalist stunts, such as smuggling the gun across border controls by the UK’s Daily Mail, and into the same room as the Prime Minister by journalists in Israel. In this respect, a metal 3D printed gun is less of a threat in that it is as detectable as any “regular” gun.
And yet, the first company that went out of its way to produce a ‘3D printed metal gun’ was inevitably going to make headlines all over the world thereby netting considerable “free publicity”. ‘If it’s possible to make a 3D printed metal gun the global media will cover it as a matter of course just because the story includes the terms ‘3D printing’ and ‘gun’.
Solid Concepts was likely counting on it.
Top marketing marks for mission it’s-possible.
Solid Concepts has made no direct defence of its creation to myself or any other of the many critics of their metal gun that occurred on LinkedIn. I trust the marketing contact who told me that when she deleted the question posed to the largest 3D printing group on LinkedIn further to negative replies that it was, indeed, “an accident”.
I have screengrabs of that deleted conversation, which I had already taken as part of my research into this article. I have conceded to the request of Solid Concepts that I will not post them. After all, this is not about sensationalism to counter sensationalism.
Here’s the bottom line, for me: Guns kill. Guns are illegal in most of the world’s nation states. Solid Concepts is based in Texas. Texas is well known for its gun culture. Here, in the UK, barely anyone has a gun, wants a gun, or wishes that guns were a part of our culture.
That part is simple, logical and ethical.
Also: guns do not guarantee freedom over tyranny now that States have the arsenal to destroy a city in seconds.
300 million Americans armed with rifles and hand guns stand no chance against any potential tyranny where the State has 2000 F-35 fighters, 10 aircraft carriers so large they require two nuclear engines to move, a fleet of UAV drones, the ability to close down the internet and weapons in development that include everything from electro-magnetic pulse systems that can take out a city’s power supply to an army of robots.
The US fixation on guns equating to liberty is dead – at least according to evidence…
Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed achieved fame (thanks to sensationalist mass media) by creating a blueprint of a gun that can be 3D printed at home and posting it on the internet, whereby, because of the mass medias attention, those who support his cause posted it on many file site repositories across the internet. Meaning that by the time US law enforcement forced him to take the designs down, he had achieved his aim: a digital weapon in cyberspace that can never be completely censored.
Anarchism is generally about the rule of conscience over externally imposed rules. Anarchism was given a bad name by some violent Anarchists around a century ago, who made violent protests against the rise of fascism. Since then, States ensure that their media outlets continue the affiliation between Anarchism and violence, as Statism and Anarchism are opposites.
Yet, the actions of States, from the 15 million killed in the name of Capitalism by the USA to the 20 million killed in the name of Communism by the USSR have taken far more lives.
Here, I am merely remaining objective and openminded: I do not espouse Anarchism, Communism (ie. Single Part socialism, which is very different from socials itself), autocracy or any kind of violence. Nor indeed to I espouse liaison-faire Capitalism.
What I do espouse is the potential of home 3D printing to bring the ownership of means of production out of the sole possession of the State AND the Capitalist into the ownership of the individual.
This does not need to replace those former socio-political systems, but does create the opportunity for an increase in democracy, cheaper production for the world’s poor (in time), a greater expendable income for the middle class (on which purchasing power is contingent, upon which corporations profit margins and thus economic growth reside), and new systems of crowdsourcing ideas for mass produced concepts for corporations themselves.
Everyone wins.
All of this however, is contingent upon the free ownership of 3D printers in the home.
However, Defense Distributed (in the name of Social Libertarianism), and Solid Concepts, (primarily in the name of profit), are unwittingly playing their part to diminish the potential positives for future economic growth, the safety of citizens and a fairer society for the poor.
What if I’m just plain wrong? Well, like I said, I am open to that, I would be foolish not to be. However ….
In my other article for 3DPI today, I review another new home metal 3D printer…
A good and well reasoned article Shane, I enjoyed reading it and feel it makes many very fair points. As one of those who had less than positive comments “accidentally” deleted from the original Linked in conversation I note that your attitude has changed, presumably following direct discussions with the marketeer in question – For myself, forever sceptical I have to say it remains suspicious to me that not one but two separate comments vanished, meaning that the same mistake was made twice!
Nevertheless, the gun is a remarkable piece of 3D printing and while it is still IMHO a misjudged publicity stunt I have to concede that it has done it’s job of getting a lot of attention, very well.
In closing though, can I make a plea to Solid Concepts? Please, please, please tell the word about all the good things you are doing or planning to do with AM in the near future. Clever though it is, 3D printing a gun is feeding an already very over-crowded market.
Thanks Mike, as a person who witnessed the LinkedIn conversation I rear to you comment here makes a worthwhile counterbalance to an accusation that I some how have it in for Solid Concepts. Quite the opposite, as you know, I gave them a lot of benefit of the doubt…
Hi Shane,
I guess it is inevitable when writing on such an accessible forum that you will get extreme views from both sides of the divide – and boy what a divisive issue 3D printing of guns is. For the record not only do I know that you took a very balanced and considered view of this contentious subject I also know that you have in no way “Got it in for” Solid Concepts.
Could I just add that I am in no way anti-gun myself, I used to shoot both pistol and rifle at club level in the past and while I do not support the commonly held view in the USA that the “Right to bear arms” somehow makes society a safer place (It conclusively does not!) neither do I think that a total ban on private ownership is a good thing.
There are, as I see it two issues to be addressed here. The first is the rights and wrongs of 3D printing guns – actually it’s a red herring. Yes a high-end metal-based process can print a fully functional gun, it can also print many other things – big-deal. anyone with access to a small engineering shop can make a viable firearm – and could have done so 100 years ago too. Anyone foolish enough to print a plastic one deserves what they get, by which I DO NOT mean a degree of publicity and notoriety.
The second, more important issue is censorship. I accept that you have been convinced that the deletion of the conversation (Twice) was a genuine accident but in the absence of any direct or public reply from Solid Concepts on the same forum as the original announcement, I have to remain sceptical.
As for the drooling rants from the rabid gun-lobby loons that have been levelled at anyone trying to engage in a reasoned debate – not worth rising to the bait, Keep on delivering properly researched and balanced articles such as this one and ignore the nutters – on both sides!
Hi Mike, just read this: Thank you for stating that what you have – you are a witness to that which happened on LinkedIn and know the trouble I took to try and be as balanced as possible on this.
That Solid Concepts deleted a second conversation string on LinkedIn is news to me – that does make it look far more certain that an unethical approach was taken to the marketing – that insight is appreciated.
Whilst my pacifistic ethos may not be appreciated by some, I do have a right to express my opinion in articles, a right to Freedom Of Speech that creates an irony in itself? Far more seriously is that [our writer] Mike received a comment about someone designing a gun ‘with his name on it’ in his own article. Clearly freedom of gun ownership is more important to some than the democratic Freedom Of Speech is was designed to protect.
Regardless, many thanks for this comment, I’m writing an article on Solid Concepts right now and you’ve made me feel more relaxed about being willing to even insert a back-link to this article. Baiting will be ignored and your life experience is gratefully received by myself.
The only thing missing, Shane, is that awesome Photoshop of the Bane kitty you made!
Few would believe that I toned it all down a lot!
Yep — A.LOT! 😉
You didn’t see Bane kitty 😉 I’ll email you it lol.
I’ve had a twitter spat with the Solid Concepts marketeer and commented on other sites so I’ll refrain from continuing the spat here. But, again, I find it tedious that once again the 3D printed gun comes to the fore. Yes it is a technically interesting project but as an advert for AM it is totally lacking in imagination or foresight. To say that it is an ideal project to demo metal sintering is frankly bollocks. This was a marketing exercise designed to get hits. Nothing more. Lets move on.
Dear Shane,
Kindly stick to writing, which you apparently DO know how to do, and leave the firearms end of it to those of us who are the using pros and citizens. Your readily apparent hoplophobia and your inserting your odd little paranoid religion does you no credit, and basically makes it difficult to believe you even on solidly vetted FACTS, because your religious fervor for the bankrupt cult of sheeple basically impeaches anything else you say. This entreaty, of course, includes keeping internal your canard of ‘as everybody knows’, it is self-evident that’- when it’s nothing of the sort, merely your opinion.
Additionally, this has been the whole argument all along – that 3-D printing was going to destabilize many, many things and possibly result in disruption of anything up to and including the complete breakdown of the mercantile and banking systems. And, possibly, settle out as a vastly different world. True believer frenzy and foaming at the mouth about any subject, only diminishes the collegial planning to solve all of these known/as yet unknown problems as they arise. Use of these fora for hysterical venting of rabid is an abuse of my time as I am in the process of trying to learn more about the industry. I am not here to be proselyted by you knocking on my door
Finally, obsessive and statist mouthings such as your British top-down neddyism is why we threw you out of the US, and enforced the inclusion of the Second Amendment into our founding documents. Keep calm and Carry On. Don’t make us pull out the Flying Monkeys. Be well.
Mike, thank you for the compliment regarding the writing. Also, thank you for the constructive criticism. The aim was indeed in part to provoke debate over a controversial – which it has.
An irrational fear of spiders is based upon the premise that the chances of getting seriously hurt by a spider is extremely small – smaller than when we evolved that fear, when more dangerous spiders frequented our environment. There is, thus a reason as to why some suffer a disproportionate fear of spiders.
The evolution of mankind’s fear of guns is entirely different.Guns have one function: Fear. Their primary function is psychological. That preventative notion of ‘I’m safe if I have a gun because my neighbour might have a gun’ is based upon that psychology of fear. Guns aren’t about anything other than the imposition of fear. It’s very difficult to be irrationally afraid of something designed solely for fear. Thus, hoplophobia is not only irrelevant as a comment here, it’s fairly dubious if used anywhere.
I’m a bit confused about what your other references are too, but thanks forthe interesting feedback regardless.
Two corrections: Communism as killed 100 million between China and Russia, I don’t know where you came up with 25 million. Second, no one has been killed in the name of Capitalism, you’re thinking about Nationalism, the two are not related and are in fact opposed to each other. And where did the 15 million come from? Can you site your sources? Also, how did the death tolls get involved in this? To quote Mike, please stick to what you know and refrain from preaching
I’d have to disagree. Capitalism kills everyday under the guise of the supposedly “free” market: 45,000 people died in the US each year due to a lack of access to adequate healthcare (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/), climate change as caused by unregulated companies causing pollution has lead to an increase in natural disasters (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php), most wars are led by a joint effort on the part of governments and corporations.
Wow, that took some serious mental gymnastics to equate capitalism with deaths by global warming and lack of healthcare. First off, you are assuming everyone with healthcare doesn’t die. The father of the Canadian system quotes “We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services
or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says Castonguay.
But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a
greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom
of choice.” (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/26/father-of-candian-healthcare-system-now-disowning-it/). To further that he also explained that they system is in “crisis and a violation of human rights” due to the amount of people dying while waiting on socialized medicine. So no, Capitalism doesn’t cause deaths. Good try though. And the largest produce of carbon dioxide on the planet is China, and I’m pretty sure they aren’t Capitalists. Not to mention there has been so many holes poked in the bunk science of global warming it’s not even a valid argument.
Hi Adam, thank you for taking the time to reply, and thanks for that reply.
I am aware, the figures come from the World Health Organisation – I always quote the most reliable source, never write without researching. Russia is the point of reference chosen as the ideology of economics is generally perceived in popular culture to have been between the USA and Soviet Russia. There is however also the interesting point of reference – China has seen almost all of the world’s largest uprisings by casualties: this tends to distort the context of the figure. Indeed that an uprising in China took more casualties than what we in the west call World War One.
I am in of the facts and certainly feel no obligation to succumb to the ‘don’t speak against the USA or capitalism’ cultural imperialism. For that is what it is…
Hey mate, you said your figures on capitalism came from the WHO. I tried looking for it on the website but couldn’t find anything. Can you send me a link?
And I certainly don’t want you to succumb to the USA, I just found it interesting how you were able to work in a shot at the USA and capitalism in an article that was supposed to be about guns. I don’t see how the two equate. Not to mention that tid bit about how a revolt by the populace would be futile against a government with “the arsenal to destroy a city in seconds”. I know some Vietnamese and Arabs hiding in the hills of AFG that would disagree with you.
Sure thing. I had a saved full version but must have deleted it – the infographic can be found here though: http://f.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/codesign/slideshow/2013/03/1672161-slide-iib-death-wellcome-collection-fullsize-4.jpg
Agreed, but, in turn, who said the article was about guns alone? I guess I’m trying to say: a context for everything.
Interestingly not a pop at the USA (still the world’s most democratic superpower, until the EU sorts itself out and India’s political corruption is healed) but more an effort at counterbalancing the West’s black & white version of ‘we are the good guys in war and ideology.’
The bottom line was more aimed to be that article would be widely read, so use that opportunity to speak out about the potential of home 3D printing/ open-source/ crowd-funding as an emerging ideological paradigm in itself, and that war and weapons are always foolish.
The original onus was upon the dodgy marketing of the company in question, but I retracted some parts of it and the message possibly got a bit lost.
Iraq, illegal war by the UN: and if the USA didn’t flood the world with weapons constantly it wouldn’t face the risk of a backlash by ‘extremists,’ – I’m aware how controversial this may be, but, to be frank, the bottom line is not against the USA, but against warfare. That doesn’t mean that the USA isn’t an imperial entity seeking to impose aligned regimes across North Africa and Arabia however. But that in turn is part of a strategy to outflank China, so not pure evil. Just mainly…
Cody Wilson produced a weapon that transcended international boundaries. Now a texas company tops it off by enabling the potential of home metal 3D printers being used for unregistered weapons. That they are both citizens of the USA is the consistent, and given the state of weapon-mad US culture, no surprise at all.
Shane, it’s blatantly obvious that this article is a personal attack on the company who created the gun. Your apparent distaste for guns and your personal vendetta with someone at the company makes this piece very hard to take seriously. Stop preaching and start getting your facts straight.
Faith, if I wished to do that I could, but I don’t. So won’t. Simple. Although I’m very happy to do anything and everything legal to ensure that their guns do not end up in this country (UK) by illegal means, ever.
What facts do you refer to Faith?
Amusing commentary, although your Utopian view of society with a statement like “guns kill” comes through loud and clear and kind of sums it all up for us who believe in personal liberty. It’s kind of like “pens write”, the statement is simply not true. I wouldn’t deny that DIY gunsmiths a danger, but I would argue the first danger is to themselves.