Pentagon removes plastic 3D gun plans from the 'net...

I think that when this was suddenly published certain people started having fits. They wanted it down ASAP and when they put the lawyers in a room ITAR is what they came up with. I'm a little surprised the CIA didn't just bring a patent infringement case then claim their patent was classified but still valid.

This is obviously not within the intended scope of ITAR. I think they may regret using it as the case may really roll back ITAR in the end.

Who has a copy of the file? ... ... ;)

In Syria, I doubt it. There are so many guns floating around Syria no one will bother. These machines are energy hogs that take days to print the parts for something like this. Soviet surplus is WAY cheaper and easier. A Luty gun is probably also. Now, in China where guns are somewhat harder to come by maybe, but even then I doubt it.

I'd like to know how the barrel has the tensile strength not to deform when fired. My understanding was that no matter how thick they made the barrel the tensile strength wasn't there.

This project has some silliness in it to me. Why don't they make a Glock that can use a drop in third party barrel?
Why don't they make a one piece bolt action receiver that uses an AR bolt and barrel? Would eliminate TONS of the problems they are having with their lower.
It seems they are more coolguns distributed than defense distributed.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/06/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-liberator-3d-printed-pistol/
This article has some basic info on the pistol. I didn't realize a decently credible witness had seen it fired multiple times. They messed up the laws on manufacturing and refered to the barrel as "threaded" when i think they meant rifling. I didn't try the link to the defcad site, but I assume it is disabled. I imagine there will be subpoenas flying at some point and all the ips that downloaded from the site will be handed over. I'd prefer not to be on that list(I'm probably already on enough as it is).

After reading the letter they sent I am tempted to send information to that address concerning my own publications and procedures for deciding if my designs are covered by ITAR.
 
Last edited:
The ITAR is a huge mass of regulatory BS. It doesn't just affect the big companies. It affects any company making in any form, any type of item that could be remotely be considered a defensive article. This applies to a small mom and pop shop putting together AR-15's under an FFL, to a munitions manufacturer producing a 100,000 custom loads per year.

In the broadest sense as you read it, it can include any item that a soldier may carry into the field or something that can assist him. It doesn't apply just to tangibles, but also to intellectual property such as plans for a gun, or an encryption software. Little do most people know, they or people they are purchasing items from are violating the ITAR every day.

The enforcement is arbitrary. The DOD decides what to enforce, when they want. If they don't like your company they could trump up charges under the ITAR that could cost you $100,000 per infraction. Thats $100k PER cartridge an already licensed ammunition manufacturer sells without paying off the DOD to get on the ITAR approved list.

How do I know this? I am a licensed manufacturer of ammunition. I have been fighting the DOD since I got my license. Bureaucratic BS.
 
Why don't they make a Glock that can use a drop in third party barrel
Click to expand...
Copyright infringement? :D Also, in many places (proper, rifled) barrels are not much easier to get than complete firearms.

They probably just wanted to, as has been said, let the genie out of the bottle. This design is now viral and "everyone" has it, including people who will turn the design inside out and improve it tenfold.
 
amathis said:
The ITAR is a huge mass of regulatory BS. It doesn't just affect the big companies. It affects any company making in any form, any type of item that could be remotely be considered a defensive article. This applies to a small mom and pop shop putting together AR-15's under an FFL, to a munitions manufacturer producing a 100,000 custom loads per year.

In the broadest sense as you read it, it can include any item that a soldier may carry into the field or something that can assist him. It doesn't apply just to tangibles, but also to intellectual property such as plans for a gun, or an encryption software. Little do most people know, they or people they are purchasing items from are violating the ITAR every day.
Click to expand...

I heard similar things about ITAR, specifically regarding ammo production, just a few weeks ago. I'm not inclined to research it myself, but now I'm assuming it's true until proven otherwise.

It makes sense. I do know about ITAR and cryptography, and that is an absurd joke. I can easily see how similar regs for physical weapons could be used to cause problems for gun and ammo manufacturers. I didn't think it was, though. Now I do.
 
Also, in many places (proper, rifled) barrels are not much easier to get than complete firearms.
Click to expand...
True. I wish they would be more me-centric though.:)

Someone has redesigned it to use a barrel insert though. I guess the original design has no rifling and is thus an NFA item. Surprising more hasn't been made of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top