Staples introduces 3D printer kiosk

I have no doubt they can make a model of a lower.I have made far more complex parts than a lower.I have played with a running gearset,the gears and shafts they ran on were all done in one shot.Have fun,maybe they have developed far better materials.

In my experience,dated as it is,the parts created just did not have engineering properties anything close to ..say Lexan,or graphite filled nylon,etc.They were useful for engineers to hold the vision in their hand,check assemblies,etc.They were great for the moldmaker to look at designing a mold.(That is an interesting excersize off 2d blueprints of a part drawing.)Package designers can use the parts,and ,cosmetically finished,Marketing can take ad pix,etc.We never got anything that was good for functional parts.They were stronger than Doritos,but not nearly as strong as the cheapest of moldable thermoplastics.

They may offer a service of converting a 2d drawing to a virtual solid 3d model,but I suspect the process is not done with 2d drawings.

Softwares like Pro-Engineer and Solidworks can make the sort of database you will need to work with.

Good luck,keep us posted.
 
HiBC,

"They may offer a service of converting a 2d drawing to a virtual solid 3d model,but I suspect the process is not done with 2d drawings."

I think you are out of touch with developments. There are open source sites with TONS of 3D blueprints plans other people made that I can simply download. For all sorts of things. Several firearm receivers have already been produced and are available for download. I don't need them to convert a 2D blue print or work up one of my own.

eMachineshop and similar ventures may have a business model perfect for me if i want to produce a custom rear sight, but it won't work if I want to manufacturer a receiver. In that case they are still manufacturing a firearm and the emachines would have to go through all the normal federal processes of registering it, having the license to manufacture, shipping product to an FFL instead of my doorstep, etc. That is part of what I am wondering about at Staples. If the employee has to help run the machine, then am I buying Staples to manufacture the part, and if so do they then need an SOT, FFL, transfer it to me, etc. If it a kiosk like their 2d printers where I come in, plug in my USB, make a few option selections, swipe my cc, and the printed page drops out, then I don't think it would be.

The people who have done this on their own have generally been pretty closed lipped as to exactly what they did and how well it worked. There is a group, Defense Distributed, which is more public but they are way behind some of the other people working on this. To be fair they got a late start. In fact they just released their first actual production attempt yesterday. An individual without such lofty goals of arming the world from their own basement, claims he printed a lower receiver in July and fired 200 rounds out of it without a failure He posted his design file online after testing the firearm, so I could download it and, if staples or anyone else had the machine he used walk in and print it.

As you see from what I posted, one of these guns failed after 6 rounds in 5.7, another only fired 22lr, but there are hundreds or thousands of people working on this. The second was mot constructed with a maker bot and used materials the makerbot can't use, but that is something that will change quickly. Look at the progression of the makerbot itself so far, then factor in all the competitors innovations. The receivers don't absolutely have to be milspec. They can beef up the outer dimensions and get a little more strength. Maybe it will be necessary to add bushings to high stress areas such as the buffer tube where the one failed. Still less skill required than machining from scratch. Possible you could first print a jig that would correctly position the bushings then print the lower around them.

I THINK when Jay Leno bought his famous 3D printer, around 2000, he said it cost him something like 100K and the company that sold it to him gave him a break in return for some of the promotional bits he did. I think at the time he did the bit on his show about it I looked it up and the list price was something extraordinary like $250K. A few years ago no one was making these printers in the volume of the maker bot and one would set you back $10K or more. Now you can get one for $2k and rent alternatives for less and they produce much higher quality items than what Jay Leno started with.
 
Last edited:
John, I think we're looking at the Staples announcement differently.

My take:
They have no plans to have these printers in their stores, any time soon. They'll be at centralized locations.
You upload the model file(s).
They print it.
Then it's shipped to your door, or your chosen Staples location.

If so... there's no way to be present when it's printed, to skirt any ATF regs about manufacturing a receiver*.

Printed by Staples, milled by eMachineShop, or made by the machinist down the road while you're at home... it still can't be a finished receiver, for them to legally produce it. (If they'll do it at all.)



*(I've never seen an official ruling or opinion letter stating that it is, in fact, legal for some one else to produce the receiver, so long as you're present at the time. I've seen many references to it for suppressor parts and AR receivers, but never an official statement. ...thus, my use of "skirting" ATF regs. If anyone does have a link to back that concept up, it would be good to see.)
 
You upload the model file(s).
They print it.
Then it's shipped to your door, or your chosen Staples location.
Click to expand...
If they're charging money to make something on your behalf, they're certainly in the business of manufacturing it at that point.
 
Frankenmauser,
I reread the article and your interpretation is correct. I agree with that business model it is an absolute no go. Still, it won't be long until you can use these machines as I described.

I hope it is legal once they get them in store like a kiosk. I will probably have one before then though.
 
The idea of using a 3-D printer to create a gun is controversial and interesting, but it seems to still be a ways off from equaling the quality of machined parts. A gun with a major part printed that way failed after just six shots when some enthusiasts decided to give the tech a try.

Creating a printable gun is the project of Defense Distributed, which is working on what it calls the WikiWeapon. But the effort isn't far enough along to create a working firearm, so Defense Distributed used a design created by another printed-gun creator who goes by the name HaveBlue.

HaveBlue claimed in July to have fired his printed gun hundreds of times, which doesn't seem impossible given the quality of the printing. The part printed by the group is called the lower receiver, which is where a round is received from the magazine. Pictures show it to be very well made, and it appears to fit exactly to the other parts in the gun kit they used.

But the pressure of the recoil appears to have been too much for the "buffer ring," which separates the stock from the upper receiver. After firing just six shots, the gun split in two. It's a serious setback, especially considering they were firing a lower-caliber cartridge than the gun would normally shoot.
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/f...-gun-fires-6-shots-then-falls-apart-1C7404226


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wuDCW_Rn5JI
 
Rather than printing an AR receiver outright, couldn't one print a mold for investment casting instead? Much less reliant on the polymer materials. Strictly theory, of course. ;)
 
Yes, you could.

However, it would be just as easy to have an investment casting company 3D-print the mold for you, with one of their wax or green sand printers. Or... just have them cast the receivers.

I'm all for doing something myself, and I do see myself using 3D printing for prototyping very soon. ...but we're not quite to the point that receivers can be affordably printed in a usable state.
 
If it is possible to build a gun or parts reliably and cheaply with this method, I am sure someone will go into legitemate business doing it and we won't need Staples 3d printers.
 
I doubt anyone will be using this technology to manufacture firearms for mass retail sale. PIM is definitely a better process for that and I don't see this catching up in that regard even as this technology improves, but...

I think the injection mold press used for the AR lowers probably runs about $250,000, based on my limited knowledge of injection molding and guesses as to pressure and mold size. The mold then costs $35,000 for a "cheap" aluminum mold. Then look at EPA requirements for the operation, infrastructure requirements, etc. Especially power.

If you want to build one yourself, and many do, this option is a whole lot more attractive.

Making a model and then a casting is an interesting option. I wonder how a glass lower would handle 22lr..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top