Upgraded 3-D-Printed Rifle Shoots 14 Times Before Breaking

Now there's a .22 printable rifle that actually works. Nervous yet?

A Canadian 3-D printing expert has used a high-resolution 3-D ABS plastic printer to create a working plastic .22 rifle that is, in many ways, an upgrade to the 3-D-printed handgun that has U.S. lawmakers all-a-panic. The original design broke on first firing, but an improved and more sturdy gun was able to be test fired 14 times before the barrel cracked.

The maker, who contacted The Verge about his success, was so confident in his rifle's design that after initial test-firings where he shot the gun remotely in case the high pressures of firing a round fractured the gun and injured him, he was able to use the rifle by hand at shoulder height. The design appears to be quite sophisticated, with a detachable, rifled barrel that may act to improve the accuracy of shots fired from it.

After firing 13 rounds the barrel fractured and "Matthew," the gun maker, decided it wasn't safe to fire anymore. But it's possible that since only his barrel cracked he could have simply replaced it with an alternative and completed yet more firings before damage occurred to the main body of the gun. The one drawback seems to be that the gun must be dismantled so the spent cartridges can be pushed out of the case, but this doesn't prevent the rifle from having an impressive rate of fire. Matthew plans to release the plans for the "Grizzly" rifle online later this summer.

The first 3-D-printed gun, the Liberator, has caused much consternation due to its potential undetectability and the fact that the team behind it seems bent on deliberately stirring up controversy by releasing as much about the design of the weapon as they can online.

Add New Comment

23 Comments

  • zarnon

    All right! So much easier to kill a lot of people. Such a victory for humanity.

  • matism

    Your God damned pigs already have plenty of ways to kill people. That is such a victory for Constitutional government.

  • Sanjosemike

    The most "interesting" part of this article is the fact that the erstwhile owner of this printed gun is just not sure exactly when it will blow up. Seems like karma. You takes your chances, and maybe yes, maybe no, it will blow your arm off.

    sanjosemike

  • tom march

    Just what a bunch of panty wearing gun cowards need. I hope it blows up at 5 rounds and kills the dumb hillbilly.

  • matism

    I hope your fine local "Law Enforcement" gets a false drug sale report for your residence and kills you and your entire family.

  • Mono

    Excellent! Glad to see he's making fast progress. Hopefully he can get a multiple-shot mechanism worked out so that it's not so slow to load.

  • Combaticron

    No, Kit, I'm not nervous about this. Care to explain why I should be?

  • old_blu

    Because they can be sneaked on a plane and it's not going to be just the good guys that have them.

  • Jim

    Sigh,.... They wont be able to be "sneaked" on a plane. Airport scanners don't look for METAL, they look for shape.
    AND "HINT" bad guys will always have guns/weapons. 19 9-11-01 hijackers killed 3000 people and they only had BOX KNIVES.
    Biggest mass murderer in NYC, did so using a gallon of gasoline and a match, burning the only exit to upstairs nightclub.
    Ban guns, and only bad guys will have guns

  • zarnon

    Number of box knives been used since in a hijacking? Guess regulation works. As far as your example... When was that burning? 1932? Yeah, your one cherry picked example hasn't happened on the almost MONTHLY basis mass gun nut murders do in 'Murica so burning is a little off our radar at the moment. Thanks for being irrelevant!

    They're always law abiding gun owners until they aren't. Then they're the 'bad guys'. Love the ersatz logic of the NRA gun cultists.

  • matism

    Shall not be infringed. Burn in hell where you belong, along with your "Law Enforcement" enablers.

  • Jim

    Gun licenses? Gee, lets try the same thing with 'freedom of the press' licenses. OR a license to assemble.
    WHY do we need a 'license' from a government flunky, determining WHO can/should/could own a gun?

  • Tec Sg Beatty

    Excellent response, Jim, and Semper Fi.
    For those who seem to think we should expose ourselves to the whims of some overpaid, useless, taxpayer-funded government tyrant(s), I say take the train. There are many of us that will NOT bow to OUR SERVANTS. What other Rights do we "need" to be "licensed" to exercise?

  • Zone11

    But are there ANY people who should not be allowed to own a weapon? Ex-felons? Paranoid schizophrenics? 9-year olds with a big allowance? Would you depend on the discretion of the gun-store clerk?

  • Tec Sg Beatty

    There are MANY people who are not allowed to own, possess, or even touch a firearm. The problem is, is that the current laws are NOT being enforced.
    Take the "Brady" law, for example. It is a FEDERAL FELONY to ATTEMPT to purchase a firearm if you are legally disabled from doing so. However, when people like BeelzeBarack HuSatan claim that the "Brady" law prevented "ex" number of legally disabled persons from purchasing firearms, THESE FELONS ARE VERY RARELY, IF EVER, PROSECUTED. So what good is the "law" if it is not used for its' intended purpose?
    Add to this the FACT that the "law" only applies to those whom would obey it, and there we are. More "gun control" will in no way solve the problem. Never has, never will.

  • Zone11

    So YOU don't want to "bow down to our servants" (the enforcers of Federal law, but you think existing Federal law needs to be more rigorously enforced? You seem to support the idea that not everyone should have a weapon (controlling the availability of weapons), but you say gun control is no way to solve a problem. Everything you say is immediately nullified by the next thing you say.

  • crusader2010

    As far as I know Arizona is the only state that does not license concealed carry.