The “Liberator” is to be release this week. It is supposed to be a multi-caliber handgun; all you have to do is switch out the barrel to change the caliber. However you will not be allowed to purchase this handgun. You will have to print it for free! Cost will not include the 3D printer and ABS plastic.
You will need a 3D printer. Andy Greenberg, reporting by Forbes, wrote “All sixteen pieces of the Liberator prototype were printed in ABS plastic with a Dimension SST printer from 3D printing company Stratasys, with the exception of a single nail that’s used as a firing pin. The gun is designed to fire standard handgun rounds, using interchangeable barrels for different calibers of ammunition.” (Hyperlinks add by Tea Party Cheer.)
He continues that Defense Distributed did add a “six ounce chunk of steel into the body to make it detectable by
The 3D-printed gun that Cody Wilson calls the “Liberator.” Click to enlarge. (Credit: Michael Thad Carter for Forbes)
metal detectors in order to comply with the Undetectable Firearms Act.” Of course if you print one at home you would need to add the metal.
The reason that this is important is that is that it changes the dynamic of the Democrats gun grab debate. If anyone can print a gun how do the Democrats stop citizens from having them. This decimates, in part, the old attempts that gun grabbers have used in the past. Now they will have to not just go after the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.
The 25-year-old, Cody Wilson, is a University of Texas law student and a founder of Defense Distributed, a licensed arms manufacturer, is the one behind the gun. They plan to have the cad files available for download this week on DEFCAD. Defense Distributed has stated that they want to be able to print a workable rifle like a Bushmaster.
Cody Wilson showing printed lower receiver
Here are several videos that show what they have been working on to date:
BBC report shows printed handgun being fired…
The magazine used in the clip was printed on a 3D printer:
From a CNN Report “Published on Dec 20, 2012” and there conclusion was wrong:
