As technology continues to progress more and more industries will face competition from
those who challenge the traditional methods of manufacture and supply. One area ripe from
such disruption in the coming decade(s) is firearms. Traditional supply methods for firearms
have middleman fees far in excess of other fields and are extremely inconvenient to the
consumer, is makes the industry ripe for disintermediation should a legal method be found.
Due to the way US law is written the ability to leverage additive manufacturing (3D printing)
into a successful, legal, online firearms business is a very real possibility. Currently a number
of challenges, both technological and cost based, exist but the trend line is clear and those
should become surmountable.
those who challenge the traditional methods of manufacture and supply. One area ripe from
such disruption in the coming decade(s) is firearms. Traditional supply methods for firearms
have middleman fees far in excess of other fields and are extremely inconvenient to the
consumer, is makes the industry ripe for disintermediation should a legal method be found.
Due to the way US law is written the ability to leverage additive manufacturing (3D printing)
into a successful, legal, online firearms business is a very real possibility. Currently a number
of challenges, both technological and cost based, exist but the trend line is clear and those
should become surmountable.
The firearms market is massive. Each year recreational shooters and hunters spend
approximately $100 billion on the sport in the United States alone, mostly on travel and
ammunition. The market for new firearms ballooned under Obama as fears of
impending regulation made firearms fly off the shelves as fast as they could be made and
while the industry has slowed in recent years it remains strong, AFT reporting ~10 million
firearms sales in 2017 compared to ~12 million in 2015. The market is also highly regulated.
With a few minor exemptions for historical firearms each firearm sold in the US must be
sold through licensed dealer and is subject to a series of checks and fees, which can be
federal, state and local. These add up in a way not seen in other industries. For example,
the author purchased a surplus firearm through an online distributor in the past year for
a cost of $250, before paying tax on the initial purchase. This firearm was then shipped
to a licensed firearms dealer with an additional cost for shipping regulated items. The local
dealer then charged a fee for transferring the firearm and a fee for running the required
federally required background checks, then there a tax for a state required check and a the
addition of state sales tax for the final transfer. By the end of it there was an additional almost
$200 (80%) of taxes and fees, multiple rounds of paperwork and a wait of more then two
weeks. If a business is able to avoid the fees, taxes and hassle of their product legally being a
firearm there is money to be made. Such a business would sell the legally non-a-firearm
components as well as a printer for the buyer to manufacture the controlled components
themselves - which is completely legal - and make a profit off of the difference between the
cost of the printer and the cost of paying taxes and fees.
approximately $100 billion on the sport in the United States alone, mostly on travel and
ammunition. The market for new firearms ballooned under Obama as fears of
impending regulation made firearms fly off the shelves as fast as they could be made and
while the industry has slowed in recent years it remains strong, AFT reporting ~10 million
firearms sales in 2017 compared to ~12 million in 2015. The market is also highly regulated.
With a few minor exemptions for historical firearms each firearm sold in the US must be
sold through licensed dealer and is subject to a series of checks and fees, which can be
federal, state and local. These add up in a way not seen in other industries. For example,
the author purchased a surplus firearm through an online distributor in the past year for
a cost of $250, before paying tax on the initial purchase. This firearm was then shipped
to a licensed firearms dealer with an additional cost for shipping regulated items. The local
dealer then charged a fee for transferring the firearm and a fee for running the required
federally required background checks, then there a tax for a state required check and a the
addition of state sales tax for the final transfer. By the end of it there was an additional almost
$200 (80%) of taxes and fees, multiple rounds of paperwork and a wait of more then two
weeks. If a business is able to avoid the fees, taxes and hassle of their product legally being a
firearm there is money to be made. Such a business would sell the legally non-a-firearm
components as well as a printer for the buyer to manufacture the controlled components
themselves - which is completely legal - and make a profit off of the difference between the
cost of the printer and the cost of paying taxes and fees.
Despite regulations involved in shipping and transfering
firearms the market is booming.
What is a firearm? One would think this is a simple answer but when there is money on
the line the exact language matters. Without quoting an entire block of legalize and getting
into the web that is ATF rulings on particular designs a firearm in the US is the component that
contains the trigger, fire control group and hammer, this component is referred to as the
receiver. This means that the components which must be manufactured to withstand the high
pressures of firing a cartridge - the barrel, bolt, locking components, recoil and gas systems
etc - are unregulated. Therefore they can all be sold on the online market direct from
manufacturer to consumers, and such sales are both common and profitable. It is reasonable
to assume that companies attempting to disrupt the firearms market will use traditional
manufacturing techniques for the majority of their designs and then sell 3D printers along
with the required CAD files and materials for the buyer to manufacture their own receiver
and assemble the firearm.
the line the exact language matters. Without quoting an entire block of legalize and getting
into the web that is ATF rulings on particular designs a firearm in the US is the component that
contains the trigger, fire control group and hammer, this component is referred to as the
receiver. This means that the components which must be manufactured to withstand the high
pressures of firing a cartridge - the barrel, bolt, locking components, recoil and gas systems
etc - are unregulated. Therefore they can all be sold on the online market direct from
manufacturer to consumers, and such sales are both common and profitable. It is reasonable
to assume that companies attempting to disrupt the firearms market will use traditional
manufacturing techniques for the majority of their designs and then sell 3D printers along
with the required CAD files and materials for the buyer to manufacture their own receiver
and assemble the firearm.
The lower receiver is the only controlled component on an AR-15 rifle.
The idea of making a business off of selling DIY firearm kits at any sort of scale may seem
ridiculous but it already exists. The below pictured AR-15 was assembled by the author
from a kit purchased online combined with a locally purchased "stripped" (no trigger, springs
etc) lower receiver (the AR-15 had both a lower and an upper receiver, legally the lower is
firearm) literally in a garage. The modular nature of modern firearm designs means that the
market for additional aftermarket kits, including barrels, bolts, magazines and other difficult
to manufacture components are commonly sold on the unregulated market online. The
firearms buying community is more than willing to buy online, at least for items where buying
online decreases rather than increased the complexity of the purchase.
ridiculous but it already exists. The below pictured AR-15 was assembled by the author
from a kit purchased online combined with a locally purchased "stripped" (no trigger, springs
etc) lower receiver (the AR-15 had both a lower and an upper receiver, legally the lower is
firearm) literally in a garage. The modular nature of modern firearm designs means that the
market for additional aftermarket kits, including barrels, bolts, magazines and other difficult
to manufacture components are commonly sold on the unregulated market online. The
firearms buying community is more than willing to buy online, at least for items where buying
online decreases rather than increased the complexity of the purchase.
Despite the lack of machine tools the fact the author had no experience
whatsoever there were only minor issues in assembling this rifle.
Pistols may seem like an obvious choice for additive manufacturing techniques as the
lack many of the problems associated with rifle designs and offer even more benefits.
Pistol ammunition is far less powerful than rifle ammunition, decreasing stress on the
parts and allowing for lower quality parts to function safely. Popular pistols have already
transitioned to plastics for their controlled components; the only metal component on the
controlled frame of the massively popular Glock series of pistols is the metal plate
containing the serial number. Furthermore pistols are typically taxed higher and subject
to longer waiting periods than rifles and shotguns, allowing more money to be spent on
the printer while staying competitive with tradition manufacturing. However, pistol
manufacture runs into one major problem: the action is not safe. With the exception of
revolvers and single shots, which due to ATF rules would not work for the type of business
being discussed, every design starting with the Browning 1903 more than a century ago
has featured a slide which travels back towards the shooter under recoil. This opens up
the chamber, allows for extraction of the spent case and for feeding of the next round
before the slide returns forward, normally due to spring pressure. The basic problem
with this design is obvious. If the lowest quality component - the printed locking/stop
mechanism on the printed frame fails then a large metal slide will fly into the face of the
shooter. As sending large amounts of metal into the face of your customers at high
velocities into the face tends to hurt sales this is not a feasible design. There does exist
an alternative method of functioning, called "blow forward" which was explored in a handful
of designs around the turn of the 20th century, only one of which - a Japanese design -
was produced in more than single digit numbers. Firearms using this obscure system
recoil forward, away from the shooter. With a blow-forward design a pistol could be
made safely with moderately capable consumer-grade polymer printing. However all
the additional parts such as the slide, action, fire control group and more would have
to be designed for the pistol and would fail to take advantage of the existing economies
of scale that allow for extremely cheap parts for more traditional actions.
lack many of the problems associated with rifle designs and offer even more benefits.
Pistol ammunition is far less powerful than rifle ammunition, decreasing stress on the
parts and allowing for lower quality parts to function safely. Popular pistols have already
transitioned to plastics for their controlled components; the only metal component on the
controlled frame of the massively popular Glock series of pistols is the metal plate
containing the serial number. Furthermore pistols are typically taxed higher and subject
to longer waiting periods than rifles and shotguns, allowing more money to be spent on
the printer while staying competitive with tradition manufacturing. However, pistol
manufacture runs into one major problem: the action is not safe. With the exception of
revolvers and single shots, which due to ATF rules would not work for the type of business
being discussed, every design starting with the Browning 1903 more than a century ago
has featured a slide which travels back towards the shooter under recoil. This opens up
the chamber, allows for extraction of the spent case and for feeding of the next round
before the slide returns forward, normally due to spring pressure. The basic problem
with this design is obvious. If the lowest quality component - the printed locking/stop
mechanism on the printed frame fails then a large metal slide will fly into the face of the
shooter. As sending large amounts of metal into the face of your customers at high
velocities into the face tends to hurt sales this is not a feasible design. There does exist
an alternative method of functioning, called "blow forward" which was explored in a handful
of designs around the turn of the 20th century, only one of which - a Japanese design -
was produced in more than single digit numbers. Firearms using this obscure system
recoil forward, away from the shooter. With a blow-forward design a pistol could be
made safely with moderately capable consumer-grade polymer printing. However all
the additional parts such as the slide, action, fire control group and more would have
to be designed for the pistol and would fail to take advantage of the existing economies
of scale that allow for extremely cheap parts for more traditional actions.
Currently no major company had taken the plunge into 3D printed firearms for the
individual consumer. The only company to make a foray into live fire 3D printed firearms
is the ideologically motivated Defense Distributed. This company does not have a real
profit model and instead fighting the lengthy initial court battles for ideological reasons.
So far the cases have gone in their favor, and likely will continue to do so unless the law
is changed. One UK based company has found minor success by printing mechanically
functional (sans firing pin) non-functional plastic replicas of unavailable historic firearms
for the enthusiast market. It is unlikely that major manufactures will seek to exploit
consumer additive manufacturing as part of their business model. There is simply too much
legal exposure for large multinational arms corporations to risk national level sanctions and
lawsuits for the relatively minor unproven market. This leaves the field open to smaller
companies.
individual consumer. The only company to make a foray into live fire 3D printed firearms
is the ideologically motivated Defense Distributed. This company does not have a real
profit model and instead fighting the lengthy initial court battles for ideological reasons.
So far the cases have gone in their favor, and likely will continue to do so unless the law
is changed. One UK based company has found minor success by printing mechanically
functional (sans firing pin) non-functional plastic replicas of unavailable historic firearms
for the enthusiast market. It is unlikely that major manufactures will seek to exploit
consumer additive manufacturing as part of their business model. There is simply too much
legal exposure for large multinational arms corporations to risk national level sanctions and
lawsuits for the relatively minor unproven market. This leaves the field open to smaller
companies.
Non-firing printed copy of an 1880s experimental pistol made
for sale on the British market.
In my opinion the most likely model to first see commercial success will be selling
modified and new designs made expressly to minimize the disadvantages of near-future
consumer-grade 3d printing equipment. This is particularly important for a product such
as a firearm, which can cause serious injury when it fails. A modified design could be
an AR-15 with an extended buffer tube screw thread and coarse threads to mitigate
both the use of a weaker polymer rather than the original aluminum as well as allowing
for the looser tolerances of consumer printer. New designs would be similar to the
previously discussed printed-frame blow-forward pistol, which could make use of
standard Glock bolts and barrels. These designs would make use of both common
and new parts, letting them access economies of scale for expensive to produce
components while making gaining maximum profit margins for their own cheap to
produce the specialized parts. This also allows the company to ensure that sales and
profits will continue to flow to them after the initial purchase of the 3d printer and more
importantly to prevent unlicensed distribution of the CAD files from undermining the
entire business. By combining existing supply chains, emergent technology and new
designs made to minimize the chance of failure when constructed of poor quality
materials as well as to fail in a safe way a business could reasonably turn a
substantial profit selling the files and components required to print and construct
firearms. In the current environment that virtually guarantees that someone will do it.
How governments respond will be interesting indeed.
modified and new designs made expressly to minimize the disadvantages of near-future
consumer-grade 3d printing equipment. This is particularly important for a product such
as a firearm, which can cause serious injury when it fails. A modified design could be
an AR-15 with an extended buffer tube screw thread and coarse threads to mitigate
both the use of a weaker polymer rather than the original aluminum as well as allowing
for the looser tolerances of consumer printer. New designs would be similar to the
previously discussed printed-frame blow-forward pistol, which could make use of
standard Glock bolts and barrels. These designs would make use of both common
and new parts, letting them access economies of scale for expensive to produce
components while making gaining maximum profit margins for their own cheap to
produce the specialized parts. This also allows the company to ensure that sales and
profits will continue to flow to them after the initial purchase of the 3d printer and more
importantly to prevent unlicensed distribution of the CAD files from undermining the
entire business. By combining existing supply chains, emergent technology and new
designs made to minimize the chance of failure when constructed of poor quality
materials as well as to fail in a safe way a business could reasonably turn a
substantial profit selling the files and components required to print and construct
firearms. In the current environment that virtually guarantees that someone will do it.
How governments respond will be interesting indeed.
