GUN-MAKING AS A COTTAGE INDUSTRY
By Charles H. Chandler, M.S.

Introduction

Americans have a reputation as ardent hobbyists and do-it-yourselfers, building everything from ship models to home improvements. But one area in which they do not seem to have been very active is that of building firearms.

This curious, though probably fortunate, fact may result from the perceived Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. One effect of this right is that well-designed and well-made firearms are generally available as items of commerce. In recent years, however, the private ownership of firearms has become subject to increasing legal and regulatory restriction as an anticrime measure.1 The possession of handguns, in particular, could foreseeably become illegal. A similar logic might then be applied to rifles and shotguns.

Indeed, if present trends continue, legitimate sources of privately-owned firearms may disappear, with serious implications for the general level of shooting skills, production facilities, manufacturing know-how, motives for innovation, and other capabilities essential to the defense of the country and the support of the Bill of Rights.

On the other hand, it has been pointed Out2 that a total legal ban on handguns would be enormously difficult to enforce. One reason for the difficulty is that serviceable guns are not as hard to make as most people suppose. Indeed, the small-scale manufacture of handguns, rifles and even machine guns is essentially a "cottage industry" in certain parts of the world.3 Crude but deadly pistols have been hand-made in such unlikely places as prisons and penitentiaries.4

This study undertakes to evaluate the feasibility of small-scale firearms fabrication in the United States; the method is to consider designs, techniques, and materials that might be used in the event that such fabrication becomes a significant source of illicit arms. It should riot in any way be construed as inviting or encouraging its readers to engage in illicit arms fabrication. If it is to encourage anything, it should encourage a little thought (especially in the minds of legislators) about the probable consequences of a comprehensive firearms ban.

Background

Gun-making could readily become a "cottage industry" in the United States, under any of several possible circumstances: (1) Enactment of a comprehensive handgun ban; (2) Court decisions effectively outlawing the manufacture and sale of handguns under the guise of consumer safety and/or manufacturers' tort liability; (3) Invasion/occupation of the United States by a foreign power.

In any such event, the primary uses of illicit firearms would be (a) crime and terrorism, (b) self-defense, and (c) resistance against an occupying power -- or against an indigenous regime that was perceived as exceeding its legitimate constitutional powers. Even though recreational uses of handguns would no longer exist, the functions listed above would assure a substantial market. Sources of weapons for the said purposes would include smuggling, theft (most likely from police or military), and -- our concern here -- small-scale clandestine fabrication.

Possible design approaches

Before addressing the details of such fabrication, it is appropriate to consider rough design guidelines for a weapon that could be considered "serviceable" for the purposes rioted above. These guidelines need not be taken as applying to each and every home-built handgun, but describe capabilities that should suffice in most cases. Individual builders might opt for more or less refinement, depending on their abilities and resources.

To begin with, high accuracy and velocity are probably superfluous. Most uses are likely to be at short range: in effect, within a room or equivalent space. A smoothbore would probably be quite effective at such ranges, and would have the advantage that a tumbling bullet is more likely to be lethal than one that arrives point-first. Accuracy within a twelve-inch circle a ten yards would seem to be a reasonable requirement.

There is at least one precedent for this design approach: the "Liberator .45." This gun, designed to be air-dropped to "partisan" forces in Europe during WWII, was a smooth-bore. Its accuracy was minimal; even worse, the reloading process (it was a single-shot) was at least as time-consuming as that of an 18th-century musket.5 But in a sticky situation, it presumably had its uses.

Second, choice of ammunition favors a widely-used and readily accessible round: e.g., .22 LR (Long Rifle) or .22 WMR (Winchester Magnum Rimfire); .25 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) and .32 ACP; even .380 ACP. All of these cartridges are considered rather mild. A more powerful military round such as .45 ACP or 9mm Parabellurn would not be out of the question.6 (Just how powerful a round is feasible would depend, needless to say, on the materials used and the sophistication of the design.) Of course, we do not need to confine our thinking to pistol rounds. Since all handguns will be illegal anyway, there is no reason to be squeamish about considering a shotgun load such as.410 gauge. Indeed, handguns using this cartridge have been on the market in the past.7

Third, concealability is a useful attribute; weight and (even more important) bulk should be minimized. In many situations, a low probability of discovery by X-ray or metal-detecting devices would also be a plus. Fourth, if the weapon is to be a repeating one, as distinguished from single-shot, a capacity of three or four rounds without reloading is probably adequate. A greater capacity is comforting, of course; but more rounds mean more weight and bulk, and a higher likelihood of detection. Finally, long service life is likely to be of minor importance; in many circumstances, an illicit gun might be disposed of after firing just one shot.

The "picture" which emerges is that of a short-barrelled, essentially palm-sized weapon which could be a revolver, a semiautomatic pistol, a two-barrelled "derringer," or a four-barrel design suggested by the Mossberg "Brownie."8 (Note that this is only a general description of a "most likely" weapon. There may be those makers who will favor a "Buntline" revolver with a twelve-inch barrel, as well as those who might prefer a full-automatic arm patterned after the WWII Sten -- or its American "clone," the M3.)

The foregoing does not constitute, nor substitute for, a set of plans and drawings; such plans are available elsewhere.9 (Plans for home-built silencers are also available.) It does, however, provide a rough notion of the sorts of weapon that a "cottage industry" might produce.

Materials

We hear a great deal these days10 about plastics that are "stronger than steel" -- even "five times as strong as steel, pound for pound." The problem is that such materials are generally much less dense than steel (typically, by a factor of five or more); thus, a substantially greater cross-section would be required to achieve "equal" strength. Moreover, these comparisons seldom state just what kind of steel is meant. (The yield strength of a mild, free-cutting steel might be only one-third that of a high-strength alloy steel.11) As a result, there is some uncertainty about the value of such comparisons.

However, some present-day plastics are remarkably strong, especially if reinforced with fibers such as glass, graphite, silicon or titanium carbide, or silicon or boron nitride. Examples of strong polymers per se include polycarbonate (General Electric trademark, "Lexan") and polyamide-imide (DuPont trademark, "Kapton".12 Polyamide-imide materials have, it is reported, actually been used in an internal combustion engine -- although not, according to my source, in the immediate vicinity of the combustion chamber.13 Another contender is polyarylate (DuPont trademark, "Arylon"). However, in no case would I rely on a plastic material to survive powder combustion temperatures and gas velocities without melting, charring and eroding. (Powder gases escaping through the gap between cylinder and barrel in revolvers have been observed to cut a groove in a high-alloy steel top strap.) Such a material might be good for one or two shots; but accuracy and muzzle energy would be likely to decline rapidly with successive firings.

Ceramic materials would riot be subject to these weaknesses; however, ceramics are not renowned for tensile strength. Research on improving their properties is ongoing.14

Thus it would seem prudent to incorporate a metal barrel liner in any firearm. Metal reinforcement in a revolver's cylinder and top strap would also be desirable. Many parts of a weapon, however, may appropriately be made of non-metallic materials, including various polymers; and a modern 9mm semi-automatic pistol, the notorious Glock 17, makes extensive use of high-performance plastics.15 (It should be noted that the Glock is by no means an "undetectable weapon," as some of its more sensationalist critics allege. There is more than a pound of steel in that gun.)

On the other hand, at least one firm (Red Eye Arms, Inc., Winter Park, FL) claims to have developed and patented a design for an all-polymer weapon.16 Plastic magazines for some semiautomatic pistols are already on the market. Non-metallic shell casings are becoming available.17 Non-metallic bullets would also be a viable option for short-range use.

Aside from the mechanical and thermal limitations of plastic materials, the more exotic ("space-age") formulations tend to be expensive. They may not be readily available; moreover, the supply of such materials, and of the even more exotic reinforcing substances, could be controlled to some extent.

In the realm of metals, steel is probably the material of choice. It is readily available in bar, tube and plate stock. A wide range of alloys can be had; if all else fails, even scrap can be made to serve. Appropriate tools for machining it are commonplace. The "know-how" for its fabrication is widespread. It can be worked by anything from files and hand-drills to automatic, numerically-controlled machine tools.

If, on the other hand, weight must be minimized, aluminum alloys such as the 2000 and 7000 series offer very high strength-to-weight ratios. Being non-magnetic, they may be slightly (but only slightly) less detectable than steel by some types of metal detectors.

A performance compromise might be found in zinc alloys such as AC41A and "Zamak 5," which are intermediate between aluminum and steel in density and yield strength.18

These last two alloys can be considered borderline members of the class of alloys based on aluminum, magnesium, or zinc, known generically as "pat metal." It is impossible to comment on the suitability of such alloys without knowing a great deal more about their composition and mechanical properties.

All in all, it is hard to improve on steel in terms of economy, availability, workability and performance. Unless there are overriding considerations to the contrary, steel remains a top contender for at least the major wear- and load-bearing portions of a weapon.

Fabrication methods

Fabrication methods cannot be considered independently of the material being used. In the case of thermoplastics, for example, injection molding is the method of choice for most commercial, high-volume applications.19 Production rates may be tens of "shots" per hour. However, injection molding machinery for plastics is expensive (order of $100,000, minimum, for the basic machine and a set of mold cavities -- and possibly much more, depending on the number and complexity of parts, the material used, and the precision required). Pressure-molding equipment for aluminum or zinc alloys would be even more expensive. The use of reinforcing fibers would affect the viscosity and flow characteristics of injection-molding materials; their use would further complicate the operation and increase the cost of injection-molding equipment.

Power-metallurgy techniques do not seem attractive for the purposes considered here. Like injection molding, they involve high temperatures aid pressures, and require heavy, expensive processing equipment. Similarly, stamping heavy sheet-metal parts requires large presses and expensive dies.

These manufacturing techniques are hardly appropriate to a "cottage industry" situation. Such expensive capital equipment would, of course, be well within the capabilities of organized crime groups or state-sponsored terrorists. Indeed, such groups would be the most likely initiators of clandestine mass-production of weapons if commercial sources dried up. But those capabilities are not the topic of the present discussion.

A low-cost, low-volume technique for making parts from thermosetting plastics is simple casting.20 However, the materials cited for this technique do not include the high performance plastics. However, a related technique for appropriate metals is investment casting.21 This technique is well suited to low-volume production of parts which may have complex shapes, and is used by many hobbyists.

But machining remains as the "work-horse" of fabrication methods. Standard machine tools can handle almost any material, can make almost any shape, and entail relatively low equipment cost. (A lathe, milling-machine, grinder, drill press, and complement of hand tools is sufficient for the operations of a modest shop.) Competent commercial machine shops; are ubiquitous -- the Boston telephone directory has two and one-half pages of them -- and there is an unknown number of small shops in hobbyists' basements or garages. It is also significant that there are many hobbyists engaged in casting bullets and reloading ammunition.

I said that standard machine tools can handle aim material. They may get into trouble machining reinforced pi (assuming that these materials are available in suitable form); abrasive fillers are notorious for dulling and breaking tools.22 A weapon builder might well believe, however, that a few prematurely worn-out cutting tools would not be too high a price to pay for his life or liberty.

The choice of fabrication methods for a "cottage" weapons industry, then, would appear to favor machining and invest casting for metals, and machining and pour-casting for pi More elaborate technology, as available, might be used in particular cases.

Concluding remarks

The prospect of a species of Prohibition on fir beginning with handguns and progressing to rifles and shotguns, is not mere speculation. Arguments against gun Possession by ordinary citizens have flourished for many years. Some of these arguments attack the validity of the Second Amendment as establishing an individual right.23 The arguments that are commonly encountered could be described as emotional, snide, or tendentious.24 As this is written, a ban is closer than ever: Congress is debating the minimum number of ounces of metal a handgun must contain if it is not to be outlawed.25 This is the sort of wishful thinking that has been described as a drug -- "the drug of trying to legislate our troubles away."26

However, the foregoing Study Supports the view that to eliminate handguns by the "prohibition" approach will essentially be futile. The supply is virtually infinite; this study has considered only one source. The demand for weapons is as great as is the human ingenuity available to provide them.27 And, as Wright points out, people who are going to break laws against robbery, assault and murder are not likely to pay much attention to laws forbidding the weapons' manufacture and ownership.28

As a result, ironically, a ban on handguns (or any other of gun) would have the effect of proliferating firearms of a kind gun-control advocates profess to hold in horror: small, conceal inaccurate, almost as dangerous to the user as to the target, and totally useless for sporting or competitive purposes. Their anonymous makers could hardly be sued for faulty design, materials or workmanship. They would rarely, if ever, incorporate the safety features that are standard in today's production arms. The slogan, "good only for killing people," would truly apply. A handgun ban might not be as totally counterproductive as some legislation we have seen, but it would surely be a close contender.

Footnotes

1. See. e.g., Wright James D., "Second Thoughts About Gun Control," The Public Interest, Spring I988, Page 23.

2. Kates, Don B., Jr., "The Battle Over Gun Control," The Public Interest, Summer 1986, p. 42. I am indebted to Professor Kates for encouraging this study and furnishing some of the material referenced here.

3. Walsh, Mary, "Guns and Gunmen Rule in Pakistan's Wild West," Wall Street Journal, June 30, 1987, p. 26; Whisler, Norman J., "Kings of the Khyber Rifles," Soldier of Fortune, May 1980, p. 56; Weston, Christine, Afghanistan, (Now York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962), p. 51. See also, supra, note 1.

4. Whisler, Norman J., "Zip Guns Zap Gun Control!" Guns & Ammo, March 1978, p. 33.

5. See, for example: James, Garry, "Liberator .45 ACP," Guns & Ammo, April 1983, p. 72.

6. "I had thought of a smaller bore, but reflected that this takes Government bullets. A man can always come by these - especially across the border." (Rudyard Kipling, Kim, 1901 edition, p. 272.)

7. Several such guns are described by Eades, Peter "For Snakes or Skeet!," Guns & Ammo, June 1987, p. 44; see also Spangenberger, Phil, "American Derringer Corporation Stainless Steel Derringer," Guns & Ammo, May 1987, p. 78.

8. Illustrated in Guns & Ammo, September 1986, p. 43; compare, e.g., the "C.O.P. .357 Magnum," cover story, Guns, May 1976. See also "Intratec Companion," American Rifleman, April 1988, p. 60.

9. See, for example, advertisement in The Shotgun News - Hastings - Nebraska, April 20,1982, p. 67.

10. "Materials Comer," National Defense, May-June, 1982, p. 20. The material described here is Kevlar (DuPont trademark for aramid fiber); however, it appears to be available only in continuous filament yam, staple, and pulp. It is used in ropes and cables, tires, gaskets and "bullet-proof" vests.

11. See, e.g., Vaccari, John, "Free-Machining Steels," American Machinist, October 1986, P. 115.

12. See table in Chem. & Eng. News, August 18, 1986, p. 34.

13. Graff, Gordon, "High-Performance Plastics," High Technology, October 1986, p. 53.

14. See, e.g., "Ceramic engine getting closer," Machine Design, November 6, 1986, p. 16; "The Future of Ceramics and Advanced Composites," National Defense, December 1986, p. 12; and Corbin, N., et al., "Making Ceramics Tougher," Machine Design, July 23,1987, p. 84.

15. Libourel, Jan, "9mm Glock: The Controversial 'Plastic' Pistol," Guns & Ammo, August 1986, p. 44; Dickey, Pete, "The Glock 17," American Rifleman, May 1986, p-22. Unattributed descriptions: Insight, June 9, 1986, p. 32; National Defense, March 1986, P. 79.

16. NRA Monitor, June 15,1987, p. 7; see also "Red Eye Arms Offers Congress Guarantees" (of delectability], Gun Week, September 18, 1987, p. 10.

17. See, e.g., "Now Owners of Plastic Ammo Firm Bullish on the Firearms Industry," Gun Week, January 2, 1987, p. 1, and advertisement by United States Ammunition Company, Guns & Ammo, September 1987, p. 45.

18. Several high-performance zinc alloys are described In literature from AMAX Zinc Company, East St. Louis, IL.

19. See, e.g., "Molding Methods for Housings," Machine Design, January 23, 1986, p. 90.

20. Snyder, Samuel, "Producing Low-Volume Plastic Parts by Casing," Machine Design, September 25, 1986, p. 73; Anon., "Casting epoxy in record time," Industrial Research, May 1974, p. 25.

21. Frei, John G., "Tooling for Economical Investment Casing," Tool and Manufacturing Engineer, February 1969, P. 47; Prusock, Rudi, "Try Investment Casting," American Rifleman, February 1976, p. 42; Chapman, Edwin G., "Casings Cut Cost" Ordnance, November-December 1968, p. 306.

22. The high mortality of tools (even tungsten-carbide-tipped drills) is a constant complaint of manufacturing engineers who must deal with fiberglass-epoxy laminates for printed-circuit boards. These laminates are among the "milder" varieties of reinforced plastic materials.

23. Example: Spitzer, Roberts J., "Shooing Down Gun Myths," America, June 8, 1985, p. 468.

24. Example: Anderson, Jervis, Guns in American Life (New York: Random House, 1984).

25. Hanson, David J., "Congress Moves On Plastic Gun Legislation," Chemical and Engineering News, May 16, 1988, p. 17.

26. Buranello, Raymond T., Letter to the editor, Chem. & Eng. News, April 25,1988, p. 2.

27. See, e.g.: Kates, Don B., Jr., "Handgun Banning in Light of the Prohibition Experience" In Don B. Kates, Jr., Ed., Firearms and Violence. issues of public policy (San Francisco: Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research, 1984), p. 139; also related articles in the same volume.

28. supra, note 1.