It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Army Creates and Successfully Tests 3d Printed Grenade Launcher AND Grenades Named RAMBO

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Genius! Their motivations for this was to reduce the procurement time of essential weapons platform that need to be in the hands of soldiers today and cannot wait years to get the started. They printed everything except some springs and fasteners. This was done in six months, they have tested it successfully and are fine tuning some adjustments. Only thing they did not do was load any explosives into it due to laws against loading into 3d printed products. Surely there will be some lobbying to change the language to exempt the armed forces, at least I hope so.


The RAMBO grenade launcher is comprised of 50 parts, and all of the components, except the springs and fasteners, were produced using 3D-printing. Different parts of the grenade launcher, however, were manufactured using different materials and additive manufacturing techniques -- the barrel and receiver were fabricated from aluminum using a direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) process, while the trigger and firing pin were printed using alloy steel.

When developing the grenade launcher, the Army wanted a weapon that could move through the prototype stage and land in the hands of soldiers quickly. Instead of waiting for months for a single machined prototype weapon, Army researchers were able to 3D-print and test multiple versions of the grenade launcher in a fraction of that time. It took 70 hours to print the barrel and receiver and another 5 hours to finish off the part in post production. Overall, instead of years, it took a mere six months to produce a weapon and compatible ammunition that was suitable for test firing.


Great job!




posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

They did not load and test the thing yet? BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, thats really sweet, but we are talking about the Army here. You can be damned sure, that you would not know they were messing around with the 3D printer, unless they had already shot a demonstration round (probably under strict safety protocols), to prove the concept. Until they have, it would not mean anything anyway!



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Pretty cool. I think things will eventually be able to be downloaded and printed right in your home. You wont pay for products, just pay to download the plans and then print it. Maybe we'll be able to get grenade launchers too!




posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit
Did you not watch the video?? It shows everything from design, printing, and firing of the round. It does not have to have explosives in it to prove anything. The round was loaded, it fired, and impacted target.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit
Watch the video, then you can laugh. But at least take the time to watch the damn video!



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: TrueBrit
Did you not watch the video?? It shows everything from design, printing, and firing of the round. It does not have to have explosives in it to prove anything. The round was loaded, it fired, and impacted target.


Why watch the video when one can just attempt to make fun of the subject from a position of total ignorance?

I saw a blurb about this the other day (think it was last Friday perhaps?) while I was out and about but didn't remember to track it down when I got home. Very cool stuff man!



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry


Only thing they did not do was load any explosives into it due to laws against loading into 3d printed products.


Using a 'printed' spring, it can then shoot lemons and easter eggs.

Devastating



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Bull.

Does not have to have explosives in it to prove anything? Well I suppose not, unless you give a damn about the usefulness of the test.

I understand they put a training round away with it, but all that matters is whether it does the whole job, with the ammo it will be issued with, without a hitch, at least as reliably as whatever it replaces. You cannot even hint at that until a proper grenade has gone through it, a few thousand times!



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Pretty complex piece of kit. Took how long to 'print' all those components?

Geez for my money and time, I'd produce carbide mortars that launch gasoline filled tennis balls that squash on impact, spraying burning gasoline on everything.

And thats all I'm gonna say about dat.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

SMH Dude, it is the exact shells they are going to use in the field. Think firing blanks. The guns at schools for track & field are firing blank .38 specs (or whatever they decide to use). The casing, the primer, the powder, it is still the same, just no slug/bullet . The shells are the same, just no explosive content inside.

I don't understand where all this mocking is coming from, the weapon functions as needed. Anyways! There should not be an issue with making exemptions for the Armed forces. We have a friendly congress and Presidential administration that has committed to improving aspects of our military. New and promising technology, innovations and partnerships for weapons procurement would certainty fall in tat category
Query:

Took how long to 'print' all those components?

Answer:

It took 70 hours to print the barrel and receiver and another 5 hours to finish off the part in post production.

edit on 3-13-2017 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

You're just making yourself look ignorant. You should stop.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: intrptr

I don't understand where all this mocking is coming from





posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Its useless without chemicals, something they can't 'print'.

Did you look into the carbide cannon? Its has zero moving parts.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


Its useless without chemicals, something they can't 'print'.

They re not trying to print any of the chemicals. Those are ingredient that do not require it. Im thinking some did not read he article either, so I will add this paragraph about the ammo.

From a 3D-printing point of view, the grenade was a success. Three of the four main parts of the M781 grenade -- the windshield, the projectile body, and the cartridge case, were 3D-printed. Only the .38-caliber cartridge case was purchased as a separate unit and then pressed into the 3D-printed cartridge case. It is worth noting that the rounds are not live, as the addition of explosives, propellants and pyrotechnics have not been approved for use in a 3D-printed shell.

The absence of these ingredients has nothing to do with capability, most notably because launched grenades detonate on impact. It is simply a temporary legal issue. It was solely the US Army trying to not break the law. Can they at lest get a few points for that, following the law??

Its like one of those cases of legislation has to catch up with technology is all.
edit on 3-13-2017 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry


They re not trying to print any of the chemicals.

Then why sensationalize the thread title?

Grenades explode, this printed mechanism does not. As far as 'points' to the military, they just invaded another country Syria, again...

sorry, no points.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

May as well talk to a wall, when it comes to some folks. Always something to find fault with, always some crack to use to try and turn it into a negative thing they can mock.

Even if they have to make the crack up.

Bottom line: they used a 3D printer to make a grenade launcher and grenades, and that's pretty freaking cool. If somebody wants to rail about this as if it's some kind of field test or something, let 'em.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Its a gernade launcher which is not gas operated and contains no moving parts. The shells are the shells and are easily 3D printable.

Not that hard to grasp. Its a step forward for the army and/or military generating their own weapons and designs which would be great. I have used many gernade launchers before in the past so I do know what I'm talking about.
edit on 13-3-2017 by 4N0M4LY because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Yea I guess. But the real benefit here is that they were able to essentially have a working prototype under a better timeline, which reduces overrun costs. I think that is an important factor, if not the main focus, of this project.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
It is also proven 3D printed objects are incredibly more durable than the standard manufacured process.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: 4N0M4LY

Thats great!! SO all we need to do is to get the production process sped up a bit. I would assume that production of whole 40mm grenades is quicker with existing assembly lines and facilities. Is this true??



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join