Early studies show that 3D printers may leave behind similar toolmarks on repeated prints.

  • Pofski@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I would think that the entire idea of a disposable item would be that you can get rid of it after use. In case of something that is 3d printed, you just need a small container of acetone to put it in. After a bit you are just left with some goop.

    On top of that, nozzles that are actually used (especially the cheap ones) wear down and never would keep the same marks.

    These 3d printed items have been known and used for decades already (Bruce Willis even used one in one of his movies, back in the day). There is no sure way to trace them any more. Somebody could use a file from 15years ago, before all this was big news.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      The reality is that the markings left on bullets aren’t as unique as NCIS would have you believe. A lot of them DO change over time (or even just field stripping a gun).

      But the key is that in those first N hours/days, it can be some very substantial evidence. 9 mm round was left embedded in the politician and the chief suspect has ten 9 mm PCCs? Let’s test all ten of those and see if we get a match. And so forth.

      In that case: Assuming this holds true (I read the article a few days ago and it is currently very hazy), the same could be done with 3d printers. Ghost gun used in a case and the suspect has a 3d printer? Well… checking the print logs is probably still easier. But one could imagine a world where there is a court order to print a special benchy to compare tooling marks.

      And… much like with guns, someone who is educated can take precautions.