One of the biggest arguments against privately made firearms is that they’re untraceable. Of course, gun tracing doesn’t work like a lot of people think it does, but that’s never stopped anyone from being worried that it might not be possible with certain firearms.
From the moment that 3D printing for firearms became viable, it was pretty clear that gun control was dead. If anyone can make a gun themselves and there be no way to know who did it, the hope of actually stopping the proliferation of guns was over.
Which is why a lot of people have a problem with it, even if they’re wrong in thinking they can stop it.
However, I came across this on Thursday, where someone thinks that the patterns created when an object is printed can work like a fingerprint.
So-called 3D-printed ghost guns are untraceable firearms that can be assembled at home. But cutting edge work from a forensic expert in California and researchers at the University of Oklahoma may soon show investigators can trace a 3D printed object to the specific printer that made it.
Weapons manufactured using 3D printers have been a subject of Biden-era legislation and recent Supreme Court scrutiny. It’s possible to download the blueprints for a firearm and build it in your home. There’s no serial number to track and no store to scrutinize your purchase. Luigi Mangione used a ghost gun to allegedly assassinate United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
Kirk Garrison, a forensics expert who works for the San Bernardino Sheriff’s department, told 404 Media he’s had early success matching 3D printed objects to the machines that made them. Garrison said his comments represent his own views and not those of the San Bernardino Sheriff’s department. He also cautioned that what he’s doing is in its infancy and it might be years before authorities can reliably match a gun to the machine that made it, if they can do it at all.
…
From there, Garrison started printing simple blocks at home on his own 3D printer. He’d take them into the lab on his own time and examine them under a microscope. “That’s when I started seeing some of the consistency on two separate printed things,” he said. It was too early to tell, and it’s still too early to tell, but individual printers might leave behind unique toolmarks on every object they print.
In short, the way the printer lays down the material is, reportedly, distinct and identical from object to object.
At least, that’s the theory.
As the National Association of Gun Rights noted on X, though, this isn’t the first time.
It seems that gun control advocates are required to invent a new pseudo-science every decade. From barrel markings, to microstamping, now this. pic.twitter.com/wRwbLD2X9A
— National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights) July 17, 2025
They also went on to note a potential problem with Garrison’s theory.
In theory changing what the printer is resting on would completely throw this off.
— National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights) July 17, 2025
That’s entirely possible, since they’re kind of touchy machines in a lot of ways.
Yet even if it doesn’t, I’m somewhat skeptical of anything manmade actually laying down something so unique that an object can be identified as coming from a particular printer. Even if it does, 3D printers aren’t controlled, which just means that if this is accurate, all a would-be criminal manufacturer would need to do is swap out printers fairly often.
After all, there’s no repository of print patterns to check, so it’s not really making anything traceable. All it’ll do is, at most, allow police to compare the print patterns of recovered guns to what a recovered printer lays down. It might make it possible to convict someone who has been caught, but it won’t trace jack squat.
And again, I’m skeptical of it even doing that.
Plus, what about changing something like the printer nozzle? Will that change the pattern?
Garrison says he’s not remotely ready to roll this process out. What that means is that he knows good and well he doesn’t have enough data to back up what he’s saying, he’s just trying to gin up some support and, possibly, some money. As a capitalist, I get that and understand it entirely.
But I just don’t buy this one.
Read the full article here
