3D printed lower receiver
Fails after six rounds. And video:
CNC machine would probably better because metal.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
December 4th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
More indicative of the weakest spot on an Ar15 design. Perfectly suitable when made from aluminum, but those production polymer lowers fail in exactly the same method. Anyone that 1:1 prints a plastic part to work as an aluminum one was designed is an idiot, beef it up in the weak spot dummies.
CNC? SLS ftw!
December 4th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Just need better 3D printing tech. Laser sintering produces stronger metal parts but is not yet as low cost as plastic…
December 4th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Excuse me, in metal is referred to as direct metal laser sintering…
http://forecast3d.com/dmls.html
December 4th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Other Steve:
Version 0 here. They got useful data: they now know where it will break.
Cavalry Arms avoided this issue on their plastic lowers by making the buttstock, the handgrip, and the lower an single unit.
December 4th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Well, CSI:NY just had a show which postulated a modeled .22 pistol barrel. Only good for one shot, but replaceable and no useable ballistics. Not too accurate on 3D modeling, but still…
December 4th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Print in a foam type material… cast out of aluminum. can it be done at home? Yep. Or at least it should be able to be done.
December 4th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
CNC mills remain expensive and bulky; however, 3D printers are on the path to affordable, reliable, compact, inexpensive to operate, and as common as smart phones.
And that is why this experiment is interesting.
December 4th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
CNC machines for the home shop are not that expensive and are definitely as bulky as you think:
http://www.littlemachineshop.com/products/product_category.php?category=1241045623
They are smaller than most 3d printers.
December 4th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
I meant “NOT as bulky as you think”
December 4th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
The marvel of the dancing bear is not how gracefully he dances, but that he dances at all. If the printed lower failed at 6 rounds this month, how long did it last last year? How long might it last next year?
December 4th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
There exists technology for 3D printing with sintered metal that gives very high metal density (approaching that of casting). It will probably remain expensive, but it would allow this to work much better.
December 4th, 2012 at 3:22 pm
A 3D printer using layers of paper would be better than the brittle plastic used in most plastic 3D printers.
December 4th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Yea, but only one shot is needed to obtain a non-plastic weapon form your enemy. I’m encouraged that the receiver lasted as long as it did. given tweaks we may see a full magazine fired & a serious blow to unconstitutional Control everywhere. You can have my 3d printer when you pry it from my cold, dead hands or workstation.
I’d imagine that we’ll eventually see demands limiting what can be legally printed.
December 4th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
>CNC mills remain expensive and bulky; however, 3D printers are on the path…
CNC mills that mill foam or wood have been around for years and they are very cost completive with the 3D extruders.
Either go “lost foam casting” or mill a pattern or print a pattern for green sand casting.
I have to tell you though, green sand molding is a skill, and lost foam is much easier for beginners to master.
December 4th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
It’s been a while since I was in it, but the polymers that the 3D printers cast were exceptionally unsuitable for use in firearms. Very brittle. Wouldn’t use them for tiddly winks. The stuff they use for the polymer lowers is better, but I’m staying with aluminium, if I have to machine it myself.
December 4th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
PMain, exactly.
December 5th, 2012 at 9:17 am
So they just demonstrated that anyone can buy a 3D printer and use it to create a rifle capable of firing at least six rounds. Tell me how the Brady’s could ever expect to regulate this? This is just another nail in the coffin of gun control.
December 6th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Still, “Avtomat Kalashnikov Shovelski” has this beat, for now.
Once you can get a home 3-D rapid prototyper and Google up a free downloadable rifle receiver “3-D clip art” that WILL survive firing a few hundred rounds or more, game over for gun control via receivers.