The easiest and most effective 3D "gun" to print is a 10/22 receiver. Am i missing something?

N

NAW

Inactive
The easiest and most effective 3D "gun" to print is a 10/22 receiver. Am i missing something?

The title says it all. Why dont we just print 10/22 receivers instead of any sort of liberator pistol. I know very little about 3d printing and i know surface finish problems may prevent the bolt from cycling, but i know this could work. Am i missing somthing? you can buy everything to finish 10/22s online. Trigger packs, barrels, stocks, and springs.
 
I don't yet have a 3D printer but I'm thinking about getting one that can print Nylon. I'm hoping to get a pattern to print a Glock frame since all the other parts can be mail ordered. A 10-.22 wouldn't be bad either but it would have to be thicker than the aluminum receiver...

There's a guy on you tube that shows how to build something like semi-auto machine pistol using glock parts and a few other home made bits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACgnVmFaw1M&t=4s

Tony
 
My concern with 3d printing the 10-22 is that the receiver also mounts the barrel and I believe a high enough round count would have the potential move that critical dimension
 
Shhhhhh!
The anti-gun groups don’t really understand the BATF definition of “firearm” yet (i.e. - just the serialized component).

But seriously, I’ve been having this kind of discussion with some non-gun (not anti-gun, just not educated about firearms) friends. Field strip a Glock, a SIG P320, & a Ruger Mark III on a table, and ask them to point out the 3 “guns”. That’ll confuse folks.

Metal printing will get more affordable as the technology develops. I doubt it will be economical for me to print a 10/22 metal receiver in my lifetime, but 3D printing is a disruptive technology that could change the landscape of several industries in the coming years.
 
I've been involved with 3D printing since the days when you shot converging laser beams into a vat of liquid resin to make it harden, so the technology is neither new to me nor is it alien to me. I don't see why a 10-22 receiver is necessarily any better than the receiver of any other inexpensive semi-auto 22, like a Marlin 60, would be.

They all suffer the universal problem that the receiver was dimensioned to be made out of aluminum, zinc or steel, not a plastic with a tensile strength nearly an order of magnitude lower and a Young's modulus several times higher than the metal(s) it would replace.

Certainly, we've all seen that it is possible to make a 10-22 receiver or an AR-15 lower out of printed plastic, but it will fail after only a few rounds. Guns designed from the ground up to have a printed receiver can be quite durable, but to carry the forces of carrying and firing it through a "weaker" material will mean they will look considerably different from what we see now. The "Liberator" style printed guns are an early attempt to address that problem with something that can stand up to the stresses and yet be something that is still recognizably a gun. As the technology improves, printed guns will likely start to look more like Nerf guns than the metal and wood creations we are used to seeing today.
 
dakota.potts said:
My concern with 3d printing the 10-22 is that the receiver also mounts the barrel and I believe a high enough round count would have the potential move that critical dimension
Click to expand...

I suggest one consider buying or machining a steel piece that the 3d material can be printed around. Now, why bother is a question? There is no shortage of 80% receivers out there for many popular firearms. What we do not have are 10 or 20% receivers/insetrs that can be a foundation for a 3d printer. Or no?

I guess I do not understand the purpose. If some one post the honest purpose then the use of some steel insert might be considered. The barrel of a 10/22 would or might be steel? Does the gun have to pass a metal detector? Does ammo?
 
Most of those huffing about 3-D printers don't understand that you don't just pull a gun out of the printer. "PARTS" can be "printed" but not the entire firearm as a working unit.
 
The bottom line

Much adieu over nothing is the best description of the "media frenzy" with regard to 3D printing guns.
As Mobuck stated, parts yes (maybe) but entire guns....no.

I enjoy printing things, I've learned a lot about stepper motors, accurate positioning, and the fact that every 3D printer should be connected to a UPS.

3D printing is a disruptive technology, however it is not well suited to making firearms at all. 3D printing is nice when you need one two or three "things" for plastics in quantity? Molds will produce better, stronger, and yes cheaper parts.

It is far easier and cheaper to go to the hardware store and make a "zip gun" from off the shelf parts, vs. printing a gun.

And the zip gun will likely fire more rounds before it spontaneously self disassembles.
 
Years back I had not kept up with the composite framed pistols and they went on the rang about plastic guns faking out the metal detectors.

Hmm, you can't make a barrel or a chamber out of plastic.

Now GE probably has printers that could make a receiver, but like they cost a gazzillion bucks to.

All you can do is laugh, you aren't going to educate people.

Not that I am against measure to lower the gun death rate, I am against knee jerk reaction that have no research and data behind them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top