this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
495 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
83799 readers
3871 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
FFS, you still need a bg check to buy from Walmart. There's plenty of things to point out to fight for sane gun laws without making shit up.
Fair, however, the point remains, that the whole 3D printers are dangerous weapon manufacturing sources is BS. 3D printers, at least those affordable to hobbyists are a damn poor choice for creating fire weapons. Yes, you can print some non-critical parts but that's about it. How many people died due to 3d printed guns in the US and how many to legally/illegally owned?
Maybe spend 5 minutes looking into it before commenting on something you know nothing about.
If it is so obvious, you could easily show me a source with the number of victims of 3d printed fire weapons, legally owned commercial fire weapons and illegally owned commercial fire weapons, in California or the US as a whole.
Or were you commenting on the suitability of FDM or resin printers for producing critical function parts of fire weapons? Which of the parts one could produce via FDM or resin, that couldn't be produced with subtractive manufacturing methods? Please elaborate with actual arguments.
Well, you asked for it lol.
For starters, no one in the US is doing this. There is no source for the number of victims of 3D printed firearms anywhere, the best you're going to get is from the limited places where authorities are tracking the number of crimes involving "ghost guns", which could be a 3D printed firearm, a home manufactured firearm by other means, or (most commonly) a legally purchased firearm which has had the serial number removed. Everytown (puke) has some statistics claiming 208 murders or shootings linked to a ghost gun and 134 "recoveries" of ghost guns, nationally since 2013. As you can see, that's not a lot. My point is, you're right that ghost guns aren't really a big problem, but that's not because they aren't viable as firearms. I think this is a moot point anyway, there are over 400 million guns in the US and millions more every year. The cat is so far out of the bag that it returned with a litter of kittens which are also out of the bag. Trying to control gun crime in the US by limiting supply is futile, but it looks good on a political platform so it's gonna keep happening.
But that's not even really what I was commenting on. The idea that FDM printing is not viable for home manufacturing firearms is at least 10 years out of date. First, it's important to understand that in the US, the "critical" part is the one that's legally considered the firearm. Every design has a serialized part which is legally "the gun" and which you (generally) must pass a background check to obtain. Everything else to construct a firearm is available online shipped directly to your door or over the counter without any kind of background check, at least in the vast majority of states. Even in the places where that's not legal (like California has recently done), it's very easy to for anyone trying to dodge that law to do so.
As an example, one of the most commonly 3D printed firearms is a Glock. With glocks, the frame is the serialized part. It's already made of polymer. So most people 3D print a frame, generally from PLA, and buy the rest of the parts to assemble the firearm. This is what Luigi (allegedly) popped a CEO with. In his case, he also 3D printed a suppressor which rendered his gun no longer semi auto, which would happen with a factory glock too, but generally these 3D printed glocks are nearly as viable as a "real" one for at least a few thousand rounds. I'm not gonna bother linking directly to anything here because again, most commonly 3D printed gun. Put "3D printed glock" into youtube.
For a more "real" scenario, you can take a look at Myanmar, where rebel forces have been 3D printing firearms to fight the Junta directly, in combat. They've mostly used the FGC-9, which, while not 100% 3D printed, does not require any "real" firearm parts to produce. Everything you need can either be 3D printed or acquired at a hardware store. You can even produce a rifled barrel at home (PDF warning) using a 3D printed jig and ECM.These 3D printed guns have mostly been a means to acquire actual military firearms from the Junta itself, but it worked, so these guns have been successfully employed by teenagers against a state military force.
For some other examples, here is the Orca (3D printed AR-15), the Plastikov (3D printed AKM), the mac n cheese (3D printed mac 10) This one is extra fun because you can get a set of "wind chimes" to complete your build. There's also the NylAUG, a surplus AUG parts kit which can be purchased over the counter with a receiver 3D printed in Nylon. Hell, the US army 3D printed a 40MM grenade launcher nearly a decade ago, and there are DYI versions too. There are many, many more designs. I think I've made my point.
Interesting read. I did not know about the honestly horribly ineffective (if not outgright dysfunctional) legislation in much of the US in this regard. I was however having functional arguments in mind though. The functional core components of a Glock are not made from organic polymers, for a reason.
Yes, printing the frame of a firearm is perfectly feasible. But if you don't know your tool and its materials, you are putting yourself at risk. It is really like with all those other tools that can produce such a frame just as well. But then, if you say most people print it with PLA you might have a strong point that most people 3d printing that don't know what they are doing or don't care about PLA's serious limitations for that application, and do it anyway.
PS: I wouldn't consider using a 3D printed jig ... and ECM as a part being produced by 3d printing. A helper part is for producing it by other means is 3d printed. Again, plenty of alternative methods to do so. Are they all going to be restricted?
Neither are the core functional parts on a 3D printed glock. They use the exact same pressure bearing components, because those components are easily available. What's less available is a frame, and 3D printing solves that problem.
What other tools? What other tools are available that can produce a glock frame of similar quality and with similar ease as a decent quality 3D printer for a similar price? (~$300)
They know perfectly well what they doing and that PLA is a perfectly viable material for the application. Glock frames are not pressure bearing parts, and PLA is plenty strong. I'm saying this with confidence because it is not a hypothetical. People have built these guns and shot thousands of rounds through them without issue.
You don't have to consider it, it's been done and it works. Making rifled barrels is not trivial. This method is certainly possible without 3D printing but is made much easier with 3D printing. What is another method of producing a rifled 9x19 barrel at home that's easier than 3D printing a jig, and running some chemicals through hydraulic tubing with a fishtank pump in a bucket? Please link an example.
I don't know. I'm not advocating for restrictions. People have been making guns at home in the United States since before the founding of the country and they will continue to do so whether it's legal or not, regardless of the availability of 3D printers. Even trying to regulate the printers themselves is assinine, there's too many open source designs and software. Anyone sufficient motivated will get one. Trying to regulate printers in the name of gun violence is a none solution to problem that barely exists.
All I'm saying is that 3D printing has absolutely made the home manufacturing of firearms more accessible than it has ever been, and those firearms are perfectly viable weapons.