this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
496 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

83831 readers
3663 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. 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
[–] Boost@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The functional core components of a Glock are not made from organic polymers, for a reason.

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.

It is really like with all those other tools that can produce such a frame just as well.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are they all going to be restricted?

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.

[–] Jiral@lemmy.org 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

PLA is a poor material choice for the application but an easy one. So they might not care. I am not saying that it is dysfunctional, just not a good choice.

PLA hydrolises over time, and becomes brittle and is sensitive to UV, ie day light. It is enough to leave it in a sunny place with some glass reflection for it to soften up and deform but the worst features is probably that unlike many other polymers it tends to fail catastrophically, when it fails, ie nothing much happens until it snaps and splinters. Its impact resistance is also comparably poor.

You seem to run in doors that are open. My whole point was that 3d printing is not suitable to create the functional parts of a fire arm, and by that I mean creating it directly with 3d printing, not some helper products and I also mean for hobbyist levels. Maybe with metal 3d printing etc more is possible but that is neither easy nor cheap nor readily available in anyone's basement. It is easier to get your hands on a CNC and probably cheaper too.

If your argument is that for what 3d printing can be used, it is a fairly easy method and can enable cost effective low number production, yes it can. So yes, if you will, then it has made it more accessible for those things. If someone want to regulate private firearm construction however, just regulate private firearm construction. Don't outlaw open 3d printers, CNCs or if we are at it, woodwork tools.

[–] Boost@lemmy.world 1 points 13 minutes ago

Coming back around, this is your original claim.

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.

And now we're here.

it is a fairly easy method and can enable cost effective low number production, yes it can. So yes, if you will, then it has made it more accessible for those things.

So I think I've made my point.