{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/10/2013 11:05:04 PM
4
Of course, the nature of the technologies used to create this (3D printers, CAD software, and the internet) means that they can never truly squash home-printed guns. Of course, at this stage printed guns aren't much more than a dangerous novelty (and by that, I mean it's more likely to blow up in the user's hand than it is to successfully shoot someone).
English
-
not really. special plastics based on ABS is used, and if a plastic AR lower like plum rcazy or NFA with plastic LPK can handle M855 and M193 for a few hundred rounds, i think this single shot(not semi-auto) liberator can handle .22LR, which is not high pressure.
-
Edited by GHOST270: 5/11/2013 6:11:47 AMThey can probably only handle a .22LR/Short for extended periods of time, but that's about their limit. Even If you did make one, any rifling you try to employ will surely melt away within 30-40 shots, leaving you with a smooth bore barrel that's not very accurate. You'd have better luck making one out of pieces of scrap metal. At least then the probability of it blowing up in your face is less.
-
3D printers and the equipment used by dedicated gun manufacturers use different equipment. The versatility of 3D printers comes at the expense of the parts being more fragile and using plastic that melts at lower temperatures. The technology could concievably catch up, but right now printers can't match parts that are manufactured in dedicated facilities. Pointing to Glocks or plastic lowers doesn't say anything about parts made from a 3D printer. They just aren't comparable.
-
What about 3D Titanium printers?
