<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>YOU IDIOTS! I WROTE 1984 AS A WARNING, NOT A HOW-TO MANUAL!--Orwell's ghost
Psalms 109:8, 43:1
LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>YOU IDIOTS! I WROTE 1984 AS A WARNING, NOT A HOW-TO MANUAL!--Orwell's ghost
Psalms 109:8, 43:1
LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.
I asked because I am getting lots of opinions and I wanted to sort out pure opinion from those who have actually done the work. But we would be foolish to the extrema not to expect ATF reads these sites and threads. In any event I think my questions have been answered and I thank everyone.
We're fortunate that the pressure bearing parts aren't regulated, which is the only thing that makes 80% viable. If they start regulating pressure bearing parts like other countries do then it's game over on that front.
As far as demonstrating that guns can't be contained, 3d printing and electrochemical etching are far more promising. The sticking point though is always going to be the ammunition, and the biggest challenge on that front is the primer. There's a group claiming to have that taken care of though, so if they can come up with 3d printed cases then it will be possible to make a semi auto pistol out of entirely mundane supplies. The thing about 3d printing is that it doesn't really take any special technical ability, vs. machining. Plus you can get 3d printers for a few hundred dollars, whereas machining a gun would require several thousand dollars in machines and tooling, bare minimum. This will only get more relevant as SLS printers get cheaper and start offering more material choices. I would even go as far as to say that SLS is poised to replace injection molded gun parts entirely.
Bookmarks