this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
228 points (96.3% liked)
Technology
86145 readers
4060 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The CA law includes all manufacturing machines that take sets of instructions, if I'm not mistaken
A lathe takes no instructions and is potentially the most useful tool of all listed for the purposes of making a gun.
CNC lathes are very common these days.
They are.
A barebones manual lathe is still grades cheaper, this provide a lower level of entry. Spend $200 and in no time you can be doing 20-30 barrels a day.
But please tell me how a 3D printer, which is at most useful for the casing (which you could hand craft from wood with a knife...).
I'm not quite understanding your question.
3d printers have made guns. They are always bad guns because plastic isn't great for the purpose. They work and prove the point enough to scare people who know nothing about guns and thus don't realize why other methods are better and faster.
My point is that a 3D printer isn't necessary for making a gun, and that you can't even make the parts that make something into a gun, using a (regular, commercial FDM) 3D printer.
it's like trying to regulate printers because you can "3D print a car", when in reality you can 3D print a few accessories and components but the entire engine has to be manufactured differently...
People have 3d printed guns and fired them. They work. Not well, and last I heard they are one shot because plastic can take the heat. Still they do exist.
Those guns STILL REQUIRE KEY COMPONENTS THAT CANT BE 3D PRINTED. Just how many times and how many ways do I have to explain this until it gets through?
You can 3D print a shadow gun, sure, even on a $100 cheapo FDM printer. Thing is, it won't fucking work because there's neither barrel nor firing pin. Two of the, oh, most crucial elements to make a gun into an actual gun. Up until you add these two bits, that gun will do more damage if you chuck it at your target than if you fired it.
TECHNICALLY, you could get away with a firing pin setup made from some wiring and an actual nail, but it would be highly unreliable - misfire, not fire at all, and so on. And even if it did fire, without a barrel, you'd have a 30-40% chance of not hitting your target... at which point you're more likely to kill your target by aiming some higher power pyrotechnics at them. Which are easier and cheaper to acquire.
A nail is common enough that I refuse that objection.
Barrels are 3d printed. They are single use because the heat and pressure will destroy them, but they work. They also can't get good rifling patterns so not accurate. This is why a 3D printed gun is always going to be a novelty that is useless, but it is enough to work.
You don't even need a CNC machine. Basic hand tools and some pipe are enough to make a zip gun.
Basic hand tools can make a ak47. Skill is needed there though.