10
Why is there a lack of 3D-printed airgun (PCP/CO2) projects compared to firearms? (forum.guncadindex.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/general@forum.guncadindex.com
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

We've all seen the massive explosion in 3D-printed firearm development recently. Designs like the FGC-9 and Urutau are incredible feats of engineering. But this got me thinking: why don't we see the same level of innovation and high-quality projects for 3D-printed airguns?

Logically, it seems like airguns would be a much easier and more accessible path. Components like constant pressure valves, regulators, CO2 cartridges, and HPA (High-Pressure Air) tanks face far less regulation globally compared to live ammunition, primers, and barrels.

Given the current capabilities of 3D printing, shouldn't designing and building reliable CO2 or PCP platforms be easier? Is the core issue engineering-related (e.g., containing sustained high pressure in printed plastics vs. the momentary peak pressure of a 9mm cartridge)?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 6 months ago

You can modify commercial valves for use in airguns. For instance, in a QEV system, standard commercial valves can typically be used as long as you modify the rubber pilot diaphragm. However, I have heard that even commercial QEV valves and hydraulic tubing are under surveillance or regulation by the authorities there.

The hammer valve system is fundamentally simple; it has existed since the 17th century. You can easily understand the mechanics by studying a few design diagrams, and DIY fabrication is relatively straightforward. That said, hammer valves rely heavily on high-pressure systems to achieve significant power. If airgun-related components are strictly controlled in your area, sourcing high-performance equipment will be extremely difficult.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent