Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 4/22/2016 9:43:17 AM EDT
Official FOSSCAD MEGA PACK v4.8

For those of you interested in 3d printing or CNC'ing your own guns.

A small sample of some of the printable files contained inside:







Link Posted: 4/22/2016 9:53:17 AM EDT
Cool, will torrent and seed when I get home.
Link Posted: 4/22/2016 10:13:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/22/2016 10:13:49 AM EDT by OsoGrande]
Here's a couple being put together after printing:




Link Posted: 4/22/2016 10:20:23 AM EDT
Kinda liking that PS90-esque stock on the AR.
Link Posted: 4/22/2016 10:40:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/22/2016 10:50:51 AM EDT by outofstep]
Fosscad packs need to be streamlined. About 90% of the models are trash. Just because you have a CAD model of a gun part, does not mean it is even remotely appropriate for additive manufacturing.

Now, some of the pics in OP are examples of parts actually tailored for the realities of the very different material properties of a layered part vs a milled/machined part. They are also adjusted to account for the non-metallic sheer/strain/stretch material differences used in standard FDM printers.  The rest of the pack... yeah, not so much.

Foss needs to focus releases on actually optimized parts instead of cramming as much garbage as possible into a release.
Link Posted: 4/22/2016 12:40:20 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By outofstep:
Fosscad packs need to be streamlined. About 90% of the models are trash. Just because you have a CAD model of a gun part, does not mean it is even remotely appropriate for additive manufacturing.

Now, some of the pics in OP are examples of parts actually tailored for the realities of the very different material properties of a layered part vs a milled/machined part. They are also adjusted to account for the non-metallic sheer/strain/stretch material differences used in standard FDM printers.  The rest of the pack... yeah, not so much.

Foss needs to focus releases on actually optimized parts instead of cramming as much garbage as possible into a release.
View Quote


You missed the part of my post that said "or CNC'ing".....

Not all designs in the pack are meant for 3D printing, many are specifically designed for manufacture using metal.  

Just because you don't care for a particular design doesn't make it trash.  Personal preferences and all that jazz....
Link Posted: 4/22/2016 12:41:28 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By outofstep:
Just because you have a CAD model of a gun part, does not mean it is even remotely appropriate for additive manufacturing.
View Quote


Nobody ever claimed this was a 3d printable guns pack. It just happens to contain many printable parts.
Link Posted: 4/22/2016 12:59:07 PM EDT
Pretty cool.

How long do the printed lower recievers last?
Link Posted: 4/22/2016 1:01:15 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mudzilla:
Pretty cool.

How long do the printed lower recievers last?
View Quote


I know of some that have over 2500 rounds through them.  So not sure exactly yet.....
Link Posted: 4/22/2016 3:02:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/22/2016 3:06:13 PM EDT by outofstep]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OsoGrande:


You missed the part of my post that said "or CNC'ing".....

Not all designs in the pack are meant for 3D printing, many are specifically designed for manufacture using metal.  

Just because you don't care for a particular design doesn't make it trash.  Personal preferences and all that jazz....
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OsoGrande:
Originally Posted By outofstep:
Fosscad packs need to be streamlined. About 90% of the models are trash. Just because you have a CAD model of a gun part, does not mean it is even remotely appropriate for additive manufacturing.

Now, some of the pics in OP are examples of parts actually tailored for the realities of the very different material properties of a layered part vs a milled/machined part. They are also adjusted to account for the non-metallic sheer/strain/stretch material differences used in standard FDM printers.  The rest of the pack... yeah, not so much.

Foss needs to focus releases on actually optimized parts instead of cramming as much garbage as possible into a release.


You missed the part of my post that said "or CNC'ing".....

Not all designs in the pack are meant for 3D printing, many are specifically designed for manufacture using metal.  

Just because you don't care for a particular design doesn't make it trash.  Personal preferences and all that jazz....


The primary focus of the Fosscad community has been around additive, as the CNC files for many of these guns have been around and available for decades. It always has been that way.

When you have a community built around one thing, then randomly throw in abunch of unrelated file. That aren't even labeled or version controlled as for being for a completely different manufacturing process. It's piss poor configuration and file management. If this was a manufacturing environment, whatever company tried to pull that shit would instantly lose their contract after even a cursory quality and compliance review.

Having cnc and metallic parts is fine. However, they need to be in a separate release or  segregated in a different structure within the pack. Or at the very least labeled; or the additive needs labeled. Having damn near zero indication of what has been optimized for what process or material just wastes people's time and most likely their materials if they don't know any better. The current state of that community is "submit a file, we'll throw it in the pack."

I very much love the intent of the group. But jesus... no engineer should find dumping abunch of randomly named folders, with zero CM, to ever be acceptable.

Nobody ever claimed this was a 3d printable guns pack. It just happens to contain many printable parts.

The community itself is based around additive   The message groups have what, maybe 5 machinists in them? See above, it's china level quality and versioning control. Hell, probably 90% of the active people in the foss group probably don't know what has been optimized (or even basic dimensionally verified) or what hasn't in the pack.


Again. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely love the intent of the group. Execution leaves much to be desired.
Link Posted: 4/22/2016 3:27:06 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By outofstep:


The primary focus of the Fosscad community has been around additive, as the CNC files for many of these guns have been around and available for decades. It always has been that way.

When you have a community built around one thing, then randomly throw in abunch of unrelated file. That aren't even labeled or version controlled as for being for a completely different manufacturing process. It's piss poor configuration and file management. If this was a manufacturing environment, whatever company tried to pull that shit would instantly lose their contract after even a cursory quality and compliance review.

Having cnc and metallic parts is fine. However, they need to be in a separate release or  segregated in a different structure within the pack. Or at the very least labeled; or the additive needs labeled. Having damn near zero indication of what has been optimized for what process or material just wastes people's time and most likely their materials if they don't know any better. The current state of that community is "submit a file, we'll throw it in the pack."

I very much love the intent of the group. But jesus... no engineer should find dumping abunch of randomly named folders, with zero CM, to ever be acceptable.


The community itself is based around additive   The message groups have what, maybe 5 machinists in them? See above, it's china level quality and versioning control. Hell, probably 90% of the active people in the foss group probably don't know what has been optimized (or even basic dimensionally verified) or what hasn't in the pack.


Again. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely love the intent of the group. Execution leaves much to be desired.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By outofstep:
Originally Posted By OsoGrande:
Originally Posted By outofstep:
Fosscad packs need to be streamlined. About 90% of the models are trash. Just because you have a CAD model of a gun part, does not mean it is even remotely appropriate for additive manufacturing.

Now, some of the pics in OP are examples of parts actually tailored for the realities of the very different material properties of a layered part vs a milled/machined part. They are also adjusted to account for the non-metallic sheer/strain/stretch material differences used in standard FDM printers.  The rest of the pack... yeah, not so much.

Foss needs to focus releases on actually optimized parts instead of cramming as much garbage as possible into a release.


You missed the part of my post that said "or CNC'ing".....

Not all designs in the pack are meant for 3D printing, many are specifically designed for manufacture using metal.  

Just because you don't care for a particular design doesn't make it trash.  Personal preferences and all that jazz....


The primary focus of the Fosscad community has been around additive, as the CNC files for many of these guns have been around and available for decades. It always has been that way.

When you have a community built around one thing, then randomly throw in abunch of unrelated file. That aren't even labeled or version controlled as for being for a completely different manufacturing process. It's piss poor configuration and file management. If this was a manufacturing environment, whatever company tried to pull that shit would instantly lose their contract after even a cursory quality and compliance review.

Having cnc and metallic parts is fine. However, they need to be in a separate release or  segregated in a different structure within the pack. Or at the very least labeled; or the additive needs labeled. Having damn near zero indication of what has been optimized for what process or material just wastes people's time and most likely their materials if they don't know any better. The current state of that community is "submit a file, we'll throw it in the pack."

I very much love the intent of the group. But jesus... no engineer should find dumping abunch of randomly named folders, with zero CM, to ever be acceptable.

Nobody ever claimed this was a 3d printable guns pack. It just happens to contain many printable parts.

The community itself is based around additive   The message groups have what, maybe 5 machinists in them? See above, it's china level quality and versioning control. Hell, probably 90% of the active people in the foss group probably don't know what has been optimized (or even basic dimensionally verified) or what hasn't in the pack.


Again. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely love the intent of the group. Execution leaves much to be desired.


So join in, help out.  You seem to be expecting a highly coordinated product out of a group that is just a bunch of volunteers offering things to the greater community for nothing in return.  

I do agree, some better sorting would be beneficial.  However that takes the time and energy of someone to do it.  Not saying your suggestions aren't good ideas, but complaining because a group of volunteers hasn't done things to your liking is a bit of a stretch IMO........
Link Posted: 4/22/2016 3:33:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/22/2016 3:36:52 PM EDT by outofstep]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OsoGrande:
So join in, help out.  You seem to be expecting a highly coordinated product out of a group that is just a bunch of volunteers offering things to the greater community for nothing in return.  

I do agree, some better sorting would be beneficial.  However that takes the time and energy of someone to do it.  Not saying your suggestions aren't good ideas, but complaining because a group of volunteers hasn't done things to your liking is a bit of a stretch IMO........
View Quote


I joined years back. When I saw files were being accepted without even basic dimensional verification, I left.

It's not a "to my liking" type thing. That's just a "given basics" of the engineering and manufacturing world.


I am glad a new pack is out and thanks for the heads up with the thread. There is some gold in every pack. Folks need to be aware though, many (most)  of these files are not verified in any way for any process.




Link Posted: 4/22/2016 4:05:50 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sp3worker:
Kinda liking that PS90-esque stock on the AR.
View Quote

+1


Is that ban state compliant?
Link Posted: 4/22/2016 4:13:44 PM EDT
What type of plastic should I use?

What's the file name of the lower in the first pic of OP?
Link Posted: 4/22/2016 4:16:34 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JasonK94Z:
What type of plastic should I use?

What's the file name of the lower in the first pic of OP?
View Quote


ABS with 100% infill is highly recommended.

That is the:
AR-15_Bolt_Lower_Receiver_v2.0-RollTroll

You'll find it in the pack under rifles.
Link Posted: 4/22/2016 4:23:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OsoGrande:
Here's a couple being put together after printing:

https://youtu.be/ovQbsjMudKQ

https://youtu.be/ZotywyhhLqw
View Quote


PTH, use HIPS as a support material and you just melt it away with limonene. Then you can use the carbon fiber filament as the main for greater strength.
Link Posted: 4/22/2016 7:12:21 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OsoGrande:


ABS with 100% infill is highly recommended.

That is the:
AR-15_Bolt_Lower_Receiver_v2.0-RollTroll

You'll find it in the pack under rifles.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By OsoGrande:
Originally Posted By JasonK94Z:
What type of plastic should I use?

What's the file name of the lower in the first pic of OP?


ABS with 100% infill is highly recommended.

That is the:
AR-15_Bolt_Lower_Receiver_v2.0-RollTroll

You'll find it in the pack under rifles.



Thank you. I may try this out.
Link Posted: 4/22/2016 8:02:54 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JasonK94Z:


Thank you. I may try this out.
View Quote

Give it a shot and post pics!
Top Top