Complete AR-15 CAD files released via twitter.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Labguy47 said:
That’s for those 3D rubber compound do it yourself printing people.
Click to expand...

No as I understand it, that particular project the data set is the CAD data (in multiple formats) for the actual AR-15 despite TTAG article title. It is supposedly an accurate model of the real parts not the parts people have modified for 3D printing. It also includes all the parts.

From the article:
It is a to-spec collection of 3d CAD files that detail every single part in an AR15A3 style rifle. Down to the pin and spring. It includes several CAD formats to allow the widest possible audience to look at the model.

It also includes the original M16A1/2 Technical data package – a PDF file of all the original Colt blueprints used to make the M16’s back in the day. This was obtained via FOIA from the Army.

To date, no AR-15 assembly is anywhere near this nice. People have suggested these parts were always on Grabcad, but when you have them assemble the parts, the errors show up clear as day. Parts just made wrong.

If this is illegal we are no longer a free country.

ETA: downloaded the package and it appears to be well done (I opened the Solid Works version). The M-16A1/A3 TDP appears to be from the late 1990's.
 
Last edited:
What do you think the chances are something like this has a huge virus in it? Seems weird to dl from a masked, anonymous man. I’m not a cad person but would be interesting to look at this stuff.
 
I scanned the zip file before opening and then after being de-compressed. No viruses found. Given the nature of who generated the files, who is supporting and going to be downloading it if there was malicious software in that TDP the community involved would come down pretty hard on that. This community is as pro 1A as 2A and very much about the free sharing of technical information. If you go spiking that data with malicious software you are not doing your cause any good at all and the community is going to self police that harshly.
 
Last edited:
For bonified CAD jockey's there have been AR models available for a long time. I can't vouch for the dimensional accuracy of them, but CNC machinist have been making and modifying AR parts for quite a long time and they seem to be the types that usually have and use these.
 
Right, but this data set is a complete assembly and all the parts are fairly accurate. As one of those CAD jockeys I am impressed with the completeness and accuracy of the assembly so far. Though I have not had alot of time to delve it deeply. I suspect its probably more complete than some of the small time AR assemblers are using. Not to mention, and likely more valuable, the complete set of Colt M-16 prints is a great reference for materials, coatings/finishes and tolerances since the AR-15 is derived from that original gun.
 
Last edited:
Downloaded them, but unless I'm missing something, these are not CAD files, they look to be solid modeling files. Anyone want to convert the files, specifically the lower, into AutoCAD for me?
 
Odd Job said:
Does Autocad have an import option for Solidworks files?
Click to expand...
Depends upon the version. There's a stand-alone that works middling well. But, it will strip any intelligence built into the SW file(s).

Part of this is not whether all the parts are there, or if they are accurate. Gun parts--repeatable, interchangeable ones at least--are not merely a size but a set of material specs and dimensions with tolerances, and dimensioned for machining.

Consider the spring lug in a 1911. It's a simple thing. But, it's also a bit of bar stock that has been turned to a specific outside diameter plus or minus specific values. It;s also internally turned to a given diameter, again to a plus/minus tolerance. The knurling on the end is yet another machining step. The bar stock has to be specified as well, and whether it needs to be heat treated, and to what degree. A factory making those plugs will have three machines which only produce each of the milling steps. Those steps will have a set of machined go/no go gauging to determine whether to pass a blank off to the next machining step or not.

Above, there was a statement about being "modified for 3d printing." Now, such modifications are typically due to material requirements in the feedstock being different than the original parts specification. 3d Printing does not necessarily require parts to be changed (unless one gets to the limits of the ability to "print" a part.

So, the fitting of parts in Solid Works is more about not having dimensional conflicts that properly toleranced machining. Ditto AutoCAD, even if you are adding in physical properties (or using Inventor).
 
CapnMac said:
Part of this is not whether all the parts are there, or if they are accurate. Gun parts--repeatable, interchangeable ones at least--are not merely a size but a set of material specs and dimensions with tolerances, and dimensioned for machining.
Click to expand...

Very true - though it is now possible (at least with some packages) to include material, tolerance, finishes, etc. in the data set. Where I work we are now using the term "Model Based Definition" to indicate that there is sufficient engineering definition to build the part (which is, of course, still not the same as the process instructions to build the part).

Are these files just geometry or do they include the full data set? I'm guessing from the reference to the M-16 blueprints that they are just geometry.
 
Gridley said:
Very true - though it is now possible (at least with some packages) to include material, tolerance, finishes, etc. in the data set. Where I work we are now using the term "Model Based Definition" to indicate that there is sufficient engineering definition to build the part (which is, of course, still not the same as the process instructions to build the part).

Are these files just geometry or do they include the full data set? I'm guessing from the reference to the M-16 blueprints that they are just geometry.
Click to expand...

The AR-15 parts are just the geometry without tolerances, materials, heat-treat, finish etc. But the TDP for the M-16 includes all the tolerances, materials, heat-treat, finish and much more. There is a ton of data there. Given how similar the parts are between the two. The M-16 TDP would be more than sufficient guidance for someone to make a AR-15 bases on the 3D parts.
 
I get that there's more than .stp files for the upper and lower, and that it's the full blown TDP.

My point is "so what?"

All the lib-turds have their panties in a bunch because they're uninformed anything and everything to do with manufacturing, and they think some disgruntled 15 y.o. is going to buy a $150 3D printer on Amazon and make an untraceable AR with this info., and then go shoot up a school.

If you want to invest a LOT of $ and months of time to set up a real manufacturing operation, the TDP is of value to you. If you want an AR, anyone over 18 years old without a felony conviction can go buy one for $450.

The only reason this is any news at all is because of anit-gun politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top