First Commercially Produced 3D Printed Gun Part

Sintercore LLC have developed a range of muzzle brakes that I believe are the first commercially produced gun parts to be manufactured using a 3D printer. The printing technology they are using is Direct Metal Laser Sintering. DMLS makes objects by using a high powered laser to melt metallic powder, building up the object one layer at a time. The end result is supposed to be very durable. The advantage of this system is that intricate parts can easily be made.

The company’s press release is below…

Sintercore LLC released the first 3D printed metal firearms part for pre-order today. Neal Brace, founder of Sintercore and a former active duty U.S. Marine Corps infantryman, designed the device to help firearm operators more effectively control their rifles and pistols under rapid fire. The device, named AuxetikTM, represents a significant advance in firearm industry manufacturing. The word AuxetikTM is derived from the Greek word “auxetikos,” which means “that which tends to increase.”

Mr. Brace’s invention consists of a fully-dense Inconel muzzle brake created using direct metal laser sintering technology.

Sintercore’s HYLT (hybrid linear / transverse) brake technology reduces recoil, eliminates muzzle rise, and minimizes concussion. This technology is based on 3D printed linear gas vents, a Sintercore innovation, which allows an amount of gas to flow forward from one expansion chamber into the next expansion chamber through channels that could not be easily made in traditionally manufactured cast, machined, or EMD’d part.

Sintercore products are sold directly from the manufacturer’s website, at http://www.sintercore.com The AuxetikTM muzzle brake retails at $399.98 and is available at a pre-order price of $299.98.



Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • Chase Buchanan

    They made it out of Inconel, but they beat by one fifth the price of KAC’s Triple Tap. Hurrah for 3D printing!

    • JumpIf NotZero

      Well… Not quite. The alloy is fine and all… But sintered parts are NOT as strong as billet parts. They can not be.

      What you do get is the ability to prototype quickly and develop unique features… Neither of those things mean much for production parts.

  • Giolli Joker

    Pretty interesting…

    Although, having a basic knowledge of investment casting of Inconel alloys, I believe that the same result could be obtained with investment casting, I’m quite sure that 3D printing is much less expensive.

    It’s the first time I see a metal 3D printed product and I’m quite curious about the manufacturing process details and the final mechanical properties.

    The process might be something that falls in between 3D printing and laser welding…

    Even the choice of Inconel (although really good for hi-temp applications) leaves me with some doubts…
    Any idea on the full name of the alloy used?

    • Stanislao

      Depends on how many you make. The “3d printers” that can sinter metal are god-awful expensive and require an inert atmosphere. Well over a million dollars for the machine, plus the cost of flushing it with argon every time you open it.

      As for using Inconel, the marketing team may have had some say in that.

      • bbmg

        Also, 3D printing takes time, lots of time. Good for prototyping, but currently not a good idea for mass production.

      • Giolli Joker

        Well, Inconel is a family of alloys, there might be a few particular ones well suited for this application (617, 625? they make welding filler rods with those)… if you want just to market the material, you invent a new name for a common one or you say that it’s a Special Aerospace Alloy. 🙂

        (BTW, if anybody wants to know the material, I’d gladly receive a muzzle brake to test it with the spectrometer of my Company 😛 )

        Regarding manufacturing cost, Investment Casting is REALLY expensive… much more than wasting some Argon.
        As bbmg added while I was typing, the main feature that influences cost and production numbers here is definitely time.

        • Stanislao

          Looking at the picture, they could have made it out of stainless steel using a subtractive process. But that would be… normal.

          Additive manufacturing is being used for production components. The fuel injectors on the General Electric GEnx engines used in the 787 come to mind. For some things, mainly complex and odd shapes. I have seen complex self-intersecting demonstrators made using selective laser sintering. Features that simply cannot be made through casting, subtractive manufacturing or plastic deformation. It took over 72 hours to print.

          The muzzle device is nothing but a collection of basic shapes. There is no need to make this using additive manufacturing, even a prototype could be made using a CNC mill in less time. Or a hand mill and lathe, for that matter.

  • Guest

    Looking at the picture, they could have made it out of stainless using a subtractive process. But that would be… normal.

  • Guest

    Looking at the picture, they could have made it out of stainless using a subtractive process. But that would be… normal.

    Additive manufacturing is being used for production components. The fuel injectors on the General Electric GEnx engines used in the 787 come to mind. For some things, mainly complex and odd shapes. I have seen complex self-intersecting demonstrators made using selective laser sintering. Features that simply cannot be made through casting, subtractive manufacturing or plastic deformation. It took over 72 hours to print.

    The muzzle device is nothing but a collection of basic shapes. There is no need to make this using additive manufacturing, even a prototype could be made using a CNC mill in less time. Or a hand mill and lathe, for that matter.

  • Ian

    I know sintering is supposed to be as strong as any other process, but the last part I think I’d try it out with is a muzzle brake. This of course is ignoring the fact that it would have been insanely cheaper to machine in the first place.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      It is not as strong as any other process. On the metallurgical level, sintered is always going to be weaker than billet which is weaker than forged.

      • Stanislao

        Yes, but the difference may not be significant.

  • RocketScientist

    For those saying this could have been made using standard casting or subtractive machining techniques, I would encourage you to look at their website. While it is not 100% clear, based on some of the pictures there (not shown in the blog post) and the description of features, it seems there may be features (internal passages and expansion chambers) that are not externally obvious but which would be impossible to create by subtractive machining or maybe even investment casting. Without actually seeing a 3D model or cross-section of the brake it’d be hard to tell, and this may just be a gimmick as you are suggesting, but I’m skeptical that a company would invest the huge amounts of money to make a part by SLS that could be made my a standard CNC mill/lathe setup. I doubt any marketing gimmickry from the novel manufacturing technique would make up for the huge increase in operational costs.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      Seems like it would still be cheaper to 3D print wax, then do a lost wax casting. But perhaps the features are too small to do that with.

      I would think they would be quick to post up a cross section for marketing purposes!

      • Samuel Suggs

        I think its run bye people who are far more on top of the technical issues than the marketing. this is unfortunate as a good 90% of the firarms community wont rust this in any way

  • Cornelius Carroll

    I’ve been thinking for a while that you could produce some interesting suppressor baffles with a 3D printer

  • Leigh Rich

    $333.00 To much money for a muzzle break IMHO

    • gunslinger

      330 for a 3d printed break? i though this 3d stuff was to make things cheaper…

  • Bill

    Although it is a novel manufacturing technique using a very durable but expensive alloy it still is not any better or worse than a A2 birdcage. Which can be had for about 12 bucks. Someone has to say it….Its rough and pitted and ugly.

  • Asdf

    Man… all those little holes….That would be a royal PitA to clean.

    • gunslinger

      just soak it in hoppes9?

  • Zius Patagus

    “The AuxetikTM muzzle brake retails at $399.98 and is available at a pre-order price of $299.98.” yeah, good luck with that…LOL

    • Suburban

      I balked at $150 for a BattleComp.

  • Bull

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpLrRcBhuaY this was the first i heard of. and it was a few months ago 🙂

  • dirtyoldmick

    man that is ugly as hell

  • Wetmelon

    ? I made some commercially available muzzle breaks months ago. They’re available here:

    https://www.shapeways.com/shops/wetmelon

  • Selectorsam

    For $400 what else does it do?? That might be money better used for optics or …. or….. or… O shit TRAINING what an awesome concept.