>this is wrong. good start.
Proofs? because there's literally jewtube videos of people firing printed guns. They work.
>Also wrong. Even controlled environments are still going to have layers which bond better than others.
yes, that's why you use 100% infill and angle your prints to prevent layer separation due to recoil forces. You also do a bit of, yknow, actual engineering to make sure you maximize the rigidity of the space under stress, to give it a better chance of staying together. This is why you test fire.
>Mostly. Like you're mostly straight if you ignore the cock sucking and the anal prolapse.
What's your obsession with homosexuality, sodomite? You can't go a post without talking about sex, got something on your mind?
Of course you can't print anything aside from a .380 singleshot or .22 revolver from just raw plastic. No commercial firearms are made of just plastic, why demand that 3d printed guns have no metal parts? You can print every piece that is difficult to machine aside from the barrel, bolt, and springs of a straight blowback, and print fixtures allowing you to easily make those out of hardware store parts. ECM jigs for rifling, welding jigs for bolts made from stock steel, handdrill guides for FP holes, ect ect. There's even spring winding jigs in the works by a few development groups but COTS springs have been doing the job just fine and aren't regulated components (and likely wont be). Go read the fucking FCG-9 PDF or look at any number of other printed firearms, they're way fucking easier to make and reliable compared to Lutys or that drivel ProfParabellum shits out. They're the best choice for getting secret guns, you don't have to buy anything that isn't commercally available and has an innocent excuse for ownership, you don't have to rely on smuggling networks that can rat you out, and you don't have to spend a week in your basement dremeling away at stock steel tubing to get something that *might* work.