Last updated May 2026 · By Nick Hall. Reviewed against Cody Wilson’s memoir Come and Take It (2016), Andy Greenberg’s reporting in Wired, ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F (the “ghost gun” rule), the Undetectable Firearms Act, and the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Garland v. VanDerStok.
Some of the links below are affiliate links, meaning at no additional cost to you, we may earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase.
3D Printed Guns: The Complete Guide
3D printed firearms are a real technology with a real legal landscape and a real but limited place in modern American gun ownership. They are not the science-fiction nightmare that mid-2010s news coverage made them out to be, and they are also not the libertarian utopia that the Defense Distributed orbit promised. The honest summary in 2026: a competent printer using current designs can produce a single-use pistol like the Liberator, a more durable hybrid like the FGC-9, or an AR-15 lower receiver that will work. Each of these designs has serious limitations, all of them are legal at the federal level for personal use by a non-prohibited person, and most of them are restricted or banned outright in roughly a dozen states.
This guide walks through the technology, the legal landscape, the major designs that have actually shaped the conversation, the federal regulatory framework around homemade firearms generally and 3D printed firearms specifically, the distinction between 3D printing and the broader “ghost gun” category (they overlap, but they are not the same), and the practical question of when 3D printing makes sense versus when buying a factory firearm makes far more sense. Sources cited throughout: Cody Wilson’s Come and Take It: The Gun Printer’s Guide to Thinking About Liberty (Gallery Books, 2016), Andy Greenberg’s extensive Wired reporting on the 3D-printed firearms movement, ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F (codified at 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 478.12), the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. § 922(p)), the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Garland v. VanDerStok, and current state law in California, New York, Washington, and other states with relevant restrictions.
The legal framework changes faster than any other firearms topic. Statutes are being introduced and amended at state legislatures every session, and federal regulations have been litigated repeatedly since 2013. Treat this article as a starting point, not as legal advice. Consult an attorney licensed in your specific state before printing or building anything that depends on the legal frame being what it was when this article was written.
3D Printing Technologies for Firearms at a Glance
Not all 3D printing is equal, and most consumer-grade 3D printers cannot produce a usable firearm. The table below covers the major additive-manufacturing technologies, what they can and cannot do for firearm components, and the rough cost range of the equipment. The economic story matters: a $300 home printer in 2026 can produce a working Liberator-pattern pistol with the right materials; a $50,000 industrial SLS machine can produce parts that compete with factory-machined components on dimensional accuracy. The middle of the table is where the interesting designs live.
| Technology | Material | Cost (machine) | Firearm capability | Best example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FDM (filament) | PLA, PLA+, PETG, nylon, polymer composites | $200-$3,000 | Polymer frames, lowers, single-use pistols | Liberator, FGC-9 frame, AR-15 lowers |
| SLA / DLP (resin) | Photopolymer resin | $300-$5,000 | Cosmetic and ergonomic parts; not load-bearing | Grip stippling, magazine baseplates, foregrip texture |
| SLS (selective laser sintering) | Nylon powder | $15,000-$50,000+ | Strong polymer frames and complex geometries | Industrial-grade lowers, prototype housings |
| DMLS / SLM (metal printing) | Stainless, titanium, Inconel | $100,000-$1M+ | Barrels, slides, full metal frames (theoretical) | Solid Concepts 1911 (2013, demonstration only) |
| Hybrid (3D + traditional) | Printed frame + commercial steel parts | Printer cost + parts kit | Durable, repeatable, the actual viable path | FGC-9 (printed lower + commercial barrel/bolt) |
A Brief History of 3D Printed Firearms
The modern history of 3D printed firearms begins on May 3, 2013, in Austin, Texas, when Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed test-fired the Liberator — the first fully 3D printed pistol — on camera and released the CAD files on the internet. The Liberator was a single-shot .380 ACP pistol with a printed barrel, frame, hammer, and trigger components. It was almost entirely impractical: weak, single-use in practice, and inaccurate past about 10 feet. As an engineering object it was a curiosity. As a political object it was an earthquake.
Within two days the U.S. State Department ordered Defense Distributed to remove the Liberator files from the internet, citing the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The files had already been downloaded approximately 100,000 times. They were mirrored to torrent sites within hours of the State Department demand and have been continuously available ever since. The legal fight that followed — Defense Distributed v. U.S. Department of State, eventually resolved in a 2018 settlement — established the principle that gun-design CAD files are constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment in the federal courts that addressed the question, though state-court litigation continued. Cody Wilson’s memoir Come and Take It (2016) is the participant account of this period.
The technology moved faster than the legal arguments. By 2014, 3D printed AR-15 lower receivers were demonstrated reliably; by 2018, Solid Concepts had produced a fully 3D printed metal 1911 as a demonstration (it fired hundreds of rounds, but the manufacturing cost was orders of magnitude higher than buying a Colt). The decisive practical advance came in 2020 with the FGC-9 (“F—ck Gun Control”), designed by a German engineer using the pseudonym JStark1809. The FGC-9 was a 9mm semi-automatic pistol-caliber carbine that combined a 3D printed lower receiver with commercially-available steel parts (barrel, bolt carrier, magazine well metal components). It worked. It was reliable. It was repeatable. And the design files spread across the internet within days of release. JStark1809 died in 2021 under disputed circumstances (German police custody, ruled a heart attack, contested by associates). The FGC-9 remains the most widely-built 3D printed firearm in the world.
The Most Notable 3D Printed Firearms
Four designs have shaped the practical landscape. The Liberator (2013) is the historical landmark: single-shot, .380, all-printed except the firing pin. It worked once or twice reliably and then degraded. As a working firearm it was barely viable. As a proof of concept that the technology existed at all, it was definitive.
The FGC-9 (2020, Deterrence Dispensed) is the design that turned 3D printed firearms from curiosity to practical reality. Pistol-caliber carbine in 9mm, semi-automatic, FDM-printable on a $300 consumer printer, completed with electrochemical-machined (ECM) barrel rifling that requires no specialized machine tools beyond the printer itself and electrical equipment available at any hardware store. The design files include detailed assembly instructions. Build cost runs roughly $400 in parts and printer time. The FGC-9 has been built in numbers estimated in the tens of thousands globally and has been documented in active use in conflict zones from Myanmar to West Africa, primarily by resistance groups who could not legally acquire firearms through commercial channels.
The 3D printed AR-15 lower receiver is the most common American application. The lower is the legally-controlled component (the serialized “firearm” under federal law), so printing it allows the rest of the rifle — barrel, bolt carrier group, trigger, magazine — to be assembled from commercially-purchased parts that are not individually regulated. Reliable 3D printed lowers have been demonstrated by hobbyists since 2014 and by professional engineers in published academic work since 2017. The legal status of the practice is covered later in this guide; the relevant fact here is that the technology works. For the broader civilian AR-15 landscape that surrounds these builds, see best AR-15 rifles and cheap AR-15 rifles.
The fourth category is hybrid Glock-pattern pistols using 3D printed frames with commercial OEM Glock slides, barrels, and internal parts. These are practical and reliable. They are also the design most directly targeted by the 2022 ATF Final Rule discussed below. The civilian market for custom-built Glocks — including those starting from 80% frames rather than 3D printed ones — is documented in best custom Glocks and the build pipeline in how to build a custom Glock 19 from an 80% frame.
How 3D Printed Guns Actually Work
The mechanical principle of every functional 3D printed firearm is the same: the parts that contain firing pressure (barrel, chamber, breech face) need to be metal, and the parts that do not (frame, grip, trigger guard, magazine well) can be printed polymer. The Liberator violated this principle and is consequently a single-use weapon. The FGC-9 and every serious modern design respect it.
The polymer of choice for load-bearing printed parts is nylon (PA12, PA11, or glass-filled nylon variants), which provides tensile strength of roughly 6,500-9,000 psi after proper printing and annealing. PLA, the cheapest and easiest filament, is too brittle for load-bearing firearm applications and will fracture under repeated firing stress. PETG is intermediate but inferior to nylon. The serious 3D printed firearms community has converged on nylon for any part that experiences cycling forces, and on FDM printing as the practical home technology.
Print orientation matters enormously. A printed part’s strength is roughly 50-80 percent of the underlying material strength when stress is parallel to the print layers, and only 20-40 percent when stress is perpendicular. The published FGC-9 build instructions include specific orientation requirements for each printed part because of this anisotropy. A builder who ignores the orientation specs will produce a frame that fails on the first hundred rounds. A builder who follows them carefully will produce a frame that runs for thousands. The same principle applies to AR-15 lowers and Glock-pattern frames.
The chemical post-processing matters too. Annealing — controlled heating in an oven at 80-120°C for several hours — significantly improves the layer adhesion in nylon parts. Acetone vapor smoothing improves the strength of ABS parts but ABS is rarely used for firearm applications today. The serious builds combine the right polymer, the right print orientation, the right annealing protocol, and the right combination of printed and commercial steel parts. Get one of those wrong and the gun fails. Get all of them right and the gun runs.
3D Printed Guns vs Factory Firearms: An Honest Comparison
The case for 3D printed firearms over factory firearms is much weaker than the rhetoric suggests, for a civilian American shooter who is legally able to buy from a dealer. The cost is comparable or worse: a $400 FGC-9 build plus a $300-1,000 printer plus hours of build time equals roughly the cost of a used Glock that will outperform it on every metric. The reliability is worse: commercial pistols undergo thousands of rounds of factory testing per design; printed designs depend on the individual builder’s skill. The durability is worse: factory polymer frames are injection-molded in industrial-grade materials with quality control; printed frames are layered FDM parts vulnerable to operator error.
The case for 3D printed firearms is strongest in one specific scenario: where the builder cannot legally acquire a factory firearm. This describes a small subset of American shooters (those in jurisdictions with extreme restrictions, those facing political crackdowns) and a much larger subset of shooters globally. The FGC-9’s documented use in Myanmar, in West African insurgencies, and reportedly in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory all fall in this category. For the legally-purchasing American civilian, the practical case is mostly nostalgia, ideology, or curiosity, not function.
The capability gap matters most on barrels. A factory 4140 chrome-moly barrel, properly heat-treated and rifled, can fire tens of thousands of rounds without significant degradation. The electrochemically-machined barrel in an FGC-9 will last several thousand rounds but with accuracy degrading earlier. The all-printed Liberator barrel is single-use in practice. Whatever 3D printing can theoretically achieve in metal (DMLS-printed barrels exist), the practical capability gap between printed and forged steel barrels is large and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. For shooters interested in the alternative of commercial budget firearms that compete with build-cost economics, see cheap AR-15 rifles, best concealed carry handguns, and what is a good handgun for a beginner.
Are 3D Printed Guns Legal?
The federal legal framework for 3D printed firearms in 2026 rests on three statutes and one major regulatory action. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. §§ 921-931) governs commercial firearms manufacture and sale; it explicitly permits manufacture of a firearm for personal use by a non-prohibited person, without licensing or serialization, provided the firearm is not subsequently sold or transferred. This is the foundational permission under which 3D printed firearms for personal use are federally lawful. The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. § 922(p)) prohibits the manufacture or possession of any firearm that does not contain at least 3.7 ounces of detectable metal in a fixed location — this is why even all-polymer 3D printed designs include a steel insert in the receiver.
The major regulatory action is ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F, published in April 2022 and effective August 2022. The rule redefined the term “firearm” under federal law to include partially-manufactured frames and receivers that are “readily convertible” to functional condition. This was specifically targeted at the 80% receiver market and at sales of complete “build kits” that included a partially-printed frame with all necessary commercial parts. Under the rule, sale of such kits requires Federal Firearms Licensure, background checks, and serialization. The rule survived initial litigation but was challenged at the Supreme Court in Garland v. VanDerStok; the 2024 decision upheld the ATF’s authority to regulate the kits.
State law varies dramatically. California, New York, New Jersey, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois (since 2024), Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia require homemade firearms to be serialized through state registration regimes. Eleven additional states have introduced similar legislation as of 2026. The remainder of the country follows the federal framework without additional state-level restrictions on personal manufacture. The cluster on state-by-state firearms law sits in US gun laws by state; specific state coverage includes California gun laws, Arizona gun laws, Alabama gun laws, and Alaska gun laws. The general federal-law backdrop is in the National Firearms Act.
Ghost Guns: What They Actually Are
The term “ghost gun” gets used loosely in media coverage to mean any unserialized firearm, but its specific meaning is narrower. A ghost gun is a firearm that has been assembled from parts in a way that the finished product has no commercial serial number. Such guns can be produced through 3D printing, through 80% receiver finishing, or through complete-build kits that the assembler completes at home. The legal status of a finished ghost gun depends on whether the person who built it was legally entitled to do so under federal and state law — not on whether it carries a serial number. A non-prohibited person who builds a firearm in a state that does not require serialization has a perfectly legal ghost gun.
The ATF tracked approximately 19,000 ghost guns recovered from crime scenes in 2021, up from approximately 1,750 in 2016. This rapid increase — not 3D printing per se — was the motivating evidence behind the 2022 Final Rule. Most ghost guns recovered from crimes are 80% receiver builds, not 3D printed firearms. The 80% receiver pathway is the larger and more practical one for the criminal use case the regulators were targeting; 3D printing remains a hobbyist and ideological pursuit more than a criminal manufacturing pathway.
The distinction matters because the policy and political conversations conflate the two. Coverage of “3D printed ghost guns” routinely describes incidents that involved 80% receivers or build kits with no 3D printing involved at all. This is not a small definitional error; it shapes the policy response in ways that may be ineffective at addressing the underlying concern. The deeper coverage of the 80% receiver landscape lives in gun control insurance: buy 80 kits now.
The Ghost Gunner and 80% Lowers
Defense Distributed’s commercial pivot after the Liberator was a small CNC milling machine called the Ghost Gunner, introduced in 2014 and now in its third generation. The machine is designed to finish 80% receivers for AR-15, AR-10, 1911, P320, and Glock-pattern firearms — converting a commercially-purchased partial receiver into a functioning serialized-by-the-builder firearm. The Ghost Gunner is not a 3D printer. It is a subtractive-manufacturing tool, a small CNC mill specifically tooled for the geometries of common American firearms.
The 80% receiver market has been the larger practical pathway for at-home firearm manufacturing in the United States. Polymer80 (PF940 series, modeled on Glock-pattern frames), Glock-pattern 80% lowers, AR-15 lowers from various manufacturers, and 1911 frames have all been sold in volume since 2015. The ATF Final Rule of 2022 changed the commercial landscape by reclassifying complete build kits as “firearms” subject to FFL transfer rules. Sales of individual 80% receivers without a complete parts kit are still legal under the federal rule, though several states have additional restrictions.
The practical question for a builder in 2026 is whether to print, mill, or buy. Printing produces a polymer frame at lowest cost with the most learning curve. Milling on a Ghost Gunner produces a more durable metal or polymer frame with less variability. Buying a commercial pistol produces the most reliable result with the least labor. The honest answer for most American shooters is the third option, with the first two being interesting hobbies rather than practical paths to a defensive firearm. The Glock build pipeline is documented in how to build a custom Glock 19 from an 80% frame; the AR build pipeline in how to build an AR-15.
3D Printed Gun Accessories (Legal and Easy)
The legally cleanest entry point into 3D printing for firearms enthusiasts is accessories. Magazine baseplate floor plates, grip panels, weapon-light hood adapters, sling swivel mounts, scope ring shims, holster shells, dummy fixtures for dry-fire practice, range gear, target stands, and AR-15 charging handle latches are all unregulated parts that can be printed at home with no federal or state legal exposure for any non-prohibited person.
The accessory ecosystem around 3D printing is large and active. Thingiverse, Printables, Cults3D, and the dedicated firearms-accessories sections of the print-design platforms host hundreds of usable designs, most of them free. The print quality required is low (PLA is fine for grip panels and baseplates), the printer cost can be under $200, and the legal exposure is zero. For most American shooters interested in the technology, accessories are the right place to start. The deeper coverage of related accessory categories sits in best AR-15 parts and accessories and buy cheap AR-15 parts online.
The Political Argument: Why 3D Printed Guns Matter
The political significance of 3D printed firearms exceeds their practical use by a wide margin. Cody Wilson’s central argument in Come and Take It is that the technology renders certain forms of gun control logistically unenforceable. If the design files are protected First Amendment speech, and if those files can be distributed instantly to anyone with a $300 printer and an internet connection, then any prohibition on civilian firearm ownership becomes a prohibition on a design pattern rather than a prohibition on a physical object. This is a real argument with real implications, and it survives the practical observation that most 3D printed guns are mediocre — the political argument operates at the level of capability, not quality.
The counter-argument from gun-control advocates is that the same logic could be used to justify any technology, that the political case proves too much, and that even imperfect regulation slows the diffusion of dangerous capability. Both arguments have legitimate force. The current legal compromise — federal law permits personal manufacture, the ATF regulates commercial-pathway kits, states layer additional rules — reflects an unstable equilibrium that neither side considers final. Litigation under VanDerStok, ongoing state-level legislation, and pending federal-court challenges will continue to shape the landscape for years.
The deeper structural argument that 3D printing reveals is the relationship between speech and capability. The Defense Distributed litigation forced American courts to address the question of whether CAD files for firearms are constitutionally-protected expression. The federal court rulings to date have largely said yes. This places gun-design files in the same legal category as instructions for manufacturing prohibited items in general — a category American courts have historically protected. The implication is that 3D printing, as a technology, has shifted the constitutional balance between speech regulation and gun regulation in ways that the architects of the 20th-century federal firearms framework did not anticipate. Whether this is a feature of the system or a bug depends on the reader’s political starting point.
Why Most People Should Just Buy a Real Gun
For the typical American civilian who is legally able to purchase from a Federal Firearms Licensee, buying a factory firearm is the right answer in roughly 95 percent of cases. The cost is comparable to a serious 3D printed build. The reliability is dramatically better. The accessory ecosystem (holsters, sights, magazines, suppressor adapters, optics mounts) is several orders of magnitude larger. The warranty and customer support exist. The legal status is straightforward. The training opportunities and instructor availability assume factory-pattern firearms.
Cody Wilson, in interviews and in Come and Take It, has been explicit that the political project of Defense Distributed was never primarily about producing guns. It was about demonstrating that the production of guns could not be effectively regulated. The political point stands regardless of whether any individual reader chooses to print a firearm. For practical defensive use, the factory-purchased Glock 19, SIG P365, or M&P Shield Plus will outperform any home-printed alternative by every measurable metric. The cluster of practical buyer’s guides for that path lives in best concealed carry handguns, best guns for home defense, and how to buy a gun online.
The Bottom Line
3D printed firearms are a real technology with real political implications and limited practical utility for most American shooters. The Liberator was a curiosity, the FGC-9 is a functional design that works in defined circumstances, the 3D printed AR-15 lower is a legitimate hobbyist pursuit, and the legal framework permits all of it at the federal level for personal use by non-prohibited persons. State law varies enormously, and the regulatory landscape is in flux.
The honest practical conclusion for the typical American civilian shooter is that 3D printing is an interesting capability with a place in the firearms ecosystem — for accessories, for hobby builds, for the principled libertarian who wants to demonstrate that the capability exists — but it is not a substitute for buying a factory firearm if the goal is reliable defensive capability. The political significance of the technology will outrun its practical use for the foreseeable future, and the constitutional and regulatory fights it has triggered will continue to define American gun law for the next decade.
Related Guides
- What Is the National Firearms Act — the regulatory framework underneath all federal firearms law.
- US Gun Laws by State — the state-by-state matrix referenced above.
- How to Build a Custom Glock 19 From an 80% Frame — the milling-pathway companion.
- How to Build an AR-15 — the AR-pattern build pipeline.
- Best Concealed Carry Handguns — the factory-purchase alternative.
- Best AR-15 Rifles — commercial AR-15 market.
- Gun Control Insurance: Buy 80% Kits Now — the 80%-receiver economics post-VanDerStok.
- Best Custom Glocks — the custom-build aesthetic and capability ceiling.
Sources and Further Reading
- Cody Wilson, Come and Take It: The Gun Printer’s Guide to Thinking About Liberty (Gallery Books, 2016).
- Andy Greenberg, Wired magazine reporting on Defense Distributed and the FGC-9 (2013-2022 series).
- U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Final Rule 2021R-05F (87 Fed. Reg. 24652, April 26, 2022).
- Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 921-931.
- Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, 18 U.S.C. § 922(p).
- Defense Distributed v. U.S. Department of State, 838 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2016).
- Garland v. VanDerStok, U.S. Supreme Court (2024).
- Deterrence Dispensed and the FGC-9 design documentation (publicly distributed).
- ATF Annual Firearms Tracing Data (2016-2023) on recovered ghost-gun trends.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are 3D printed guns legal?
Under federal law, it is legal to manufacture a firearm for personal use, including 3D printed firearms, as long as you are not a prohibited person and the gun complies with the Undetectable Firearms Act. However, state laws vary significantly. States like California and New York require serial numbers on homemade firearms, while most states follow federal law. Always check your specific state laws before printing any firearm components.
Can you really 3D print a working gun?
Yes. Modern 3D printed firearms like the FGC-9 are functional semi-automatic weapons capable of firing thousands of rounds. Earlier designs like the 2013 Liberator were crude single-shot pistols, but the technology has advanced significantly. 3D printed Glock frames and AR-15 lower receivers are common in the DIY community. However, 3D printed guns still require metal parts for barrels, firing pins, and springs.
What is a ghost gun?
A ghost gun is simply a firearm without a serial number. This includes any homemade firearm, whether 3D printed, CNC milled from an 80 percent lower, or hand-machined. Manufacturing a firearm for personal use without a serial number has been legal under federal law since the Gun Control Act of 1968. Some states now require serialization of homemade firearms.
How much does it cost to 3D print a gun?
A basic FDM 3D printer costs 200 to 500 dollars. Filament for a single frame or receiver costs 5 to 20 dollars. However, you also need metal parts like a barrel, slide or bolt carrier group, springs, and firing pins, which can cost 150 to 400 dollars depending on the platform. Total cost for a complete 3D printed pistol is roughly 300 to 600 dollars, comparable to buying a budget factory firearm.
What materials are used for 3D printed guns?
The most common materials are PLA+ and ABS for basic components, and nylon for structural firearm parts. Nylon is the gold standard for 3D printed firearms due to its impact resistance, flexibility, and heat tolerance. Carbon fiber reinforced nylon is the strongest option. The original Liberator used ABS plastic, which was prone to cracking. Modern designs using nylon are significantly more durable.
Are 3D printed guns as good as factory guns?
No. Factory firearms are superior in reliability, durability, accuracy, and longevity. A factory Glock or AR-15 will last tens of thousands of rounds, while 3D printed components typically last hundreds to low thousands of rounds before needing replacement. For any practical purpose like self-defense, hunting, or concealed carry, a factory firearm is the better choice. 3D printed guns are primarily a hobby and a political statement about the futility of firearms bans.
What was the 2022 ATF Final Rule about ghost guns?
ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F, published in April 2022 and effective August 2022, redefined the term "firearm" under federal law to include partially-manufactured frames and receivers that are "readily convertible" to functional condition. The rule was specifically targeted at the commercial sale of complete "build kits" that included a partially-finished frame plus all necessary commercial parts. Under the rule, sale of such kits requires Federal Firearms Licensure, background checks, and serialization. The rule was challenged at the Supreme Court in Garland v. VanDerStok; the 2024 decision upheld the ATF's authority. Individual 80% receivers sold without complete parts kits remain legal under federal law in most states.
What was the FGC-9 and why was it important?
The FGC-9 ("F—ck Gun Control") was a 3D printed 9mm pistol-caliber carbine released in 2020 by a German engineer using the pseudonym JStark1809. Unlike the 2013 Liberator (which was barely functional and single-use), the FGC-9 was a fully working semi-automatic that could be built on a $300 consumer FDM printer combined with commercial steel parts and ECM (electrochemical-machined) barrel rifling that required only hardware-store equipment. The FGC-9 demonstrated that 3D printing had crossed the threshold from curiosity to practical capability for at-home firearm manufacture. The design has been built in numbers estimated in the tens of thousands globally, including documented use in conflict zones from Myanmar to West Africa.
Are 3D printed guns legal in California?
California requires homemade firearms — including 3D printed ones — to be serialized through a state registration regime. The serialization must be completed before the firearm is built, not after. Unserialized homemade firearms are illegal to possess or manufacture in California, with criminal penalties. New York, New Jersey, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois (since 2024), Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia have similar requirements. The remainder of the states follow the federal framework, under which a non-prohibited person may legally print a firearm for personal use without serialization. Always verify current state law before printing.
14,168+ Gun & Ammo Deals
Updated daily from 10+ top retailers. Filter by category, caliber, action type, and price.