Brandon_T.
Regular Member
Hi all,
Some time ago I made(/modified a different design for added strength and better fit) this 3D-printed AR lower receiver cover for a friend in Europe, and for whatever reason it was only now that I thought about posting it here to see if anyone else would be interested in it as well. The current design locks into an upperless lower receiver, allowing you to not worry about the fire control group collecting lint and gunk during storage or travel. As it is currently designed the hammer needs to be cocked to install the cover, but after the cover is installed, if it is accidentally "fired" the cover will prevent the hammer from fully extending and impacting on the receiver. All in all it works as advertised (I have even stood on it as an "I'm pretty sure I'm only doing this because I drank too much" toughness/stress test), and would be cheaper than the one or two other lower receiver covers I was able to find on the Interwebosphere, so I figured I would post it here and see what ya'll think.
As it currently stands, it does not cover the inside of the buffer tube, just the FCG. If there was enough interest to justify it, I could add a buffer tube cover to the design; if only a few people are interested in this at all, however, I would just 3D-print this on demand and as-is rather than investing the time into modifying the design. With that in mind, I'm going to attempt to post a poll here to hopefully find out what you guys think: I've got the poll set for up to 2 votes per person, so if you feel strongly about one of the options then please vote twice for it, but if you are either on the fence between two, or want to vote for the "but I also want an upper receiver cover", then please vote once each for two different answers.
Here's a couple pics of what I'm talking about:
...now hopefully the poll will appear when I post this, so I don't have to keep screwing around with this when I should already have gone to bed over an hour ago... (Immediate Edit: it appears that the poll is above this post, not in it. In any case it appears to work, so...yay.)
Some time ago I made(/modified a different design for added strength and better fit) this 3D-printed AR lower receiver cover for a friend in Europe, and for whatever reason it was only now that I thought about posting it here to see if anyone else would be interested in it as well. The current design locks into an upperless lower receiver, allowing you to not worry about the fire control group collecting lint and gunk during storage or travel. As it is currently designed the hammer needs to be cocked to install the cover, but after the cover is installed, if it is accidentally "fired" the cover will prevent the hammer from fully extending and impacting on the receiver. All in all it works as advertised (I have even stood on it as an "I'm pretty sure I'm only doing this because I drank too much" toughness/stress test), and would be cheaper than the one or two other lower receiver covers I was able to find on the Interwebosphere, so I figured I would post it here and see what ya'll think.
As it currently stands, it does not cover the inside of the buffer tube, just the FCG. If there was enough interest to justify it, I could add a buffer tube cover to the design; if only a few people are interested in this at all, however, I would just 3D-print this on demand and as-is rather than investing the time into modifying the design. With that in mind, I'm going to attempt to post a poll here to hopefully find out what you guys think: I've got the poll set for up to 2 votes per person, so if you feel strongly about one of the options then please vote twice for it, but if you are either on the fence between two, or want to vote for the "but I also want an upper receiver cover", then please vote once each for two different answers.
Here's a couple pics of what I'm talking about:
...now hopefully the poll will appear when I post this, so I don't have to keep screwing around with this when I should already have gone to bed over an hour ago... (Immediate Edit: it appears that the poll is above this post, not in it. In any case it appears to work, so...yay.)