I agree to a large extent. But the product that comes out is only as good as the materials that go in. I don't think that machine, be it a very expensive complicated machine, understands the nuances of a fine rifle.
The machine doesn’t need to understand nuances , right now only the programmer need to know that . For many years , if one has the money , even a programmer hasnt been needed . All that’s needed is an original piece to scan . The scanner compiles its data in 3 demission and saves to a file . That file can be used to reproduce the part . The auto industry has been doing this for 15+ years to make moulds and stampings.
Im not talking about a 3d scanner making a plastic part . im talking hand scanners that you wave slowly along a part .
All those discussions and classes on architecture and design . Those topics concerning small details,,,, well folks the accuracy is near exact .
What im getting at is if you where to use that tool and scan an original rifle it would have the same nuances as the original .
Don’t get me wrong , I like what Jim has done and what he is offering .
What surprises me is that we have resisted this technology for so long .
I remember having discussions around the shop when folks started offering a lot of pre carved stocks. it’s the end of craftsmanship people said .
Well , there was a lot of work on those pre carves left to do if you wanted a reasonable representation .
This however

doesn’t seem to be a lot but to bolt parts together .
Again don’t get me wrong . I think Jims putting out a wonderful kit in the level of detail that’s been sorely needed for a very long time .
It just makes me wonder how all the historical aspects of creating such pieces of history will fair in this new age