Thanks Mike!I think I would look at repairing the broken stock if all the parts are there since it has sentimental value and will probably be passed down to future family members.
If part of it is missing and there is at least one good side then a digitizing probe could help create a model of one side then that could be mirrored to the other side to create the full model needed. the only problem I see is, as I said before, would be with the diameter of the probe tip. Any large curves force the probe away from the model, but with editing to the file this error can be lessened to produce an acceptable model.
One other thing to consider is to software used to run the probe with. If it is based on a flat(like most software are)surface then you with have those small errors. If it is based on using a rotary axis while probing them you should be able to get a very good solid 360 degree 3D model.
Just saw your second post.
If you have probing software base on a rotary axis then you could use it to scan a part like a finial or gun stock and reproduce it but remember this is a very time-consuming process. The question exists, "Is it worth the time to use the probe and edit the file for just one single piece?". If it is an item that will be made over and over then I would say, do it, it is worth the time involved. It would be worth digitizing a file for a shotgun stock if I wanted to reproduce that stock as a custom aftermarket replacement that would be relief carved with a choice of bird hunting scenes in a dish or special checkering. With that in mind, remember, you have to have a market for that type of item before spending all the time to get to that point.
I did have a part scanned once for production of a mold for duplicating the thing in EPDM rubber. Cost was $500 as I recall, and the part was relatively simple so there was probably a minimum of editing required. Probably a bit much for your situation, but still feasible for mine given Mike's comments (which were very helpful!).Another thought is that I have a friend who does independent work for companies where he sets up scanner(s) in industrial buildings and plants and maps the whole facility in a digital manner down to pipe sizes, etc. I know that has to be MEGA bucks for something like that, but if I could persuade him to help me, is that the same type of technology? I'm assuming it is close but WAY overkill.
Not a lot of surface detail, the curves are smooth. This is a part which I originally hand shaped, then moved to roughing out with an angle grinder, followed by a Terrco 4 spindle copy carving machine. Weird may be the wrong way to describe the curves, but since they are basically eyeballed I'm assuming they would be a bit difficult to model. One version of this I make with a stippled texture, applied with a variety of tools I've made or modified to make a random roughened texture in the wood. That is something I wasn't thinking of when I asked the question, but now that you mention it I could apply the texture as an overlay to the model if it was worth the added setup step.The model being full of weird curves might be a problem but, as long as there are no undercuts, there should not be a problem. The thing to remember is the more detailed the model the longer it will take to get a good scan of the model. Also, the files will be quite large and will probably need to be edited so it might take quite a while before you can get a usable file to carve. One other problem is the size of the detail in the item. If there is a lot of very fine detail, most probes will not be able to reproduce that part of the item because of the size of the probe tip and the small stepovers required to follow the details. You might be able to overlay some detail on the model after it is created to resolve that problem but that is just one more thing to consider.
The good thing is that once you have probed the item and edited the files you should be able to mass-produce the item without having to be right there with the duplicator moving the tracing point.
One other thing to think about would be taking the item to a business that has a digital 3D scanner that can produce a model for you. I know this is expensive but the question is, "Can the price be justified for time saved and the quality of the model they would be able to produce for you?".
I once had a fore end stock I made sitting on the bench at work (in the machine shop of a telescope I worked for) - a kid comes in, grad student who was there for an instrument install and fancied himself a machinist. He looks at the fore end and is just amazed, asking what kind of CNC I made it on. He would hardly credit that I had made it by hand. To me, CNC is like word processing or CAD plans - it saves you time making edits and not having to manually type or draw the whole thing over again. I expect the big time commitment of the modeling step is about the same or even perhaps longer than if I just made a single part by hand - the difference being that I only do that modeling work the one time and then benefit from the method by running off copies.If you use a CNC machine to do 3D digitizing then you will end up with a point cloud file that you will need to convert to a vector file for CNC machining. You can do a point cloud file to .obj conversion then take it to a .svg file but at some point you will need to edit the file. Digitizing files are just not that accurate, so plan on lots of tinkering. I would suggest starting from scratch and modeling the stock in Fusion 360 using sweeps and profiles to get your exact curves. Then you will have that file forever. With a little editing you could even product a stock that fits better than the original. The way that break shows up in the picture is seems someone used the shotgun for a baseball bat, so check for splitting or cracks with a magnifier of some sort.
Assuming it's a small grip, 2 hours seems like a long time.and then have to accept an aggregate per part time of probably 2 hours per part vs the current 45 minutes. The arithmetic just doesn't work out.