Startup unveils benchtop metal 3D printer that brings industrial tech below $10,000

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,004   +58
Staff
The takeaway: A compact metal printer debuting at a hobbyist festival in Colorado is testing whether one of manufacturing's most capital-intensive processes can be compressed into something closer to a benchtop tool. Scrap Labs, a Colorado-based startup, introduced its Scrap 1 system at the Rocky Mountain RepRap Festival in Loveland on April 18-19, positioning the machine as a lower-cost entry point into laser powder bed fusion.

The process – long dominated by industrial platforms – builds parts by spreading thin layers of metal powder and selectively melting them with a laser, repeating the cycle until a finished geometry emerges. The result can be dense, functional components with internal channels and lattice structures that are difficult or impossible to produce through conventional machining.

These capabilities have driven adoption across aerospace, automotive, and tooling, but cost and infrastructure demands have kept the technology largely out of reach for smaller operators.

Scrap Labs is targeting that gap. The company's first system brings laser powder bed fusion into a compact format intended for workbench deployment rather than a dedicated industrial cell. Traditional machines from established manufacturers can exceed $200,000 and typically require specialized electrical service, controlled environments, and extensive safety systems for handling fine metal powders. Even lower-cost offerings aimed at smaller buyers still run in the tens of thousands of dollars and assume a lab-like setup.

The Scrap 1 is designed to reduce those barriers without abandoning the underlying process. It integrates liquid and air cooling and uses HEPA filtration to manage particulates. The platform supports a range of metals, including stainless steel, tool steel, copper, nickel alloys, and cobalt chrome, targeting both prototyping and limited production use.

Connectivity options include Ethernet, Wi-Fi, and USB, along with a web-based control interface. The firmware is built on Klipper, and the system is compatible with established slicing tools such as PrusaSlicer and OrcaSlicer, as well as Scrap Labs' own ScrapSlicer workflow.

The focus on open tooling and familiar software is intended to avoid the closed ecosystems common in industrial additive systems. Rather than locking users into proprietary pipelines, Scrap Labs is aligning the machine with workflows already used in polymer printing and desktop fabrication, lowering the learning curve for those transitioning into metal.

Scrap Labs aims to serve users who have historically relied on outsourcing, including university labs, vocational programs, small manufacturers, motorsport shops, and design studios. For these groups, access to in-house metal printing could shorten iteration cycles, allowing parts to move from design to physical testing without the delays associated with machining or external service bureaus.

Scrap Labs has opened pre-orders, with kit versions starting at $9,600 under a limited-time offer, increasing to $14,200 after April 30, 2026. Fully assembled systems begin at $17,990. The company expects to begin shipments in early 2027, with options for refundable deposits or waitlist enrollment.

Scrap Labs reports completing a proof-of-concept phase in December 2025 and is now in an alpha testing stage with early partners. A broader beta phase is planned for late 2026, followed by a production ramp targeting mid-2027 for initial US deliveries.

Its ability to deliver consistent part quality, material performance, and operational safety at that price point remains unproven. However, by compressing laser powder bed fusion into a smaller, more accessible package and pairing it with open software workflows, Scrap Labs is pushing the technology toward a broader set of users.

Permalink to story:

 
I am most excited about making parts for old cars that are either impossible to find or cost a fortune.
Hopefully, this device and others like it will bring this to ordinary enthusiasts without millions of dollars in their account.
 
But guns are cool!
Guns are power, a power to be independant, a power to protect your property and in some cases life.
But they are even more. And every novice dictator KNOWS exactly how important it is to strip his people of guns, which every last of them does eventually.
Guns are an important attribute of a free society.
And while some hate guns as a tool of violence,
to not recognize what I said above is to not understand their importance.
And besides, there are excellent ways to decrease violence associated with guns.
If you are familiar with gun incident statistics, you probably understand why we
cannot do anything or rather prefer to separate the gun from the hand that presses the trigger.
There is a very easy way to not only confiscate thousands of illegal guns but also punish those who
use them with one intent--causing harm to others.
But then again, the statistics, the forbidden numbers and words...
 
Guns are power, a power to be independant, a power to protect your property and in some cases life.
But they are even more. And every novice dictator KNOWS exactly how important it is to strip his people of guns, which every last of them does eventually.
Guns are an important attribute of a free society.
And while some hate guns as a tool of violence,
to not recognize what I said above is to not understand their importance.
And besides, there are excellent ways to decrease violence associated with guns.
If you are familiar with gun incident statistics, you probably understand why we
cannot do anything or rather prefer to separate the gun from the hand that presses the trigger.
There is a very easy way to not only confiscate thousands of illegal guns but also punish those who
use them with one intent--causing harm to others.
But then again, the statistics, the forbidden numbers and words...
That WAS true back when individuals with guns could make a difference… modern military technology makes you and your handgun irrelevant…
 
That WAS true back when individuals with guns could make a difference… modern military technology makes you and your handgun irrelevant…
This is an absolute fallacy. Examples of asymmetric warfare are easily found throughout human history.

Recent history (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq) shows advanced militaries with tanks, drones, and jets consistently struggle against decentralized, lightly armed insurgencies. High-tech weapons are designed to destroy infrastructure and other armies, not to police or control a hostile, armed population.

A government cannot rule with drones alone. Control requires boots on the ground to enforce law and maintain presence. On a granular level, an armed populace completely changes the risk-reward calculus for all individual soldiers or police officers tasked with enforcing unpopular or authoritarian edicts. I mean come on, the USA has a very large populace of former soldiers that have been through hell in the last 30 years for the U.S. attempts at this very thing.

The primary purpose of the right to bear arms in a free society is as deterrence rather than active combat. Much like nuclear weapons, the value of a civilian-held arsenal lies in the fact that it makes the cost of tyranny prohibitively high, regardless of the technological gap.

Dictators historically absolutely prioritize disarming citizens, not because they fear a head-on battle with a main battle tank, but because disarmament breaks the spirit of resistance and makes individual acts of defiance much easier to suppress.

This is a pretty throughly researched subject. Asymmetric warefare is most certainly a thing and has been frequently successful even in the 21st Century (Afghanistan would be just one example among many).
 
This is an absolute fallacy. Examples of asymmetric warfare are easily found throughout human history.

Recent history (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq) shows advanced militaries with tanks, drones, and jets consistently struggle against decentralized, lightly armed insurgencies. High-tech weapons are designed to destroy infrastructure and other armies, not to police or control a hostile, armed population.

A government cannot rule with drones alone. Control requires boots on the ground to enforce law and maintain presence. On a granular level, an armed populace completely changes the risk-reward calculus for all individual soldiers or police officers tasked with enforcing unpopular or authoritarian edicts. I mean come on, the USA has a very large populace of former soldiers that have been through hell in the last 30 years for the U.S. attempts at this very thing.

The primary purpose of the right to bear arms in a free society is as deterrence rather than active combat. Much like nuclear weapons, the value of a civilian-held arsenal lies in the fact that it makes the cost of tyranny prohibitively high, regardless of the technological gap.

Dictators historically absolutely prioritize disarming citizens, not because they fear a head-on battle with a main battle tank, but because disarmament breaks the spirit of resistance and makes individual acts of defiance much easier to suppress.

This is a pretty throughly researched subject. Asymmetric warefare is most certainly a thing and has been frequently successful even in the 21st Century (Afghanistan would be just one example among many).
Those examples are for allowing rifles and automatic weapons… not handguns.
 
That WAS true back when individuals with guns could make a difference… modern military technology makes you and your handgun irrelevant…
You better tell that to the Taliban, who held off the entire US military for a few decades, using nothing but 70-year old rifles and hand-made IEDs.

Those examples are for allowing rifles and automatic weapons… not handguns.
Ah, the myth of the invincibility of the "automatic weapon". In most situations for normal troops, a semi-auto weapon is superior -- which is why the latest revision of the US Army's M16 no longer supports fully automatic fire.

As for the purported 'benefits' of gun control, I'll note that when Mexico made illegal private gun ownership, their murder rate soared in result -- it's now 600% higher than the US. Even nations like Australia and Great Britain, which already had microscopic levels of gun violence, say minor upticks after their gun ownership bans.
 
When your handgun can affect a tank, let me know…
Oops! During WW2, squads armed with small arms repeatedly took out enemy tanks, especially in urban warfare situations. That main gun moves far too slow to target individuals in general. Use the small arms to supress the tank's machine gun, while someone uses an improvised explosive to take out the treads.
 
Oops! During WW2, squads armed with small arms repeatedly took out enemy tanks, especially in urban warfare situations. That main gun moves far too slow to target individuals in general. Use the small arms to supress the tank's machine gun, while someone uses an improvised explosive to take out the treads.
Assuming there's a squad when you need one, of course. Without that squad, the odds are reduced especially if there's more than one occupant in the tank/armored vehicle, etc.
 
Oops! During WW2, squads armed with small arms repeatedly took out enemy tanks, especially in urban warfare situations. That main gun moves far too slow to target individuals in general. Use the small arms to supress the tank's machine gun, while someone uses an improvised explosive to take out the treads.
Yeah, a tank from WW2 is just a tiny bit different from today’s modern armor… and hand guns, while technically “small arms” aren’t what took down tanks…
 
Yeah, a tank from WW2 is just a tiny bit different from today’s modern armor…
Today's armor is even less effective against infantry than it was in WW2 -- as both the Russians and Ukrainians are proving daily in Donbass.

And yes, a group armed with nothing heavier than small arms can disable a tank.

Assuming there's a squad when you need one, of course. Without that squad, the odds are reduced
Yes. But if you don't have the support of a majority of the people around you, then you shouldn't be attacking government tanks anyway.
 
You know we have more than just handguns. But you’re Canadian, so I’m not surprised you didn’t know that. Also most of my rifles go Brrrrr
Yes - and, with a license, I don’t see a problem with people owning those. Handguns are far too dangerous to allow your populace to have - they can be concealed too easily, not to mention get into children’s hands far too easily as well.
 
Yes - and, with a license, I don’t see a problem with people owning those.
The first thing the Nazi Party did upon gaining power was to issue licenses ONLY to good Nazi Party members ... Jews and political opponents were immediately disarmed.

Handguns are far too dangerous to allow your populace to have
There are 400 million handguns in the US, and of legally owned ones, less than 0.001% are ever used in a crime. While the most popular weapon used in armed robberies and assaults in Canada is -- wait for it -- illegally owned handguns.
 
The first thing the Nazi Party did upon gaining power was to issue licenses ONLY to good Nazi Party members ... Jews and political opponents were immediately disarmed.
I didn't say "disarmed"..... it's handguns I have the issue with (although I'm not exactly thrilled with rifles, I understand their purpose).
There are 400 million handguns in the US, and of legally owned ones, less than 0.001% are ever used in a crime. While the most popular weapon used in armed robberies and assaults in Canada is -- wait for it -- illegally owned handguns.
So? I don't want illegal handguns either!
 
Back