You know, I gotta chime back in here because I see this thread beginning to veer off into one of those "Smith doesn't build them like they used to" rants. Typically, the people who assert that hold up as an example some gun that Smith made back in the 1930's - 1950's and claim that everything produced since then, is, more or less, inferior.
A few thoughts about that: the image that a lot of the "old is better" crowd love to conjure up is of skilled craftsmen each individually building guns, one carefully hand fitted part at a time. Not so!! Smith has been an assembly line entity since its inception as have all modern firearms manufacturers. Eli Whitney, who invented the cotton gin, also invented the assembly line manufacture of firearms. The reason why so many American firearm manufacturers are based in New England is because that's where the assembly line was invented.
There are a lot of myths out there about the "old" Smith revolvers that are simply urban legends. Here's just one example. I've been hearing for years that the distinctively cross-hatched top strap of the old Model 27s was lovingly etched, one line at a time, by craftsmen in the Smith factory. That is simply wrong. Smith, beginning in the 1930s with its Registered Magnum, used a machine to etch the cross-hatching on the guns' top straps.
Smith revolvers have been built on an assembly line since day one. Smith's goal in the mid-1800s, as it is today, was to produce guns with essentially interchangeable parts. The greater the uniformity of production, the lower the unit costs and the higher the profit. Yes, older methods required more intervention by individual line workers than today's manufacturing process does. But, that doesn't mean, necessarily, that the older methods were better. It means only that today, computers and robots have taken the imprecision out of the manufacturing process. So, manufacturers, like Smith, can crank out guns much more efficiently because fewer hours of labor are involved in the production of each gun.
As an aside, the progression from assembly line with human intervention to assembly line dominated by robots and computers is not unique to the handgun industry. Consider today's autos. Nearly all of today's cars are built with far less hands on work than were the cars of the 1950s. Can anyone say with a straight face that a typical American sedan of the 1950s is more efficient, more problem free, and more dependable than a modern robot built auto?
Those manufacturers -- like Smith -- who have been able to adapt to the modern era and who have streamlined their production processes have survived. That's not been the case for others -- like Colt -- who stuck with inefficient production processes for too long. Colt didn't stop making double action revolvers because it was producing bad guns, it stopped because it could no longer produce them efficiently.
Furthermore, the efficiencies in production that Smith has introduced have been passed on to consumers. A top of the line Smith revolver made now costs at retail substantially less than $1000. That is far, far less than the gun would have cost had it been made the old way. Those of you who rant that Smith doesn't make them like they used to might pause, just for a moment, and consider that if Smith continued to make them like they used to their guns would either be prohibitively expensive or they would have stopped making them altogether, as Colt did.
Here's another way of thinking about it. Look at the top of the line 1911s. Many of them ARE made the "old way" with a lot of hand fitting in small shops. And, their price reflects the process. How many of you would be willing to pay $2000 or more for a Smith revolver?
So, no, Smith has not sold its customers down the river as many of you contend. Probably, if it were not for the technological and manufacturing changes that it and some others have introduced in recent years, there wouldn't be a Smith product for you to complain about.
Perhaps they purchased that Safety Wesson stock when it was high.