While I generally agree Fuff, there comes a point where more quality becomes wasteful indulgence, or perhaps just plain overkill. If there's no practical difference in this case, I'm inclined to suspect the latter
Actually we aren't in much disagreement. As I pointed out this change didn't make any practical difference, but on the other hand it did sacrifice a tiny bit of quality.
For those that view handguns (Smith & Wesson revolvers in particular) to simply be tools in the sense of being bullet launchers, and nothing more nor less, cost-cutting changes that don't have a negative affect on this performance doesn't matter.
On the other hand those that are familiar with the company's products over a very long period going back as far as the Civil War know that the trademark once stood for quality that went far further then simply being "a tool of the trade." They were in fact examples of mechanical art, and in fact were recognized as such by winning high honors at several World Fairs. This was because they went far beyond being northing more then acceptable.
Even before World War Two Smith & Wesson was making small subtractions in smaller perks to remain competitive in the marketplace, and later after the war to the present this process accelerated. As time passed some of the changes were more then minor, but economic conditions made them necessary.
I am well aware of this, probably much more so then you are, But I lament them just the same. It is one reason I tend to turn toward older rather then current products - of all makes and models. Fortunately very few buyers agree with me, and I don't expect them to.
