I really dislike all of the American revolver makers for different reasons.
I'd like to take the Colt's executives up to a monitor with Gunbroker auctions on it and rub their faces into it until they totally get how much pristine Detective's Specials, Agents and Cobras fetch. When they get that, rub their faces in it again when we see what Magnum Carry examples, King Cobras and Anacondas in great shape can fetch. Some of those models were "redesigned" to make them less expensive to produce and I cannot help but to think that if they'd only totally commit to modern manufacturing that they could do pretty well for themselves.
As to S&W, the locks on the M&P autos are entirely optional. How hard could it be to run California model revolvers and non-California models sans lock? I am not an engineer, but it seems that if one makes a program that omits the hole and a MIM form for the locking work that omits the tab that actually locks the piece, one could make internally identical revolvers that only lock in runs with the correct hole and tab in them.
The other thing about S&W is exemplified by the post modern revolver pictured above: They Buck Rodgered the look but it's still the same old tired sideplated revolver. It's cosmetic engineering. With all of the experience and all of the computer power and manufacturing ability on hand at S&W they are seriously telling the world that they can create a sooper-dooper world class duty pistol from a more or less clean sheet design, but they cannot ACTUALLY improve upon a dawn of the 20th Century DA revo design?
I would think that a truly postmodern "combat revolver" would be a cleverly designed piece that had gone through multiple stages of developmental teething, that produced something groundbreaking. How about a thoroughly modern solid frame top break auto ejector? Impossible? Then how about something remarkable like a solid frame, crane operated auto ejector? Not enough imagination is going on when the mock-ups can all be analyzed in software.
A lack of imagination and market responsiveness is the calling card at Ruger too. They still won't sell parts. The GP-100 and the SP-101 have been essentially unchanged since the 80s. Ruger has the clean sheet revolver design and don't have to be wedded to something like S&W's flat main spring. They also have the very facilities and capabilities to produce items we will likely never see.
I'd carry a titanium SP-101 tomorrow if I could buy one. Heck, if that is too tough, Scandium alloy is not a trade secret. People have been clamoring for a five shot GP-100 in .41 Magnum or .44 Special for years. Nothing.
I realize that revolver buyers are usually traditionalists, but still, if there is going to be some innovation, make it some real innovation and not a coat of paint and a 1913 rail or two for crying out loud.
Taurus and Charter have had their moments of innovation, but their execution is too lacking for me to care.
