They don't make them as nice, but they charge Performance Center prices for them. $600 for a 686 with lock and MIM
Compared to what, $500 for a Glock that's half plastic? Hell, Glock 21s used to run over $600 back where I lived in MI a few years ago.
Rugers cost less because they're entirely made of investment castings. It's one of the reasons Ruger revolvers feel "chunkier" than S&W and are almost always heavier; a cast piece of steel typically requires more mass to equal the strength of a forged piece of steel. Ruger smartly capitalized on this, though, figuring if the revolver's going to be a bit heavier anyway, they might as well maximize durability.
I've owned two classic S&W revolvers: a Model 25 made in 1981 and a model 57 made, I think, in 84. The 57 was a particularly nice specimen, a transitional model without recessed chambers but with a pinned barrel.
You know what? My 2006 produced 629 classic has every bit as nice of a trigger and locks up just as solidly.
The reason old guns feel like they have more hand fitting is because they do. A lot more than today. Problem is, labor costs have gone up incredibly since the 1950s and 60s. A S&W gun today made like the guns of yore would cost every bit as much as a Brown or Les Baer 1911, because an equal, if not great, amount of man-hours of labor would have to go into it.
People don't like the MIM'd internals, and in truth, I'd feel better knowing it was forged also. Honestly though? Of the six S&W revolvers I've owned, only one has broken on me, the Model 25-5. It had to go back to the factory because of something with the pawl/cylinder stop. (Essentially, on one chamber, the cylinder wouldn't stop rotating in the correct place, causing the firing pin to hit the primer off-center and causing failures to fire. It's fortunate that the round didn't ignite, however, as with the cylinder not lined up, the bullet would've struck the forcing cone off-center and possibly destroyed the gun.) To be fair, I don't know how many rounds that gun had had through it before I bought it. But until my guns with their MIM'd internals start breaking, I'm not going to gripe. FWIW, Colt was one of the first gun makers to start using "sintered steel" parts in their guns back in the 70s. So King Cobras and Anacondas share a similar "failing" as the new S&W guns in this regard.
If *I* were in charge of S&W, I'd do a run of "classic" guns just like that and sell 'em at premium prices. But if you guys are grumbling about the price of a stock 686, you wouldn't like the prices of a hand fitted piece.
Anyways, a stock 686+ runs about $550 at the Cabelas here. Comes to just over six bills out the door, with taxes, NICS, and fees. That's competitive with stock service weapons from Glock and Springfield, and less than guns from Colt and HK.
*shrug* I hear a LOT of grumbling about the new S&W guns on the internet, but I personally have no problem with them. My 686+ didn't seem like it had the fit/finish that my 625 did; I emailed S&W about it and they sent me a shipping label to have it sent back to the factory for a polish job, free of charge. If nothing else, they stand behind their products.
Personally, I have an on-again, off-again fascination with the Ruger guns. But I like big-bore revolvers. Ruger's big bores are just too huge for my uses; I carry an N-Frame. Ruger's 4" Redhawk is only slightly
larger than a 4" 629, but it's
heavier even than my 5" 629 Classic, which has an inch more barrel and a full underlug to boot. Of course, the Ruger will withstand a steady dose of much more powerful loads than my S&W, but I don't shoot those loads anyway.
So I'm sticking with S&W. Your mileage, as always, may vary.