Be warned, this will be a VERY long post. You have been warned.
First of all, I was one of those who came out and defended the Heritage when Ruger announced the Wrangler, so I'm not surprised to hear someone is unhappy with their Wrangler purchase, but I'm sorry to hear that you are unhappy nonetheless.
I'd have to see one in person before I really bash the gun. At best I can say is months ago, I didn't buy into the hype and it seems there wasn't much to the hype because I'm not seeing many posts on gun forums praising the gun.
In fact, I'm not seeing any.
That said, I own a lot of handguns (mostly revolvers), both cheap and expensive, and out of all of them I own when I compare my near $600 .327 SP101 to two sub $300 vintage Charter Arms revolver, the Charters are better. That said, my $800 .45 Colt/.45ACP is worth every penny and compared to a Taurus Judge it's not even a question, but compared to my Leinad over/under derringer, the Judge looks like a Colt Python.
It's all relative and that relativity all resides in the eye of the beholder. The Wrangler was not a better gun than the Heritage revolvers that have been mass produced and have years upon years of proven use behind them, not too mention adjustable sights, 9 round models, and .22 Mag cylinders available. Will Ruger refine the Wrangler over time? Absolutely, but to think right off the bat that Ruger would make a better gun vs an experienced company like Heritage is asinine.
I bought a Charter Arms .32 Mag Professional last month, it was their first 7 shot revolver and first to ever use fiber optic sights. It's a great gun for the $330 I am evidently going to spend on it, the only problem is they have had a SNAFU at the factory and are making the shrouds too big and that's causing the front sight to be too tall and causing the guns to shoot 6 inches low at 7 yards. If Charter would fix this issue, for $330, the gun is a good one for the money. As it stands, given they're oblivious to the issue, it's not.
Buy any one of their revolvers that's not the .32 Professional and it is... compared to an SP101 at least.
I'm looking at buying other handguns because that's what I do and one of those that has caught my eye is the Zastava M70. It's a steel framed .32 ACP pistol and it's caught my eye because it has pretty decent sights for a .32 ACP pistol, is a steel frame, and costs about $220. Is a .32 a powerhouse caliber? Nope, but it can get the job done.
So, what other pistols are out there for $220? A Hi Point, SCCY, Taurus PT111, Ruger EC9s. All these pistols are polymer framed. Will they be around 60 years from now? IDK, probably not. Will you be around 60 years from now? IDK, probably not. Will the Zastava M70 be around 60 years from now? More than likely if given basic maintenance.
So what does that mean? It means for $220 you bought a gun that will live longer than you will and it's up to you to determine if that smaller caliber in the .32 is worth it to you vs the larger caliber that will maybe live as long as you do. If longevity is worth more to you than effectiveness, than the Zastava M70 is more of a "good gun for the money" than the poly pistols I mentioned. If effectiveness is worth more to you, than the poly pistols are better guns for the money.
It's all up to you and I think instead of focusing on what is a good gun for the money, you should contemplate on what a "bad gun for the money" is.
To me that's pretty simple: any Ruger SP101, any micro/pocket .380 (.32 ACP is better), any snub nosed .357 Magnum, any Marlin made after the year 2001, any Charter made between 1991 and 2006, and the list goes on.
I guess you could say I take a glass half full approach in that anything that's not proven bad is good versus anything not proven good is bad.