There is an old marketing truism that you simply cannot escape your reputation. S&W has a fine reputation for revolvers, consequently they build fine revolvers and everyone agrees that they build fine revolvers. Smith has built quality autos for many years that never caught on with the shooting public. Is this really because those autos were so "bad". I don't think so, I think S&W is simply pegged as "THE REVOLVER COMPANY". People associate the company so strongly with revolvers that no matter how good an auto-pistol they turn out; it will be considered second rate. For more than 30 years, Smith has failed to capture a niche in the auto-pistol business; even though their products have been, for the most part, innovative and reliable. The problem is image. The solution would be for Smith & Wesson to drop the auto-pistol from the primare product and restart it as a seperate brand. Sig makes a quality product. But people also associate Sig with fine quality double action auto pistols because that is all they make. How likely would anyone be to purchase a Sig .38 snub nose revolver? Not very likely. I'll bet a sack of donuts that if Sig, or HK, or Glock came out with a line of quality revolvers, no one would buy them and most of us would say -- "Does anyone actually like Sig revolvers? They sure don't stack up against Smith & Wesson!" Brand identity is a critical factor when products of fairly comparable quality compete against each other. Product features and quality are usually secondary under these circumstances. My $.02 -- Regards, Kurt