Of course we've talked to S&W.
They don't care.
They're selling product at current levels, no incentive to change the business model.
If you look on the S&W Forum you'll find many people who dislike current quality.
And those are dedicated Smith fans.
Your "function first" is what the market's leaning toward.
Look at all the cheap-to-produce plastic pistols, and the increase in plastic-stocked "economy-grade" rifle designs now out.
In many cases, they CAN function quite well.
IF function's all you want, you share a great percentage of today's market.
I've got, as I've mentioned elsewhere, two Remington .308s here, both 16-inch barrels.
One's a $2000+ semi-custom build on a 700 with McMillan stock, Timney trigger, and an $800 optic.
The other's a bone stock 783 with factory plastic stock & a $150 optic, total Package around $600 or thereabouts.
The 783 shoots within an inch on average of what the 700 does at 100 yards.
You'd be quite happy with it.
I know the difference, and while there's nothing wrong with the 783, I know the 700 has a better trigger, a stronger stock, a stronger optic mount, a better optic for harsh weather & longer distances, and so on.
You would be more concerned with function ("Three-inches at 100 is good enough for me once a year on the hunt") and price.
I'd be more concerned with overall quality & endurance.
I'll pay extra to get that, you won't.
The 27 I mentioned was merely the most recent example of QC issues I've had here.
The lesser-grade topstrap "checkering" would be common to the current model, the barrel issues may or may not be found in other 27 samples.
The front-end locking methods being incorporated into certain models remains to be seen regarding effectiveness.
On one recent 66 snub, it was near useless.
I could pop it slightly out of lockup by pushing the cylinder sideways. Could not on an older 66 snub with ejector rod lockup.
The K-Frame magnum forcing cone issue was a flat milled section at the bottom of the cone that thinned its wall there, and created cracks with hot 125s.
That's been addressed with new K-Frame .357s by eliminating that thin flat, and re-positioning some other dimensional relationships.
S&W was shipping early new 66-8 snubs with almost no forcing cones. Thicker cone walls, but bullet shaving.
Gain in one area, loss in another.
I've seen poorly cut crowns on other recent Smiths, and badly cut cones.
The front sight rocking back & forth in its single-pinned base is also a sign of deteriorating quality on the 27 I have here.
The '62 sample uses two pins in a finely polished base, blade's in solid.
MIMS have long been debated. Yes- in the beginning they did achieve a rep for breaking in some makers' guns.
They are, when done right, usable.
They are not equal to forged in solidity or strength.
For most gun applications at S&W, they are adequate.
They are not used because they're better, they're used because they're cheaper.
In fairness to S&W, they've been creeping across Ruger's product lines, too.
We won't see them leave.
We don't have to like them.
My gunsmith doesn't, and a former S&W PC guy told me some time ago that MIM parts were not the equal of their forged parts.
I'll leave MIM at that.
Buy new if you can be happy with it.
I'm not trying to talk anybody out of one, just addressing the issue raised.
Denis