It's not about resistance to "new" or "change", it's about a clear degradation of quality in those two brands in recent years.
If you've been around long enough & gone through enough guns, you've seen it happen as it did happen.
Even if not, when you put a brand new sample Smith next to a good sample built 30 or 40 years ago, and you actually LOOK at the details, you can see the difference.
As I said above, my statement regarding new Smiths are taken entirely from new guns over a period of several years.
I've encountered manufacturing flaws in every single one.
I told you what's wrong with the latest one here now.
I suspect the majority have no clue about true quality & couldn't care less, which is what keeps S&W selling these things.
It shoot, it look like gun, iz OK for me.
If you can be happy with such merchandise, go for it.
I've never said not to buy one.
In the past three years I've gotten a Ruger Red in with internal problems, went back to Ruger, on returning I had to pay my gunsmith to fix their fix.
On a GP .357, had to pay a gunsmith to clean up the insides.
A GP .44 had to be cleaned up internally, took two tries to get one that was cut right in the chamber mouths.
A 7-shot .357 GP snub took THREE tries to get one here that was functional. First one, as mentioned previously, rejected by my gunsmith/dealer on arrival, second had no front sight.
It took two samples to get a new 4.2 .22LR GP that was built right.
And so on.
Seriously, I don't think 90% of the current S&W revolver market has any clue what's been lost over the years.
Ignorance truly is bliss.
Denis