Stainless is easier and cheaper to produce. Requires no skilled labor to polish and finish. Also no EPA breathing down your neck over chemicals used in finishing process.
Yes, it all comes down to reducing the amount of time & hand labor required to make firearms. If you eliminate the bluing process you probably eliminate 2-6 jobs (actually reassign them) and take 1/2 day of work out of building a revolver.
They build them as cheap as possible and then sell them for the highest price of all the revolver makers. Guess who comes out on top in that deal?
You do.
Welcome to business economics 101. You just defined 2/3'rds of the equation.
Do you really want that "old world craftsmanship" for your next revolver purchase? Are you willing to pay for it? Are you willing to pay
double the price you're paying today for such a gun? If you're willing to pay between $700 and $1000 for a Model 10, I guarantee you can have it.
If you want that "old time" S&W gun where the parts are hand fitted, the trigger is buttery smooth out of the box, guns have a deep lusterous bluing job and wood stocks, it will cost you easily
triple the going prices S&W charges today. Do you really want to pay $1800 for a 586?
Why? Skilled labor. If you have any skills as a machinist or gunsmith, would you work for S&W at $16 and hour? Let's not be silly. So for every change they make -- buying CNC milling machines, eliminating the need to hand-fit parts, use of MIM parts instead of milling from bar stock, etc -- they do it to reduce
their cost of making a firearm so their prices will stay "competitive". So that
you can afford to buy one.
With Colt's angonizingly slow death, the only serious competitor to S&W is Taurus of Brazil. With their much cheaper labor they can kill S&W in the stores. And they have in a number of markets. S&W has cut its product line, focused on the guns that people want and that sell well. They've brought out a few new designs and new materials, but the breadth of their offerings are nothing like they used to be. The only things S&W has to its advantage is their Brand Recognition factor and the quality of the guns they produce. Unofficially, it appears to me that Taurus has more defects than S&W by far, at least from the complaints I read about here and elsewhere. Ask any member here if you should buy a Taurus or S&W .38 special and I'm sure that over half will say that there are fewer problems with S&W.
Don't like the prices of S&W? Blame the lawyers. Blame the legislators like Schumer, Feinstein, McCarthy, et al for creating the lawsuit atmosphere. Blame states for requiring locks, drop tests, dimension changes, etc.
For Taurus, I think the smartest thing they could do would be to buy out Colt's revolver designs and be licensed to remanufacture them under the "Snake" names as a line of premium revolvers priced against S&W. If they redesigned the actions to reduce hand fitting and made them to the tight tolerances Colt was known for, we'd have a better market place.