Only among published textual critics who are members of Western churches (especially your remark about the KJV) such as Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, et cetera.
Among the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, those 300 million Eastern Christians who routinely get martyred but whose input is usually ignored by textual scholars despite being the churches that actually still use the Greek and Syriac languages, among others, there is a strong preference for the Byzantine text type not directly linked to the KJV (in the diaspora, the Eastern Orthodox prefer the KJV, but only for the New Testament, since its OT is based on the Masoretic, and not the LXX, but the Oriental Orthodox do not, desiring newer translations that are easier to read). But in their original languages the Greeks prefer the manuscripts carefully curated over the centuries by their church, which are mostly Byzantine, with the noted exception of the Codex Sinaiticus, which was stolen, a point we shall get to momentarily, and the Syriac Orthodox prefer the Western Peshitto (with the missing NT chapters 2 John, 3 John, Jude, 2 Peter and the Apocalypse) supplied from the 6th century translation of Mor Thomas of Harqel).
There is an important moral issue here:, if we look at the actual churches of Alexandria, Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox, and if we look at the monastery where Codex Sinaiticus was kept until a Belgian adventurer stole it in the 19th century (to this date the fact that the British still have not returned to St. Catharine’s monastery their half to the monastery is a scandal on a par with the continued retention of the Elgin Marbles, the Star of Africa diamond and certain other objects essentially looted by the British Empire; luckily for them the Greek Orthodox monks are less likely than for example the governments of various regimes to try to prosecute UK institutions like the British Museum for receiving stolen property, which is absolutely what happened in the case of Codex Sinaiticus, but this raises an interesting question -
In what respect is it moral for Western Bible publishers to base their texts on what amounts to a looted manuscript? Now, granted, had the manuscript not been stolen, we know that the monks at St. Catharine’s would not have denied them access to write a copy - the theft occurred while the Belgian adventurer who expropriated it was supposedly doing just that, but I would argue that profiting from the Codex Sinaiticus has now become morally dubious, and at the very least, Zondervan and other publishers of Bibles that reference Sinaiticus ought to be making very significant monetary donations to St. Catharine’s Monastery in Sinai, for example, to fund an expension of the monastery’s clinic that provides health services to the lcoal Bedouin tribes (thus ensuring the monastery’s continued safe existence, for in the central part of Sinai, it is the only Christian church in a large radius; also a small number of the Bedouins are Christian, most are not, but the monks remain on good terms with nearly all of them through monastic hospitality).
+
That being said for my part, as a member of the Eastern church I don’t have a problem with the Alexandrian text type, provided its not used exclusively, although really, the great opportunity that’s being missed here is with the Western Text Type. The fact most textual critics continue to ignore it is nothing short of a travesty, in my opinion - we have here a version that is both different from A and B, yet also was in sufficiently diverse use to be the basis for what are literally the two oldest surviving translations of the New Testament or the most important portion thereof into another language, the Vetus Latina and Vetus Syra. And yet how many English language BIbles do we have translated exclusively from the Western text type? I think one incomplete translation based only on Vetus Latina…
Wikipedia