If you compare the biographies of the translators of the KJB and those of Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort (the translators of the English Revised Version [1881], from which virtually all "new" translations spring), you might find a stark difference that does matter with regard to what each respective team of translators produced.
There are other, very helpful threads on this board that discuss this issue.
For Bible study now, I'm partial to the 1599 Geneva, which I bought several months ago. This is the result of 10 years now of studying the Bible versions issue. It's been an informal study; during it, I've compared over 1,700 verses, including those in Roman Catholic Bibles. As my mere broaching of the subject of Bible versions to elders and ministers resulted in marked ostracism, I've now concluded that my study of the issue is for my use
only.
Substantively speaking, though, there are solid reasons that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were excluded by the 1611 translators (they were known to them, or so say some sources), but I am not the one to discuss them.
For empirical reasons to support Textus Receptus Bible versions over the higher critical text, I rely on the scholarship of people like the late Dr. Theodore Letis, Dean Burgon and Dr. Edward Freer Hills:
The King James Verison Defended by Edward F. Hills They're the scholars; I'm
not. 
Margaret