The S&W vs Ruger argument is based on a few historical facts. Back when Elmer Keith was hotrodding 44 Special, 38 Special and 45 Colt rounds, he figured out pretty quick which revolvers stayed together and which ones sent their cylinders to the sky. The strongest revolvers were single actions (modified Colts, at the time). A little later on, he and Bill Jordan and a few other gents decided the best weapon for police was a K frame 357 magnum. When police practiced and qualified with low pressure 38 Specials, and only used hot 357 loads while on duty, that wasn't an issue. When police departments mandated qualifying with duty ammo, it was found that the K frames shot loose faster then the other 357 guns in use at the time (Pythons, N frames, early Ruger Security Six's). That is basically where the L frame came from, and why it was invented. The other big claim for HD reliability came along in the 70's when silhouette shooting came along. Before that, not many people put a lot of rounds through 44 mags. When it was popular, it was not unusual to put a couple hundred rounds through your gun in one day. And as you wanted to knock heavy steel rams off their pedestals, maximum loads with heavy bullets were the norm. It soon became apparent that the S&W Model 29's would not hold up to this as well as the Ruger 44's (Super Blackhawks early on, Redhawks later). After the 29-3 and the 629-1 S&W had improved their lockworks, but I've seen Rugers eat loads that would destroy a Smith. Seen that too. Comparing FA revolvers to just about any other revolver is really apples to oranges, the tolerances and fitting are so much tighter, which is why they handle heavy loads with aplomb. FWIW - dan
