I have about 25 revolvers in my collection now / and I shoot some of them regularly - and some not so much.
It isn't necessary that we agree - my experience is just different than yours. You're right John Taffin's opinion does carry some weight / and I read his columns in most of the gun mags. My sarcastic remark about 1% to Ruger - might have been considered a little rude - and I apologize. However,I must admit I might be a bit behind on S&W as far as any improvements they may have made in their wheelguns of late,and if so I'll let you bring me up to speed. But until it happens to me,I respectfully stand by my previous position. I'm only speaking for myself here I'm sure someone out there can say they've seen a Ruger go south in some way or another. I can't say the same for the S&Ws I've had. Also,I will agree that all screws on any gun need to be checked periodically.but as previously noted,I personally have yet to have any parts of my Redhawk or GP-100 come off while in use. I'm not trying to say that S&W revolvers are necessarily inferior.I'm only saying that,over the long haul,Rugers can better tolerate the stresses of constant full-power loads. The aforesaid article only coincides with my own observations.
However,lest it be thought I'm only taking his word for it,I will add that my conclusions are based on personal experience with both makes of revolver. If we can agree that John Taffin is an expert in this particular field,I've an article of his where he also spells out pretty much what I've already said. I will readily admit that I'm no expert,but it's widely known that,when it comes to magnum revolvers,Ruger puts a lot more metal in the critical stress areas than does S&W.