All,

Ok, I was at my LGS the other day because I'm looking for a .44 with a shorter barrel than what I currently have. They had the Ruger Super Red Hawk Alaskan and there was a Smith with a 3" barrel.

I noticed that the frame on the Alaskan had quite a bit more metal on it than the Smith and looked stronger. The guy behind the counter said that this isn't necessarily so and continued on to say that the Ruger frame is investment cast and then machined whereas the Smith and Wesson is forged then machined. He said the forging is stronger than cast and so even though it looks like less metal, they are pretty close in strength.

Does anyone know if what he says is true? The Ruger sure looks solid. I know they both have good warranties, but I'm using handloads (below maximum in the Speer book) which may void it. Would you have any reservations buying the Ruger vs. the Smith? ......TIA.....