Troystat, perhaps the problem was that the issue had such a simple solution.
I do have a preference for Smith and Wesson revolvers in general and for the older ones in particular. Certainly some of the reasons are 'emotional'/personal-Smith allowed thousands of families to live well and securely and but for this job I would not have gotten through undergrad and grad school.
However Smith and Wesson differs from Ruger in fundamental ways both in the revolvers and Company policy.
Smith and Wesson differs 180* in the right direction from Ruger and this cannot be intelligently disputed.
Only one Company stands behind their products in writing
Only one Company specifically states, in writing, that their modern revolvers are approved for +p ammo with the exception of K frames made prior to '58 ?? and this is available for all to download

on page 11 of the Smith and Wesson Modern revolver manual.
AND only one Company continues to manufacture using a process which is universally acknowledged to be stronger and more expensive.
This Company is Smith and Wesson.
I have repeatedly posted that Ruger makes good guns and that we only carry Ruger revolvers (but remember the reason) and that we trust these revolvers to work when needed.
It was posted that Ruger offers no warranty as they wish to 'dance to their own music/tune' this is the best summary I have ever read for this highly unusual business practice
But boys and girls with Ruger being allowed to do their own thing, dance to their own tune means that they can change the tune any time they wish-and they have done this.
Its just that Smith and Wesson the Company and Smith and Wesson the revolvers are superior and this can be quantified.