Red, I don't know that you and I are always on opposite sides. I think that we each hold opinions and knowledge acquired in two different segments of the holster-making business.
I understand that much of your career was spent working with the larger companies, those producing large quantities to serve the broad market of customers. Not unusual for such companies to largely ignore certain market niches (less common handguns, etc) and concentrate manufacturing and marketing on the largest portion of the marketplace.
My years in the holster business was entirely in the small shop segment, producing holsters one at a time on specific orders by customers. A great deal of my business was in those areas not regularly serviced by the Bianchi, Safariland, G&G, and other large companies.
I believe that both of our perspectives are valid, but not interchangeable because the sum of our experiences are quite different. Please note that I have not suggested that there is anything wrong with the products of the larger companies, nor have I stated that either approach to the business is superior to the other.
I have reread my earlier post on this topic and I stand by my comments. There are similarities between the Ruger Security Six and S&W products, but there are also differences including the Ruger's somewhat larger frame and cylinder, and somewhat larger dimensions overall. Those differences are not likely to be sufficient to prevent the use of a mass produced holster formed for the K-frame S&W, but they could easily prevent the use of a handmade and very closely formed holster formed on the K-frame S&W. Selection of a holster intended for the Colt O-frame or the S&W L-frame offers a better chance of a trouble-free fit for many customers and purposes (not all, but many).
Best regards.