All alloys being equal, forged parts will be significantly stronger than cast parts.
Forged is stronger, in the same thickness, and it is more uniform. Casting can be good or bad, it really depends on the process whether imperfections exist in the finished product that reduce strength.
If the casting is both good, using good steel alloys, and significantly thicker than the forged metal it can still be stronger, which is the case with the Rugers.
I think the reason has to do with the sideplate-less design of the Ruger; it's one solid piece through and through. Really from a pure design angle I like the Ruger better; the liftout trigger group is nice too.
Rugers appear to be constructed of fewer, heavier, more sturdy parts.
Exactly, simple and robust.
Fewer tiny parts to suffer wear, get out of tune etc.
The parts that are there are bigger and stronger.
Both though are fine designs. The Smiths and Colts can be setup to be perfect for most people. While the Rugers are more or less the way they are, and you have to adapt to the Ruger. You can change grips, or improve the trigger, but to retain what makes them great you have to deal with them for what they are. A heavy duty clunker that can digest many heavy rounds with little wear, and withstand abuse without complaint.
It is a mule. It does what it does for generations, and does not change much.
The Smith is more the thoroughbred that can be graceful and an absolute pleasure to use, like an extension of your hand. It however also needs a lot of grooming, the perfect diet, can be finicky, and loses more of what makes it great with age.
