The Lucky Gunner ballistics tests show a couple of notable things. First, they do show how .38 Special +P is frequently challenged to provide both good expansion and sufficient penetration to meet the standard being tested. This is due to the low pressure limit put on that cartridge. Factory .357 does not have any issues with that protocol. It has the same pressure as 9mm and higher powder and bullet capacity in the case. If anything, it can over-penetrate in protocols where that is even a concern and as long as the bullet construction is good, it will expand reliably. .357 Magnum can both expand and penetrate more than sufficiently to exceed the demands of that protocol, but it often does so with excess recoil. Good wisdom chooses a 357 gun with more than the shortest barrel and starts with adequate 38 Special +P ammo (some people have mentioned specific loads already). If you want to step up to hotter ammo from there, shoot "100%" on qualifications with the .38+P first.
Lucky Gunner did not test .45 Long Colt, but the ballistics of standard pressure ammo is very similar to .45 ACP (that was originally the very intention of .45 ACP, to duplicate the ballistics of black powder 45 LC with a smokeless powder). What we notice about .45 is that when it expands well, it often penetrates sufficiently (per that test's criteria) but not deeply. The bullets that penetrated beyond 18" are mostly the ones that did not expand. There is no question 45 performs outstanding on that test, but its lack of deeper penetration with expanding bullets makes it a poor choice for large game or animal defense. At standard pressures with expanding bullets, .357 Magnum is a better penetrator. It's not because the expanded diameter is smaller, it's often not. It mostly has to do with the higher pressure that 357 allows. Now if we go above the very low standard pressure of .45, and use a "Ruger Only" .45 LC load, it can certainly be made to penetrate better than .357 Magnum. The heavier bullets carry momentum to a longer range and they're just going to go deeper, as would .44 Magnum provided heavy-for-caliber bullets with high sectional density.
I know the big bore guys will decry the performance of 357 for big cattle and bug bears. I won't argue with them. If you really have those kind of problems to solve, knock yourself out. The only inherent disadvantage of .44 or .45 in a revolver is the wider cartridge requires either lower capacity (5-shot Model 69 L frame) or a higher bore axis (6 shot Model 29 or 25/625 N frame). Eight 357's fit into the cylinder of an N frame, 7 in an L frame, and 6 fit into a K frame. The taller frames for the larger cylinders and higher bore axis result in more torque under recoil for a given load. The smaller frames have less of this, but lower capacity. If you really need 44 Magnum, it's the only way to go, but if you're shooting 44 Special or .45 ACP, I'm not sure the tradeoff for the tall frame or lower capacity is worth it.
Your bias against S&W is irrational. The locks don't have to mean that much to you if you simply choose to not let them bother you. There is no evidence that Rugers can handle anything more than a S&W unless you're comparing radically different models like a Model 25 vs a Super Redhawk. Smith has the 460 for that. I have more than one of each (S&W and Ruger) and there is really no cause for prejudice. S&W has long offered DA features that Ruger is only starting to with their Super GP100. Ruger offers single actions that I don't think S&W ever has. If you really need a first and only handgun for a while, it's not wise to choose from irrational bias or to make a choice in extremes from what most people find work well for them. You've admitted to not knowing much about revolvers, but you're trying to out-think everyone who knows a lot about them. If you convince yourself that you've gained enough understanding to go against all their advice, you will probably regret it.
