No, this subject comes up with incessant regularity.
I do no Ruger Kool-Aid & own several examples of revolvers from both Smith and Ruger.
The basic S&W DA revolver action WAS designed at a time when people shot their guns far less than many do nowdays. Nowhere did I say it was "designed to be shot less". In the 1930s, virtually nobody put 10,000 to 20,000 rounds of full-bore .357 Magnum loads through an N-Frame Smith. Nowdays, more enthusiastic types may consider that a requirement in a .357. It wasn't when the N-Frame was first introduced.
The basic S&W DA design has been more successful in keeping up with the times than its contemporary V-Spring Colt was, largely due to improved metallurgy and a more durable design to begin with, but neither was designed from the ground up IN KEY AREAS to deal with the stresses & pressures of extended Magnum uses like the Ruger Security-Six and GP Series guns were.
My comments are based on conversations with gunsmiths who've worked on both types, running from normal repair issues to full-blown custom work, over a period of many years.
I own Smiths that do certain things for me, I own Rugers that do other things for me. Those include .357 & .44 Mags.
I possess no single-sided all-inclusive loyalty to either company.
But- I will say if I were allowed only one .357 Magnum DA Revolver & one DA .44 Magnum revolver, both would be Rugers. I would expect the Rugers to handle hotter pressures far longer before requiring maintenance, and I would feel far more comfortable about the safety margins built-in in terms of cylinder & frame strength.
I say that as one who carries a very nice four-inch Smith 629 .44 Mag for many ATV excursions in non-bear country, and a very nice four-inch Ruger Super Redhawk IN bear country. I have a beautiful 1952 pre-Model 27 with 6.5-inch barrel that no factory Ruger ever began to equal in fit & finish, and a nicely customized Smith Model 28 four-incher. One of the Ruger GPs loaded with Buffalo Bore heavy-weights travels the back country with me when a .357 Mag goes along.
Small snubs, the Smiths get the nod.
Auto-pistols, M&P over any of the current Ruger pistols.
Rimfire revolvers? Love my minty Smith 34, but the Ruger SP 4-incher sees the trail dust.
And so on.
Back to the topic at hand, what truly separates the Smith DA from the Ruger DA isn't just the frame size, or the frame method (forged vs cast), it's how the guns are designed to handle stresses & wear.
The Ruger is simply designed to do a better job.
Ask any good gunsmith with years of experience with both designs which one will go out of time first. And that's just the most common issue.
Nothing I've said should be interpreted to mean I'm calling Smiths junk, which I never have. They are not. Rugers just tend to be more durable over the long run with hotter loads & higher pressures.
Denis