Yes and no. To some point any revolver will, but a set number of rounds? No. The .357 digests a large variety of ammo and some wear faster than others. My 686+, the one I wouldn't trade for the world, it is about ready to go back to Smith to have a new cylinder fitted. The stops on mine are worn and it wiggles more than I'd like when locked up, but it took a LOT of rounds to get there, and since I've had it, I've fired almost all magnums through it (but my wife, army buddy, and his family, they shoot specials through it). Ran a lot of max N110 loads too --three foot flame out the barrel, one foot flames out the side, 1800fps+ with 125gr. XTP. Still, even needing a new cylinder, I'd say it was only a few thousand rounds ago that I sent five out of seven 140gr. XTP's into a steel silhouette at 300m. No joke, this is why I say I'd never get rid of it (and why I think the 140gr. bullet is superior in .357, not 125gr.). It is almost the perfect handgun if you ask me, I just wish I could pack it. Instead, I carry a 10mm, next best thing I guess ballistically.
Lots of mag loads like that nuclear N110 load will cut the top strap over time. Flame cutting. It is more pronounced with some loads in some revolvers --depends on steel, pressure of round, etc. I've abused mine with those heavy loads, likely why my cylinder stops are worn so much, but the flame cutting seems to start, get worse, then stop. Kind of like how muzzle brakes wear, they'll pit real fast with a suppressor like they are going to wear out in a few thousand rounds, then they kind of stop and wear a lot slower. Just an observation.
My wife, she just got a 649, a snub shrouded hammer. I bring it up though because it is so similar to the 686, the trigger is nearly identical, the rest of the design is too save dimensions. I bought it used, but you can't tell. They wear real well when not abused, and the previous owner only shot factory loads. No nukes.
Which brings me to this: I got my 686+ no lock for just over $250 with tax in '99 or '00. Based on the price, I assume it was well shot, well used, but like I said, if you had a handgun that could send 5/7 shots accurately downrange 300m, would you switch? Sell it? Gamble on a nice Korth? Honestly, if I had a Ruger that would do this I'd feel the same about it. Not taking that chance though, every revolver is different, and the difference is greater among lower tolerance weapons. I'd suspect you'd notice better consistency in accuracy and wear in a Korth or Dan Wesson vs. a Smith or Ruger, but if you get "the one" does it matter who made it?
Also, as far as looks go, I think the Smith is the sexiest. It is THE revolver for me in that respect, hands down. About as well made as you can get without significantly increasing costs, and they aren't overly bulky. Guys that own Korths and 686's tell me that the Korth is only better tolerance-wise. It is a great example of workmanship. It may or may not be a better handgun than the Smith. Due to the tolerances though (and quality factor with Korth) I'd imagine it would wear better. Ruger guys say they are just built like tanks but they usually concede to the fact the Smith has a better trigger. That is a huge thing with me. Smiths also come in more flavors than any other revolver.
Finally, I have a 340PD. A scandium/titanium revolver. Brutal recoil, but there isn't another handgun like it really. That one wears really well considering, I figured it would wear as fast as the aluminum but it doesn't. That scant bit of scandium they put in the alloy really toughens it up quite a bit. The steel insert in the top strap prevents flame cutting and shows no wear at all really. I did destroy one cylinder, but I was firing the nuclear loads out of it. Now I only use "standard" magnums, not nukes, and it does fine. With it, I no longer have any excuse to leave unarmed.
So bottom line is, they wear faster with nukes, not so much with lighter loads. You can run specials through it and I doubt you'd be able to wear it out in two lifetimes. But nuclear mags in a medium frame revolver maximized to hold seven rounds, that is kind of stretching it. Smith does that though, I gotta give it to them, they are willing to push the envelope on the revolvers, and they still hold up well.
Rugers wear well because for the most part, they build them like tanks. They make phenomenal hunting revolvers. Some folks tweak them for other sports. If you handload and tinker with nuclear loads a LOT, you need the Ruger .357 Blackhawk or whatever they call it. If you blow that up, I want to know how you got that much powder in the case. The Ruger isn't sexy, and personally I only like their rimfires (I love their rimfires --best ones for the price I think) but their .357's have a strong following on here.
Colt is another great one that gets missed over. Gotta REALLY do homework on them though, and they are kind of becoming collector items. When I got my 686+, I had the choice of an Anaconda or Python, stainless 6" with ribbed barrels. They are very nice and well made revolvers, but I just can't get over the backwards cylinder release. It isn't natural at all for me, but that is really my only complaint (albeit a big one).
