Some folks here need to do more reading before they make claims about frame sizes and strength among Rugers.
It's well documented in multiple places online - even here in this forum - the Redhawk and Super Redhawk (which share the same cylinder and frame dimensions save the grip tenon and barrel lug) are "stronger" than the Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk (which also share the same cylinder and frame dimensions). The only exceptions are the flattop Blackhawks and old models on the mid-frame.
The cylinder is the primary failure point for over-pressure use. The RH, SRH, BH, and SBH all use the same steel in the cylinders for .44mag, however, the RH/SRH cylinder has thicker walls than the BH/SBH.
However - also well documented is the fact the Single Action design with the solid main pin is more durable. So while a BH/SBH will blow up with loads which the RH/SRH will not, the RH/SRH will shoot loose before the BH/SBH. It's also much cheaper to repair a loosened BH/SBH than their double action counterparts. Mainpins, hands, and locking bolts for the BH/SBH are readily available on the market, not so for crane/pivot assemblies, pawls, and locking bolts for the RH/SRH.
And since all of the Rugers are proofed for double loads, the "strength" question largely becomes moot anyway.
AND - of course - if a person is shooting enough to wear out any of the Ruger revolvers, then the price to replace the firearm will pale in comparison to the price of ammo which they have fed to it. I've ran about 3,800 cylinder length 300 XTP's over 22.0grn W296/H110 (overbook load - proceed at your own risk) through a 1998 .44mag SBH, with a total count over 10,000 through it and other than normal wear and tear and a few replacement parts, it's as tight and accurate as any Ruger you might pick up on the shelf today. Figuring 30c for the bullet, 8c for the powder, 3c for the primer, and a penny for brass life, having paid on the order of $400 for the revolver ~20yrs ago, I've paid FOUR TIMES as much on just the XTP loads ran through it, not to mention a couple thousand factory loads which would have been in the 5-6x ballpark, and a few thousand other loads which would have also made up for multiple times the expense of the revolver.
Cost of ownership for a Ruger revolver is most accurately measure by the ammo cost, not the revolver cost.