Also, Ruger guns are cast. Which means they must, by necessity, be overbuilt compared to forged gun
.
Not so, at least in this day and age. Various copies of Colt Single Action Army revolvers use investment cast frames that are dimensionally identical to Colt's forged frame. The same could be said about investment cast vs. forged 1911 pistol frames.
If you talk to engineers for the major ammunition companies, as I have done privately - and in particular the smaller ones that make ammunition loaded to pressures that the big boys won't touch - they will tell you that there is only one compact snub-nose revolver that will stand up to steady use of their .357 Magnum loads, and that is the Ruger SP 101. The others, especially the alloy framed ones, are "carry much but shoot little," so far as they are concerned.
Bill Ruger was a "gun-man," in the most positive meaning of the term. Unlike most of his counterparts in other handgun companies he understood firearms from an engineering/design point of view, and he equally understood the mindset of many of his customers who wouldn't be satisfied with anything less then running endless rounds of frame-stretching handloads through his guns. Then they'd complain when they loosened up - if they did.
Some reloading handbooks have sections for "Ruger and Thompson-Center guns only." None that I know of have similar data for "Colt only," or Smith & Wesson only," or "anything else only."
Put simply, Ruger made his guns rugged where rugged was required. Those of us that had the pleasure and privilege of knowing him and discussing it with him know where his thinking came from. I rather doubt that we will be seeing a small, ultra-light handgun from Ruger, but if we do I’d be willing to bet it will be a pistol, not a revolver.
I haven't heard that about Ruger. 
