[Mr. Whimsy]

You literally cannot lose with either.

Here's some random thoughts on the subject:

1. The vaunted "strength" of the Ruger is merely it weighing half a pound more than the Smith. I personally have had 2 Rugers' timing go sloppy - one Blackhawk, one Redhawk. Also broke the transfer bars on them from frequent dry-firing. Why, you ask? They had miserable, terrible triggers, and I needed frequent practice to master them. I never did this with any Smith, because they had such great triggers to begin with.

Both Rugers were fine revolvers - but any revolver will need maintenance eventually regardless of make. Ruger saw fit to replace my Blackhawk's laser-accurate .45 Colt cylinder with one of their klinkers having the too-small exit holes, so it patterned like a shotgun after that. The trigger had become wonderful with use, so they replaced everything there too and it was once again like puling a hoe over gravel. I was so irritated by this behavior that I sold both revolvers. I finally wised up and bought a Super Blackhawk 10.5" last summer and it is the bee's knees.

2. The infamous "Hillary Holes" on my Smith and Wessons (boy does that sound mature) have never once caused a malfunction. Ugly? Hell yes. But you guys are going to the trouble of removing them? Really? I simply can't comprehend the tizzy some folks work themselves into regarding the former owners' political leanings. It's like the hubbub over the addition of a cross-bolt safety on a certain lever action rifle ... honestly, who really gives a crap. Seems like some gunnies have a borderline-OCD resistance to change. Would it be great if Smith stopped putting them on there? Yep! Are there tons of non-hole used S&W's for reasonable prices in my area? Nope! No real choice for me, so I just buy new and ignore the lock that I never use.

Seriously though, either gun is great and I plan on buying more of both brands.