At the risk of starting an onslaught . . .
Ratshooter, the Colt frame is wider, the arbor is larger (than the top strap), the keyed end of the arbor is held by a very robust support (barrel lug). Everything about the support for the cylinder is a physically bigger scale. The frame structure (arbor) runs through the cylinder instead of around the cylinder which means the periphery is more compact. The frame of the Remington is very narrow at the bottom, very sparse at the front (rammer). The top strap is thin, with a sight groove that makes it thiner and an opening at the top rear corner where the hammer nose enters. The periphery is larger but much thinner which yields the opposite of a thick, stout and compact frame.
The result of this has been spoken of twice in this thread about the Remington frame actually bending while loading/firing harder lead balls. I've never experienced this with a Colt open top pattern revolver. Quite the reverse, I've actually sheared a loading lever screw loading an open top.
Mike
I read the one example about Lyman NMA frame stretching 1/8" and also about the crack in the forcing cone of the Rogers & Spencer cited by LaneP in post #9.
They may have both been Euroarms guns that were made with mild steel and even if the Lyman wasn't a Euroarms, whatever lead they were shooting that caused it may have able to damage, stretch or bend a Colt as well.
One example of an older production gun doesn't actually prove anything about the strength of the design.
I'll admit that one individual Remington could be weaker depending on the generation of the steel if there was any production flaw in the steel.
Palmetto made revolvers too which their quality isn't necessarily representative of all the guns produced by the other different makers.
And I can't say that a Colt arbor has never worked loose from its frame or became bent, maybe yes or maybe no, but that's probably not unheard of depending on the make and model.
We know that Uberti went to making forged Remington frames, while Pietta has maybe made their frame beefier since they first began production.
If each maker used better quality steel or forged steel then there may not be any weakness detected in either frame designs.
And we don't know if the one Remington that stretched had a flaw in the casting or if it was a soft materials issue.
My point is that one example doesn't necessarily support making the final conclusion that the Remington is a weaker design.
It may or may not be, however who can say with any certainty without scientific testing?
And even then each individual gun can be unique with its own production flaws and characteristics built into it.