That burger and shake ad was a response to a Ruger ad comparing a S&W side by side and touting the strength by material bulk of the GP-100.
Both the GP-100 and the 686 had one driving motive behind them - the Newhall incident and subsequent spread of mandates to train with .357 duty ammo instead of .38 Specials. The Model 19 and 66 were perceived as insufficient for the high volume of Magnum ammo expected in training, and the 686 and GP-100 were direct responses to a demand for a service revolver that wouldn't have the cumulative downtime that was expected in large populations of 19's and 66's had they been maintained.
I don't have details on exactly how the "six" series of Rugers were also wearing at an excessive rate as the volume of Magnum fire increased, but I've read non-specific accounts that was exactly what was happening and what engendered the demand for the GP-100. I can imagine that the sales of the 586/686 also prompted Ruger to offer a direct competitor that didn't have any perceived weakness by comparison.
Sales has a lot to do with consumer's perception and not just reality. Even though the reality was that most people would never wear out a 19 or a Security Six, the mere existence of the 686 and GP-100 suggested to them that they could, and engendered a desire for the stronger, more durable guns. In reality, the problems with the lighter guns were almost certainly primarily a concern of people responsible for large populations of them, like heads of large departments and the manufacturers themselves because of warranties and service contracts.
The Ruger vs S&W revolver frame competition seemed important in the late 80's. I think that burger ad was 1989. It wouldn't be long before few buyers cared, because the consequences, not of Newhall, but Miami would soon take hold, and those who were previously large consumers of duty revolvers would all be buying automatics chambered in the .40 S&W introduced in January 1990.
