1.) Smith & Wesson
2.) Ruger
3.) OLD (when they were affordable by mortal man) Colts.
4.) Dan Wesson
5.) Taurus, Rossi
6.) Charter and the rest.
There are a few semi-custom revolvers out there that may be better than S&W, but I don't have $6,000 and up to spend on a single firearm. They MAY be the best revolvers MADE, but they're not the best revolvers OBTAINABLE (not by me, at least).
S&W has been building revolvers since their invention, and had never turned out one that I thought was downright bad. I cannot say that of S&W's autopistols, especially the early double-column examples, but even that seems to be on the mend. S&W strikes an excellent balance between ruggedness and durability, leaning toward tunability (I exclude the X-frames, with which I choose to have little experience). The most powerful revolver made is not very usable if the trigger or other parts inhibit the shooter's hitting with it.
Ruger leans more toward durability than tunability, by building their revolvers out of fewer larger and more durable parts. I've never shot one that wasn't Abrams Tank-Tough. Tuning Ruger revolvers is not a hopeless task, and careful action work can make them very nice indeed. I still put their triggers a half-step behind S&W, which is no sin at all.
Before insanity overtook Colt, they turned out some of the finest revolvers made. Just try to find one of them now, for less than a seriously heavy house payment. Their triggers might rival S&W in terms of tunability, but they're also fragile, especially when full-house .357s are used. I spent 6 months seriously evaluating a 6" Python and tried VERY HARD to like the darned thing. It was the 2nd best .357 revolver for slow fire that I'd ever used. But I simply could not make it do the same things a Ruger S6, S&W M19, or S&W M27/M28, nor Dan Wesson would do in rapid fire of any sort.
The Dan Wessons MAY be as rugged as the Rugers, and tunable as the S&Ws, I'm not sure. I just remember nightmarishly LONG reload times from its cylinder latching system, and resolving NEVER to pop the ejector rod with an ungloved hand, after almost perforating my ungloved hand in that step. There may be no better hunting revolver made, but I couldn't get it to do other stuff.
Rossi and Taurus make very nice guns which, with work, can become great shooters. But they DO NEED THE WORK. Fit and finish sometimes leaves much to be desired, though function was never other than flawless. I exclude the "Raging Bull" series from this assessment, as I have only run 12 rounds through one. ITS fit & finish seemed nice than I expected from other models. I shot my new Taurus M431 3" .44 Special side-by-side with a friend's Charter Bulldog, and came away wondering how the heck Charter managed to stay in business. Not long after that, Taurus quit making the 431, which may be the explanation.
Charter Arms makes revolvers for people who MUST have one, quickly, until their firearms budget rises to a level at which another better revolver may be purchased. I'd rather have a Charter Arms revolver over none at all, and I'd rather have nearly any other brand of revolver over the Charter. Why Charter thinks their Bulldog snub(s) must be built in a too-light frame with too-short a barrel is something I think I may never understand. A 2.5" Bulldog is every bit as obstreperous as a 2.5" S&W M19 with full house .357 ammunition. Even the older 3" model is easier to shoot (either revolver, either caliber), no more difficult to conceal, and balances far better.
But what the heck do I know about revolvers? I'M a 1911A1 guy.
Somebody DID ask.