The owner of the 182RG I used to fly went through this. He elected to replace the suspect parts, and thereby forever end the recurring inspections. This service instruction was based upon a number of reports of cracks being found in the forged block which is the main structural element of the landing gear interface to the airframe.
At the time this owner made the decision, he calculated that the cost of recurring inspections would far exceed the cost of the better quality replacement parts. Upon removal, one of the two blocks had a crack eminating from the threaded hole into which the brake line fitting is screwed. The inspection was justified. I assisted in the work to replace the parts with new. I think they were about $2500 each, ten years ago, plus a few days labour, but of course, get a current quote! If you choose only the inspection, you only saved the price of the new parts, the rest of the work is the same as I recall.
Should you decide to not follow the Cessna recommended inspection interval, you are taking a lot of responsibility for conditions which you may not fully understand. I agree that sometimes manufacturer's recommended intervals can be overly conservative, but... When the recommended inspection interval is based upon unexpectedly poor service history, there's a bit more substance to the reasoning for the interval, than just a "guess" at the beginning of a design, as to how long it will last (engines). Yes, the operating environment will have an effect on the chance and progression of the cracks in these blocks.
Think of it this way, if you are unaware of a progressing crack in this part, because it was not inspected at the recommended interval, it may progress too far. If it does, it will be the complete sudden surprise of a failed landing gear leg. This is different from an engine which burns too much oil and makes metal, or a weaping hose. Also bear in mind, that during one of these inspections, the inspector might actually find that replacement is necessary, it was on the RG I used to fly, and the owner and I were very happy this was found by inspection, not flight. Budget the cost of the replacement parts (which are teminating action to the inspection when installed). If you choose to put off inspections, allow a little more for failed main gear damage. Consider what the explanation to the insurance company might have to be if a part, which has not been inspected as recommended fails, and damage to the plane results. Will they pay?
I loved the 182 RG, and flew it for a few years. It was a very capable airplane, safe, dependable, a real hauler, and fun to fly, but not cheap! The owner gave up on it, and replaced it with a 180HP 172, much cheaper to operate!
Good luck!