GP100 vs 686

[muzzleblast]

Ruger GP100 = more likely to spend the night in the truck glove box.
S&W 686 = more likely to spend the night in the gun safe.

 

[BigBill]

Nobody puts ruger in corner of the glove box all night nobody.

Let's talk function there pretty much the same. Let's talk price the ruger is affordable. The choice is yours choose wisely grasshopper.

 

[Lou_NC]

I own both. I like them both. I will say, however, that I only own pre-lock S&W revolvers, and if I were forced to buy new, I would only buy a new Ruger GP100 vs. a S&W 686 with a lock. (It's a principle-based argument, not a functional argument).

Another thing to consider is that my reloading manuals have "Ruger and T/C only" loads listed. They don't have "S&W only" loads listed. Draw your own conclusions.......

There are features of both revolvers that I like.

Ruger GP100 likes:

• Cylinder release pushbutton. Feels much better to me than the "slide-forward" cylinder release on S&W.
• Interchangeable front sight. Some S&W's offer this, but not many. (Some days I feel like a black patridge sight, some days I feel like a fiber optic front sight. Ruger makes it easy to swap in seconds).

S&W 686 likes:

• Frame is drilled and tapped under the rear sight for easy installation of optic sights. (Some days I feel like optics, some days I feel like iron sights).

Good luck in your decision!


Lou

 

[Maximumbob54]

To everyone saying the Rugers are cheap, keep an eye on prices. Just a couple of years ago I bought a brand new blued steel GP100 for about $450 OTD. Add at least a hundred to that at today's prices. And the stainless is another hundred on that today. And a new 686 is about priced out of many people's wallets these days starting at around $700 and up.

 

[nawilson]

I was just thinking about this very thing this morning while laying in bed. I never owned a Ruger revolver until the 90s because I just didn't care for their looks. However, I now own several security sixes that I looked over 30+ years ago as well as some GP's and Redhawks. I really like them but my analogy goes something like this. A Ruger is that slightly chubby somewhat homely girl that's plenty smart and works like a mule. The S&W on the other hand is smart and works hard too but is the prom queen. I said those very words to my wife while in bed and she said to me, am I a Ruger or a S&W? All joking aside, one of the best 357 magnums ever imo is a pre-lock 686. I liked them well enough to accumulate a few but with that said, if it came down to a new model 686 and a GP100, the Ruger is coming home with me.

Dude... I hope your wife doesn't read the forum. You'll have some 'splainin to do.

 

[nawilson]

The Ruger is a great revolver.
The Smith is an excellent revolver.

There are some ways the Ruger is just as good as the Smith.
There are some ways the Smith is better than the Ruger.
There are no ways the Ruger is better than the Smith.

That made sense in my head hope it came out in my message.

If you want a great gun that won't embarrass you...get the Ruger.
If you want the best, get a 686 plus and I dare you to prove me wrong.

Now decide and let us know.

I am kind on board here, with the possible exception that Rugers tend to be better price-wise. I'd also add that if you're really undecided, then there is a lot of great advice on this thread. If you are leaning one way or the other and are trying to be persuaded to do otherwise, go with what you *want*. If you don't, you'll just end up buying twice.

 

[bmcgilvray]

Thanks much, Shawn.

Sorry BigBill. Thank you too for actually being the one to flesh out Shawn's comments.

 

[PurpleMountainOutdoors]

I am kind on board here, with the possible exception that Rugers tend to be better price-wise. I'd also add that if you're really undecided, then there is a lot of great advice on this thread. If you are leaning one way or the other and are trying to be persuaded to do otherwise, go with what you *want*. If you don't, you'll just end up buying twice.

This is good advice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Riflemann]

I have a 4" 686 and love it and have NO reason to consider a ruger. I am going to buy my wife a 686 in the near future, she likes shooting mine and now wants one of her own.

 

[fishcreekrim]

If the GP 100 5" I tried in the shop had a better single action trigger I might own one, I just haven't found one with a let off like my smith's. JMHO/YMMV

 

[Whitens Moss]

I had a Security Six, forerunner to the GP100, and couldn't hit the side of a barn with it. Had a 586, best revolver I ever owned. This hangs in my den. Bottom line:

 

[walkin' trails]

A shooting buddy years ago blew up a Blackhawk in 45 Colt hot loading it I don't know what he had fed it that day, But he had a bad habit of coming up with some really brutal stuff. Ruger wouldn't warranty that gun, but offered him a new one at a good price and suggested he consider a 44 mag if he wanted hot loads. The 686 was brought out to provide a package smaller than the N frame and still handle a steady diet of magnums, including the ever potent 125 grain semi jacketed hollow point that the Ks couldnt do. The GP 100 followed the L frame. When shooters start talking about the strength of the Ruger to handle hot loads, that usually means hand loaders intend to push their cartridges over SAMI. Dont expect any magnum to hold up or stay intact when hot loading, regardless of how it's steel is formed.

 

[DonD]

The strength issue always comes up. Can’t specifically speak to the 686 but strength is why most reputable reloading sources list .44 Mag data that is recommended for Rugers but not for S&Ws. They wouldn’t make stipulations like that just for grins.

My GP100 has an excellent trigger. The best trigger I ever handled on a .357 size gun was a 686 at a big box sporting goods store. Don

 

[aurora40]

There are no ways the Ruger is better than the Smith.

Granted, it's a S&W forum so you'd expect people prefer the S&W. I like a lot of things about S&W's over the Rugers I have as well. Mainly that for a given configuration, the S&W is almost always thinner and lighter than the Ruger. Although in this particular case of the 686 vs the GP100, that's really not true. The 4" versions weigh about the same and are sized about the same.

However, the above statement is pretty obviously false. Most obviously, the Ruger costs less than the Smith and Wesson. Around here, about $150-200 less.

Also, the GP100 has a triple locking cylinder. And the ejector rod doesn't unscrew. And there is no internal lock on it.

More subjectively, the GP100 is easier to disassemble. And it has a tang grip so that you can have rubber over the backstrap without the grip being super thick or obviously protruding from the frame (not everyone will prefer this though).

 

[aurora40]

The strength issue always comes up. Can’t specifically speak to the 686 but strength is why most reputable reloading sources list .44 Mag data that is recommended for Rugers but not for S&Ws. They wouldn’t make stipulations like that just for grins.

Perhaps you have specific load data where this isn't the case, but I think often-times, with the .44 Mag at any rate, this has to do with the load having an out of spec OAL of the cartridge. That seems to be how some of the super heavy bullets are still loaded stout, because they are loaded so long they won't fit in an S&W cylinder, but most Ruger cylinders are longer.

In cartridges like .45 Colt, I imagine other modern guns can handle the higher pressures of "Ruger only" loads, but it was Ruger who only made guns that way (i.e. all Rugers could handle it). That's actually not true anymore, my understanding is the new model Vaqueros should not use "Ruger only" hot .45 Colt loads.

It sorta seems like it's all internet repetition, like the reliability of Glocks. Somewhat based in truth (Ruger does make strong firearms in general), but somewhat overblown as well. I would tend to think in terms of burst strength, both firearms probably provide a 100% cushion or more over the max pressure of the cartridge they are chambered for. I do wonder if they both hold up the same in terms of locking up tight over a long term of full power loads. Subjectively, the Ruger's lockup seems better to me, but I've never shied away from shooting anything in my 629-4 when I wanted to shoot it.

 

[wildenout]

Just to add another $0.02, The GP isn't pretty...I'd go with the SP101 over the GP, I don't like the "swoop neck" kind of look.

 

[Rebel Soul]

However, the above statement is pretty obviously false. Most obviously, the Ruger costs less than the Smith and Wesson. Around here, about $150-200 less.

So by this reasoning - price - Rock Island is superior to Kimber? Glad to get that cleared up.

"You get what you pay for" is a cliche' - for a reason.

Rugers are great revolvers. Smiths cost more because they are superior.

 

[Hillbilly77]

So by this reasoning - price - Rock Island is superior to Kimber? Glad to get that cleared up.

"You get what you pay for" is a cliche' - for a reason.

Rugers are great revolvers. Smiths cost more because they are superior.

Who gets to define "superior"?

There are plenty of people that say Kimber = junk.

Plenty of people have countless 1,000's of flawless rounds through their Rock Islands.


Just sayin'.

 

[Rebel Soul]

Who gets to define "superior"?

There are plenty of people that say Kimber = junk.

Plenty of people have countless 1,000's of flawless rounds through their Rock Islands.


Just sayin'.

Well sir this is a public forum...so in my posts I get to define superior. You can say whatever you like in yours.

I'm glad you are happy with your rock - its a great $400 gun.

 

[walkin' trails]

The only thing I can think to add is that the 686s I had hands-on with were manufactured back when S&W was still foreign owned and QC wasn't in the business model like it had been years before and would return later on. Still, the L frames held up pretty well despite not having a triple lock cylinder and an unscrewable ejector rod.All three if my Ks were manufactured during those dark days that came to a head when the company tried to enter into a pact with the left wing administration if the time, all three have received action jobs and other tweeks and a couple of minor repairs for bad adjustable sights, but the strength of the forged components was always there to give a platform you could build on. I never intended to carry a revolver that was completely stock anyway, and the S&W lends it's self to better refinement at the hands of a master gunsmith. Anyway, if I was in the position to carry a revolver today, I would give the new 66 with it's improved forcing cone and better cylinder lock up a hard look, but if it came home with me, it would get the DA smoothed and brought down to 8lbs, grips, and sights..... I have no intention of seeing how much powder I can cram onto a case to launch a bullet faster than anyone else anyway.