Has GP100 v 686 durability ever been verified?

[shawn mccarver]

I am not aware of any tests related to durability or longevity of the GP-100 versus the 686.

I am, however, aware of an old H. P. White Labs test concerning the strength of the Ruger Blackhawk cylinder compared to the S&W N frame cylinder. The research is out there, and the S&W cylinder was the same strength as the Ruger. Not fluting did not provide any appreciable additional strength, which makes sense as the weak point of the cylinder is the locking notch cuts.

 

[wrangler5]

How much would the ammo cost to wear out the less durable of the two? Compared to the cost of replacing the gun when you did finally wear it out, I think this would be one place where Miss Hillary's favorite reply makes sense -

What Difference Does It Make?

Shoot the one you like.

 

[LedFowl]

I'm glad there are at least two quality revolver manufacturers in the U.S.

 

[jtcarm]

Felt recoil irrelevant. The question is the durability.

Yes I doubt anyone has ever done exhaustive tests. And not enough LE agencies shoot revolvers (much less magnums) anymore to gather empirical evidence as occurred with the K-frame magnums. In fairness to the K-frames, Ruger never had enough of the Police revolver market to have been so thoroughly tested, and the Security Six had nowhere near time in service of the K-frames.

So the alleged better durability is mostly speculation with some anecdotes.

In fairness, I've never owned or even shot a GP. There's a lot I like about it: the ergonomics, solid frame, simplicity. What I don't like: the sights and the trigger. I finally pinned down a long-time gunsmith and Ruger fan who was forced to admit that no matter how much the GP100 is smoothed and springs replaced with lighter ones, the coil mainspring will stack towards the end, which I consider unacceptable for good DA shooting. Guess I'll have to rent one at the range. What magnums I shoot these days are in my three-screw Blackhawk or Redhawk.

BTW: I don't know why on earth anyone thinks they need to remove a Smith side plate for routine cleaning.

 

[Cal44]

I went into a LGS to look at a 686 ssr they advertised.

The 686 had a badly over clocked barrel, an ok trigger, and the infernal lock.

I walked out with a blue steel gp 100 4".

It had no visible problems, a nicer trigger, and no lock. At half the cost.

Shoots and looks great.

 

[ditto1958]

OP, I hear ya on this one. Same thing is true of Marlin 60 vs. Ruger 10/22. Ask any "expert" to compare them, and you will hear "well, the Model 60 is more accurate out of the box..."

They may been out there, but I have yet to see any scientific testing done to see if stock Marlin 60's really are more accurate than stock Ruger 10/22's. Still, it's repeated over and over, and no one seems to question it.

As for Smith vs. Ruger revolvers, it would be nice to have the time and money to try to wear them out.

 

[Bahamaroot]

I just like the look of the S&W much better and it has the best trigger I've ever touched. I'll never shoot anything enough to wear it out so I just went with what tickled my fancy the most, the 686.

 

[jtcarm]

Wow. Just read this and had to chime in.....i own a kgp -100 6" stainless and owned a gp -100 6" and RECENTLY purchased a 627 performance center! My Ruger outperforms my 627! Especially with hot loads! 110grXTP Hornady fly through and don't seem to bother the frame of the Ruger and seemed to be a problem for the 627! I purchased the 5" 8 shot as a replacement for my 6 shot Ruger.....doesnt seem to be happening any time soon. It didn't even seem to handle my 38 special 158 gr xtreme semi wadcutters! It transferred noticeable recoil even with 3gr titegroup? (I need to check that-going on memory. ..) and the Ruger not only eats them up like 22s but accuracy to boot! ? Take it from me- or ignore me. I own enough smiths to have a credible assessment of either platform and can tell you if you're stuck with those Smiths just because of the price? You got another thing coming. ...Ruger makes a fine tough gun, worthy of any weekend shooter! Ive never had to send it back. And so far ive sent 2 smiths back. (686+,625JM ) . Dont get me wrong- i love my model 66 (which somehow, miraculously im good at 25 yards - i think it has something to do with the weight. .....) and would NEVER dream of selling. And im not bashing. This is an observation. Im going to keep my 8 shot 627 (just going to develope lower powdered loads and figure out why those 8 wont go in snuggly even with the moon clips...) so dont discount the Ruger. If you ever tried one and shot over 10,000 rounds like i have, you would know exactly what i mean.

Please define "outperform", and "problem with the frame". You mean the frame of a recently-acquired 627 failed? Or that you've had problems with an individual specimen, like sticky extraction, trouble chambering, etc. I'm not talking accuracy, felt recoil, higher velocity, quality new, or whether you like it better. I mean durability, like at what point does one develop excessive end-shake, headspace, get out of time, split the forcing cone, etc, given the same treatment and same loads.

I'm not discounting the Ruger at all. What I object to is the assumption that it's inherently more "durable" than an S&W L frame. It's impossible to say one is more durable than the other without either exhaustive scientific testing, or enough empirical evidence as occurs with widespread service use by military or police.

BTW the only gun I've ever had to return to the factory was a Ruger SBH. But that single anecdote proves absolutely nothing about whether one brand is better than the other. Among by absolute never-will-part-with guns are a three-screw Blackhawk, an M77 (original), a #3 .22 Hornet, and an early Redhawk. The Redhawk locks up tighter than any revolver I've ever owned. It doesn't get much use because I don't hunt with a handgun any longer. When it comes to big-bore magnums, I will take a Ruger almost every time. But, I don't shoot those guns DA. Just so everyone knows, I am not anti-Ruger in any way.

 

[101Voodoo]

About 2009 a long time customer stopped in our store with the GP-100 6" stainless he bought from us about 1995 . It was the short lived mirror polish finish . "The forcing cone was cracked , can we help ... "

He had documented approximately 74,000 rounds fired by himself over the approx 15 yrs he had owned it , ALL factory loaded .357 Mag 158 gr JHP . That's the only load he fired . No 38 spl .

We sent it to Ruger telling them the story . Ruger didn't have a hi polish barrel in their parts dept so they polished one up just for his gun . Turn around time was about 8 wks ... No Charge .

No other parts were changed except springs .

74k worth of factory .357? Woof.

That must have cost a fortune.

 

[andyo5]

I have a GP100 and a 686, both with 6" barrels.
You can't get as good a trigger on the GP100, but you can certainly make it better than it was at the factory.
The Hogue rubber grip that came with my GP100 covers the backstrap and fits my hand perfectly. It is pain-free to shoot even with the heaviest loads. My 686 needed a Pachmayr grip to make it shootable without bashing the heck out of my hand.
With the same exact loads, the GP100 shoots more accurately and delivers higher velocity. Sorry guys, that's just the way it is.
The GP100 has a front sight that is easy to replace with another style. No need for gunsmithing.
The GP100 is built like a tank. Probably heavier than a 357 revolver needs to be.
If competition were on the agenda, I'd go with the Smith because I'd expect better and faster handling.
So take your pick.

 

[Lou_the_welder]

Correct!
My 627 is recently acquired. I can only go by the current 400 rounds through her and yet no failures. I havent logged yet when i broke it, how, what loads broke it or whether it developed any problems. It is a performance center gun. I purchased it even though the salesman who sold it to me has sent his 627 back to the shop 4 times for various reasons. And he competed with his.
My 686+ did go out of time pretty fast (few hundred ) and i have shot that more than the 627 to know that it handles the load and power because of the barrel length alot better. But does it feel like shooting the Ruger? No. Similar rounds through the Ruger feel like 22s (mainly 38 specials)
I can't cite a 100,000 round torture test with full magnum loads and a pie chart featuring what broke and when. I reload 7,000 rounds a year putting most of them in the two Rugers and four Smiths! I know what works and what won't. I know I've shot my 686 hard enough to lock the cylinder once and wait for it to cool just to make it turn. Broke the timing. And still shot thousands of rounds through a Ruger and never hurt it or had to send it in. My Redhawk hasnt ever given me problems either so much i recently stopped wanting to replace it with a 629! Its blued,wooden grips and looks ugly but she's a keeper!

My experience. .....

 

[wolverine]

I'm talking about real, objective tests, like taking a new specimen of each, measuring dimensions & accuracy at the start and regular intervals, shooting the same ammo in each and seeing which becomes un-shootable first, not "yeah I had both and the GP100 was better."

Evening jtcarm

This seems easy enough to prove out-- I have a number of extreme high pressure 357mag loads that I worked up for my 6" GP-100. These are well over book published pressures.

I ( & a number of other shooters that I hang out with) have been shooting these through our GP-100's for quite a while now.

No way would I shoot these through my S&W 686 so if are willing to video shooting them through your 686 I will send you some to prove the 686 is as strong as our GP-100's are.

 

[jstanfield103]

That's why I bought a 686 and a GP100. I have hand loads that I will shoot through the Ruger that my 686 will never see. The Ruger's were built for hand loaders and higher pressure rounds. But NO I do not have proof. I Love my 686 but the Ruger is the work horse over the refined 686

 

[bigggbbruce]

Rugers haven't been around long enough to find out. There's plenty of nearly century old Smiths still working fine, many after being put through hell and back.

I'm not impressed with thick cylinder walls and chunky frames. I tried to like the idea of a GP100, but it's no lighter or smaller than my N frame 357, so why bother?

686's have only been around since the middle '80s.

Ruger GP 100 aint no N-frame size.

I don't own one but my friend does. When I picked it up to shoot it the other day I noticed it was smaller than a 686, more like a K-frame.

In fact I was curious about the barrel at the forcing cone. (compared to a K-frame) Ruger shaves off the yoke surface to keep 100% profile on the barrel.

 

[Muss Muggins]

So, we've all seen the question "GP100 or 686" question enough to make us all sick.

The part that really annoys me, though, are the myriad of responses making blanket statements about Rugers alleged better durability with zero proof. It seems to be an article of faith.

Mind you, I'm not saying it isn't so, I've just never seen anything approaching sufficient evidence to make such a categorical statement as "the GP100 will keep going long after the 686 is worn out" (ignoring that the average shooter will never come close to wearing out a 686.).

I'm talking about real, objective tests, like taking a new specimen of each, measuring dimensions & accuracy at the start and regular intervals, shooting the same ammo in each and seeing which becomes un-shootable first, not "yeah I had both and the GP100 was better." Anecdotes like that don't support a such blanket statements.

So, anyone heard of such?

There has never been an independent, scientific, peer reviewed study regarding this issue, primarily because it's a considerable non-issue. Get one, or get both. Neither will wear out in your lifetime. I would use the "rolling eyes" smilie, but it comes nowhere near expressing my rolling eyes.

 

[Rick_A]

686's have only been around since the middle '80s.

Ruger GP 100 aint no N-frame size.

I don't own one but my friend does. When I picked it up to shoot it the other day I noticed it was smaller than a 686, more like a K-frame.

In fact I was curious about the barrel at the forcing cone. (compared to a K-frame) Ruger shaves off the yoke surface to keep 100% profile on the barrel.

Yes obviously. I'm talking about the brands in general as far as time in service with revolvers.

And yes, in size, weight, and cylinder wall thickness (in a six shot like a model 28 or 27) an N frame is closer to a GP100 than an L. If it was closer to a K frame size it was not a GP100.

I like Ruger...don't get me wrong, but I'm not a max reloader, so all that extra meat is meaningless to me and the action is not nearly as refined.

 

[Texas Star]

During the time I was a gun writer, I was told by two separate ammo makers that they tested their .357 Magnum loads in Ruger GP's, as they held up better than anything else.

That's as close as we'll probably see to an empirical test.

Don't ask which ammo brands, as the info was imparted in confidence. But both are major manufacturers.

However, I've seen pics on the Net of GP-100's that had the forcing cones eaten badly by hot 125 grain loads. And other owners have posted that they wore the guns out. The Rugers probably are tougher and longer lasting, but that stuff about them being "tanks" is BS. Any .357 will wear out if you pound it long enough and hard enough.

 

[Nightedger]

I have had both, still have the 686. My son ended up with the GP-100.
From a personal perspective, the 686 fit me better. The Ruger was fatter. My hands are probably mid-size, not big, not small.

The GP-100 has a 4" barrel, the 686 has a 6". I didn't particular like the stock grips on the Ruger so I replaced them with Hogues.

Probably the difference in barrel length but the 686 balances a bit better. Keep in mind that both get the job done regardless.

I had numerous FTFs in the Ruger but I am sure that it was due to the ammunition that I was using at the time (can you say Blazer???) It helped with my shooting skills anyway!

All in all, I wouldn't ever come close to wearing either revolver out. Much more durable than most any autoloader in the marketplace today.

Slight thread drift.....I need to get out and run my new R8 thru the mill!

Craig

 

[jtcarm]

Evening jtcarm



This seems easy enough to prove out-- I have a number of extreme high pressure 357mag loads that I worked up for my 6" GP-100. These are well over book published pressures.



I ( & a number of other shooters that I hang out with) have been shooting these through our GP-100's for quite a while now.



No way would I shoot these through my S&W 686 so if are willing to video shooting them through your 686 I will send you some to prove the 686 is as strong as our GP-100's are.

Raw strength & durability aren't the same thing. And no, thank you. If you're going "way over" published maximums, I'm not shooting your loads in anything. You can send me a video of yourself blowing a top strap.

All bets are off if you're exceeding 40,000 PSI. Besides, one day you could drop one of those bombs in a GP100 of different dimensions or maybe slightly out of time and find yourself missing some digits.

This begs the question: f you don't shoot them in your 686, how can you say it won't stand them?

 

[walkin' trails]

The only thing I can add to this debate is that I've never known anyone's who ever blew up or even wore out a 686 from shooting it a lot. I've seen handloaders blow up Rugers by significantly exceeding pressures, but they should know bettter. A GP100 is by no means an indestructible tank, and a 686 is a pretty durable, life-long companion. I can't imagine that a side-by-side torture test will prove much, but someone with more money than me should try it...