GP100 vs 686

P

PurpleMountainOutdoors

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
137
Reaction score
33
I realize there may be some bias. Tell me why I should pay more for the smith, when the ruger is supposedly more durable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Register to hide this ad
"Supposedly" is subective. It really only comes down to your personal tastes and preferences. As has been stated many times on this site and others, Ruger uses steel investment casting processes to make components for their firearms. While strong, it results in a piece that is bulkier. S&W uses the forging process instead, making the 686 just as strong as a GP100. I worked for the Border Patrol back in the 90s, where both were issued. I saw problems with both, but the 686 problems were generally limited to ejector rods coming unscrewed, while the GP100s we had would sometimes lock up during a qualification course after 30 rounds of 110 gr 357. Obviously a heat problem. The Ruger Security Sixes still on the line ran good, while the Model 66s had been shot so hard that the timing on any given gun was way out of whack, but those who had them would not give them up. S&W actions can be massaged better, but Rugers have improved over the years. Shooters who hot load ammo run the risk of blowing up any handgun, but a 686 won't wear out or fail any faster than the Ruger from stout factory loads.
 
Last edited:
I had both in '88 when I went through academy. I chose the GP because I could stage the trigger and shoot it more accurately. IMO, the Smith had a shorter DA pull/reset and had some advantage in combat shooting. Both are great guns but I think that the Smith would hold it's value better in the long run. Now there's GLOCK, lol.
 
I'd try them out and see what feels better in your hand. Like others have pointed out, both are great guns. I have to say though, asking this question in a Smith forum is not going to get you a balanced opinion, just like asking the same question in a Ruger forum.
 
I'm willing to own the Smith & Wesson Model 686.

I really don't even believe in the greater durability of the Ruger. I have no experience with the brand, other than to shoot others' Rugers, but I have used and definitely abused Smith & Wesson revolvers for many years. Smith & Wesson revolvers have proven to be very tough; tougher than any requirements a reasonable (and even an unreasonable) person could have.

Of course I'm stuck on the older "traditional" Smith & Wessons. I'm satisfied with them and satisfied that the ones around here will last me out.

The "built-like-a-tank" cliché got old and tired decades ago. I don't want to drive a tank. I don't want a revolver with the characteristics of a tank. Perhaps it's due to familiarity with the Smith & Wesson revolver's action but I've never found a Ruger that was as smooth or as gratifying to shoot.
 
I have owned several specimens of both so I'll throw my 2 cents. The pre-lock S&W's had a lot going for them. All forged parts, slick actions, good balance, dependability and decent sights. The current production guns have some extraneous parts (lock) that, while they don't necessarily take away from reliability, could. The GP100 has many cast parts, including the frame, and now has a MIM trigger (and maybe other internal parts). It balances about the same as the 686, has similar sights, is as dependable, has an action that can be slicked up and rarely goes out of time. The cylinder lock up is more solid on the Ruger and it is far more easily disassembled than the S&W. While not either model, my shooting buddy has a 40 year old Ruger Security Six with 40,000 plus full-house .357 rounds through it. It has never had an issue or a part replaced. The GP 100 is an improvement on this gun. If I was buying for collecting a S&W 586/686 wins hands down. If I'm buying a shooter I have to go with the Ruger GP100. My favorite over both is a S&W Model 27.

Best Regards,
ADP3
 
I would not pay more for a new 686 I would find a good used 686 or 586 or buy a GP100 I just bought the Wiley Clap 3in. GP100 and love it. It is not a S&W it is just different. It is like the old saying about Harley Davidson if I have to explain you wouldn't understand.
 
I have a bunch of both Ruger and S&W revolvers and love them both, but I don't think the S&Ws are worth the premium. I ordinarily buy S&W revolvers only when I can a good deal and that generally means used. That doesn't mean I necessarily like the old ones -- just less expensive ones.

The Rugers have good triggers (of course they're not the same as S&W, but I actually have come to prefer the Ruger double action pull). And the Rugers are much easier to take down to parts. Playing around with side plates is just not all that much fun for me (though if you prefer that, fine).

Finally, I have a 3" GP100 with fixed sights which is a super cool gun. S&W doesn't make a comparable gun nowadays. The fixed sights give the gun some very nice lines.

That said my S&W Model 60 in .357 is the most elegantly sculpted gun ever made -- just being subjective.

Update: I found a used 3" 686 Plus. Very cool. Even used, it cost more than my new 3" GP100. I will keep them both.
 
Last edited:
L-frame SW such as 686 vs. GP100 on price and value you have a good question. Considering SW K-frame such as 66 vs Ruger GP or SP ... hands down SW. Love them K-frames.
 
I have both, my 686 has a far better trigger. It is also better finished. The Ruger has a lot of sharp unpolished edges. My ruger looks like too many shortcuts were taken to cut costs.

I don't believe the ruger is any stronger. The 686 frame is forged vs cast, they weigh the same and fit the same holsters. The 686 cylinder is slightly bigger than the ruger.
 
Both are good guns. The GP100 does look and feel a little "beefier" that the L frame, but I'm not convinced that the GP is any stronger.



It's true that the S&W has a nicer action, but a Ruger action is easily smoothed out with some 2,000 grit auto-body sandpaper.



Many will say that you shouldn't have to smooth out the trigger on a brand new gun.

Well, you could argue, "Why does S&W Performance Center offer a revolver action job for $165? Why doesn't every S&W revolver leave the factory with the professional action job already done? Why should I have to add $165 to the already expensive price of a new L frame?"

^^^^^^^^

I don't really feel that way - I'm just making a point. To some people, it's worth a couple hundred bucks to them to buy the less expensive gun and spend a half hour tuning the action themselves. ;)





I have owned both guns - a 686 no-dash, and a GP100, circa 1994.

I still own a 586 no-dash.

For beauty alone, I say the L frame wins, hands down. For rugged dependability and function, tie score.

Price, Ruger wins.

I would also claim a tie score for fit and finish - the GP locked up and fit together just as tight as any S&W I've seen. The blueing was as nice as S&W's modern blue.



I also had a Ruger SP101 - same story as the GP100 - a solid, reliable gun.

Of course, the GP100 was sold to fund my 586 restoration, and I traded the SP101 for an S&W Model 19-3.

With that in mind, I guess I lean more heavily toward Smith & Wesson. ;)



All that being said, you won't hate yourself if you buy the Ruger. :cool:


P.S.

I don't remember what thread I poached these pictures off, but here are a couple pictures that stand as a testament of the strength of the S&W design:

You can see the bullet stuck in the barrel:

yhube7em.jpg



An x-ray of the gun, with all 6 bullets stuck in the barrel:

use8u7yp.jpg



Yeah, the rounds may have been under-powered, and the barrel is junk, but the barrel stayed intact and the gun didn't kaboom - even after 6 rounds stuck in it.
 
Last edited:
You will not hurt a ruger with stout magnum loads. I been owning rugers in 357mg since 1976 and redhawks since they were first offered.
Before the redhawks I shot my ruger sbh with loads beyond stout. Do not try this at home. It was so loud I had guys leaving the range when they seen the flames. When I say stout that's max loads in the reloading manual. A Smith & Wesson I believe won't take a steady diet of stout loads. I believe the difference is in the frames. The ruger has a solid one piece frame. Where the s&w has the open side frame with a side plate. The ruger has no screws. If you want a quality revolver that will eat any stout load the ruger you will beat the snots out of it and never hurt it.
On the other hand the s&w can eat any standard magnum load. I wouldn't push the s&w with the stout loads. The ruger is Mack truck off road strong.
The s&w is like a peterbuilt strong but you won't take it off the highway.
For what my s&w cost I'd rather baby them with standard magnum loads and save my rugers for the hotter loads. The s&w might hold up to a diet of max loads in the reloading book but why push it.

I have s&w revolvers and ruger revolvers. No s&w will be holster ridden while I own it. My rugers are stainless so the finish wear won't show.

I like the history of s&w. The ruger is s fine strong revolver but it's history is very limited that doesn't mean it's not a good revolver. I'm sorry but to me both the s&w & ruger are top shelf quality revolvers. I would suggest buying both and enjoy them.
 
Last edited:
Now the s&w revolver is like the Harley Davidson your owning a piece of history that goes way back in time when it all started. Your shooting a piece of history weTher it's new or old it's all about the gun and it's Smith & Wesson name. It's like the Harley it's all about the history of the bike and the ride. I'm thinking about two bikes a Japanese vee twin for dependability and a Harley for the history and name sake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top