GP100 Match Champion vs 686 SSR, which is better out of the box?

[Jacoby]

I'm more into semi autos but revolvers are growing on me recently. I have an M&P R8 on order and hope to receive it soon.

For my next revolver purchase, I thinking either the GP100 Match Champion with adjustable sights or the 686 SSR. My main reasons are for general range shooting, maybe a HD gun (although I have others for that role), possibly join competitions later on (requires a 6 shooter), and even for collection as both are actually very rare where I'm from.

Unfortunately, our local dealer do not display their guns and it's impossible to rent also. Plus reselling guns later on is not so simple. So basically, I have to be careful whenever I make a new gun purchase decision.

Between the two, which would you say is better out of the box? Especially if you've handled both, why do you think so? It's also not convenient for me to visit local gunsmiths so this matters to me. The Ruger costs a bit less although the price difference is not really a big factor for me.

I understand that this is a S&W forum but I think many probably own Rugers as well. Thanks to all for your advice!

 

[eagleguy]

Rugers and S&W's are two totally different guns. I have a Ruger Davidson GP100 357 and love it. I also have a Taurus SS 6" in 44 cal. and love it as well. Both have fantastic action, are comfortable for ME to shoot and both were purchased after looking at S&W. It all comes down to what you have to spend and how the revolver fits in YOUR hand. I would not buy any revolver without at least having one in my hand first.

 

[da gimp]

I prefer the S&W 686... the Ruger feels clunky to me.

In most places the S&W's holds their value better, but there are fewer Rugers sold so we don't see many of those being resold used.

If it is possible try to use a comparable model of each to shoot... different grips can make a world of difference on how well you shoot a certain model too. If your local dealer does not stock extra grips & speed loaders for a brand... that makes it harder to find grips & speed loaders you do like.

 

[kaaskop49]

I own the 686SSR and sold the MC after one week. I thought the MC would be a fantastic gun, a more refined version of the fixed-sight, 3"bbl Wiley Clapp version GP100. What a letdown. I'm an experienced revolver shooter and the MC felt like a clunk. It fought me every round. Do not know why. It had to go. I do recall the DA was not as smooth as that of the WC. Some folks love the MC, but not this folk. I DID want to love it, but like many blind dates, it went on it's way. The WC is staying.

The 686SSR is a gem and is probably my best revolver that is not a snub. Some other posters (and myself) have reported issues with mainspring tension, but that is easily addressed.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[kaaskop49]

I prefer the S&W 686... the Ruger feels clunky to me.

You see? Somebody agrees with me. That means I'm right!
Thanks, partner. Stay safe.

Kaaskop49
Shield #5103

 

[Invictus357]

Both guns are great.

However...

For range time and HD, you can't go wrong with a 6" 686+.

Scratch that...get a 6" 586 Classic.

 

[sasu]

I have a GP100 and a 686+. The GP100 is clunky as you say, the 686+ is like a gem. Both are equally easy and pleasant to shoot. I shoot the GP100 more because it feels like a tank so I do not worry about using it a lot.

 

[Redlegvzv]

I have two 686s and two Ruger GP100s. I do not have a Match Champion.

The Ruger has a longer trigger that really seems designed to be "staged" on double action. If you like to stage your shots the Ruger trigger is fine. A gunsmith can tune it to where it is a real joy to shoot, as my 6" Ruger is.

The Smith trigger is shorter. It too can be tuned. My 4" 686+ was tuned by adding the Wilson Combat spring kit. The trigger is simply sweet.

One thing about the Ruger non Match Champion is that the stock Ruger has a really neat system whereby the front sight can be easily swapped out and replaced.

The stock Smith rear sight is more heavy-duty than the Ruger stock rear sight.

Contrary to what some say, I have found that the fit and finish on the newer Ruger GP100s is on a par with the Smiths.

As much as I love my Ruger GP100s, my favorite revolver is my Smith 4" 686+. It wins by a nose.

You won't go wrong with either gun. I am not a fan of the Ruger Match Champion because: 1) It does not have the swappable front sight system of the stock Ruger; 2) I prefer full lug barrel to half-lug barrel; and 3) a gunsmith can tune a stock GP100 trigger to just the way I like it.

 

[Jacoby]

Thank you for all the feedback. I was looking at some videos and it seems not so difficult to change the springs to improve the trigger especially for the GP100 Match Champion.

Can you say that either will be as good as the other after a spring upgrade and it is just a matter of personal preference in the end?

 

[Invictus357]

Thank you for all the feedback. I was looking at some videos and it seems not so difficult to change the springs to improve the trigger especially for the GP100 Match Champion.

Can you say that either will be as good as the other after a spring upgrade and it is just a matter of personal preference in the end?

Do what I did..

Buy both.

It really puts an end to the question

 

[TAC]

If I was buying one for Hunting, and full-house loads, I'd lean toward the Ruger. I like that the Ruger doesn't have a side-plate & screws.

Otherwise, I still favor the S&W. I think they look, and feel better, and I like how you can stage the DA trigger pull, making it almost the same as SA.

The S&W will likely have better resale potential, should you decide to sell it.

 

[jtcarm]

For every purpose you listed, the M&P R8 is going to be superior to either for everything except IDPA revolver or concealed carry, and the GP or 686 would be a load for CC.

 

[Mehutch]

The 686 + family and the 586 family are great guns, and will never go down in value.
My 686+ 2.5" seven shooter I bought for - $299.95 (12-1996) and now look at it, 850 to 900 with the lock. Ruger are fine but stick with the Smiths.

 

[Will Carry]

I have owned both. The Ruger is built like a tank. You can feed it a steady diet of hot loads. You can shoot it until it's hot enough to iron your shirts. Once you hold the Smith and Wesson 686 side by side with the GP-100, you'll know which one to buy.

 

[jtcarm]

I have owned both. The Ruger is built like a tank. You can feed it a steady diet of hot loads. You can shoot it until it's hot enough to iron your shirts. Once you hold the Smith and Wesson 686 side by side with the GP-100, you'll know which one to buy.

Yeah I see the old "built like a tank" quote in every one of these sort of posts.

The "Ruger is more durable" argument is pure assumption. No one can point to any true empirical evidence or test to prove it.

Besides if I want a tank, I'll shop for a low-mileage Abrams.

 

[regalsc]

Does the Ruger have to be larger due to the frame being cast as opposed to forged?

 

[patrickd]

Last year when revolver shopping I handled both the GP100 and the Match Champion. I could not really tell any difference between the two. I'm convinced the only difference in the action between them is the MC has hammer shims to reduce any sideplay.. Even shimmed I think it's a toss up between a regular GP and a Match Champ. I didn't notice a difference. Can't speak for a new 686, but my old factory original no dash 586 beats it hands down. I have a GP100 that I did a home trigger job on that is very good, but still not up to my 586 in regards to both smoothness and crispness. In my opinion, you will be well served by either the Ruger or Smith. Both are fine guns.

 

[Jacoby]

Thanks again for the comments!

The R8 should be arriving in a few weeks and as it will be my first Smith, I'll check if handling will be good especially since I'm a lefty.

I do have an LCR and I have no issues with the Ruger's cylinder release. DA only trigger is actually ok to shoot but as it is very light, it is quite snappy and not that fun to shoot.

Oh, and I'd like to have a revolver option that I can use for competitions one day that's partly why I'm interested in a 6 shooter. Maybe I will have both one day but probably not so soon as I have other semi-autos and rifles in mind.

Ok, between the 686 SSR and GP100 MC, if I do DIY spring change, are both relatively easy to upgrade? Or is one better than the other?

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I am not convinced that there is such a thing as a spring "upgrade" for a Smith and Wesson revolver. There are probably others who will tell you that there is, and they have their reasons. I will tell you mine.

S&W has been making revolvers for a few years now, and they pretty much try to make them the best they know how. What most people who change springs do is put in weaker springs to reduce trigger pull. I would rather do it with a good lube job and possibly stoning the rebound slide. IMO this results in a more reliable gun than trying to second-guess S&W on springs, and I haven't been unhappy with the resulting trigger pulls.

Other people, SOME of whom who know more about the issue than I do, will be along shortly to refute or support my claim. I just wanted to be sure that you knew that just because someone is selling substitute parts for your S&W, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be an "upgrade." It may be a downgrade, possibly a serious one.

P.S. Although I have no experience with Ruger DA revolvers, you might want to consider the possibility that Ruger, too, puts the right springs in their revolvers in the first place.

 

[sasu]

Yeah I see the old "built like a tank" quote in every one of these sort of posts.

The "Ruger is more durable" argument is pure assumption.

I am not saying it is more durable, I am saying it FEELS more durable. That feeling makes it more pleasant to shoot it a lot. Whereas I baby my S&Ws.

As this is not a life and death issue I can allow myself such subjectivity.

I own a lot more S&Ws than Rugers, in case you think I am Ruger biased.