Has GP100 v 686 durability ever been verified?

[rifmon]

This is all from memory but actually, I did have an old magazine that published such a torture test between the GP100 and the 686 and they went through 10,000 rnds each to determine forcing cone wear and accuracy of each. I don't think I have the magazine any more but I have been know to be a pack-rat.

In fact, yesterday I found a 1996 issue on "Why we still need J-frames". I think the Glock 27 was a featured add too so this is a glimpse back to cutting edge in the 1990's! I love it! haha.

I will look in my archives this afternoon. If I remember correctly, I believe the Ruger fared slightly better after the 10,000 rnds. But neither gun failed. I'm sure the magazine (guns and ammo?) was from the 90's when 357 was a LOT cheaper, and if memory serves me still, it was all 357 used. It was an interesting article and I would love to find it!

Both guns had zero failures regarding frame cracks or forcing cone cracks. It was just a matter of visible wear on the forcing cones and how they evolved over the course of the test. Both passed but I'd like to find it!

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

I emailed both Smith and Ruger a copy of this thread and suggested that they each send to me a 686 and GP100 respectively together with 100,000 rounds (from each manufacturer)of 158 grain solid point .357 cartridges.
I'll run the test and let you guys know.
Ought to have the guns and cartridges in a couple of weeks.

 

[bigggbbruce]

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.

Nope..it's not..

I laid my Model 15 on top of the GP100 Match and it was REAL close in dimensions. That's when I was curious about the barrel and saw the yoke was thinned down by Ruger to give the forcing cone more strength.

You must be thinking of a Redhawk.

 

[Lou_the_welder]

Nope..it's not..

I laid my Model 15 on top of the GP100 Match and it was REAL close in dimensions. That's when I was curious about the barrel and saw the yoke was thinned down by Ruger to give the forcing cone more strength.

You must be thinking of a Redhawk.

No.

Gp-100 match= 38 oz. Half lug
Gp-100 6" = 45 oz. Full lug

686+ 6"= 43.9 oz. Full lug
627 5" = 44 oz. Half lug? (Kinda curved at the nose. You tell me what design that is....)

The match model is closer to my model 66 combat magnum. Its a half lug under the barrel. Thats not whats being compared. What is being compared is a plain 686 to a gp100. Both being full lugs.

There's a difference!

A full size 6" gp100 is comparable to a 627 N frame 357! The gp being heavier!
I have all of these

 

[Doug M.]

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 ...

*
Crude math: 74,000 rounds at $25/50 round box is $37,000. At $400 per 1000 round case, $29,600. If one can afford that, they can afford plenty of firearms to shoot to failure. Even assuming that he was able to buy at $200/case during that time period with savvy shopping, which I doubt: $14,800.

 

[jtcarm]

*

Crude math: 74,000 rounds at $25/50 round box is $37,000. At $400 per 1000 round case, $29,600. If one can afford that, they can afford plenty of firearms to shoot to failure. Even assuming that he was able to buy at $200/case during that time period with savvy shopping, which I doubt: $14,800.

You need to take your math a step further:. that was over a 15 year period ending in 2009,

Even at your $30,000 figure, that's only $2,000 per year.

 

[jtcarm]

No.

Gp-100 match= 38 oz. Half lug
Gp-100 6" = 45 oz. Full lug

686+ 6"= 43.9 oz. Full lug
627 5" = 44 oz. Half lug? (Kinda curved at the nose. You tell me what design that is....)

The match model is closer to my model 66 combat magnum. Its a half lug under the barrel. Thats not whats being compared. What is being compared is a plain 686 to a gp100. Both being full lugs.

There's a difference!

A full size 6" gp100 is comparable to a 627 N frame 357! The gp being heavier!
I have all of these

Weight doesn't tell us anything, except that the GP100 is chunky, which we already knew. They have to be close, or they couldn't take the same speed loaders and some of the same holsters .

Here's a comparison on the Ruger forum of GP dimensions to L & N frames., I don't know how accurate it is.. According the measurements, the frame window of the L frame is longer than the GP.

http://rugerforum.net/gunsmithing/99853-measurements-s-w-629-69-gp100.html

 

[bigggbbruce]

No.

Gp-100 match= 38 oz. Half lug
Gp-100 6" = 45 oz. Full lug

686+ 6"= 43.9 oz. Full lug
627 5" = 44 oz. Half lug? (Kinda curved at the nose. You tell me what design that is....)

The match model is closer to my model 66 combat magnum. Its a half lug under the barrel. Thats not whats being compared. What is being compared is a plain 686 to a gp100. Both being full lugs.

There's a difference!

A full size 6" gp100 is comparable to a 627 N frame 357! The gp being heavier!
I have all of these

In weight it may be more than your 627.

No one specified any particular variant.

But that's not what we are talking about. The actual frame size is no larger than an L-frame. Definitely not as big as an N-frame.

Grab your calipers and camera and prove me wrong.

 

[Lou_the_welder]

In weight it may be more than your 627.

No one specified any particular variant.

But that's not what we are talking about. The actual frame size is no larger than an L-frame. Definitely not as big as an N-frame.

Grab your calipers and camera and prove me wrong.

Minus the accessory rail on the Ruger, its still bigger and has more meat. They dont make a 6" 627 (not anymore) that i can currently compare it to. A "686 competitor " at 50+oz. Will be comparable but i dont have one or trained with one.

686 full lug compared to a Ruger. Both 6". Ruger still bigger.

 

[rifmon]

I could not find the magazine with the 10,000 GP100 vs 686 contest.
I know it existed and I Googled the S__T out of it and nothing.

With the decades of GP100 vs S&W 686 topic, you would think the two companies would like to conduct a test. That would be a risky contest!

 

[Mrnurse]

A blown up GP 100.....I never shoot reloads

https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=5&f=33&t=158425
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/derek45/Smith revolvers/ad_686vsgp100.jpg

 

[Lou_the_welder]

I could not find the magazine with the 10,000 GP100 vs 686 contest.
I know it existed and I Googled the S__T out of it and nothing.

With the decades of GP100 vs S&W 686 topic, you would think the two companies would like to conduct a test. That would be a risky contest!

I was waiting for that. My vote would have been for the Ruger! Dont get me wrong. I currently own more Smiths than Rugers but i know handling BOTH that i would not doubt the strength of a Ruger! I have manuals that only show load listings specifically for Rugers! Why?

 

[Jaymo]

Brand wars are stupid.
I own Charter, Colt, DW, Ruger, Smith, and Taurus revolvers.
I like all of mine.

Will I ever wear out any of my revolvers?
Nah. I can't afford to load enough ammo to wear them out.

 

[Lou_the_welder]

Weight doesn't tell us anything, except that the GP100 is chunky, which we already knew. They have to be close, or they couldn't take the same speed loaders and some of the same holsters .

Here's a comparison on the Ruger forum of GP dimensions to L & N frames., I don't know how accurate it is.. According the measurements, the frame window of the L frame is longer than the GP.

http://rugerforum.net/gunsmithing/99853-measurements-s-w-629-69-gp100.html

The Smiths are longer and lighter and hollow......Gp's dont have a sideplate. Rugers are solid. "Big and chunky" one way of putting it. (and no, i dont believe you should remove the side plate for cleaning. All i ever do is remove the cylinder, clean the bore, brush it like crazy with clr and wipe clean. But i do remove grip)

Try both. It might be like glock and xd's. You might prefer one. You might hate one. You will shoot one better. Not the same!

I only offer a "unbiased" opinion. I like both Smiths and Rugers for different reasons.

 

[jstanfield103]

I also don't think that Buffalo Bore ammo states 686 on the box but it does mention Ruger.

 

[diyj98]

I sold my two GP100's and kept a 686 for my range/hunting 357, but I'd guess the GP100 to be the slightly stronger design.

 

[DEG]

A blown up GP 100.....I never shoot reloads

https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=5&f=33&t=158425
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/derek45/Smith revolvers/ad_686vsgp100.jpg

Same thread, just a few replies down, shows photo a 686 blown up.

 

[Mrnurse]

with enough powder anything will blow up... to me the ruger is not as balanced, and looks chunky... but in the end what matters is can you shoot it.

 

[mj2008]

.357

I have neither one so I pick S&W. Why ? Have a couple of S&W 19's which means nothing for this thread. Seriously from what I know they are both great. For a medium frame .357 either one is a great revolver which will last a life time. I really would pick the Smith but the Ruger is also top shelf.

 

[jtcarm]

Oye! Time for an admin to lock this thread:

The question was never which anyone likes or which you perceive as "better". It's whether there is real, objective evidence that the GP100 is more durable.

I haven't read anything anything to dispel my belief that it's an assumption that's been parroted so much as to become dogma (although the 74,000-round gun was impressive). The perception is probably fueled by the weight and appearance of the GP100 and the reputation of the S&W K-frames.

BTW, I don't give a rip how much anyone exceeds published pressure limits in their "tank-like" GP100. Any failures caused by overloading are the fault of the reloader, not the gun, whatever model you destroy.

I would like know which reloading manual from a reputable source lists "Ruger only" .357 loads. That's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Which Ruger does it refer to? What happens when you drop one of those pills in an SP101?

I'm not knocking Ruger, just the folks who continually tout it as "more durable" than the 686 without having any idea if it's really true.