Has GP100 v 686 durability ever been verified?

[mj2008]

Seriously I saw some where online an old advertisement from Smith & Wesson stating how there revolver doesn't have to be larger and thicker łike another manufacture as far as durability and strength. Definetly aimed at Ruger. I can't recall which Smith it was for.

 

[jtcarm]

Seriously I saw some where online an old advertisement from Smith & Wesson stating how there revolver doesn't have to be larger and thicker łike another manufacture as far as durability and strength. Definetly aimed at Ruger. I can't recall which Smith it was for.

Scroll up and check the burger gun. It was a response to a Ruger ad making a direct comparison to the S&W L frames claiming the GP100 was superior due to the thickness of its frame. S&W shot back that their frames built from forged steel did not have to be as thick as Rugers investment cast frames.

Ruger ceased the campaign after that, I'm sure at least in part because the burger ad made them look a bit silly.

 

[mj2008]

I know I saw some it some where. I don't presently own any Ruger revolvers but have several Smith's. They are both very good. I prefer the Smiths but for those who have Rugers you have a fine gun.

 

[jtcarm]

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.

I suggest you spend that time getting into shape or recruiting friends to help you test. We'd all like to know the answer before we're dead or too old to shoot.[emoji47]

 

[Rick_A]

You must be thinking of a Redhawk.

Oh no. A Redhawk makes an N frame look svelte and dainty.

 

[clevolver]

I don't think it matters which is stronger. Both are plenty strong enough to last. Both are accurate enough to get the job done. Whatever one you shoot better should be your pick. I love my L-frames, my N-frames, and my Security Six, and I haven't even talked about my Colts. As for which I'd pick as my favorite, that's a conundrum I'm happy to have. Give me more problems like that, please!

 

[wproct]

This is a discussion that will go on forever, and it's kind of fun. I have owned both and now only own GP100 revolvers. They both have their positive features, but for me it came down to the Ruger because:
I like the simplicity of construction and ease of owner fine tuning.
I really like the original Lett's style rubber/wood grips, nothing has ever fit me better.
I prefer the way the double action trigger on the Ruger pre-stages for double action shooting.
The Ruger just feels better in the hand to me, but that's just a personal preference thing. I'm glad both are still produced and you can make your choice!

 

[sodacan]

Ruger D/A revolvers must be really strong to have withstood their beating with the ugly stick!

 

[ladder13]

Though I only own one Ruger revolver, a Security Six snub, I could own a 3 inch GP100. First, I'd need to find a halfway pair of decent aftermarket grips.
The SRH is about as ugly a gun as ever produced by anyone, and I don't care about it being "built like a tank".
The RH is nice looking and the wood grips look fine on it. I would buy a 45 LC RH snub if they get around to making one.

And do away with the billboards on the barrel.

 

[BigBill]

My Ruger revolvers are stronger than any s&w revolver. I don't dare shoot my stout reloads in a s&w. My rugers digest them all day and want more.
My '76 security six has been a awesome quality revolver. The RedHawks are the same quality. The rugers have no side plate with screws to come loose. I been a ruger and colt guy for many decades. A s&w owner for a few years. I like the s&w I just don't hammer them.

I have reloaded my ruger sbh way past max load. Never a problem.

 

[Bahamaroot]

My Ruger revolvers are stronger than any s&w revolver.....

Prove it. And you forgot to mention that Rugers are uglier too.

 

[rwsmith]

Unless you are blowing your gun up.....

Both guns aren't afraid of .357 rounds and you don't have to hold back on the power for either one. Whatever it takes to damage either one is a serious overload.

 

[jstanfield103]

Only the SBH is Ugly and yes it is real Ugly.

 

[bigggbbruce]

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.

Compared to the 627 it is definitely smaller in your picture.

and compared to the 686 it sure looks the same from here.

What are the measured dimensions on the frame?

Weight means nothing. I hauled cars for a living. Example: Kia Sedona weighed 800 lbs more than a Dodge van but they were the same size.

 

[19ontheslide]

I'm one of those people who has long espoused the idea that the Ruger GP-100 is a stronger gun than the S&W 686, and I will continue to espouse it, BUT...what I'm talking about has nothing to do with wearing them out from shooting zippy loads. When it comes to the durability of each gun from just shooting them, I cannot claim that the Ruger will hold up any longer than the 686, because as already mentioned there are few records of any GP or 686 revolvers being shot enough to be worn out. What I'm talking about when I say the Ruger is a stronger gun is that when it is closed, its cylinder is locked into the gun with a far stronger system than the Smith. The Ruger locks into the frame via the cylinder's center pin (at the rear) and a beefy, angled tab at the front of the yoke that locks into the front of the frame beneath the barrel. This system is vastly mechanically stronger than that of the Smith, which locks its cylinder in using only the cylinder's center pin at the rear (like the Ruger) and the front locking bolt engaging with the front of the ejector rod under the barrel. If a person were in the habit of subjecting their revolver to lots of lateral stress on the cylinder, I have no doubt the Ruger would hold up to such abuse better than the Smith. However, it's important to ask the question; who the hell is going to be throwing their revolver down the stairs with regularity?! Or, to put it another way; does it really matter? In most cases, probably not. We've certainly had lots of time to find out if the S&W system was going to be an issue for cops, soldiers, airmen, and a slew of civilians since 1905, and it hasn't been yet. Likely because most folks aren't in the habit of casually tossing their service revolvers down the stairs on a daily basis. I don't personally think that the S&W system is necessarily weak, but anyone can see that it is certainly weaker than the Ruger. Anyway, this rambling diatribe was only intended to point out that some of us say the Ruger is "stronger" because it is, but in a way that most people probably won't ever need.

 

[Lou_the_welder]

Compared to the 627 it is definitely smaller in your picture.

and compared to the 686 it sure looks the same from here.

What are the measured dimensions on the frame?

Weight means nothing. I hauled cars for a living. Example: Kia Sedona weighed 800 lbs more than a Dodge van but they were the same size.

The "cylinder housing" part and cylinder of the 627 is larger due to its 8 shot cylinder. And hollow down from the back end towards the grip.

The comparison is of the 686 and gp100 which are comparable in cylinders was i think the issue. The original question asked was if anybody had solid info as to which was proven stronger by data. To which i added my OPINION . Several times.

I think [19 on the side ]wrote it best: Would i throw my gp or smith down the stairs? Which beeing the heaviest? Does it matter? Which shoots better? All of this is subjective to ones opinion. We all know the gp is heavier than even a one inch shorter 627! We know Smiths have sideplates and a gp have a noticeably thicker top frame. (And hell i cant imagine throwing a gp at someone; that might hurt !) Some people say, "bulky, ugly!"

And still the OP makes his opinion of the gp without having shot one. I would have liked to have asked the question myself having shot both to reaffirm my belief. I have a browning buckmark and ive heard that the Ruger 22/45 is good or better. I can only speculate. Would that be a good question to ask? Probably in another forum. ...

All the reloaders made their beliefs clear. Sometimes something feels solid.

An old math teacher once asked," who's smarter, is it I who drive to work everyday in my old beat up 4 cylinder pickup - or the guy who drives his 8 cylinder car and wasted all that gas! They both take you from point A to point B! But which cost less and is more efficient? "

Smiths are awesome guns. Rugers are built tough! Will you need that? Do you shoot 200/rounds a year? Or do you shoot 10,000 rounds a year. Will you wear any or both out? Will the new Star Wars movies be better than the originals? ........no really! Now thats a good question! Like they got Mark Hammil and Harrison Ford, but who are the other people?

Lock this thread please!

 

[Triathloncoach]

I have a rough knowledge of scientific testing and statistics. To design a statistically significant study/trial you would begin with several (30?) randomly purchased guns in each model. Use the exact same ammo, equal trigger pulls, exact loading and brass removal, exact firing timining. Blah, blah, blah.

Unless you buy a lemon, it's unlikely that either gun will stand out in most real world ownership durability scenarios. It would seem strange to me for someone to buy one vs the other based upon anticipated durability expectations.

 

[Officerblue]

Smith and Wesson, Dan Wesson, Colt, Ruger and even magnum research will outlast all of us... Well at least their firearms will outlast us....