S&W 686 or Ruger GP100?

[Miles2014]

OK,

Need some knowing advice here...I'm going to get one of these, but am tring to figure out which one. I know this is a S&W forum, so not totally unbiased, but is the extra $200-300 more for the 686 worth it? I shot the GP 100 today and really liked it. Never shot the S&W. Could current and/or previous owners let me know what you think?

Thanks for the help!

 

[9mmsubgun-m11]

Currently own a couple 686's and not 1 bad thing to say about either. Would have zero interest in a Ruger.

 

[GAPATRIOT]

Just went through the same thing...Both are great guns,the Smith just has more "class" to me.MUCH better trigger,better grip angle for me,and is forged.I still may get a GP if I come across a good deal on one.

 

[Jamesatrange]

I have both and both are good guns. I've always liked the trigger pulls on smith and wesson more. So I favor Smith as I like to shoot revolvers double action. I do like how Ruger cylinders lock in the front of the crane to the frame for added strength. So I say buy both when you can and have your own comparison fun. Enjoy!

 

[Zipdog]

Very poor resale value on the Ruger.

 

[Pef]

I prefer the 686 over the GP100. I preferred the trigger on the 686. Although not important, I think the 686 has better aesthetics than the GP100.

But go to a Ruger forum and you'll likely read the same comment above, but with the terms "686" and "GP100" swapped.

You won't go wrong with either.

 

[nebmike]

I've had a couple 686's in the past, but ended up getting rid of them. I currently have 3 different GP-100's. I, for one, much prefer the GP over the 686. I like the looks better and I'm more comfortable with the idea of feeding them the steady diet of hot handloads that I use. The 'push-in' cylinder release is more natural for me to use quickly for speed reloads than the 'slide-forward' style that Smith uses.

The triggers aren't as bad as most would have you believe and they are quite easy to make better if you so choose - with very easy to change springs and a little polishing with a buffing wheel on a dremel. I own several other S&W revolvers, including a couple Performance Center guns, and I'm here to say that I'd put the triggers in my GP's up against any of my Smith triggers.

As a shooters gun, one of the biggest reasons I like the GP's over Smiths is I really like how the Rugers are timed, where the cylinder rotates and locks well before the finish of a double-action trigger stroke - allowing for very easy, and quick, manipulation of fine trigger control for accurate shots. All of my Smiths are timed so that the cylinder locks much later in the cycle, making it (for me) more difficult to get fine control of the DA trigger stroke.

Really you cant go wrong with either one. But the truth is that as far as quality and workmanship of new specimens of either brand - there isn't a hill of beans worth of difference. I think most folks who would really try to convince you otherwise are doing so more out of brand loyalty rather than a legitimate unbiased opinion.

**sorry for the low quality cell phone pic**

 

[307-Niner]

Both are well built. Both are good shooters.

The 686 is sexy. /thread

 

[Irn-Bru]

If a choice between a new 686 or new GP, I'd buy the Ruger. If it was between an older pre lock 686 and GP I'd take the 686.

 

[grumpy7159]

The money I saved on the GP100 went to a custom shop to "improve" the firearm. I found the angle of the grip felt more natural to me than the S&W. Three of my Smiths are PCs and I love them dearly but I am still hundreds of dollars richer with the Ruger. I am still looking for good deals on Smiths but if I was just starting out I would get the Ruger.

 

[brucev]

OK,

Need some knowing advice here...I'm going to get one of these, but am tring to figure out which one. I know this is a S&W forum, so not totally unbiased, but is the extra $200-300 more for the 686 worth it? I shot the GP 100 today and really liked it. Never shot the S&W. Could current and/or previous owners let me know what you think?

Thanks for the help!

I have shot Rugers, S&W's and Colts. They are all fine revolvers. I have never cared for the way the Colts handle in DA, it is simply awkward to use. I've not been able to find any good reason to explain why the Colt DA is so designed. Even the Pythons I had were no better in DA. Perhaps with some attention the DA might be improved, but given the cost of a Colt, one has to wonder whysuch further attention would be needed. In SA, they have been fine, as good as S&W's.

I have shot a number of Rugers. They are fine pistols. They are heavier that comparable revolvers chambered for the .357 revolver. This helps with recoil, etc. The triggers are not so hot in SA. In DA, the triggers are heavy but usually smooth. One can usually stage the trigger in DA which helps in placing shots. It is possible to improve the trigger pull on a Ruger. By the time you've spent the money and time fiddling around with them, one begins to understand why the Ruger is usually less expensive for initial purchase. After fiddling, the Ruger will be a nice revolver. Aesthetically there is not much one can do about it. And when it comes to owning and enjoying a firearm, especially a handgun, it is understandable that one would want to have a handgun that combines elegance in design with excellence in manufacturer.

I have shot a lot of S&W revolvers, mostly in .38/.357 caliber. The L-frame series is about the best revolver ever made anywhere anytime by anyone. It is heavy enough with sufficient weight out front to moderate recoil using heavy magnum loads. The grips are comfortable for just about anyone. As well a plethora of aftermarket grips are available that will suit just about every taste and need. The S&W DA trigger pull is just about universally smooth. The SA trigger pull is sort that other manufacturers wish they could produce. It is worth noting that when one is at a match the overwhelming majority of revolvers used will be S&W's. That is some indication of what one may expect for the long term from a S&W revolver in heavy usage. JMHO. Sincerely. brucev.

 

[Vulcan Bob]

Better resale value for the S&W and a slightly better DA trigger pull. Ruger has a better lock up, ejector rod cannot turn and tie up the gun, thumb latch cannot fall off. Accuracy I'm told should be a toss up. I do not currently own one but do have Security Six's that I like. For my money I would have to go for the S&W, my trigger finger seems to prefer S&W's for DA work.

 

[BlueMountain]

I've had a couple 686's in the past, but ended up getting rid of them. I currently have 3 different GP-100's. I, for one, much prefer the GP over the 686. I like the looks better and I'm more comfortable with the idea of feeding them the steady diet of hot handloads that I use. The 'push-in' cylinder release is more natural for me to use quickly for speed reloads than the 'slide-forward' style that Smith uses.

The triggers aren't as bad as most would have you believe and they are quite easy to make better if you so choose - with very easy to change springs and a little polishing with a buffing wheel on a dremel. I own several other S&W revolvers, including a couple Performance Center guns, and I'm here to say that I'd put the triggers in my GP's up against any of my Smith triggers.

As a shooters gun, one of the biggest reasons I like the GP's over Smiths is I really like how the Rugers are timed, where the cylinder rotates and locks well before the finish of a double-action trigger stroke - allowing for very easy, and quick, manipulation of fine trigger control for accurate shots. All of my Smiths are timed so that the cylinder locks much later in the cycle, making it (for me) more difficult to get fine control of the DA trigger stroke.

Really you cant go wrong with either one. But the truth is that as far as quality and workmanship of new specimens of either brand - there isn't a hill of beans worth of difference. I think most folks who would really try to convince you otherwise are doing so more out of brand loyalty rather than a legitimate unbiased opinion.

I have to agree with this. I've had Smith's in the past and they were great guns, but I have a GP100 now and the trigger on mine is fantastic, fit and finish are great. I couldn't be happier. You can't go wrong with either, but for the money the GP100 is much the better deal.

 

[Dad]

I have both and like them both

 

[Ashlander]

I have both a 3" 686-6 Plus and a 3" GP100. The advantage to the 686P is the extra round and extra weight (I suppose that can cut both ways). The advantage of the GP100 is that the double-action trigger pull seems to break at a slightly better depth in the pull than my 686. This is, of course, purely subjective. They are both very accurate, but on good days the 686 is a hair more accurate.

Price was an issue with me too. I bought the GP100 new and only bought the 686P a couple years later when I found a used one at a fair price.

 

[hoc9sw]

Not answering the question, but a comment on customer service. The Ruger CS for revolvers had been outstanding (until they told me they had no more parts for my 1985 Security Six). Their semi-auto service is less than commendable (different location & staff).

At the same time Smith has treated me well in all cases.

So if it is a comparison of Ruger vs. Smith revolvers, I see no issue at the CS level.

 

[629shooter]

I do favor the S&W "smoothness" but, the GP-100 is a "tank". Both have their place in my opinion.

 

[BobR1]

I have a 686-1 and a 686-5 Both are Power Custom Combat revolvers. They are pure perfection, and way past a factory trigger.

I also have a late model Adjustable Sight, 3 Inch GP100. It has also had a trigger job, with a Full Shim Set that I did myself. While not as good as my Power Custom 686's, the GP100's trigger is much better than a factory 686, to include the 686SSR.

I would prefer a 686-1 thru 686-5 over a GP100 of similar configuration, if priced the same.

All of the Adjustable Sight GP100's have a Quick Change Front Sight. You push in a plunger, and change the sight. You can get a Quick Change sight on Performance Center ONLY S&W's. If you are lucky the S&W will have a pinned front sight. One of my 686's is pinned, and the other one is not.

Another consideration is the Cylinder Release. My brother is Left Handed. He has both S&W's and Rugers. If Ruger would make something to replace his 617, and 625 that he liked, he would buy it, and sell his Smith & Wessons.

Another thing is the way the cylinder is retained. I have had the front side plate screw shoot lose, and turn my cylinder lose. Won't happen on a Ruger. Ever had the Ejector Rod shoot lose on a S&W and lock up the Cylinder? Won't happen on a GP100 either.

I own several Smith & Wesson Revolvers. I also own a 2.25 Inch SP101, a 3 Inch SP101, the 3 Inch GP100, a 480 Super RedHawk, and an LCR22. I have no plan to get rid of any of them. Infact I am planning on adding a Snub SP101 in 22LR when I find one I like at a reasonable price.

Bottom Line is the 686 is a very nice revolver. The GP100 is not bad either.

Bob

 

[fdw]

I looked at both and just felt like the GP 100 Match Champion was a better value. Not interested in resale cause I'll never sell it.

 

[wheelyfun66]

Both the GP100 and 686 are quality revolvers, each with their strengths and weaknesses.

The lockup on Ruger is a great design.
The cylinder release on Ruger is a great design.

The drawback to Ruger, IMO, is the "tang" grip frame. The aftermarket options for grips is rather limited for the GP100, due to this awkward grip frame design.

The 686 is much more refined, in finish and overall QC (in my experience) and everybody and their cousin from Taiwan makes grips for the 686.

Can't go wrong with either, unless you get one built on a Friday afternoon, in which case......both companies will square you away with call tags and good service.