Your opinion- S&W 686P, Taurus 617, or Ruger SP-101?


September 8, 2005, 01:23 PM
Which .357 would you choose, and why?

S&W 686P 2 1/2"

Taurus 617 Titanium 2"

SP-101 2 1/4"

Looking into a second snubby (for the recoil-rugged lady of the house) and I already own (and like) the SP-101, but the Ruger is 2 shots less than the others (and like the "warm fuzzy" of 2 more shots). I am also hearing scary stories from die-hard Taurus lovers about Taurus quality in the last 6 months going way down. Price is a bit of an issue at the moment, hence these 3 choices.


If you enjoyed reading about "Your opinion- S&W 686P, Taurus 617, or Ruger SP-101?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
September 8, 2005, 01:51 PM
The 686 isn't exactly a snubby, no matter what size barrel you put on it. If this is for concealed carry, I'd recommend the Ruger, as it's over a half-pound lighter. For range use or home defense or something, a 686 would probably be better.

September 8, 2005, 03:02 PM
Another vote for the 686P. But unless there's a really good reason for wanting the 2" bbl I'd recommend the 4" model. I've owned a 686P with 5" bbl for about a year and a half now. Very fine weapon. Super good trigger, very, very accurate, excellent fit and finish and no problems after buku rounds fired thru it.

As far as Taurus - hmmm... can't speak to the model you're looking at but I've got a .44 Mag Raging Bull I bought new about a year ago. Excellent fit and finish, great trigger and very, very accurate. It's been to the gunsmith 3 times in the last year. I always heard Taurus quality sucked - now I know it sucks. Still - it's not a carry gun and I really like the way it shoots and feels so I suppose it's worth the $420 I paid for it vice the $600 or so I'd have to spend on a S&W 629.

Not a huge fan of Ruger handguns for various reasons not having to do with their politics. I've owned two - I won't recommend them ever though that puts me in a very small minority on THR.

September 8, 2005, 03:51 PM
I own both the Smith and the Ruger in those sizes. I like them both---but they are very different animals. Just what exactly are you lookin to do with it is more the question to be asked.

Won't a own another Taurus----can we say POS??????

September 8, 2005, 06:42 PM
A really good reason for the 2" 686 is it's just a beautiful gun that's a blast to use. :D I own the snubby and the 4" but if we're talking carry gun - the SP101 2" DAO is my new baby. ;)


September 12, 2005, 04:05 AM
I like the SP101 - It is by far the most concealable and rugged with the 686P a distant second because of the size.

September 12, 2005, 10:04 AM
I would go for the Taurus® Mdl 617. I have one & it's been flawless in performance. If recoil is an issue stoke it with Remington® Golden Saber® 125gr BJHP.

P. Plainsman
September 12, 2005, 01:00 PM
Depends on what you -- or rather, she -- wants.

House gun? Get the 686+ (and I agree that 4" barrel is better for a house gun).

Carry gun? Get the SP101.

Sort of a compromise house/carry gun? Get the 3-inch barreled SP101, maybe have a gunsmith bob the hammer. That is a darn nice gun, and it can be carried. I have a 3" SP101 (w/ hammer) on right now.

Try 'em out if you can.

September 12, 2005, 02:33 PM
While I prefer Smiths I will recommend Rugers, I have a GP100 and a SP101, both with 3" barrels. I especially like the fixed sighted, small gripped 3" GP100. It will do as a house gun as well as a belt gun. It handles the recoil of mag loads well, primarily due to great factory grips.

September 12, 2005, 10:46 PM
Carry gun or range/house gun?

For a carry gun either the SP101 or Taurus 617 would work. Also check out the Ruger GP100 in 3".

How about a K frame like a 65 or 66? It's really hard to beat a good K frame. Especially if it's worked over by a good 'smith.

I had an action job done, bobbed the hammer, converted to D/A only and added a Millet orange front sight insert to my SP101. It turned a nice shooter into a very sweet shooter.

October 23, 2008, 11:33 PM
I myself am looking for the correct answer if their really is one. The Taurus 617 Blue .357 has 7 shots which gives the ccw user an added blanket over all the 5 shot.357's inclusive of the Ruger SP101.

October 23, 2008, 11:55 PM
This is one heck of an ancient thread.

I'd recommend going to a gun store and actually looking at a Taurus 617. I thought they were great, too, until I handled one. Fat does not begin to describe the cylinder on those, compared to a 5-shot snubby.

October 25, 2008, 11:07 PM
686 is a great gun. The Ruger would be easier to carry.

Dr. Snubnose
October 26, 2008, 04:53 PM
My vote goes to the Sp101 Ruger, built to last, and last and last...Taurus..well I have to agree with the poster who said POS!...Doc:D

October 26, 2008, 07:41 PM
I like my 617 a lot. I had to change grips from the small grip it came with to the Ribber Grip and then later to the Hogue Grip do to felt recoil. I all so like my SP101. It's a little easier to carry if you want pocket carry. If you carry IWB the 617 is just as easy. It will depend how she wants to carry and is a Five shooter enough ammo. I always carry Two guns so it doesn't mater.

October 26, 2008, 08:05 PM
1. S&W
2. Ruger
3. Taurus

Used to own a Taurus Model 85, snubbie, blued. I couldn't even hit the NRA target at 10 yards with that POS. Never again. Love my SW642 and SW65-3.

October 27, 2008, 12:27 PM
For durability - go with the RUGER, but for all accuracy and trigger - the Smith...


October 27, 2008, 02:20 PM
I have the Ruger SP-101 with a 3" barrel, the GP-100 with a 4" barrel and some S&Ws including a 60 Pro, also with a 3" barrel. The 686 is the size of the GP-100, not a particularly concealable size. The S&W 60 series is about the same size as the SP-101. All are good. It is really a matter of personal preference.

If you enjoyed reading about "Your opinion- S&W 686P, Taurus 617, or Ruger SP-101?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!