[358minus1]

Having a tough time choosing my next gun. Gimme some help!

I want a stainless, 6 inch barrel, 357 6 shot revolver mostly for plinking and shooting plate matches at my pistol club. I love the look and feel of the GP100, but I have been told it might not be as accurate as the 686.

Anyone own both guns and really get into the nitty gritty of accuracy testing? Could you find a significant difference between the two? My local gun shop says that some Rugers can turn out to be a "lemon". Most will shoot good, but once in a while, he's seen one that just won't shoot that good. He says all S&Ws will shoot good. Not really considering a Taurus, its got the same look as a S&W.

Any comments much appreciated!

[jonsidneyb]

Most models will have a lemon now and again.

Between those two guns I prefer the Smith but opinions will vary.

[MK11]

Smith snobs aside, they should be comparable shooters, especially for what you've got in mind. My Smiths also seem to be more load-sensitive than the Rugers, which tend to shoot everything pretty well.

[jad0110]

I love the look and feel of the GP100, but I have been told it might not be as accurate as the 686.

I'm sure it can go both ways, depending on the individual gun and the shooter. Spend some time with them before you buy, even if you are just handling them in the store. I started out preferring the GP a little, but leaned in favor of the 686+ because it just felt right in my hands. Keep in mind that you can always change the stocks on either gun. I preferred the grooveless stocks on the GP to the S&W Hogue Monogrips with finger grooves, so I bought Pachmayr Compacs without finger grooves. They have worked out quite well. I'm about to put on some Ahrends Goncalo Alves smooth wood stocks after I'm done staining them.

My local gun shop says that some Rugers can turn out to be a "lemon". Most will shoot good, but once in a while, he's seen one that just won't shoot that good. He says all S&Ws will shoot good. Not really considering a Taurus, its got the same look as a S&W.

Some S&Ws and Tauri turn out to be lemons too, no different than Ruger in that regard. I used to own a 6" Taurus 66 7-shot that was an excellent gun. I traded it for the 686 because the 6" full underlug barrel of the 66 just didn't balance right to me.

Either 686 or GP can serve you very well. I think you would be happy with either. I prefer the S&W, but I have just as much respect for the Ruger. Take your time, and pick the one that "clicks" for you.

[Confederate]

Either gun will work fine. Neither will likely be a lemon. Smith & Wesson's 686 is a tried and true revolver known for its accuracy. Ruger, too, is accurate and is built like a brick outhouse.

I recommend examining the gun you're going to be buying. Check a Ruger, then a Smith. Go with the one that has the better price or the tighter lockup.

[Shawn Michael]

Try a side by side trigger compairison too if you have the chance and can get some snap caps...see which one stages better etc.

[jonsidneyb]

I do think the Ruger is built stronger. I prefer the way the Smith handles and its action.

[LubeckTech]

If possible shoot both and decide fro your self! That being said I have owned both at the same time that is S&W 686 (6 shot) 6" stainless and Ruger GP100 6" blue and while they are both great guns the S&W is definately more accurate. The Ruger can be as accurate once you find the right bullet and load but the Smith shot anything I chose to feed it very accurately. I eventually traded the Ruger for a S&W 625 which is also an outstandingly accruate gun. The Smith will also hold it's value better but I think the Ruger may tolerate heavy Mag loads shightly better.

[Waywatcher]

I sold my 686 to buy a GP100. :)

[No Praise, No Blame]

I got three-shot groups touching at 25 yards to begin with. I attribute the lack of tightness in the later groups (as I was adjusting the scope up and to the left) to my getting tired and shaky, not to mention my "rest" was a napkin holder I made in seventh grade shop class. All I've done for the trigger is Wolf springs and lightly polishing some parts, and I can't really imagine it being much better. I might have been just as happy with the 686, but decided to go with the GP because I couldn't find a pre-lock 686 locally. I doubt you'll be kicking yourself later for picking one over the other.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b217/kallikak/myspace/DSC03003.jpg

[DWARREN123]

The only one I can comment on is the 6" GP-100 (KGP-161). I have had mine for about 2 years and think it is the best revolver of this type I could have purchased. Accurate, easy trigger pull in both single and double stage, easy take down for cleaning and just a fine over all revolver.

[Revolver Ocelot]

I found myself in the same situation a few months ago and I went with the gp100, I would take the gp again without hesitation.

[Bula]

I own both and can tell you the Ruger 4" GP is a great shooter. I trust it will handle my heaviest handloads without a hiccup. The 6" 686 (no dash) Smith is beautiful, smooooooth action, unbeleivable trigger. 9 times out of 10 I grab the GP-100 when I head out to the range or the field. Something about it's 'brawn' just feels good to me. If I had to choose, GP-100 for a shooter. Get a 686 later.

[glockman19]

They are both good guns I prefer the trigger on the S&W.

[field70]

I have a 6" in both....both are great guns..You can't go wrong either way.

[YodaVader]

Anyone own both guns and really get into the nitty gritty of accuracy testing?

I did own both at one time in the late 80s , in fact I would eventually own three 686s back then and a 4" GP100. Back then my eyes were young enough that I could shoot very well with open sights! My "main" 686 was the 6 inch and shooting it and the GP100 offhand the targets were usually slightly better with the 686 , more than likely due to the slightly longer sight radius and the single action trigger in the 686 was crisp and creep free and far better suited for precision target work.

Later in the 90's I aquired a newer 686 that allowed me to mount optics. I decided to see how far off my free hand shooting was compared to the true accuracy capabilities of the revolver with as much human error taken out as possible. No Ransom Rest available to me but a scope with a rest produced this 12 shot group with a 4X Redfield.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a106/celestron4/68612shots001a.jpg
Needless to say I am no where near shooting to the potential of this revolver! There are GPs that will do the same. I prefer the Smith , but I can't fault a guy for choosing the Ruger.

[461]

My choice is Ruger based on personal experience with both models.

[Matt Almeda]

They are both good guns but my choice would be for the 686.
My reasoning is that the L Frame 686 uses a leaf spring with tension screw and the GP-100 uses a coil for it's mainspring. The leaf spring is easier to tune for the action you are looking for and still have reliable ignition of ammo. The GP-100 you can do a spring swap but what I have noticed is that you either end up too light or too heavy.

For just general shooting in stock form, Hmmm..I guess I would still take the S&W.

[tbtrout]

They are both excellent and will be as accurate as you are. The Smith has a better trigger, but it will come down to which is better in your hands. I was going to buy a GP100 when I got a deal on a Smith last year. I am still going to get a GP100.

[Stainz]

Every recent manufacture Ruger, SA or DA, that I have bought has come home as a 'work in progress'. The usual burrs, roughness, etc, can be addressed easily enough that I just 'accept' the poor QC as normal. Some of the Rugers have been 'functional', to an extent, as delivered. One, a new 5.5" .45 SS Redhawk, did have to go home for the cylinder - burst casting flaw bubbles between the chamber bores are unacceptable (It was ordered for me by a dealer - I had to take it, as did my friend who also ordered one... Ruger replaced his due to a warped frame - 0 for 2, not too good!). The last two were .32M's (SP101 & SSM) - and did 'clean up', making great pieces, albeit after some work. My .454 SRH, same lockwork as the GP100, broke in to a decent - but the first S&W I got eclipsed it when it was NIB, trigger wise. I may one day buy a GP100 - if I can find a partial lug - and AFTER I look it over!

All of my S&W's, most bought new since '02, have come in my home with fair-good triggers - which became VG++ with break-in and spring changes. None of my S&W's have had a fault, save one pinched ejector rod spring, which they sent me a replacement for quite quickly (It didn't affect function.). I will buy more S&W's - but a future 686 purchase will have to be like the 5" 686+ 'Stocking Dealer Exclusive' model I bought several years ago - it'll have to have a partial lug! For a 4", I suppose that means it will be a 620.

Pictured below are my 6" 66-6, bought new 9/03, to which I added a HiViz front sight and Ahrends square conversion f.g. cocobolo stocks - great 'pointer' - quite natural feel. With my mediocre 158gr LSWC .357M's, actually barely +P .38's in .357M cases, it is a fun all-day shooter. At the bottom is what I bought the next year - the Stocking Dealer Exclusive' for '04 - a 5" 686+ partial lug that came with the HiViz, Ahrends wood, and a V-notch rear sight - a great bargain and also a 'natural' feel (The full lug makes them feel muzzle heavy - my opinion.). Either would be a great purchase, if you can find one, for plinking. That extra round in the 686+ is why I bought tit for our local steel plate challenge. Incidently, my 8-shot 627 will rest next month when I go back to the 686+ - those HiViz searchlights are super quick to pick up, the 627's oddball front sight (blk/blk) has no available HiViz replacement.

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/Stainz_2007/IMG_0210.jpg

Stainz

[wildfowl]

No question in my mind---- SMITH.
I have used both and without a doubt go with the SMITH.

[schmeky]

I have a very early 586 (no dash) 6" with a nickel finish. I had a 6" Ruger Security Six many years ago that was tack driver, probably not comparable to the GP of today.

Rugers have always been tough and great values for the buck. I have never felt a Ruger with an action as sweet as a S&W.

I think they are both great revolvers.

[samtechlan]

I've always found the triggers on the 686 to be much better. I have a 686 with a 2.5 inch barrel whose trigger pull is as smooth as any python I've ever tried.

[IanC]

Ive got a ruger and love it. Some say the trigger is a bit heavy but i dont
mind. Just takes some getting used to. I added a trigger shoe to mine
and its just fine. I live in canada so the only ones we can get are the 6 inch versions. When i close my eyes and hold either of them i prefer the ruger since its a little more barrel heavy than the 686. Also you cant beat how easily it comes apart. Grouping im getting 1.5-2 inch ctc at 25 yrds. Recoil with the ruger as feels a bit lighter especially with .357 mag
I find it is also easier to thumb the hammer with my left hand over the smith.
Cant say anything bad about it. Mind you it may not be as pretty as a the smith but suppose thats why its a few hundred dollars cheaper.
My neighbour will tell you different as he owns a S&W but i stand by my purchase. GOod luck with your decision. No doubt you will enjoy both.
If you cant decide get two revolvers.

[eastwood44mag]

If all you plan on shooting is target loads, get the Smith. If you plan on working it hard, hot, and heavy, get the Ruger.

Smiths have a better trigger and balance, but Rugers eat anything and ask for more. If you get the Ruger, pick up a set of aftermarket grips with finger grooves--they make it a lot easier to hang on to.

Ask yourself this: Do I want a scalpel or a machete?

[Richard.Howe]

My enjoyment of Rugers mirrors my enjoyment of Glocks -- they are ugly, and they function perfectly. My Smith collection is beautiful...but most of them have choked at some point and required trips back to the factory.

[armed85]

I wouldn't go so far as to compare a Ruger GP100 to a Glock. The GP100 is a fine looking revolver.

I improved the cosmetics of my GP100 by having it bead blasted and the trigger, hammer, and hammer pivot pin polished to a bright shine.

I own a 686 and a GP100. The action of the 686 is better, but the Ruger is by no means bad. I have after market Wolff springs in my GP100 and after many rounds fired the action has smoothed up nicely.

Either will serve you well or you could do what many of us do and buy both ;)

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=58871&stc=1&d=1180843160

[gunzrfunz]

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i101/quakerich/100_0174.jpg
but I do expect to get a GP100 someday.:p
On second thought, I probably won't. After looking at some GP100's and Security Six's on Gunbroker, IMO they are as ugly as a bar-rag Betty at closing time, and after owning Smiths, I just can't see myself doing it.

[Richard.Howe]

On second thought, I probably won't. After looking at some GP100's and Security Six's on Gunbroker, IMO they are as ugly as a bar-rag Betty at closing time, and after owning Smiths, I just can't see myself doing it.

Owning and enjoying both, I agree with your assessment but not your direction. Rugers are superior to Smiths (in my book) in two important ways: ability to field strip down to the last component without tools -- which you cannot do with a Smith -- and ability to shoot very heavy loads. I've seen one Smith model 19 and one 686 actually break when shooting Buffalo Bore ammo. Not so with the Ruger.

When shooting standard ammunition, I enjoy my Smiths better for light use.

Rich

[gunzrfunz]

Owning and enjoying both, I agree with your assessment but not your direction. Rugers are superior to Smiths (in my book) in two important ways: ability to field strip down to the last component without tools -- which you cannot do with a Smith -- and ability to shoot very heavy loads.

Other then take off the grips, I've never "field stripped to the last component" my 686, nor felt any reason to. Trigger has always been silky-smooth and I clean it after every range trip. As far as ability to shoot heavy loads, I wasn't aware of ANY 357mag loads that would be too much for my 686, but able to in Rugers. I DID know of some issues with k-frames like the model 19 having rare issues with, but that's why they made the L-frames. You'll have to fill me in as to what loads you are referring to so my feeble 686 stays clear of them.:scrutiny:

[Fumbler]

First I'll say that I've never owned a Smith.
I have shot a Model 66 and 25 enough to get a good feel for the guns.

I do own a 6" GP-100 and a 7.5" SRH (480 Ruger) which has the exact same trigger.

I have the GP-100 because I got it from a friend for $300 with only 24 rounds fired.

If I could choose a 686 or GP-100 then I'd get the 686.
The 686 has better fit and finish and the triggers on Smiths are generaly a lot better than Rugers.

If I had to buy one then I'd get the GP-100.
I've fallen in love with mine. With Wolff springs and some polishing the triggers can be lighter and smoother than a Smith, but the trigger travel will always be longer. I just can't bring myself to pay that much for a S&W when a nice Ruger is 95% of the quality at 70% of the price.

Unless you shoot at a competative level you probably won't notice any accuracy differences.

[Boats]

As far as I am concerned, S&W hasn't made a proper revolver since sometime in the early part of this century.

They have been making a whole passel of 1911s, plastic fantastics, ARs, and as a hobby-like sideline, a few ugly gun locks that happen to sometimes fire common revolver cartridges.:evil:

I think "Bar Rag Betty" is the one with the open sore in her cheek that won't heal no matter how many people bag on her to do something about it.;)

[Tberger688]

It's an easy Choice!

S&W has an IL and the Ruger doesn’t. Are you using for self-defense or just punching holes in paper? Self defense get the Ruger punching holes in paper both are equal but the Ruger will probably last longer. Yes, I did have an IL self engage when the little spring holding down the flag broke.

[timberwolf682]

what would be a fair price to pay for a 686M-1 with rubber monogrips? I have no idea and have heard the price can range all over the place. The gun is use but in very good condition
thanks

[kashton]

I prefer the S&W

[Nematocyst]

358-1,

Let me be the first to welcome you to THR.
(Funny that so many posted ignoring that was your first post.)

I'm a Smith guy, so take this with a grain of salt.

I prefer Smiths.
I like the way they feel and shoot.

My two revolvers now are a 642 & a 65.
Just sold a 686, not because it wasn't a great gun
(finest handgun I've ever handled) but because it didn't suit my needs.

Having said that,
there is no answer to your X v Y question.

Get the one that feels right to you.

Nem

[kmrcstintn]

:uhoh::what::scrutiny::cuss::banghead::fire::rolleyes:

[ugaarguy]

ability to field strip down to the last component without tools
You'll still need a screwdriver (or maybe a cartridge rim) to remove the grips, and a disassembly pin, punch, or similar tool to retain the mainspring when stripping the Ruger *. You also have to remove the trigger group sub-assembly in order to remove the crane & cylinder for cleaning on the Ruger. With a S&W you only need to remove one screw to seperate the crane & cylinder assembly from the frame.

Both designs have their merits, but neither is a no tools complete field strip.

* http://www.ruger.com/Firearms/PDF/InstructionManuals/14.pdf - see p.18

[rdaines]

My wallet already voted, I have a GP-100 4"

[KINGMAX]

Go with the 686. You won't go wrong. If you decide that you don't like it, selling it will not be a problem.

[jdedonato]

I have a Smith 686 no dash with a 6 inch barrel. I own several guns and the trigger on this beauty is the finest I have ever pulled on any handgun. The single action is sweet as candy and as accurate as I can be. Adjustable sights are the way to go. I hear good things about the Ruger as well. My brother-in-law has one. Both are good in my opinion. Sorry I guess I am no help. The Smith is a much sexier gun.

[oneounceload]

and is built like a brick outhouse.


Because it needs to be due to its cast metal construction. If they made it as slim as a S&W, it would break with the first cylinder....... :D

[JohnKSa]

You'll still need a screwdriver (or maybe a cartridge rim) to remove the grips, and a disassembly pin, punch, or similar tool to retain the mainspring when stripping the Ruger *.As you pointed out, the grip screw in the original Ruger factory grips can be removed with various commonly available items such as various coins, a .38/.357 cartridge rim, etc. And the pin required to retain the mainspring is included in a compartment in the original Ruger factory grips.

The ones that come with the Hogue grips may be different.

On page 18 of the manual look in step 1 where it cautions the user "not to lose the disassembly pin, which may fall free when the grips are removed."
http://www.ruger.com/products/_manuals/gp100.pdf

[harmon rabb]

good news is you can't make a wrong decision here.

[ArmedBear]

With Wolff springs and some polishing the triggers can be lighter and smoother than a Smith

Uh, a bone-stock Smith without any rounds through it...

I picked up a pre-lock 686 for $350 recently, which did make the decision pretty easy.:D

[shockwave]

Since Taurus was mentioned, I'd also put the Rossi R97206 .357 Mag 6" in contention. I've the 4" model and except for being two inches shorter than the Smith, it is identical to my 686. I actually shoot better with it and I would recommend giving a R97206 a tryout.

[SwampWolf]

As others have said, you won't make a mistake whichever way you go. But I much prefer the trigger pull on Smith & Wesson revolvers and that goes a long way for me.

[JohnKSa]

Because it needs to be due to its cast metal construction. If they made it as slim as a S&W, it would break with the first cylinder.......Have you compared the dimensions and weights of the two guns?

The GP100's reputation for strength compared to the S&W 686 doesn't come from being larger or heavier because it's not.

[ArmedBear]

The GP100 is the same weight because it has less weight in the grip frame and more in the cylinder frame. I'm not saying what's good or bad.

It is obvious that there's more steel around the cylinder, when you look at the picture in post #27.

[BullfrogKen]

Guys, you do realize this thread is nearly three years old, right?


I think 358minus1 has probably made his choice by now, or his interests have moved onto something else.



Just saying . . .

[JohnKSa]

It is obvious that there's more steel around the cylinder, when you look at the picture in post #27And yet they'll fit in the same holster...

There may be more metal in important parts of the gun, but if that can be done without increasing the weight or bulk of the gun, then what's the downside?

The post I responded to implied that there was a significant difference in the size (slimness) of the two guns and that's what accounted for the Ruger's strength. The fact is that while there may be more metal in certain critical areas that contribute to the strength of the Ruger design, the overall size, shape and weight of the two guns are virtually identical.

In other words, the Ruger is stronger because it's a stronger design, not because it's larger, thicker or heavier.

[AKElroy]

I currently own a 686 6", and I formerly owned an sp 101. I have never owned the specific model you mention, but I have fired one.

The Ruger is overbuilt compared to the Smith, which I like, but the OEM trigger is horrendous. The Smith is simply the best shooting centerfire handgun I own, or have ever owned. And I have owned more than I can easily count. The Ruger? Not so much. Love my Blackhawk, though, just not a double action Ruger fan.

[Confederate]

A "lemon" typically refers to a product that can't be fixed, or that a company won't fix it. Both companies can produce lemons and both will fix them, so no issue there. If you're buying the gun locally, take six .357 bullets (jacketed) and drop one into each chamber. The more accurate guns will catch the bullets and will not let them pass. This indicates good chamber throat size.

Generally, the 686 rivals even the renowned Colt Python (at least the first generation did). The Rugers are no slouches at accuracy, though the 686s have the edge. You can't go wrong with either gun. If you can get a 686 with a tapered barrel, you might like that better -- I'm not a big fan of underlugs in barrels longer than 4-5 inches.

I have a 6-inch 686 and a 6-inch Ruger Security-Six, and much prefer the Ruger. I'm not a huge fan of the GP-100, though.

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/SecuritySix.jpg

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/RugerSecurity-SixTrio_2.jpg

http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/jriler/686.jpg

.

[jem375]

Having owned a 681, 686, and a 4" GP100, I sold the 2 Smiths and kept the Ruger.... the Ruger is a very accurate handgun also ...

[atlanticfire]

I can appreciate both. The smith for the superb craftsmanship, fine finish and excellent trigger. And the Ruger for its robust build, nice weight and ability to digest full house 357 for its whole life without a hiccup. That being said my only 357 is a Security Six. :)

[tango2echo]

I have owned both (several 686's) and still own several GP-100's. Accuracy is very good with both. The Smith is "smoother". The trigger on the GP is easier to get crisp and light with a spring swap. IME, the GP shoots light to medium bullets better and the Smith shoots 158gr and up better. The GP is a stronger gun and more forgiving. My choice is the GP. I am contemplating buying a fourth GP, which is half the price of a new Smith.

t2e