[Chilean]

for a diet full of 125 grains magnums?

[Gator]

Yes, because a steady diet of 125 grain magnums will be hard on any revolver and you will not feel as bad abusing a Ruger as you would a fine revolver like the S&W.

[Bearhands]

here's a question..... what constitutes a "steady diet"?.... you shooting @ bad guys all day long? LOL

[20nickels]

You just opened a whole can of worms, Chilean.

[cslinger]

"You're not better then froggy, just different"

And that is all I have to say. Anybody gets the reference gets a :)

[Brian Williams]

yes, no, maybe.
They are both great guns, similar size and weight, both will take what you can give.

[Boats]

Yes, especially if the S&W is one of those MIM filled wonders sporting a Hillary Hole.

[SnWnMe]

The 581/586/681/686 series was designed with an eye towards a steady diet of 125gr maggies that the 13/19/65/66 line supposedly could not handle.

So the answer to your question is:

They are the same for the usage you mentioned and some variants of the 686 gives you a 7th shot.

You won't enjoy shooting 125gr all day anyways.

[VA27]

I have not shot a GP100 enough to know how tough it is, but I suspect it is pretty tough.

I have shot a 681 enough to have it rebuilt 3 times in 10 years. I lost track of the number of rounds.

Get the one that you like and don't worry about round count. If you shoot either one loose just send it to the factory for a rebuild.

[Chilean]

well, in my case, sending the gun to factory for a rebuild or buying a new gun is the same :)

[rdaines]

The GP100 is one tough gun, it was my choice to buy.

[glockman19]

yes, no, maybe.

I got the 686 because I prefet the S&W trigger over the Ruger and the extra round but both are good guns. The difference:

Capacity: Ruger 6 rounds S&W 7 rounds
Weight: Ruger 4" 39.5 oz., S&W 38 oz.

The price differnce depanding where tyou are is negligable, but I believe the S&W is a little more expensive.

You can't go wrong with either.

[ChristopherG]

The S&W trigger is better than the Ruger's and capable of being tuned to a lighter and smoother pull. That is why the people who win big revolver action-shooting events always (in my experience, always--there may be exceptions, but they are very much exceptions) shoot S&W's.

The 686 is a better gun for doing a lot of fast, precise Double-Action shooting. The GP100 is a fine gun, but loses ground in the comparison at this most critical point.

[Ala Dan]

I would say Yes, cuz the Ruger is built "tank tuff"; and will handle the abuse
of the 125 grain .357 magnum JHP's a bit better than the S&W 686's~! ;):D

[Jim March]

Let's look at this again: the guy is in South America.

Get a GP100.

Yes, it really is a tougher design. Not by a huge amount but there is a difference. It's also easier to field-strip and do parts replacement yourself than it is an S&W. The Ruger DAs disassemble without tools.

Two key differences: even though the Ruger is a six-shot, the cylinder bolt cutouts are offset from the cylinder bores. In other words, the six little "dimples" around the cylinder don't form weak spots on each cylinder bore. It's offset more in the Rugers than in the six-shot S&Ws. (BUT, the 7-shot S&Ws put the "dimples" dead between cylinder bores so per some, they're actually stronger than the standard S&W sixguns.)

The biggest Ruger difference is that at the crane, there's a "locking mechanism" that keeps the cylinder from moving side-to-side. This Ruger forward locking point is more rigid than the S&W forward locking point. (Both also have rear lockup points.)

That and the ability to field-strip, and this contest in THIS circumstance (where shipping a gun back is a no-go) gives Ruger the edge.

[MCgunner]

The BIGGEST difference in the ruger is it doesn't have a side plate. The frame is solid. It's a stronger design, stronger gun, but the Smith is stong enough. Of the two, though, the ruger can take more abuse and will likely run much more round count between those rebuilds. Since I don't shoot revolver games, I prefer ruger for it's strength of design and ease of maintenance. A spring from Wolff or Wilson and some cycling and that Ruger's trigger will be slicker than the out of the box Smith. I doubt ANY of those competition Smiths have an out of the box trigger, anyway, not the serious good shooters. And the best on the planet is PAID by Smith and Wesson to shoot their products. He could beat anyone else with a revolver in competition using a Rossi, quite frankly. LOL

[PzGren]

This is a recurring question. Either an ignorant one, or one meant to stir up trouble.

Which colour do you prefer, red or green?

[Baron357]

+1 to PzGren, and they are both good guns.

[MCgunner]

You can really not go wrong with either, that's a fact.

[christcorp]

Yea, these types of questions are brought up only to stir a debate. The truth is, but no one wants to admit it, that while both guns are good, neither one can stand up to a LLama. :neener: :D Later... Mike....

[Chilean]

Well, I’m asking this because here in Chile:

- if you buy a .357 gun, you can only feed it with .357 bullets, son no chance to use 38 sp, that means that I need a good gun
- Gun prices are at least 2x here, so I want to buy something very durable
- I can`t send the gun back for a rebuild, the cost for me is almost is the same to buy a new gun.

I really don`t want to create a Ruger vs S&W, I’m just asking for the tougher weapon
Jim March got it right

[MCgunner]

What the HECK kinda law is THAT? No .38 in a .357? WHY????? Stupid! There are down loaded, milder .357 loads on the market here, not sure in Chile. They're designed to be fired in those 12 ounce wonder snubs nobody can control with hot stuff. They're hotter than .38 +P, but not too close to full power. I handload, but that's probably illegal in Chile, too, eh? If it's not, i'd buy a press and crank out the .38 level loads to play with. I like shooting .38 in my .357s, accurate and gives the gun other uses like small game. Main thing is, they're easy to group and fun to plink with.

[christcorp]

You know, this may be one of those times where buying a Taurus might not be a bad idea. The price is a lot less. The quality is pretty good by most people's accounts. Plus, I believe they are still in Brazil should shipping it for any reason be necessary. Just a thought. Later... Mike....

P.S. On a side note, why are you NOT allowed to shoot 38 specials in the 357 mag gun? Is it the availability or some law? Thx... Mike....

[Chilean]

Is the law. when you buy ammo here, you must pay some taxes and get a permission from the gov. So, if your gun is a 357, you can only buy 357 stuff.
Sad but true :(

Reloading is legal here. but very expensive. Is cheaper to buy another revolver in 38 and use its ammo than a reloading press

[SJshooter]

You are not going to be able to wear out either gun, no matter how many 125-grain full house magnum loads you shoot. Seriously, you can shoot these guns all day every day for months on end and they will just ask for more. Maybe after 20,000 rounds you might to see it loosen up, but I know people with guns with more rounds on them than that which are as crisp as tight as the day they were bought.

If you are trying to decide between the two, just handle them a lot, see which one balances better and which you like the looks of more. Oh, and really compare the triggers. The Smith will have a considerably nicer pull out-of-the-box.

[SnWnMe]

And it is easier to get parts for a Smith to boot.

[461]

When you want bull strong and lifetime reliability you buy a Ruger. Other guns have their uses but you sound like strength and durability are your biggest priorities so the Ruger sounds like the best choice.

[SJshooter]

The Smith is no less durable than the Ruger, please. There is an argument to be made that the S&W's forged steel is stronger than the Ruger's cast frame, but the difference doesn't matter given their size and use. Both guns will be firing perfectly well into the next century, guaranteed.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y111/TourGlide/Gun%20Stuff/swthick2.jpg

[HMMurdock]

In response as to why he might not be able to shoot .38s, I am aware that in some latin american countries (maybe, maybe not Chile) it is illegal to shoot rounds the military uses. So if the military has any .38 special revolvers in it's armory, civilians cannot shoot .38 special without special paperwork, while a .357 would be open game... I'm pretty sure it is that way in Mexico, specifically.

Just a possability.

TRL

[campbell]

The Smith is no less durable than the Ruger, please. There is an argument to be made that the S&W's forged steel is stronger than the Ruger's cast frame

Not the issue. As has been said already in this thread, the Ruger frame lacks the removal sideplates, and has a stronger lockup.

[Black Adder LXX]

YES. I've shot them side by side, and I'm glad I got the 'cheap' gun. So cheap, they can't afford the internal lock, BTW.

[Gary A]

They are both good guns. I prefer the Ruger, though I concede many points to the Smith. I cast my lot with Ruger long before the internal lock situation for reasons of it's strength, simplicity, durability and just plain personal preference. I don't think you can go wrong with either choice.

[10-Ring]

If we're talking new guns, I'd say 'Yes' :D The Rugers have always been nice guns and now that the Smiths have that silly 'Hillary Hole' (I like that term by the way brother Boats!) the new Smiths don't have the trigger advantage they use to.

[Guy B. Meredith]

One of the gun magazines did a 5000 round test on both and found little difference in wear at that point.

Personally, I don't shoot those wimpy 125 gr things so don't have to worry.

[DawgFvr]

The "new" S&W revolvers have turned me into a Ruger man. I like the new 3 inch barrel GP100 but intend to spiffy up an old Speed Six (should take about $400) and turn it into the "ultimate" carry revolver. Carry the Ruger for life...don't have to worry about rebuilds or timing issues ala S&W.

[Alphazulu6]

Totally preference.........both are great guns.

[philbo]

Totally preference.........both are great guns.

Totally agree... but I prefer the 686!

[Baron357]

The worst thing about a question like this is many times it serves to confuse the OP more then help. The number 1 most important thing is to go and check out the guns for yourself and if possible shoot both before you buy. Get the one that feels the best to you. Both are good guns and will serve you well and please don't listen to all the BS about which is stronger then the other b/c it is just BS.

That being said I prefer S&W, but I also live about 20 mins. from the factory so that may have something to do with it.:D

Bottom line: Get the one that YOU like the best, they will both get it done.

[kgriggs8@yahoo.com]

Since your main question was about strength and durability, I would give the nod to Ruger. That make some stout guns that will take all the punishment you can dish out.

If you meant overall which gun is best, I would say the Smith because it is more refined and generally has the better trigger. Also, I have seen trigger jobs on both guns and the S&W tends to have the better custom trigger as well.

There is NOTHING wrong with the Ruger however but if I were to buy one of those guns, I would buy the 686. I love the 586s and I love the Ruger Six series but the GP-100 always seemed a little porky to me. It just didn't handle like a smith. It feels like a big chunk of steel. If you got the half lug barrel, that would be nice but I don't think they made it with adjustable sights. IMHO the Ruger GP-100 with the half lug bbl, is all the weight you need. Even for bullseye shooting, I don't need a full lug.

[bigmike45]

I am willing to bet that if you mount them side by side, fire the same number & type of ammo, under the same conditions......each would outlast the shooters desire to make one gun give up, before the other. Though I prefer Ruger revolvers, I have never had a bad Smith & Wesson, or for that matter Colt or even a Taurus. It's like the battle of the automobiles, some swear by only one manufacturer and others would'nt have it if it were given to them for free.

Personal preference......thats the real deciding factor.

bigmike45

[MassMark]

CSlinger's Froggy reference is "The New Zoo Review".... I always thought Emmy Jo looked hot in those GoGo boots. :)

The comparison boils down to personal preference. I like Rugers, but love Smith and Wesson, so that would be my choice.....Neither will fail you and your steady diet of 125's....

[dutchy]

Mcgunner,

I am (one of the) first owners of a 586 in Holland.
Shoot it alot with moderate loads (hand rolled).
Gunownership overhere means license, which I have.

HOWEVER, according to dutch law:
If I was to make a real looking gun out of liqourice, with chocolate brown grips, I would be commiting a felony.
Anything resembling a real firearm is considered a firearm and therefore to be licensed.

Talk about stupid laws.

Have fun with Hillary, as in hilarious.....

[MassMark]

Oy...Not the internal lock debate....yawn....Buckle up - your choices of lock free new guns will be getting thinner and thinner...It's called "business survival".... My 642CT has the "dreaded" internal lock. I brought it home, stuck the key in the lock to play around with it, turned it to on, turned it to off, tossed the keys in the box and moved on with my life.

Not buying a firearm because of a totally unobtrusive safety feature does little to protest the circling lawyers and politicians who make these steps necessary, they just hurt business of folks on our team. The internal lock debate is a non-issue and not buying a Smith and Wesson solely because of the IL is patently silly....

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Welcome to the High Road, Dutchy...

[Baron357]

+1 MassMark on the all you have said.

[2ndamd]

I think you opened a can of worms here. :)

I have owned both on several occassions. I now only own Ruger's GP100. To answer your question from personal experience......"Yes." Yes, the GP100 will out last the S&W 686 with 125 grn (or any grain) bullets fired through them.

It doesn't have to do with the steel - forged or cast. It is the Ruger design that is superior.

Rugers will not ( I have heard of one to date) go out of timing. Smith's go out of timing after about 10-15,000 rounds of the hot stuff.......ask me how I know this. Now, I will say that rebuilding a Smith to get back into timing is not a huge deal and S&W does stand behind their product.....your just out shipping.

Ruger on the other hand stands behind their product as well.....I just have never had to send a gun back to ruger. See here for design features that are on Rugers side:

http://www.rugerforum.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/012934.html

Both are good guns in every respect.....But, your question on longevity as the round count climbs higher and higher......Ruger's win the day here.

[dispatch]

Yes

[kgriggs8@yahoo.com]

"Oy...Not the internal lock debate....yawn....Buckle up - your choices of lock free new guns will be getting thinner and thinner...It's called "business survival".... My 642CT has the "dreaded" internal lock. I brought it home, stuck the key in the lock to play around with it, turned it to on, turned it to off, tossed the keys in the box and moved on with my life."

I agree. That is the same thing I did with my new 642. I do wonder if it could ever break and cause the gun to not work but I don't really worry about it. I figure there are several other things that are more likely to happen that I can worry about, like bad ammo or broken firing pin, trigger spring, ect.

Given the choice, I would take one without the lock for sure. I don't know how much extra I would be willing to pay but it would be less than $50 for sure. May $20 give or take to not have the stupid lock.

[Zoogster]

Oy...Not the internal lock debate....yawn....Buckle up - your choices of lock free new guns will be getting thinner and thinner...It's called "business survival".... My 642CT has the "dreaded" internal lock. I brought it home, stuck the key in the lock to play around with it, turned it to on, turned it to off, tossed the keys in the box and moved on with my life.

Not buying a firearm because of a totally unobtrusive safety feature does little to protest the circling lawyers and politicians who make these steps necessary, they just hurt business of folks on our team. The internal lock debate is a non-issue and not buying a Smith and Wesson solely because of the IL is patently silly....

Actualy adding extra links in the chain of components that must function unnecessarily for something that may be needed to save your life is just foolish.

Whether it is a magazine disconnect on an auto that can cause a perfectly functional firearm to not fire because of a slightly deformed or overly worn magazine, or the part that detects it, or whether it is extra moving parts for an internal lock, adding more links to the chain increases your chances of a failure. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. When you add additional links that do not add something significant you are being foolish.

What are you going to do when future guns require a charged battery for the fingerprint ID chip to detect your finger to allow it to fire? Check the battery life? Make sure no wires come loose? Some criminal will just bypass the circuit anyways after they steal them, so it would only inconvenience legit owners. What about the fact that such things require a few miliseconds of processing speed which may seem like nothing but could be all the difference necessary to lose a gun battle? But hey it sounds like a great idea right? Like in that movie Judge Dredd with the DNA sampling done for every round!
Now lets come back to reality and realize a firearm is not a portable projectile launching vault that should require bells and whistles, batteries, multiple chains of seperate mechanisms or electronics and sensors that all need to be functioning for that one day after many years of possible neglect you might need to quickly use it to save your life. If you want the firearm harder for the wrong person to fire you put it in a lock box, a safe, or use an external object that interfers with its functioning but does not add additional things to go wrong with the firearm itself.

People are taking proven reliable designs that have gone through rugged abuse and still been able to function, and adding additional things to go wrong just to appease lawyers. Well I got news for people: A firearm should be viewed as dangerous at all times and treated as such. No amount of extra things that can potentialy hamper its functioning are going to change that.

When you need to use a firearm to save your life you want the shortest chain of mechanical events possible. Drop safe is important and a great advantage to a handgun. For that I welcome one extra unnecessary link in the chain of things to fail. If you tell me I should just accept other features that potentialy and unnecessarily endanger me and mine, and potential many other people faced with a life and death situation just because it makes you feel better or is easier to go along with than to fight, I say screw you and your product, and the fellow owners that are supposed to help fight such idiocy and choose to just let lawyers increase the cost and decrease the reliability of our arms.

As for the original poster, Ruger is much more durable. Smiths are generaly smoother and more precise. A gun enthusiast will generaly favor precision and good feel and performance over rugged durability so many opinions here will be biased. For purely rugged durability that will last the longest without requiring factory maintainence or replacement of parts go with the Ruger.
Just like a Mini-14 will generaly outlast most other .223 semi auto firearms, a GP100 should outlast most other .357 magnum handguns. That does not mean either will be the choice of gun enthusiasts that value other qualities as well that they are lacking, but it is still the facts.

[Jim March]

Quoting 2ndamd:

Now, I will say that rebuilding a Smith to get back into timing is not a huge deal and S&W does stand behind their product.....your just out shipping.

THE ORIGINAL POSTER IS LOCATED IN CHILE. SHIPPING COSTS BACK TO EITHER MANUFACTURER ARE GOING TO BE PROHIBITIVELY BRUTAL AND THEREFORE AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. GOING OUT OF TIME MEANS SCRAPPING THE GUN.

OK?

That's why he needs a Ruger.

[Stainz]

Gee, J.M., try de-caf...

Factoring in the poor QC I have experienced with my new Rugers - and how one, a .45 Redhawk, did have to 'go home' immediately due to too many issues - the worst involving safety - I'd give the nod to S&W in a scenario where the revolver must work properly 'out of the box'.

I still buy Rugers - but I know how to remove the burrs, roughness, etc - required to permit proper operation. I still 'like' Rugers. If I ever find a new half lug SS 4"-5" GP100 at an affordable price, it will probably come home with me - the first stop being, of course, the workbench.

Now, about field stripping... these aint M16/M4's. Make certain the chambers are empty. You need a proper screwdriver to get the grip panels off your SRH/GP100/SP101 - don't lose the little pin trapped under them - in the rubber grip. Push the Al plug through and pull the grip down off the frame stud. Cock the hammer, insert the pin you probably lost (... or a large wire paper clip) into the hammer coil spring's strut and release the hammer, trapping said spring... remove said spring/strut. Pull the hammer's axle out - then the hammer, etc. See the hole on the back of the grip stud? I have an old Phillips, #1 or #2, I have forgotten, screwdriver ~4" long that I ground to a flat - it must fit in that hole easily - and depress, with some effort, that 'latch' from the trigger group across from it to release said trigger group. You still won't have the cylinder 'in your hand' - but you get the drift. Easily field stripped?

For a K/L/N frame S&W, simply remove the forward most sideplate screw - with the proper sized hollow-ground bit. Release the cylinder and carefully pull forward on the yoke assembly, removing it and the now freed cylinder. Clean. Re-assemble. I generally take the grip/stock off for cleaning, too - another screw. Proper sized hollow-ground sets are available reasonably priced.

About strengths... recall that it takes more metal to have the same compressive & tensile strength when it is cast than when it is hammer forged and heat treated. Also, recall that the same basic design is implemented for SAAMI-spec'd .22LR to .44 Magnum - it must be durable. As to timing, pawl/hand or bolt wear is common in older high mileage revolvers - no matter the brand - but are easily replaced in a S&W.

Finally, the IL. First - it is entirely ancillary - not at all part of the functioning 'Chain'. It merely blocks the hammer's movement. Sure, the spring detent keeping it off could fail - if the spring rusted through... but you'd have other internal rust problems by then as well. You could drop it onto concrete several times and maybe make it jump out of battery - but believe me, I wouldn't shoot a dropped gun without checking it out thoroughly first - thus, no mil-surplus French firearms here, but that's my opinion. I wouldn't let a .192" hole in the frame - over the cylinder release - dissuade me from an S&W. Of course, as a kid, I thought Edsels and Studebakers were neat!

Stainz

[SJshooter]

Rugers will not go out of timing.

Simply ridiculous.

[cslinger]

You know I have seen out of time Rugers but I have never actually seen an out of time GP100. I am sure it can happen but I have never actually seen one of those.

Chris

[Jim March]

Look again at the quote I was replying to:

>>Now, I will say that rebuilding a Smith to get back into timing is not a huge deal and S&W does stand behind their product.....your just out shipping.<<

"You're just out shipping" is a killer from South America for anything, and much worse for a gun.

[SJshooter]

So, you can afford 15,000 rounds but can't afford to ship the gun after that time period? And that is IF it is out of time. Plenty of Smiths will stay nice and tight, especially if they are well maintained. I think one of the gun magazines put 10,000 full magnum rounds through this gun and the GP100 for a test and both were perfect. I shoot a lot, but even I haven't put that many magnum rounds into my L-frame Smith.

The 686 -and- the GP-100 are the very definition of reliability. If you prefer one over the other, fine - there is a lot of little things to distinguish them. But to suggest that one is significantly less durable than the other is just hype in my opinion. Most people can't wear out these guns in a lifetime no matter how much they shoot them.

[2ndamd]

I have not owned a S&W .357 magnum revo for about.....7-8 years now. WOW! I did not realize you had to send them to South America??????

You could just pay a gunsmith to rebuild it for you.....I know more money.

The last poster makes a great point. the ammo always costs more thatn the gun when you are a shooter. And that is what I am......a shooter.

I have put many tens of thousands of rounds through my .357's. That's why I stick with Ruger's design. They are built to last.

I have seen exactly one GP100 go out of timing......Ruger fixed it and refunded the shipping......It was not my gun but, a guy who I use to compete with in ICORE.

I do not own alot of guns like many here. But, the ones I do own I am pretty darn good with because I shoot the beejeeperes out of them.

The Ruger GP100 is for me and those like me. The original poster stated a question on the 125 grn .357 magnums. The Ruger will stand up better to those 1450 FPS 125 grn rounds better than the smith......trust me.

ps I know what you mean by adding the cost of ammo how could I worry about the cost of a new gun.....and I don't even reload:uhoh:

[WeedWhacker]

So, you can afford 15,000 rounds but can't afford to ship the gun after that time period?

Pop quiz: new revolver costs equivalent of $1,000. Shipping costs for repair costs equivalent of $1,000, plus time in transit. Do you:

A: buy a revolver with (slightly) weaker lock points and a sideplate?
or
B: buy a revolver with the strongest lock points and user-serviceable innards?


I've researched .357 revolvers and bought a GP100. My father owns a S&W. We're both happy, but neither do either of us face $1,000+ shipping bills for repair work.

[L-Frame]

Buy the one that feels best to you. A few points:

-Even if true that a GP-100 is stronger than a 686, VERY, VERY few people will ever shoot enough magnum rounds to make a 686 loosen or go out of time.

-The 686's were built to take lots of magnum rounds, and they will. The 686 is plenty strong, while the GP-100 is actually overbuilt. So, the fact that the GP100 is stronger is really irrelevant, since the 686 is as strong as you will ever need.

-For most, the most important thing about revolvers, after reliability of course, is the action. Most consider 686's to have the nicer action, and it's easier to get a nice action job on a S&W.

-I own 2 681's, a 3" GP100 and a Speed Six, love them all. Wouldn't sell any of them. Buy what feels good to you.

----All of my statements have been based on my opinions on Pre-lock 686's. If I was absolutely pressed as to which I would buy it would be the 686. But if my choice was GP100 or the post lock 686, I'd go with the Ruger.

[DevilDog0402]

If the only factor is absolute durability/brute strength then go with the Ruger. It is indeed, overbuilt like an M1A1. But, I doubt you will wear out the 686 in your lifetime.

[Frandy]

Duh, I don't know... But, I do know what strong is. :evil:

http://homepage.mac.com/franman/.Pictures/Handguns/King_Cobra_Dec_26_2006_1_640.jpg