Ruger GP100 vs Taurus model 65 (4")


October 5, 2009, 02:19 PM
I currently shoot the following autoloaders but am interested in my first "Real" revolver:

CZ 75B 9mm
XDm 9mm
RIA 1911 45 ACP
Beretta Tom Cat Inox 32
Beretta Neos 22

1 Revolver:

Taurus Judge (I consider my Tarus Judge to be a special purpose gun - I use it as a night stand gun loaded with 3 410 #4 loads and 2 410 slug rounds because I have kids upstairs and want minimal penetration).

I thought a 357/38 would be a good choice. Mostly range shooting, perhaps a car gun not for CC.

Thus the Ruger / Tarus choice.

I am not worried about the price difference so much except I would shoot only about 500-700 rounds per year and from what I can see the GP100's are hard to come by.

I know Taurus does not have a good reputation on auto's but how are they on revolvers?

Should I consider any other revolver options?

My range only has the Smith and Wesson Model 642 available to rent.

Your comments are appreciated

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger GP100 vs Taurus model 65 (4")" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
October 5, 2009, 02:30 PM
Got a "Shooting Budd" with either/both of these? 'Try Before You Buy' definitely fits here.

My preference is toward the Ruger, but only becuase I had had very good performance from the Ruger SA revolvers I have owned over the years.

Haven't fired a Taurus revolver.

October 5, 2009, 02:40 PM
I have several Taurus revolvers (all steel frame) and find them to be fine handguns. the triggers are not as good as S&W or Ruger but not something you can't work with. IMO there is no reason for 357 in a J frame size gun S&W or Taurus. They are brutal to shoot, difficult (if not impossible) for most people to shoot well, and you're not gaining a lot. K frame size revolvers should not be fired with a lot of magnums and will last a lot longer shooting mostly 38s. That goes for S&W or Taurus. I think a Taurus K frame size revolver would meet your needs.

You bring up the GP100 (I have one of those too). Given a choice between a GP100 and Taurus the GP100 wins hands down. Sturdier and better trigger are the outstanding attributes. The extra weight should not be a factor as you say you are not carrying it. the extyar weight will also make it easier to handle the recoil. If you decide to carry it a proper holster and belt will take care of the weight.

In summary, either will suit your purpose with the Ruger being a better gun.
October 5, 2009, 03:27 PM
I have both. Both will work.

October 5, 2009, 03:56 PM
The GP 100 would be my choice, have owned several Taurus revolvers and they worked but were not the the gun a Ruger is. This comment is based on the Taurus revolvers shooting lose after a few hundred rounds, current production may be better. An other consideration is customer service if you have a problem. JMHO : Bill :)

October 5, 2009, 03:58 PM
You can get a very nice Smith & Wesson .38 for $250-300. JGsales has police trade-ins for $200+/- depending on grade. I got a model 15 (adjustable sight) earlier this summer for about $225.

These are +P rated guns, so plenty of oomph for home defense. Also, light enough for carry should you want, and plenty accurate for range use.

But, if your choice is Taurus or Ruger, I would vote Ruger, but keep it stoked with .38+P and not .357 Magnum.


October 5, 2009, 04:11 PM
But, if your choice is Taurus or Ruger, I would vote Ruger, but keep it stoked with .38+P and not .357 Magnum.

Why not .357 mag? I have loads of fun shooting it.

October 5, 2009, 04:13 PM
I bought a new Ruger SS 6 inch gp 100 awhile back and it is without a doubt it's one of the finest revolvers made! I shoot mostly 38's out of her but just picked up 100 rounds of 357's for my next trip to the range.
I rented a 357 Taurus tracker from my range and i think it had several 1000 rounds,(im not sure) it was a real POS:barf: (SORRY TAURUS LOVERS) this is not a hate tread just stating my opinion.
Ive fired about a tousand rounds through my GP, still like new!
I like SMITHS , But you cant really compare a 642 to a gp or tracker,so dont rent it, and then there's allways the 686, dont own one ( YET).
Buy the RUGER.

October 6, 2009, 09:36 AM
The S & W 686 is a possibility (6 round, 7 will throw me off) though the price point goes up.

Can anyone compare the Ruger GP 100 to the S & W 686? My guess is they should be on par with each other...but then again what do I know...

Southern Shooter
October 6, 2009, 12:30 PM
I have Dan Wessons revolvers in Model 15 (adjustable site) and Model 14 (fixed site) in .357 Magnum both with 6" barrels.

What guns would be their equals made by S&W, Ruger, and Taurus?

How do they compare to the guns made by these companies?


Southern Shooter
October 6, 2009, 12:31 PM
Delete...entered into the wrong section.

October 6, 2009, 05:34 PM
The Taurus 65 is the equivalent of a Smith K frame. Okay for occassional 357 use, but shoot 38s most of the time and you and the gun will both be happier. A set of Wolff springs does wonders for Taurus' triggers; the mechanism is much simpler than Smith's and is not as good from the factory, but easier to remedy in my opinion.
The Ruger is a Smith L frame on steroids. It will eat the strongest 357s made until your arm falls off. It will do it to the next two generations too.
Decide what you want to do and go from there.
Have you considered a used Smith 65? The finest gun they ever built, also in my opinion. Smith still builds guns, but no way I would put out what they are asking for them now days for a gun with that lock.

October 6, 2009, 07:20 PM
my first "Real" revolver = Ruger

October 8, 2009, 03:29 PM
Ruger all the way.

October 8, 2009, 03:41 PM

A buddy has a Taurus (Tracker I think) .357, and it shoots pretty well, but the GP-100 is a far superior gun IMHO.

October 8, 2009, 04:11 PM
I've owned a GP100 for a few years and have put hundreds of rounds through it (mostly .38s). IMHO it is a well built, dependable firearm. Never had any problems with functionality.

While I've never owned or shot a Taurus, I have shied away from the brand due to numerous negative comments on the forums I visit. And yes, I realize there are those who have had wondeful experiences with their Taurus.

Your best option is to try both for fit and function. I learned the hard way when I purchased my first auto just after holding it in the gun store. On the range it was difficult firearm for me to get the right grip with - I never enjoyed shooting it. Sold it at a loss a few months later.:(

October 8, 2009, 04:51 PM
Here is a link to to a thread comparing the GP100 and 686:

Ive owned several Taurus revolvers, a GP100, Speed Six and SP101, and I have a Smith 327 trr8 on the way as well as a 637 and 629 (the most powerful handgun in the world says Dirty Harry). I dont think you can go wrong with either Taurus or Ruger if you just want a range gun. IMO I would not get a 686, they are priced high. You can the GP100 which is just as good (IMO) for less money. I persoannly have not had any probelms out of the Taurus revolvers that I own, and when I carry a snubbie I usally take the Taurus 85 over the Smith 637 because I like the trigger better. has some GP100s in now, as well as SP101s.

I was actually debating something similar. I wanted a .357 mag for hog and deer hunting (after eleiminating the 10mm). I almost bought a 6" GP100 but the I bought this:

because I could mount a scope and light on it for night hunting. And its tacti-cool. And it seems to piss off the old timers. And it is cut for moon clips.

October 9, 2009, 03:50 PM
Thanks for all the input......I finaly got to handle the Ruger, Taurus and S&W 686 today at a couple gun shops.

I decided on the Ruger......The shop that had the best price ($500) only had a 6" in stock. I'm on his list for the next one in....either next wed or the week after!

My first "real" revolver.

October 16, 2009, 03:51 PM
I've also got a 6" and do not regret it at all. At the time of purchase, I was debating between 4" and 6". 4" might be a better "all-arounder", but I was more accurate with the 6" and stats say faster velocity and power. Since it is my HD, camp defense gun, I could care less about the 2" in size difference. But give me all the advantages I need when faced with a bear or moose. Plus, IMO, it looks TOUGH. (and is).

Good choice on going with a Ruger. Just don't count out the 6". I'm getting an SP101 for CCW. Rugers are quality made guns. You won't regret it.

October 16, 2009, 04:39 PM
ruger built like a tank & will last forever.if you ever had a problem ruger warranty is forever taurus will be the biggest headache you ever had dealing with those people.ask how I know...


October 16, 2009, 05:08 PM
I have a Smith and Wesson 686-3 4 inch, Smith and Wesson 28-2 4 inch, Ruger Police Service Six 4 inch and a Smith Wesson 66-4 4 inch. Also have a brand new GP100 4 inch that I put a deposit on and will pick-up later this month. I did have a Taurus 627 Tracker 4 inch for about a month. I had to send it back to Taurus because of sticking shell casings after firing the gun. I had to use a screwdriver to get the casing out. This was a brand new gun. After weeks and weeks of waiting with not a word from Taurus when they would even look at the gun I traded it back to my gunstore who sold the gun to me and bought the Smith and Wesson 28 that I have listed above.
Bottom line: I would not recommend a Taurus used or new.

Best new revolver on the market: Ruger GP100.
Used revolvers that I would consider: Smith and Wesson 586/686 prelock era, Smith and Wesson model 27 or 28 and the Ruger Security Six (either fixed sights or adjustable)

All of the above revolvers except for the 66-4 can handle a steady diet of 357s. The light K-frame magnums by S&W can devolope problems especially if the previous owner did not take of the revolver. The Taurus 66 series is a copy of a S&W K frame. Although cheaper to buy, the resale value is not as good as Smith or Ruger.

I do agree with one of the members that a Smith and Wesson model 10, 64, 15 and 67 would be a very good home defense handgun. These are all 38 special revolvers and can handle +P ammo as long as you don't go older than 1957.

Hope this helps on your decision,

October 17, 2009, 06:01 AM
I think the OP should consider the Dan Wesson (only available as a used model :() as, IMO, the trigger pull will be much more to his liking than the GP100 or the Taurus, especially as the OP is used to shooting all those bottom feeders.

October 18, 2009, 07:44 AM

125 grain mags in my GP 100 feel like +P .38s.

October 18, 2009, 01:29 PM
Both are fine however the gp100 will last several lifetimes while the Taurus will not.

October 18, 2009, 07:19 PM
Good choice with the Ruger. I own the Taurus 66 4 inch blued 7 shot (nice). I like it alot. I've only handled the Ruger and it definaetely feels tougher. However I think the Taurus looks a lil better (whatever that's worth) and will serve me well for as long as I own it. My father has a Taurus 38 he bought maybe 40 years ago and it still works fine and retains the factory warranty. If I could do it over again I'd prolly go Ruger but at the time I really didn't even have money for the Taurus. Lol

Mike Kerr
October 18, 2009, 07:38 PM
Get the Ruger when it comes in to your dealer and never, ever look back.
It will last several life times.



If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger GP100 vs Taurus model 65 (4")" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!