[tlhelmer]

My wife said we have money in the budget for the gun I wanted. I was looking at a Ruger GP 100 stainless 4" bbl for 409.00 at a local gunstore. I also found a S&W 686 for 509.00

Is the 100.00 difference worth it?

This will not be a carry gun, but rather a range gun.

Thoughts and opinions needed and welcome.

I started my career with a Ruger Security Six and liked it. My department switched to a Sig 226 shortly after I qualified with the revolver. I have been a semi-auto fan since.

[chaim]

Size, quality, durability, accuracy, etc. are very close in these two guns. The Ruger holds a slight edge in durability/ruggedness and price. The S&W holds a slight edge in class, trigger and looks (in my opinion). Which is better is all about personal preference.

I like the S&W more and to me it is worth $100 more. However, the Ruger GPs are an incredible value and give the L-frames some very strong competition.

[Rob96]

Not worth the extra $100 in my opinion. I used to own a 686 but really do prefer my 4" GP-100. Have talked to Smith nuts, that aren't impressed with the new stuff S&W has been putting out. Save the $100 and use it towards some ammo and leather for it.

[Jason Demond]

I paid $400.00 for my 686 three years ago, I noticed the other day that they are now $500.00. That being said, I would still pick the Smith over the Ruger anyday.




Pre-agreement only!

[critter]

I own a S&W 686 AND a Ruger GP100 stainless. I like them both very much. There is NOT $100 worth of difference in them IMHO. EITHER will do you great service for your needs. Grab one and have fun!

[Felonious Monk]

Either's fine if they're used.

If the & is new, buy the Ruger.

[tlhelmer]

Both are new! Thanks for the input so far. I will keep checking your responses.

[DeltaElite]

Go used, you should be able to knock $100 off of the price of each of them. New is just expensive, not necessarily better.

[MJRW]

I have both and I prefer my Ruger for looks and shooting.

[Ala Dan]

Greeting's tlhelmer my ole friend-

Well Sir, the choices you have given us are really
some tuff one's. Both are quality firearms,
produced by reputable manufactuer's. Long ago,
I was a fan of the Ruger Security-Six series of
sixguns; even though I owned more Smith's.
I kept hearing rumbling's and grumblings about
S&W's quality control; so I wanted to see for
myself? So, I purchased two for reference. The
first was a S&W model 629-5 "Classic" 5" barrel
.44 magnum; while the other was a 6" barrel
S&W model 686-5 .357 magnum. Fit and finish
on both weapons are superb; with the 629
having a DA that I can only describe as "slick
as a baby's butt", very smooth with no drag
or "stacking" of the trigger. The 686 could
stand a "hand honed" action job; but since
most of my shooting is done SA these days,
it will suffice.

Based on these findings, I would certainly
recommend the Smith. Forget all the "bally-hoo"
BS that you can read on these forums. As they
say, opinions are like --------; and everybody has
got one!

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

[P95Carry]

It's all been said really.

But .. for me the Ruger is ------ best value, strongest gun, if less good in trigger department...

The Smith is more finely engineered ... great trigger and will still take plenty of work.

I would tho certainly go for a good used Smith .... and save quite a bit ... both guns new tho should be available with some discount.

Oh and ....... do NOT like very recent Smiths ... nearly as much.

[10-Ring]

Have shot both, like both. The 686 can be smoother & can potentially have a nicer trigger. Th Ruger is tougher than all can be & will stand up to tons o' punishment &can have pretty nice triggers out of box.
Is the Smith $100 nicer? Maybe not. Which one feels better in your hands? The answer to that will be your deciding factor.

[BignJames]

I've owned a 686-3 rb for 16 years. I carry in a horizontal draw, but I'm a big guy. I'd go for the S&W but I'm biased.

[BIGR]

I own a 686 (4 INCH) and have had great luck with it. However I would be tempted to try a GP 100. It seems to me that the Ruger has a thicker topstrap. I have noticed that the topstrap on my S & W is not as thick as the Rugers and seems to be getting thin. It seems like in the long run the Ruger might be the better of the two. I own a Ruger Super Redhawk in .44 Mag and love it. I plan on getting a GP 100 in the future.

[P95Carry]

Very valid point Bigr, which I meant to make earlier . the Ruger has not only thicker topstrap but ... all one piece and no side plate. Plus, cyl notches are machined off center so also more ''meat'' around chamber where walls thinest.

The gas erosion from heavy use of hot loads can be a factor and the Smith would suffer earlier.

Abuse = GP100!!

Partial abuse = Smith!!:p :D

[Thirties]

Get the Ruger (I assume it's in .357mag).

Sometime in the future when you decide you would like to get a used .38 special (not .357mag) to shoot in addition to your Ruger, then you can get a beautiful old S&W model 10 or 15 for $200 - $265, and you will be a very happy couple. You'll have the best of both worlds!

[Quantrill]

Personally, I would go for the Smith. But they are both fine handguns. Quantrill

[braindead0]

Yikes, I paid $329 for my GP100 4" Stainless just this last year.

Perhaps my area just gets the cheaper, but the price seems a bit steep.

[Thirties]

I paid $408 for a brand ney stainless 4" .357 GP-100. Prices do vary. $409 is not unresonable.

Just remember, the price of a gun is the down payment. The ammo will multiply that cost over time.

[tlhelmer]

Thanks for all the responses guys. I'll let you know what I decide when I buy it.

[Slow]

I have shot both and bought the Ruger.... accuracy very close, trigger comparable esp. after a few boxes of ammo and dry firing the Ruger, durability goes to Ruger. Buy the Ruger and use extra for ammo... Since you are using for range work I think you should look into a 6" GP100. I have both 4" and 6" and really like the 6" better

[labgrade]

Doubtful you'll be able to shave much, but why not a Smith 19/66?

May even be able to talk 'em down some re the "less durable" aspect of the lighter frame, etc.

I don't shoot my .357s balls to the wall, so don't really see the "need" (yeah, I know & am with ya already) & a mid-frame does me plenty good.

Food for thought is all, if you can walk 'em down some .....

[twoblink]

My next revolver will be the GP100... Because I have an SP101, and so I want to keep the logistics the same. It's basically the same internals as the SP101 but in a larger frame... So I'm familiar with the takedown etc.. of it.

I like both guns; and both are accurate, but I find the Ruger to be more of a Tank then the Smith... Also, with Hogue grips on them, shoot 357Mag hot rounds out of them without a hiccup and no sore hands..

My SP101 with the Ruger booty tore up my hand shooting 357's, but with the Hogue grips, they are managable...

both give you zero recoil if you shoot 38Spls... If you shoot 38Spl SWC's at paper targets, you will think you are shooting .22's..

[Shane]

I'm a fan of both makes (S&W and Ruger), but if I was forced to chose a favorite it would be Ruger. Here are my reasons:

Here is why I prefer a stock Ruger GP over a stock S&W 686

In no particular order.......

1. Better ergonomics (no finger grooves on the rubber grips for example on the GP 100). I detest finger grooves, as they often don't fit right and force you to take an off grip to compensate. My 686 Plus OTOH, came standard with Hogue finger groove grips. The stock Ruger grip also does a better job of soaking up .357 magnum recoil, IMO.

2. Better lockup--the crane system on the Ruger is slightly better (IMO) for durability.

3. Push button cylinder release on GP 100 (I find it much easier to operate than S&W's slide forward relaese).

4. No sideplate on GP 100--more durable design.

5. GP 100 is super easy to disasemble into its sub assemblies. S&W 686 is not as easy (IMO).

As far as S&W advantages:

1. Better stock trigger pulls (IMO)
2. Better sights (especially the forward sight IMO).
3. More of a balanced feel (not as muzzle heavy)

[charleym3]

I've got both in 4 inch. The KGP is about 3 years old and had around 600 rounds through it. The 686 is current production(key lock). I've put about 300 rounds through the 686. Frankly, I'm not impressed. The GP100 is more accurate and has a much better trigger. I'm thinking about trading the 686 off for another GP.

[Minute_Of_Torso]

I just purchased a NIB 4" stainless GP100 for $325.00. As for whether or not it's better than the Smith is purely a personal decision, IMHO. For me the Ruger is more comfortable and points more naturally.

I say, "Buy both!" That will solve every problem except for the budget.

[tlhelmer]

I found a used S&W 686 at the gunsgow today for 375.00 total

[Quantrill]

Ala Dan has it right and says it well. Quantrill

[RCL]

I've owned several .357 revolvers, including both models mentioned here. I still have the Ruger, which I picked up used for just a tad under $300. It has as good a trigger as I've felt on any S&W (probably was worked on), and it's the most accurate .357 revolver that I've ever personally witnessed. The Ruger guns are a great value in my book.

[MR.G]

Have owned both of them. Both are well built. In my opinion, the S&W has a better trigger pull. Even after the Ruger was tuned, the 686s were better. The 686 also comes in 7 shot, which you can't get in the Ruger GP100.

[charleym3]

For what S&W wants for that 7th round, it just isn't worth it.
It's refreshing that we can have different opinions and just share our experiences with out getting all upset and irate. This is a great board.
Oh and by the way, I'm trying the 686 with some full power loads side by side with the GP141 to see if I like it any better at full throttle.

[Mark IV Series 80]

For a new gun, I would choose the Ruger GP100.

The Ruger is high quality and it's very durable.

The new S&W revolvers have gone from steel forgings to Metal Injection Molding for the hammer, trigger and other parts, to save money.

S&W has a new mechanism that is not hand-fitted. This new mechanism has a frame-mounted firing-pin that is more prone to fail, and it requires a 30% heavier trigger pull than the older S&W revolvers (those that have the firing-pin on the hammer).

The new S&W's also have a key-lock near the cylinder release, and a tab that pops-up when it's locked!

If you can find an older S&W 686 in new condition, I would buy it, for the craftsmanship and the trigger-action.

If you buy new, I recommend the Ruger GP100.

[Frenchy]

It is a personal choice, but I carry my 686-5 snubby both on duty and off. It's a fit for me.

[Gila Jorge]

The Border Patrol used to carry the Rugers you are talking about before they switched to Glocks. I used to shoot with several of the guys....and my 686 was far more accurate than their Rugers. They would take and shoot their gun then turn around and shoot my Smith 686 and the group would be half the size. Also the trigger and finish is far superior. I like Ruger Single Actions immencely and have many....but for double actions...Only a Smith is a Smith.