FACE-OFF: Heavy-duty 6" 357

There are a great number of revolver shooter's that will not be able to join the debate because from 1988 onwards Rugers revolvers were less expensive and more available, so they took a large share of the market.

Never owned a S&W but have dozen Ruger revolvers GP's, SP's and Blackhawks. Between all of them right at 143,175 rounds as of last night.

I've always used a 686, but could easily go with the GP100.

JohnKSa said:

Since neither revolver is known for the frames failing, the method of manufacture of the frames is moot. To the extent that one of the revolvers is actually practically stronger than the other, the issues are design differences, not how the frames are formed.

Click to expand...

Agreed. As far as durability, most seem to focus on the differences in metallurgy, but, really, both are plenty strong from this perspective. I believe the bigger differences are in the design elements:

1. Smiths use a single screw/plunger assembly to hold the cylinder/crane in, which is one of their weak links (even moreso with the newer spring-loaded plunger design) - with enough hard use & reloading, it can bend. Bend enough, and the cylinder won't shut, or will even fall out of the gun. I've seen both happen. Slam home push-release speedloader rounds with your weak hand into a newer S&W, and you may launch the cylinder off the front of the gun. I've seen that happen, too, to a brand new S&W. The GP100 doesn't use such a system, and it's impossible to even removed the cylinder/crane assembly until the trigger assembly's been removed.

2. Another S&W weak link is their ejector rod: It not only turns as the cylinder turns, but it's also used to lock the front of the cylinder in place. If the rod gets bent a bit, the bent rod turns against the retaining plunger under the barrel, which could affect the smoothness of the action. The GP100 ejector rod, in contrast, doesn't turn with the cylinder, nor (IIRC) is it used to lock the front of the cylinder. IIRC, the front of the cylinder is locked in place by a mechanism that links the crane to the frame, closer to where the actual force is being generated.

Other GP100 niceties include:

3. Front sight: The GP100 (at least the adjustable sight version) comes with an interchangeable front sight. Some S&Ws come with interchangeable sights, but most don't. Though they can be converted, it'd take some milling by a gunsmith (read: time & $$) to accept the Weigand base.

4. Reach to the trigger: Again, I'm going by memory, but IIRC, the reach to the trigger seemed shorter on the GP100, so one can use grips with a covered backstrap to reduce recoil, while still having a manageable trigger reach.

So, what are/were the GP100 cons?

1. I understand Ruger won't sell certain parts if they break, so you'll have to send the gun to Ruger for repair. If you send it back to Ruger, though, they'll send it back in factory configuration. No biggie if your gun is stock, but if you've spent money to tune & modify it, it's a big issue. And if piece of unobtainium does happen to break on your tuned GP100, then, you've got yourself a real headache, I suppose.

2. Historically, the fit and finish of Rugers weren't up to that of S&Ws, and the factory action's typically been rougher. The good news is they respond well to some basic smoothing & tuning. One of the smoothest revolver actions I've felt was on a bud's self-tuned GP100.

My wife used a Model 19 with a 4-inch barrel strictly for target practice at the range. I hand loaded 38 Special target loads with 148 grain HBWC and 158 grain LSWC for her and she was sensational at ranges up to 50 yards with this combination. She preferred the Model 19 over a Colt Python 4-inch or a Dan Wesson 6-inch. I can shoot any of them well but I have to admit the Model 19 is lighter, very well balanced and extremely accurate. I do not have any experience with the Ruger DA revolvers so from the OP's list I have to choose the Model 19.

Smaug said:

what's the point in 357 if it's not going to be used for defense or hunting?

Click to expand...

accuracy and 38 special capable. the 686 has to be a no dash with a pinned front partridge sight!

murf

murf said:

the 686 has to be a no dash with a pinned front partridge sight!

Click to expand...

AFAIK, the "no-dash" front sight wasn't pinned or had a bird sitting on it

MrBorland said:

AFAIK, the "no-dash" front sight wasn't pinned or had a bird sitting on it

Click to expand...

i just gave one to my niece. i'll have to get a pic and show you. may take a while and, heaven forbid, i may be wrong.

murf

MrBorland said:

AFAIK, the "no-dash" front sight wasn't pinned or had a bird sitting on it

Click to expand...

update: i looked on wiki and found out that all 686 guns are pinned and "adjustable" up to 1992 (that would include the no dash). so i'm not going to bother looking at the no dash and say, "that front sight has been adjusted".

murf

Charlie Martinez said:

My wife used a Model 19 with a 4-inch barrel strictly for target practice at the range. I hand loaded 38 Special target loads with 148 grain HBWC and 158 grain LSWC for her and she was sensational at ranges up to 50 yards with this combination. She preferred the Model 19 over a Colt Python 4-inch or a Dan Wesson 6-inch. I can shoot any of them well but I have to admit the Model 19 is lighter, very well balanced and extremely accurate. I do not have any experience with the Ruger DA revolvers so from the OP's list I have to choose the Model 19.

Click to expand...

Years ago I owned a 19, python, and DW. The 19 and DW are still here with the python long gone. If one were have to go now it would be the 19. It's all personal preference.

I have an original Smith 586-1 that I've ran for decades. I don't buy that the Ruger GP-100 is any "stronger" gun just because it's bulkier. And the 586 is slimmer in dimensions and simply shoots better for me in portability, shootability in both DA and Single Action. Sorry Ruger, you will never win me over in 357s.

I buy that they are however, stronger than any K frame Smith, that much has been proven to be true.

I'm believe the Ruger Redhawk 44 to be more durable than any Model 29, and when shooting anything above target velocity 44 loads, I avoid the Smith.
Just my opinion from decades of using all platforms.

Smaug said:

I read somewhere else here that the Bisley grip makes recoil easier to handle than plow? ...or is that just preference.

Click to expand...

Theres real physics behind it, less rotation/muzzle flip, etc.

I'm in a similar boat. I had actually decided on a 6" blackhawk, had one picked out that a local pawn shop had had for sale for 12 months. Was waiting for my bonus check to hit mid March, and then the world went to **** in early March 2020 and the gun sold. Since then every Blackhawk I've seen has been $200 more expensive. I still wouldn't turn down a 686 or GP100, actually there's a GP100 locally I'm thinking about looking into but I think the guy has it priced too high.

My issue is for the last 2 years is that Rugers are no longer the great value they used to be, most are almost as expensive as a S&W now. And for the same price, I think the 686 is a nicer gun than the GP100.

Also, you mention handloaded but you don't mention that you plan to hotrod the cartridge. I'm a handloader too, but mostly shoot .38's or mild .357's out of my revolvers (and lever action).

bassjam said:

My issue is for the last 2 years is that Rugers are no longer the great value they used to be, most are almost as expensive as a S&W now. And for the same price, I think the 686 is a nicer gun than the GP100.

Click to expand...

I'm a Smith Fan...however my newest Smith is A 586 from 1986, and that is the only smith I own that isnt pinned/recessed..... I've only heard about newer Smiths manufactured today, and I don't like a lot of what I hear. Possibly Rugers and Smiths manufactured today are 6 of one, and half dozen of the other..... my last 4 or 5 revolver purchases have Been Ruger Redhawk, Ruger Super Blackhawk, and a couple new Colt Snake Guns which are absolutely wonderful, may I add.

Smaug said:

This is what confuses me: more rotation and muzzle flip means that some of the recoil energy goes into rotating the gun, rather than pushing back = less recoil. Single action guys have been saying that forever. When we go to a Bisley grip, we grip more behind it and less on top of it, like a DA revolver. Hence more felt recoil? But Bisley fans say it's not so.

Click to expand...

Rearward recoil is forced along the length of the arm and into the body. A lot more counter-mass to absorb.
More rotation is simply upward torque on the wrists.
There is no different energies, just in the way they're transferred. "Felt" recoil can be different from the actual recoil energy.

Smaug said:

Yes, but isn't rotation of the gun felt less than rearward push?

Click to expand...

In a traditional Magnum SA such as a Super Blackhawk with say the 8" barrel loaded with Magnums, I almost have to answer this as NO. The rotation is really, really bad.

I picked the GP100 of your choices, but cannot comment positively or negatively on the Smith (never shot one). While a 38 special dedicated revolver would be tempting, I'd just download 357 mag brass, which is what I do.

One thing you didn't consider for a range revolver was the Redhawk, in either 6 shot or 8 shot version, though you did mention not wanting to clean 8 holes. With the 6 shot version, you can shoot 38 special in 357 brass and have .22s that recoil more. They pop up now and then, but there weren't many made. There are 2 on gunbroker now.

"The 686+ still weighs more than the GP empty" because barrel underlug on 686 has more steel. If there are places where I want more steel, they are frame and cylinder.

Small explanation; when I say about more steel on cylinder, I am talking about steel around chamber area, to make cylinder stronger, like what Ruger did on Redhawk and Super Redhawk. Or custom smiths do on their 5-bore 45/454, 475 and 500 SA revolvers, opening frame to install larger dia cylinders. Yeah, I found "expert's" explanation that no flutes makes stronger cylinder. I don't buy that. On 5-bore cylinder's the weakest point is outside cylinder wall above chamber, and on 6 bore is also outside wall, but mostly the bolt notch, and wall between chambers.

As for increased cylinder mass to tame recoil, I think that non fluted cylinder isn't god solution. More cylinder mass makes cylinder slamming harder on frame and crane during recoil. In that respect, better way is more steel on frame and barrel. Later one with larger diameter. And larger, longer underlug, if necessary. I can understand full underlug on 460 and 500 revolvers, even on 8-/3" barrels. However, hefty, full length underlug even on 8-3/8" barrels, on 357 and 44 revolvers has very little to do with function. I would say primary reason was visual effect, to make it looking impressive. When I purchased 686, 6", I thought it shouldn't be bad. It wasn't when I was shooting for the fun. But, after prolonged target shooting, and when compared it side-by-side with M14, I realized what difference of almost 10 oz. makes, and why serious competitors prefer M14.

You have two Rugers - an LCR and an SP101.

Sell the M19 - get a GP100.

Using guns with different controls screws with your muscle memory & can get you killed.

I voted for gp100 but honestly the 686 is a fine choice as well. I own one of each, a new gp100 with a 6" barrel and a 686-1 with 6" barrel and both are more accurate than I am. The smith has a better trigger but that's more of an opinion to me.

A smith 28 and 27 are great shooters too.

If you are open minded to a single action a Ruger Blackhawk is a good choice. I have one that is convertible to 9mm and I'll say that it is built like a tank. Very nice trigger to.

Smaug said:

Yes, especially now that the Python and King Cobra seem to share the same trigger mechanism. If they make a 6" King Cobra, I think that would be my choice. I think the styling and cylinder release are a bit more elegant and the action right from the factory is the best.

I've never shot or even handled a Dan Wesson. What's the background story on them?

Click to expand...

Long story short. Dan Wesson was the great grandson of Daniel B Wesson(S&W) and resigned from S&W in 1966. He started making DW revolvers in 1968-69 and teamed up with Carl Lewis who had worked for Browning, Colt's and other gun makers. He invented the interchangeable barrel/shroud system DWs are famous for. The DWs are very accurate in part because the barrels are screwed into the frame and held by a barrel nut at the muzzle so they're torqued from both ends. They ruled in competitions for years. They've got an even shorter trigger/hammer travel before dropping than a Smith and waaay shorter than a Ruger. I like mine, I've got barrels 2.5", 4", 6" & 8."

Smaug said:

Yes, especially now that the Python and King Cobra seem to share the same trigger mechanism. If they make a 6" King Cobra, I think that would be my choice. I think the styling and cylinder release are a bit more elegant and the action right from the factory is the best.

I've never shot or even handled a Dan Wesson. What's the background story on them?

Click to expand...

Dan Wesson broke off form the Smith & Wesson company and started building his own design double action revolver. The early models are reputed to the best. They are strong guns an have an excellent reputation for being accurate. Mine is more accurate then the Python, 19, and a Smith 14 I had at the time. I retained the DW and the 19 because it is so handy and very accurate but not quite as good as it's cousin from DW.