is the gp100 better than the 686?

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

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.

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.

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

If we're talking new guns, I'd say 'Yes' 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.

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.

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.

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

lphazulu6 said:

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

Click to expand...

Totally agree... but I prefer the 686!

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.

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

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.

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

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....

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.....

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....

Welcome to the High Road, Dutchy...

+1 MassMark on the all you have said.

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.

Yes

"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.

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....

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.