S & W Model 686 6 inch vs. Ruger GP-100 6 inch both in .357 and Taurus

Status
Not open for further replies.
weisse52 said:
I would jump on a pre-lock 686/586. Second would be the GP100 and third would be a 686 and most likely a 686+.

You will be well served by either the Smith or the Ruger.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by pre-locked? Then these are now used guns? Is that some type of safety device that goes onto California guns?
What model is the 586?
 
stinger 327 said:
What do you mean by pre-locked? Then these are now used guns? Is that some type of safety device that goes onto California guns?
What model is the 586?
Click to expand...
Has nothing to do with California.
S&W added a key lock to their revolvers several years ago. It allows the user to lock the revolver's mechanism so the gun does not operate.
There have been reports of the lock locking itself under recoil, usually with super lightweight guns firing full power magnum ammo. (I witnessed one such occurance).
Many shooters hate the lock. Probably an equal number are indifferent about it. I am aware of none who actually like it and feel it is an improvment, although they probably do exist.
The 586 is the same gun as a 686, only in blue or nickel instead of stainless.
 
Lucky Derby said:
Has nothing to do with California.
S&W added a key lock to their revolvers several years ago. It allows the user to lock the revolver's mechanism so the gun does not operate.
There have been reports of the lock locking itself under recoil, usually with super lightweight guns firing full power magnum ammo. (I witnessed one such occurance).
Many shooters hate the lock. Probably an equal number are indifferent about it. I am aware of none who actually like it and feel it is an improvment, although they probably do exist.
The 586 is the same gun as a 686, only in blue or nickel instead of stainless.
Click to expand...
Ok I think I remember this on the 617 I had but never really paid much attention to it.
Thanks for that info and reminder.
 
peacebutready said:
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/...57903_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y
Click to expand...
So this is one of the classics Smith is bringing back? I know they are bringing back the Model 66 as a classic at about the same price. I have an original Model 66 I bought in 1983 and paid $257 brand new with wood grips and 4 inch barrel. It's in perfect condition.
What I don't understand is why these guns now cost so much money? It must be the workmanship and matereials that goes into them?
For that matter all police departments use autos now and the majority of civilians are buying automatics so the demand for those are much higher than a revolver which is another reason why I wonder why are prices on these guns from Smith so expensive.
 
S & W Model 686 6 inch vs. Ruger GP-100 6 inch both in .357 and Taurus
Click to expand...

Skip the Taurus. I wouldn't even consider it.

S&W .vs Ruger. Dang.. both of them are good guns.

I'd pick which ever I felt was better in my hands as they are both good heavy duty revolvers.

Deaf
 
stinger 327 said:
So this is one of the classics Smith is bringing back? I know they are bringing back the Model 66 as a classic at about the same price. I have an original Model 66 I bought in 1983 and paid $257 brand new with wood grips and 4 inch barrel. It's in perfect condition.
What I don't understand is why these guns now cost so much money? It must be the workmanship and matereials that goes into them?
For that matter all police departments use autos now and the majority of civilians are buying automatics so the demand for those are much higher than a revolver which is another reason why I wonder why are prices on these guns from Smith so expensive.
Click to expand...
If they make that S&W 66 'classic' with no trigger lock, flash chromed hammer and trigger, and in 2 1/2 format but with strengthened lockwork, I'll buy one, guaranteed.

Deaf
 
Posted by stinger 327: What I don't understand is why these guns now cost so much money? It must be the workmanship and matereials that goes into them?
Click to expand...
So much compared to what? A Combat Magnum sold for $95 in 1957. That's about $805 in today's dollars. A Model 586, which is larger, sells for $839.

For that matter all police departments use autos now and the majority of civilians are buying automatics so the demand for those are much higher than a revolver which is another reason why I wonder why are prices on these guns from Smith so expensive.
Click to expand...
Don't forget about economies of scale.

I have never toured the production facilities, but just based on a casual observation, I would expect a metal double action revolver to cost quite a bit more than a semi-auto with a polymer frame and with fewer, simpler parts, even in the same quantities.
 
Kleanbore said:
I have never toured the production facilities, but just based on a casual observation, I would expect a metal double action revolver to cost quite a bit more than a semi-auto with a polymer frame and with fewer, simpler parts, even in the same quantities.
Click to expand...

IIRC, it costs Glock about $75 to build one of their pistols. Probably less for the Springfield XD as it is made in the former Yugoslavia.
 
peacebutready said:
IIRC, it costs Glock about $75 to build one of their pistols. Probably less for the Springfield XD as it is made in the former Yugoslavia.
Click to expand...
I remember in 1983 I saw a brand new Glock 17 for $300+ dollars. At that time they weren't that well known in these circles.
 
I read this entire thread carefully, and feel I must make a few comments.
First off, I've been shooting for nearly 40 years, and I've owned dozens of revolvers.
The wife and I are down to 26 revolvers as of this writing. Twenty of those are Smith & Wessons. As you can tell, we like S&W's, (but her favorite is a 1972 Colt Python, and mine is either a 1978 Dan Wesson 357 or a S&W Model 57 [.41 magnum].)
We don't own Taurus guns because, frankly, Taurus has (had?) a terrible reputation. I am sorry if that offends anyone (it will) but it's true.
Even though we own more S&Ws than any other brand, I would only trust my life to my Ruger GP-100. The reason is that the GP-100 has front and back-end cylinder lockup. Over the past four decades, I've noted the main reason for failure in revolvers is that they go "out of time," which simply means the cylinder turns somewhat sideways and binds up, rendering the revolver useless.
I've had two S&W .44 Magnums freeze up in such a manner. Both guns did so while shooting .44 special ammo:eek: I've also seen this in an old Ruger Security Six.
More recently, I had a S&W Model 28 bind the cylinder after shooting heavy .357 magnum ammo. Both the Ruger GP-100 and my 1978 Dan Wesson shot the same load with ease. The Dan Wesson also locks the cylinder front and back.
Additionally, the GP-100 has a massive top strap, heavy coil springs, and is undoubtedly the toughest double-action revolver made. The trigger pull can be smoothed by a gunsmith or a skilled novice.
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to outline my experience in order to give a reason for my opinion. An opinion without knowledge is just an opinion.
 
WVfishguy said:
I read this entire thread carefully, and feel I must make a few comments.
First off, I've been shooting for nearly 40 years, and I've owned dozens of revolvers.
The wife and I are down to 26 revolvers as of this writing. Twenty of those are Smith & Wessons. As you can tell, we like S&W's, (but her favorite is a 1972 Colt Python, and mine is either a 1978 Dan Wesson 357 or a S&W Model 57 [.41 magnum].)
We don't own Taurus guns because, frankly, Taurus has (had?) a terrible reputation. I am sorry if that offends anyone (it will) but it's true.
Even though we own more S&Ws than any other brand, I would only trust my life to my Ruger GP-100. The reason is that the GP-100 has front and back-end cylinder lockup. Over the past four decades, I've noted the main reason for failure in revolvers is that they go "out of time," which simply means the cylinder turns somewhat sideways and binds up, rendering the revolver useless.
I've had two S&W .44 Magnums freeze up in such a manner. Both guns did so while shooting .44 special ammo:eek: I've also seen this in an old Ruger Security Six.
More recently, I had a S&W Model 28 bind the cylinder after shooting heavy .357 magnum ammo. Both the Ruger GP-100 and my 1978 Dan Wesson shot the same load with ease. The Dan Wesson also locks the cylinder front and back.
Additionally, the GP-100 has a massive top strap, heavy coil springs, and is undoubtedly the toughest double-action revolver made. The trigger pull can be smoothed by a gunsmith or a skilled novice.
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to outline my experience in order to give a reason for my opinion. An opinion without knowledge is just an opinion.
Click to expand...
Is this the same as the timing of the cylinders out of sync or alignment?
Does Ruger make the LCR and SP-101 with this same feature?
Would you trust your life on these two Ruger models also?
 
I've noted the main reason for failure in revolvers is that they go "out of time," which simply means the cylinder turns somewhat sideways and binds up, rendering the revolver useless.
Click to expand...

I hadn't considered that endshake could be a reason cylinders bind up. Makes sense. Lead and dirty loads certainly contribute, but the endshake could be the enabler.
 
RealGun said:
I hadn't considered that endshake could be a reason cylinders bind up. Makes sense. Lead and dirty loads certainly contribute, but the endshake could be the enabler.
Click to expand...
As previously mentioned I did have a brand new Smith bind up or the cylinder froze for some reason as cylinder wouldn't turn after firing over 10-20 rounds.
 
Lucky Derby said:
Has nothing to do with California.
S&W added a key lock to their revolvers several years ago. It allows the user to lock the revolver's mechanism so the gun does not operate.
There have been reports of the lock locking itself under recoil, usually with super lightweight guns firing full power magnum ammo. (I witnessed one such occurance).
Many shooters hate the lock. Probably an equal number are indifferent about it. I am aware of none who actually like it and feel it is an improvment, although they probably do exist.
The 586 is the same gun as a 686, only in blue or nickel instead of stainless.
Click to expand...
That lock is for safety reasons?
 
Go for S&W or Ruger.....I have 3 686's and a 586 imho the action is better than Ruger, however, I have 2 p100's , they're built like tanks and accurate too.
 
If I was planning to run a lot of very hot reloads through it, I'd probably go with the Ruger. I don't have a lot of scientific data to base this on, but it's my FEELING that the Ruger would tolerate this "edge of the envelope" rounds better than the other two. If my plans were to mainly shoot just factory-equivalent stuff through it, I'd probably buy the 7-shot S&W. If price is a major issue, I would probably opt for the Taurus.
 
I own the 686 I bought over 30 yrs ago and the colt python, have no experience with the other two so can not really give advice based on actual experience but of what I own I prefer the 686 over the colt python, just my preference. As a lefty it is easier to manipulate the cylnder on the Smith and Wesson. My 2 cents.
 
Kosh75287 said:
If I was planning to run a lot of very hot reloads through it, I'd probably go with the Ruger. I don't have a lot of scientific data to base this on, but it's my FEELING that the Ruger would tolerate this "edge of the envelope" rounds better than the other two. If my plans were to mainly shoot just factory-equivalent stuff through it, I'd probably buy the 7-shot S&W. If price is a major issue, I would probably opt for the Taurus.
Click to expand...
What about factory loads for personal protection GP-100 vs. S & W 686?
 
ms6852 said:
I own the 686 I bought over 30 yrs ago and the colt python, have no experience with the other two so can not really give advice based on actual experience but of what I own I prefer the 686 over the colt python, just my preference. As a lefty it is easier to manipulate the cylnder on the Smith and Wesson. My 2 cents.
Click to expand...
I wish I kept that Colt Python .357 4 inch I had in Nickel I bought in 1980 for $400
 
MCgunner said:
The old Interarms stuff had their up and down years. I've owned 'em with gawd awful tooling marks and such I had to polish out after getting tired of lookin' at the flaws. But they all shot well. Had issues with firing pin breakage, though. The fix is to fit a K frame firing pin.

Since Taurus bought 'em out, fit and finish has gone way up and they seem to be decent revolvers, now, especially considering the price. I have a M68 Rossi bought in 1981 that is amazingly well put together and finished. The bad years seem to be around the late 80s, early 90s. This does NOT apply to the little .22s. I've owned 2 of those and they're nice little revolvers. On my second one as the first got stolen.

Would I buy a new Rossi revolver? Sure, if I thought I needed one and wanted one. But, I've got plenty of revolvers at the moment. :D Taurus vs new production Smith and Wesson? I'll take the Taurus, more gun for the money, let you waste your money on the Hillary hole masterpiece. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
With the new Rossi revolvers are they better or same as the Taurus revolvers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

stinger 327
  • Locked
Ruger GP-100 vs. Smith 586 and 686 both in .357 with 6 inch barrels.
2 3 4 5
Replies
108
Views
19K
Confederate
Confederate
W
  • Locked
GP100 5" OR 686 4" or 6"?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
9K
HighRoadRover
HighRoadRover
M
  • Locked
Ruger Question: Speed 6, Security 6, GP-100
Replies
8
Views
965
Dienekes
D
stinger 327
  • Locked
Ruger GP-100 Match vs. GP-100 with 6 inch barrel
Replies
23
Views
3K
reddog81
R
T
  • Locked
Compare frame size of S&W 686+ and Taurus 627
Replies
14
Views
6K
Redneck with a 40
R
Back
Top