686 vs. GP100

[1911Tuner]

Sorry but that's not true. I have no stake in either company but the M686 is not "weaker" than the GP100 and will fire all the full power .357 Magnum ammo you can afford just like the Ruger.

Love the L-Frame Smiths and not overly fond of the GP-100...largely a personal preference, and no reflection on the gun.

However...

The Ruger is a bit stronger and more durable than the Smith by reason of its solid frame as opposed to the Smith's sideplate. Not likely to be an issue over the useful life of the gun, but it's there just the same.

 

[hAkron]

I have both and wouldn't trade either for the other.

 

[9mmfan]

Just a thought, have you thought about loading the 44 mag with 44 specials? Great ballistics and on par with standard pressure 45 colt rounds. Great for home defense.

This.
Unless it is the gun and not the cartridge your missus has a problem with. Or you are looking for an excuse to buy another gun. In which case I will gladly enable.

 

[marcclarke]

The Redhawk downloaded with good .44 Special self-defense ammunition is a superlative home-defense gun. No need to get another one because the .44 Magnum is a bit much for home defense (and it is, with too much muzzle blast indoors and too slow recovery for the follow-up shot due to excessive recoil and muzzle rise).

So the OP can solve his problem with a new box of good self-defense .44 Special cartridges.

Oops, I almost suggested that someone not get a new gun. Ignore everything I said.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

archangwlcd keep telling your self that.

Hit and run posts are useless. Keep telling myself what?

 

[18DAI]

New production? Ruger GP100.

If used is a option, 686 no dash through 686-4. Good luck!

 

[roaddog28]

I am in the market for a heavy frame 357. Right now, I have an S & W MP340 J-frame as a concealed carry weapon, and a Ruger Redhawk 44 magnum as my home protection handgun. I feel that the Redhawk is too much gun for home defense (I carry it on hunting and fishing trips, and it is perfect for this). I love my j-frame for it's intended purpose, however, I don't want to let them get that close if they're in my home. Hence the 44, which, with its magnum load, is hard to rapidly bring on target again, plus it is not gun that my wife likes to use. I want something that I (and my wife) can comfortably fire 357 home defense loads through, which is obviously not the j-frame. A couple of months ago, a friend of mine let me fire his 686 seven shot, 4 in. barrel at the range, and it was "like butter". I flat out loved it. I think I might like to get this with the 6 in. barrel, but I have also read a lot about the GP100, rave reviews. So, I know that the 686 is an excellent revolver, and I suspect that the GP100 is, but what I would like is to get some advice and recommendations based on the finer points. I know the 686 is pricier, but I am willing to pay if the quality is higher.

Go pack go, either revolver is a good choice. And like 1911 said, yes the GP100 is a stronger revolver. Sorry S&W fans. The main advantage to the GP100 is the locking system. The GP100 locks both front and back. The S&W uses there locking system which is a single lockup. Over years of use the GP100 will probably need less repair. Now, most people will never put enough rounds through a S&W 686 to have problems.
I have owned two 686s pre-locks. I have also owned two GP100s. Both were good revolvers but I sold all of them. Reason, I did not like a full lug barrel which made the revolvers seem muzzle heavy. I have small hands and a small frame build. I found that my Ruger Police Service Six 4 inch fit my hands better and was better balanced.
Advice. Don't confine your revolver hunt to the 686 or GP100. The Ruger Security/Service six is a durable revolver that will last a lifetime. I have a Ruger Service Six since 1985. I put hundreds of 357 magnums and I lost count of 38 specials. Still today the revolver locks up tight shoots better than me. Also your wife might like a Security Six better because its not as bulky.
Its your choice.
Howard

 

[Delmar]

Just a thought, but if you have a range which rents pistols to shoot, why not take an afternoon and take them both for a test drive? The pistol you shoot in your hands will tell you more than a hundred opinions in other's hands

 

[KTXdm9]

Ford or Chevy? Vanilla or Chocolate? We might as well solve all of life's great questions.

Both are great guns. I own a 686, but I would gladly take a GP100 as well. I think the trigger is better on the Smith, but I like the cylinder release better on the Ruger. It all comes down to what feels better to you.

 

[skidder]

Do the new GPs have the MIM hammer and trigger like the SPs? I know it's not a big issue to many, but I don't really like the looks of the hollowed out trigger and hammer on the SP.

If so, I would look for a pre-lock 686 or a pre MIM GP100. I think they are probably fine, but I don't like the looks of the new I-beam hammer and the lock on the S&W.

 

[Backpacker33]

What Torian said:
627 Performance Center 357 (8 shot).
Thumbs up. Just a super gun.

 

[lowercase]

My GP100 can beat up your 686.

 

[420Stainless]

From a utilitarian standpoint the GP100 wins, stronger and cheaper and possibly more accurate.
The 686 has cleaner lines and in my eyes looks sexier (the ones w/o Hillary hole). The trigger on the 686 is about perfect out of the box where the GP100 is a little gritty with some creep.

The 686 looks sexier to me too and I chose one strictly on that basis. I love Ruger Revolvers and know first hand how strong they can be, but I can't envision wearing out my 3" 686P within my life. Both are stout and no doubt either will perform very well for a very long time. All other things being equal, and I believe they are in this case, I went with the one that just had more appeal to me. If they both appeal to you equally, than get the one you get a better deal on. If one appeals more than the other, you might as well get the one that sparks you.

 

[boricua9mm]

The Ruger is a bit stronger and more durable than the Smith by reason of its solid frame as opposed to the Smith's sideplate. Not likely to be an issue over the useful life of the gun, but it's there just the same.

While it's never popular nor encouraged to argue with a Site Admin, but in this case, I'll at least go fishing...

Considering that there are no considerable lateral forces exerted on the side walls of a revolver's frame, how is the screw-mounted side plate a detriment to the structural integrity of a revolver, in this case, of the .357 Magnum variety?

In the 80s Ruger and Smith and Wesson had back & forth advertising campaigns, beginning with Ruger's claim that thicker was better. Of course, a big part of the thickness of the Rugers was expressly dictated by the fact that Ruger was using investment cast steel vs. the forgings that form the foundation of S&W revolvers. These arguments bear out today, where thin cast parts, more often than not, lack the strength of forged components of the same exact dimensions. It would seem that when Ruger set out to topple the K-frame, they were coerced by Materials Sciences to use thicker dimensions, whereas S&W was able to respond with a forged answer of smaller stature.

For us to say that the Ruger frame is "solid" when compared to the S&W seems, perhaps, a bit disingenuous. The frames have been milled out to accommodate the insertion movements, in addition to the operational movements, of the components.

From the aspect of user serviceability, or as we say nowadays Sustainability, they are two different animals. When one opens a S&W revolver, it is what we call a WYSIWYG experience (What You See Is What You Get). When one drops the trigger group out of a Ruger GP100, the anatomy books must be examined, closely referenced, and bookmarked.

Now, please bear in mind I am not an Engineer, nor a Materials Scientist, nor one who is versed in the Thermodynamics of Firearms Metallurgy. Rather, I am a mechanically-inclined, technically-minded graduate with a focus in the Arts who works closely with the aforementioned types in order to propagate sales of robotic machinery worldwide.

Of course, I own both brands for different reasons. If I wanted a .357 wheel gun for a steady diet of Magnums then either the L-frame 686 or the GP100 would be good choices, at least in my eyes.

 

[mberoose]

GP100s are wonderful. 686s are wonderful.

You'll certainly get more refinement with the 686 in terms of fit & finish, and the trigger is undoubtedly better. It's also a more complex gun with a higher price tag, but it gets you that added finesse. Whether it's worth that premium is up to you. Personally, I wouldn't be the least bit disappointed or feeling as though I missed out or sacrificed anything if I got the GP100 due to budget constraints. I'd be happy owning both.

 

[skidder]

While it's never popular nor encouraged to argue with a Site Admin, but in this case, I'll at least go fishing...

Considering that there are no considerable lateral forces exerted on the side walls of a revolver's frame, how is the screw-mounted side plate a detriment to the structural integrity of a revolver, in this case, of the .357 Magnum variety?

It's more than just the frame that makes the Ruger stronger....
I believe the top strap bares significant stress upon ignition. If you compare the two you will see the difference. Not only the top strap, but the internal parts on the Ruger including: shaft, hammer pin, and springs.

These parts are "overbuilt" in the sense of what is required, but that is not the biggest reason why the Ruger is stronger... One has take into account where the cylinder locks on both specimens. Ruger has a revolutionary latching system right on the crane. This solid lockup prevents wear on other components by eliminating some of the flexing that may occur from having the latch located at the end of the extractor.

This latching system also allows the extractor to be offset from the center of the cylinder. With the extractor offset there is more room to beef up frame and barrel around the forcing cone.

That being said... I think ones pocket book would give way long before proof was provided one could outlast the other.

 

[osteodoc08]

I had the same dilemma a few weeks ago. Examined several models and ended up with a new 586. I'm still waiting for it to be sent back from smith. Mechanically had issues with light primer strikes and sticky extraction even with mild 38 special loadings. In the meantime I picked up a 686 no dash that has been a pleasure to shoot. It's more accurate than me and is definitely a nice weapon. What won me over, compared to the GP, was the overall fit and finish. The 586/686 just seemed more polished, not that the GP wouldn't have been up to the task. Good luck with your decision.

As others have mentioned, don't pigeon hole yourself to these two models, there are several great ones to choose from.

 

[red rick]

NEW production for HD use Ruger.
Used, S&W if it was still tight and in like new condition. The plus would be a plus for HD.

 

[45_auto]

Believing that you can compare the strength of a cast revolver frame (Ruger) to a forged frame (Smith) based on the thickness of the metal is pretty naive.

There's a reason that Ruger doesn't use castings for their revolver cylinders (hint: a casting isn't strong enough to handle the pressure).

Ruger uses cast frames because of their lower cost and higher production rates as compared to forgings. Reacting the required forces requires more metal than a forged frame because of the lower mechanical properties of the casting. The lower cost and higher production rates allow them to price their revolvers at a lower price point than the Smiths.

Same reason they use sheet metal instead of a casting in their original MK series of semi-auto 22 pistols. It's cheaper, faster to produce, and can handle the forces produced in the frame.

Same reason most newer semi-autos use plastic frames. It's cheaper, faster to produce, and can handle the forces produced in the frame.

Layman's guide to forging vs casting:

Forging Benefits:
- Good Mechanical properties (yield strength, ductility,toughness)
- Reliability (used for critical parts)
- No liquid metal treatment

Casting Benefits:
- Large and complex parts
- High production rate
- Design flexibility

Forging Disadvantages:
- Defects:
---- Laps
---- Die unfill
---- Die failure
---- Piping
- Shape limited when undercuts or cored sections are required
- Overall cost usually higher than casting
- Multiple steps often required

Casting Disadvantages:
- Defects:
---- Shrinkage porosity
---- Metallic projections
---- Cracks, hot tearing, cold shuts
---- Laps, oxides
- Misruns, insufficient volume
- Inclusions
- Requires close process control and inspections (porosity may occur)

 

[easyg]

Both are plenty strong, and both will handle many thousands of rounds with no problem.
But there are a few design features I like better on the Ruger, just personal preferences...

The cylinder release.
I like pushing inward rather than pushing forward. For me it's just more instinctive and more natural, and therefore, quicker.

The way the grips cover the frame where it contacts my hand.
The 686 grips don't cover the frame right at the web of my thumb and index finger.
This makes it a little less comfortable when firing powerful loads.

I like the way the cylinder locks at the front and the rear.

I like how easy the GP100 is to disassemble.

I like how there is no side-plate screws and no yoke screw to worry about.



There's nothing "wrong" with the S&W, but I think Ruger improved upon the overall revolver design.

 

[shepsan]

I concur with those who have said that you cannot go wrong with either revolver. Both are superb! It really is really a matter of personal preference.

That said, I would suggest you buy the one that feels best in your hands.

These are my 4” revolvers:

 

[L-Frame]

There is a reason that Buffalo Bore uses GP-100's to test out their really hot loads. But it's also a moot point. They are both strong enough for any practical person for almost ever. A good smith can tune a GP to a very nice level but not quite to a S&W. I own both and am a huge fan of both. You REALLY need to shoot both and see which one you feel better with.

I also get tired of people saying the GP-100 is so utilitarian. I think the fixed sight versions are VERY sleek looking and cool. Adj. sight model still look good but not as good.

 

[TennJed]

Whatever you do stay away from the Ruger Security Six. If you see one at a good price, run away and contact me and let me know where it is

 

[HighRoadRover]

This is a legit question, even if there is no definitive "right" answer.

I sadly traded away a pre-lock 7 shot 686 3" -- perhaps the perfect revolver -- quite a few years ago. I bought a GP100 in .327 FED MAG later and initially felt it was a little, I dunno, crude compared to my recollection of the Smith. Since then, I have come to like the GP100 platform a lot -- my .327 is very smooth and is the most accurate handgun I own. The option of a snap-in hi-viz fiber optic front sight beats the red plastic insert of the S&W revolvers, IMHO, and is icing on the cake. So, if I bought a .38/.357 full size revolver, which I probably will one of these days, it would probably be a GP100. I'd like to have both, but I think I'd buy the GP100. I can safely say this: you can't really go wrong with either one.

 

[Black Butte]

There is also a 5-inch version of the Ruger GP-100 offered by Davidson's that balances very well.