Deadheadted37
Member
I am torn between the S&W 686 and the Ruger GP100 in Stainless (KGP141).
Any pro and cons for each one?
Thanks
Any pro and cons for each one?
Thanks
Last edited:
Can't Decide Ruger or S&W
- Thread starter Deadheadted37
- Start date
- Status
DaleCooper51
Member
If buying new Revolvers, I would go with the Ruger. The Ruger is great revolver. It is very tough and with enough snap-cap dry firing, the action smooths up very nicely. I never had a gp100, but i had a couple sp101s and a security six. They were really nice, but got traded away or sold for the hot project of the month.
The current Smith has that lock, which might work fine and not bother some people, but the whole point of it drives me nuts and I wont buy a new revolver with one. Many people think that the 686 is the be all, end all of 357 revolvers, it is definitely a nice revolver. This is just personal preference, but I do not care much for the L frame. It just feels a little dead in my hands. I much prefer the K-frames and have a 4" 19, 3" 65. 4" 15, and a 6" 66.
My advice would be to handle and shoot both of them. See if you can rent them and shoot them both yourself and make up your mind on that.
The current Smith has that lock, which might work fine and not bother some people, but the whole point of it drives me nuts and I wont buy a new revolver with one. Many people think that the 686 is the be all, end all of 357 revolvers, it is definitely a nice revolver. This is just personal preference, but I do not care much for the L frame. It just feels a little dead in my hands. I much prefer the K-frames and have a 4" 19, 3" 65. 4" 15, and a 6" 66.
My advice would be to handle and shoot both of them. See if you can rent them and shoot them both yourself and make up your mind on that.
Assuming you are talking about newly manufactured guns, I would prefer a GP 100. Stronger, no lock, etc. The 686 is a fine gun as well and S&W triggers are usually better out of the box, but Ruger's smooth out with use. Accuracy is comparable in my experience with each. Good choice either way!
U
universal
Guest
I voted for the Smith & Wesson. Although I like Ruger products, I will never again own a double action revolver of that brand. The trigger is terrible. I had a SP101 and no matter how much I dry fired etc. the trigger remained terrible. Everey Smith I have owned and shot has had a much better trigger.
Porter_Rockwell
Member
Ruger is better!
One could say I am biased. I am! After owning a 629 .44 and a 686 .357Smitty, I shot a Ruger and SOLD my Smiths. Why:
1) Ruger Grips are better! I shot heavy loads. The Smith comes with a very nice hogue grip, however, neither of these guns had factory grips that covered the backstrap. All I can say is ouch! I tried Pachmyer grips that did cover the backstrap. The grip became too large for my small hands. The Ruger factory grip and the Hogue after market fit my hands on the Ruger PERFECTLY!
2) Ruger handles heavier loads and does not go out of timing. Both .357 and my .44 Smith locked up on hotter loads. My 686 (both a 6 and 7 shot) had the timing go out on them. Each spent time in the shop for repairs. My Rugers (GP100, Super Redhawk and SP101) have never seen timing problems or the shop after many years and several thousands of rounds.
3) The trigger issue is minimal. Smitty advocates claim the trigger is better out of the box. It is, but is is marginal. My newest GP100 has barely a noticable difference than my former Smiths. I have noticed the more I break in the GP100 trigger, the closer it gets to the Smith. Ruger is working to make less overtravel, burring and creep on their GP100 triggers. They are suceeding. Don't waste your money on a gunsmith for a trigger job on a GP!
4) The GP100 is a stronger, more formidable gun. Ruger still continues to build
the GP from a solid block of steel. The Smith still has sidewalls and sideplates that will bulge with heaveir loads over time. On the range, I have seen two 686's blow up. One was because someone (my dad) handloaded inappropriately. Interestingly, I was using his same reloads in my GP100. NOTHING HAPPENED! His Smith, nothing but shrapnel. He's is very lucky that all he suffered were some powder burns on his arms.
5) Fit and Finish are basically the same. Smiths tend to be a bit brighter, but the fit on a Ruger is perfect. Not much difference at all.
6) Accuracy is the same. I have shot both for years. The Ruger is just as accurate as the Smith, maybe better. Some Smitty advocates say the 686 is just a "tad" more accurate. I call B.S.! My out of the box Ruger shoots as well or better than my dad's replacement 686 (that he blew) and the 686+ that had a $150 dollar trigger job. In case you think it is just me, he shoots my Ruger as well or better than his Smiths. In my personal opinion, the Ruger actually has better balance (Full underlug 4")
7) RUGERS COST LESS! If you want to spend anywhere from $80-$150 more, be my guest and purchase the Smith. I think you are getting a better, stronger product from Ruger that costs less money.
8) Avoid the %^&$ locks! Those new Smiths' and the "integral locks" I hate em. Never will I own a gun with one. It only adds to the cost and the possibility of repairs. I hope Ruger is learning thier lesson with this and the semi-auto .45 p345. That gun has been a nightmare with a safety disconnect and lock. Keep it simple. Six shots and no locks! Seven and eight shot Smitty revolvers, more chances for timing problems. When you add the locks...you're just asking for trouble eventually!
Good Luck in your choice...but buy the RUGER!
Porter.
One could say I am biased. I am! After owning a 629 .44 and a 686 .357Smitty, I shot a Ruger and SOLD my Smiths. Why:
1) Ruger Grips are better! I shot heavy loads. The Smith comes with a very nice hogue grip, however, neither of these guns had factory grips that covered the backstrap. All I can say is ouch! I tried Pachmyer grips that did cover the backstrap. The grip became too large for my small hands. The Ruger factory grip and the Hogue after market fit my hands on the Ruger PERFECTLY!
2) Ruger handles heavier loads and does not go out of timing. Both .357 and my .44 Smith locked up on hotter loads. My 686 (both a 6 and 7 shot) had the timing go out on them. Each spent time in the shop for repairs. My Rugers (GP100, Super Redhawk and SP101) have never seen timing problems or the shop after many years and several thousands of rounds.
3) The trigger issue is minimal. Smitty advocates claim the trigger is better out of the box. It is, but is is marginal. My newest GP100 has barely a noticable difference than my former Smiths. I have noticed the more I break in the GP100 trigger, the closer it gets to the Smith. Ruger is working to make less overtravel, burring and creep on their GP100 triggers. They are suceeding. Don't waste your money on a gunsmith for a trigger job on a GP!
4) The GP100 is a stronger, more formidable gun. Ruger still continues to build
the GP from a solid block of steel. The Smith still has sidewalls and sideplates that will bulge with heaveir loads over time. On the range, I have seen two 686's blow up. One was because someone (my dad) handloaded inappropriately. Interestingly, I was using his same reloads in my GP100. NOTHING HAPPENED! His Smith, nothing but shrapnel. He's is very lucky that all he suffered were some powder burns on his arms.
5) Fit and Finish are basically the same. Smiths tend to be a bit brighter, but the fit on a Ruger is perfect. Not much difference at all.
6) Accuracy is the same. I have shot both for years. The Ruger is just as accurate as the Smith, maybe better. Some Smitty advocates say the 686 is just a "tad" more accurate. I call B.S.! My out of the box Ruger shoots as well or better than my dad's replacement 686 (that he blew) and the 686+ that had a $150 dollar trigger job. In case you think it is just me, he shoots my Ruger as well or better than his Smiths. In my personal opinion, the Ruger actually has better balance (Full underlug 4")
7) RUGERS COST LESS! If you want to spend anywhere from $80-$150 more, be my guest and purchase the Smith. I think you are getting a better, stronger product from Ruger that costs less money.
8) Avoid the %^&$ locks! Those new Smiths' and the "integral locks" I hate em. Never will I own a gun with one. It only adds to the cost and the possibility of repairs. I hope Ruger is learning thier lesson with this and the semi-auto .45 p345. That gun has been a nightmare with a safety disconnect and lock. Keep it simple. Six shots and no locks! Seven and eight shot Smitty revolvers, more chances for timing problems. When you add the locks...you're just asking for trouble eventually!
Good Luck in your choice...but buy the RUGER!
Porter.
DillHarris
Member
I voted Ruger because I have the same gun (with a 6" barrel). It's easy to field strip for thorough cleaning and is a great shooter with target loads or full power magnums. Honestly though, either way you go seems good to me.
cottonmouth
Member
Ruger or Smith?
If I could get an older Smith I'd rather get the Smith. If not I'd I'd go Ruger. Both are fine weapons.
J.B.
If I could get an older Smith I'd rather get the Smith. If not I'd I'd go Ruger. Both are fine weapons.
J.B.
SnWnMe
Member
The S&W revolver owns the pro and amateur competition circuit. At some point in their history they also owned the LE revolver market.
MCgunner
Member
K frame.
alucard0822
Member
If you can find an early 686 get it, they are getting harder to find, but they are where the 686 reputation came from. The new ones still have nice trigger, I don't mind the mim parts so much, dont care for the lock, but the most important is the grip fits my hand and points naturally, they are lighter and feel slimmer. The gp-100 is also a great pistol, will stand up to a steady diet of hotrodded loads, reasonably accurate, and seems to cusion recoil more. I just don't care for their grips, balance and solid, but soft feel. I prefer more "feedback" and my smith feels a little tighter than my gp100. You can always get both, but the only way IMO to tell which one better fits you is to try them both out. Either way you will have a fine pistol that will last, shoot well and won't be disapointed with.
SecondAmend
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2006
- Messages
- 49
GP100 all the way.
Guzzizzit
Member
I voted for the S&W, thats the revolver i just decided on. (NIB, 4", stainless for $529.99) However, i dont think you can go real wrong with either one of em.
Gator
Member
Ditto. A S&W 686-4 or earlier would be my first choice. And, although they are getting harder to find, there are still a lot out there.
)Ruger, Smith has been destroying their own product for several years now. The Ruger has a solid reputation for durability and performance and a company that backs it up with incredible customer service whether you are the first owner or the tenth.
GunNut
Member
Pre-lock S&W 686 or just buy a new Ruger GP100, I refuse whenever possible to buy a S&W with the lock.
Plus I'd much rather have older S&W's than newer ones, but I still prefer stainless steel.
Plus I'd much rather have older S&W's than newer ones, but I still prefer stainless steel.
Bought my oldest boy a GP100 for Christmas several years ago. I'm one of those who will shoot a gun with the grips that come with it except for my DE 50. I like the grips on the GP100 and the feel of the gun. Should have bought it for myself and gave him coal. Just kidding but I don't think I can talk him out of it so I'll have to buy my own. Besides Ruger customer service is the best.
Master Blaster
Member
Really, thats quite a story can't say I have ever heard of a Smith and Wesson having sidewalls and side plates that Bulge.
Must have been quite an explosion for him to suffer powder burns on his arms Rugers are investment cast, Smiths are machined out of steel forgings.
both revolvers are equally strong, The 686 was designed to shoot a steady diet of full power magnums and has a very beefy frame compared to the older K-frame Smiths.
I have two 686's one has well over 15,000 magnum rounds through it and its not showing any signs of wearing out.
I would suggest that you try examples of both and see what you like best.
tbtrout
Member
I was looking at the GP100 when I got a deal on a 686 no dash. If I did not come across the deal, it would be a GP100.
jad0110
Member
+2 on trying both. They are both great guns and it really depends on which feels "right" to you. For some the GP feels right, for others it is the Smith. I debated the two for a pretty long time, just as you are doing now. In my hands, the 4" 686 just felt at home, ya know?
From everything I can tell, the two guns are both pretty durable, with perhaps the nod going to the GP. But calling an L Frame Smith like the 686 "weak" because a GP is stronger is like calling a Porshe 911 GT3 "slow" because a Corvette Z06 is faster.
Though what I'm going to describe is probably the exception, it is interesting nonetheless. A local range has been renting a batch of K Frames, L Frames, (a few Ns perhaps???), GPs, Security Sixes, and Tauri that they acquired in 1986/87. All have been rented equally. The only gun that had a malfunction was a GP100 that blew a chunk of forcing cone out of the 6 o'clock position. I saw the gun with my own eyes. Again, the K Frames would typically be the ones to have problems first when shooting a lot of 125 grain and lighter Magnums; just goes to show that any gun can fail.
Porter,
I may not load my own ammo (yet, but I've been doing my homework), so I really don't mean to be butting in or telling you what to do. Forgive me if that's what it sounds like. But honestly, I'd be careful with those handloads. If those loads had the power to grenade a 686 as you described, they are at best on the very ragged edge for a GP. Again, I acknowledge the GP may be stronger than a 686, but it is not so much stronger that their is a wide margin for error between loads used for the two. Just be careful dude!
EDIT: 'Course I'm foretting that these may have been std loads and that S&W just had some kind of serious defect, or something caused the pressure to rise to kablooey levels. I'm glad your father wasn't seriously injured.
From everything I can tell, the two guns are both pretty durable, with perhaps the nod going to the GP. But calling an L Frame Smith like the 686 "weak" because a GP is stronger is like calling a Porshe 911 GT3 "slow" because a Corvette Z06 is faster.
Though what I'm going to describe is probably the exception, it is interesting nonetheless. A local range has been renting a batch of K Frames, L Frames, (a few Ns perhaps???), GPs, Security Sixes, and Tauri that they acquired in 1986/87. All have been rented equally. The only gun that had a malfunction was a GP100 that blew a chunk of forcing cone out of the 6 o'clock position. I saw the gun with my own eyes. Again, the K Frames would typically be the ones to have problems first when shooting a lot of 125 grain and lighter Magnums; just goes to show that any gun can fail.
Porter,
I may not load my own ammo (yet, but I've been doing my homework), so I really don't mean to be butting in or telling you what to do. Forgive me if that's what it sounds like. But honestly, I'd be careful with those handloads. If those loads had the power to grenade a 686 as you described, they are at best on the very ragged edge for a GP. Again, I acknowledge the GP may be stronger than a 686, but it is not so much stronger that their is a wide margin for error between loads used for the two. Just be careful dude!
EDIT: 'Course I'm foretting that these may have been std loads and that S&W just had some kind of serious defect, or something caused the pressure to rise to kablooey levels. I'm glad your father wasn't seriously injured.
Last edited:
plexreticle
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,240
I would go with the Ruger because I don't think the newer S&Ws are that good. IMHO.
10-Ring
Member
I have a geniune like for the S&W's w/o the internal locks but the new production ones, not so much 
AFAIK, the Rugers are also nice & the vintage & current production units are internal lock free
Short story long, go w/ the Ruger!
AFAIK, the Rugers are also nice & the vintage & current production units are internal lock free Short story long, go w/ the Ruger!
Confederate
Member
I think the newer Smith 686s are ugly, but they're fine shooters. I'd take a GP-100, however. It's not just about strength; I believe Rugers are fundamentally better designed handguns. The Ruger (and the Security-Six before it) has only two screws in the entire gun! One to keep the grips on and one right under the cylinder release. The action comes in from the bottom and the entire gun can be disassembled anywhere with only the rim from one of the cartridges. Care to try that with a Smith & Wesson?
The finish on the Ruger is better, too. We've already discussed the sandpaper type finish Smith & Wesson is producing these days. Even Taurus is finishing their handguns better.
The finish on the Ruger is better, too. We've already discussed the sandpaper type finish Smith & Wesson is producing these days. Even Taurus is finishing their handguns better.
- Status
