alucard0822
Member
A double charge perhaps? maybe a squib then another round fired. It's not impossible to have one bad load and the rest be ok.
Can't Decide Ruger or S&W
- Thread starter Deadheadted37
- Start date
- Status
Ohen Cepel
Member
You didn't say if it was a lock or no lock Smith. I would get the no-lock Smith over the Ruger since I just feel that they are more refined.
If the Smith is a new lock version then I would go with the Ruger. The lock is just too wrong for me to buy one and I love older Smiths!
I hope that someone from Smith reads this stuff to see that so many of us hate what they have done now. I've even bought stock in Ruger to support and American maker. However, I can't support Smith and that hideous lock. Odd, that it doesn't show on the current police MP's, maybe it will slide away. I sure hope so!
If the Smith is a new lock version then I would go with the Ruger. The lock is just too wrong for me to buy one and I love older Smiths!
I hope that someone from Smith reads this stuff to see that so many of us hate what they have done now. I've even bought stock in Ruger to support and American maker. However, I can't support Smith and that hideous lock. Odd, that it doesn't show on the current police MP's, maybe it will slide away. I sure hope so!
field70
Member
I have 2 686's and a GP100...You can't go wrong either way.
First off, I just want to point out that this is BY FAR the most civil "A vs. B" debate I've ever come across on any gun forum, and I belong to over twenty. And especially remarkable because the two guns involved are Ruger and Smith! That being said, maybe you can tell that I'd go with the Ruger ('cause I listed Ruger first). I love all my guns, but when I take a side arm out in the field as a back up to my rifle or shot gun, one of my GPs always goes with me. Don't really know exactly why, maybe it's the fit. I have a 686 too, 4 in. stainless, but for some reason it isn't my "go to" gun. Thanks for the refreshing slice of civil discussion. Impressive. Peace and God bless, Wolfsong.
CA357
Member
I have a GP140 4" blued barrel. It's extremely accurate SA and offhand DA still shoots accurately. I looked at S&W's, and I don't know specifically why, but the Ruger just "felt" right.
arizcowboy
Member
I voted S&W 686. Like everyone else I prefer the older Smiths. I think they are better looking and have better triggers. Plus their resale value holds up very well. Rugers may be a little more durable but that's not an issue for me.
mjrodney
Member
I own three Smith & Wesson revolvers (625, 638, 317) and two Ruger revolvers (GP-100, SP-101).
I likely will never part with any of them......but that being said, if I could only keep one, it would be my 6" GP-100.
It's trigger is second to none, it fits my hand very well, and I have full confidence that I'll never be able to break it.
I likely will never part with any of them......but that being said, if I could only keep one, it would be my 6" GP-100.
It's trigger is second to none, it fits my hand very well, and I have full confidence that I'll never be able to break it.
I didn't vote, because there wasn't a selection of new or used.
I own 2 S&W revolvers; a 6" 686-2 that I bought new & a 4" 57-1 that I bought from a shop that had it on consignment a few years ago. Additionally, last year I bought a new M637 for my daughter & a new 3" M60 for my wife.
In Rugers, I have a SS Super Blackhawk, a 2¼" SP101, & an old SuperSix - all bought used.
In contemplating all of these guns, I would cast my vote with those that prefer a 686 if it is a pre-lock. I really don't like those locks & stalled for weeks trying to decide whether or not to buy my wife & daughter guns that had them. In those cases, the only alternative was Taurus. While I don't have a problem with Taurus, the tales of Customer Service problems & my dealer's input ended up tipping the scales to S&W when it came to buying guns for family. (Had the gun(s) been for me, it may have been different). The trigger on my 686 is like butter, & that is just from firing. It is accurate too. I did have to send it in for warranty work as the cylinder developed too much end shake, but it was fixed & returned without issue. (At the same time I also had the insert in the front sight replaced & remember a $25 charge for that. I didn't mind paying, but thought they could have picked that up for me...
)
I haven't handled a GP100 but if I were buying new & it fit my hand & application, I'd probably go with the Ruger. As I'm sure you are aware, Ruger generally builds revolvers than are more "chunky" than S&W & appear to be stronger. Although that's another reason my wife & daughter now have S&W revolvers (they are slimmer & weigh less than the SP101 & therefore are easier for them to handle), I think the Rugers probably are stronger. In the examples I own, the factory trigger pull on the Rugers is not as smooth or light as on the S&Ws. I also own a 5" MKII semi-auto pistol & it had to go back to Ruger; it also was fixed & returned to me without issue.
Have fun shopping.....
I own 2 S&W revolvers; a 6" 686-2 that I bought new & a 4" 57-1 that I bought from a shop that had it on consignment a few years ago. Additionally, last year I bought a new M637 for my daughter & a new 3" M60 for my wife.
In Rugers, I have a SS Super Blackhawk, a 2¼" SP101, & an old SuperSix - all bought used.
In contemplating all of these guns, I would cast my vote with those that prefer a 686 if it is a pre-lock. I really don't like those locks & stalled for weeks trying to decide whether or not to buy my wife & daughter guns that had them. In those cases, the only alternative was Taurus. While I don't have a problem with Taurus, the tales of Customer Service problems & my dealer's input ended up tipping the scales to S&W when it came to buying guns for family. (Had the gun(s) been for me, it may have been different). The trigger on my 686 is like butter, & that is just from firing. It is accurate too. I did have to send it in for warranty work as the cylinder developed too much end shake, but it was fixed & returned without issue. (At the same time I also had the insert in the front sight replaced & remember a $25 charge for that. I didn't mind paying, but thought they could have picked that up for me...
)I haven't handled a GP100 but if I were buying new & it fit my hand & application, I'd probably go with the Ruger. As I'm sure you are aware, Ruger generally builds revolvers than are more "chunky" than S&W & appear to be stronger. Although that's another reason my wife & daughter now have S&W revolvers (they are slimmer & weigh less than the SP101 & therefore are easier for them to handle), I think the Rugers probably are stronger. In the examples I own, the factory trigger pull on the Rugers is not as smooth or light as on the S&Ws. I also own a 5" MKII semi-auto pistol & it had to go back to Ruger; it also was fixed & returned to me without issue.
Have fun shopping.....
rollback88
Member
686.
Ruger is a high-quality product, no doubt. The S&W, however, is more refined in my experience. One of the best analogies I can think of is Toyota v. Lexus.
The "stronger", "more rugged", etc. labels attached to Ruger are hyperbole that I think stem from the physical appearance of the Ruger vs. the S&W (or any other make for that matter).
Given the option, I would opt for a no-lock version just from a simplicity point of view. However, I would have no hesitation to carry a new model with lock.
FWIW,
-jcd
Ruger is a high-quality product, no doubt. The S&W, however, is more refined in my experience. One of the best analogies I can think of is Toyota v. Lexus.
The "stronger", "more rugged", etc. labels attached to Ruger are hyperbole that I think stem from the physical appearance of the Ruger vs. the S&W (or any other make for that matter).
Given the option, I would opt for a no-lock version just from a simplicity point of view. However, I would have no hesitation to carry a new model with lock.
FWIW,
-jcd
Waywatcher
Member
Hah! with my vote it's currently 50% to 50% right on the button.
I voted for GP100, by the way.
The sights are much more readily replaceable.
There is no exposed metal on the grip area.
All parts are stainless, no dark hammer or trigger.
Easy-as-pie to field strip and maintain.
Easy to replace springs.
No internal lock on any of them ever, new or used.
Cylinder locks in three places: front, back, bottom (which is offset to the side for even more strength).
Ejector rod is not also used as the axle for the cylinder.
Uses a transfer bar instead of a hammer block.
Has a push-button to open cylinder instead of "sliding" mechanism.
I voted for GP100, by the way.
The sights are much more readily replaceable.
There is no exposed metal on the grip area.
All parts are stainless, no dark hammer or trigger.
Easy-as-pie to field strip and maintain.
Easy to replace springs.
No internal lock on any of them ever, new or used.
Cylinder locks in three places: front, back, bottom (which is offset to the side for even more strength).
Ejector rod is not also used as the axle for the cylinder.
Uses a transfer bar instead of a hammer block.
Has a push-button to open cylinder instead of "sliding" mechanism.
Poohgyrr
Member
Enough said:
And S&W may have the lock, but Ruger promoted and still supports the magazine ban. Try to buy a factory 20 or 30 round Mini 14/30 mag.
The lock is the lesser of two evils. I don't even notice it.
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
Never Look Back~!
S&W 686~!
S&W 686~!
jad0110
Member
Wow, the vote is amazingly close.
Just goes to show that they are both fine revolvers. As I posted earlier, pick the one that fits you best and enjoy it!
Just goes to show that they are both fine revolvers. As I posted earlier, pick the one that fits you best and enjoy it!
Revolver Ocelot
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,470
if you're looking for asthetic appeal go with s&w (assuming you don't mind spending extra, if durability is a must go with ruger, I found myself in a similar situation, though this was my take on the situation and you may see it differently I went with the ruger gp100 and found it stood its own against all my pc smiths although the trigger wasn't as smooth and finish wasn't at nice as far as reliability and functionality were concerned it was good enough where I sold all my other revolvers because I honestly saw no point in needing another revolver after I got this gun.
gogetumnow
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 48
My vote is for the Ruger.
Believe it or not the 6 shot 4" Ruger is Lighter than the 6 shot 4" 686. Per each mfg. website the Smith is 40oz and the Ruger is 39 1/2oz.
IMO Ruger's are stronger than the 686 due to the size differential in the crane bearing surface. The Ruger is much less prone to developing endshake than the Smith.
No Lock on the Ruger....yet. (let's hope never)
The Ruger can be disassembled into all it's subassembly's with no tools. The Smith: well I hope you have a hollow ground screw driver to get those sideplate screws off. Oh, and don't pry off the sideplate either.
Ruger uses coil springs throughout. The Smith uses a leaf type mainspring. One thing I've never been a fan of is the required tensioning screw on the smith leaf mainsprings. I've personally seen 2 Smiths fail to fire due to this screw getting loose and not having enough force to ignite the primer. Seems like something that could go wrong at the worst possible time.
Triggers? Well, the shorter trigger reset goes to Smith. Better out of box trigger probably does too, thanks to the linear resistance of it's leaf spring. My GP-100 started with an acceptable trigger, but nothing to write home about. The thing about Rugers is the triggers usually get better with use. After thousands of rounds down range and lots of dry fire my GP has equaled or bettered any stock Smith trigger.
Anyway, I like both makes, but when it comes down to GP vs 686, I choose GP.
Believe it or not the 6 shot 4" Ruger is Lighter than the 6 shot 4" 686. Per each mfg. website the Smith is 40oz and the Ruger is 39 1/2oz.
IMO Ruger's are stronger than the 686 due to the size differential in the crane bearing surface. The Ruger is much less prone to developing endshake than the Smith.
No Lock on the Ruger....yet. (let's hope never)
The Ruger can be disassembled into all it's subassembly's with no tools. The Smith: well I hope you have a hollow ground screw driver to get those sideplate screws off. Oh, and don't pry off the sideplate either.
Ruger uses coil springs throughout. The Smith uses a leaf type mainspring. One thing I've never been a fan of is the required tensioning screw on the smith leaf mainsprings. I've personally seen 2 Smiths fail to fire due to this screw getting loose and not having enough force to ignite the primer. Seems like something that could go wrong at the worst possible time.
Triggers? Well, the shorter trigger reset goes to Smith. Better out of box trigger probably does too, thanks to the linear resistance of it's leaf spring. My GP-100 started with an acceptable trigger, but nothing to write home about. The thing about Rugers is the triggers usually get better with use. After thousands of rounds down range and lots of dry fire my GP has equaled or bettered any stock Smith trigger.
Anyway, I like both makes, but when it comes down to GP vs 686, I choose GP.
3" GP-100. Simple, modern design. Disassembly is a snap when cleaning it inside. Sights are easy to upgrade. Smaller grips and shorter barrel make it more comfortable to carry than the larger GPs, but pleasant to shoot. Wish Ruger still made the Six series, though.
AStone
Member
And I'm betting it will remain close for the duration of this thread.my friend Jad said:
I went with a 686 after handling and reading about the two for over a year.
In the end, it boiled down to what felt better in my hand, and the fact that
I already owned a SW 642 and wanted to stay with Smiths.
Having said that, I'll say you can't go wrong with either one. Both are quality revolvers.
Go with what feels better to you,
and the one your intuition tells you more strongly,
"Get this one".
Good luck.
Nem
Stainz
Member
Compare the sixshot 686 SKU 164222 with the GP100 KGP141 - they are so close in actual size. The Ruger weighs an ounce more (41 vs 40 ounces) - probably in that massive full shroud. The Ruger is cast - should need more metal for the same relative strength as the hammer forged/heat treated 686. Both are stout - really great .357M's. My experience with new Rugers has been simple... they are delivered 'unfinished', both inside and out. They have all required some cleanup here to function properly. S&W's have been delivered only needing a little break-in and clean/lube.
I don't like full shrouds or lugs. Try to find a partial lugged 686 or partially shrouded GP100. I went with a 6" 66 for my first .38/.357M plinker - great plinker. When S&W came out with a 5" half lug 686+ several years back, complete with a HiViz front/v-notch rear sight - and Ahrends cocobolo stocks, I grabbed one. The extra round is a nice touch, too. It is a definite keeper. Of course, find me a 4" partially shrouded SS GP100...
Stainz
I don't like full shrouds or lugs. Try to find a partial lugged 686 or partially shrouded GP100. I went with a 6" 66 for my first .38/.357M plinker - great plinker. When S&W came out with a 5" half lug 686+ several years back, complete with a HiViz front/v-notch rear sight - and Ahrends cocobolo stocks, I grabbed one. The extra round is a nice touch, too. It is a definite keeper. Of course, find me a 4" partially shrouded SS GP100...
Stainz
AStone
Member
I have no direct experience with the Rugers, but I've heard/read the same as what Stainz is advising: fine guns, but need a bit of finishing to get them to full capacity. Again, take my comment with a grain of salt due to lack of experience with them.
Again, grain of salt required here, but isn't the 619/620 series the partial lug equivalents of 686?
Nem
- Status
