GP100 vs SW 686

[P89DCSS]

I'm a diy'er and that's why I prefer the Ruger SP101/GP100/SRH platform. All three are the same except for scale so learn one, learn all three. Aftermarket springs, shims and videos are easily found. A little work and the trigger is better than any S&W (hence the diy factor). "Built like a tank" when describing Ruger's looks is uninformed. Both the 686 and GP100 have the same profile, only difference is Ruger's gripframe peg allows better grip options. Same weigh. Ruger's customer service is world class, S&W CS is like an Italian company in 1980, Taurus is bettter.....

 

[P89DCSS]

With regards to barrel length, here's my take; if it's every going to be used outside the home, I prefer 3 or 4 inch. For home defense and range a 6 inch is nice because the length and mass are beneficial.

 

[Barmcd]

I like older Smith and Wesson revolvers over the same vintage Ruger and I think that bias holds true for the new models today. However, I don't think there's a lot of difference to choose between the two in real life. I like both 4 and 6" barrels and have a few of each. I don't carry a revolver so I stay away from 2 and 3" barrel models.

 

[Ru4real]

Any pros or cons between these 2 options?

For the average Joe, they are essentially the same.

For the above average Joe, without question the S&W.

 

[Anchorite]

Lots of good anecdotal comments here.
I have both, and the way I think about them is this:

The GP100 is like a female volleyball player…muscular and coordinated.
The 686 is like a ballerina.…svelte and toned in all the right places.

 

[cfullgraf]

Thanks for all the replies. Would there be a discernible accuracy difference from 4-5-6” barrel? Obviously we have the sight radius window equation in that mix.

Generally, I'd say no.

But, the different barrel lengths with their different weights and different uses could have an effect on "accuracy".

Rapid shooting would benefit from a shorter barrel that woukd allow for faster follow up shots. A longer barrel would make longer range shots where you have time to set up the shot better.

 

[UncleEd]

For the average Joe, they are essentially the same.

For the above average Joe, without question the S&W.

Dare it be asked, which are you?

 

[Styx]

Lots of good anecdotal comments here.
I have both, and the way I think about them is this:

The GP100 is like a female volleyball player…muscular and coordinated.
The 686 is like a ballerina.…svelte and toned in all the right places.

Basically, the GP100 can safely fire some boutique above current spec 357 loads that's not recommended in the 686 . The pressure specs for 357 use to be higher decades ago than what they are today. That’s not an issue as most don't shoot or require that type of ammo, and those who require more powerful ammo typically will step up to 44mag. If I planned on shooting extremly hot loads, I wouldn't get a GP100 either, but rather a Ruger Redhawk. For commercial range, target, and self-defense ammo and most reloaded ammo, both either will be fine.

It's really a "flip a coin" thing which is why I stated go with whichever one you find the best deal on now, and then save for the other. I'm partial to Smiths, but I love them all for different reasons like much like some like different foods for different reasons. I practice what I preach. I posted this thread years ago in 2018: SP101 vs 640 Pro vs K6s?

I purchased a 640 Pro first, then a K6s, then a Colt King Cobra, and instead of a SP101, my next purchased will be a GP100. I couldn't make up my mind, so throughout the years I purchased them all.

 

[Riomouse911]

I have one of each, both 4” stainless models with rubber Hogue grips. They are pretty similar; full lug barrels, white outline rear sights, etc. The primary difference in my guns are the 6 shots of the GP and 7 of the 686+. (Ruger makes a 7-shot model, I bought the 6.)




The GP 100 has Wolff springs and a touch of action smoothing, so the DA pull is lighter than the pull on the 686+. The 686+ has a lightened trigger return spring and light polishing of the internals.





The SA pull goes to the 686+ by a little bit.



The GP 100 is slightly less accurate in my hands than the 686+ with the same loads. I think the issue with the DA pull of the GP is a pronounced stack that kicks in right after the locking bolt falls into the notch on the cylinder. I was able to pull slowly enough with my Lyman gauge to measure the initial pull stops at 8lb 13oz, then it stacks up to the final 9lb 9oz weight at the fall of the hammer.



The 686+ is just a smooth, ever heavier DA pull with no stacking at the end.

SA is pretty crisp on both. The 5oz difference is hardly noticeable.

14 shots. 158 gr SWC. 6.5 gr Unique. 10 yds DA.


I don’t have any targets shot with the GP, they are a bit blah, IMHO.

As for ruggedness, both handle some pretty stout loads, ones I will not shoot in my K frames. With similar grips, recoil is pretty much a push.

IMHO, you can’t go wrong with either one. I think the 686 is a bit more refined, but that is just to my eyes. YMMV.

Let us know what you buy and how it shoots for you when you get a chance.

Stay safe.

 

[JohnKSa]

When I buy a Ruger DA revolver, I expect to do some work on the internals to get a trigger pull I'm happy with. Not so much in terms of pull weight, but specifically because the trigger return channel tends to be a rough gravel road and you feel every bump every time you pull the trigger in DA.

It's not hard to do (at least I find it easy), but I just count on doing it. I have not messed with S&W revolvers much, but the ones I have worked with have not required that kind of attention to get a smooth DA pull.

For various reasons, my preferences have run to the Ruger DA revolvers, for whatever that's worth--I don't currently own a S&W revolver. Just figured that my experience might be a useful data point.

 

[CraigC]

In newer guns, I'll take the Ruger every time. In older guns, the 586 would be my pick of the litter. Part of that is because of the lock, the rest is well, everything else. 30-40yrs ago, there was an appreciable difference in fit & finish between the two makers. That difference has been erased by decades of S&W cheapening their product to the point that it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

That said, I have very little use for a .357 and stainless steel just doesn't do anything for me any more. So I'd really rather go smaller with a K-frame .38Spl for defense, general purpose use, field carry, small game or just for pure pleasure. Or I'll go with a .41Mag, . 44Spl, .44Mag, .45ACP or .45Colt for all that and more.

 

[UncleEd]

When I buy a Ruger DA revolver, I expect to do some work on the internals......Not so much in terms of pull weight, but specifically because the trigger return channel tends to be a rough gravel road......

Don't disagree but my experience is that some recently made models
have been very smooth. I think Ruger has "paved" that "rough gravel road"
at least on some GP100 snub nosed models.

 

[Styx]

In newer guns, I'll take the Ruger every time. In older guns, the 586 would be my pick of the litter. Part of that is because of the lock, the rest is well, everything else. 30-40yrs ago, there was an appreciable difference in fit & finish between the two makers. That difference has been erased by decades of S&W cheapening their product to the point that it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

That said, I have very little use for a .357 and stainless steel just doesn't do anything for me any more. So I'd really rather go smaller with a K-frame .38Spl for defense, general purpose use, field carry, small game or just for pure pleasure. Or I'll go with a .41Mag, . 44Spl, .44Mag, .45ACP or .45Colt for all that and more.

Don't like the lock, but it's a none issue with S&W. Some Ruger revolvers also have an internal lock under the grip, and Ruger moved from cast internals to MIM internals just like Smiths moved from forged to MIM.

The S&W lock can be removed, but the modern S&W revolvers are the most used and used and most popular revolvers for competition for a reason. S&W revolvers arw also the top selling revolvers on the market. One reason is the trigger, and if reliability and the lock were really an issue, then they wouldn't be favored by those competition shooters who are sponsored and put more rounds through theirs than most will in a lifetime. S&W was higher quality with all forged parts, but moved to MIM. Ruger used the lesser cast parts, but moved to MIM. S&W gets hate for their MIM parts meanwhile those who perfers Rugers don't care while still bashing S&W.

They're both great guns with pros and cons that cancel each other out. I don't understand why those who are fanboys of one feel the need to bash the other. You can't go wrong with either. Even with the difference between the older Smiths and newer Smiths, Smith revolvers are still mote refined and Ruger revolvers are more u utilitarian. Both can handle and accurately shoot 99% of the 357 loads on the market. Smith will have a higher resale value, but I don't see many Ruger owners selling off their relovers. It's a 50/50 decision IMHO.

 

[CraigC]

Don't like the lock, but it's a none issue with S&W. Some Ruger revolvers also have an internal lock under the grip, and Ruger moved from cast internals to MIM internals just like Smiths moved from forged to MIM.

The S&W lock can be removed, but the modern S&W revolvers are the most used and used and most popular revolvers for competition for a reason. S&W revolvers arw also the top selling revolvers on the market. One reason is the trigger, and if reliability and the lock were really an issue, then they wouldn't be favored by those competition shooters who are sponsored and put more rounds through theirs than most will in a lifetime. S&W was higher quality with all forged parts, but moved to MIM. Ruger used the lesser cast parts, but moved to MIM. S&W gets hate for their MIM parts meanwhile those who perfers Rugers don't care while still bashing S&W.

They're both great guns with pros and cons that cancel each other out. I don't understand why those who are fanboys of one feel the need to bash the other. You can't go wrong with either. Even with the difference between the older Smiths and newer Smiths, Smith revolvers are still mote refined and Ruger revolvers are more u utilitarian. Both can handle and accurately shoot 99% of the 357 loads on the market. Smith will have a higher resale value, but I don't see many Ruger owners selling off their relovers. It's a 50/50 decision IMHO.

Who is bashing??? I'm stating my preference and precisely why.

It's funny, any time anyone mentions the lock, the folks that don't care about the lock or make excuses for it, that's all they focus on. It may be a non-issue for you but it is an issue for me. As I already said, the lock is one issue of many. If I'm going to buy a S&W revolver, it's going to be pre-lock. Not just because of the lock but everything else. The lock, fit & finish, MIM parts, the lettering and two-piece barrels. The advantage S&W held 30-40yrs ago no longer exists. You're not going to convince me otherwise.

On the subject of cast vs forged, it's irrelevant with the GP/L-frame comparison. When we move to the big bores, it's not in S&W's favor.

I'm not a competitive shooter, so the reasons competitors choose S&W's do not apply to me. I don't care anyway. Besides, it's the speed of trigger return. Not the quality, smoothness or feel of the action. Both can be tuned to be slicker than butter on glass.

Basically, the GP100 can safely fire some boutique above current spec 357 loads that's not recommended in the 686 .

What loads would those be?

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

I haven't shot a 686 but have shot quite a few Smith & Wessons and several GP100.

I don't like the vertical grip on the GP100, the whole spring lug system the grip attaches to. I prefer the older grip frame style where the grips are two panels that clatch unto the grip frame. It has an angle I am more used to in a revolver. Also the barrel on the GP100 is really bulky, but not entirely a bad thing; they can be quite accurate to shoot because of this.

I prefer the S&W because its just more of what I want in a revolver. Haven't fired any of the new Smiths however, so I can't say for the craftsmanship of the new ones vs the Ruger. But the Ruger parts have a very distinctive MIM feel. I've handled other pistols with MiM parts that aren't very noticeable. But with Rugers for some reason you can just feel it's MiM.

Most of these arguments come down to I don't like the aesthetic of the Ruger. Otherwise, it honestly is a really good gun. It's accurate, reliable, does what a revolver is supposed to do. I just prefer the Smith and am more satisfied with it.

That being said I don't hate Ruger, I actually am quite fond of their Single Action line-up. So for me it really just comes down to aesthetic.
Take my input however you will.

 

[UncleEd]

All this back and forth over the S&W and Ruger is making my
head hurt. So with apologies to the Original Poster, I'm going
to think Colt Python 2020----OR NOT.

 

[Tinman357]

There won't be any real accuracy differance in barrel lengths. It's been proven that a 2" is just as accurate as a 6", mechanically. But, it is much easier to shoot accurately with a longer sight radius. Depending on how hard you want to work at it.

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

accuracy differance in barrel lenghts. It's been proven that a 2" is just as accurate as a 6", mechanically. But, it is much easier to shoot accurately with a longer sight radius.

Any barrel length and/or rifling technique that spins the bullet at a consistent rate as it exits the barrel is sufficient enough. The difference after that is velocity and ballistic differences.

 

[Shivahasagun]

Easy. The S&W.

I've had lots of Rugers. They all felt clunky once I got a 686 + and a King Cobra. And they are far easier to shoot well.

I still have a Ruger LCR though. Good gun. But too much .357 will wear one out. I have in .327 and fire .32 mag from it. (I reload)