How close in "feel"? 66 vs. 686 vs. Gp100

[Jim PHL]

I hope to purchase a 2 1/2", 3" or 4" .357. The three mentioned above seem to be the most popular and are the likely "finalists". (I like stainless, but the right deal on a 586, 19, or blued GP equivalent may sway me.)
For those that have any two or all three of them, how much bigger or "beefier" are the GP or the 686 than the 66? I've heard much about the K-frame Smiths being of ideal size/balance for most shooters. Not having handled/shot all three, I'd say at least for now that the 66 (or a 65LS)would be my first choice. I would obviously handle all of them before laying down my money but, in your opinion, are the other two that much more to handle? Assuming "full-house" .357 loads, is the difference worth it in terms of recoil damping?
Also, I know the shorter (3") barreled GP's have a shorter grip than the 4" or 6". Any other difference?

Thanks,
Jim

 

[Jim PHL]

I should add: The ability to handle an extensive diet of .357's would not be a deciding factor in favoring the GP or 686 over the 66. It's doubtful that even if I only shot .357's and never .38's that I would shoot it enough to cause problems. I had a 640 for years, shot mostly .357's through it and never had any issues.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I have a 66 in 2.5in and a 686 in 6in. Not an easy comparison due to the barrel difference. However, I think the 66 points better for me and of course is much lighter.
The 686 is also a great gun. Full underlug makes it much easier to shoot all day (extra weight aside).

I think it really depends what you want to do with it.
For a night stand gun/target shooting I prefer the 686 (would get 4in barrel for those uses).

For a carry gun I prefer the 66.

Either ones are great guns.

Nothing against the Ruger, don't have one so I won't comment.

 

[Eskimo Jim]

Ohen,
I don't think that you could go wrong with any of the models that you've narrowed yoru search to.

I have a S&W 66-5 and my wife has a S&W 686 (no dash), both have 4" barrels.

Since her's has a square grip frame with factory wood grips while mine has a round grip frame with the rubber 'round to square conversion' grips.

The square grip frame with wood grips feels best to me. It has a more natural feel to me and comes up to point of aim a little easier. That being said, I can always change the grips on either revolver.

I have only tried the GP 100 once. It was nice but I didn't like the cylinder release button since it was a 'push in' type. I prefer the push forward motion of the S&W revolvers.

Good luck.

-Jim

 

[mmay1]

I wish I had more to compare! My experience is limited to a 66-2 2.5", a 66-2 4" and a 586 (no dash) 6". The 66 snubby is nearly as accurate as the 66 4" and I can carry the snubby, whereas I find the 4" is bit too large to carry, although fine in the car. I shoot the 586 more accurately than the 66's, but not much more, and the 586 is more comfortable to shoot. Carrying the 586 is out of the question for me, even in the car. All 3 have wonderful triggers. If I had to choose just one I would pick the snubby for all around use.

 

[antediluvianist]

66 - my experience is it IS indeed excellent for either carry or defense. Feels perfect. Since you say you won't be shooting a large number of .357s, that's a strong vote for the 66.

However, I decided on the heavier 686Plus. My need is for home defense and as a range gun, so the slightly heavier weight is just fine. And the 7th shot is not available in a 66. (The 627 has 8 shots, of course, but is much more expensive, and I don't need such a fancy - removable compensator etc.- gun for my purposes. You apparently don't either.)

Have held and dry-fired the Ruger GP-100, not shot it. Smith triggers are better, either out of the box or with tuning ; and you have to be sure you like the push-button kind of cylinder release on a Ruger -Ii prefer the press-forward system on the Smith.

 

[Norton]

I'm looking at the GP100 as a replacement for my Taurus .38. One consideration in comparison to the S+W may be that, at least here in MD, the Ruger is nearly $200.00 cheaper.

 

[ruger357]

I have the 66-1 with a 2.5 inch barrel. Love the way the gun feels and points.

 

[mattz357]

I don't have all three, but I've handled all three and own the 66. The 686 was a little too bulky for a full afternoon of shooting, and the GP100 didn't have near the fit and finish of the S&W. The analogy I used was that the Ruger seemed like a Hyundai and the S&W like a Honda (I drive a Hyundai by the way, so no bash intended). Both workhorses, just one a little more refined than the other.

 

[W Turner]

I have owned a SW 686 4" and a Ruger GP-100 4". Between those two, it's a toss up. The SW trigger is better out of the box, but the Ruger's smooths up well with use. Weight is nearly identical. Fit and finish was equal to me.

If you are going to consider using it for carry, I would go with the 66. It is ligher in weight and just as capable as either of the other two. If it will be a range/home defense weapon, you can't go wrong with either of the other two choices.


W

 

[RON in PA]

The GP100 and 586/686 will be more comfortable over a long range session of full power loads due to their weight and balance. The grip of the 686 and 66 are the same (K and L frames have the same grip). The grip on the Ruger beats them both as far as recoil absorbtion IMHO. The trigger on the Smiths will be better out of the box, but the Ruger smooths up and you can play with Wolfe springs if you want. Both the 686 and the GP100 should last 2 lifetimes while the 66 will only last one.

In short you can't go wrong with any of them.

 

[antediluvianist]

"Both the 686 and the GP100 should last 2 lifetimes while the 66 will only last one."

That's a good way of putting it.