Poll Time: New GP-100 vs S&W 686-6

New S&W 686-6 vs Ruger GP-100

  • S&W 686-6

    Votes: 73 37.1%
  • GP-100

    Votes: 117 59.4%
  • They both stink

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • neither get a Charter arms

    Votes: 7 3.6%

  • Total voters
    197
Status
Not open for further replies.

dubious

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
442
Ok... would you take a new S&W 686-6 or a new GP-100? As far as I understand new S&W's have the lock and are MIM computer fabricated steel. Rugers are cast (right?) steel and don't have a lock. Which is bestest? Please dont vote for unicorn poo... I really want good info.
 
Last edited:
686 is smoother and "cooler"

GP-100 is stout and robust, but it comes in second in my book.
 
I was sorely tempted to vote for Unicorn poo.

As it sits, I like my new S&Ws, all this crap about the lock be damned. They're built well, accurate, look good, and feel better--and the triggers are almost always more smooth, crisp, and refined than many Ruger products I've seen.

Plus, Rugers are (on average) just so darned heavy for their size; may or may not be a good thing, depending on your application for it.
 
There are LOTS of pre-lock 686's out there than can be had for reasonable prices now (but maybe not in the future as people hoard them).

I would be patient and start looking for a premium 686 NIB with papers (they're out there) rather than going with the GP-100.

None of my Smiths have locks, and I bought them all brand new "back when". And I will never own a Clinton Smith in the future.
So anyone who wants a good pre-lock Smith needs to get them now because prices will double and triple on them as they disappear from the marketplace.
 
I've owned a 6" 586 for many years. Forcing cone had to be throated due to a spitting issue and tip of ejector rod had to be remachined after it slightly deformed after shooting magnum rounds. I've shot 500 magnum rounds through this and it has loosened up some.

Currently, I have a 6" GP-100. Installed some Wolff springs in it and I tell you the trigger is almost as good as my S&W (which had an action job).

Yes, the S&W is sleeker and has a better finish. My GP came with the usual scratches here and there, a crown that can't compare with the smith. However, I'm loving this GP more and more. In the durability department, my understanding is that the Ruger will win.

My preference is for the Ruger, just because it will be more durable in the long-run. But I have to live with it's substandard finish. Wish Ruger paid more attention to these details.

Both guns may come with issues from the factory if you do your research but it appears both manufacturers stand behind their products.
 
I favor the GP 100.Bought mine less than a year ago and no internal lock on mine but Ruger gives you a padlock that goes in the chamber of the cylinder and it's one of the biggest,sturdiest locks I've ever seen
 
The GP100 feels more stout to me, but in reality only weighs 1oz more - and the trigger is a little laborious. I've owned one for years and have been quite happy with it.

The 686 is also a fine pistol, seems to have more of a verticle grip than the Ruger which I don't care for the ergenomics of - the trigger is without a doubt better in both double and single action. I haven't owned one, but wouldn't turn one down if it came across at the right price.
 
Some Rugers have locks now. I don't know if the GP-100 is one of them.
The only Rugers with locks are the blued single actions with the black plastic grips. No double action has a lock. (and even those locks make no sense at all...)
 
The only Rugers with locks are the blued single actions with the black plastic grips. No double action has a lock. (and even those locks make no sense at all...)

My new Vaq with lock doesn't have plastic grips though it does, thankfully, not have the fake case color frame.

The lock is about as discreet as it gets - "inoffensive" would describe it well. Can't for the life of me speculate how it could draw the fire the other lock does.
 
Gp-100s and pre-lock 686's are a toss up for me, and I've owned many of both. Both top dogs. But give me a GP-100 any day over the post lock guns.
 
Ruger owner that voted for the Smith

I'm a Ruger fan and would have voted for the GP100 until I shot my brother's 686 the other day. Verrrry nice trigger and sweet shooting gun. I've never shot a GP100 but have a Security Six which is very close, so I'm assuming it would shoot like my gun. The 686 was smoother and more accurate than my Security Six.

David
 
LOL!
Is anyone else falling on the floor laughing at the guy beating a dead horse?


GP100 wins.
Better design IMO.
I have owned S&W, Colt, and Rugers. I now only own Rugers for shooters in DA .357 magnums. Simply a better design.
Flame suit engaged :)
 
Both revolvers are built well, both will do the same job. I would suggest holding both and if possible firing both. The one you like the best and the one that feels better in your hand is the one you should buy. I personally prefer the M686 but that's just my preference. I bought a used 4" M686 a few years back.
 
Just a point I'd like to make to the original poster:
Right now your poll is 35/55 in favor of the Ruger. This same poll pops up about once a month....and Ruger always wins. Hard to argue with numbers.


*I am not stating one is better than the other, only pointing out the statistics.
 
Since an older 686 wasn't an option I went with the Ruger. At least they don't have internal locks, yet.
 
For a carry gun, or defensive use, the Ruger GP-100. The internal lock on the 686-6 making it unsuitable for carry, for me.

For range use only, I'd still go with the GP-100. It's a very nice revolver.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top