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.
If you plan to show it off to your friends...Get a Colt.
If you plan to sip tea with one hand and shoot with the other...Get a S&W.
If you own stock in UPS or FedEx...Get a Taurus.
If you are going into hell and plan on comming back...Get a Ruger.
 
I have owned the 686 and 681 along with a couple of model 66's that I still own and the GP100 is the one I would keep period.
 
I like both my Colt Trooper Mk III and my 686 better than the Ruger. All are fine guns. The Smith has the best trigger action, so I favor it for target applications and I don't believe there is a stronger revolver anywhere than the Mk III. It (Colt) certainly has much more impressive fit and finish than the comparably somewhat crude Ruger. I can understand someone having a preference for the Ruger (price being the chief attraction in my mind), but can't for the life of me understand anyone claiming Colt or Smith being inferior examples of firearms. That would seem to me to be irrational exuberance and a distinct lack of knowledge about the fine design and execution of Colt and Smith and Wesson revolvers.

You can certainly have a strong opinion about the S&W Integral Lock, but for the love of Mike know what you are talking about before trying to educate others about finding a preference or making an informed decision. Oh and BTW, I don't sip tea but I have been known to show off a fine old Colt or 2. I have no experience with Taurus.
 
Last edited:
GP'a seem to be gritty and chunky, kind of a blue collar gun. I much prefer the 686 with its slicker action, better trigger, and cleaner lines.
 
I did an Ibok trigger job on the GP-100 and the trigger is as smooth as any of my Smith’s. Both are fine revolvers with the 686 being more pricey. Several of my Smith’s have the Hillary Hole but the lock doesn’t bother me near as much as it does some folks.
Either revolver would be a fine choice. It’s going to boil down to your preference and price range.
 
Everyone know the action and trigger on the S&W is better than the Ruger.

The Ruger is a tough beast, I have the Ruger GP 100
 
If yu are sooting precision matches S&W. For real life, GP 100 all the way for durability.
 
Gimme a K frame. Okay, I like the GP100. They really didn't need to dump the Security Six line for it, though.:rolleyes:

Oh, I'm a blue collar guy. Rugers are more blue collar. The Smiths are for rich snobs who screw people out of their money for a living. :D But then, they only buy Smiths because they ain't rich enough for a Korth. So, perhaps they're wannabe rich snobs.

Actually, I've owned Smiths, still own one. I'd like to be rich some day. :D Um, better go buy another lotto ticket......:rolleyes:
 
The Smiths are for rich snobs who screw people out of their money for a living.

Never hosed anybody, and the most I've paid for any of my 12 S&W handguns is $550.

I own both Rugers and S&W's. My first Ruger (and first handgun) was a Security-six stainless, which cracked the forcing cone shooting 125 gr. mag loads. The other two Rugers I have are only in my possession because S&W does not make a 3" adjustable sight .32 H&R mag or a .454 Casull. Traded off my 44 mag Vaquero for a Jeep XJ last summer; it'll be replaced with either a 629 or an Anaconda.

I'd take my 4" 586-4 or 6" 686 no dash over a GP-100 any day, for work or pleasure.
 
My preference is for Smith and Wesson revolvers, I don't care if it has the internal lock or not or MIM parts, my smiths have always worked well and have been reliable. I really like my 6" 686+, very accurate fun shooting gun. In my youth, I traded away a few smiths that I wish I would have kept.

Saying that, I put a blued GP100 on layaway yesterday and could have put another 686, but it was 200 bucks more than the Ruger and the Ruger wasn't all that rough or pedestrian at all. I don't think that current smith and wesson revolvers are worth 200 dollars more than the rugers, maybe about half that.

I have two SP101s, one in .327 federal magnum and one in .357 magnum, they are very solid, reliable revolvers that I would stake my life on. I can't wait to try out that Smith revolver chambered in .327 magnum.
 
For the price I'll take Ruger every time. I know Smith is a good gun but most of the ones I see are over priced. Ruger has never let me down and I think they look better. I love the Black rubber grips with the Rosewood inlays.
 
Gimme a K frame. Okay, I like the GP100. They really didn't need to dump the Security Six line for it, though.
I agree on the security six. I have a 2 3/4 stainless, one of my favorite hand guns.

I see a lots of people are voting with their wallet. That was Bill Rugers plan, build a revolver that would compete with the L frame at a lower cost. He did a damn good job.
I'll still take a 686 over a GP100.
 
Can't go wrong with either. I think the GP has a more user friendly fieldstrip. I wouldn't be as a afraid to bang up a GP because it's the ugly girl in class. Can't speak for the 686 but I have an ex-service Model 65 that I think the world of. I'd get one, then at some point the other. Both are benchmark revolvers.
 
With Taurus, Rossi, and Charter around, Ruger is never the "ugly girl in class."

While we're being sexist regarding DA duty revolvers:

Colt's--The older, quirky MILF you used to know, but who dropped dead after a series of poor decisions ended her.

Smith--Once the hottie, but one who has gone totally trashy and might have become an alky, or meth addled "date," a shadow of her former self who has picked up a completely hideous and incurable facial sore that makes some people wretch and others to wistfully recall the days when she was the belle of the ball, even in her previously mocked "Bangor Punta" phase.

Ruger--Always has been the dependable plain Jane, a low maintenance friend, and way more country than rock n' roll. Never changing, tough as hell, and rough around the edges at first, she's been looking way more attractive over time because she cleans up well and her living rivals have all become diseased harpies.

Charter--The really ugly girl who had a few moments of notoriety when younger, but who has been in and out of institutions her whole life.

Taurus/Rossi--The Brazilian exchange sisters who sort of look like Smith did in her prime, but they aren't reliable, they fall apart easily, and are given to wearing garish tattoos that say inane things like THE JUDGE. These sisters are the girls you don't take home to mother if you can do better at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top