Ruger GP100 vs. S&W 686+ (Sheer Durability)

[Ale Golem]

Based on personal aesthetic preference, price and reviews I've narrowed down my very first handgun purchase to either of the aforementioned revolvers. I have an NRA handgun training course scheduled in VT on August 4th which will allow me hands on experience with, hopefully, one or both of them. At bare minimum I'll be able to fondle them in the shop if not fire them in the course. So my question for the day is which of them will hold up for sheer durability? I'll mostly be using this as a range gun but one never knows what the future may hold and I always like to be prepared.

 

[el Godfather]

Sheer durability, I think Ruger GP100 will have an edge

 

[Tony_the_tiger]

Both are excellent tools for your described purpose and for defense as well. Both the Gp100 and 686 are solid as a rock, however both can wear and tear over time. Both will be supported by the factory at no cost to you should a problem arise.

Issues to consider:

The 686, if it is newly manufactured, may have an internal lock above the cylinder release. I personally dislike the aesthetics of the internal lock, and there have been reports of lock failures. You can find older ones without the lock but you'll pay a premium.

Some 686 can be purchased with a 7 round cylinder. Most of my firearms shoot 6 or 5, but S&W has an extra round on some 686 models, which may or may not be important to you.

The Gp100 is easier to field strip and is a great design in my opinion.

Both have rabid community support.


Personally, I love my Gp100. Its had an issue here and there that Ruger fixed up for me, and I think you'll find others have had 686's with similar issues here and there. Chances are either one you get will be a great example of the quality of Ruger and S&W.

That said, go buy a Gp100 ... or both!

I load mine with Speer 125 grain .357 gold dots for urban defense and 200 grain Corbon hard cast lead for woods carry.

 

[wankerjake]

I would have said Ruger GP100 back before I owned any 686's. Now that I do, my opinion is that they are both adequately durable for the needs of most shooters. As mentioned already, I think either company will fix a problem so it really comes down to what you like best. I love them both. That 7th shot on the 686+ is great in my opinion.

As far as aesthetics, I personally don't hate the lock on a S&W but I'd prefer not to have one. I think the Hogue grips they put on the new GP100's are ugly and less comfortable than the old rubber Ruger grips w/ wood inserts they used to come with. But older grips and nice wood inserts are available and make the GP100 look awesome (in my opinion). The Hogue grips on the 686 however, both look and feel great.

They are both fine revolvers. I doubt you'll have trouble with either one.

 

[Drail]

As long as you limit firing 110-125 gr. flamethrower loads they will both hold up just fine. Don't buy into the +P madness, a standard 140 to 158 gr. load will do anything you need to do, for both practice and CCW. The advantage of the S&W is the trigger geometry and the quality of the DA pull. They can be made even better very easily. The Ruger uses a completely different trigger geometry and while quite usable they will never be as nice as a S&W. Rugers also demand that you return the trigger COMPLETELY forward to reset it. Short stroke it just a little tiny bit and it will choke. But that's OK. Some folks just have to learn to let the trigger return all the way. If you can remember to always do that the GP is a fine revolver.

 

[BYJO4]

I think both will outlast you. Both are well made and backed by the factory. My preference is the 686 as I feel it has a better action out of the box.

 

[chez323]

hmmmmmmm decisions decisions.... GP100 or 686........ I couldn't make up my mind between the 2, so...........

 

[Confederate]

The Ruger is built like a brick. Unfortunately, it also feels like one. The balance is, in my view, terrible. If you can find a mint Security-Six, it has a superior balance and durability. The 686 is a much better revolver than the Ruger GP-100, in my view, but handle both of them and decide on that.

I wish I had kept my 686 4-inch. I don't know why I sold it in the first place, but I have two 6-inchers in the safe and they're both very front heavy. That would be good on a range, but horrible for hunting, camping or hiking. I'd much rather have the Security-Six, but they're becoming increasingly unavailable in MINT condition.

The Security-Six has tapered barrels, which I prefer:

​

The 686 is a beauty, with a thick cylinder.

 

[jungle]

Either will last a very long time, you should consider yourself fortunate if you can wear out any quality firearm.

Buy the one which fits you best, in appearance, design and ergonomics.

The oft repeated myth that one has a better action than the other is just that, a myth.

Both weigh within less than two ounces of each other in the same barrel length. Both will get the job done.

 

[jad0110]

Confederate makes a good suggestion with the Ruger "Six" series revolvers. The GP, Six Series and S&W 686 are all durable guns. Heck, might as well through the S&W N Frame .357 models into the mix as well (27, 627, 28, 327, etc). Of these models, I'd just go with what feels nicest in your hands. And if you want even tougher, consider a Single Action like the Ruger Super Blackhawk.

 

[Hondo 60]

I'm the proud owner of fine examples from both manufacturers.
And I think the Ruger will hold up a bit better.

BUT, they both will last several life times with proper care & maintenance.

 

[Salmoneye]

I have one of each from the late 80's...Neither has hiccoughed yet...

Ignore the Blackhawk:

 

[DPris]

In terms of absolute longevity/durability, the Ruger is the better design, and that's neither fandom nor "personal preference" speaking.
Weight differences and trigger pulls between the two guns are not indicators of overall strength and wear resistance.
Denis

 

[Mauser lover]

Ruger has pretty much monopolized overbuilt handguns, but the 686 isn't going to fall apart the first time that you drop it either.

 

[DC Plumber]

SAME!

Buy which ever one feels the best in your hand and catches your eye. I doubt you could wear out either one.

 

[Nathan Detroit]

Some years back a fellow on the reg.guns newsgroup reported that he kept track of how many factory 125 .357s he fired through his 686 before he cracked the forcing cone. It took over 11,000 rounds to damage the barrel, and he felt he got good service from his Smith and had nothing to complain about. Sent it back to Smith, had the barrel replaced and put it back into service.

Detroit

 

[BCRider]

I've handled and shot both. As well I own my own share of both Ruger and S&W.

So far as I can see there's a lot of talk above about the balance but little or none on the other major factor you feel every time you shoot the gun. Namely trigger feel. Both guns have a nice enough DA pull but the Ruger signals that it is about to shoot by a "click" in the trigger as the cylinder stop is released by the trigger just before the hammer drops.

Now this can be seen as either a good or bad thing. On the one hand it gives the shooter a chance to stage the trigger and line up the sights that last time. On the other it can serve as the signal that it's time to flinch or simply breaks into the mental train of sights n' pull.

Having shot with both styles I can say that I prefer the S&W smooth "no click" DA trigger. It's not a big thing but it's there all the time.

The balance of the guns is so close as to be a coin toss. Yes, if you pickup and heft one after the other you may or may not find that one feels more balanced and points a little more automatically. But we're really nit picking over this since both are darn nice.

Now having said this it's not like Ruger vs S&W is like chocolate vs cheeze. Both are superb handling and shooting guns. I'd say it's more a case of two slightly different varieties of chocolate vs chocolate. In other words neither is a poor option.

 

[DPris]

The Smiths are not fragile, and they'll hold up well to extended use.
Get whichever you want, I'm not pushing the Ruger, just answering the original question.

Something to consider though is that S&W will not be servicing their revolvers forever, and I'm not talking about the warrantee.

It's a matter of parts.
S&W's already been turning down repairs on some relatively recent guns simply because they no longer maintain parts for them.
"Pinned" barrels, for example, have not been made for quite a while, and if your 686 is an older model with one, you may have a problem in replacing it if you ever need to.
Same situation is developing with the older guns with hammers containing the firing pin. And the small rivets that retain the older firing pins. And so on.

In other words- don't count on being able to return a worn revolver to Smith & Wesson for repairs indefinitely.

And, the question was not "Which gun has the best trigger or the best balance", it was strictly durability.
Denis

 

[buck460XVR]

Both are superb handling and shooting guns. I'd say it's more a case of two slightly different varieties of chocolate vs chocolate. In other words neither is a poor option.

I agree. Both are fine guns and should last your lifetime. If your concerns about durability are because of long term ownership, I suggest you go to both websites and read the warranties that each manufacturer gives with their guns. One gives a written lifetime warranty, one gives no warranty at all. To some folks considering long term ownership(over decades, not just years) this can be a concern. Other than that, pick the one that feels the best in your hand and tickles your fancy.

 

[jungle]

Bogus, both offer warranties, they just contain different legal mumbo jumbo.
Both will fix your new pistol and in some cases your used pistol.

Smith does not warranty anything made prior to 2/1989, parts are either not available or scarce. Decades meant two in this case.

 

[Paladin7]

Both are a great choices for a first firearm. A solid 357 Magnum revolver is extremely versatile and can do everything from plinking, to hunting to home defense with ease. The manual of arms is simple and malfunction drills = pull the trigger again...

Another thing that's worth mentioning is that learning to shoot well with a double action revolver will make you a better pistol shooter overall.

I've owned and shot both and still have my S&W 686+.

The Ruger is a tank. It's a great firearm.

The S&W is built like a Swiss watch, everything you need and nothing that you don't.

My preference is for an older S&W, pre-lock, pre-MIM.

Either will serve you well.

 

[DPris]

Buck,
As I alluded to above- the S&W warrantee becomes worthless as soon as they run out of parts for a given model or series of models.
The warrantee also has nothing to do with the original question of durability.

Denis

 

[mavracer]

Ignore the Blackhawk

why it looks right at home?
As to the OP ? I have both I'll let you know when I wear one out. I'm still beating on my 58 year old Blackhawk too.

 

[Confederate]

What makes the Rugers stronger is the solid frames they employ. Even the Security-Six was a powerhouse even though it was lighter. The good thing about full underlug barrels is that they settle steadily on still targets. The bad things about them is that they're lousy at picking up moving targets. Bill Jordan, a former Border Patrolman, suggested to S&W that they make the .357 light to carry for cops, hunters and outdoorsmen. But when cops stopped carrying revolvers for the most part, both S&W and Ruger decided to add weight to the guns and say to hell with the hunters and outdoorsmen.

I remember all the magazine articles featuring the Smith 66 and Ruger Security-Six 6-inch guns as the perfect outdoor hunting and outdoor guns. But boy you haven't seen that happen about 686s and GP-100! That would be like taking a boat anchor with you out in the wilderness!






This is what makes the Ruger stronger than the S&W. Look,
Ma, no sideplate!




Oh, yes, and oversized parts that fit into the frame from
above and below. How can you beat it?

.

 

[buck460XVR]

Bogus, both offer warranties, they just contain different legal mumbo jumbo.
Both will fix your new pistol and in some cases your used pistol.

Smith does not warranty anything made prior to 2/1989, parts are either not available or scarce. Decades meant two in this case.

No Bogus about it. No legal mumbo jumbo. One gives a written warranty and is bound to that warranty legally. This is that one....."We will repair any defect in material or workmanship without charge to the original purchaser for as long as you own the handgun. ".

This is the other.....''.......has elected not to
provide any written warranty, either “limited” or “full”, rather than to
attempt to comply with the provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Act and
the regulations issued thereunder.''

This does not mean that both companies do not stand behind their new products, it just means one is legally bound by the provisions it states and the other is bound only by state minimums, if and where there are state minimums. The Magnuson-Moss Act provides that a manufacturer that gives a written warranty cannot change the terms of that warranty on the product it is given. It can change to a different warranty on a new/different item, but it cannot change a specific warranty once given on a specific item. By not providing a written warranty a manufacturer can change their policies on warranty repair any time they wish(or stockholders wish).

Smith's lifetime warranty did not start until February 1st of 1989. Before that their written warranty was for a period of one year. Thus after February of 1990, the last of those warranties had lapsed. This has nothing at all to do with the new warranty. To make a statement a one year warranty should last for more than two decades is where the mumbo jumbo comes in.

Buck,
As I alluded to above- the S&W warrantee becomes worthless as soon as they run out of parts for a given model or series of models.
The warrantee also has nothing to do with the original question of durability.

Denis

Denis.......again the Magnuson-Moss Act provides that the warranty will not become worthless until original owners of those guns with the lifetime warranty are dead. The parts you speak of that are running out are of guns made before 1990......am I correct? Again those are guns did not have a lifetime warranty and thus S&W is not legally bound to service them or continue to carry parts. This is the same thing that could happen at any time, not just after two decades, when a manufacturer does not give a warranty. I did not claim the warranty had any thing to do with the durability of either gun, I just stated that if one was looking at long term ownership, it was something to consider.......and it is.