I compaired them side by side when buying. The Ruger just felt better in my hand and was a better fit. I have small hands. Someone with larger hands may prefer the S&W better. Try to go to a shop and handle them side by side. The are both great guns, get the one that feels best in your hands.
Ruger GP100 vs. Smith 686
- Thread starter Greg8098
- Start date
- Status
Nortonics
Member
Jesus - another "686 or GP100" thread - that makes 7,425 and counting... 
Johnboy53
Member
The ruger can't handle any hotter loads than the smith. The Smith will go up in price, the ruger won't. They are like fords and chevys, but there are more 686's out there than the ruger gp100. Smiths are #1, ruger is #2, colt is #3 and junk is #4. There are a bunch that fall in #4 that are made over sea's. 1-3 are made in the USA and that is where my dollar would go.
You are obviously rather clueless about revolvers. First of all, Rugers go up in price just like everything else. If you'll notice, they've had a big lead in the poll the entire time this thread has been up; more people are apparently choosing them. There is no evidence what so ever to suggest that there are more 686s out there than GP100s, I'm sure you don't have the numbers for either...and again...look at the poll.
Finally, I am not a Colt fan by any means, but they were very high quality revolvers when they were built. That's why it's hard to find one in good shape for under $1000.
ChristopherG
Member
Jerry Miculek is not the only reason S&W revolvers are the choice of virtually all highly competitive revolver shooters. The double action trigger is THE defining feature of a double action revolver for these guys and for me; and the Ruger's is not as good as a Smith's.
I have owned and still own both, and have worked with both. The best Ruger trigger I've felt was a Security Six that had been worked and fired a great deal. Still no Smith.
I have owned and still own both, and have worked with both. The best Ruger trigger I've felt was a Security Six that had been worked and fired a great deal. Still no Smith.
Shawnee
member
+1 for the Ruger.
fecmech
Member
I made that choice about 10 or 12 years ago against a 586 and bought the Ruger. At the time it was about $50. cheaper and that figured into the deal. That said I have not regretted the purchase, the Ruger SA trigger with some minor work is now as good as any Smith I've owned and I've had a few. In the DA mode it's hard to beat a Smith, I shot one for years in PPC and that's about all you saw on the line at a big match. As far as "real world" DA shooting in a defensive situation, either one would be just fine with me.
I own a 686 CS 3". I have put somewhere in the neighborhood of 15k rounds through it of .38 +P and about 5k rounds of .357 Magnum. The cylinder release latch screw came out (I attribute that to handling) and the ejector rod came loose (backed off the threads). I shoot this gun exclusively in IDPA now although I used to carry it daily. The ONLY modification to this gun has been to paint the front site.
I have tried to shoot Rugers, the single action is fine, double action has a "false" reset when compared to an S&W trigger. For the purpose of competition shooting, I found that undesirable. For the purpose of self defense, I find that unacceptable. Perhaps if I had started shooting a Ruger first, it wouldnot have been a problem for me but, I didn't, so it is.
As far as the ability to handle heavy loads, right about the time I got the pistol, I started to handload. I made a mistake, and double charged a round. Instead of 5.2 grains of W231, I had 10.4. To say the least, I was surprized to see my hand still attached to my wrist, as well as the 686 still in the same condition as before discharge. I still have the 686, still shoot it. I also still have the case at my reloader, split side and bulged primer, as a reminder.
Wheeler
I have tried to shoot Rugers, the single action is fine, double action has a "false" reset when compared to an S&W trigger. For the purpose of competition shooting, I found that undesirable. For the purpose of self defense, I find that unacceptable. Perhaps if I had started shooting a Ruger first, it wouldnot have been a problem for me but, I didn't, so it is.
As far as the ability to handle heavy loads, right about the time I got the pistol, I started to handload. I made a mistake, and double charged a round. Instead of 5.2 grains of W231, I had 10.4. To say the least, I was surprized to see my hand still attached to my wrist, as well as the 686 still in the same condition as before discharge. I still have the 686, still shoot it. I also still have the case at my reloader, split side and bulged primer, as a reminder.
Wheeler
DawgFvr
Member
Ruger GP100 without any heasitation.
Travis Bickle
member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 476
Ruger GP100 without any heasitation.
Same here. After dealing with Ruger customer service, they have a customer for life. Also, you'll probably never need the service anyway, since Rugers are generally built as tough as nails, which is considerably tougher than S&W.
Same here. After dealing with Ruger customer service, they have a customer for life. Also, you'll probably never need the service anyway, since Rugers are generally built as tough as nails, which is considerably tougher than S&W.
LTR shooter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 468
Equally priced? Part of the appeal of the GP-100 is the value equation. These days , for the prices they go for new , I have to say I would not buy either.
Looking at prices in the used market I see most 686s selling for much more than the used GP-100s. Still, I would probably pay a little more for used 686. Although I sure would not pass on a nice deal on a GP , last year a guy at the range was selling a LNIB GP-100 for a good price but I passed since it was a 6". I should have bought it anyway.
Having owned both at the same time in the late 80s and firing them many times in the same range session I found both to be exeptionally accurate with jacketed bullets although I was never able to get the GP to shoot my cast bullet load nearly as well as in the 686.
I thought the DA on both revolvers was very good. The cylinders were essentially the same size allowing the same speed loader to be used with each revolver.
On the GP I did not like the fact that I had to take the whole revolver apart just to remove the cylinder and even then the yoke still remained attached. The Ruger revolvers I own now have cylinders that can be removed in a matter of seconds.
I moved up here to cold Indiana not long afterwards and joined a local indoor range and they convinced me to take part in the revolver bullseye league. Here the crisp SA glass rod breaking trigger of the Smith pretty much ruled the roost. In SA mode the best of the Ruger revolvers I have owned was not nearly as good as the worst of the Smiths I have owned.
As far as the durabilty factor I'll probably be long dead before my 686 poops out on me. You would think after reading some of the threads here that the 686 is made of aluminum or pot metal. Even when I owned my GP-100 I was not inclined to invent my own loads. I just stick to what is in the loading manuals. If I need more power in a 357 I just break out the TC.
Part of the appeal of the GP-100 is the value equation. These days , for the prices they go for new , I have to say I would not buy either. Looking at prices in the used market I see most 686s selling for much more than the used GP-100s. Still, I would probably pay a little more for used 686. Although I sure would not pass on a nice deal on a GP , last year a guy at the range was selling a LNIB GP-100 for a good price but I passed since it was a 6". I should have bought it anyway.
Having owned both at the same time in the late 80s and firing them many times in the same range session I found both to be exeptionally accurate with jacketed bullets although I was never able to get the GP to shoot my cast bullet load nearly as well as in the 686.
I thought the DA on both revolvers was very good. The cylinders were essentially the same size allowing the same speed loader to be used with each revolver.
On the GP I did not like the fact that I had to take the whole revolver apart just to remove the cylinder and even then the yoke still remained attached. The Ruger revolvers I own now have cylinders that can be removed in a matter of seconds.
I moved up here to cold Indiana not long afterwards and joined a local indoor range and they convinced me to take part in the revolver bullseye league. Here the crisp SA glass rod breaking trigger of the Smith pretty much ruled the roost. In SA mode the best of the Ruger revolvers I have owned was not nearly as good as the worst of the Smiths I have owned.
As far as the durabilty factor I'll probably be long dead before my 686 poops out on me. You would think after reading some of the threads here that the 686 is made of aluminum or pot metal. Even when I owned my GP-100 I was not inclined to invent my own loads. I just stick to what is in the loading manuals. If I need more power in a 357 I just break out the TC.
- Status
