Ruger GP100 vs. Smith 686

[Daizee]

For a full-size gun destined for magnums, Ruger. The GP100 feels great in my hands and I love the action design. I've felt great Ruger and Smith triggers, so that argument is silly to me.

For a full-size .38spl-only gun, K-frame S&W chambered in .38spl specifically.

So I don't have much use for a 5/686 given that line of reasoning. I'm not hatin', tho.

-Daizee

 

[BigBlock]

However, if you are an average or even above average shooter you simply cannot wear out a S&W L frame in your lifetime shooting factory loads. Maybe a crane stretch and O.S. cyilnder stop after several thousand rounds, but that's not worn out, just in need of a tune-up.

See, that's the problem with the S&Ws. They do make nice guns, (or at least they used to) but if you intend on using it your whole life you will likely have to send it off to a gunsmith once or twice or thrice. The extra strength of a Ruger, how little it may be, usually prevents this.

On the other hand, if you're only shooting .38 specials and the like, Smiths are probably a better choice than a Ruger, only because of weight. I generally strongly dislike S&W, but I do plan on buying an old .38 special if I can find one cheap enough.

 

[jdc1244]

If the price for these were the same NIB.

But indeed they’re not.

I’ve been very impressed with my 4 inch blued GP 100 both with regard to accuracy and workmanship.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

If the price were the same...which in my experience it's not, I would get the 686 because it has a higher value.

If I were in some kind of TEOTWAWKI scenario where I had to choose between the two for my primary weapon I'd carry (and reload for) for years...I'd go with the Ruger GP100.

 

[Sunray]

The one that fits your hand best. The GP fits my hand. A 4" or 6" Smith 'K' or 'L' frame doesn't. Any new firearm requires a trigger job due to frivolous U.S. law suits.
"...because of weight..." A 4" GP is lighter than a 4" 686 by 4.8 ounces. A 6" GP is 1.8 oz heavier. Daft isn't it?

 

[C-grunt]

That was a hard choice right there. I love my SP101 but I ended up voting for the Smith. I like the looks of them better, thats what tipped the scales....

 

[phantomak47]

Until Smith drops the locks, I will be only buying Rugers, plus they are overbuilt and soild.

 

[mgregg85]

I've fired both and I own the GP-100. Its a big heavy thing but its tough as hell. And no silly lock...

 

[rswartsell]

686 for trigger/action, plenty of strength in the L frame. Haven't owned the GP100 but my 686 is exceptionally accurate, and hasn't complained a bit about Cor Bon 180gr. The workmanship in my Smith seems just a tic better. My impression of the Ruger is however still positive. Now if I HAD to shoot an overcharged reload through one, guess it would be the Ruger. But in my mind avoiding such is the idea (and not hard to do).

 

[bflobill_69]

So how much do gunsmiths charge to do trigger work on a Ruger DA these days? Would it make the price of the Ruger more than the Smith?

It all comes down to the smooth/linear trigger action for me.

I say the Smith.

Bflobill69

 

[BigBlock]

So how much do gunsmiths charge to do trigger work on a Ruger DA these days? Would it make the price of the Ruger more than the Smith?

They charge very little, so NO. The fact is Ruger triggers are just fine, ESPECIALLY GP100s, slick and smooth right out of the box. There is absolutely no need for gunsmithing and you are no more likely to get a bad trigger from Ruger than Smith and Wesson.

 

[ejnogarb]

I love my GP100. It fires flawlessly and looks so nice. It's true that the 686 has a better trigger, but the Ruger's is great, too. When deciding between the two for me, it came down to which revolver is the most durable.

 

[jlh26oo]

L.O.L. the O.P. didn't know throwing price out of consideration would be too hypothetical a concept for us to grasp.

I went Ruger, for all the reasons listed thus far. It impressed me that the boutique ammo manufacturers used G.P. 100's as test-beds to work up their hottest loads, and I liked the looks better than the 686. But throwing out price, and considering ultimately I did not keep the G.P. 100- I'd go S&W this time. As said, I don't think I personally would actually ever USE whatever edge Ruger has over S&W in terms of durability, and hopefully get a nicer trigger or ergonomics in the exchange.

 

[madcratebuilder]

Problem is that internet buzz and reality are usually very far apart.

Ain't that the truth!

I own both the gp and the 686, both are fine 357's, but no matter how well tuned the gp is it well never have as nice a trigger as a tuned smith.

it came down to which revolver is the most durable.

Why is it more durable?

 

[pmbiker]

I'll still gladly stick with my 586, shoot the snot out of it and tune it up IF it ever needs it. The trigger is amazing, accuracy is better than my GP, fit and finish are a no contest win for the S&W.

If I were developing/shooting nuclear loads for the .357mag, I'd go GP. For any other reason the 5/686 is a hands down winner IMO.

Both guns weigh 40oz(4")if you can rely on the factory website specs. If the weights are the same, where's the extra beef in the Ruger? Could it be that the investment cast steel of the Ruger is less dense than the forged steel that the Smith is made of. If that's true, is it possible that the only reason the Ruger seems to be "built like a tank" is because it has to be? If the topstrap, recoil shield and other stressed areas were as svelte on the Ruger as they are on the Smith, would it grenade because the steel is weaker? I don't know and I'm not a metallurgist by any stretch, just wondering. Maybe someone else knows.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Both are good guns. My purely subjective preference is for the Smith.

 

[Vicious-Peanut]

I did this same research before I bought my .357, I went with the Ruger GP100.

 

[BigBlock]

Why is it more durable?

Heavier steel frame
Thicker cylinder
Less moving parts
Stronger moving parts
No lock to jamb
Much easier to take apart and clean and fix if necessary

And again with the triggers......a S&W trigger is no better than a Ruger trigger! PERIOD! They're different, yes, that doesn't make one better than the other. Some people, like me, prefer the Ruger trigger and find nothing special about a S&W trigger. It is NOT an issue of quality. If you prefer the S&W trigger then go for it, but don't bad mouth Ruger for no reason.

 

[tinygnat219]

One or the other, both will outlast their respective owners.

Both are great guns. However, I have to give my marks to S&W.

 

[loneviking]

I've compared 'em side by side and I would choose the S&W. The grips are quite a bit smaller on the Ruger which, for me, makes the gun barrel heavy. I need the bigger grips on the S&W. As for durability, I can't see any difference between the amount of metal in either gun. I would bet that either gun would last someone a lifetime and many thousands of rounds thorugh it. And even if a S&W has to go to a gunsmith after ten or twenty years--so what? It doesn't cost much and the performance of the gun will be much improved over a gun that never sees the shop. Accuracy? I'll take the S&W over the Ruger in that area as well.

 

[LA Rondo]

I take a 686 any given day over the Ruger, even with the price being as it is.

 

[Ala Dan]

Smith & Wesson

I'd have to go with the Smith & Wesson six shot model 686.
I own this very gun, and it has been an outstanding performer any
time I've called upon it~!

 

[mauiglide]

I just voted on the poll and voted with my money and bought a 4" and 2.5" S&W 686 Plus both with the ILS. I like the looks of the S&W over the Ruger and the S&W trigger is awesome.

 

[rswartsell]

One objective difference between the two is that the Ruger has a cast frame and the Smith is forged. The Ruger is noticeably beefier in some dimensions. For this reason I believe the "strength" difference between the two is largely one of perception. L frame Smiths are now time tested and are perfectly strong for diet of magnum rounds. If not abused either revolver will outlast it's owner with no real "scheduled" need for a gunsmith. The more complicated, hand fitted design of older Colt's could be said to require maintenance, particularly for worn hands and keeping good timing, but not the 686 or GP100.

Where strength is really critical, the cylinder, 686+- 7 shots are stronger than the 6 shots because the bolt stop notches in the cylinder are offset from the chambers, which are the thinnest weakest point in the cylinder. For timing reasons in a six shot the notches coincide with the cylinders weakening the thinnest part of the cylinder. No-one can convince me that my 686+ is not every bit as strong as a GP100.

 

[Scrap Olis]

Flip a Coin

S&W has the lock and Ruger has the "legal men warning" engraved on it.

S&W has a much better "double action" trigger and Ruger will get a little better with use.

There are lots of accessories for either revolver on the market.

Both are accurate.

I have both.