Ruger/S&W Size Comparison

[Ale Golem]

I'll be buying my first handgun once my permit papers are completed at the beginning of 2013 and I'm dead set on a revolver. I've done a fair amount of research and narrowed it down to a S&W Model 686 Plus or a Ruger GP100. I haven't gotten out to a shop or range to handle or test either yet, that trip is coming up, but I figured I ask those of you out there whom have experience with them if there is any appreciable size difference? I have small hands so a slightly larger grip frame might go a long way in determining if I will purchase one or the other.

 

[Sam1911]

Modern revolver grips are pretty easy to customize. The round-butt design Smith uses allows a hugely varied choice of grips from very skinny, minimal stocks to huge rubber shock-absorbing, hand-filling grips that fill out the profile to the old style square-butt shape (and beyond).

The Rugers will not be quite so flexible, but you'll probably find that the grips fit you well anyway. Some folks (like me, for instance) find the Ruger's trigger seems arranged for a smaller hand, but you'll just have to try them both to see what you like.

 

[Salmoneye]

I just measured a 686 and GP100 from curve of trigger to closest point on the 'backstrap'...686 is to metal at appx. 3.25", and the GP100 with small Letts grips is appx. 3.25" to rubber...

I'm across the lake and a bit South of you...

Have to remember to leave unarmed when I expect to fish across the deep water line...

 

[Notoast]

I can't compare to the GP100, but with my small hands on my 686 and the factory rubber stocks, I can easily put the crease of my first knuckle on the trigger when shooting double action. In single action with the trigger to the rear, I can reach the second knuckle to the trigger (not the recommended grip of course!).