S&W 686 and the GP100

357smallbore

357smallbore

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
898
Location
Leavenworth KS
Fellow revolver enthusiast.
I have had conversations with friend and associates that go to battle over which one of these guns is superior.
I have a S&W 686 no dash 1983 model and I have a Ruger GP100 1998 model. Both are SS and are 4in barrels.
The 686 definitely has a smoother trigger pull in DA & SA. Both guns weigh 41oz empty. Aesthetically they both look beautiful.
As for accuracy I can't shoot one better than the other. They both are equally accurate to me. As for reliability, both are flawless. I do think the Ruger is a bit more built to take a heavier dose of the thermonuclear hot loads someone may run through their gun .
I reload and don't do that, I do have some warm loads but nothing either gun can't handle. Theses two guns in my opinion are equal and one really isn't better than the other. They will easily out live me.
 
I think from a practical standpoint there isn't much difference. I have owned a GP100, and my wife owns a 686. Personally, I like the way a GP100 disassembles for maintenance. Much easier than a Smith. Not that it's "hard" with a Smith, provided you have a bench and appropriate screwdrivers, but the Ruger can be disassembled in the field if need be.

I've seen reports that the 686, when used in competition, has a life of about 10,000 rounds of full power ammo, before there is measurable wear/endshake. It's not worn out there, but it's to the point they replace the gun. I've not seen that report for the GP100, but I would guess it would holdup to long term use better.
 
They are both fine guns, newer ones need to be checked out closely as both brands have shipped some real lemons recently.

The Ruger looks stronger, but it's cast, while the S&W is forged.

I think the 686 is a better gun.

EuHLiAK.jpg



3O1yF38.jpg


zBOyyci.jpg


XBpB5B5.jpg


 
Rock185 said:
I have both, but would hate to have to try to wear either one out. If forced to choose one of the other, I'd have to go with the 686. I can't claim the 686 is better, just the personal preference of a longtime S&W guy.
View attachment 1181199View attachment 1181200
Click to expand...
I'm ruger all the way. BUT you don't see Taurus copying ruger do we. Something to that I think
 
I prefer the looks of the S&W L frames over the looks of the Ruger GP100.

I have no doubt both will give good service.

I have both, a 686 and a GP100. The GP100 is chambered in 327 Fed Mag. I bought it because S&W does not offer a 327 Fed Mag gun at present.
 
357smallbore said:
Fellow revolver enthusiast.
I have had conversations with friend and associates that go to battle over which one of these guns is superior.
I have a S&W 686 no dash 1983 model and I have a Ruger GP100 1998 model. Both are SS and are 4in barrels.
The 686 definitely has a smoother trigger pull in DA & SA. Both guns weigh 41oz empty. Aesthetically they both look beautiful.
As for accuracy I can't shoot one better than the other. They both are equally accurate to me. As for reliability, both are flawless. I do think the Ruger is a bit more built to take a heavier dose of the thermonuclear hot loads someone may run through their gun .
I reload and don't do that, I do have some warm loads but nothing either gun can't handle. Theses two guns in my opinion are equal and one really isn't better than the other. They will easily out live me.
Click to expand...
I agree that both are very good and I would take either. As for build, the Ruger’s seem to be overbuilt for a given cartridge but I don’t think that a 686 would suffer any longevity issues from a steady diet of .357mag.
 
I've offered my thoughts on this before, but here goes again:

I've only owned S&Ws, and the 686 has been my go-to, but I've been impressed with the GP100, and would likely be happy shooting it as well.

As far as durability, most seem to focus on the differences in metallurgy, but, really, both are plenty strong. I believe the bigger differences are in the design elements:

1. Smiths use a single screw/plunger assembly to hold the cylinder/crane in, which is one of their weak links - with enough hard use & reloading, it can bend. Bend enough, and the cylinder won't shut, or will even fall out of the gun. I've seen both happen. The GP100 doesn't use such a system, and it's impossible to even removed the cylinder/crane assembly until the trigger assembly's been removed.

2. Another S&W weak link is their ejector rod: It not only turns as the cylinder turns, but it's also used to lock the front of the cylinder in place. If the rod gets bent a bit, the bent rod turns against the retaining plunger under the barrel, which could affect the smoothness of the action. The GP100 ejector rod, in contrast, doesn't turn with the cylinder, nor (IIRC) is it used to lock the front of the cylinder. IIRC, the front of the cylinder is locked in place by a mechanism that links the crane to the frame, closer to where the actual force is being generated.

Other GP100 niceties include:

3. Front sight: The GP100 (at least the adjustable sight version) comes with an interchangeable front sight. Some S&Ws come with interchangeable sights, but most don't. Though they can be converted, it'd take some milling by a gunsmith (read: time & $$). Even swapping out the 686's gawdawful red ramp front sight for a fiber optic is best left to a 'smith.

4. Reach to the trigger: Again, I'm going by memory, but IIRC, the reach to the trigger seemed shorter on the GP100, so one can use grips with a covered backstrap to reduce recoil, while still having a manageable trigger reach.

So, what are/were the GP100 cons?

1. I understand Ruger won't sell certain parts if they break, so you'll have to send the gun to Ruger for repair. If you send it back to Ruger, though, they'll send it back in factory configuration. No biggie if your gun is stock, but if you've spent money to tune & modify it, it's a big issue. And if piece of unobtainium does happen to break on your tuned GP100, then, you've got yourself a real headache, I suppose.

2. Historically, the fit and finish of Rugers weren't up to that of S&Ws, and the factory action's typically been rougher. The good news is they respond well to some basic smoothing & tuning. I've handled some tuned GP100s which were smooth as silk.
 
Assuming you got a decent specimen.... They both go bang every time. They're both way more accurate than I am. Their sights are good. The triggers are decent or can be made to be decent. They at most need a set of grips to fit my hands just fine.

The Ruger's durability is irrelevant to most shooters. I have literally never managed to wear out a decent revolver. The only centerfire revolver I probably put 10,000 rounds through was a Taurus Model 66. I shot a cylinder or two of 357 and a box or two of mild 38 range ammo through it every once in a while over the course of 20 years. It still locked up tight and functioned just fine when it was stolen. IMHO, only a tiny minority of shooters would be likely to wear out a Smith or Ruger in less than 30 years.

The Smith is prettier and maybe balances a little better, so I would choose it if one were offered.

But they're both excellent handguns. I like them both a lot for SD, hunting, range toy, etc. It's win/win. :)
 
As far as function goes, it's a tossup, IMHO, but in looks, the Ruger comes in a very distant second place. The GP100, like all Ruger revolvers, is just awkward looking, from the cylinder latch, the grips, the frame shape, it's almost like they went different just to be different, looks are ignored. I still have my 686-1, my Security Six, and GP 100 are long gone. But the Ruger fans can rejoice, their guns aren't as ugly as the Henry revolvers are.
 
hemiram said:
As far as function goes, it's a tossup, IMHO, but in looks, the Ruger comes in a very distant second place. The GP100, like all Ruger revolvers, is just awkward looking, from the cylinder latch, the grips, the frame shape, it's almost like they went different just to be different, looks are ignored. I still have my 686-1, my Security Six, and GP 100 are long gone. But the Ruger fans can rejoice, their guns aren't as ugly as the Henry revolvers are.
Click to expand...
At least current GP-100’s are “Hillary Hole” free. That alone puts them ahead of the L frame S&W’s. I tried to go with a 6” 686 years ago. Bought two different new ones, both had issues out of the box, sold them. Bought a 6” Stainless GP-100, still have it. Probably a fluke, getting two bad 686’s in a row, but I trust Ruger more. (Full disclosure, this was 20 years ago or so. Chances are neither company is putting out comparable quality today, compared to back then. 😢)
 
My 6" 686-4 Plus (inherited from my dad) is a great gun and my 4" GP-100 is also a great gun. The only reason I would prefer one over the other is because if I were to get serious about revolver shooting and want to reload quickly, I'd have to pick the S&W for the cylinder release as I think that one is faster for a reload. Otherwise, I like them both.
 
357smallbore said:
Theses two guns in my opinion are equal and one really isn't better than the other. They will easily out live me.
Click to expand...
The cost of enough ammo, even to a reloader, to wear out either of those is so significant that if you can afford that the cost of a new revolver is insignificant. The typical round count for a S&W revolver before some degree of rebuild is needed is generally considered to be 80,000 rounds*. At today's prices that's over $7.000 - $9,000 dollars for JUST THE PRIMERS. For a cast bullet hand loads that's roughly 8 cents for a primer, 3 cents for powder, and 10 cents for a cast bullet, = 21 cents per round. That's over $16,000 for the ammunition. If a person's financial situation is such that he can afford that much in ammo then the cost of a new gun once in a while is a total non-issue.

* I suspect, based on no statistics whatsoever, that the Ruger would take even more
 
Old_Grouch said:
The cost of enough ammo, even to a reloader, to wear out either of those is so significant that if you can afford that the cost of a new revolver is insignificant. The typical round count for a S&W revolver before some degree of rebuild is needed is generally considered to be 80,000 rounds*
Click to expand...

Which is why, if you intent to shoot it to the point of mastery, I suggest you just get the gun you want and don't sweat the relative cost of the gun itself.

As far as round count, my first match gun - a 686 shot mainly fast double action, with thousands of speedloader reloads on the timer - had about 60k .38 rounds through it when I noticed a bit of drop in its gilded accuracy. I relegated it to backup status at about 70k rounds only because I happened on another (barely-shot) 686, but it still locks up tight and functions just fine.
 
MrBorland said:
Which is why, if you intent to shoot it to the point of mastery, I suggest you just get the gun you want and don't sweat the relative cost of the gun itself.

As far as round count, my first match gun - a 686 shot mainly fast double action, with thousands of speedloader reloads on the timer - had about 60k .38 rounds through it when I noticed a bit of drop in its gilded accuracy. I relegated it to backup status at about 70k rounds only because I happened on another (barely-shot) 686, but it still locks up tight and functions just fine.
Click to expand...
Right, but if you are shooting competitive with a gun, a back up plan needs to be in place.

Most firearms will perform well but as they age and their fired round count increases, their reliability will suffer.. It is best to figure that ito your equation if you are a serious competitor.

I've shot lots of competitive skeet with a tubed 12 ga shotgun. when it came to important matches, I always had a back uo gun on hand in case my primary gun pooped out on me.
 
2ndtimer said:
At least current GP-100’s are “Hillary Hole” free. That alone puts them ahead of the L frame S&W’s. I tried to go with a 6” 686 years ago. Bought two different new ones, both had issues out of the box, sold them. Bought a 6” Stainless GP-100, still have it. Probably a fluke, getting two bad 686’s in a row, but I trust Ruger more. (Full disclosure, this was 20 years ago or so. Chances are neither company is putting out comparable quality today, compared to back then. 😢)
Click to expand...

I should have stated that I prefer the Pre-lock S&W's, S&W can keep the new ones. I have no interest in any revolver they currently make. The semiautos are...OK, and the AR's are fine, but they can keep their new wheelguns. If I want a new gun that looks good, there is Taurus. And the used market is there for anything I would really need/want anyway. About the only thing in revolvers I have left to buy is a 6" 686 no dash-lower dash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

357smallbore
  • Locked
Original GP100 and 686 (no dash)
Replies
20
Views
862
Obturation
Obturation
357smallbore
Original 686 or original King Cobra
2 3
Replies
52
Views
1K
dfariswheel
D
N
  • Locked
  • Poll
S&W 686 vs. Ruger GP100
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
jad0110
J
C
  • Locked
S&w 686
Replies
23
Views
1K
madcratebuilder
M
J
  • Locked
Comparison: S&W 686 and 620
Replies
0
Views
655
jad0110
J
Back
Top