S&W 686 vs. Ruger GP100 vs...?

[Hellbore]

Hey all.

Inspired by my recent purchase of a Ruger Redhawk .44 magnum, my dad wants to get a revolver for himself to carry when fishing and backpacking and such.

However, he has decided he definitely wants a .357 magnum. A couple guns in this caliber that he likes are the S&W 686 and the Ruger GP100. He wants it in either a 4" or 5" barrel. I think he is leaning more towards the 4" barrel.

Are these two guns a size smaller than the Redhawk, in terms of the body of the gun (not counting the barrel), or are they about the same size? We haven't really handled them yet. They didn't have either model at the local gun store. There is a gun show coming up where we could look at them I guess.

Does anyone have one of these, who would care to comment on them?

Are these 2 revolvers big enough to tame the kick of a .357 so it's not going to be unbearable for an older man?

BTW in case anyone wants to know, he mostly is concerned about cougars / mountain lions in our area. I assume .357 is plenty of BANG for these critters, is this correct?

Also, doesn't .357 magnum have pretty outstanding statistics when it comes to defense against two-legged threats? That would be nice, making this gun multi-purpose for him.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I can definitely recommend the GP100. It is lighter than a Redhawk. For whatever reason, the GP100 is the handgun I can shoot most accurately. Seems to be hefty enough for me to tame .357, although you'll still feel it.

I assume that it would be plenty for cougars and .357 is definitely enough for human bandits.

You can totally change the feel (and looks) with different grips, so check out as many as you can.

 

[Kevinch]

Any .357 of reasonable size, IMO, won't kick too bad & I would think either a 686 (of which I own) or a GP100 would work well.

I think the GP100 is a more robust design, and for this application I'd recommend it in SS. I know they are available in 4", don't know if 5" was ever an option.

I'd also be patient & buy used; they are available & reasonable.

 

[Stainz]

The 4" Ruger GP-100 and 4" 686 are so close in weight and feel, it really is a toss up. It would be better for him to just handle both - and choose the one that feels 'right'. The S&W will break-in to a better feeling trigger - and generally runs ~$100 more new. The backstrap-enclosing, and slightly higher, rubber grips on the GP-100 have a recoil edge. The S&W is also available in a '686+' version with a seven shot cylinder. Additionally, you may find a 'Stocking Dealer Exclusive' from last year - a 5" 686+ with a half-lug, Ahrends cocobolo finger-groove square conversion stocks, V-notch rear sight, and HiViz (fiber optic) front sight. I bought mine earlier this year - for the same cost as a 4" standard 686+. I am partial to S&W - and love my new 686+. Another great recent addition - in a 4" partial lug - is the new 620 - also a seven-shooter - and, at a mid-point in cost between the 686+ and GP-100. They 'feel' great, for a rubber-gripped revolver (I like wood...).

I endorse S&W's more heartedly than I do Rugers, which I also still buy. The reason is simple: service. S&W has a lifetime warranty for the original purchaser - they will send you a return-paid label - and, they have an 800 number. I have yet to send a new S&W back - or have a QC defect. My Rugers have not been so good - but I still like them for what they are... I just like the S&W's a lot more.

As far as what kind of four-legged critters one can take with proper .357M ammo, read some of the early exploits... bear, even! For two legged critters, I still prefer the proven 158gr LSWCHP .38 Special +P... the Remington #R38S12 version hit 912 fps from my 3" 65 and 994 fps from my 6" 66. That should be controllable - and comfortable - for anyone in a 4" revolver.

Stainz

PS I forgot you wanted a comparison to the Redhawk, which is a big revolver (I have a 5.5" .45 Colt RH.). The GP-100 lockwork, like the SRH I had for years, is smoother than the RH's. The S&W's, 620 & 686, are both their medium L-frame; the GP-100 is about the same size. As to construction, the S&W's frame's are forged, the Rugers cast. The Ruger 5.5"/7.5" .44M RH weighs 49/54 oz. The 4" GP-100 weighs 41 oz; the 4" 686 weighs 40 oz. The 7-shot 686+ weighs less (another hole in the cylinder) - as does the similarly-chambered and partial lug 620, which is the lightest at 38 oz.

 

[Lone Star]

I believe that a limited number of GP-100's were made recently with five-inch barrels. They would probably be instant collectors' items, but I bet that some will be shot, too.

Inquire at the logical place, www.rugerforum.com

I've owned both M686 and GP-100 revolvers, and still have my four-inch GP-100. It gets most of my .357 use, being built to take that more than my beloved S&W M66, which is slightly handier to pack around in the woods.

The .357 will definitely handle a cougar. Study the anatomy, though, and place the bullet well. I'd suggest 140-158 grain bullets.

Lone Star

 

[Krag]

I second most of what Stainz says. Also, if you ever want a 'smith to work on your revolver they can get the DA pull on the Smith a whole lot better then on a Ruger.

 

[115grfmj]

The gp-100 is an excellent gun but........

I just had to make this decision about 8 months ago. I went with the
686+ in 4", the gun is plenty robust and can take anything the
ruger can take, including Buffalo bore's hot 180's (they don't get much hotter
than that). It was specifically designed for the .357, some would say over designed. To me the 686 balanced better, has an excellent reputation, and
has an almost custom feel to the trigger right out of the box.

Everythings a personal decision, you'll have some that extol the virtues
of the Ruger, and some that like smiths. Personally "to me" the 686 was better
but you really need to handle both guns and decide for you self which is better for you.

The ruger does have one important factor over the smith, I could've gotten
one for $350. OTD, my 686+ was $585.00

 

[trbon8r]

Go with the Smith. In my opinion Rugers are clunky and crude and generally bought by folks that don't want to pay more for a nicer gun. Some say they are built tough but so is a rock. The Smith is a totally different animal, and has a much smoother trigger and better workmanship. I say this with one caveat though. Buy an older 686 without the lame cylinder lock mechanism. They are cheap, can be had in new condition, and will handle all the .357 rounds you can throw at it.

 

[pythonguy]

Its always best to handle them of course and see which one feels better. That said, if he is gonna mostly carry for field use and he liked the Redhawk, maybe the Ruger is better for him. The S&W is a great gun and I would go for a 686 myself, and just did, but I'm just a range shooter and gun fan. A casual gun user in the field might be better served by the GP-100 as its built like a tank and can handle the abuse better. Either way you can't lose because both are terrific guns, good luck.

 

[MikeJ]

I happen to own both and like both, it really comes down to personal taste. The one change I made on my Ruger was to replace the standard 14lb. hammer spring with a 12lb. from Wolff and it made all the difference in the world with no adverse effect on reliability. These are both fine guns but just like anything else there are people that will tell you that one gun is so far superior to the other that you shouldn't even consider the alternative. These are usually the same folks that will tell you their favorite brand of vehicle is the only one even worth looking at. Go to the show, have your dad handle both and make up his mind from there. I will bet that one of them will call out to him as being the right gun for him.

 

[Mastrogiacomo]

My father has problems with his hands so I worried he wouldn't be able to use the Walther P99 or Beretta M in an emergency. I bought him a 3" Ruger GP100 (blue) which he absolutely loves. It's easy to use, maintain, and has enough weight to handle magnums but still gentle on the joints. It was the best purchase I made for him, as it's lighter than the S&W 686 4" (as is the GP100 4" lighter than the S&W which surprised me). I'd say your Dad can't go wrong with this gun but I'd opt for the 4" if you'll be using it for defense against animals as well -- better accuracy with the longer barrel.

Laura

 

[Marshall]

I know you didn't ask but I would go 44Mag. From someone has that shot both Mountain Lion and Bobcat, you need big power to fold them. You do not want them to continue to run and be able to attack, they'll tear you a new one. I shot a 38 lb Bobcat one time and the thing hit the ground and ran another 60 yards after being shot in the heart. The 9 lives thing was created for a reason, they can be a real b*tch to kill instantly, it almost requires a headshot.

My 2 cents for you.

 

[Old Dog]

The S&W is also available in a '686+' version with a seven shot cylinder. Additionally, you may find a 'Stocking Dealer Exclusive' from last year - a 5" 686+ with a half-lug, Ahrends cocobolo finger-groove square conversion stocks, V-notch rear sight, and HiViz (fiber optic) front sight. I bought mine earlier this year - for the same cost as a 4" standard 686+. I am partial to S&W - and love my new 686+.

I have this same revolver; it is exceptional (even with the dreaded lock). I love mine as well and is fast becoming my favorite revolver. Speaking of The Lock: I have a few recent production Smiths with the lock, and have never seen a hint of a problem with it (I don't ever use it); in fact, the actions on all of these revolvers are smoother than a couple of my Smiths made in the 70s and 80s.

I have no problems with the Ruger; it's well-made and exceedingly durable, but I have yet to see any Ruger with a trigger pull that compares with almost any vintage Smith, early or late model production. I also believe that the Smith grips fit most hands better. And, with the 686+, you get an extra round and even faster action. Some might also give the edge in accuracy to the 686, though I've seen some very accurate GP-100s.

Guess it comes down to budget and whichever feels better to the buyer.

 

[rbernie]

I have yet to see any Ruger with a trigger pull that compares with almost any vintage Smith, early or late model production.

I would agree with that statement IN GENERAL based on my experience. But I will also add that I can shoot my GP100 just as fast and just as accurately as I can shoot my K & L frames.

Certainly, shooting a GP100 feels a wee bit different than does shooting a Smith. I've always attribuited this difference in feel to the fact that the cylinder bolt lockup occurs a teeeeny bit sooner with the Ruger, and because the Ruger's additional hammer mass and transfer bar assembly lends a different feel to the hammer fall. But, in my case, different doesn't equate to 'worse' or 'better' - just different.

When I CCW or go to the range, I'll likely be carring a Smith. When I go afield - I carry a GP100.

 

[Boats]

Go with the Smith. In my opinion Rugers are clunky and crude and generally bought by folks that don't want to pay more for a nicer gun. Some say they are built tough but so is a rock. The Smith is a totally different animal, and has a much smoother trigger and better workmanship. I say this with one caveat though. Buy an older 686 without the lame cylinder lock mechanism. They are cheap, can be had in new condition, and will handle all the .357 rounds you can throw at it.

Every time I see a post like this I can't help but snort. I came to revolvers with no preconceived notions about which one was the "best." I bought a GP-100 and since my background is in 1911s, I'd ask to be believed when I can say I can generally spend whatever I like on an American made revolver.

When I was shopping it went rather like this:

The Ruger passed the "Revolver Check" brand new, and that is all it needed to do, was to be within parameters. The grip was more comfortable and I liked that on the four-inch model I looked at and bought, that changing out the sights was a screwdriver and push button affair. I rather like the modular construction for tinkering with the springs and such too.

The comparable Smiths I checked out could also pass the "Revolver Check," but they came with some unwanted extras:

An unsightly frame hole for the nipple lock.
Some had laser etched roll marks.
All of them had MIM fire control parts.

And they wanted me to pay extra?

So I do snort, and then I chuckle as the recommendations from Smith owners increasingly suggest you don't buy a new one.

So yes, you can get a smoother trigger out of the box, until the Smith wears its MIM into non-functionality or timing issues. You can have one with better aesthetics than a Ruger, but only if you find one without the hole and preferably with real roll marks. Having the old hammer mounted firing pin doesn't hurt the looks either.

So yes, for more money out of the box, Smith was a better revolver once upon a time. Nowadays, Smith just doesn't make 'em like they used to and probably never will again.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

You asked "...vs....?", so I think it would be worthwhile to also check out the Dan Wesson revolvers.

The biggest benefit is that you can change barrels from a 2" for concealed carry to a 4" for woods carry to a 6" for target shooting to a 8" plus for hunting or silhouette shooting. The "pistol pack" also usually has a nice wooden finger grip along with the traditional grips and a choice of colors for the sight inserts.

Compared to the GP100 or 686, the cylinder release is forward of the cylinder and the trigger has a different feel, but the Dan Wesson line is another sturdy .357 that's worth checking out.

 

[Lone Star]

For the record, my GP-100 has the smoothest out-of-the-box trigger pull (double-action) that I've seen on a new revolver. In fact, I often shoot it double-action even on shots where I'd normally cock the hammer.

The M686 suffered in the looks department when they recontoured the frame to fit the danged lock. I also distrust the MIM parts.

I plan to eventually get an M686, but will hand pick an older one. I also don't want the frame drilled and tapped for a 'scope mount. That's just an added place to clean, and is a silly idea for a general defense/field utility revolver.

I do not feel that the .44 Magnum is needed for cougars. Pro hunters sometimes shoot them out of trees with .22 WRM guns, taking mostly brain shots. Bullet construction is an issue, and I'd hesitate to use bullets lighter than 140 grains, so as to get ample penetration if I need to break bone or get in deep. Hornady's XTP line has a good reputation. The Federal Hydra-Shok should also do well. People who've tried it tell me it kills deer well.
Cats are tenacious of life, so placement is vital, and you may need follow-up shots.

Lone Star

 

[Hellbore]

Thanks for the comments, guys.

I know you didn't ask but I would go 44Mag.

Well, for myself, I DID go with .44 magnum. My dad, however, is pretty well convinced he wants a .357 and not a .44 magnum. I'll try again to convince him

However, assuming he goes with .357 mag, I really hope I can convince him to get the GP100... So I can play with it too

Funny thing, he states that he likes the S&W revolvers better, even though he has never shot one, only handled one once at a gun show, and never has shot OR handled the comparable models of Ruger available. He has pretty much nothing to base his preference on other than, he just thinks the S&W look nicer. Well, he and I together already own 3 Ruger firearms which we have been happy with, and no S&W, so I would kind of like to convince him to stay loyal to the Ruger brand We are a loyal Ruger, Savage, and CZ family so far We also have Mossberg shotguns but he is NOT happy with the feel of his, and i was happy with mine until the stock broke, so the jury is still out on that brand.

Actually, he's not super happy with the feel of his Ruger pistol (9mm) either. I am starting to think maybe my dad would be happier with S&W revolvers, Remington shotguns, and Savage rifles But I digress...

 

[115grfmj]

Yup just as I thought....

You asked a reasonable question and It has degenerated into a
"My Ford is better than Your Chevy anyday of the week" :banghead:

Honestly take him with you to the gun shop and let him choose the
one that is best for him.

 

[Hellbore]

Well when I was pickin' out my revolver, I didn't get to fire live rounds through the S&W and Ruger revolvers to compare, but the store did let me dry fire different models and handle them as much as I wanted. Maybe I'm not sophisticated enough to tell the difference, but the Rugers felt fine to me. I'm not that picky about the feel of the trigger. Yes, the Redhawk hammer kinda goes "Ker-clack!" when you cock it, it's not quite as refined of a feel, but I guess I just don't really care.

I know it bothers some people that the Rugers are cast instead of forged, but no one has ever given me a good reason why this is a problem.

I think you are right, it's a Ford vs. Chevy type argument... I, too, went into revolver shopping without any experience or notions about which was better, and to me, the S&W and Ruger revolvers seemed so similar in all the important ways, that I can't honestly say one is better than the other, from my point of view. I got to the point where I wanted a S&W 629 or a Ruger Redhawk. I mostly ended up with the Redhawk because I wanted a heavier gun (I find I shoot better with a heavy gun than a light one), and I was able to get a better deal on the Redhawk at my local gunstore than I could get on the S&W, and I kind of liked the idea of buying another Ruger since I like the ones we own so far. It's kind of a family thing, buying Ruger guns.

I think I would have been just as happy with the S&W 629. Sometimes there's not a right or wrong answer, just a decision

 

[trbon8r]

Hey Boats,

Everytime I see a post like yours I laugh. Sorry but Rugers look like they were made out of melted down beer cans and machined by some crosseyed illegal alien. Running down Smith for using some MIM parts is laughable when Ruger became famous for turning out cheap.....errr I mean inexpensive guns using castings rather than forgings. MIM schmim, most of the MIM argument is a whole lot of bluster about nothing. Besides your Ruger is filled with castings so Bill R. could save a buck. The reason I recommend an older Smith is simply because of the stupid cylinder lock, nothing else.

By the way, has Ruger ever made anything that was even remotely coveted by collectors as S&W has? No, I don't think so. There is a reason for that.

 

[Hellbore]

OK guys... will someone PLEASE tell me what this MIM problem is I keep hearing about? What is MIM and why is it a problem, etc.

As for you trbon8r, I'll say it again... Can you give me a good reason why castings are a problem?

Come on guys, it's obviously a matter of personal preference here... you could argue back and forth all day. Meanwhile I'm enjoying my sweet new Ruger Redhawk

 

[bbrown609]

I have a 4" stainless GP100. It is the best, most sensible, gun purchase I have ever made. No regrets. Great gun.

 

[trbon8r]

"As for you" Hellbore, I never said castings were a problem. Quite the contrary, but I guess the sarcasm was lost on you. I was trying to make a point that MIM is not the devil that some make it out to be. The point I was trying to make is that castings and the MIM process are both cost saving measures and one is not necessarily better than the other. It matters more that the process is done with quality rather than quantity being the objective. Even forgings are no good if it's not done properly.

 

[Checkman]

I own a 686P and a GP100. I also own three S&W M28's and a S&W M49. I own a Ruger Blackhawk in .357 and a Colt Detective Special. Yesterday I bought an SP101 from a co-worker. I like all three makes. Either a Ruger or Smith will do the job - even with the lock.

By the way I thought that the .357 Blackhawk Flatop was a pretty good collector piece. In all fairness to Ruger they started making guns in the late 1940's. S&W has been around since the 1850 or 1860's. Ruger is a much younger company. Give them time.